What the Pope got right – and wrong – about caring for elderly parents

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/05/pope-caring-elderly-parents-mortal-sin

Version 0 of 1.

All credit to Pope Francis for highlighting the needs of the elderly (though there is a “but” coming lower down). Yesterday, he condemned adult children who failed to visit their frail elderly parents, and declared that offspring who neglected them would go to hell. He described it as “mortal sin” – which means the person’s soul rots away and suffers eternal damnation unless repentance occurs.

But part of me is less enamoured by his remarks. He is right in his theme of filial duty, but I wonder why he needs such a big theological stick to get his message across.

It is already spelled out clearly as a religious obligation in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20.12: “Honour your father and your mother”), and if you believe they come direct from God, then that should be sufficient for how to behave in this world without having to warn about messing up the next one.

Many non-believers would also adhere to the command – not because they reckon it has a divine signature, but because they feel it is obvious: to look after those who once looked after you, and to repay a debt to those who brought you into existence. It is both common sense and an intrinsic ethical value.

Still, it is intriguing that unlike the rest of the Ten Commandments, which are just stated as religious imperatives (do this, don’t do that), the one about parents is the only command where a reward is offered (“so that your days shall be long upon the land”).

Previous generations, although far from perfect, often gave weight to the elderly as voices of wisdom

It implies that caring for parents was not as natural as we like to think, and that some incentive was needed to bolster the edict. Perhaps it was because “the generation gap” existed back then long before it was classified in the 1960s, or that family dynamics have always contained tensions.

No wonder there is a pithy Yiddish saying from the last century that, “One parent can raise 10 children, but 10 children cannot look after one parent.” That undoubtedly arose as the result of several painful experiences.

In our time, three other factors have added to the problem: first, the break-up of traditional living patterns, whereby different generations lived in a large house together, or a road away, and certainly in the same town. Now job mobility and house prices have meant families living far away, and it takes considerable time and effort to travel to see each other.

The second factor is attitudinal: previous generations – although far from perfect – often gave weight to the elderly as voices of wisdom, whereas now “old” means “past it” or even “useless”. Experience is less valued than innovation; age is no longer a symbol of power, but of pity.

Third, the elderly are living much longer, often needing to be looked after professionally, and outsourcing care can diminish a sense of responsibility. Some children feel guilty at not being able to help fully themselves, whereas others are happy to let “the state” take over and feel absolved of regular involvement.

Unfortunately, state care of the elderly can also be unsatisfactory, as shown in the report just issued by Nice, criticising home-help visits that last less than 15 minutes.

They are not only inadequate, forcing vulnerable people to choose between having help cooking or going to the lavatory, but they also fail to provide any human dignity, with staff being told not to waste time chatting to clients. In some cases, though, it is a kind word that is just as important to them.

The findings highlight the danger of institutionalising care without being caring, but also serve as a wake-up call to families who have taken a back seat in looking after relatives. Both Nice and the Pope remind us that, for believers and non-believers alike, we can all do much better, especially if we want the situation to be right by the time we reach frailty.