Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Pope Francis says choosing pets over kids is selfish


Eldorado
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pope Francis has suggested people who choose to have pets over children are acting selfishly.

The Pope's comments came as he was discussing parenthood during a general audience at the Vatican in Rome.

"Today ... we see a form of selfishness," he told the audience. "We see that some people do not want to have a child.

"Sometimes they have one, and that's it, but they have dogs and cats that take the place of children.

"This may make people laugh, but it is a reality."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59884801

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Iilaa'mpuul'xem said:

We all know Catholic Priests would choose children over pets... It has hit the courts many times :innocent:

My thoughts exactly. ( :clap:) for beating me and I’m sure several others to the punch.

  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, newbloodmoon said:

My thoughts exactly. ( :clap:) for beating me and I’m sure several others to the punch.

In the most recent development, a damning inquiry found that some 216,000 children in France had been sexually abused by members of the clergy since 1950.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A made up religion run by people with imaginary positions of power. The pope is just a man, who cares what he thinks. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

This coming from a guy who is not allowed to have children because he was made to take a vow of celibacy.

Slightly worse: the celibacy thing is strictly under his control. God didn't make the celibacy rule, there's no theological problem. Frank's church is in full communion with churches that have married priests (e.g. so-called Eastern Rite Catholics), and there are Roman Catholic priests who have personal waivers (e.g. former Anglican priests who were admitted into Catholic priesthood despite being married). Also, permanent deacons (men who are ordained with the same sacrament as priests, but are not seeking to be priests) can be married.

So, once again, the hypocrisy is strong in this one.

And um, for grown-ups, a pet is way better than an invisible friend, if you know what I mean.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eldorado said:

Pope Francis has suggested people who choose to have pets over children are acting selfishly.

 

Nearly right.    Just got pets and children the wrong way around ;) 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Couple truths that have revealed themselves to me over this lifetime.

 

Perhaps the single most selfish act one can indulge in, is the willful creation of another human being.

and secondarily...

Once created, sending said child to catholic anything is playing pedophile roulette.

Edited by quiXilver
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about all the North American native kids they ripped away from their families and forced to attend church school, punish them for speaking their language, forced to wear western clothes and learn christianity. Then when these children died they were often buried in unmarked or mass graves. 
 

Breaking news: This just in, pots and kettles are still calling each other black.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then they can have more good little catholics to support the church.

Also, as was explained to me, the celibacy means there are no wives or kids to claim anything that might otherwise go to the church.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, weaselrunner said:

Then they can have more good little catholics to support the church.

Also, as was explained to me, the celibacy means there are no wives or kids to claim anything that might otherwise go to the church.

 

The way I understood the reason for celibacy was because of the Lutheran movement as he was offended by the orgies that priests had been involved in and the pope decided that he would snip that in the bud 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

The way I understood the reason for celibacy was because of the Lutheran movement as he was offended by the orgies that priests had been involved in and the pope decided that he would snip that in the bud 

More than anyone could possibly want to know about priests keeping it in their cassock:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

Yes, the Council of Trent (the 16th Century "anti-Protestant" or counter-reformation council) did affirm clerical celibacy, but the legislation they affirmed was at least as old as the First Lateran Council (12th Century).

Why? is hard when a policy involves uncounted decision makers distributed over centuries. It definitely is the case that the Western Church did not wish its clergy to be hereditary (sons "inheriting" the church offices of their ordained fathers), unlike the Levitical (biblical Jewish) priesthood which was hereditary. That's not quite the same concern as

8 hours ago, weaselrunner said:

Also, as was explained to me, the celibacy means there are no wives or kids to claim anything that might otherwise go to the church.

There are plenty of apostolic succession churches (= of the same age as the Roman Catholic Church) with married clergy and no problems to speak of in keeping church property and family property separate (as indeed, secular monarchies manage a parallel problem without any option of imposing celibacy on the sovreign or their near relatives).

In any case, concern with priestly sexual restraint, if not uniform policy on the subject, goes very far back.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 4:40 AM, Eldorado said:

"Today ... we see a form of selfishness," he told the audience. "We see that some people do not want to have a child.

So says the world's most famous virgin...

I think Saint Betty had it about right:

image.png.d31e7c9a5e0bf8534f0fbba29344174c.png 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2022 at 2:40 AM, Eldorado said:

Pope Francis has suggested people who choose to have pets over children are acting selfishly.

The Pope's comments came as he was discussing parenthood during a general audience at the Vatican in Rome.

"Today ... we see a form of selfishness," he told the audience. "We see that some people do not want to have a child.

"Sometimes they have one, and that's it, but they have dogs and cats that take the place of children.

"This may make people laugh, but it is a reality."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59884801

Of course because the catholic edict is "go forth and multiply".    I think in this modern life if someone decides they don't want children it is a good thing.  And it is no one's business why, not even the Pope's.  Not everyone who chooses not to have children has pets.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

So says the world's most famous virgin...

I think Saint Betty had it about right:

image.png.d31e7c9a5e0bf8534f0fbba29344174c.png 

I forgot that point, the Pope also chose not to have children.   How selfish!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

Of course because the catholic edict is "go forth and multiply".

Hi Desertrat

A few years ago the Catholic church in one part of the country was offering 10,000.00 dollars to members that would have children and increase the payout for each additional child born.

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I forgot that point, the Pope also chose not to have children.   How selfish!

Who needs children when half the world is on their knees for you.:lol:

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Of course because the catholic edict is "go forth and multiply".    I think in this modern life if someone decides they don't want children it is a good thing.  And it is no one's business why, not even the Pope's.  Not everyone who chooses not to have children has pets.

I thought we already did that pretty well.  We have what 7 billion people now?  What is enough?  You are right too, some people do not make good parents and some of them know it before they have kids and don't.  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a non religious /humanist perspective

If you value and love humans, and humanity, then of course its "better" to use your resources on humans than animals.

They don't have to be your own children.

You can support other children, close by or around the world 

While we need to reduce the birth rate for a little bit longer, in the long run current birthrates will cause the earth's population to fall and perhaps even cease to exist 

Ie on average every woman must have 2.2 children to sustain a stable population. Les than that and the population keeps falling until it ceases to exist 

currently the global fertility rate is 2.3 or just fractionally above replacement  level, and it has been falling for a long time, and is continuing to fall.

I speak as a person with 3 dogs and a cat who has, in their life time supported many many animals (eg we rescued 13 abandoned lambs and kept them until they died of old age ) and given to many animal welfare and rights groups 

I do see it as weird that peole treat animals like kids and spend so much money on them  There is something obscene about children starving to death around the world, while  wealthy people spend a fortune on their pets There is something psychologically wrong  (IMO) with a human who likes other animals more than human animals,  although it's quite natural to  have pets for companionship, protection, or for work.

 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2022 at 7:52 AM, jmccr8 said:

Hi Desertrat

A few years ago the Catholic church in one part of the country was offering 10,000.00 dollars to members that would have children and increase the payout for each additional child born.

Who needs children when half the world is on their knees for you.:lol:

Australia pays a similar bounty for children and gives an ongoing income to parents 

That's because our fertility rate is now way below replacement level.

Parents are urged to have 3 kids .

One for "mum", one for "dad", and one for the country  :)  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mr Walker said:

Australia pays a similar bounty for children and gives an ongoing income to parents 

That's because our fertility rate is now way below replacement level.

Parents are urged to have 3 kids .

One for "mum", one for "dad", and one for the country  :)  

If they had less strict immigration policies that would not be a problem.  But then, I wouldn't immigrate to Australia because of all the dangerous critters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

If they had less strict immigration policies that would not be a problem.  But then, I wouldn't immigrate to Australia because of all the dangerous critters.

IMO we have too lax  Immigration

Ie we bring in workers when Austrian workers are unemployed, in order to keep wages down 

We a e strict on refugees, who must have official refugee status and apply properly to enter  Eg a person is only  refugee until they reach the first country to offer them safety.

our isolation makes it hard for people to simply cross our borders from  their homeland,   and thus become a refugee

quote

Australia’s resettlement of 12,706 refugees during the 2018 calendar year saw the country ranked third overall for resettlement (behind Canada and USA) – second per capita and relative to national GDP (behind Canada).

As numbers vary considerably across different countries from year to year, it is more useful to look at these statistics over a 10-year period. Between January 2009 and December 2018, Australia recognised or resettled 180,790 refugees.

 

https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/2018-global-trends/

After that, they don't have automatic refugee status  or right of entry to any country and must apply officially for entrance,  but we take a lot of refugees and a lot of migrants given our population and resources.  Australia is always in the  top 2 or 3 countries that people want to migrate to but we simply don't have the resources to support or sustain more people,

Like all countries, we should actually be working towards limiting population growth, or even reducing population, until the worlds populations is  2 or 3 billion  Personally, i would like to see us take in more  true refugees  fleeing danger and persecution, and fewer economic migrants, but that is counter to modern economic theory 

Covid has temporarily stopped immigration but the govts. boosting the numbers again .

quote

In 2019–20, immigration to Australia came to a halt during the COVID-19 pandemic, which in turn saw a shrinkage of the Australian population for the first time since World War I. Net overseas migration has increased from 30,042 in 1992–93 to 178,582 persons in 2015–16.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Australia#:~:text=In 2019–20%2C immigration to,178%2C582 persons in 2015–16.

On a per capita basis we take far more migrants in, than America .Indeed, Australia's population consists of 35% migrants, compared to Americas 13 .5 %   Australia has the highest percentage  (of migrants) of any modern western country 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.