Posted on 06/10/2014 10:24:54 AM PDT by Kaslin
Pope Francis said something so important last week that it will either be widely ignored or widely disparaged.
The pope criticized "these marriages, in which the spouses do not want children, in which the spouses want to remain without fertility. This culture of well-being ... convinced us: It's better not to have children! It's better! You can go explore the world, go on holiday, you can have a villa in the countryside; you can be carefree. It might be better -- more comfortable -- to have a dog, two cats, and the love goes to the two cats and the dog."
He is right. More than ever before, young men and women in most affluent Western countries (and Russia) have decided not to have children. Instead, many shower love and attention on dogs and cats. Ask many young women -- married or single -- if they have any children, and if they do not, you are likely to be told, "I have two cats" or "I have two dogs." There are authors whose book jacket photo shows them with their dog or cat.
In much of the West, animals are the new children.
The pope made this declaration for two reasons: one demographic and one religious and moral.
The demographic reason is that the populations of European countries such as the one in which he lives -- Italy -- are gradually disappearing.
--Italy's birth rate is approximately 1.41 children per woman, making Italy 203 out of 224 countries in terms of its fertility rate.
--LifeSiteNews, a religious-oriented news website, reported that Italian demographer Giancarlo Baliga said last year that by 2041, "The age group most represented in the structure of the Italians will become the 70s."
--According to Fred Pearce in the Guardian, "Italy has the world's second oldest population."
--According to population statistics website GeoHive, Italy will have two and a half million fewer people at the end of this century than it had in the beginning. And the only reason it will not far fewer is that so many Italian citizens will be foreign-born immigrants.
--According to Professor Peter McDonald, president of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (2010-2013) and a fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences, if Italy remains at its current fertility levels and does not compensate with foreign immigrants, it will lose 86 percent of its population by the end of the century, falling to 8 million compared with today's 56 million.
The pope knows that Italians and other nations are slowly disappearing.
The question is: Why? Why do so many people prefer to parent pets than children?
Throughout history, there were three primary reasons people had many children: Lack of contraception, economic necessity and religion.
All three reasons are gone.
Thanks to modern contraception, couples can have all the sex they want without conceiving.
Regarding economic need, most people in welfare states no longer need children to care for them in old age because the state will do that.
And with the demise of religion in the developed world, there are no values-based reasons to have children.
What this means is that because of contraception and the welfare state, the one compelling reason to have children is that one's values demand it.
Those values overwhelmingly come from religion. The dominant religions of the Western world, Judaism and Christianity, demand marriage and children. Consequently, the people in affluent Western countries most likely to have more than two, and certainly more than three, children are Orthodox Jews, Evangelical Protestants, religious Catholics and active Mormons.
But secularism is now dominant in the West, which ends the values-based reason to have children.
One might argue that there is a fourth reason to have children -- a desire to raise and love children and have a family. But one shouldn't put too much stock in that argument. Without religion, even those who want children almost never have more than two. And more and more secular individuals find that their desire to nurture is fulfilled by loving cats and dogs.
That was the pope's point.
He’s right. Kids are much, much better than pets. Not that we didn’t love our pets when we had them.
Matthew 19:12 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
(Matthew 19:12) Some people are unable to marry because of birth defects or because of what someone has done to their bodies. Others stay single for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Anyone who can accept this teaching should do so.”
Correct - Pets will not replace European children. Muslims will.
Please don't say "all of them".
Indeed. And when the health issues come in old age, there is nothing like having the advocacy of someone who loves you by your side.
As for myself, my older son has agreed that his mother and I can live with him when we're unable to take care of ourselves, and the younger son has promised to send the older son a check every month. LOL.
sitetest
I love children. Other people’s children and look forward to spending no more than 10 minutes with em.
I like my dogs better and they can do whatever they want as far as I’m concerned.
True, no one is forced to join the priesthood.
But it’s a little more complicated than that. Back in the day, many older Catholics will recall, Catholic families were much larger than they are today. Often many of these families would actively encourage a young son or daughter to enter into vocations, often at a very young age, with the full backing of the Church. Teenagers as young as sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen were often recruited for the seminaries. Many were far from sexually and emotionally mature, therefore this certainly must have been a contributing factor to the homosexual/pedophile priest scandal.
Since the scandal, the Church has since implemented a strict screening process complete with thorough physical and psychological examinations. According to our pastor, only about one in ten applicants to the priesthood actually get admitted into the seminary. Also, the average age of a man entering into the seminary today is about thirty five, many considerably older.
As homosexuality has been widely accepted by the general public in recent years, and even celebrated and glorified in certain sectors, especially our media and entertainment establishments, there is little desire these days for homosexuals to enter into vocations, although back in the day that was an attractive option for them, and in many cases a perfect cover for them because back in those days few people would dare question the veracity or integrity of a Catholic priest plus you had the bishops covering up for them transferring predator priests from one parish to the next.
That all said, the number of priests in the country continues to decline. In the 1960s we had about 60,000 ordained priests in the country, today the number is under 40,000. And yes the Church’s policy of mandatory clerical celibacy is something which should be reviewed. There is nothing in the Bible which says priests must be celibate, to the contrary, priests were married men in the Bible and for many centuries they were permitted to be married even in the Catholic Church. And as Pope Francis himself has recently stated, the policy is not considered dogma etched into stone, and is subject to change.
It would be rather scandalous if an unmarried man, a vowed celibate, had children, wouldn't it? Unless he had them as a married man before he became a priest.
YHvH ended His priesthood in 70 CE, when He permitted Yah'shua is our High Priest. There are no other intercessors. I find none of that vestal virgin stuff in YHvH's WORD.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
the temple to be destroyed.
Now that so many Catholic couples settle for sub-replacement procreation and impair their bodies with drugs, devices, and surgery to prevent any more--- it's much rarer for them to accept the idea that some of their kids have a genuine calling to Christian celibacy. This is the sort of "singleness" which is described by Our Lord as being "for the Kingdom." (Matthew 19:12)
It is true that celibacy is not a theological or dogmatic prerequisite for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. There have always been, and are now, tens of thousands of married people in Holy Orders.
Now that so many Catholic couples settle for sub-replacement procreation and impair their bodies with drugs, devices, and surgery to prevent any more--- it's much rarer for them to accept the idea that some of their kids have a genuine calling to Christian celibacy. This is the sort of "singleness" which is described by Our Lord as being "for the Kingdom." (Matthew 19:12)
It is true that celibacy is not a theological or dogmatic prerequisite for the Sacrament of Holy Orders. There have always been, and are now, tens of thousands of married people in Holy Orders.
I actually agree with him on this. I do however understand the problems young people face with stagnating wages,job market etc...As a petitioner going door to door I could see that the dog did replace children in many instances...less hassles.
Not so much contraception, but rather economics is a key consideration why so many young people are postponing things such marriage, children, and home ownership. It helps to have a decent paying job and not being weighed down with excessive debt.
The Pope wonders why so many people these days opt for having a cat or a dog over having a baby. He should look no further than his own backyard in Europe, where economic growth has been negligible, unemployment very high, young adults living at home with there parents well until their thirties and forties. Few opportunities for them in a dying continent where in most families grandparents now outnumber their grandchildren in most cases.
Who is also in "that class of people". Another hypocrite?
????
To add to Our Lord's endorsement of singleness, there's also St. Paul's:
1 Corinthians 7-8 I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
and
1 Corinthians 7:32-35 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord.
But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world--how he can please his wife--- and his interests are divided.
An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."
Notice there's nothing there about "vestal virgins". St. Paul says his personal endorsement of celibacy is "that you live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord" and "for your own good."
Stop making sense. It only confuses them.
Sh'aul's recommendation is NOT a commandment of YHvH. OBTW YHvH commanded all to marry including the High Priests. Celibacy is only found in Pagan religions. What does this verse have to do with vestal virgins ??
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The Pope is a socialist. Socialism does not fit the Tenth Commandment’s prohibition of covetousness. It in fact, promotes it, which leads naturally to situations involving bearing false witness to outright theft.
Personally, I don’t think these violations are very holy, so I don’t consider this Pope in any way a holy man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.