To think Pope Francis is talking out of his arse here?

[CounsellorTroi]

Says couples who prefer pets to children are selfish. It’s a bit rich from someone who effectively chose not to have children when he became a priest.

www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/05/pope-couples-choose-pets-children-selfish

So facts become less valid if your sectarianism gets in the way?
Are the population comments valid if they come from governments? Businesses? Global bodies? Because they have all flagged up this issue.
It's not feminism that stops you engaging with the issues because the majority of paid and unpaid carers are women.
Ignoring the facts about population issues to 'joke' about abusing children - ffs I mean really?!? - doesn't change the crisis in elderly care that Western countries are facing.

I've stopped paying attention to what old white men say.

doesn't change the crisis in elderly care that Western countries are facing.

Right, but presumably you don't think that people who dont want children having children's and continuing global population growth is a solution? There will be a demographic hump which will be moderately painful (albeit a good immigration policy can limit the pain) and then it will end and the population will rebalance.

Interestingly, if birth rates continue on their existing downward trends and settle at around 1.3 globally, within 100 years, the human race could be almost out of existence in 300 years, which is kind of hard to contemplate.

@reesewithoutaspoon

People aren't having babies because financially it's crippling for many. If he wants more babies then advocate for better wages, lower housing costs, better and more affordable childcare and men to do their fair share of raising them

this , maybe people in western countries would have more kids if it was more bloody affordable

Hypocrisy from the Vatican? 😦

maybe people in western countries would have more kids if it was more bloody affordable

But the Singapore experience casts doubt on this- Singapore put in place tonnes of child friendly/ family support policies/ housing policy and it made zero difference to the birth rate. Most people don't have more than two children because parenting is hard work and time consuming and a lot of it is basically an admin task. And of course increasing numbers of people have none, and that's not typically related to affordability.

I'm not saying affordability isn't a factor at all, but I don't think it's necessarily a big one.

@Snoozer11

Well of course.

Your pets can't fill up the collection plate, but your children can.

It's this. Exactly this.

It’s his religious views, bearing in mind that catholic’s don’t believe in contraception there view of children can seem outdated. I agree it’s none of his business but them I am not catholic.

OK I was brought up Catholic and I am a (struggling) Catholic.

I agree with a lot of what PPS are saying. Especially about women and the church.

And the Pope's words could have been chosen much more judiciously but he was talking about consumerism and adoption. The situation where people spend money on pets and cosmetics while babies die in underdeveloped countries. We all know that animal charities in the west can attract more donors than those charities for the homeless, dementia patients, and mental health. He was talking about how it is harder to love humans because they aren't always as immediately loveable as pets. Loving humans is generally far more complicated than loving an animal. He is questioning a consumerist lifestyle that leaves no room for the sacrifice of adoption and a dearth of couples willing to adopt.

To be clear, I am offering an explanation here, I don't agree with everything he was saying as personally I don't see it as an "either or" situation but I understand his point that there is something potentially wrong morally with society that, to take the UK as one example, has a multi-million pound pet industry while 4.3 million children live below the poverty line.

The Pope just asked us to think about this. It is his job to ask uncomfortable questions. And as usual, the reporting of his comments, could be far more nuanced than it inevitably is.

Again, before I get flamed, I don't see this entirely the same way as the Pope, because I happen to think the love of animals, generally speaking, is a very pure and good thing, but I do understand some of his points living in a society where the elderly are forced to rely on the company of a dog because they are ignored by their neighbours, or where we walk past our past fellow humans living in doorways and go home to provide our dog with a warm bed and a good meal.

As I say, to my mind, it's not a question of "either or" but as the owner of three animals, it has got me thinking about priorities.

Why are we giving airtime to this head of an abusive cult?

@SlamCrump thank you for that comment i wondered how it had come about.

@jamandmarmaladethesecondcoming

That would be an ecumenical matter

@SlamCrump

OK I was brought up Catholic and I am a (struggling) Catholic.

I agree with a lot of what PPS are saying. Especially about women and the church.

And the Pope's words could have been chosen much more judiciously but he was talking about consumerism and adoption. The situation where people spend money on pets and cosmetics while babies die in underdeveloped countries. We all know that animal charities in the west can attract more donors than those charities for the homeless, dementia patients, and mental health. He was talking about how it is harder to love humans because they aren't always as immediately loveable as pets. Loving humans is generally far more complicated than loving an animal. He is questioning a consumerist lifestyle that leaves no room for the sacrifice of adoption and a dearth of couples willing to adopt.

To be clear, I am offering an explanation here, I don't agree with everything he was saying as personally I don't see it as an "either or" situation but I understand his point that there is something potentially wrong morally with society that, to take the UK as one example, has a multi-million pound pet industry while 4.3 million children live below the poverty line.

The Pope just asked us to think about this. It is his job to ask uncomfortable questions. And as usual, the reporting of his comments, could be far more nuanced than it inevitably is.

Again, before I get flamed, I don't see this entirely the same way as the Pope, because I happen to think the love of animals, generally speaking, is a very pure and good thing, but I do understand some of his points living in a society where the elderly are forced to rely on the company of a dog because they are ignored by their neighbours, or where we walk past our past fellow humans living in doorways and go home to provide our dog with a warm bed and a good meal.

As I say, to my mind, it's not a question of "either or" but as the owner of three animals, it has got me thinking about priorities.

I have many many friends who have tried to adopt. Half have been successful after a long, painstaking and heartbreaking journey. Uk based children. Overseas even harder. There is by no means a dearth of adoptive parents but the process is so, so hard. The slightest thing, even in your long past history pushes you out of contention. We tried and never had kids. I couldn't go through the pain of adoption sorry. We now have a much loved dog. Less children is better for the planet. I don't expect other people to have children to look after me as I grow older. I would like to be able to legally make the decision to not have to rely on others to unnecessarily prolong my life. Women and couples are not just baby (consumers/donators/cult members) makers.

[quote Enko]@SlamCrump thank you for that comment i wondered how it had come about.[/quote]
Me too. @SlamCrump - thanks for your post.

the UK as one example, has a multi-million pound pet industry while 4.3 million children live below the poverty line

Domestic pets cost far less to 'maintain' than children - it's as simple as that. A cat or dog is a 15 - 20 year commitment if you own one from infancy - your children are with you for the rest of your life. Even discounting this, pets cost less to feed than children and they don't need clothes.

@Fridafever

I find it funny people are surprised at this - the pope, quite famously, is catholic.

Hold on, are you sure? If so why do people keep asking "is the pope is Catholic?"

The UK as one example, has a multi-million pound pet industry while 4.3 million children live below the poverty line

So the answer is less children. More education in contraception (catholic church against) freely available abortion options (catholic church against) more sex education (Catholic Church against) rather than the vilification of people with pets. The Catholic Church is at fault here.

People with pets can love their animals and give to animal and human charities at the same time. I do. It's not a zero sum game.

Bit rich for him to talk about humanity when the Catholic church shuffles abusive priests around and shelters them to avoid punishment. So many lives ruined.
Also, all those young and single mothers would probably have loved the chance to parent their newborns but had them ripped away.
Perhaps he'd like to pay attention to real world issues and note that we are in a climate crisis. There are enough people in this world for population replacement, we just need to be more open to immigration. Or perhaps the existing ones aren't the right religion for him?
Nah, he can absolutely do one with that nonsense. The implication that people without children lack humanity?! What crap.

And if so many children live below the poverty live is it the fault of childless pet owners?
I paid over £60k in tax last year. As far as a I know I took nothing out (bar the cost of two Covid vaccines) . If it all went to those children I'd be delighted. So where did it go? Pensions mainly. NHS costs. The military. Some went to child benefit. I can't change that. Only the government can.

@SlamCrump

I understand his point that there is something potentially wrong morally with society that, to take the UK as one example, has a multi-million pound pet industry while 4.3 million children live below the poverty line.

Have you been to the Vatican? I was disgusted that a religion with so many followers living in poverty had such unimaginable wealth on display. I grew up Catholic but never believed.

My visit absolutely convinced me that the cognitive dissonance required to follow a religion with such wealth at the top that could be used for good is something I cannot partake in.

If the religion was to start now, with that difference in wealth and power within the structure and a leader saying people (let's be honest, women) who don't have kids are selfish, it would quite rightly be called a cult.

@Snoozer11

Well of course.

Your pets can't fill up the collection plate, but your children can.

Absolutely spot on and cats/dogs cant fill the void of a perverted priest either.

The UK as one example, has a multi-million pound pet industry while 4.3 million children live below the poverty line

But that isn't money that would go towards those children is it? If the people who had pets had children instead, because the cost of children is ridiculously higher than that of pets, there would be more children below the poverty line. More pressure on resources such as schools, hospitals, doctors etc. How is more children a solution to existing children being poor? We spent millions on cosmetics. If we didn't, those millions wouldn't be able to solve the crisis of children living in poverty because they wouldn't be funnelled directly to those kids. Especially if you're suggesting people just keep making new ones!

Isn't the Catholic Church one of the wealthiest organizations in the world ? That adoption racket must have made them a lot of cash . They must miss it .

Western countries want to promote expensive housing, high childcare costs and hold down wages, all while bemoaning the low birth rate. I wonder where the problem is?