Is the Pope a Contradiction or a Paradox?

[Lost_Wanderer]

I hope this won’t get removed like all the other threads discussing the Pope’s recent rabbit remarks. However, I think the Pope is painting a much more complex picture than what either conservative or secular interpreters are saying.

On the one hand, it’s been said that he praises the large families that he’s seen here in my country and in Sri Lanka. But on the other hand, I don’t think it counters his own statements about responsible parenthood.

For me, I lean towards the idea that he represents a paradox. He’s often cited lamenting the depopulation of countries like in Italy. In light of that experience, I can see why he would feel the contrast in large Southeast Asian families to be a relief.

What I’m uncomfortable with are the defenders of large families who suddenly have the impression that the Holy Father is ‘apologizing’ for his remarks and think that all is well in this so-called Catholic bastion of Asia (where big families are viewed as the ‘source’ of future missionary work).

Last night, I was talking with my friends over this subject and he spoke to me of his housekeeper. The woman hailed from a village where the average family size did not shrink below five children. That is just one of the many stories you will hear growing up as a Filipino. For me, I’ve grown skeptical of the stats when it’s a drastically different experience witnessing first-hand the poverty and overpopulation going side by side.

Despite that, I still understand the Pope’s sentiments towards society’s apparent ‘need’ for large families. Part of it is tied to his critique of economic models that valued profit over persons.

However, I want to take a look at the other side of the coin. If more people should be cherished over profit, with what should I give these people? I think this is where his ‘rabbit’ comments on responsible parenthood make his entire position more of a paradox. You need something like profit to really care for other people. Parents need more than basic food, clothing, and shelter to raise children into the full human beings they are meant to be, right?

I can even say that extends to management and business. Suppose someone says large families could mean more employees. It could mean a more vibrant society. But from my own experience, just because you have more kids doesn’t mean I’ll hire your son/daughter over the one with the smaller family.

This is my problem with the whole family numbers dynamic (and with people who defend large families in general). I have yet to meet someone from a large family boast the same skill that would actually help men and women in my position, let alone climb higher up and become someone whose leadership I can trust! I am not being arrogant here. It’s just the fact that for the most part, people who come from larger families often end up doing blue-collar work. I won’t be surprised that it might be different if those from large families on these boards would claim a different experience. But I ask you, where do you live? How is your country’s economy in comparison to mine?

Here is where I most deeply offended by those who think their experience with supposedly ‘happy big families’ somehow nullifies the poverty I’ve seen. I don’t think his Holiness is blind to that either. What I do think is that his understanding of differeing economic climates is far more complicated, if no paradoxical compared to what both Left and Right have understood so far.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I don’t think it is contradictory to say that having far more children than you can support is bad while at the same time having few or no kids is also bad.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I don’t think it is contradictory to say that having far more children than you can support is bad while at the same time having few or no kids is also bad.

Unfortunately, when the dialogues and the narratives are drowned by the cliched bawling of partisan politicizers, the idea of a Third Way or middle ground isn’t talked about much.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

However, I want to take a look at the other side of the coin. If more people should be cherished over profit, with what should I give these people? I think this is where his ‘rabbit’ comments on responsible parenthood make his entire position more of a paradox. You need something like profit to really care for other people. Parents need more than basic food, clothing, and shelter to raise children into the full human beings they are meant to be, right?

Well, in some ways it is relative. What does it mean to “really care for other people”? Also, is it really necessary to have more than basic food, clothing, etc.? When your needs are met, you are more free to pursue knowledge, truth, the First Cause (God), etc. which I’m sure everyone would say is the greatest good. So what does it mean to be a “full human being”? Is it returning back into the cycle that is focused on economics? Ie. One has to be economically successful to be a “full human being”? Or is it coming to fullness in a different way?

Also, I did read everything but there were quite a few parts that seemed convoluted and unclear (for me, anyway) so I can’t reply to those. No offense intended.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Well, in some ways it is relative. What does it mean to “really care for other people”? Also, is it really necessary to have more than basic food, clothing, etc.? When your needs are met, you are more free to pursue knowledge, truth, the First Cause (God), etc. which I’m sure everyone would say is the greatest good. So what does it mean to be a “full human being”? Is it returning back into the cycle that is focused on economics? Ie. One has to be economically successful to be a “full human being”? Or is it coming to fullness in a different way?

Also, I did read everything but there were quite a few parts that seemed convoluted and unclear (for me, anyway) so I can’t reply to those. No offense intended.

I’m quite open to such relativity but the problem is, not everyone is. I for one am content to be up here and keep moving up. Do I wish it for everyone? Hm, can’t say cuz I’d rather live my own life to be frank.

You could also say that personal discernment would be critical at this point (whether you’re a single worker or a soon-to-be-parent).

Alas, most people I’ve talked about on these boards tend to hold to really uncharitable absolutes and try to raise it as the standard for society. Most often it’s “You have much and therefore, give those large families in the villages everything you have without anything in return! LARGE FAMILIES AND POVERTY FTW!!!”

There was once a time when I feared the Pope leaned towards such thinking but now, I’m actually glad to be uncertain about it in light of his recent social commentary. I think a part of the problem is that too many confuse their personal calling with that of others. Some people who feel the joy of a simpler life think it’s for everyone and the same can be said for the extravagant, living-the-dream kind of folk. It’s not surprising that class struggle often results because people are dissatisfied with the lot that others claim to be is best for them.

Maybe instead of calling each other greedy or lazy, we need to talk to ourselves about it more and see if we’re really comfortable with the conversation.

 

[oneofmany]

I am sure the Pope did not realize what a can of worms he opened when he said that. Big families are tired of being looked at as some sort of out of touch people with the times when they only go over 3 kids. At least in America. The over population talk and you are not responsible if you have more than 2 kids to replace you and your husband talk. I can see large families are tired of hearing it. Plus, we always hear----“they must be Catholic”----when someone sees a large family. Now the Pope says something on that line?

My husband came from a large family and he and all of his siblings went through college by paying their own way and all have good jobs. It does not follow that large families are a drain on society.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I am sure the Pope did not realize what a can of worms he opened when he said that.

With all due respect, I’m happy he did and I’m quite confident that his thoughts go beyond the one-sided understanding of both the offended and the ecstatic.

Big families are tired of being looked at as some sort of out of touch people with the times when they only go over 3 kids. At least in America.

Keyword: America.

When I hear the Pope talk about poverty, it’s only quite recently that it’s starting to look like he’s seeing it from a worldwide scale (not just through the eyes of a partisan). Developed countries like America are often the homelands of people who claim one can have a large family and still not suffer poverty.

On the other hand, I’ve feel like this same camp underestimates the sheer power of imagery when a one encounters an actual slum, filled to the brim with families and every nasty stereotype levied towards the poor becomes increasingly justified.

My husband came from a large family and he and all of his siblings went through college by paying their own way and all have good jobs. It does not follow that large families are a drain on society.

The problem is, as I’ve always said, your family experience in the Land of the Free is not always the same as that of Lupang Sinilangan. The Pope, being well-traveled, has likely seen this contrast and thinks that much of it really boils down to the ills in the global economy. Let’s not limit ourselves to what political parties say. Because on a worldwide scale, you don’t have to be His Holiness to realize how stark the difference is between entire countries.

 

[oneofmany]

It’s true poverty in our country is a whole lot different than the slums of really poor countries. For that reason some think the church is very evil not allowing couples to take birth control pills to limit their families. Those living in slums without enough to eat.

It’s becomes a very hard bridge to cross to convince some people the church really cares about the very poor. I am not saying that is the right attitude, but a lot of people have it.

 

[petitfleur]

Lost Wanderer, I am thrilled you posted and very interested in your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I don’t have time to contribute but going to collect somt thought and try to add to the conversation later.

 

[St_Francis]

One thing I wish were available is sort if like a temporary time in a monastery or convent–so it was clear to all that the person coming in was doing so only temporarily, but that would be allowed. Then there could be a steady flow of people coming in and helping those who have vocations to the religious life. The temporary people could help work in those slums! Help teach the children, help the ones who were sick or just had babies, etc.

When you get right down to it, if we all shared enough, then so much could happen, but it’s very hard to share as much as is needed when one has to work full-time and/or care for one’s family, etc. But if a certain period of one’s life could be fully dedicated to helping, then, well, first, a lot of people from developed nations could help people in less-developed nations, but secondly, it would be good for everyone all around.

And the thing is, when we see people as people-oriented resources rather than as economic units, then we can think, if there are more people, then there are more volunteers, more religous, more priests… but in the US, if a family has only 1 or 2 children, the parents pribably won’t raise them to be nuns, monks, or priests.

 

[josethekke]

I hope this won’t get removed like all the other threads discussing the Pope’s recent rabbit remarks. However, I think the Pope is painting a much more complex picture than what either conservative or secular interpreters are saying.

On the one hand, it’s been said that he praises the large families that he’s seen here in my country and in Sri Lanka. But on the other hand, I don’t think it counters his own statements about responsible parenthood.

For me, I lean towards the idea that he represents a paradox. He’s often cited lamenting the depopulation of countries like in Italy. In light of that experience, I can see why he would feel the contrast in large Southeast Asian families to be a relief.

What I’m uncomfortable with are the defenders of large families who suddenly have the impression that the Holy Father is ‘apologizing’ for his remarks and think that all is well in this so-called Catholic bastion of Asia (where big families are viewed as the ‘source’ of future missionary work).

Last night, I was talking with my friends over this subject and he spoke to me of his housekeeper. The woman hailed from a village where the average family size did not shrink below five children. That is just one of the many stories you will hear growing up as a Filipino. For me, I’ve grown skeptical of the stats when it’s a drastically different experience witnessing first-hand the poverty and overpopulation going side by side.

Despite that, I still understand the Pope’s sentiments towards society’s apparent ‘need’ for large families. Part of it is tied to his critique of economic models that valued profit over persons.

However, I want to take a look at the other side of the coin. If more people should be cherished over profit, with what should I give these people? I think this is where his ‘rabbit’ comments on responsible parenthood make his entire position more of a paradox. You need something like profit to really care for other people. Parents need more than basic food, clothing, and shelter to raise children into the full human beings they are meant to be, right?

I can even say that extends to management and business. Suppose someone says large families could mean more employees. It could mean a more vibrant society. But from my own experience, just because you have more kids doesn’t mean I’ll hire your son/daughter over the one with the smaller family.

This is my problem with the whole family numbers dynamic (and with people who defend large families in general). I have yet to meet someone from a large family boast the same skill that would actually help men and women in my position, let alone climb higher up and become someone whose leadership I can trust! I am not being arrogant here. It’s just the fact that for the most part, people who come from larger families often end up doing blue-collar work. I won’t be surprised that it might be different if those from large families on these boards would claim a different experience. But I ask you, where do you live? How is your country’s economy in comparison to mine?

Here is where I most deeply offended by those who think their experience with supposedly ‘happy big families’ somehow nullifies the poverty I’ve seen. I don’t think his Holiness is blind to that either. What I do think is that his understanding of differeing economic climates is far more complicated, if no paradoxical compared to what both Left and Right have understood so far.

 

[josethekke]

I Think Pope is thinking and saying in the right direction