Birth control in less developed nations

[Kelt]

In the context of controlled urges and sex between only married couples what you said makes sense. But there are other concerns that complicate this strategy.

First of all, even in committed relationships the required abstinence of NFP will lead to hardship in many relationships as some on CAF have admitted to. Also, it does little to reduce the spread of STDs. Even when no abc is used there are a sizeable number of men who father children with multiple women and leave. So when these individuals fail at chastity doesn’t that show that the connection of sex with pregnancy is not an effective deterrent?

Also, rape is more prevalent in many African nations compared to the West. So much so that modern anti-rape devices were invented. If a sizeable amount of men are not restraining those urges than is it realistic to expect most couples to be chaste and practice nfp?

I’m not questioning your motives but I’m not sure how practical a lack of abc would be without first laying down the foundation of chastity. The sexual revolution genie is already out of the bottle and going back is not as simple as you suggest. Imo

I think you have hit a few nails on the head here. It is something of a modern Western luxury to have this philosophy of life and sex. People who have relative wealth and social/health security behind them can afford to risk the birth of another child. They have a sophistication in their philosophy and education that is probably not the same in other, more primitive cultures where men’s sexuality is an important part of their status.
And as you say, rape, promiscuity and adultery has been around as long as people have.
Just because I have used the pill all my life does not mean that I have been any more or less tempted to have sex with anyone other than my husband, than anyone throughout history. A good many men have brought up children of other men!! For the record, I haven’t felt tempted!!!
Then there’s the thorny problem of aids.

 

[Kelt]

I think you have hit a few nails on the head here. It is something of a modern Western luxury to have this philosophy of life and sex. People who have relative wealth and social/health security behind them can afford to risk the birth of another child. They have a sophistication in their philosophy and education that is probably not the same in other, more primitive cultures where men’s sexuality is an important part of their status.
And as you say, rape, promiscuity and adultery has been around as long as people have.
Just because I have used the pill all my life does not mean that I have been any more or less tempted to have sex with anyone other than my husband, than anyone throughout history. A good many men have brought up children of other men!! For the record, I haven’t felt tempted!!!
Then there’s the thorny problem of aids.

Two scenarios:

1. European/American woman:…oh no , I really didn’t want to have a 7th/8th child, especially as I had such a difficult pregnancy last time. There goes our holiday! Ah well, as long as I take it easy and go regularly to the clinic and keep an eye on my blood pressure, I’ll be OK. I trust my hospital and local doctor and health visitor to take care of me - and my health care is free/ I’ve got insurance. Now we’ll have to get a new washing machine as that is essential with this many children - I won’t be able to wash this much in that old fashioned machine! And at least most of the other children will be at school full time…oh it’ll be fun really!
2. Poor woman in many other parts of the world:…??

 

[Kelt]

I have been responding, but as a result, I am just saying bits and pieces of what I think, and what I believe the Catholic response to be.

First, Catholics believe that using abc is objectively a mortal sin, and the type of sin that nothing justifies. There is no circumstance which would render the use of abc moral. (I say objectively because it may be that the use of abc would be judged as a lesser offense in particular cases due to some aspect of that particular person’s use of it which mitigates that particular person’s guilt.)

Catholics sometimes forget that God’s laws are above our human concerns. For God, it is a much greater evil for a person to commit a mortal sin than to die, to suffer, to be poor, etc. The *worst possible thing *in God’s eyes is to commit a mortal sin.

Now, why then do Catholics consider it so important to help others? Not because of the state of the other, per se. It is important because God wants so very much for us to help others. We are His instruments, and it is our obligation to relieve the suffering of others. And of course, we cannot use immoral means to fill this obligation. We cannot sin ourselves, nor can we suggest or help or require that another sin in the hopes of alleviating suffering.

In God’s eyes, it is not at all a bad thing to be in need of help (unless we are in that situation due to some sin we ourselves have committed, in which case the problem is the sin, and not the condition). He loves those who are in need.

In God’s eyes, it is a *terrible *thing to neglect those who are in need. We often think that not helping those in need is not a big deal, esp since we give so much to the government and think that the government has all our charitable obligations in hand, but this is not the case.

God *wants us to be moved by the plight of others. *And He wants us to help them insofar as we are able. And He wants us to do so in a way that does not violate His law, even if that means that some will continue to suffer, or even if it means that people will continue to be born into a bad situation. In this case, we need to continue to give, not try using immoral means to alleviate the suffering.

It is important to avoid putting the alleviation of suffering so high in our priorities that we resort to immoral shortcuts. It is more important to avoid sin than it is to reduce suffering, even tho that may “feel” wrong to us. And it is a hard concept for many to understand—it took me a long time to get it.

If I was in a major crisis somewhere, looking for help from somewhere - anywhere…I would not understand your philosophy at all…I wouldn’t have time for the luxury to even consider it.
I don’t share your beliefs…but thank you for sharing them so that I have a better understanding.
However, how do we help these people? Who do you support to alleviate their problems?

 

[St_Francis]

Two scenarios:

1. European/American woman:…oh no , I really didn’t want to have a 7th/8th child, especially as I had such a difficult pregnancy last time. There goes our holiday! Ah well, as long as I take it easy and go regularly to the clinic and keep an eye on my blood pressure, I’ll be OK. I trust my hospital and local doctor and health visitor to take care of me - and my health care is free/ I’ve got insurance. Now we’ll have to get a new washing machine as that is essential with this many children - I won’t be able to wash this much in that old fashioned machine! And at least most of the other children will be at school full time…oh it’ll be fun really!
2. Poor woman in many other parts of the world:…??

Wow, let’s pick a totally unlikely example and act like it’s something hapoening all over Europe–women worred about their 7th or 8th child and getting a modern washing machine as opposed tk the old-fashioned one–a wringer machine?–when the reality is that Europe’s birthrates are below replacement rates and in some areas below recovery rate at this point, relying on immigration to support their pensioners, which will not work over the long-term…

When the actual reality is that in many parts of Europe as well as in the US, many young people cannot afford to marry, much less have children, due to length of education, low entry-level salaries, and high costs of living. In the US, we have student debt; in Europe, all those taxes to pay for the “free” health care and college education.

In England it’s not as bad as in other parts of Europe, but over the West, government-funded retirement, abc, feminism, and fears of population explosion caused a drastic reduction in birth rates, skewing society right around.

Now, in the US it is projected that we will have 2 people working for each retiree on Social Security starting in 11 years. In 1950 we had 15. In Europe, I am sure a similar if not worse situation will crop up very soon. While immigration will hide the reality for a while, the immigrants face the same problems Europeans do in having children and it is not long before their birth rates drop also, and immigrants too age and become pensioners.

 

[St_Francis]

If I was in a major crisis somewhere, looking for help from somewhere - anywhere…I would not understand your philosophy at all…I wouldn’t have time for the luxury to even consider it.

When one is in crisis is not the time to begin to consider alternative philosophies (altho a number of people do). The time to consider it is when things are calm.

How do we train military personnel? Do we throw them into battle and explain how to reload their weapons while the enemy is shooting at them? When does the military plan battles, after we’ve been invaded?

No, as a general rule, we “train” and prepare for emergencies *before *they come up. You have a certain type of training, you can pribably imagine what you would do or advise should you or someone close to you have an emergency.

OTOH, I have a different training. As a result, I probably would not come to you, nor you me, for advice in an emergency, just as a woman who wants to stay married doesn’t ask her twice-or thrice-divorced friends for advice in a marital emergency.

I don’t share your beliefs…but thank you for sharing them so that I have a better understanding.
However, how do we help these people? Who do you support to alleviate their problems?

As a Catholic, my first thought is: the way Catholics have always helped people! Send ij missionaries, religious brothers and sisters (nuns and monks to most) who educate and provide medical care, to teach people how to become their best selves.

Encourage small family businesses rather than sending in the multi-national jobs. Teach a cooperative society instead of one in which everyone views everyone else as an enemy. Base the society on a principle of kindness to others rather than milking the situation for whatever one can get.

A huge part of the problem in many of these areas is that they are on the one hand still recovering from having been colonized and having had that structure withdrawn without adequate preparation and often with bad philosopies

Edited to finish inadvertantly-submitted post…

and the influx of voracious transnational corporations.

 

[weller2]

Wow, let’s pick a totally unlikely example and act like it’s something hapoening all over Europe–women worred about their 7th or 8th child and getting a modern washing machine as opposed tk the old-fashioned one–a wringer machine?–when the reality is that Europe’s birthrates are below replacement rates and in some areas below recovery rate at this point, relying on immigration to support their pensioners, which will not work over the long-term…

Your worldview is at least 20 years out of date.

If Europe relies on immigration to support pensioners, how come that the graduate unemployment rate in Spain and Italy is 25%? Surely if there are not enough people to work (to support all these pensioners), then the native unemployment should be zero? The answer is of course that globalization and automation have destroyed so many jobs that we have an excess of work force, not a deficit. So as of 2014, Europe does not really need immigrants; in fact, extra-European immigrants are quickly becoming more of a liability than an asset. That this view is getting traction is apparent from the rise of anti-immigration political parties throughout Europe (e.g. UKIP in UK, FNP in France, SD in Sweden). If a this gets aired on a state TV before election, then I’d say that priorities are quickly changing.

Yes, societal aging is a big problem, but facing this problem is much better than alternatives. Note that the worst thing which is predicted to happen to Europe is prolonged recession. Big deal. We have already learned that increasing workforce by increasing immigration (which makes no sense due to automation anyway!) leads to social unrest and at least localized breakdown of society (note that those responsible are second generation immigrants). As for increasing the native birthrate, then first we have the jobs problem, second, we would be running into resource limitations anyway.

So I will gladly take recession, thanks.

When one is in crisis is not the time to begin to consider alternative philosophies (altho a number of people do). The time to consider it is when things are calm.

In other words, the car is already off the road, and is heading through the grass towards the cliff. Your philosophy dictates that braking would be unwise, because the ride through the grass is bumpy. Instead, the driver should continue pressing the acceleration pedal (hey, it worked for so long!) until the things calm down and maybe then consider braking. There is some logic to your position though, because things will indeed calm down once the car goes over the cliff and enters free fall…

How do we train military personnel? Do we throw them into battle and explain how to reload their weapons while the enemy is shooting at them? When does the military plan battles, after we’ve been invaded?

Funny you mention that. History of warfare is literally full of examples of armies entering battles with plans based on outdated assumptions. Victory is usually only possible after the planning is revised to include feedback from the actual confrontation with the enemy. A very instructive example was what happened during this exercise.

 

[St_Francis]

Your worldview is at least 20 years out of date.

If Europe relies on immigration to support pensioners, how come that the graduate unemployment rate in Spain and Italy is 25%? Surely if there are not enough people to work (to support all these pensioners), then the native unemployment should be zero?

This doesn’t follow. Jobs are not available *because *persions need to be paid; jobs arise because people buy stuff and services.If people are not buying stuff and services, then there are no jobs.

The answer is of course that globalization and automation have destroyed so many jobs that we have an excess of work force, not a deficit. So as of 2014, Europe does not really need immigrants; in fact, extra-European immigrants are quickly becoming more of a liability than an asset. That this view is getting traction is apparent from the rise of anti-immigration political parties throughout Europe (e.g. UKIP in UK, FNP in France, SD in Sweden). If a this gets aired on a state TV before election, then I’d say that priorities are quickly changing.

Well, it is a difficult situation because you are right and so am I. There are two problems. 1. the aging population which the government has promised to care for financially, *and *2. a declining number of jobs.

Yes, societal aging is a big problem, but facing this problem is much better than alternatives. Note that the worst thing which is predicted to happen to Europe is prolonged recession.

It may be that people who look solely at the unemployment numbers think that the worst that might happen is recession, bit demographers are far more pessimistic.

Big deal. We have already learned that increasing workforce by increasing immigration (which makes no sense due to automation anyway!) leads to social unrest and at least localized breakdown of society (note that those responsible are second generation immigrants).

I didn’t say I thought immigration was a good solution to the problem, but it hid the demographc problem for a while.

As for increasing the native birthrate, then first we have the jobs problem, second, we would be running into resource limitations anyway.

So I will gladly take recession, thanks.

Good luck with that.

In other words, the car is already off the road, and is heading through the grass towards the cliff. Your philosophy dictates that braking would be unwise, because the ride through the grass is bumpy. Instead, the driver should continue pressing the acceleration pedal (hey, it worked for so long!) until the things calm down and maybe then consider braking. There is some logic to your position though, because things will indeed calm down once the car goes over the cliff and enters free fall…

Which is why, as I mentioned, people do change philosophies midstream. I was not advocating sticking to a philosophy no matter what; I just wanted to politely point out to Kelt that altho she herself might not come to someone with my philosophy in an emergency, others might.

Funny you mention that. History of warfare is literally full of examples of armies entering battles with plans based on outdated assumptions. Victory is usually only possible after the planning is revised to include feedback from the actual confrontation with the enemy. A very instructive example was what happened during this exercise.

And here my point was that one sorts these things out in a time of calm in order to be prepared for the storm. At least one has some necessary elements in place, like soldiers who can aim, rather than none at all.

 

[St_Francis]

In the context of controlled urges and sex between only married couples what you said makes sense. But there are other concerns that complicate this strategy.

First of all, even in committed relationships the required abstinence of NFP will lead to hardship in many relationships as some on CAF have admitted to. Also, it does little to reduce the spread of STDs. Even when no abc is used there are a sizeable number of men who father children with multiple women and leave. So when these individuals fail at chastity doesn’t that show that the connection of sex with pregnancy is not an effective deterrent?

Also, rape is more prevalent in many African nations compared to the West. So much so that modern anti-rape devices were invented. If a sizeable amount of men are not restraining those urges than is it realistic to expect most couples to be chaste and practice nfp?

I’m not questioning your motives but I’m not sure how practical a lack of abc would be without first laying down the foundation of chastity. The sexual revolution genie is already out of the bottle and going back is not as simple as you suggest. Imo

My point is that adding more fuel to the fire is not going to help solve the problem. With abc, people will have *even less *motivation to change.

You cite two problems : rape and STDs. Rape is a criminal offense unlikely to be affected by
the absence of abc. The NRA offers a better solution for rape than does Planned Parenthood.

STDs are a different problem. There are two ways of dealing with that; the better way is abstinence. Notice that STDs became a much worse problem in the world after the introduction of abc, esp the Pill. Depo-Provera and the like will do nothing against STDs and may cause an increase in Africa, no?

 

[weller2]

Well, it is a difficult situation because you are right and so am I. There are two problems. 1. the aging population which the government has promised to care for financially, *and *2. a declining number of jobs.

Precisely. But in face of a declining number of jobs, population increase will only make matters worse, right?

It may be that people who look solely at the unemployment numbers think that the worst that might happen is recession, bit demographers are far more pessimistic.

It’s still more optimistic than the business-as-usual model hitting resource exhaustion.

 

[St_Francis]

I think you have hit a few nails on the head here. It is something of a modern Western luxury to have this philosophy of life and sex. People who have relative wealth and social/health security behind them can afford to risk the birth of another child.

And yet they have the lowest birth rates. Very odd.

They have a sophistication in their philosophy and education that is probably not the same in other, more primitive cultures where men’s sexuality is an important part of their status.

??? You must live in a university town and hang out only with professors. I don’t think that male sexuality is that much less a part of men’s status in this culturally declining West.

And as you say, rape, promiscuity and adultery has been around as long as people have.

Except for rape, which is a criminal offence, promiscuity and adultery (and pre-marital sex) have only increased since the advent of good abc.

Just because I have used the pill all my life does not mean that I have been any more or less tempted to have sex with anyone other than my husband, than anyone throughout history. A good many men have brought up children of other men!! For the record, I haven’t felt tempted!!!

Aren’t you fortunate. However, as we can see by the rapid rise of the Sexual Revolution, not everyone was as well-raised as you, or had the same gift of self-discipline in that area, or as nice a husband, or whatever.

Then there’s the thorny problem of aids.

Yes, which will certainly not be fixed by Depo-Provera and the like.

 

[Kelt]

??? You must live in a university town and hang out only with professors. I don’t think that male sexuality is that much less a part of men’s status in this culturally declining West.

.

Haha…no way! We farm in the hills! I ‘hang out’ a lot of my time with some pretty unreconstructed males!
But I have travelled and I have been involved in charities who work in the very poorest parts of the world and in different cultures. Sometimes the women have more say in a society than we might think - one mistake made early on by some charities was to give the money or resources to the men in a fairly primitive society ( I don’t feel I should feel guilty for using the word primitive, as in some ways they are. I don’t mean it in a derogatory way. I am also very aware that they have a lot to teach us ‘civilised’ westerners). When the women have been involved in the programmes, they have usually worked better. However, their attitudes to sex can still be a little less refined and far less ‘philosophised’ than it is for educated westerners. They really do cling to their status as it’s deeply engrained in their culture.
(I’m not sure what you mean by our culture declining?)

 

[St_Francis]

Precisely. But in face of a declining number of jobs, population increase will only make matters worse, right?

Not necessarily. Consider a desert island: no economy. Consider if a family washes up on it. Tiny economy. Consider if a very large ship runs aground there: suddenly, quite a lot if economy!

So under some circumstances, the economy will grow when people enter it. The problem is that the circumstances in Europe are not right for the economy to grow with increased population.

However, the comment I made about immigration was a side-comment tangental to the main point, which is that a sudden and drastic reduction in birth rates has resulted in serious problems for the nations in which it has occurred. Why do some believe that a sudden and drastic reduction in the birth rate in Africa will not lead to a similar situation?

It’s still more optimistic than the business-as-usual model hitting resource exhaustion.

You see two models and decide one is more “optimistic” than the other.

I see the same two models. One has been forecasting gloom and doom for at least 40 years. None of its predictions have come to pass.

The other I see unfolding right before my eyes, and it shows econmic collapse and severe hardship for a vulnerable section if our society. And this is in the US, where things are not as bad as I gather they are in Europe.

So, go for the more optimistic model. Time will tell…

 

[Kelt]

Wow, let’s pick a totally unlikely example and act like it’s something hapoening all over Europe–women worred about their 7th or 8th child and getting a modern washing machine as opposed tk the old-fashioned one–a wringer machine?–when the reality is that Europe’s birthrates are below replacement rates and in some areas below recovery rate at this point, relying on immigration to support their pensioners, which will not work over the long-term…

When the actual reality is that in many parts of Europe as well as in the US, many young people cannot afford to marry, much less have children, due to length of education, low entry-level salaries, and high costs of living. In the US, we have student debt; in Europe, all those taxes to pay for the “free” health care and college education.

In England it’s not as bad as in other parts of Europe, but over the West, government-funded retirement, abc, feminism, and fears of population explosion caused a drastic reduction in birth rates, skewing society right around.

Now, in the US it is projected that we will have 2 people working for each retiree on Social Security starting in 11 years. In 1950 we had 15. In Europe, I am sure a similar if not worse situation will crop up very soon. While immigration will hide the reality for a while, the immigrants face the same problems Europeans do in having children and it is not long before their birth rates drop also, and immigrants too age and become pensioners.

I think you have missed my point…when I compared the two women, I was comparing the one following Catholic philosophy in the west with one in Africa or some other dirt poor part of the world - where the consequence of having that 6th/7th child might be possible death or more poverty and less education for the kids.

 

[St_Francis]

Haha…no way! We farm in the hills! I ‘hang out’ a lot of my time with some pretty unreconstructed males!
But I have travelled and I have been involved in charities who work in the very poorest parts of the world and in different cultures. Sometimes the women have more say in a society than we might think - one mistake made early on by some charities was to give the money or resources to the men in a fairly primitive society ( I don’t feel I should feel guilty for using the word primitive, as in some ways they are. I don’t mean it in a derogatory way. I am also very aware that they have a lot to teach us ‘civilised’ westerners). When the women have been involved in the programmes, they have usually worked better. However, their attitudes to sex can still be a little less refined and far less ‘philosophised’ than it is for educated westerners. They really do cling to their status as it’s deeply engrained in their culture.

I think that even if things don’t work out as well when the men are those most involved that it is a mistake to put the women in their place to solve what is seen as a problem. What you will end up with is a society like that I understand exists among the poor in the UK and exists here in the US among the poor, esp. African-Americans. Lots of boys with nothing to do, no future to strive for.

(I’m not sure what you mean by our culture declining?)

You haven’t noticed?

ETA: Perhaps because of the differences between England and the US, it would not be as noticeable for you. But here, at any rate, definite decline.

 

[weller2]

Not necessarily. Consider a desert island: no economy. Consider if a family washes up on it. Tiny economy. Consider if a very large ship runs aground there: suddenly, quite a lot if economy!

No, suddenly mass starvation because the desert island has no resources needed to sustain the population / economy.

So under some circumstances, the economy will grow when people enter it. The problem is that the circumstances in Europe are not right for the economy to grow with increased population.

Not under “some” circumstances – these circumstances are pretty well defined: it is availability of untapped natural resources (especially energy). If you discount the service jobs (which are essentially moving money around without new value being created), the actual economy is based on tapping natural resources (renewable or not), converting these resources into a product, and selling that product. E.g. land->food->money,
rock->minerals->money, oil->energy->money, etc.

The reason for the success of capitalism (especially in America) was the availability of vast amounts of land (resources), and tapping these resources required people – and so, the economy would grow together with population. In 2014 the situation is that: (1) available resources have declined, so less “real” money can be produced – hence slumping GDP growth; and (2) increasing automation means that resources can be tapped (money produced) using less workers than before – hence unemployment.

However, the comment I made about immigration was a side-comment tangental to the main point, which is that a sudden and drastic reduction in birth rates has resulted in serious problems for the nations in which it has occurred. Why do some believe that a sudden and drastic reduction in the birth rate in Africa will not lead to a similar situation?

Africa is what happens if your policy gets implemented – a limited amount of natural resources (e.g. water) coupled with increased population means that the amount resources per person is going down.

Europe’s “problems” are only there because Europe is rich enough, and believes that caring for citizens is the duty of the state. If the state pensions and healthcare were simply abolished, the unproductive people would simply die off, and “problems” would disappear with them.

I see the same two models. One has been forecasting gloom and doom for at least 40 years. None of its predictions have come to pass.

You realize that the 2009 crisis was caused by speculation on the oil market which went haywire because the supply became inelastic, exactly as the peak oil theory predicted?

The other I see unfolding right before my eyes, and it shows econmic collapse and severe hardship for a vulnerable section if our society. And this is in the US, where things are not as bad as I gather they are in Europe.

You know, at this time of the year flights are quite cheap – come over here for two weeks and you will have an understanding of the issues beyond what the corporate propaganda is feeding you.

FYI – both myself and several people I know have visted US recently (last 5 years) – we all agree that Europe is in much better condition than you are.

 

[weller2]

But here [US], at any rate, definite decline.

Especially obvious if you compare infrastructure.

US infrastructure is decaying, Europe is still pouring concrete.

 

[Kelt]

I think that even if things don’t work out as well when the men are those most involved that it is a mistake to put the women in their place to solve what is seen as a problem. What you will end up with is a society like that I understand exists among the poor in the UK and exists here in the US among the poor, esp. African-Americans. Lots of boys with nothing to do, no future to strive for.

You haven’t noticed?

ETA: Perhaps because of the differences between England and the US, it would not be as noticeable for you. But here, at any rate, definite decline.

No, the women in some of those cultures are already the traditional organisers and generally the hard workers too. In these societies they are still very close to the hunter-gatherer and often war-like, original society that we all came from. Men’s roles were not to go out and till the land - they often sit round shooting the breeze while the women are doing physical work on the land - often with a baby strapped to their back. Originally they would have been discussing village politics (probably still are) or planning raids or a hunt. The mistake western charities made was to give - for example - a tractor to the men (after all, that’s traditionally man’s work here) they taught them how to use it and look after it…and went home, happy they could help out! What did the men do? Sometimes they sold the tractor or they went back to their meetings and watched the women trying to work out how to use it!
We made the mistake of assuming their culture had evolved exactly the same as ours.

As for culture, I think every generation thinks the new generation’s culture isn’t as good as the ol’ days. I think there’s a lot of dros out there but that’s because communications are so much easier…and that can also spread good stuff too. I think cities were always dens of vice and iniquity - we just didn’t see it so well. I AM embarrassed by some British youngsters badly behaving abroad though, but my parents probably thought the Beatles were the beginning of the end (- although my dad ended up playing their music on his piano!)

 

[Kelt]

Catholics sometimes forget that God’s laws are above our human concerns. For God, it is a much greater evil for a person to commit a mortal sin than to die, to suffer, to be poor, etc. The *worst possible thing *in God’s eyes is to commit a mortal sin.

It is important to avoid putting the alleviation of suffering so high in our priorities that we resort to immoral shortcuts. It is more important to avoid sin than it is to reduce suffering, even tho that may “feel” wrong to us. And it is a hard concept for many to understand—it took me a long time to get it.

These words sent a chill through me - because for one thing it sounds like an excuse to do nothing. Somehow suffering is almost made a virtue.
But mainly " it is more important to avoid sin than it is to avoid suffering."
I could say that’s easy to say, from the comfort of a secure and stable country. The luxury to philosophise over the subject of people suffering.
So the health workers who are out there working with the poor and disadvantaged are, according to your church philosophy, condemned… for handing out condoms to the HIV positive men, who don’t or won’t understand the concept of a life of abstinence, in order to avoid the spread of the disease…for handing out birth control to the woman who does not want to spend her life pregnant and who wants to feed and educate the ones she’s got…?

And good Catholics and some of the rest of us in the capitalist society in the west are OK living our ‘moral’ lifestyles? Even if that unsustainable lifestyle causes some of the problems for the poor in the world?
If we don’t look, we won’t see the slave labour behind our clothes and the pollution caused by the manufacture of our cars. But not finding out is no excuse, we’re all guilty of living a lifestyle that damages our planet and exploits poor people. BUT…is that a mortal sin? So we’re OK?

Out of interest, If mortal sin is to be avoided at all cost, why is killing allowed in war? The church supports a ‘just war’ I believe. Which involves allowing a mortal sin. (Some on this forum even believe in capital punishment)
Well I consider us to be fighting a war on disease and a war on poverty.
Quite apart from that, whatever our ideology, we are obliged to do something to help those suffering in the world - through our humanity, let alone religion. We can help indirectly…so what would you actually DO…NOW? We need action!

 

[Sarcelle]

Well that’s a Catholic website…what would I expect to hear?
Africa lurches from one crisis to another…first world countries spend millions and millions on trying to alleviate their sufferings. One cheap thing they can do for themselves even if if they have to put up with corrupt governments/poverty/war/drought and famine, or maybe especially because of those things… is regulate their population.

So what you are saying is that Africa would be better off if there were less Africans.

Is that what you are trying to say?

Africa would be better off if there were less war, less corruption. Any nation would be better off if there were less violence, less corruption.

Think about it, if more people practiced the Christian virtues, would the world be better off or not?

 

[St_Francis]

I feel like ther are more posts than I can answer right now… esp as I have to get a bunch if stuff done and prepare for going out of town this week… but I will do my best.

These words sent a chill through me - because for one thing it sounds like an excuse to do nothing. Somehow suffering is almost made a virtue.
But mainly " it is more important to avoid sin than it is to avoid suffering."

Well, yes, because sin can cause a soul to spend an eternity in Hell, while suffering here in this world is at least temporary and at best can be used for good.

But I meant avoid suffering to be one’s own suffering. We are still definitely called to alleviate the suffering of others as much as we possibly can, while avoiding committing or encouraging sinful acts. In fact, St Thomas Aquinas says someone is a jerk if he allows another to suffer on the grounds we are supposed to turn the other cheek (or words to that effect–he writes much more elegantly than I).

I could say that’s easy to say, from the comfort of a secure and stable country. The luxury to philosophise over the subject of people suffering.

You do realize that Catholic thinking has been around for 2000 years and was developed among people who faced the same sorts of circumstances as do the Africans? The children of the Christians died as much until the 1800s when we started having vaccines and the 1950s when we started having antibiotics. So the people who did the philosophizing knew what they were talking about.

So the health workers who are out there working with the poor and disadvantaged are, according to your church philosophy, condemned… for handing out condoms to the HIV positive men, who don’t or won’t understand the concept of a life of abstinence, in order to avoid the spread of the disease…for handing out birth control to the woman who does not want to spend her life pregnant and who wants to feed and educate the ones she’s got…?

I don’t know about the morality of condom use in a homosexual situation, but yes, the Church teaches that using artificial means is not the moral way to limit one’s family size.

And good Catholics and some of the rest of us in the capitalist society in the west are OK living our ‘moral’ lifestyles? Even if that unsustainable lifestyle causes some of the problems for the poor in the world?

Yes, it seems that England and the UK are perfectly fine with setting up windmills which require rare-earth minerals whose mining causes so much pollution in China, and we are communicating on devices made by poor people in China sleeping in shifts in rooms more like bunkhouses than anything else.

God put me here, so all I can do is to do my best.

If we don’t look, we won’t see the slave labour behind our clothes and the pollution caused by the manufacture of our cars. But not finding out is no excuse, we’re all guilty of living a lifestyle that damages our planet and exploits poor people. BUT…is that a mortal sin? So we’re OK?

Out of interest, If mortal sin is to be avoided at all cost, why is killing allowed in war? The church supports a ‘just war’ I believe. Which involves allowing a mortal sin. (Some on this forum even believe in capital punishment)

Yes, persons and peoples have the right to self-defense.

Well I consider us to be fighting a war on disease and a war on poverty.
Quite apart from that, whatever our ideology, we are obliged to do something to help those suffering in the world - through our humanity, let alone religion. We can help indirectly…so what would you actually DO…NOW? We need action!

Do you think it would be all right to kill every other child in Africa? That would solve the problem of too many children, would it not? Are you quite sure you would not advicate that?

Or what about just killing all the children who become ill. We could kill them painlessly, and so they would not suffer from their illness, and it would solve the problem, no?

I feel confident that you would agree with me that those options would be wrong. We both agree on that. Well, I happen to also think that the evils, spiritual as well as physical, of abc are such that distributing it would *also *be wrong.