The traditional Catholic wedding vows, or I guess this is technically right before the “vows”, the priest will ask something like this:
“Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and to bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”
~Max
So who, other than the Pope, said that anybody thinks that it does?
Having a job presumably doesn’t diminish that religious responsibility, either. Did the Pope rail against people for deciding to take jobs, thereby taking up time and attention they could instead be using to raise children? Did he rail against nuns and priests for choosing to become nuns and priests, instead of getting married and producing children?
I never have.
I’ve certainly heard people discuss why they don’t want children, or don’t want more children than they already have, or don’t want children right now but might want them sometime later. I have heard all sorts of reasons, including being seriously uncomfortable around children (and no you won’t necessarily feel differently if they’re your own, and it’s sure hell on the kids if you don’t), lack of available time/attention, lack of money, fear of screwing the kids up by being bad at raising them, lack of reliable partner(s), health problems, genetic problems that the child might wind up with, health of the planet, health of the particular governmental system one’s living under. I have never, never heard anybody say that they are deciding or might decide not to have children because they’d rather get a pet.
I have known people who wound up living alone or relatively alone to get pets for company. But that’s not remotely the same thing.
There are seven billion people on the planet, so maybe somewhere among them there’s someone who didn’t have a baby because they got puppies. But it’s not remotely common behavior. And my guess is also that if you heard somebody saying this, they were either joking, or trying to deflect nosy fools who were insisting on knowing why they didn’t have kids. That’s not a polite question, and it doesn’t require either a polite or an honest answer.
I mean, when friends adopted a puppy, i said, “if I’m going to have to work this hard, I’m having children, not a dog.” But i was joking. Having children and having puppies aren’t remotely the same thing.
Yeah, I’m going to say that if you took those statements at face value you are tone deaf.
Since you reject my personal anecdotes, here is a paper. n=12, I think, so it’s a very small sample. True, most of the people did not think of their pets as replacing children, but some did, and most saw pets as suitable alternatives to children. These aren’t necessarily Catholics, though.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12163
[T]his article contributes to the existing literature by considering how these complex relationships affect the fertility intentions of childfree women which in turn affects their household structure. It goes beyond examining the relationships themselves by investigating the effects of the human–animal bond on (1) the active decision to have animal companions over human children; (2) cost-benefit analyses regarding the decision to have human children; and (3) the role of the human–animal bond in fulfilling a desire to nurture that may otherwise be filled by a human child.
[…]
[T]wo-thirds of participants indicated that they had chosen either not to have human children or to delay childbirth for motives such as education, career, and time allocation, reasons already well-documented for remaining childfree as well as the delay of childbirth by demographers and family researchers (Becker 1981; Blossfeld and Huinink 1991; Mather 2012). […] While it was clear for these participants that the root cause of not having human children was because they did not want them for various reasons (as opposed to wanting animal children over human children), these women also emphasized that they saw their animal children as good alternatives to human children. […]
Alternatively, Maeve, a 32-year-old graduate student with a male partner and two mastiff dogs named Luke and Curan, […] found refuge in parenting a puppy as a means of delaying childbirth, explaining, “Having a puppy is a huge commitment and I feel having a puppy will take time away for any potential plans of having a child. Therefore, having a puppy is a good way to stall childbearing.” Indeed, Maeve had actively chosen to parent a canine as opposed to a human, at least for the time being. […]
Lynn had clearly chosen to have an animal child over a human child. She reported, “Roger is definitely my kid. I mean, he replaced that for me,” suggesting that for some childfree people, animal children may indeed be a conscious choice over human children.
Julie, a 24-year-old graduate student with a male partner and a schnauzer mix named Chance, also appeared to actively choose having an animal child over a human one, saying, “I like my relationship with Chance. And I don’t think anything could come close to that. Even if it is a human baby. Sorry.” […] For her, the relationship that she had with Chance was one that, from her perspective, would trump any relationship that she may develop with a human baby.
Well, he is concerned about the affordability of childcare (economic pressure against raising kids) and working women who face peer pressure against raising kids. He supported Italy’s decision to provide a monetary allowance for newborns.
I am thinking of the uncertainty of work, of the fears caused by the increasingly unaffordable costs of raising children: these are fears that can swallow up the future, quicksand that can sink a society. I also think, with sadness, of women at work who are discouraged from having children or have to hide their pregnancies. How is it possible that a woman should feel ashamed of the most beautiful gift that life can offer? Not the woman, but society should be ashamed, because a society that does not welcome life stops living. Children are the hope that gives birth to a people! Finally, in Italy, a decision has been taken to turn into law an allowance, defined as unique and universal, for every child that is born. I express my appreciation to the authorities and hope that this allowance will meet the concrete needs of families, who have made and are making so many sacrifices, and will mark the start of social reforms that put children and families at the centre.
On the other hand he has also said Catholics should not have more children than they can afford.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30890989
Speaking to journalists while heading back to Rome from the Philippines on Monday, Pope Francis was asked what he would say to families who had more children than they could afford because the Church forbids artificial contraception.
He replied with an unexpected turn of phrase: “Some people think that - excuse my expression here - that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits.”
“No. Parenthood is about being responsible. This is clear.”
The Pope said he knew many ways allowed by the Catholic Church that could ensure families only had as many children as they wished.
He cited the case of one woman he had met who had had seven children by Caesarean section and was expecting her eighth - a pregnancy he said was irresponsible.
“She said, ‘I trust in God.’ But God gave us the means to be responsible,” the Pope said.
Priests and nuns didn’t take the sacrament of marriage.
~Max
I’m not going to buy the article, so all I’ve got is your quotes; which say
it was clear for these participants that the root cause of not having human children was because they did not want them for various reasons (as opposed to wanting animal children over human children)
and which also tell me that the authors decided that Maeve had actively chosen to parent a canine as opposed to a human, when what Maeve apparently actually said was that she wanted to delay having children for reasons unspecified in the quote and was using the puppy to help her keep to that otherwise-chosen decision.
So between that and the sample size I’m pretty dubious. I’d want the full text of the study (which you obviously can’t quote here; I don’t know if there’s a free link to it available), and also the methodology, which ought to be part of that text: how did they choose their sample, and how did they phrase their questions? The quote from Julie, with that “sorry” at the end, reads to me as if she’s feeling pressured and is trying to get the interviewer to quit bugging her.
Then he shouldn’t be criticizing those who can afford only one, or none at all.
But the thing that gets me, in addition to the absurdity of claiming that people have pets because they’ve chosen to have them specifically instead of having children, is this part: I’ll repeat the link, because I think it was some distance back in the thread: https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2022/documents/20220105-udienza-generale.html
this denial of fatherhood or motherhood diminishes us, it takes away our humanity. [ . . . ] A man or a woman who do not voluntarily develop a sense of fatherhood or motherhood are lacking something fundamental, something important.
Deciding not to have children does not take away the humanity of those who make those decisions. It does not mean that they’re lacking something fundamental about being human. Whatever they said in their marriage vows. If the Pope wants to say that married Catholics who choose not to have children are violating their marriage vows, then presuming that’s part of the vows I’m not going to complain about that. But saying that making that decision removes their humanity, and means that they’re lacking something fundamentally important, is – really, really nasty. And it’s even more nonsensical than claiming that they’re doing so because they got together and said 'shall we have a baby or shall we get a dog?", when they feel capable of managing either or both.
Most of that speech is about encouraging adoption. I think it would have worked a whole lot better for that purpose if it hadn’t also insulted many of the people who it’s trying to convince.
You’ve found a study conducted by people as daft as you. Congratulations!
I’m still wondering where in the Pope’s “playbook” (the Bible, Catholic doctrine, whatever) it says that couples should have more children to stave off “demographic winter” in the western world (see Pope’s remarks as reported in the NBC link provided earlier).
Seems to me he’s going off script and doing a hell of a lot of ad-libbing. Some like his act, some don’t.
Francis could make amends with the latter by proposing Magawa for sainthood.
Well, in Genesis there’s “be fruitful and multiply”, but I don’t know if Catholics ground their crazy multiplication fetish on that verse, they normally don’t care much for the Old Testament, unless it serves their queer ideas.
The closest thing I can find in the Bible about procreating to avoid demographic winter is this line (2 Timothy 4:21):
“Make every effort to come before winter. Eubulus greets you, also Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren.”
I think Timothy just knew those folks in a biblical sense.
That’s reasonable.
The sample is a subsample from a different study, which used fliers in vets offices around North Texas and on an announcement board at a university. The parent study asked for people of all ages, with and without children, and with various types of pets. 23 people were included in the parent study. From that group the paper I cited only took people between 18 and 44 who were childfree, fertile, and had at least one dog or cat. 11 people were included this way. She also asked each person who qualified if they knew anybody else, which brought the total to 12.
The questions were a semi-structured conversational interview, apparently with the participants doing most of the talking. Although I don’t see the exact questions used, there’s this
“Questions included items such as how the animal was first brought into the family, if participants ever thought of their pet as an alternative to human children, and whether or not the animal was ever considered in relationship to serious life decisions.”
It’s also on me for not quoting from the section on using animal children to fulfill a desire to nurture, the corresponding religious duty for which, in retrospect, is more directly what the Pope is speaking against. I will quote here,
"Half of the participants in this study repeatedly described themselves as “nurturing” their animal companions or their animals as “providing an outlet for mothering” that otherwise would have been missed,
[…] If humans are predisposed to the act of nurturing but some people choose to delay or forego childbirth, then a lingering desire to nurture some sort of living creature may present itself. For participants in this study, the use of the companion animal to satiate a desire to “nurture” or “mother” appeared to allow participants to circumvent biological, sociocultural, or biosocial forces that may have otherwise emotionally worn on them to have a human baby. In this case, the relationship appears to quell the desire to nurture that would otherwise go unchecked, possibly increasing the pressure to have human children."
In the words of one participant, Hannah,
““And it helps me to put my energy into something that
is more constructive. . . without having a child to raise; it gives me that. . . care for something that I otherwise would not have.””
Or Lynn, already mentioned, speaking of her dog,
““I think most women have maternal instincts. I am able to use those on him and I don’t have to be annoyed by a [human] child.””
I think that brings me to 10 paragraphs, of a 22 page paper, so I really shouldn’t copy any more.
It seems to me the selfish thing only applies to married couples - otherwise the absurd implication would be that children or invalids, who cannot care for children, are selfish when they adopt a pet but don’t want to have kids.
What you’ve quoted I thought was his main argument the first time I read the transcript and identified it as such in post #206. I’m not going to argue whether you are right or wrong to think the Pope is nasty to believe a sense of parenthood is a necessary component of a person’s humanity. I mean, who is he, who is the Catholic Church, to decide whether I or any person possesses basic humanity? That’s a fair criticism.
I’m not going to argue if you, like Novelty_Bobble in post #211, think the Pope has no authority to declare what is or isn’t an important part of life. That’s fair too and basically says the same thing.
I’m saying if you take that position, you must apply it to other contexts. Because when the Pope calls on people to adopt children, or to feed the poor, it always stems from the same religious principles, the same “rulebook” (not “playbook”, rulebook). Charity is a necessary part of a person’s humanity in Catholic thought - you have to recognize that in all of his speeches he is preaching to his congregation what is or is not necessary for their personal development as human beings. They don’t call him daddy but they do call him Holy Father. That’s his job, its why the Church exists in the first place. If that’s your problem with this speech, you’ve got a problem with all the speeches.
~Max
I think he just has no greater authortiy than you or I and his opinions carry no greater moral weight than you or I and he should be judged on what he says in the same way as we would. No more, no less.
If I say shitty things I should be challenged on them and if I say something that the vast majority of morally normal people could say then it really shouldn’t be cause for over-the-top praise. The same should go for the pope
That’s what I thought you meant. (I probably should have written “no special authority”)
~Max
Maybe, maybe, maybe. If, possibly, appeared, may have.
There’s nothing whatsoever in that to indicate that people are deciding not to have children because they’d rather have a dog. People are deciding not to have children; and then, having already made that decision, some of them are deciding to get dogs.
That rulebook isn’t a solid inseparable lump. It has a whole lot of different rules in it.
It is not remotely inconsistent of me to agree with some of those rules while disagreeing with others.
Because for some people who don’t want children, they still feel the need to nurture or mother something. Such as a pet, which takes the place of a child as a thing to be nurtured or mothered.
~Max
But that is not remotely the same thing as their deciding not to have children because they’re getting a pet.
For some, having children or having pets is far closer to a desire to receive the unconditional love that a child or pet stereotypically represents.
For some, this exists despite a total dearth of m/paternal or nurturing instincts.
For some, it’s the polar opposite of what you’re saying. For some, it’s the apotheosis of selfishness.
Those tend to be the tragic stories, but they aren’t necessarily the minority of stories.
It is exactly the thing I meant when I wrote,
ETA: Or the woman who didn’t want babies until she feels like she and her partner can handle the responsibility, and probably insisted on puppies first for that purpose, would be the same one who at Thanksgiving now says “there’s no way in hell I’m raising three puppies and a baby”.
Go back and read the Pope’s message and tell me if it makes more sense if he’s talking about people who literally think their pets are equivalent to human children, or if he’s talking about people who think pets are acceptable alternatives to human children for the purposes of nurturing, mothering, fathering; in other words, parenthood, which was the topic du jour.
~Max
No, it isn’t. I’m saying someone didn’t want a baby. But they did want puppies.
A) She’s probably trying to shut up some relative who’s bugging her about having children NOW.
B) She had already decided not to have children now when she got the puppies. Presuming that she does want to have children later: they won’t be puppies then.
C) If she and her partner really can’t handle the responsibility of having puppies, and with some energy left over: then they certainly shouldn’t have children, because they really won’t be able to handle that. And the children would be among those who will suffer for it if they have them anyway.
There are no significant number of people who think pets are alternatives to human children.
There are significant numbers of people who like to nuture non-human animals. Many of them also nuture human children. The ones who don’t choose to raise human children (which includes but isn’t limited to those who choose not to nuture any) make that choice for any of a number of reasons; but choosing between adopting/birthing a child and adopting a pet as if those were equivalent is not one of them. It’s like saying that the reason somebody doesn’t want any anchovies on their pizza is because they can choose whether or not to have ice cream on their pie, and if the ice cream weren’t available they would suddenly want anchovies.
How about anchovy flavored ice cream?