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."
Oh, I agree. The ludicrous and dangerous stance on contraception is one of the many reasons I'm not RC, I'm just saying it's internally consistent.
@Enoch , I assume from your post that you disagree. Perhaps you could expound on why you think Earth's resources are unlimited and we're not in the middle of an environmental crises.
@Enoch , I assume from your post that you disagree. Perhaps you could expound on why you think Earth's resources are unlimited and we're not in the middle of an environmental crises.
Maybe you could demonstrate why those things are not the result of (mainly first world) corporate and government greed rather than the life-styles of the most deprived on the planet who use least of those resources?
I think the point is that we would like the most deprived on the planet to be less deprived, which would entail them using more resources, even though we would also like to check first-world corporate greed.
I think the point is that we would like the most deprived on the planet to be less deprived, which would entail them using more resources, even though we would also like to check first-world corporate greed.
I think @Enoch's beef is that no-one should say "we" unless everyone agrees with them or they can be forced to do so.
When I say "we" I mean the people of the world, a super-royal "we" meaning "this is what I think everybody should think". Obviously everything carries the rider "in my unimportant opinion".
@Alan29 you have misunderstood me completely. It is precisely in RICH countries that it is BEST for birth rate to fall, because as you say people in rich countries consume disproportionate resources. And it is very good to see that birth rate in rich countries is indeed falling massively. But upthread people are complaining about this and calling it a "demographic crisis"!
When I say "we" I mean the people of the world, a super-royal "we" meaning "this is what I think everybody should think". Obviously everything carries the rider "in my unimportant opinion".
@Alan29 you have misunderstood me completely. It is precisely in RICH countries that it is BEST for birth rate to fall, because as you say people in rich countries consume disproportionate resources. And it is very good to see that birth rate in rich countries is indeed falling massively. But upthread people are complaining about this and calling it a "demographic crisis"!
Sorry. I did completely get hold of the wrong end of the stick about developing countries.
In rich countries with aging populations and declining birthrates (tax income, people to care for elderly etc) it seems to me that the options are either to encourage breeding, liberalise immigration laws or emulate Soylent Green.
Sorry. I did completely get hold of the wrong end of the stick about developing countries.
In rich countries with aging populations and declining birthrates (tax income, people to care for elderly etc) it seems to me that the options are either to encourage breeding, liberalise immigration laws or emulate Soylent Green.
Or adjust to a population with an older demographic balance. Which means, I think, people working longer, which means accepting that older people will work slower, and aren't as able as their younger selves, but can still accomplish lots of useful things.
It might also mean, for the elderly and infirm who need some level of assistance in daily living, finding ways to do this that are less labor-intensive, because carers will be more expensive because of the reduced supply of younger people.
Sorry. I did completely get hold of the wrong end of the stick about developing countries.
In rich countries with aging populations and declining birthrates (tax income, people to care for elderly etc) it seems to me that the options are either to encourage breeding, liberalise immigration laws or emulate Soylent Green.
Or adjust to a population with an older demographic balance. Which means, I think, people working longer, which means accepting that older people will work slower, and aren't as able as their younger selves, but can still accomplish lots of useful things.
It might also mean, for the elderly and infirm who need some level of assistance in daily living, finding ways to do this that are less labor-intensive, because carers will be more expensive because of the reduced supply of younger people.
We need to do something about the trend for longer lifespans to have many of the extra years spent in ill health, I think.
@Enoch , I assume from your post that you disagree. Perhaps you could expound on why you think Earth's resources are unlimited and we're not in the middle of an environmental crises.
Not at all. I'm not disagreeing with what your advocating. I'm criticising @TurquoiseTastic's use of the 'Portentious We', and your acceptance of it. It's a misusage much beloved of politicians and campaigners.
When I say "we" I mean the people of the world, a super-royal "we" meaning "this is what I think everybody should think". Obviously everything carries the rider "in my unimportant opinion".
'We' is the first person plural nominative pronoun. It means 'a group of people of whom I am one'. @TurquoiseTastic doesn't have a title to speak superregally for 'the people of the world'. Unlike, e.g. 'the Green Party' or 'MSI Reproductive Choices', formerly Marie Stopes, 'the people of the world' isn't even an entity anyone can speak for, not even the Secretary General of the UN. Using it as a euphemism for 'this is what I think and everyone should agree with me' is ducking the obligation to try to persuade one's readers and hoping they haven't noticed.
If a person is going to insist on using the Portentous We, they should at least explicitly state @TurquoiseTastic's rider, and not leave it implicit.
The one really to watch out for is a person who uses it to conceal where they switch the identity of 'we' and who hopes you haven't noticed. There'll be a lot of this between now and the 4th of July.
E.g. from 'me' ➜ 'the Cabinet' ➜ 'the government' ➜ 'what I say all right-thinking people ought to agree with' ➜ 'you, and if you don't agree and my lot win the election, we'll make you'.
FWiW I understood @Enoch's objection, but I consider it an idiosyncratic one and think most people understand perfectly @TurquoiseTastic's implicit rider.
I don't mind people saying "we" (including me) should be of a particular opinion. I only have a problem when it's assumed I actually do - "We all have great respect for our Monarchy" and so on. @TurquoiseTastic's formulation does not do that; it expresses an opinion of what would benefit us, whether all of "us" see it that way or not. That's pretty normal and unremarkable. Christians think we need Jesus. Many people disagree with them. It's a pretty normal expression really and I think @Enoch's view ascribes far more to it than is intended.
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."
I don’t agree with the teaching on contraception either, but I don’t think it’s nonsense. It fits with a certain approach to Natural Law, but I don’t think it’s simply goofy or random.
As for overpopulation, my jury’s out on that. It may be more a matter of how the world uses its resources rather than the number of people per se.
I don’t agree with the teaching on contraception either, but I don’t think it’s nonsense. It fits with a certain approach to Natural Law, but I don’t think it’s simply goofy or random.
I think even if you accept the RC version of natural law as a basic approach, which on the whole I do, it depends on a fallacious presupposition. It's like saying hands are for holding things, therefore you may not do anything with your hands that is incompatible with holding something in them, like e.g. pointing.
I don’t agree with the teaching on contraception either, but I don’t think it’s nonsense. It fits with a certain approach to Natural Law, but I don’t think it’s simply goofy or random.
I think even if you accept the RC version of natural law as a basic approach, which on the whole I do, it depends on a fallacious presupposition. It's like saying hands are for holding things, therefore you may not do anything with your hands that is incompatible with holding something in them, like e.g. pointing.
I don’t agree with the teaching on contraception either, but I don’t think it’s nonsense. It fits with a certain approach to Natural Law, but I don’t think it’s simply goofy or random.
I think even if you accept the RC version of natural law as a basic approach, which on the whole I do, it depends on a fallacious presupposition. It's like saying hands are for holding things, therefore you may not do anything with your hands that is incompatible with holding something in them, like e.g. pointing.
Yes; this underlies a lot of thinking in Dead Horse areas. And further afield.
I don’t agree with the teaching on contraception either, but I don’t think it’s nonsense. It fits with a certain approach to Natural Law, but I don’t think it’s simply goofy or random.
I think even if you accept the RC version of natural law as a basic approach, which on the whole I do, it depends on a fallacious presupposition. It's like saying hands are for holding things, therefore you may not do anything with your hands that is incompatible with holding something in them, like e.g. pointing.
Sorry. I did completely get hold of the wrong end of the stick about developing countries.
In rich countries with aging populations and declining birthrates (tax income, people to care for elderly etc) it seems to me that the options are either to encourage breeding, liberalise immigration laws or emulate Soylent Green.
Or adjust to a population with an older demographic balance. Which means, I think, people working longer
Ha! Good luck getting people to vote for that!
I'd retire to a life of only doing what I want to do tomorrow if it was financially viable for me to do so. And I suspect a lot of people in Western Societies would agree. Anyone proposing to make me work until I'm too exhausted and broken to be able to do anything useful for society any more can take a long walk off a short pier.
Sorry. I did completely get hold of the wrong end of the stick about developing countries.
In rich countries with aging populations and declining birthrates (tax income, people to care for elderly etc) it seems to me that the options are either to encourage breeding, liberalise immigration laws or emulate Soylent Green.
Or adjust to a population with an older demographic balance. Which means, I think, people working longer
Ha! Good luck getting people to vote for that!
I'd retire to a life of only doing what I want to do tomorrow if it was financially viable for me to do so. And I suspect a lot of people in Western Societies would agree. Anyone proposing to make me work until I'm too exhausted and broken to be able to do anything useful for society any more can take a long walk off a short pier.
There are plenty of jobs where it would be unthinkable for people to work into advanced years - firefighters and PE teachers spring to mind.
Sorry. I did completely get hold of the wrong end of the stick about developing countries.
In rich countries with aging populations and declining birthrates (tax income, people to care for elderly etc) it seems to me that the options are either to encourage breeding, liberalise immigration laws or emulate Soylent Green.
Or adjust to a population with an older demographic balance. Which means, I think, people working longer
Ha! Good luck getting people to vote for that!
I'd retire to a life of only doing what I want to do tomorrow if it was financially viable for me to do so. And I suspect a lot of people in Western Societies would agree. Anyone proposing to make me work until I'm too exhausted and broken to be able to do anything useful for society any more can take a long walk off a short pier.
There are plenty of jobs where it would be unthinkable for people to work into advanced years - firefighters and PE teachers spring to mind.
I don't see there's anything in standing at the side of a football pitch drinking coffee and shouting vague encouragement that can't be done by an older person. /joke - well, sort of.
I think there needs to be more of a culture of part time work and gradual stepping down to retirement. I think a fair number of people would be willing to work a year or two more at reduced hours in return for a pension bump (from delayed claiming). Sometimes it seems like part time roles only exist at the very bottom (retail) and very top (directorships) of the job market.
I think there needs to be more of a culture of part time work and gradual stepping down to retirement.
This. My employer offers a phased retirement scheme (which is a one-way system: once you get on the train, you're locked in to reducing your hours each year, and I think you have to be fully retired in three), and also offers some older workers the ability to switch to part time, which is a more flexible arrangement.
But it should also be more common for people to do different work: if you're no longer fit enough to be a front-line firefigher, or police officer, or miner or whatever, there are probably plenty of other things you are capable of doing.
Comments
Oh, I agree. The ludicrous and dangerous stance on contraception is one of the many reasons I'm not RC, I'm just saying it's internally consistent.
Maybe you could demonstrate why those things are not the result of (mainly first world) corporate and government greed rather than the life-styles of the most deprived on the planet who use least of those resources?
I think @Enoch's beef is that no-one should say "we" unless everyone agrees with them or they can be forced to do so.
@Alan29 you have misunderstood me completely. It is precisely in RICH countries that it is BEST for birth rate to fall, because as you say people in rich countries consume disproportionate resources. And it is very good to see that birth rate in rich countries is indeed falling massively. But upthread people are complaining about this and calling it a "demographic crisis"!
Sorry. I did completely get hold of the wrong end of the stick about developing countries.
In rich countries with aging populations and declining birthrates (tax income, people to care for elderly etc) it seems to me that the options are either to encourage breeding, liberalise immigration laws or emulate Soylent Green.
Or adjust to a population with an older demographic balance. Which means, I think, people working longer, which means accepting that older people will work slower, and aren't as able as their younger selves, but can still accomplish lots of useful things.
It might also mean, for the elderly and infirm who need some level of assistance in daily living, finding ways to do this that are less labor-intensive, because carers will be more expensive because of the reduced supply of younger people.
We need to do something about the trend for longer lifespans to have many of the extra years spent in ill health, I think.
@KarlLB has understood this, and so has @TurquoiseTastic with
'We' is the first person plural nominative pronoun. It means 'a group of people of whom I am one'. @TurquoiseTastic doesn't have a title to speak superregally for 'the people of the world'. Unlike, e.g. 'the Green Party' or 'MSI Reproductive Choices', formerly Marie Stopes, 'the people of the world' isn't even an entity anyone can speak for, not even the Secretary General of the UN. Using it as a euphemism for 'this is what I think and everyone should agree with me' is ducking the obligation to try to persuade one's readers and hoping they haven't noticed.
If a person is going to insist on using the Portentous We, they should at least explicitly state @TurquoiseTastic's rider, and not leave it implicit.
The one really to watch out for is a person who uses it to conceal where they switch the identity of 'we' and who hopes you haven't noticed. There'll be a lot of this between now and the 4th of July.
E.g. from 'me' ➜ 'the Cabinet' ➜ 'the government' ➜ 'what I say all right-thinking people ought to agree with' ➜ 'you, and if you don't agree and my lot win the election, we'll make you'.
I don't mind people saying "we" (including me) should be of a particular opinion. I only have a problem when it's assumed I actually do - "We all have great respect for our Monarchy" and so on. @TurquoiseTastic's formulation does not do that; it expresses an opinion of what would benefit us, whether all of "us" see it that way or not. That's pretty normal and unremarkable. Christians think we need Jesus. Many people disagree with them. It's a pretty normal expression really and I think @Enoch's view ascribes far more to it than is intended.
I don’t agree with the teaching on contraception either, but I don’t think it’s nonsense. It fits with a certain approach to Natural Law, but I don’t think it’s simply goofy or random.
As for overpopulation, my jury’s out on that. It may be more a matter of how the world uses its resources rather than the number of people per se.
Agree.
Yes; this underlies a lot of thinking in Dead Horse areas. And further afield.
Agreed!
Ha! Good luck getting people to vote for that!
I'd retire to a life of only doing what I want to do tomorrow if it was financially viable for me to do so. And I suspect a lot of people in Western Societies would agree. Anyone proposing to make me work until I'm too exhausted and broken to be able to do anything useful for society any more can take a long walk off a short pier.
There are plenty of jobs where it would be unthinkable for people to work into advanced years - firefighters and PE teachers spring to mind.
I don't see there's anything in standing at the side of a football pitch drinking coffee and shouting vague encouragement that can't be done by an older person. /joke - well, sort of.
This. My employer offers a phased retirement scheme (which is a one-way system: once you get on the train, you're locked in to reducing your hours each year, and I think you have to be fully retired in three), and also offers some older workers the ability to switch to part time, which is a more flexible arrangement.
But it should also be more common for people to do different work: if you're no longer fit enough to be a front-line firefigher, or police officer, or miner or whatever, there are probably plenty of other things you are capable of doing.