Hell, how about if I ignore you instead? Nothing you post is worth my time.
To everybody else, I’m sorry for participating in the hijack.
“get laid” doesn’t imply consent or this would be nonsensical
“If it wasn’t for date-rape I’d never get laid”
~Sublime
~Max
I hate to ruin the rant, but Snopes has come out with the true facts:
I don’t see how this ruins the rant. He still calls the childfree and the parents of only children selfish.
From the transcript:
In sum, Francis urged the world to consider adoption. During one part of the remarks, he explained that he believed there to be a “selfishness” from people who do not want to have children or from those who only have one child.
It’s the gratuitous slap at those who have only one child that really gets to me. What an asshole.
Your point stands, but you didn’t quote the transcript, you quoted Jordan Liles’s summary of his Snopes article. This is the transcript:
Transcript (click to show/hide)
“[…] To bring a child into the world is not enough to say that one is also their father or mother. “Fathers are not born, but made. A man does not become a father simply by bringing a child into the world, but by taking up the responsibility to care for that child. Whenever a man accepts responsibility for the life of another, in some way he becomes a father to that person” (Apostolic Letter Patris corde ). I think particularly of all those who are open to welcoming life by way of adoption, which is such a generous and beautiful, good attitude. Joseph shows us that this type of bond is not secondary; it is not second best. This kind of choice is among the highest forms of love, and of fatherhood and motherhood. How many children in the world are waiting for someone to take care of them! And how many married couples want to be fathers and mothers but are unable to do so for biological reasons; or, although they already have children, they want to share their family’s affection with those who do not have it. We should not be afraid to choose the path of adoption, to take the “risk” of welcoming. And today, even with orphanhood, there is a certain selfishness. The other day, I spoke about the demographic winter that exists nowadays: people do not want to have children, or just one and no more. And many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one because they do not want any more, but they have two dogs, two cats…. Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children. Yes, it is funny, I understand, but it is the reality. And this denial of fatherhood or motherhood diminishes us, it takes away our humanity. And in this way civilization becomes more aged and without humanity, because it loses the richness of fatherhood and motherhood. And our homeland suffers as it does not have children, and, as someone said somewhat humorously, “and now that there are no children, who will pay the taxes for my pension? Who will take care of me?”. He laughed, but it is the truth. I ask of Saint Joseph the grace to awaken consciences and to think about this: about having children. Fatherhood and motherhood are the fullness of the life of a person. Think about this. It is true, there is the spiritual fatherhood of those who consecrate themselves to God, and spiritual motherhood; but those who live in the world and get married, have to think about having children, of giving life, because they will be the ones to shut their eyes, who will think about the future. And also, if you cannot have children, think about adoption. It is a risk, yes: having a child is always a risk, either naturally or by adoption. But it is riskier not to have them. It is riskier to deny fatherhood or to deny motherhood, be it real or spiritual. A man or a woman who do not voluntarily develop a sense of fatherhood or motherhood are lacking something fundamental, something important. Think about this, please. […]”
cite: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2022/documents/20220105-udienza-generale.html
Note that the Pope’s original words were in Italian and the above transcript is a translation, although an official one. The word translated as “a certain selfishness” was actually egoismo, which is the opposite of altruism, but I could not comment on whether the original Italian carries the same negative connotation. Maybe someone in the know can clear that up.
Your other beef is borne out by the transcript:
Fatherhood and motherhood are the fullness of the life of a person. […] A man or a woman who do not voluntarily develop a sense of fatherhood or motherhood are lacking something fundamental, something important.
In other words he’s saying if you don’t have children, or adopt them, or otherwise voluntarily develop a sense of parenthood (pets don’t count, pastorship does), you’re missing out on an important part of life. You find it reprehensible that he would make people feel bad for not having children, because the Pope of all people doesn’t have “any fucking business” telling people what is or isn’t important in life. Right?
~Max
I’m also wondering what kind of debunking this is. Maybe somewhere in the internet this is being misrepresented but what I read was, the pope said a bunch of stuff, and in the middle of that is a bunch of shit exactly what people in this thread are flogging him for.
I don’t think the Snopes article is a debunking, it’s not the true/false kind of article they are famous for. Just an ad-filled page linking to the straight dope, which is here: transcript
~Max
Actually, what I posted was “Nobody has any fucking business pushing someone into the idea of having children if they are lukewarm about it.”
And yeah, I’d include the Pope of all people in that statement. To use a politically incorrect Italian accent phrase, “You no play-a the game, you no make-a the rules”
How else did the Pope push someone into the idea of having children, aside from saying people who don’t develop a sense of parenthood are missing out on an important part of life?
~Max
I think the catholic church has little to no idea about what is important in life and absolutely zero moral or ethical authority to give what they say any weight.
I think it’s very funny that the church thinks “pastorship” counts as being a parent. Because a priest stays up all night comforting a kid with a stomach bug. Right.
Somehow, other faiths manage to have their pastors do both pastorship and parenting at the same time. I wonder why priests and nuns can’t do that?
As an aside, every time I read this thread name I think “Just When I Think I Like the Pope, He Reminds Me that He’s the Pope.”
Oh, they can.
~Max
So saying it isn’t being pushy? Especially while using the term egoismo which according to Google means selfishness?
The only thing that would satisfy your standards for this guy being pushy is if he would send out his minions to drug stores to stick pinholes through the condom packages.
I’m saying it is pushy, but motivated by exactly the same reason that the Pope does every other thing, good or bad. It is literally his job to shepherd the Catholic Church (a community of people) in furtherance of its fundamental mission, and shepherding people involves pushing. And the fundamental mission of the Catholic Church is not
- to help the poor
- to save the world
- to prevent suffering
- to make money
Jesus gives his great commission in (I think) Mark, Mathew, and Luke: to make disciples of every nation, to baptize them, and to teach them to obey his commands / preach the gospel. It was in direct furtherance of this commission that Peter and Paul were said to have founded the See of Rome. Ostensibly, everything the Pope does is motivated by the above mission.
It strikes me as inconsistent to like the Pope when he uses religion to push people to help the poor, but think it reprehensible that the Pope uses the same religion to push people into having or adopting children. It’s the same set of beliefs underlying both speeches. The Pope is not a humanitarian, the welfare of human beings merely happens to overlap with his religion some of the time. I believe he has said explicitly that the Church is not a humanitarian organization. So if you only “like” the Pope when he acts like a humanitarian, or when you otherwise happen to find his actions agreeable, you never actually “liked” the Pope at all.
~Max
I’m not Catholic, so it doesn’t matter if I do or don’t like the Pope.
I wouldn’t have had a problem if he would’ve said, “Having children is an important part of life, and more people should seriously consider having children. But also, there are children who need to be adopted by loving families. Adoption processes should be streamlined so those children can placed as soon as safely possible. Adoptive parents are doing an exceptional good in the eyes of God.”
That would’ve been fine. But no, he calls the childfree and parents of only children selfish. Bullshit.
There you go, an excellent reason not to get ticked off at the Pope’s remarks.
By his own reckoning he lacks a fundamental quality of humanity and can’t be expected to have true empathy for others.
It’s still not clear to me whether that is an accurate translation or not. Selfishness has a strong connotation in English but the original Italian egoismo may mean “not-altruistic” or “rational self-interest”, eg: egoism, which I think is not insulting. It has been translated as “egoism” before, for example on his General Address of November 3 (here it is officially translated as selfishness , and here it is officially translated as egoism for the press release). If you are an atheist who doesn’t believe in altruism, it seems to me you would base your ethics on some form of egoism.
~Max
Where in the bleeding hell did I say I don’t believe in altruism?
Sorry, you said no such thing. My point with that sentence was that I see “egoism” as a form of ethics, not a petty insult like “selfishness”.
~Max