I remember when Pope Francis was considered a bit progressive
KarlLB
Shipmate
in Epiphanies
But we're back to telling women what to do with their bodies and comparing contraceptives with guns.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-urges-governments-tackle-demographic-crisis-2024-05-10/
Disappointing.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-urges-governments-tackle-demographic-crisis-2024-05-10/
Disappointing.
Comments
Socially conservative, but economically progressive, in a left-wing Christian Democrat sort of a way. Generally cool with non-literalist interpretations of scripture(*).
Sometimes, as with Francis, they come up with a saavier way to present the SoCon stuff, and the media treats this as some sorta remarkable man-bites-dog story. Plus, being unfamiliar with the RCC's general attitude toward economics and scripture, reporters attach way more significance to "Pope says pure capitalism is inhuman" and "Pope says evolution is compatible with Genesis" than is warranted.
(*) JPII's favorite movie was apparently 2001, with its teillhardian view of human origins, and he hosted a screening of it at the Vatican with Stanley Kubrick's widow in attendance.
I'm kind of surprised these comments even warranted a news story, although I'll grant it's quite a brief story.
It seems to me weird that a home without children is automatically a very sad place. There's a begging of the question that I don't understand.
In the US, this is called being an Empty Nester -- you had kids, but they grew up, moved out, and have independent lives of their own, now.
I more hope than expect.
What caught me about this one was putting contraception on a level with weaponry, as if preventing an unwanted pregnancy is tantamount to killing.
There are 8.1 billion humans on the planet. We're not short of children.
You mean places like the Apostolic Palace? Full of things but no children. At least in modern times.
That's the thing that gets me about childless clergy berating other people for not having children. They (mostly) seem convinced that they themselves are living fulfilling lives of purpose despite (or maybe because of) their lack of offspring, but they seem to lack the imagination to conceive that other people might also be living fulfilled and purposeful lives without children.
Yes, this is what I was getting at. Apparently, according to the pontiff, only those who are in vowed, celibate religious life have good and holy reasons not to have children. As one-half of a couple who spent over a decade discerning whether parenthood was our vocation as a couple, or whether our clear calling to serve God and the church meant that children were not part of our vocation, I find the pope's assumptions galling. But then again, I'm not RC, and only fleetingly ever considered it.
I fail to see why +++ Francis has had to bring this up.
Yes, that's what I mean, too. I'm childless, but not by choice (Mrs BF suffered two miscarriages), and resent it very much if I'm deemed somehow to be a societal failure.
Perhaps he was refering to unwaranted terminations at a time when the birth rate is low in the western world
You, and so many others, are in that position. My heart aches for all those who long(ed) for children and cannot have them. It's bad enough when potential grandparents pressure such people - even worse when the church shames such couples and therefore suggests that they are defective
See? Simple.
But why does sex need redeeming?
And, frankly, if one is of the opinion that the future is bleak and life sucks, then perhaps one shouldn't have children, instead of trusting the voice of an external (childless) voice that wants to convince you that you should have children anyway. (Why? because the potential of creating children redeems sexual activity? because if one has children maybe one will see that the future isn't so bleak? because God commands the production of children?)
Well he's a Catholic, as you may know, and they have a particular theology around sex. I don't think that sex has to be redeemed by procreation, but within their thought system they think that. And of course this is for a myriad of reasons, and I'm not speaking of Catholics monolithically as clearly not all of them agree with this, but insofar as the Pope is the Catholic Church, he's working from that position.
I used to think that the childlessness of RC priests, bishops, and Pope meant that they didn't really get to have an opinion on the matter, but I've softened slightly. I don't think that they, the sane ones at any rate, would suggest that having children is easy, but insofar as they are promulgators of a certain worldview that understands the having of children as a key part of sex and marriage, I don't think it's unreasonable of them to keep to that line. I also don't think it's necessary to experience something to speak intelligently about it. We don't think it necessary that every therapist or psychologist have personal lived, experience with bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, or marriage problems, so why would it be necessary for Catholic clergy to have experience with having children?
“Unwaranted”? At the risk of derailing the thread, please explain.
He privately advised an Argentinian lady by phone, who had said she was sad that she'd been unable to receive communion for 25 years, because she married a divorcee. She had brought her children up to be good Catholics. So he told her to go to a church where no one knew her and receive it. The Vatican quickly responded that the Pope's private, pastoral advice doesn't constitute Church policy. He once embraced a gay man and told him, "you are as God made you." But he could have followed it by saying "don't show up at any of our churches looking for sacramental comfort because you will be refused."
Even a progressive Pope can't overturn two thousand years of Church teaching. Yet in other ways, he's perniciously autocratic. Though a small minority, there are many people worldwide who are dedicated to the Old Rite. In my opinion, it has the same majesty as the Orthodox Divine Liturgy, time tested over 1,500 years or more. It's use was permitted without restriction by Pope Benedict XVI. Francis is progressively restricting it's use, with a view to phasing it out as he sees it as a hotbed of rebellion against the modern church.
His views on contraception are quite predictable and said against a backdrop of a seriously declining population in Europe and Italy in particular, but the Catholic Church will continue to decline as long as its refuses to reinterpret its medieval sexual ethics based on Augustine's Manichean heritage.
Also Conservatives: "Why should I have to pay to support poor people's children? If you can't afford children don't have them"
Doublethink, Admin
This is a caricature of conservative Catholics. Per your OP, the Pope is conservative but he called for expansion of the economic system to make having children feasible.
Not so much a caricature as an accurate description of a subset of, particularly American, conservative Catholics. It is, however, not a fair charge to level against the Pope.
The Catholic Church's sexual ethics are embraced by many young people who see the oversexualization prevalent in modern culture to be pernicious and demeaning. You may dislike their stance, I do and hence why I'm not Catholic, but no one is forced to be Catholic. You can be Anglican! Methodist! Baptist! Lutheran! Presbyterian! Etc! Hating on them for their worldview is weird. Conservative and Orthodox Jews have a similar sexual ethic, as does most of the Muslim world, and yet we don't hate on them.
If you don't like the Pope's teaching and aren't Catholic then there's good news: you don't need to care! It doesn't affect you!
When the RCC, led by the Pope, tries to make their sexual ethics the law of the land, as it has done repeatedly with regard to abortion, contraception, divorce, equal marriage, and fertility treatment it absolutely does affect people who aren't Catholic. Plus, aren't we allowed to care about the oppression of Catholics when the oppression is maintained by coercion rather than force of law?
We're now up to 5,436,000; our population is the highest it has ever been, although our birthrate is still low. We've still got more people in the 50-60 age group than the 20-30, but the difference is small.
We have a family in our street who are an excellent example of gaining children without increasing our birthrate. Dad has a good job, Mum is at home with the three children and is active in the community. The kids are doing well at school. They came here through the UNHCR scheme. They fled Syria, and were flown directly here from a refugee camp. A council worker met them with flowers at the airport to welcome them to Scotland. They were provided with a furnished flat. It took a year (I think) for the father to convert his Syrian qualification to a Scottish one, but he now has a professional job. They are living in a nice house, nice cars and seem to be thriving.
I appreciate that this is probably some form of reverse colonialism, encouraging families in refugee camps to come here. I know that to be part of the UNHCR scheme our refugees have to have had their papers in order, and that the people in the refugee camps with good paperwork and who are able to navigate the scheme tend to be well-educated. I know that Scotland, while following the rules, is gaining families who are clearly going to be an asset. When Scotland exceeds its quotas of refugees, I know this isn't entirely altruistic; we are gaining some excellent new citizens.
But I don't understand why this isn't an obvious response to falling birthrates. Why isn't there more emphasis on ""lots of children good; look there are families with lots of children in that refugee camp!"
It's about twice the UK average, if memory serves.
It seems to me that space (physical and mental) matters too. Where I live families with three or four children are pretty common, because if you've got a house here it's generally a decent size with outdoor space. If even a good job in a city equates to a 2 bed terrace that is likely to affect your reproductive choices.
Indeed, but it's more than the average Scotswoman is having, and cumulatively it is good for Scotland. I think our current fertility rate is 1.37, slightly lower than the European average of 1.5.
Scotland hasn't had a replacement rate of 2.1 since 1973. Without immigration our population would be falling away.
The concept of having a really big family to labour in the family fields and take care of the aged parents ( and the younger kids in the case of older female children) is equally selfish.
Wrong sort of children.
Too brown.
Please explain what you mean.
If memory serves Stamford Hill has a large ultra-orthodox Jewish population who tend towards large families, for many of the same reasons as conservative Catholics, but is a pretty expensive urban area.
Stamford Hill is in North London and is home to a very large community of haredim ( “ultra-orthodox” Jews. Families of 10+ kids are not uncommon and housing isn’t great; lots of overcrowding. Poverty is rife as many (single and married) men don’t work and spend their days studying the Torah. They marry early and wives are expected to work ( mainly part time) as well as run the house & rear the numerous offspring.
This is not hearsay: my lastborn lives in the UK and some years ago lived for a time in North London not far from Stamford Hill. I walked through it one afternoon and thought I could have been in pre-WW 2 Poland.
Not so common here in Oz; I live not far from a Hasidic enclave ( Bondi) but they appear to be more prosperous ( but still with very big families).
Moslem families ( mainly in southwestern Sydney) are mostly as large as they are poor.
Which causes others to bang the “populate or perish” drum
Not that that’s not also a potentially problematic view.
As our former Area Dean remarked *I'm a single woman, with a dog and a cat. I have a family.*.
However it was clumsy to couple it with arms.
I am, and they were quite horrible. Fortunately, it is no longer 20th century Ireland and the Irish have largely overthrown the RC ethos that pervaded there.
Where has the RCC tried to make their sexual ethics the law of the land in the 21st century Western world? RC advocate for their views on matters insofar as they are members of a democracy and so are allowed to express their views. I can't think of a recent example of the Pope trying to dictate laws by fiat. And, even if he did, it's fortunately the case that our present systems of government don't allow for that.
Also, it's weird to call something oppression that many people on the inside don't experience as oppression. Probably shouldn't tell people what they feel and seek instead to understand how they feel.
The sexual ethic the Pope spoke in favor of is found everywhere. I have several Anglican friends who subscribe to it. It's certainly conservative and I think it's weird, but it's not like the Pope is the only one who subscribes to it.