The Pope's statements on the childless

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

TheIndianGirl

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
1,595
1,152
113
#1
Pope Francis slams "selfish" couples who are childless AND those who have only one child, but instead devote their time/money to pets. He appears to suggest that childless couples, including those who are unable to have children (for example, due to medical reasons), should adopt.

Any thoughts?
What do you think he means by being childless "takes away our humanity"?
Should all childless couples adopt?

https://nypost.com/2022/01/05/pope-francis-slams-couples-who-have-pets-instead-of-kids/
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220105-having-pets-not-kids-robs-us-of-humanity-pope

First, note that the Pope's statements are geared more towards couples, not singles, but I presume he would believe people remaining single are selfish as well as they are likewise not getting married/having children. But, maybe not, since the Bible says it is okay to remain single.

I believe the Pope is misled in his assumption that when a childless couple has pets, they are somehow choosing having pets over children. In many cases, couples want both children AND pets, however if there are no children in the picture the couples have extra time/money to spend on the pets. If couples do not have children, for whatever reason, it is because they are unable to/ or do not want (more) kids period, not because they are choosing pets over kids.

The other thing is, pets are basically like children as anyone with pets knows, so the bond between owner and pet is sometimes like parent and child. In that sense, a pets can kind of take the place of a young child, however this is a natural occurrence not something that people can voluntarily choose.
 

GiveThanks

God Will Make A Way
Dec 6, 2020
385
309
63
#2
Well i personally dont believe that pets are like children, but then neither do i understand the relationship between people and their pets.

Whether someone has or do not have kids of their own, it would be good if everyone could adopt until their is not one single unwanted child left in state care.

However some persons are or would make terrible parents, and as such its best that they didnt have or adopt any.

What the pope should do is encourage such people to help out the less fortunate with their extra cash. Yes, help out the parents struggling to make two ends meet. Or help out the kid who has expensive medical bills and so on.

And there are the childless couples who are struggling financially as it is, so Im not seeing how they could adopt.
 

Gideon300

Well-known member
Mar 18, 2021
2,033
1,341
113
#3
Pope Francis slams "selfish" couples who are childless AND those who have only one child, but instead devote their time/money to pets. He appears to suggest that childless couples, including those who are unable to have children (for example, due to medical reasons), should adopt.

Any thoughts?
What do you think he means by being childless "takes away our humanity"?
Should all childless couples adopt?

https://nypost.com/2022/01/05/pope-francis-slams-couples-who-have-pets-instead-of-kids/
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220105-having-pets-not-kids-robs-us-of-humanity-pope

First, note that the Pope's statements are geared more towards couples, not singles, but I presume he would believe people remaining single are selfish as well as they are likewise not getting married/having children. But, maybe not, since the Bible says it is okay to remain single.

I believe the Pope is misled in his assumption that when a childless couple has pets, they are somehow choosing having pets over children. In many cases, couples want both children AND pets, however if there are no children in the picture the couples have extra time/money to spend on the pets. If couples do not have children, for whatever reason, it is because they are unable to/ or do not want (more) kids period, not because they are choosing pets over kids.

The other thing is, pets are basically like children as anyone with pets knows, so the bond between owner and pet is sometimes like parent and child. In that sense, a pets can kind of take the place of a young child, however this is a natural occurrence not something that people can voluntarily choose.
Children are hard work. I've spoken to couples who don't want kids and others who regret having a family. I think it's a sign of the increasing selfishness of modern society. Financial pressures do not help. Not so long ago, children were an asset, helping in the home, on the farm or going to work quite young to help out. Now, not so much.

Raising a family in the Western world can be costly, with education being a great expense. I raised four children. The high school wanted $800.00 for an excursion. I laughed at them. It may be OK for families with one child, but four?

I have to say I don't get the obsession with pets. I'm a cat person, but for sure mine is not a fur baby. I know someone who spent over $10,000 on medical treatment for an older dog. I have to wonder about that financial priority.

It's a crazy world. Older women are having IVF treatment to have a baby. Women are having a family much later in life. I wonder why some people have children at all. The parents are glued to their phones while the child tries to get their attention. I don't agree with the pope. Some people are too selfish to have a family.
 

GiveThanks

God Will Make A Way
Dec 6, 2020
385
309
63
#4
Children are hard work. I've spoken to couples who don't want kids and others who regret having a family. I think it's a sign of the increasing selfishness of modern society. Financial pressures do not help. Not so long ago, children were an asset, helping in the home, on the farm or going to work quite young to help out. Now, not so much.

Raising a family in the Western world can be costly, with education being a great expense. I raised four children. The high school wanted $800.00 for an excursion. I laughed at them. It may be OK for families with one child, but four?

I have to say I don't get the obsession with pets. I'm a cat person, but for sure mine is not a fur baby. I know someone who spent over $10,000 on medical treatment for an older dog. I have to wonder about that financial priority.

It's a crazy world. Older women are having IVF treatment to have a baby. Women are having a family much later in life. I wonder why some people have children at all. The parents are glued to their phones while the child tries to get their attention. I don't agree with the pope. Some people are too selfish to have a family.
I think its Ok for some people to have children later in life when their finances are in order and they are more mature in their personalities. Its better for the child.
 

Aerials1978

Well-known member
Dec 10, 2019
1,378
785
113
#5
One of the first commandments God gave to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiple. I can see where Pope Francis is getting his point of view from, but he’s not God. I don’t always understand the relationship some people have with their pets. It’s almost like to some, animals have a higher value than humans. This is all culturally induced. Thanks Disney.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
6,701
3,071
113
#7
Pope Francis slams "selfish" couples who are childless AND those who have only one child, but instead devote their time/money to pets. He appears to suggest that childless couples, including those who are unable to have children (for example, due to medical reasons), should adopt.

Any thoughts?
What do you think he means by being childless "takes away our humanity"?
Should all childless couples adopt?

https://nypost.com/2022/01/05/pope-francis-slams-couples-who-have-pets-instead-of-kids/
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220105-having-pets-not-kids-robs-us-of-humanity-pope

First, note that the Pope's statements are geared more towards couples, not singles, but I presume he would believe people remaining single are selfish as well as they are likewise not getting married/having children. But, maybe not, since the Bible says it is okay to remain single.

I believe the Pope is misled in his assumption that when a childless couple has pets, they are somehow choosing having pets over children. In many cases, couples want both children AND pets, however if there are no children in the picture the couples have extra time/money to spend on the pets. If couples do not have children, for whatever reason, it is because they are unable to/ or do not want (more) kids period, not because they are choosing pets over kids.

The other thing is, pets are basically like children as anyone with pets knows, so the bond between owner and pet is sometimes like parent and child. In that sense, a pets can kind of take the place of a young child, however this is a natural occurrence not something that people can voluntarily choose.
The pope is not a Christian.. Christians should never quote him as an authority..
 

TheIndianGirl

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
1,595
1,152
113
#8
Children are hard work. I've spoken to couples who don't want kids and others who regret having a family. I think it's a sign of the increasing selfishness of modern society. Financial pressures do not help. Not so long ago, children were an asset, helping in the home, on the farm or going to work quite young to help out. Now, not so much.

Raising a family in the Western world can be costly, with education being a great expense. I raised four children. The high school wanted $800.00 for an excursion. I laughed at them. It may be OK for families with one child, but four?

I have to say I don't get the obsession with pets. I'm a cat person, but for sure mine is not a fur baby. I know someone who spent over $10,000 on medical treatment for an older dog. I have to wonder about that financial priority.

It's a crazy world. Older women are having IVF treatment to have a baby. Women are having a family much later in life. I wonder why some people have children at all. The parents are glued to their phones while the child tries to get their attention. I don't agree with the pope. Some people are too selfish to have a family.
I think selfishness is a trait that is found in all/most people, including singles, the marrieds, those with children, etc. My view is that being childless does not automatically mean one is selfish; it depends on their reasons (such as they are unable to afford, a spouse is unstable (has an addiction, for example), lack of trust in a relationship, etc.). Nowadays it takes two incomes to raise a family; one income may be doable in some places living paycheck to paycheck and incurring some debt along the way. These reasons I think are valid. Possibly selfish reasons would include a couple who has the means the raise a child, are mentally sound, and are in a stable relationship, etc. however they would prefer to spend money on themselves than on a child. This is basically the only selfish reason I can think of. If a couple thinks they won't be able to handle raising a child because of the weight of the task or think they do not have the qualities to be a good parent, I don't think this is a selfish reason as they mentally not ready. Similarly being a parent does not mean he/she is selfless. While it is true that even the worst of parents would give his/her child bread instead of a rock if the child asked for food, there are a lot of people who should not be parents.
 

TheIndianGirl

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
1,595
1,152
113
#9
There are a lot of orphans who need parents and homes.
Nowadays, there are additional risks involved with adoption because most all adoptions are open-adoptions. Not only are the prospective parents adopting a child, they are also adopting the extended family and even the biological parents. Kids are allowed to contact their biological parents at 18. I can understand if people are hesitant to adopt because of these reasons. It's not like the Silars Marner story where the elderly man found a baby at the doorstep.
 

Genipher

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2019
1,326
1,028
113
#10
The other thing is, pets are basically like children as anyone with pets knows, so the bond between owner and pet is sometimes like parent and child. In that sense, a pets can kind of take the place of a young child, however this is a natural occurrence not something that people can voluntarily choose.
Um, no.

I've got kids and I've got pets and my pets are nothing like my children.

For one, pets are easier to train. :LOL:

My cats live outside. My dogs often spend the night outdoors, chasing off raccoons and invisible intruders. If I was to toss my kids outside all night, I'd have CPS at my door.

My children have eternal souls and are learning about Jesus. My pets are not created in His image and have no need for salvation.

If my kids need a life saving operation, there will be no expense spared. However if the dawg needs it, sorry. That large lump sum of moolah is better spent on feeding my kids.

Sounds harsh but a pet is an animal and a child is a precious human being.
 

TheIndianGirl

Well-known member
Nov 22, 2019
1,595
1,152
113
#11
Um, no.

I've got kids and I've got pets and my pets are nothing like my children.

For one, pets are easier to train. :LOL:

My cats live outside. My dogs often spend the night outdoors, chasing off raccoons and invisible intruders. If I was to toss my kids outside all night, I'd have CPS at my door.

My children have eternal souls and are learning about Jesus. My pets are not created in His image and have no need for salvation.

If my kids need a life saving operation, there will be no expense spared. However if the dawg needs it, sorry. That large lump sum of moolah is better spent on feeding my kids.

Sounds harsh but a pet is an animal and a child is a precious human being.
I do not disagree that human life is worth more than a pet life. With pet medical expense, one has to do some "bang for your buck" analysis, factoring in the quality and longevity of the pet's life as a result of the procedure. For example, a pet may need tubes inside the body but this can be very uncomfortable for the animals. In my experience, vets recommend euthanasia rather than pain/suffering of the pet. For the human, it is perserving longevity/life at all cost.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
19,667
10,828
113
#12
Why is any non-Catholic paying any attention to the ‘pope’? He is irrelevant to Christians.
 
Nov 12, 2021
250
76
28
#13
Did the Pope follow God's command to Adam and Eve ---be fruitful and multiple the earth -----if he didn't have children or adopt any children he is being a hypocrite --tells others to do what he hasn't done himself ------

The Pope is a big farce as far as I am concerned -----The Catholic Religion has made him a god and many are dabbling in idolatry with them putting him on a pedestal and believing he is the be all and end all of Holiness on this earth ---all he is --is a human being and like the Catholic Religion he most likely prays to Mary and the Saints not to Jesus as the Scripture says to ------

Having children is a huge responsibility and commitment and many people who have not the patience and or were abused as children themselves should think twice about having children ----

The Pope making such a statement is showing how ignorant he is about the state of world right now and how difficult and worry some it is bringing up Children today in this wicked Cursed world -----I think his thinking on making this comment is twisted ---

Just my view
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#15
Yup. That got me big time - seemed just mean. And I really liked this pope before he was so mean about animals.
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#17
I'm as red as chicken little! But being mean about animals is just not ok.
 
F

FrancisClare

Guest
#18
If we don't protect the vulnerable like animals and unborn children then what is life about?