Ken Santucci and I have a lot in common. We are both retired aerospace engineers living in Southern California, both around seventy years old. He worked for the old North American Aviation corporation before it was bought by Rockwell and became Rockwell International. So did I. He also worked for Douglas Aircraft before it became McDonnell Douglas, as did I. Our careers were parallel paths for more than thirty years. It's a wonder we didn't meet, somewhere along the line, but we never did.
Ken and his wife Colette were the subjects of a feature article in the LA Times today. There is one thing about the Santuccis that is definitely different from Suzanne and me...they had sixteen children by natural childbirth...that is, no adoptions, and not even any multiple births. For the first twenty years of their marriage, Colette was just about continuously pregnant.
The Santuccis are practicing Roman Catholics, and the reason for the LA Times article is that their church, St. Bartholomew in Long Beach honored them. They were given a standing ovation by the congregation.
I read this, and thought: Why are they being honored for having sixteen children? It doesn't take much talent or intelligence to get pregnant. In fact, it takes more to KEEP from getting pregnant. Furthermore, I think most doctors would agree that it is not advisable for a woman to have frequent pregnancies and births without giving her body a chance to recover.
Now, I must add that the Santuccis have been very good parents. Most of their kids are college graduates, some with multiple degrees, doing well in their lives. That is indeed an accomplishment to put a dozen kids through college! But I have to ask the question: Why? Why, in this era of population overshoot, and all the attendant ecological and resource-depletion problems, would anybody want to contribute this much to the world's problems? Of course, this is only one couple, and not many would do such a thing, fortunately. But think what the world would be like today if all the married couples decided a hundred years ago to have sixteen children, and all of THEIR kids had sixteen children and all of THEIR…well, you get the point. We would all be standing up today, because there would not be enough room on the land masses of the planet to sit down.
Such behavior is irresponsible in today's world. Of course, the Santuccis started their brood fifty years ago, when all of this wasn't so obvious. But their Catholic church gave them a standing ovation! Is this what followers of the Catholic church still believe? Like the Mormons? Make lots of babies and bring them up fully indoctrinated in the church, and pretty soon we'll take over the world.
It's one more reason...if I needed one...to believe that organized religions are bad for our health.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
Ken Santucci was an electrical engineer, graduate of Manhattan University in 1955. He was probably making about the same as I was back in the sixties and seventies when he was busily building his brood. We had two kids, bought a little three-bedroom house and were quite comfortable. Took the kids on trips around the country, even to Hawaii. But we had two kids, not sixteen! From the article, I gather (hehe) that everybody had enough to eat and decent clothes and shoes, but they ate a lot of hamburger. The article says momma spent a lot of her time doing laundry.
If anybody is interested in reading the whole article, let me know and I will post the link, or you can just go to latimes.com. The article is titled. "This is one BIG Happy Family." I believe you will have to register at the site to read it.
People who go out and have 16 kids are being selfish. I'm sorry, but they are.
And I really don't get why that woman would want to be pregnant all the time. There's something wrong with her. Like, she doesn't really exist without having progeny flowing from her loins...
I'd love to talk to those kids privately when they've all grown up and get the real story behind all this happy propaganda.
I feel the same way when I read glowing accounts of some woman birthing a litter of four or six. I think of all that medical attention that could have gone to some poor uninsured person.
I am not an expert on wireless communications systems, Frankie. There is so much politics involved in that stuff...FCC rulings can influence the success of the players by preferring one technology over another, etc. I honestly have no idea how PLFM will do. Good Luck!
We were going to see "An Inconvenient Truth" this weekend, but the theaters were jammed. We'll probably see it some afternoon this week..one of the advantages of being retired!
Heck no! I think we've worn this one out.
1. bill cosby:
"and the reason my wife and i have five children, is because we don't want six."
2. of course, sing-along:
ever-y sperrrm is saaacred,
ever-y sperrm is gooood.
ever-y sperrrrm issss neeeeded,
in your neighbor-hoooood....
carry on...
I wouldn't necessarily advocate having large families like that, but what is the quantity of kids to have and not be irresponsible? I come from a family of six kids, my wife from seven. Yes, we did without a lot of luxuries that seem required in today's world, but we were loved, and love each other. I can't imagine life without my brothers and sisters, and wouldn't change a thing.
My wife and myself never practiced any birth control in our marriage either, and have three wonderful children. I'm also not Catholic or Mormon, but did want a large family, but am going to have to settle for three. I was well prepared to go without extras for my kids, and still do. I guess it all depends on how you want to live your life.
It's funny, I worked for Hughes, then McDonnell Douglas, and finally Boeing in the corporate merging game myself. This article reminded me of a comedian named W. C. Fields that when asked if he liked children replied, "Yes, but only if properly cooked". He made a lot of old B&W movies also, for those that are too young to remember him.
Thanks for the article Bert.
Good points. It would be hard to draw a line and say, "No more than (fill in the number) kids." But I think sixteen is clearly well beyond that line. As I said, they did that a long time ago before population and environmental issues were so prominent. My dismay is more with the Catholic and Mormon churches for not encouraging rational family planning, and in fact condemning any attempt to limit fertility. I think that borders on...dare I say it...EVIL behaviour.
W.C Fields was a legendary kid hater...and booze lover.
"I have pleaseure in awarding you these medals and a plaque for being good catholics," said the Pope.
"But your holiness, we're protestants," the Irishman said.
"Damn," said the Pope, "I've come all this way to see a sex maniac."
The old Christian double standard again. Mother Teresa (now Saint Teresa) was once asked by Australian feminist Germaine Greer why she did not ask the Pope to relax the church's attitude tyo contraception given that so many children in India died of malnutrition and related problems.
The saintly nun (?) replied "because every child born, even if it only lives a day, is another soul to glorify God.
Isn't religion brilliant?
Ian
Thanks for posting.
Think about this - in these times the Catholic church needs to find something to celebrate.
My name is Frank and in fact I am #6 of the Santucci 16...
My parents are wonderful people...I have never known a selfish bone in either one. Were we rich ? No...Did we go on vacations?..Well not by plane, but we went camping, and Disneyland every now and then...Was money tight at times? Sure...but we always had enough to eat and clothes to wear (yeah sometimes new, often "hand-me-downs"...but we always looked ok)...We all participated in Scouts (wih our parents volunteering time as leaders)...We all played instruments in the school band (sometimes with borrowed instruments...but we were there, participating, learning)...If you wanted spending money...you found a way to earn it (I had a paper-route and went and got a job washing dishes at a local fast food joint when I was a teen)...Did our parents pay for college? NO...we earned scholarships...or did a few years in community college first and then took student loans...Was it a lavish lifestyle?...No...but it was a warm loving solid good family...I know it is hard to believe in this day-and-age...but we really had a good life growing up... My parents were there for us...and we were there for each other...I do not see how in any way shape or form we have been a "drain" on the environment. In fact through the scouts my family has probably done more ecological clean-up and conservation than most...Just a couple more points:
1) To Bert: I can not speak for the catholic church or any other organized religion...but I can tell you that while my parents are still very active in the church...my siblings and I were all raised to think for ourselves. Some have a very strong faith and are still very active catholics...some are not...some have four or five kids...some have one or two...some have none...it has always been a personal choice to us...no pressure from "the church" and certainly not from our parents or family...
21)To Gary Gentry - My dad worked 7 days a week at times and we had insurance that paid for our medical...He earned that medical care...and the fact that ghe did does not deny that care to "some poor uninsured person"... as if medical care is a zero-sum pie with only so many slices...
2) To Mini Mieux: There are no unwed mom's among my siblings...most of us are happily married, a few divorced and re-married, but all have jobs... four are public school teahers...we all pay our taxes...some of us still go to chuch and have also been scout leaders ourself...I know its hard to believe...but not a derelict in the whole bunch...sorry to disappoint your pre-conceived notion...
Hope I don't seem too defensive...I was amazed to see the post in the first place...be that as it may...Hope my comments have cleared up a few misconceptions...the original LA Times article really was pretty fair and accurate...Thank for Listening FAS
Ummm...where to start...Actually we had two tables in the dining room...one of my strongest memories was when I would bring a friend or girlfriend to dinner and they would just sit catatonic in the corner as we politely passed around the meal and served ourselves... As for transortation in the early sixties we had a station wagon...in '69 a VW bus...and back in the day they didn't have the current seat belt laws so the younger kids all piled in the "back-back" as we called it...and everyone else squeezed into the seats...but yeah we all managed to fit...My dad rode a bike the 6 miles to and from work every day so Mom could have the car...and my parents were very strategic about the house they bought...four blocks to the elementary school three block the other way to jr. high and two blocks to the high school so we could all walk in groups to school...of course for us kids we all had our own bikes...many bought at garage sales or just "donated to us" from friends at school or the church. The grage actually looked like a bike shop and my dad taught us all - even the girls - to do the maintanence...fix flat tires whatever...I know it sounds incredible but it really was a good life growing up...You really should go back and read the original LA Times article at
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-family4jun04,1,6969837.story?coll=la-headlines-california&track=crosspromo
What else are you curious about ?
Hope all is well,
I asked my parent's once "why?" and I know it sounds corny but you have to remember this was 1957...My mom was from a family of 10 and my dad a family of four...so to them, big families were not unusual...anyway my mom said she and my dad had seen the movie "cheaper by the dozen" when they were dating and engaged. He asked her "how many kids do you want when we're married?" she casually said "I think an even dozen sounds nice" and he said "OK...sounds good". I don't think they fully understood what that meant, but once they were married, my dad had a good job, and the kids just kept coming...I do think their catholic faith had a lot to do with it...trust me having 10 younger brothers and sisters I would never consider such a large family (Ii only have two)...but from what I can tell it really was not a "selfish act" at all...as long as they could support the famility and in their mind god was willing to bless them...they simply kept having kids...As I said in an earlier post, my parents were there for all of us...scouts, PTA, music lessons, little league etc...They really were devoted to us and our well being, and we all helped each other...FAS
Thank you so much for finding my little commentary on your parents. I think my article was fair toward them. I made it clear that they were good parents, and I also said that they started their big family before the current concerns about population explosion, environmental degradation and resource depletion became so apparent.
My criticism was really directed at the Catholic church and other organizations that discourage contraception and'or abortion or any kind of family planning beyond the rhythm system. I believe that is irresponsible.
I also respectfully disagree when you say that your family did not place a "drain" on the environment. We ALL affect the ecosphere. Every single one of us. I will repeat what I said in the article...what would be the world situation today if a hundred years ago, every couple decided to have sixteen kids, and their kids all married and had sixteen...etc.? We must take steps to control the population of our planet. Its resources are not infinite.
I'm not against religion per se, but I am against religious dogma that keeps societies from becoming all they can be by siding with vested interests and promoting outdated mores. European populations decimated by plagues probably needed to be encouraged to procreate, but today we need to think of how overpopulation and subsequent consumption stresses the earth's resources and jeopardizes human sustainability.
Hope all is well, (and thak you for allowing me to share your space).
I would never presume to defend the catholic church or any other organized religion for that matter. Although I am the son of devout catholics...I and most of my sibling are not practicing catholics...In addition I and most of my siblings believe in freedom of choice...My original post was admittedly a bit defensive not so much in regard to your observation/opinion but more to the original comments...nonetheless
I think you have stood up and knocked down a straw man argument in your original commentary, namely that "what if we all had 16 kids...and they had 16...and they had 16 and so on". The fact is of the original 16 siblings we have a combined total of 22 kids or an average of 1.375 children per original 16 kids...Statistically this is less than the average for both California and the US as a whole. According to the US Census Bureau in the 2000 census, for families with children the national avg is 1.86 children, for California its 1.95. So you see your straw man in theory is of course true and an easy argument to make and win as long as it is just a theory. But in reality with my family there is no argument. We are not brainwashed by my parents or the church...Nor have we gone on to have 16 kids each and therefore exponentially and selfishly depleted more than our fair share of the world's natural resources.
One other point I'd like to make. The reason for the LA Times article like any article in a newspaper is to sell papers. It was different. It was interesting. It was something you just don't see every day. The fact that my parent's church congregation applauded them was not because they had followed doctrine and birthed 16 kids. (as if the priest said "Lets give the Santucci's a round of applause for being pro-life and bringing 16 more catholics into the church..."...It simply didn't happen that way). My parents have been active for over 40 years in boy and girl scouts, PTA, the Handicapped Children's Association, volunteered at the church, organized numerous food drives for the needy, done conservation work in the local mountains, worked with habitat for humanity, taken in overseas exchange students, even taken into their crowded house for a time "friends of the family" that were down on their luck. The applause was because they are good people, who have been active in a positive way in their community, and have touched the lives of people around them. The 16 kids who have done OK with themselves and finally all made it back together in the same place at the same time for the first time in 25 years was what made it "newsworthy" but that was not the reason for the standing O.
Thanks again for the space...FAS
Thanks again. I really appreciate you staying with this, and your comments change my perception of what the church ceremony was all about. That was not made clear in the Times article, and I thank you for correcting that.
Now...about my "straw man." The fact that the 16 of you did NOT have 16 kids each does not change my point at all. You elected to have "sensible" sized families. Your parents, arguably, did not, but (sigh) I am NOT criticizing them because forty or fifty years ago was a different time. My criticism, and the main reason for my article, is that I believe both the Catholic and Mormon churches still advocate high birth rates, and fight against any attempt to limit births by whatever means. I think that is irresponsible, selfish and threatening to the future of human and other life on the planet.
Exactly right, and the policies of churches or any other organizations that promote unlimited birth rates, oppose first-trimester abortions and contraception need to be exposed and opposed.
I have always considered myself very lucky to have such a large family...it really is wonderful. Unfortunately, I am one of the six of us that happens to live outside of southern california, and with two kids of my own it's not always possible to make it back to LB for the holidays. However, we all keep in touch via the internet...One thing about the anniversary/reunion party: We collected over 2000 old and recent family photos and one of my bros put together a 30 min powerpoint slide show of the family history since 1956...it was awesome...It started with my parents wedding photos and went thru every birth (all 16 of us plus our kids), every high school and college graduation, wedding, major family events, when our grandparents passed and also major historical events (like JFK getting shot). etc. in chronological order. The show included over 250 photos with music. It was played during the dinner/reception for my parents after they renewed their vows...there was not a dry eye in the house...and it was an extraordinary walk down memory lane...Truly a once in a lifetime experience… By the way if you want to see a brief video (including me), we were on the KCAL news as well as the LA Times, video is here:
http://cbs2.com/video/?id=19650@kcbs.dayport.com&cid=71
James...Yeah, they probably held off until I published, so they could counteract the effects of the massive worldwide distribution of my article.
(by the way I do apologize for the length of my posts...)
Like most families we have had to survive our fair share of hardships...My mom had two car accidents. One while pregnant with me that kept her bed-ridden for 5 months. The second actually put her into labor with my youngest sister (child #16) and also resulted in a broken neck and two subsequent spinal surgeries. Luckily she made a full recovery. As I mentioned in a previous post, my dad rode his bike to and from work, which is how in a freak accident he literally ended up being run over by a LB city bus...miraculously he "only" suffered a broken pelvis and some minor injuries. Six months of hard re-hab later he was back at work...Of course as Bert can attest, the aerospace industry has had major downsizing over the past 20 years, but somehow my dad always managed to get spared in the cuts or transferred to another department...Even when his salary was cut during a strike and money was really tight we just tightened our belt and weathered the storm..the bottom line is in the tough times we all pulled together as a family to make it through...
Yeah, I sure do remember some shaky times, especially around 1970 when Rockwell Anaheim was laying off like mad. In 1968 there were 35000 people working at the Anaheim facility. By 1972, it was well under 10,000. I was lucky to survive those times. A lot of my good friends lost their jobs and never got them back. Some opened pizza parlors or sold cars. One guy started a bakery!
Barry,
I didn't use the word, and in the case of the Santucci's, I wouldn't, but I can see how having a lot of kids, knowing the world is overpopulated, with the idea of promoting one's religion could be considered selfish.
two things. Either the honor of having
abstained from birth control or thanks for
contributing bodies to the organization.
We suspect the two are related.
The parents' motives probably had little
to do with either of these factors.
I agree. That's why I would not characterize the Santucci's as selfish, or even irresponsible. The article made it clear that they both wanted a big family when they got married. They planned to have a dozen. They overshot a little. But they started their family fifty years ago. World population in 1950 was 2.5 billion (compared to over 6 B today) and nobody was talking about "population overshoot." Depletion of natural resources was only beginning to be discussed in mainstream science.
It was a different time, and I think big families were more common then.
region express astonishment at what
they see in the parking lots of the
Mormon churches. However, the
150 year tradition of large families has
recently begun to be tempered.
Until fairly recently, the economy of
the region and the land could easily absorb
as many people as could be produced
or imported.
I'm also wondering if recent immigration
might be a factor. In Europe, I think large
families were a sign of prosperity. Maybe
some folks hit the shores of the USA and
think, "Now's our chance to have that
large family we could never have afforded
in the old country."
To answer your question, my statement about world population is definitely no joke. Google "world population" for yourself and see. I wrote an article a few months ago that dealt with these numbers.
Here is the link.