Pope Francis tells couples not to substitute dogs and cats for children

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Holly3278 said:
Pope Francis is exactly right! While there is nothing wrong with owning a cat or a dog or both, married couples should not substitute them for children.
Click to expand...
Point is that they shouldn’t substitute them for anything, be it a house or vacation or food or anything else.

Why blame only living creatures which St Francis, whose name the Pope chose, fought to protect?
 
Do we think St. Francis would elevate an animal at the expense of a human? Why don’t we see this instead as Pope Francis encouraging married couples to take a risk, say yes to the invitation of life, and open themselves up? Look, I like animals! Creation helped draw me closer to God when I was a child. If I could, I would run a rescue for that most despised lap-dog breed of all - the Chihuahua. (Can’t help it, I like small, cute dogs. Don’t you say anything against my little doggie. 😉 ) I rode horses. I like cats. Animals are intriguing. I really don’t think Pope Francis is saying anything against animals here. I think he’s trying to emphasize vigilance so we don’t become animals ourselves.
 
ProVobis said:
Point is that they shouldn’t substitute them for anything, be it a house or vacation or food or anything else.

Why blame only living creatures which St Francis, whose name the Pope chose, fought to protect?
Click to expand...
He didn’t “blame” pets; he blamed the couples. The real question is why blame the pope instead of the erring sheep he’s trying to correct?
 
Seraphignatius said:
He didn’t “blame” pets; he blamed the couples. The real question is why blame the pope instead of the erring sheep he’s trying to correct?
Click to expand...
Maybe he didn’t “blame” pets but it sounds as if he singled them out. Why not cars, careers demanding long hours, extravagant spending on vacations and other things, heavy social life and the like? I suggest that they get in the way of having kids much more than pets. Man has had animals since the beginning of civilization; yet that has never stopped him from procreating before.
 
Pope Francis has addresses other monetary issues. Often. We cannot look at what the Holy Father ( or any minister) doesn’t say, as not everything can be addressed all the time.

I do not see why anyone objects to the statements. It is a simple correlation to the Catechism that if one should never give an animal the affection due people, that one should not give a pet the affection due children. Pets are great. Children are better. Both are also pretty cool. However, pets are not your “children.”

CCC 2418 “One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe he didn’t “blame” pets but it sounds as if he singled them out. Why not cars, careers demanding long hours, extravagant spending on vacations and other things, heavy social life and the like? I suggest that they get in the way of having kids much more than pets. Man has had animals since the beginning of civilization; yet that has never stopped him from procreating before.
Click to expand...
It is more rare that people use a car as a substitute for the affections meant for ones children; it is commonplace for pets to be used in such a fashion. BTW he did mention vacations, villas in the country, and such also.
 
Seraphignatius said:
It is more rare that people use a car as a substitute for the affections meant for ones children; it is commonplace for pets to be used in such a fashion. BTW he did mention vacations, villas in the country, and such also.
Click to expand...
How about more women in the workplace? I think that’s been the biggest change since the 50’s.
 
ProVobis said:
How about more women in the workplace? I think that’s been the biggest change since the 50’s.
Click to expand...
The more important change would be the near universal acceptance to contraception. Is your argument that the pope wasn’t using his homily time as efficiently as he could have?
 
Seraphignatius said:
The more important change would be the near universal acceptance to contraception. Is your argument that the pope wasn’t using his homily time as efficiently as he could have?
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s not so much as his homily time but what the media (as well as the translators) have decided to tune in or out. I myself can’t fathom a Pope, who took his name after St. Francis, could be so opposed to dogs and cats.

And I’m done with the thread. It’s going nowhere.
 
ProVobis said:
Maybe it’s not so much as his homily time but what the media (as well as the translators) have decided to tune in or out. I myself can’t fathom a Pope, who took his name after St. Francis, could be so opposed to dogs and cats. And I’m done with the thread. It’s going nowhere.
Click to expand...
He isn’t. He is opposed to people misusing dogs and cats as substitutes for children. 🙂
I thought this had beed addressed earlier in the thread.
 
We raised two beautiful daughters. Now its time for two Brittany puppies. 🙂
 
ProVobis said:
Why blame only living creatures which St Francis, whose name the Pope chose, fought to protect?
Click to expand...
The Pope did not say pets are the only thing people substitute for kids—though the pet-substitue-so-we-can-live-it-up mentality may be growing in prevalence and is worth addressing.
 
MarcoPolo said:
The Pope did not say pets are the only thing people substitute for kids—though the pet-substitue-so-we-can-live-it-up mentality may be growing in prevalence and is worth addressing.
Click to expand...
What about for people who contracept so they can live it up and dont have any pets?

What about for women who substitute having children for their careers as Pro mentioned? Will he advise against women having a job?

The bottom line is to have children, regardless of the reasons. IMO the Pope doesnt have to try and justify it. Be just as clear as the teaching. Once you start giving reasons, people can reason and justify around that to the point where the statement loses its meaning.
 
MarcoPolo said:
*Pope Francis on Monday (June 2) warned married couples against substituting cats and dogs for children — a move that he said leads to the “bitterness of loneliness” in old age.

He reminded the couples, whose marriages ranged from 25 to 60 years, of the need for faithfulness, perseverance and fertility in maintaining a Christian marriage.

But he went a step further and strongly criticized those couples who choose not to have children, saying they had been influenced by a culture of “well-being” that says life is better without kids.

“You can go explore the world, go on holiday, you can have a villa in the countryside, you can be carefree,” the pope said.

“It might be better — more comfortable — to have a dog, two cats, and the love goes to the two cats and the dog. Is this true or not? Have you seen it?

“Then, in the end this marriage comes to old age in solitude, with the bitterness of loneliness.”*Washington Post
Click to expand...
Thanks for the news, thread.🙂
 
I’m not crazy about Pope Francis.

With that being said, he’s right about ending up in lonely old age.

Of course, I may be an extreme case.

I married a man, who got sick the year after our marriage. He was ill all during our marriage, and I had a lot of care taking to do.

We never had kids because he was sterile. (Found this out after he went to the fertility doctor.)

Never adopted, because he didn’t want to. Besides, I had enough to do.

His brother never had kids. My sister and brother never had kids. We never had nieces and nephews. Oh well.

After 26 years of marriage, my poor husband died-unexpectadly! He was more the chronic illness type and had no terminal illness at the time…long story!

I had stage 3c ovarian cancer, mestastesizing into stage 4. Bleh!:rolleyes: Had to leave my beloved life in Albany and move to dreary New Mexico because I was lucky enough to have in-laws who said they would take care of me! But what if I hadn’t had them? Ohhhhhh.

Of course, I’ve known parents whose children have given them nothing but grief in their old age. So what can I say? Ever since Adam and Eve took from the tree of “Good and Evil.” evil has been released into the word. That is why we have good luck and bad luck. Everything is random: I don’t believe there is a Plan.

I believe Gods only plan is for us to lean on Him as hard as we can during the bad times. And not to forget Him when times are good. Sometimes you just have bad luck in life. Just keep leaning!
:D:)😛
 
I think a lot of people end up lonely in old age. It’s a pretty difficult time no what circumstances you are in. But I agree it’s tougher on single people (and maybe also unhappily married people :o). I don’t have kids; am very thankful for my cousins and their kids.

On a related subject, wasn’t it the Blessing of the Animals recently?

Dear Pope Francis,

Here’s hoping you are having a great and very orthodox Synod.

Best wishes!
Jack (left)
Chloe (right)
 
TCEL said:
In an age-group where marriage is on tenuous ground, real communion with other people is fractured, and we’re told the answer is “SEX AND CAREER!”, it’s not unusual for people to opt for animals instead of people. There’s a deeper reality of broken humanity here that he’s talking about. Priorities, like someone else said. Do we really think this is a diss against anything except selfishness?
Click to expand...
But if these married couples are.really guilty of selfishness, does having kids cure them of that selfishness?

It is possible to be a.selfish parent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top