Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The Panacea to the World's Problems: Having Kids

The population of the Catholic Church thrives on infantilism. The ideal Catholic is happily told what to do and how to think. That's how Rome likes its children, seen and not heard, following without question. Nurturing for the never-to-happen day when it will be set free into the world to think on its own and makes its own decisions. Like the adult child that the mother coddles, doing more harm than good. In this case, Mother (which is an interesting term in lieu of the fact that women are 2nd class in this hierarchy) is pointing out -- yet again-- what is wrong with you. This time, you are not having enough children.

Forget that the earth's population has more than doubled since 1920. You are not having enough children. Forget that the stability of the economy is questionable in terms of cost of living for small families as it is. You are not having enough children. Forget that there are numerous abandoned and orphaned babies in the system waiting for someone to adopt them into loving homes. You are not having enough children. Forget that divorce rates only increase as the stress of children enter the home, so forget about this being a possibility in your future. You are not having enough children. Forget that families will barely be able to put their children through college at the rate of rising tuition, therefore the educated populous at large will continue to tip in favor of the upper class. You are not having enough children. Forget that poverty will only repeat itself until education can occur. Education must be a priority in all countries for all economic classes, but especially the poor. Education must occur before children can be reared correctly. Who cares if you can't read. You are not having enough children. Who cares if you will be on welfare because you cannot afford to have another child. You are not having enough children.

Honestly, would a kind an loving Jesus wish for you to suffer under the strains of stress of not being able to fully support, provide for, love and correctly raise another human being? The God I have come to know would not rejoice in such suffering, rather, would encourage you to follow your heart and know your limits. To nurture the quality of the life for your existing children and forget about the quantity and meeting a status quo for an institution of celibate men. Let's face it, the more children that are in the family, the more the parents need to divy up their attention to each one. Now imagine having more children than patience and those poor parents cannot be there fully --emotionally-- for ANY one of their children. Jesus never turned to Mary his mother or Mary Magdalene or any of the women he came in contact with and said, "Woman, you haven't had enough children - get to it!". The "be fruitful and multiply" statement in the Bible is applicable today, just not in the fundamentalist terms. I would read it as a blessing - a blessing to multiply and share the gifts which you have been blessed with, not just in terms of peopling the world.

Here is an article about how the Pope recently chastised Europe for not having enough children.

Pope blasts Europeans for not having enough
children

By Sim Sim Wissgott Sat Sep 8, 3:27 PM ET Source: Yahoo!

MARIAZELL, Austria (AFP) - Pope Benedict XVI blasted Europeans for being selfish and not having enough children, in a sermon on Saturday at the 850-year-old pilgrimage site of Mariazell in Austria. "Europe has become child-poor. We want everything for ourselves and place little trust in the future," the pope told a crowd of faithful from his canopied area at an open-air, afternoon mass that took place under heavy rain. But Benedict held out hope, saying: "The earth will be deprived of a future only when the forces of the human heart and of reason illuminated by the heart are extinguished . . . Where God is, there is the future." The pontiff had slammed abortion upon arriving in Austria Friday as the "very opposite" of human rights. "The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself," he told members of the government and the diplomatic corps at the Hofburg, the seat of the Austrian presidency in Vienna. Austrian Defence Minister Norbert Darabos said in a state televisin interview however Saturday that the Austrian government would not call for a change in the country's law which allows abortions. Meanwhile, in evening prayers at Mariazell the traditionalist Pope defended chastity for religious orders as a way for them to become "men and women of hope." Celibacy is not "individualism or a life of isolation" for priests, nuns and other religious orders but "unreservedly" serving God and having "deep relationships ... which they accept as a gift." The Austrian Church has been wracked by several sex scandals involving priests and in an open letter to the pope the liberal Austrian movement Wir sind Kirche ("We are the Church") has called for the end of celibacy. Despite the bad weather that has dogged the visit so far, thousands stood in the rain at Mariazell backed behind crowd barriers, with many wearing yellow raincoats and some waving blue scarves, the traditional colour of Jesus's mother Mary. The pope, who had arrived in Mariazell from Vienna by car instead of by helicopter due to the weather, waved to the crowd through the windows of the Popemobile as he made his way to the centuries-old white and pink basilica in Mariazell. People who had been sheltering under doorways rushed towards his motorcade as it passed, even as the rain increased in intensity. Organisers said 33,040 free tickets had already been distributed for Mariazell and that the pilgrims would include 70 bishops from central and eastern European countries. The Austrian archbishop, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, told the crowd that two pilgrims had died from health problems, and the Pope said a prayer for them. On Friday, the pontiff said he intended his pilgrimage "to be a journey made in the company of all the pilgrims of our time." He said Mariazell "symbolizes an openness which... transcends physical and national frontiers." The main pilgrimage site in the Danube region, some 110 kilometres (70 miles) southwest of Vienna, the basilica was founded by Benedictine monks. The site, which is dedicated to the Virgin Mary and celebrates its 850th anniversary this year, welcomes around a million pilgrims every year from Austria, neighbouring Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia as well as Poland, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. The Pope arrived in Vienna Friday morning and addressed a crowd of thousands at Am Hof square before making a silent tribute to the victims of the Holocaust at a nearby monument. The pope's visit has been greeted with some criticism in a country where the traditionally powerful Catholic Church is waning in influence. Statistics show the Austrian Church has lost about one million followers since 1983, and only 67 percent of Austrians are still officially Catholic, compared to almost 92 percent in 1900. On Sunday, the Pope will celebrate a morning mass at Vienna's St. Stepheon's Cathedral and visit the Cistercian monastery in Heiligenkreuz, before flying back to Rome.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to ask: if having children is so important, why isn't the Catholic Church hierarchy allowed to marry so they can produce children? Not a big issue in my church, Lutheran, because our priests can marry, and most do.

Just a somewhat uncomfortable fact: though you say divorce rates increase when children enter the home, unfortunately stats show that couples without children (or those with only one child versus two or more) are actually more likely to split up. That's certainly not an argument to have children to save one's marriage (bad idea, in my view). But I think among the in my mind good arguments for having no children or only one, avoiding divorce is not a very sound one statistically speaking.

Emily

SM said...

Hi Emily - thanks for reading.

Good question: if having children is so important, why isn't the Catholic Church hierarchy allowed to marry so they can produce children?

As a *former* Catholic I can tell you this was started in 1139, the Second Lateran Council forbade the marriage of priests altogether and declared all existing marriages involving priests null and void. Another factor was an economic development as the Church began acquiring his own property. There was a real danger that legitimate children of priests could inherit and deprive the Church of its land. At the time, common law prevented illegitimate children from inheriting property.

Having children is nothing to take lightly, that's for sure. It takes a very strong marriage to endure the stresses and strains of managing a family. This stress and pressure is something the Catholic Church seldom addresses, as they have a "suck it up and breed" attitude.

Anonymous said...

It seems that the Church's prohibition on birth control is falling on deaf ears - most Catholic women are deciding they want the number of children they find manageable - which usually is not as many as their bodies can bear (of course if any woman, Catholic or not, decides to have as many children as she can, I have no problem with that, as long as it's her own choice).

SM said...

The movement to ignore the Church's prohibition on birth control is essentially the female populace's way of "voicing out" their innate need for choice and an unspoken attempt to democratize Church law.

50% of the existing genders in the Church created 100% of the church's "laws"...it is no surprise that not everyone is going to adhere.

Thanks for commenting!

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm sure if the Church were to excommunicate all the married female parishioners who didn't have any more than two or three kids, they'd be out of business!

Actually, I think the Catholic Church has reached a certain compromise with regard to birth control, in that most priests know their female faithful use it but they (the priests and church hierarchy) might occasionally preach against it but don't do anything to excommunicate the women involved.

SM said...

When I told a priest that my husband and I did not want children (after thinking long and hard on it and 7 years AFTER I got married within the church)I was told I should have my marriage annulled(a church divorce)..."after all, children are the primary reason to marry."

As far as any compromise goes, that is an assumption. I'm sure there are reasonable priests along with the unreasonable ones, but Catholic doctrine on the prohibition of birth control in the church still stands. I highly doubt that birth control use by a Catholic woman would warrant her excommunication, which is the harshest punishment the Church can do to a parishoner.

Anonymous said...

Well, I'm not saying that the Catholic Church hierarchy is going to "lift" the ban on birth control as they did on eating meat on Friday (from what I know, it used to be forbidden for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays, so a lot of them ate fish instead). I just think at this point they're not going to go after individual Catholic women for using contraception. Of course this might depend on the congregation. If there is a congregation where the majority of women are having as many children as possible, those who only have one or two might raise eyebrows.

I remember an Italian Catholic acquaintance of mine explain why she wasn't going to follow the Church's rules and have more than the two kids she already had. She said a bunch of unmarried men who have never had the responsibility of a family didn't have any prerogative to dictate how many children she was capable of handling.

On the other hand, I can say in modern times the most egregious violators of women's reproductive rights haven't necessarily been religious bodies, Catholic or otherwise, but secular governments. Take Communist Romania, a militantly atheistic state, where women were denied abortion AND contraception and ended up producing children they couldn't care for that ended up in orphanages. So while I certainly don't agree with the Catholic Church's stance on birth control, in the modern-day West it's basically been defanged.

SM said...

Thanks, Anon.

Here is a pretty good summation of the "why, when and how" on the eating meat on Fridays thing:

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-Roman-Catholic-Tradition-of-Eating-Fish-on-Fridays

Your Italian Catholic acquaintance hit the nail on the head.

While governments can be as bad or worse for women's rights over time, with the variety of regimes and times these regimes have held court, I disagree. I do think religious bodies (which have outlasted a whole slew of different governments) have overall been (and still are) a woman's "worst enemy" rights-wise.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, "Anon" in the last post was me, Emily. I should have identified myself at the end.

About religious bodies being the worst violators of women's rights, perhaps this is the case if we look at the world overeall and through the ages. For instance, witness the oppression of women in the name of Islam in places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan (though I must say that even in the non-Western world, religion's hardly the ONLY oppressor of women; look at China's one-child policy). I would say at least in the last century, in traditionally Judeo-Christian countries religion's generally been defanged in its ability to keep women down. For instance, maybe if it could the Roman Catholic Church would legally ban contraceptives like the Communist government of Romania did, but because they can't they don't seem to be trying to. And let's not forget that in many Christian (and Jewish) denominations women enjoy equal rights with male congregants (ex. my denomination, the Lutheran Church, has female priests). No, I don't like the views some Christian fundamentalists hold of women, but I think their ability to do actual harm is fairly limited (thank God!). In fact, at this point they seem to be concentrating most of their venom at homosexuals, at least half of whom are male.

Emily

SM said...

Sorry, Emily - I didn't want to presume you were the Anon poster.

Yes, exactly - over the ages, women's loudest oppressor seems to be religion for sure, then governments.

Fundamentalists are for the most part harmful no matter what religion or creed as their zealousness removes any possibility of intelligent discourse (not to mention open ears and mind) with members of another religion / creed.

SM

Anonymous said...

Hello, it's Emily again.

I think in the modern-day West religion has perhaps hurt women indirectly as opposed to directly. For instance, in Ireland divorce was forbidden until 1995, following a referendum. Now of course the ban on divorce affected both men and women, but in some ways women were more impacted by it because forbidding divorce made it more difficult for a woman to leave an abusive husband. So even if the divorce ban wasn't aimed specifically at women as a ban on abortion would be, it still probably ended up hurting them more than it did men.

On the other hand, the anti-gay marriage movement probably affects men more than women because there are more gay men than there are lesbians.

SM said...

Just curious, Emily, you say

"there are more gay men than there are lesbians."

Can you please cite your source of this information?

Do you have a blog of your own? You sound very well read and interested in this topic - if you do, I would like to link to it. Let me know - thanks!