As NEQ has said it's not like there's a shortage of young families who'd like to and who indeed sometimes need to come to places like this to escape distress elsewhere.
And the 'objects' versus children take is a ridiculous false dichotomy. Autonomy and time and choice are not 'objects'. People with choice and autonomy are not noted for being 'sad'. Mental health (if you're unsuited to parenting and would suffer if pressured into parenting) is not an empty 'object' to buy. Neither is physical health somehow on a par with buying expensive iPhones and tellies. Women and child-bearing parents of other genders are most affected in their physical health and body, and child-bearing should absolutely be their choice, with good contraception avaliable to make it a real and available choice. Choosing not to go through childbirth can be a matter of life and death and avoiding lifelong physical impairment - these aren't trivial materialistic choices.
Women traditionally have been the gender most deprived of autonomy and choices because of child-rearing, it's insulting and reductive to characterise women's hard-won choice in the matter as being about acquiring 'objects' if they decide not to reproduce. Many women who didn't have children will be using that time for other enriching things - love, discovery, volunteering, work, research, art, caring for people who are not children, activism etc etc.
But also I don't care if they are buying soft furnishings, white goods, clothes and watching box sets on the settee or lounging in the garden, because despite some excellent male exceptions to the rule who post here, there is still generally an undue burden on women when it comes child rearing and household tasks. The Pope seems to have nothing to say about that - his idea is that the mother gives up work. He seems to have nothing to say about more equal sharing in parenting and sexism in general.
And the stigmatising of households without children is ridiculous and nasty. I am child free, my partner has a grown up son who has his own flat, we're very happy. I very much doubt my mental health would have survived childbirth and child rearing and why yes my flat is full of expensive academic books and my partner's is full of technology - related to our passions and research and, yes, very much they do 'spark joy' and are part of fuelling our social and professional lives as part of our respective tribes who want to bond over historical research or technology.
There are these folk called friends, colleagues, partners and other humans who enrich people's lives and hopefully we enrich theirs. The pope can absolutely get lost with reductive ideas that anyone without children is 'sad' or materialistic.
I feel like judging the entirety of the Pope's thinking about families and family life from a 500 word or whatever write up in Reuters is bad faith. Family life is one of the themes of his pontificate, he actually spread an encyclical on the matter which you can read here.
If you don't want to, that's fair. But acting like the Pope is personally attacking you or your lifestyle from the paltry comments quoted in the news article seems like an extreme response.
Where has the RCC tried to make their sexual ethics the law of the land in the 21st century Western world?
The USA is the prime example, where Bishops threaten Catholic lawmakers with excommunication for not supporting laws that they want. SCOTUS has also been stacked with conservative Catholic judges precisely with the intent of getting laws more in line with what the Church teaches.
The RCC was also behind a huge campaign to try and block equal marriage in Scotland, and opposed laws to prevent people intimidating women seeking abortions. It also campaigned against Ireland removing its abortion ban, and equal marriage. It's disingenuous to suggest that simply because the church no longer has the power to impose laws by itself it isn't trying to have the law enforce its rules on non-Catholics.
Where has the RCC tried to make their sexual ethics the law of the land in the 21st century Western world?
The USA is the prime example, where Bishops threaten Catholic lawmakers with excommunication for not supporting laws that they want. SCOTUS has also been stacked with conservative Catholic judges precisely with the intent of getting laws more in line with what the Church teaches.
The RCC was also behind a huge campaign to try and block equal marriage in Scotland, and opposed laws to prevent people intimidating women seeking abortions. It also campaigned against Ireland removing its abortion ban, and equal marriage. It's disingenuous to suggest that simply because the church no longer has the power to impose laws by itself it isn't trying to have the law enforce its rules on non-Catholics.
The RCC and many other churches, associations, fraternities, sororities, groups etc. advocate for their political beliefs in a democracy. I think believing Churches ought not to advocate for those beliefs is weird if you support a democracy. Should all groups be barred from political activation? As a union man myself I definitely don't think so, not sure what you think. So just churches? What about The Episcopal Church and other churches that support progressive political causes like marriage equality, abortion rights, and voting rights?
It's not that they shouldn't be allowed to advocate for their beliefs, but that once they do they become everyone's business and we have every right to critique them.
This line of discussion started because you claimed Catholic doctrines in these areas didn't affect non-Catholics and therefore we should butt out.
We had three and were very happy with that. Then we had a surprise number four (Little Beaky's mum) and were judged in certain quarters. But oh what a joy she is.
When our kids were at Primary school and learning g to do graphs they often did them on family size....and we took the axis into another realm 😆😳
The article states: He called for policies that enable mothers not to have to choose between work and childcare
What does that mean? The provision of low-cost nurseries so that mothers can return to work? Or perhaps some sort of policy that states that if both parents are working, the bulk of childcare, housework and the mental load doesn't land on the mother when she's not at work?
If we're speaking of Catholic voices, I want to note that I find Teresa Forcades interesting in that she refuses to be simplified and has a strong feminist Catholic argument to defend it.
She says this binary limits the possibility that she can simultaneously believe in the sanctity of life and abortion rights.
We had three and were very happy with that. Then we had a surprise number four (Little Beaky's mum) and were judged in certain quarters. But oh what a joy she is.
When our kids were at Primary school and learning g to do graphs they often did them on family size....and we took the axis into another realm 😆😳
I'm sorry people are this way. We always wanted to have (at least) four, but, well.... at least we got the one!
Well quite. I originally thought two would be nice, but given that any hypothetical future pregnancies of mine would be at very high risk of severe complications up to and including death, I felt it was better to Quit While I Was Ahead.
Where has the RCC tried to make their sexual ethics the law of the land in the 21st century Western world?
El Salvador has a total ban on abortion, even in cases where the pregnant person is at risk of death. This law exists in large part because of efforts by the Catholic Church, though I suppose since the law was enacted in 1998 it doesn't count as "the 21st century". Similar situations in Honduras and Nicaragua. Nicaragua's current law was passed in 2006, so that one at least meets your arbitrary cut-off date of 2001.
The RCC and many other churches, associations, fraternities, sororities, groups etc. advocate for their political beliefs in a democracy. I think believing Churches ought not to advocate for those beliefs is weird if you support a democracy.
I guess it depends on if you consider the liberty interests of individual citizens to be important. For example, Catholic integralists* advocate abolishing liberal democracy where it exists and establishing a Catholic theocracy. The problem of how democracies deal with internal anti-democratic factions is an old one.
*As far as I know Pope Francis is not an integralist, except when it comes to Vatican City.
Not at all. I was agreeing with you that these things don't always work out how we envisioned them.
Indeed they don't, and it doesn't help when a smug and uxorious priest* (with the pastoral sensitivity of a Bed Bug) tells you that it's all because you haven't Obeyed God's Laws™...
Just saw a local article about the need for more births. If it were not for immigration, the United States residents could not maintain the population replacement. One reason why it has yet to plateau is people are living longer. But eventually, there boomers will be gone and there will be shrinking.
Not when climate breakdown really gets going. There will be no shortage of young people looking for somewhere else to live when the tropics become uninhabitable.
Just saw a local article about the need for more births. If it were not for immigration, the United States residents could not maintain the population replacement. One reason why it has yet to plateau is people are living longer. But eventually, there boomers will be gone and there will be shrinking.
Across Europe declining birthrates are having an impact. Falling number of tax payers against increasing numbers of pensioners is not a good situation to be in.
Just saw a local article about the need for more births. If it were not for immigration, the United States residents could not maintain the population replacement. One reason why it has yet to plateau is people are living longer. But eventually, there boomers will be gone and there will be shrinking.
Across Europe declining birthrates are having an impact. Falling number of tax payers against increasing numbers of pensioners is not a good situation to be in.
That's as much or more about increasing lifespans as it is falling birth rates. We're struggling to make the sums work when a system designed to support 5-10 years of retirement now has to support 20+.
Just saw a local article about the need for more births. If it were not for immigration, the United States residents could not maintain the population replacement. One reason why it has yet to plateau is people are living longer. But eventually, there boomers will be gone and there will be shrinking.
Across Europe declining birthrates are having an impact. Falling number of tax payers against increasing numbers of pensioners is not a good situation to be in.
That's as much or more about increasing lifespans as it is falling birth rates. We're struggling to make the sums work when a system designed to support 5-10 years of retirement now has to support 20+.
Another factor is that a significant proportion of the additional life years we're able to save are either ill health, or good health kept that way by lots of intervention - which costs.
True. Definitely a point worth remembering. Plus, as someone recently reminded me, the RC bureaucracy (like almost any bureaucracy) is designed to resist change, so that even if the Pope wanted to be more progressive, the system - when functioning as designed - will impede him.
Not when climate breakdown really gets going. There will be no shortage of young people looking for somewhere else to live when the tropics become uninhabitable.
There is no shortage of young people looking for somewhere else to live now.
With respect I can’t see many people living in “ tropical” climes desiring to move to chillier shores for other than for economic/ asylum seeking reasons. The upper latitudes of Terra Australis are tropical and them as live up there don’t wish to move to the colder South ( or anywhere else for that matter).
True at the moment, I'm sure, but I think @Jane R was referring to the coming time when all tropical areas - across the world - become uninhabitable, and people will have to migrate in order to survive.
No doubt that is exactly what JaneR means; however I beg to disagree, there is always monsoonal rain and that appears not to be going away
Not all tropical areas are alike. There are desert areas which may expand into currently marginal but habitable areas, displacing their populations. Much of Africa either side of the Sahara springs to mind.
No doubt that is exactly what JaneR means; however I beg to disagree, there is always monsoonal rain and that appears not to be going away
Not all tropical areas are alike. There are desert areas which may expand into currently marginal but habitable areas, displacing their populations. Much of Africa either side of the Sahara springs to mind.
No doubt that is exactly what JaneR means; however I beg to disagree, there is always monsoonal rain and that appears not to be going away
Not all tropical areas are alike. There are desert areas which may expand into currently marginal but habitable areas, displacing their populations. Much of Africa either side of the Sahara springs to mind.
Tell me about it.
There are plenty of places in the Antipodes which are hot and dry: Marble Bar is the north of Western Australia springs to mind ( temps of 50+ C).
As for the Sahara: how many Tuareg have tried to emigrate to the Rainy Isles?
We’ve come a long way from the whinge about +++ Francis, probably just as well since the subject has probably been talked to death.
Well, maybe the Pope needs to reflect on the already-occurring climate disaster, which will affect a great many people belonging to his church, and to consider that having yet more children may not be exactly a desirable thing, under those circumstances...which, alas! are probably only going to get worse over the next few years.
This is, I hasten to add, not to say in any way that children are Bad Things, but ISTM that some thought has to be taken by churches which advocate the family ideal.
I think +++ Francis ha reflected on climate change more than you might think as well as the plundering of the earth’s resources. I can’t see anywhere that he advocates indiscrimate breeding either.
I think +++ Francis ha reflected on climate change more than you might think as well as the plundering of the earth’s resources. I can’t see anywhere that he advocates indiscrimate breeding either.
Fair comment.
FWIW, I respect the man, though there is a sort of received wisdom (not quite the word I want, really) that the RC Church is ( or used to be) keen on large families. I don't doubt that this is a travesty, but the official ban on artificial contraception (is that still the case?) lends it some credence.
Well, maybe the Pope needs to reflect on the already-occurring climate disaster, which will affect a great many people belonging to his church, and to consider that having yet more children may not be exactly a desirable thing, under those circumstances...which, alas! are probably only going to get worse over the next few years.
This is, I hasten to add, not to say in any way that children are Bad Things, but ISTM that some thought has to be taken by churches which advocate the family ideal.
Well, maybe the Pope needs to reflect on the already-occurring climate disaster, which will affect a great many people belonging to his church, and to consider that having yet more children may not be exactly a desirable thing, under those circumstances...which, alas! are probably only going to get worse over the next few years.
This is, I hasten to add, not to say in any way that children are Bad Things, but ISTM that some thought has to be taken by churches which advocate the family ideal.
For what it is worth, the American CBS network will have an interview with Pope Francis on its 60 Minutes program Sunday evening. And there will be a prime time special on Monday. Not sure if it will be streamed worldwide. You might want to check it out, if you can.
He seems to be addressing the demographic crisis in Europe, which is a definite thing. Ever shrinking working populations supporting through taxation and social support a growing aged population. Politicians are aware of it. It is a real issue. There is an imbalance.
On the one hand people are anxious about a growing world population, but when births fall below the replacement rate (which has to happen if the world population is to fall) then it's a "demographic crisis"!
We should be pleased about this "demographic crisis": in fact we are banking on the (fairly reasonable) hope that in 50-100 years' time this "demographic crisis" will be occuring worldwide! This is a success, people!
And it makes it even more of a success that it is occurring particularly in rich countries where each person consumes more resources.
What we need is a better plan to welcome and exploit this success. Immigration is good in the short-term, but not a complete solution because in the future we want the population to drop globally. I suggest we look at Japan for good ideas. It will not be straightforward. But we need to plan for it because this is what we ought to be aiming for.
I agree with @TurquoiseTastic . We must find a way to reduce world population.
I think that will happen when inequalities of wealth and trading power are reduced.
If your country has no affordable health care and no social security for if you are too ill or old to work .... you need to make sure there enough children survivng into adulthood to support you.
From the RC point of view, the options really are either celibacy, or marriage without the use of contraceptives. Other than suggesting that his flock either stay celibate or use the rhythm method, Pope Francis doesn't really have any other options--while he is Pope, he can't just declare what the church has been teaching in this regard to be null and void out of the blue. He's much more constrained than is often assumed.
I think that will happen when inequalities of wealth and trading power are reduced.
If your country has no affordable health care and no social security for if you are too ill or old to work .... you need to make sure there enough children survivng into adulthood to support you.
Well... what I'm saying is that it is happening, we have found a pretty much surefire way to reduce population, which is essentially "education for girls" and "careers for women", we see it happening across rich and middle-income countries and anticipate it in the rest of the world within the next few decades, and no sooner do we see this very very good news than we say... "Oh no! This is terrible! A demographic crisis!"
From the RC point of view, the options really are either celibacy, or marriage without the use of contraceptives. Other than suggesting that his flock either stay celibate or use the rhythm method, Pope Francis doesn't really have any other options--while he is Pope, he can't just declare what the church has been teaching in this regard to be null and void out of the blue. He's much more constrained than is often assumed.
I have never understood why the rhythm method gets a pass; if it is used for the purposes of family planning then it is just as much contraception as any other method.
I think that will happen when inequalities of wealth and trading power are reduced.
If your country has no affordable health care and no social security for if you are too ill or old to work .... you need to make sure there enough children survivng into adulthood to support you.
Well... what I'm saying is that it is happening, we have found a pretty much surefire way to reduce population, which is essentially "education for girls" and "careers for women", we see it happening across rich and middle-income countries and anticipate it in the rest of the world within the next few decades, and no sooner do we see this very very good news than we say... "Oh no! This is terrible! A demographic crisis!"
Large families are generally seen in countries where there are virtually no careers for either sex. Where people are not employed, taxes dont get paid. With little income governments cannot invest in education/health/pensions etc. Sort the economy and go for fair trade (as though between equals) and there may be progress. Yes theaching on contraception is an issue - but only for those who obey it. Most dont and its a dead letter. Which is why this pope has, as far as I know said nothing about it (I may be wrong.) The issue is affordable contraception.
From the RC point of view, the options really are either celibacy, or marriage without the use of contraceptives. Other than suggesting that his flock either stay celibate or use the rhythm method, Pope Francis doesn't really have any other options--while he is Pope, he can't just declare what the church has been teaching in this regard to be null and void out of the blue. He's much more constrained than is often assumed.
I have never understood why the rhythm method gets a pass; if it is used for the purposes of family planning then it is just as much contraception as any other method.
Anglicans are known for fudge but we don't hold a candle to the Vatican Approved Product.
From the RC point of view, the options really are either celibacy, or marriage without the use of contraceptives. Other than suggesting that his flock either stay celibate or use the rhythm method, Pope Francis doesn't really have any other options--while he is Pope, he can't just declare what the church has been teaching in this regard to be null and void out of the blue. He's much more constrained than is often assumed.
I have never understood why the rhythm method gets a pass; if it is used for the purposes of family planning then it is just as much contraception as any other method.
I can see the logic in that you're merely taking advantage of a natural phenomenon rather than interfering with it - the only "action" taken is to refrain from sex, which is always permissible. Of course I think that at times RC teaching can become too mechanically logical. It's a bit like a sheep who keeps nibbling the next piece of grass and eventually looks up to find itself somehow the wrong side of the fence.
From the RC point of view, the options really are either celibacy, or marriage without the use of contraceptives. Other than suggesting that his flock either stay celibate or use the rhythm method, Pope Francis doesn't really have any other options--while he is Pope, he can't just declare what the church has been teaching in this regard to be null and void out of the blue. He's much more constrained than is often assumed.
I have never understood why the rhythm method gets a pass; if it is used for the purposes of family planning then it is just as much contraception as any other method.
I can see the logic in that you're merely taking advantage of a natural phenomenon rather than interfering with it - the only "action" taken is to refrain from sex, which is always permissible. Of course I think that at times RC teaching can become too mechanically logical. It's a bit like a sheep who keeps nibbling the next piece of grass and eventually looks up to find itself somehow the wrong side of the fence.
Vatican teaching on contraception is nonsense - as most RCs have decided. It is a thing taught by the Vatican and patently not believed or followed by the actual Church. As a noted Archbishop was heard to say "People should never confuse the Vatican with God's Church."
On the one hand people are anxious about a growing world population, but when births fall below the replacement rate (which has to happen if the world population is to fall) then it's a "demographic crisis"!
We should be pleased about this "demographic crisis": in fact we are banking on the (fairly reasonable) hope that in 50-100 years' time this "demographic crisis" will be occuring worldwide! This is a success, people!
And it makes it even more of a success that it is occurring particularly in rich countries where each person consumes more resources.
What we need is a better plan to welcome and exploit this success. Immigration is good in the short-term, but not a complete solution because in the future we want the population to drop globally. I suggest we look at Japan for good ideas. It will not be straightforward. But we need to plan for it because this is what we ought to be aiming for.
I have to ask, @TurquoiseTastic. Who is 'we' in this and subsequent posts by you and @NicoleMR who agrees with you.
Are you speaking for a group of people which includes you? If so, do you and your group have the necessary power over others to change this? Or do you just mean 'this is what I think; you and all right-thinking people ought to agree with me'?
Comments
And the 'objects' versus children take is a ridiculous false dichotomy. Autonomy and time and choice are not 'objects'. People with choice and autonomy are not noted for being 'sad'. Mental health (if you're unsuited to parenting and would suffer if pressured into parenting) is not an empty 'object' to buy. Neither is physical health somehow on a par with buying expensive iPhones and tellies. Women and child-bearing parents of other genders are most affected in their physical health and body, and child-bearing should absolutely be their choice, with good contraception avaliable to make it a real and available choice. Choosing not to go through childbirth can be a matter of life and death and avoiding lifelong physical impairment - these aren't trivial materialistic choices.
Women traditionally have been the gender most deprived of autonomy and choices because of child-rearing, it's insulting and reductive to characterise women's hard-won choice in the matter as being about acquiring 'objects' if they decide not to reproduce. Many women who didn't have children will be using that time for other enriching things - love, discovery, volunteering, work, research, art, caring for people who are not children, activism etc etc.
But also I don't care if they are buying soft furnishings, white goods, clothes and watching box sets on the settee or lounging in the garden, because despite some excellent male exceptions to the rule who post here, there is still generally an undue burden on women when it comes child rearing and household tasks. The Pope seems to have nothing to say about that - his idea is that the mother gives up work. He seems to have nothing to say about more equal sharing in parenting and sexism in general.
And the stigmatising of households without children is ridiculous and nasty. I am child free, my partner has a grown up son who has his own flat, we're very happy. I very much doubt my mental health would have survived childbirth and child rearing and why yes my flat is full of expensive academic books and my partner's is full of technology - related to our passions and research and, yes, very much they do 'spark joy' and are part of fuelling our social and professional lives as part of our respective tribes who want to bond over historical research or technology.
There are these folk called friends, colleagues, partners and other humans who enrich people's lives and hopefully we enrich theirs. The pope can absolutely get lost with reductive ideas that anyone without children is 'sad' or materialistic.
If you don't want to, that's fair. But acting like the Pope is personally attacking you or your lifestyle from the paltry comments quoted in the news article seems like an extreme response.
The USA is the prime example, where Bishops threaten Catholic lawmakers with excommunication for not supporting laws that they want. SCOTUS has also been stacked with conservative Catholic judges precisely with the intent of getting laws more in line with what the Church teaches.
The RCC was also behind a huge campaign to try and block equal marriage in Scotland, and opposed laws to prevent people intimidating women seeking abortions. It also campaigned against Ireland removing its abortion ban, and equal marriage. It's disingenuous to suggest that simply because the church no longer has the power to impose laws by itself it isn't trying to have the law enforce its rules on non-Catholics.
The RCC and many other churches, associations, fraternities, sororities, groups etc. advocate for their political beliefs in a democracy. I think believing Churches ought not to advocate for those beliefs is weird if you support a democracy. Should all groups be barred from political activation? As a union man myself I definitely don't think so, not sure what you think. So just churches? What about The Episcopal Church and other churches that support progressive political causes like marriage equality, abortion rights, and voting rights?
This line of discussion started because you claimed Catholic doctrines in these areas didn't affect non-Catholics and therefore we should butt out.
We had three and were very happy with that. Then we had a surprise number four (Little Beaky's mum) and were judged in certain quarters. But oh what a joy she is.
When our kids were at Primary school and learning g to do graphs they often did them on family size....and we took the axis into another realm 😆😳
He called for policies that enable mothers not to have to choose between work and childcare
What does that mean? The provision of low-cost nurseries so that mothers can return to work? Or perhaps some sort of policy that states that if both parents are working, the bulk of childcare, housework and the mental load doesn't land on the mother when she's not at work?
I'm sorry people are this way. We always wanted to have (at least) four, but, well.... at least we got the one!
El Salvador has a total ban on abortion, even in cases where the pregnant person is at risk of death. This law exists in large part because of efforts by the Catholic Church, though I suppose since the law was enacted in 1998 it doesn't count as "the 21st century". Similar situations in Honduras and Nicaragua. Nicaragua's current law was passed in 2006, so that one at least meets your arbitrary cut-off date of 2001.
I guess it depends on if you consider the liberty interests of individual citizens to be important. For example, Catholic integralists* advocate abolishing liberal democracy where it exists and establishing a Catholic theocracy. The problem of how democracies deal with internal anti-democratic factions is an old one.
*As far as I know Pope Francis is not an integralist, except when it comes to Vatican City.
Not at all. I was agreeing with you that these things don't always work out how we envisioned them.
Indeed they don't, and it doesn't help when a smug and uxorious priest* (with the pastoral sensitivity of a Bed Bug) tells you that it's all because you haven't Obeyed God's Laws™...
(*not Pope Francis, I hasten to add)
Across Europe declining birthrates are having an impact. Falling number of tax payers against increasing numbers of pensioners is not a good situation to be in.
That's as much or more about increasing lifespans as it is falling birth rates. We're struggling to make the sums work when a system designed to support 5-10 years of retirement now has to support 20+.
Another factor is that a significant proportion of the additional life years we're able to save are either ill health, or good health kept that way by lots of intervention - which costs.
100%.
There is no shortage of young people looking for somewhere else to live now.
Not all tropical areas are alike. There are desert areas which may expand into currently marginal but habitable areas, displacing their populations. Much of Africa either side of the Sahara springs to mind.
Also: wet bulb temperatures.
Tell me about it.
There are plenty of places in the Antipodes which are hot and dry: Marble Bar is the north of Western Australia springs to mind ( temps of 50+ C).
As for the Sahara: how many Tuareg have tried to emigrate to the Rainy Isles?
We’ve come a long way from the whinge about +++ Francis, probably just as well since the subject has probably been talked to death.
This is, I hasten to add, not to say in any way that children are Bad Things, but ISTM that some thought has to be taken by churches which advocate the family ideal.
Fair comment.
FWIW, I respect the man, though there is a sort of received wisdom (not quite the word I want, really) that the RC Church is ( or used to be) keen on large families. I don't doubt that this is a travesty, but the official ban on artificial contraception (is that still the case?) lends it some credence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si'?wprov=sfla1
Thank you.
On the one hand people are anxious about a growing world population, but when births fall below the replacement rate (which has to happen if the world population is to fall) then it's a "demographic crisis"!
We should be pleased about this "demographic crisis": in fact we are banking on the (fairly reasonable) hope that in 50-100 years' time this "demographic crisis" will be occuring worldwide! This is a success, people!
And it makes it even more of a success that it is occurring particularly in rich countries where each person consumes more resources.
What we need is a better plan to welcome and exploit this success. Immigration is good in the short-term, but not a complete solution because in the future we want the population to drop globally. I suggest we look at Japan for good ideas. It will not be straightforward. But we need to plan for it because this is what we ought to be aiming for.
If your country has no affordable health care and no social security for if you are too ill or old to work .... you need to make sure there enough children survivng into adulthood to support you.
Well... what I'm saying is that it is happening, we have found a pretty much surefire way to reduce population, which is essentially "education for girls" and "careers for women", we see it happening across rich and middle-income countries and anticipate it in the rest of the world within the next few decades, and no sooner do we see this very very good news than we say... "Oh no! This is terrible! A demographic crisis!"
I have never understood why the rhythm method gets a pass; if it is used for the purposes of family planning then it is just as much contraception as any other method.
Large families are generally seen in countries where there are virtually no careers for either sex. Where people are not employed, taxes dont get paid. With little income governments cannot invest in education/health/pensions etc. Sort the economy and go for fair trade (as though between equals) and there may be progress. Yes theaching on contraception is an issue - but only for those who obey it. Most dont and its a dead letter. Which is why this pope has, as far as I know said nothing about it (I may be wrong.) The issue is affordable contraception.
Anglicans are known for fudge but we don't hold a candle to the Vatican Approved Product.
I can see the logic in that you're merely taking advantage of a natural phenomenon rather than interfering with it - the only "action" taken is to refrain from sex, which is always permissible. Of course I think that at times RC teaching can become too mechanically logical. It's a bit like a sheep who keeps nibbling the next piece of grass and eventually looks up to find itself somehow the wrong side of the fence.
Vatican teaching on contraception is nonsense - as most RCs have decided. It is a thing taught by the Vatican and patently not believed or followed by the actual Church. As a noted Archbishop was heard to say "People should never confuse the Vatican with God's Church."
Are you speaking for a group of people which includes you? If so, do you and your group have the necessary power over others to change this? Or do you just mean 'this is what I think; you and all right-thinking people ought to agree with me'?