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

[Thorns]

No. He said that married couples choosing pets over children lead to misery; not the misery and loneliness of a dead pet or children who never write or visit, but the misery and loneliness of a wasted life and an unfulfilled vocation. Procreation is an essential part to the married vocation, which is part of why infertility is so heavy a cross. Celibacy clearly isn’t meant for procreation, so I find your remark about single people a little ridiculous.

Why do people so desperately want to take this in the worst possible light? He is the Pope, for crying out loud.

Being single is an unfulfilled vocation, as we’re all called to be fruitful and multiply. “It is not good for man to be alone” so he gets pets to combat this loneliness. I understand the Pope was addressing those that choose pets in place of children, but the example he used applies to more than just them.

 

[LongingSoul]

The pope is implying that people without kids will be bitter and lonely in old age. That implication applies to single people and infeftile couples, obviously.

You need to read the article. The Pope specifically references “couples” and “married life” and of those, the* choice *not to have children or to substitute pets for children.

 

[Flame4]

My God, people, the Holy Father was aiming his speech at MARRIED COUPLES who CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE KIDS so they can LIVE A COMFY, ‘CAREFREE’ LIFE. He did NOT aim it at couples who **can’t **have kids, or single folks, or widowers, or people who have kids and pets, or (and this makes my head spin :whacky Pope Benedict.

It never ceases to amaze me how people try to put words in another person’s mouth, especially when that mouth is Pope Francis.

Wow, I can’t believe Pope Francis’ words could have been misinterpreted so badly… You’re right John!
I think by “bitterness and loneliness” the Pope is referring to the hardness of heart people experience by WILLINGLY choosing to love pets over children. We know that when we open ourselves to love, to life, we are blessed with the joy that comes with being open to the virtue of charity. The Pope doesn’t mean that just because people have children they won’t be lonely or bitter, or if they don’t for other reasons (such as infertility) they will be. He means that purposely being closed to children (when one’s vocation is marriage), for no good reason, is being closed to the love of God.

 

[Thorns]

You need to read the article. The Pope specifically references “couples” and “married life” and of those, the* choice *not to have children or to substitute pets for children.

The bottom line and common denominator that all these people have is they’ll be old and childless, and thus miserable. That is what his comment boils down to. But as was noted, even people who have fulfilled their vocations can still be bitter and lonely in old age. I don’t see the point. Yes its true people are more important than animals, but not for the reasons he gave. Yes having children to fulfill the vocation of marriage true and important, but again, not for the reasons he gave.

 

[Marie5890]

. Probably not the best example to use to promote the goodness of having children.

I agree with that.

And the idea that if you dont have kids you end up bitter and lonely in old age is just weak weak weak…

Being just as human and weak as we are, the Holy Father can make weak and silly statements too.

It’s things like this that make me pity anyone in the public eye. You are put so high up on a pedestal, that you are set up to have your own personal and human weaknesses shine in a public way.

 

[Flame4]

“Married life must be persevering, because otherwise love cannot go forward. Perseverance in love, in good times and in difficult times, when there are problems: problems with the children, economic problems,” the pope said.

This is a quote from the article. The Pope is showing us how important openness to life is in order to grow in love, or as is he out it, for love to go forward, to persevere.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t see the point.

Do you agree that pets should not be substitutes for children for the purpose of perfectly fertile couples to live “carefree”? If so, then you agree with this principle.

 

[MarcoPolo]

And how many is enough?

I presume however many children God calls a couple to have?

 

[ringil]

I agree with the Pope’s sentiments here.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Being single is an unfulfilled vocation, as we’re all called to be fruitful and multiply. “It is not good for man to be alone” so he gets pets to combat this loneliness. I understand the Pope was addressing those that choose pets in place of children, but the example he used applies to more than just them.

Genesis:

And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name. [20] And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: **but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. **

[28] And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. …]
[28] Increase and multiply: This is not a precept, as some Protestant controvertists would have it, but a blessing, rendering them fruitful; for God had said the same words to the fishes, and birds, (ver. 22) who were incapable of receiving a precept.

[bibledrb]Matthew 19[/bibledrb]
[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 7[/bibledrb]
Council of Trent Session XXIV Canon X:

CANON X.-If any one saith, that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.

You’re silly.

 

[LongingSoul]

The bottom line and common denominator that all these people have is they’ll be old and childless, and thus miserable. That is what his comment boils down to. But as was noted, even people who have fulfilled their vocations can still be bitter and lonely in old age. I don’t see the point. Yes its true people are more important than animals, but not for the reasons he gave. Yes having children to fulfill the vocation of marriage true and important, but again, not for the reasons he gave.

I don’t think you are properly acknowledging the natural law aspect of an attitude of *deliberate withholding * fecundity within marriage and the long term effects that has. For example there is a type of loneliness or grief that a person can experience in not having found a mate to share life with. But it is an altogether more soul destroying loneliness and grief to be in a marriage where love is deliberately withheld through someones selfishness. It’s like the marriage itself starved of its natural purpose, begins to suck the life out of its participants. Pope Francis is dead on that marriage has to be entered with a proper attitude for it not to destroy your very soul.

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Francis is dead on that marriage has to be entered with a proper attitude for it not to destroy your very soul.

With more and more already delaying their marriages well into their 30’s or 40’s, if ever, it seems this is becoming less and less of a problem, even without the animal issue.

 

[Marie5890]

I don’t think you are properly acknowledging the natural law aspect of an attitude of *deliberate withholding * fecundity within marriage and the long term effects that has. For example there is a type of loneliness or grief that a person can experience in not having found a mate to share life with. But it is an altogether more soul destroying loneliness and grief to be in a marriage where love is deliberately withheld through someones selfishness. It’s like the marriage itself starved of its natural purpose, begins to suck the life out of its participants. Pope Francis is dead on that marriage has to be entered with a proper attitude for it not to destroy your very soul.

Im not sure how this leads to the conclusion that people who dont have children (for whatever reason) will be, in their old age, “bitter and lonely”?

I know many where that simply is not the case.

 

[Marie5890]

Pope Francis is dead on that marriage has to be entered with a proper attitude for it** not to destroy your very soul**.

“Destroy your very soul”?

That sounds overly dramatic to me, in all honesty.

I would say not having faith is far worse than entering into marriage with an improper attitude.

 

[Nanni_amore]

I whole heartedly agree with our dear Pope Francis!

Advertisements and media for cat/dog food and paraphanalia boost pet inclusion and even substitution for human relationships. Personification of dogs and cats…

Personification

 

[LongingSoul]

Im not sure how this leads to the conclusion that people who dont have children (for whatever reason) will be, in their old age, “bitter and lonely”?

I know many where that simply is not the case.

He was targeting an attitude rather than a state of being and that’s a familiar distinction for us Catholics as we are taught to examine our consciences daily for the quality of our loving. Not be happy with the appearance of our acts like the Pharisees.

If a couple doesn’t have children because they have infertility, that is different to a couple who chooses to reject the fertile nature of their marriage. It’s as if a needy person knocks on the door of a poor man and asks for bread and is denied because he has no bread to give… as opposed to that needy person knocking on the door of a wealthy person asking for bread to be told I don’t want to give you any of my bread because I don’t feel like it.

In both instances the needy person remains hungry, but the first instance is still within the context of love. The second comes from selfish hatred.

 

[laircy]

This sounded pretty straightforward to me. I don’t see why people are taking it the wrong way. I know there are plenty of married couples contracept forever because “kids are too much work” or “we want to go on vacations” or whatever. And they get a pet as a REPLACEMENT for having kids. Seriously! This is a thing! This is what he’s speaking against!

 

[johnnyc176]

I’m wondering if the Holy Father saw what I saw recently. A dog dressed up and in a stroller.

 

[Nanni_amore]

This sounded pretty straightforward to me. I don’t see why people are taking it the wrong way. I know there are plenty of married couples contracept forever because “kids are too much work” or “we want to go on vacations” or whatever. And they get a pet as a REPLACEMENT for having kids. Seriously! This is a thing! This is what he’s speaking against!

I have heard MANY couples say the dog or cat IS their child. There is no shame whatsoever. This really makes me shudder when I know there are many children waiting for foster care or adoption.

The pet industry has really been building on this for decades. Too many people have bought it…hook, line and sinker.

 

[Thorns]

He was targeting an attitude rather than a state of being and that’s a familiar distinction for us Catholics as we are taught to examine our consciences daily for the quality of our loving. Not be happy with the appearance of our acts like the Pharisees.

If a couple doesn’t have children because they have infertility, that is different to a couple who chooses to reject the fertile nature of their marriage. It’s as if a needy person knocks on the door of a poor man and asks for bread and is denied because he has no bread to give… as opposed to that needy person knocking on the door of a wealthy person asking for bread to be told I don’t want to give you any of my bread because I don’t feel like it.

In both instances the needy person remains hungry, but the first instance is still within the context of love. The second comes from selfish hatred.

I know Pope Francis was speaking against the attitude, but the example he used doesn’t support that. In this example you’ve given, the bottom line is that the poor man remains hungry. The poor man isn’t anymore fed because he knocked on a house that genuinely had nothing to give. You’re defending Pope Francis’ example in saying that people who genuinely don’t have bread to give the poor man, somehow fed him better than someone who outright rejected him. Which we can see is not the case quite clearly. The man remains hungry because he didn’t receive bread one way or the other, not because of the attitudes of the people, in which the outcome is still the same despite the reactions.

An infertile couple won’t be bitter and lonely in old age since the Pope was not directing his comment at them, you say. A single person should be no less bitter and lonely since the Pope was not referring to this group, you claim. But somehow a married couple who, by their own choice, don’t have kids are the ones who are going to be the ones who end up bitter and lonely.