Vatican official condemns “self-genocide” of human race

[SolomonVII]

Self-genocide is a strong term.
Unfortunately, it is as accurate as it is strong.
I commend the Vatican on its bluntness.

I am reminded of the prophecy in Daniel in which the image of the King of Babylon is destroyed by striking at its feet of clay. This prophecy is so striking to what is happening now where it is the unformed, placticity of the world's youngest and weakest that leaves the powerful most vulrnerable.

With the demographic charts now inverting, we are beginning to see the truth of why the humblest ought to be accorded the most honor. Neglecting the spiritual truth of Jesus washing the feet, or of Paul recognizing that the least appreciated members of the body need to be adorned most magnificently is poised to have its impact on this world's reality is an unprecedented way.

 

[Fantine]

It is important that we define the term self-genocide.

In order for any country to replace its current population, couples should have 2.1 children per family.

What the bishop calls "self-genocide" means a situation in which countries are reproducing at a rate significantly less than 2.1 children per family.....

If Europe wants to reverse that trend (the US is, I believe, at a reproduction rate of about 2.1 children per family right now) all couples have to do is have 2.1 children per family.

They don't have to return to a tradition of very large families which may have been necessary in earlier, agrarian times but impractical and difficult today.

To use such a dramatic term as "self-genocide" for a minor problem which countries like France are trying to alleviate by changes in the tax code favoring families is just inflammatory hyperbole.

Does God want the human race to continue? Yes.

If my husband and I, as a married couple, raise more than 2 children (and we have,) have we done more than our share to assure the continuation of the human race? Yes.

Should the bishop perhaps find another soapbox to stand on?

 

[Davidnic]

I think he is also looking at self genocide in the way that supporting the culture of death leads to this.

His quote:

“Up to now the culture of death has been accepted and this path leads to self-destruction.”


And the rest of his statement goes beyond simple population. But that as respect for all life is put in jeopardy we begin along the road to self-genocide.

 

[Fantine]

The world has had an active culture of death since its inception. Throughout history, babies have been left to die on hillsides, and, throughout history, children have been enslaved and exploited, leading to early death.

It is the humanists whom the bishop condemns so soundly who were at the forefront of abolishing slavery, and who are working towards eliminating exploitative child labor in Asia and South and Central America today. It was the shapers of the Constitution, influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, who established a Bill of Rights in the USA.

Humanists think mankind is basically good--they are idealistic and have high expectations (personally, I think that Christianity and humanism can co-exist quite comfortably together.)

And yet the world did not self-destruct and mankind did not cease to exist, despite practices and conditions that would horrify most of us in the West.

Less than a hundred years ago, Americans watched hangings for recreation, just as they do in Iraq today.

So are we worse than our ancestors? Do we really have a "culture of death?"

I for one think that mankind is evolving for the good. Of course our civilization has failings and shortcomings, but the good bishop sells us very short.

We've abolished slavery! We have child labor laws! We provide universal education to all! Women have the vote and, despite the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to pass in the US, enjoy relative equality. We don't have to look very far to see our neighbors all around us volunteering in hospitals and churches, donating to canned goods drives, helping one another.

Certainly there is much work to do, but, in most ways, we have a culture of goodness and compassion.

And there are even some rebel humanists out there who believe that if American society could become a little more compassionate, abortions would end (on Long Island, Nassau County executive Tom Gulotta worked on iniatives to discourage abortion through compassionate means, and was praised by the Diocese of Rockville Center's bishop.)

 

[princess_ballet]

The world has had an active culture of death since its inception. Throughout history, babies have been left to die on hillsides, and, throughout history, children have been enslaved and exploited, leading to early death.

It is the humanists whom the bishop condemns so soundly who were at the forefront of abolishing slavery, and who are working towards eliminating exploitative child labor in Asia and South and Central America today. It was the shapers of the Constitution, influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, who established a Bill of Rights in the USA.

Humanists think mankind is basically good--they are idealistic and have high expectations (personally, I think that Christianity and humanism can co-exist quite comfortably together.)

And yet the world did not self-destruct and mankind did not cease to exist, despite practices and conditions that would horrify most of us in the West.

Less than a hundred years ago, Americans watched hangings for recreation, just as they do in Iraq today.

So are we worse than our ancestors? Do we really have a "culture of death?"

I for one think that mankind is evolving for the good. Of course our civilization has failings and shortcomings, but the good bishop sells us very short.

We've abolished slavery! We have child labor laws! We provide universal education to all! Women have the vote and, despite the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment to pass in the US, enjoy relative equality. We don't have to look very far to see our neighbors all around us volunteering in hospitals and churches, donating to canned goods drives, helping one another.

Certainly there is much work to do, but, in most ways, we have a culture of goodness and compassion.

And there are even some rebel humanists out there who believe that if American society could become a little more compassionate, abortions would end (on Long Island, Nassau County executive Tom Gulotta worked on iniatives to discourage abortion through compassionate means, and was praised by the Diocese of Rockville Center's bishop.)

Unfortunately, no matter what you say, some people will always believe that the world is falling apart at the seams and getting worse and worse.

Thankfully, I (nor you it seems) do not live with such a pessimistic view.

 

[SolomonVII]

Europe's won't be the first culture to self-destruct.
Nor will it even be the first European culture to self-destruct.
The similar fate befell the culture of ancient Rome, as their own vigor and virility waned in comparison to the Germanic tribes and the other 'barbarians' on the outside of their culture.

That is the thing about prophecy. It truth lies not so much in its ability to predict the future, but in its ability to understand the endless cycle of sin and redemption, as socities enter again and again into the same patterns of self-loathing adn destruction.

What is truly lamentable about post-Christian society repeating this fall away from grace is that never before has any society risen so high, and been so much an icon of Christ Himself, in so many ways. Never before has the plight of the powerless been so high a priority. The mere fact that all politicians everywhere pay lip service to the plight of the vicitm is unique in the whole of human history. This was never a concern for anyone before Christ's transfiguration fo the very structures of our culture.

But belief in Christ also means believing in the goodness of his laws. If we truly love him, we will obey his laws.

Apparently, if not for love of the least among us, child labor laws have made the clay from which we are formed all but useless and of little instrumental value to the societies which have passed such laws in the first place. The price for their sustenance has become too high a price to pay.

The Church stands alone today among global institutions, as being the one which esteems the intrinisic value of life over and above the instrumental good that life may or may not provide for a society.

May God bless these bishops who remind of of our sins, and pray for our repentance.

 

[SolomonVII]

Overpopulation is a myth. (Link)

This quote below reminds me of a lawyer on another discussion board who talks of a poster in his office, stating something to the effect that "The Stupid Are Outbreeding Us."

To quote the article <again>:
Unfortunately, the media picked up their refrain, leaving only brave, defiant or oblivious souls to dare to push their fertility beyond the acceptable number of two. Ask any mother of three or more how many times she had people point to her pregnant belly and ask, "Don't you know what causes that?" When I was a young child, a big family was thought to be a blessing. But by the time I was an adult, big families were seen as headed by big buffoons — ignorant, selfish, or out-of-control adults unwilling to curb their fertility for the sake of the rest of the world. Thus it is that people began to feel free to ask rude questions in an effort to get the numbskulls to invest in birth control.
The reverse would be unthinkable. Parents of a large family would not ask those of a small family, "Don't you two know what to do to have more children?" As the mother of ten children — eight the old-fashioned way and two brothers orphaned in Kenya — sometimes I actually enjoy unsolicited opinions. "Boy, I'm glad it's you and not me," gives me the chance to say, "Me too," but I have never inquired as to why they were not enjoying their own children enough to have more. I have no desire to pry into the private lives of others. Yet thinking we are taking up too much space in this world, some people become militant and angry with those of us who opt out of the "two kids only" club.

I love the ending of the article:

I am not arguing that social, economic and environmental problems do not exist. I am simply stating that overpopulation is not the problem. Modern societies are forgetting that children are a blessing. Fortunately, it's just a matter of time before the tide turns. Those intent on "saving the planet" have lower fertility rates than couples that see children as a blessing. Do the math.
Several years ago, I heard a radio report to the effect that the most requested gift from children to in-store Santa Clauses was for little brothers or sisters. For them, it's the best gift they can imagine. Some moms and dads have forgotten this or been scared away from the blessing.


People should remember that the laws that we find the most effective and the most binding are not the ones on the law books, but the laws of social attitudes that we have internalized, and that save us from ostracism and losing face.

The spiritual message from our bishops are aimed directly at the laws of the heart. They will enable us once again to govern ourselves according to the same law that instructed Father Abraham to believe that children really are a blessing.

 

[Miss Shelby]

It is definitely a good article.

 

[Miss Shelby]

The spiritual message from our bishops are aimed directly at the laws of the heart.

Very well said, and I hope and pray more people can see it this way instead of viewing it as just another Bishop's chance to dance around on a soap box.

 

[Fantine]

As the mother of ten children — eight the old-fashioned way and two brothers orphaned in Kenya — sometimes I actually enjoy unsolicited opinions. "Boy, I'm glad it's you and not me," gives me the chance to say, "Me too," but I have never inquired as to why they were not enjoying their own children enough to have more.

If one enjoys a glass of wine with dinner, does that mean that ten glasses of wine would be better?

I have found that, in life, most of those pleasures we have in reasonable quantities are the ones we enjoy and appreciate the most.

Or if we look at pets. I really enjoy and appreciate my one little shih-tzu, but, at my vet's, I have met professional breeders who live a little bit out in the country. "You can't have less than 150 if you want to make a living," they told me. Their lives are spent shoveling poop, shaving their little bodies (no time for brushing and pampering,) and being with the mother shih-tzus who are ready to deliver. They can't take vacations, because no one can take their place. They really love dogs, but so much of their time is spent on routine maintenance that they don't have time to enjoy their dogs.

I really enjoy my shih-tzu.

I am sure this mother of ten enjoys her children, and if her large family is like the ones my friends grew up in, her children are doing a lot of the work and, so, hopefully, she has time to just enjoy them.

But enjoying and appreciating your children isn't always demonstrated by wanting more. It's also demonstrated by being a good parent to the children you have.

 

[Miss Shelby]

The point of the article wasn't that people who don't have 10 kids aren't worthy of being parents or that people with one or two children can't be good parents. Anyone who actually reads the article should be able to see that. The above poster unfairly took a snippet of the article and presented it comletely out of context.

It's the people who do have larger families who are ostrasized and treated like freaks and who are on the receiving end of thoughtless remarks and ignorant judgement. Not the other way around. It's not only perfectly acceptable now to only have 1 or 2 children, it's the norm. So, while the above post makes it sound as if those with smaller families are being victimized by judgement, it's actually the opposite which is true.

 

[Miss Shelby]

If one enjoys a glass of wine with dinner, does that mean that ten glasses of wine would be better?

Children are not alcohol and children are not dogs. One child is going to take up all of a parent's time just like ten children are going to take up all of a parent's time. My MIL who is the mother of seven and a VERY wise woman told me that it was harder for her to be the mother of 2 children, because they were very small at the time and she had no help. She said it became much easier as time passed and her family grew because the older children helped out with the younger children. Everything they did, they did together as a family. This teaches the children the value of spending time with the family, in no way did it cost them their own lives, on the contrary, they became better adults as a result of it. So your implication that children who are reared in large families miss out on their lives is compeletley false. They remain a very close knit family today. I guess experience speaks volumes.

 

[Davidnic]

My wife and I are trying for our first child. When we tell people the basic reaction is: "Oh...God are you sure? Kids?"

And this is not we would make bad parents or anything. It is, when they are asked to explain (and believe me they are), that having a family is just strange somehow. It is not normal or irresponsible given the "state of the world" (another quote).

Now we don't get this reaction from family or people at Church. But we do get it from alot of people at work or in town.

"What about your career?" Is another one.

"What about all of the money that will cost?" Is another one.

My favorite, "Don't you want to be able to have fun and do things for yourself?"

What about our careers? Eh...what about our vocation. What about our desire to share our love and have a family? What about the fact that a child is, to us, the most precious and natural outgrowth of our love and vows to each other? We can't think of anything greater we could do for ourselves and our life.

But you don't get those questions.

Face it or not, people who decide to have children anymore are viewed as strange by a very large number of people.

And then we tell them how my wifes mother has five sisters and her father has 7 siblings total. And people say:

"Why would anyone do that?" "It must have been a terrible life." "They must not have had money."

And those are quotes I've heard from over 7 people in the last six months.

I look at this family and they are always there for each other. The absence of one of the siblings at family events leaves a void. The stories from when they were kids are filled with joy. Of course there are problems, not everybody always gets along. And many times people give up what they want to help a brother, sister or parent.

We were taking a bus once to visit the family because of car trouble and when we were leaving my wife realized that she had not hugged her father and stopped them from closing the doors and ran off the bus to do it.

No, it is not a terrible life.

And that is what is at the heart of this article. The fact that people who have more than one child are viewed as strange or irresponsible. Maybe self genocide is not the right term. Because it goes a whole lot deeper than that. It touches things with no physical aspect. It is not an argument of population or contraception or cost of living. It is a basic an fundamental respect for life and a focus on the fact that the question we've been asked:

"Don't you want to be able to have fun and do things for yourself?"

Is one our society asks far too much and it has replaced the wonder and awe we should feel as a society at every single life.

If we felt that awe and wonder more keenly we would make greater strides against poverty and the suffering of our brothers and sisters as well.

Because the question: "Don't you want to be able to have fun and do things for yourself?"

Goes far beyond having children. It is the pandemic selfishness of modernism that distances us further everyday from the love of Christ.

 

[Miss Shelby]

^ that was hands down one of the best posts I have ever read. thanks David.

 

[Joanus]

Hey Your Grace:

Talk is cheap. What have you got of substance ?

People suffer for diseases that will can cure with bio-tech and you say we shouldn't. So they suffer and it costs money to keep them alive that it wouldn't cost if we used the bio-tech.

Then we'll get another lecture about how we shouldn't ration our health care resoruces because its anti-life.

I got 4 kids in various Catholic and private school, you know, trying do the right thing, its going to cost about
$ 26,000 next year. Thats more then a third of hard working Americans see in a year. Over the course of their 16 years of schooling I'm commited to about about 250,000 minimum. That's money I don't have for retirement, but I haven't seen you guys lobbying Congress for a better Social Securtiy plan.

And all I get is slack from you guy on how its just not good enough.

Talk is cheap, your Grace, out here we got immediate problems and limited resources and we do what we can.

...And these little rants ?

There not helping.

I think he may be directing it at the people who don't have any children. You know, the lapsed Catholics who live a merry, hedonistic life and don't bother to reproduce. That is, in essence, what he is talking about.

The hardworking dudes like you and me, with 4+ kids, I don't think he is talking about us. There must be a get-out clause for people with more than 4 kids.....

 

[Fantine]

I stand by my comment, and do not think I took her comment out of context.

Perhaps in self-defense against whatever criticism she receives, she said that she wondered why parents with small families didn't "enjoy" their children enough to want to have more and more of them.

And I pointed out that you don't necessarily have to "enjoy" anything in mass quantities, and that perhaps you appreciate and enjoy things more in smaller quantities. Including children.

Children growing up in large families have a different experience qualitatively than children growing up in small families, but there can certainly be lots of love in both.

My childhood friends who grew up in large families didn't imitate their parents' example (perhaps because, being oldest girls, they felt as if they had already raised three or four kids by the time they were 21.)

The people I know who have large families today were only children or came from small families--I guess the grass always seems greener on the other side.

Personally, I look at large families today as being counter-cultural, but, being a baby boomer and a sixties-seventies rebel, I think that being counter-cultural is good, and that they should be proud of their decision. It's just when that "holier-than-thou" attitude starts to creep in that I think they should mind their own business.

 

[Miss Shelby]

It's just when that "holier-than-thou" attitude starts to creep in that I think they should mind their own business.

Had you read the entire article, which obviously you did not, you would know that the context of her comments was presented in defense of unsolicited comments such as 'don't you know where babies come from??' and 'boy, I sure am glad it's you and not me'--& you'd know that this is where the 'better than you' attitude originates from, and who exactly it is that should be minding their own business. And call me crazy but I don't think it's too far of a stretch to assume that if someone obviously recoils at the thought of MORE of something than they already have, and furthermore do so in an unsolicited manner-- they aren't much enjoying whatever it is that thing might be. Comments such as these reveal resentment not gratitude.

 

[Fantine]

As I have said several times, one can love, appreciate, and enjoy the children one has fully and completely without wanting more.

And the idea that a person should have to demonstrate (s)he loves the children (s)he has by having or wanting more is beyond preposterous.

Perhaps (s)he doesn't want more because (s)he wants to do what's best for the children (s)has and for her family.

Or maybe for mundane reasons like wanting to enjoy doing things like reading to her children instead of having so much laundry, cooking, and dishes to do she doesn't have time for things like reading....(And yes, I realize that she could probably make the older kids do the laundry and dishes so she could read to the younger ones.)

 

[SolomonVII]

If one enjoys a glass of wine with dinner, does that mean that ten glasses of wine would be better?

I think that this reflects the attitude that the woman in the article was commenting upon wit absolute clarity.

The idea that children are a blessing is even likened to the sin of gluttony.

Thank you, Fantine, for baring your soul.

I have found that, in life, most of those pleasures we have in reasonable quantities are the ones we enjoy and appreciate the most.

What is reasonable? Who is the arbitrator of what is a reasonable number of children?
You?
Me?
Your attitude, or my attitude?

At exactly what point does the act of bringing children into the world become equated with being a glutton?

Or if we look at pets. I really enjoy and appreciate my one little shih-tzu, but, at my vet's, I have met professional breeders who live a little bit out in the country. "You can't have less than 150 if you want to make a living," they told me. Their lives are spent shoveling poop, shaving their little bodies (no time for brushing and pampering,) and being with the mother shih-tzus who are ready to deliver. They can't take vacations, because no one can take their place. They really love dogs, but so much of their time is spent on routine maintenance that they don't have time to enjoy their dogs.

I really enjoy my shih-tzu.

There is just no smilie that on the side there with which I could adequately express myself.
Like, if someone said that to me at a party, even ten glasses of wine wouldn't keep me from backing away as fast as I could with a crooked smile on my face.

I am sure this mother of ten enjoys her children, and if her large family is like the ones my friends grew up in, her children are doing a lot of the work and, so, hopefully, she has time to just enjoy them.But enjoying and appreciating your children isn't always demonstrated by wanting more. It's also demonstrated by being a good parent to the children you have.

The article is really not about being a good parent- not at all!!
It is about the modern attitudes associated with large families, and really just children in general.

You have already demonstrated that attitude in this post.

And really no egghead in the Vatican, or no statitistical analysis of the demographics is going to tell us what we don't already know.
We are already so familiar with the attitude. It is in friends, and especially in ourselves in a thousand and one different ways. It is taught in our schools. It permeates our society.
It is in here, and out there even to the point of the one large family on the Simpson's being sterotyped by the slow-talking, slow thinking hillbillies.

Or, as Homer himself might say, "It's funny because it's
true!"

 

[MikeK]

It is in here, and out there even to the point of the one large family on the Simpson's being sterotyped by the slow-talking, slow thinking hillbillies.
Or, as Homer himself might say, "It's funny because it's
true!"

Stereotypes wouldn't catch on if they weren't based on at least a little bit of real life than is easily observable. I could try my best to start a new stereotype, like "Catholics really like log homes"....but my new stereotype would be a failure because most people probably don't observe that the Catholics in their lives are more likely than others to occupy log homes. I think we all know of a large family or two that is dependant on handouts form Church, society or government to keep food on their table, even though they are apparently quite able-bodied. You just have to wonder what they were thinking when they had that gang of kids that they were not prepared to care for. I wouldn't want more children than I could care for in the event that something horrible happened to my wife and vise versa. Trusting God to take care of you and your family is one thing but putting Him to the test is something different altogether. I think we have an obligation to our children to do everything in our power to ensure that they will be taken care of. Of course we can't fully prepare ourselves for truly terrible events like a nuclear war or the sudden deaths of both parents, but we should be prepared at least for the more common tradgedies that are a part of life. I don't want my family to be one illness or one lost job away from begging. I guess I just kinda like the idea of insurance...I really oughta join the KC.