Vatican official condemns self-genocide of human race

Ave Maria · Jan 26, 2007

Abuja, Jan 25, 2007 / 11:59 am (CNA).- The president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, denounced this week the different attacks on human life in all its stages, saying mankind is marching towards a self-genocide of the human race.

The weakness of the Christian community and the strength of secular society could spell disaster, Bishop Sgreccia warned, and he urged all European citizens to work at reversing the trend. Up to now the culture of death has been accepted and this path leads to self-destruction.

He also noted the widespread mentality that trusts in bio-technological power. Such powers, Sgreccia said aim to change the order of the human species and to create men in the image and likeness of other men who have power.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8473

I praise the Vatican official's comments. We are on our way to a self-genocide if we don't start respecting the sanctity of life more.

Fantine · Jan 26, 2007

As societies changed from agricultural to technological societies, children became more of an economic liability than an economic asset (in agrarian societies, children were extra sets of hands to help work the fields; in technological societies, they require 16 years of education, some of it very costly.)

At the same time the population of the world increased rapidly, and we have issues with global warming, pollution, and limited natural resources--from food to oil to water.

As cultures become more affluent, more and more resources are used per capita, and more and more pollution is created per capita.

I think that, in Europe and the United States, very large families are a thing of the past. And I don't think it should be called 'self-genocide.' It's a combination of later marriage, common sense, care for the future of our planet, wanting to do the best for the children parents do have, and love. Yes, love.

Having said that, do I think that European and American families could be a little larger than they are today? Yes, I think that if every European and American family had an average of 2-3 children, that would be a good thing, better for the economy, certainly.

Beyond that, I would rather place my trust in the individual couple relationship. Give couples the ethical and practical knowledge they need, and then let them, in the context of their own relationship, make the decisions that are best for their families.

How many children has Bishop Sgreccia raised?

Miss Shelby · Jan 26, 2007

Whether or not the Bishop has raised any children of his own is a not of any relevance as I am sure there are a great many people who agree with him who are parents and have and are raising children.

Davidnic · Jan 26, 2007

And he has probably heard the confessions of and aided many different families and parents. In a way he might have a better idea of the wider issue than any single family unit.

That is, after all, how John Paul II, was such a pastorally effective Pope and honestly very spot on on sexual issues. His long time role as a truly caring Priest and Bishop involved with the families in his care gave him an understanding of the issues that extended beyond the view of a single family.

But his (Bishop Sgreccia) warnings on the culture of death and that many wish to:

to change the order of the human species and to create men in the image and likeness of other men who have power.

Is chillingly true.

2Cosmic2Charlie · Jan 26, 2007

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.

JasonV · Jan 26, 2007

Does "self genocide" include overpopulation in third world countries where a lack of clean water and basic resources is killing children?

Does this mean the Vatican will actually encourage birth control in areas where the necessites of life are in want?

Davidnic · Jan 26, 2007

Overpopulation is a myth. (Link)

To quote the article:

It's reported by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1 to 3 percent of the earth's land surface.

If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person.

The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 per square mile — somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.

The issue of population is not about the number of people. The problem is the fact of basic human selfishness and the desire of people to do what they want and have only what benefits them.

The Church also stands against the world bank and victimization of the poor. So their positions on these things are internally consistent with the facts and not propaganda. And consistent with the Gospel. And the Church does alot of work in third world countries to improve care, health and water. They try to make these things available and call people to live as Christ calls them in love and compassion for their brothers and sisters. That is the way the Church proceeds on this, not by tossing aside life and teaching.

Ave Maria · Jan 26, 2007

JasonV said:
Does "self genocide" include overpopulation in third world countries where a lack of clean water and basic resources is killing children?

Does this mean the Vatican will actually encourage birth control in areas where the necessites of life are in want?

The Vatican will never approve birth control for any reason and I applaud them for that.

BrotherKnight · Jan 26, 2007

Fantine said:
I think that, in Europe and the United States, very large families are a thing of the past. And I don't think it should be called 'self-genocide.' It's a combination of later marriage, common sense, care for the future of our planet, wanting to do the best for the children parents do have, and love. Yes, love.

Common sense. What is "common" these days? I would say that most people's definition of common sense is severely skiewed.

Care for the future of the planet? Is that more important than care for the future of our eternal souls?

What's best for children? First off I would have to say that being born instead of murdered would be a good place to start.

Fantine said:
Beyond that, I would rather place my trust in the individual couple relationship. Give couples the ethical and practical knowledge they need, and then let them, in the context of their own relationship, make the decisions that are best for their families.

I would rather place my trust in God and in His Church to whom He gave His authority over matters such as these.

You say to give couples ethical and practical knowledge. What about moral knowledge? I'd say that people in general are being lied to about what is truth and what is right and wrong.

Fantine said:
How many children has Bishop Sgreccia raised?

Thousands.

BrotherKnight · Jan 26, 2007

Davidnic said:
Overpopulation is a myth. (Link)

To quote the article:

It's reported by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1 to 3 percent of the earth's land surface.

If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person.

The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 per square mile somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.

The issue of population is not about the number of people. The problem is the fact of basic human selfishness and the desire of people to do what they want and have only what benefits them.

The Church also stands against the world bank and victimization of the poor. So their positions on these things are internally consistent with the facts and not propaganda. And consistent with the Gospel. And the Church does alot of work in third world countries to improve care, health and water. They try to make these things available and call people to live as Christ calls them in love and compassion for their brothers and sisters. That is the way the Church proceeds on this, not by tossing aside life and teaching.

Well put, brother.

gitlance · Jan 26, 2007

Fantine said:
As societies changed from agricultural to technological societies, children became more of an economic liability than an economic asset (in agrarian societies, children were extra sets of hands to help work the fields; in technological societies, they require 16 years of education, some of it very costly.)

At the same time the population of the world increased rapidly, and we have issues with global warming, pollution, and limited natural resources--from food to oil to water.

As cultures become more affluent, more and more resources are used per capita, and more and more pollution is created per capita.

I think that, in Europe and the United States, very large families are a thing of the past. And I don't think it should be called 'self-genocide.' It's a combination of later marriage, common sense, care for the future of our planet, wanting to do the best for the children parents do have, and love. Yes, love.

Having said that, do I think that European and American families could be a little larger than they are today? Yes, I think that if every European and American family had an average of 2-3 children, that would be a good thing, better for the economy, certainly.

Beyond that, I would rather place my trust in the individual couple relationship. Give couples the ethical and practical knowledge they need, and then let them, in the context of their own relationship, make the decisions that are best for their families.

How many children has Bishop Sgreccia raised?

Or perhaps the smaller families are a result of divorce, contraception, and abortion.

Fantine · Jan 26, 2007

BrotherKnight said:
Common sense. What is "common" these days? I would say that most people's definition of common sense is severely skiewed.

Care for the future of the planet? Is that more important than care for the future of our eternal souls?

What's best for children? First off I would have to say that being born instead of murdered would be a good place to start.

I would rather place my trust in God and in His Church to whom He gave His authority over matters such as these.

You say to give couples ethical and practical knowledge. What about moral knowledge? I'd say that people in general are being lied to about what is truth and what is right and wrong.

Thousands.

It is terribly offensive and untrue to infer that people who have smaller families are "murdering their children" or that by caring about the environment and our natural resources they are endangering their immortal souls.

Or that their common sense is "severely skewed" if their goal in life is to raise a loving family with sufficient time and resources to ensure their health, education, and welfare.

People need more than land to live. They need food, water, heat.....How many people the earth will support is more than a computation of land mass, and the deaths in Africa due to lack of clean water and food is a testimony to that.

I admire couples who make a decision to raise large families. I admire them even more when some of those children are adopted.

But I admire any couples who raise their children in a loving home. I thank God for their love and service, and I butt out of their individual decisions.

I admire people who are raising children alone as well--it is a difficult task.

Fantine · Jan 26, 2007

gitlance said:
Or perhaps the smaller families are a result of divorce, contraception, and abortion.

The trend towards smaller families in America began immediately after the industrial revolution, reaching its peak during the Great Depression--all long before contraception was in wide use, and long before abortion was legalized.

The trend towards smaller families was born out of economic necessity--and before birth control was available, families used self-control.

And, were birth control to be criminalized throughout the world, I still believe the trend towards somewhat smaller families would continue. It's due to the society we live in and the economic costs of raising a child.

Even if contraception were criminalized, couples could combine self-control and the vast array of entertainment available today--TV, music, etc.--and many would choose periodic abstinence (or the alternate means of gratification so popular among teens today...)

JasonV · Jan 26, 2007

Davidnic said:
Overpopulation is a myth.

Yes and no. Worldwide overpopulation is not true. We can support even more people if we cultivate our resources properly. So in that regard, you are correct.

But if you look at my first post in this thread, I specifically pointed out overpopulation in the third world. In that regard, it is not a myth where you have more people than resources. So we either ship the babies out of the third world, or we encourage them to have fewer children until they can establish suitable resources to provide for their population.

That's the reason for the rampant starvation and disease in those nations.

Davidnic · Jan 26, 2007

JasonV said:
Yes and no. Worldwide overpopulation is not true. We can support even more people if we cultivate our resources properly. So in that regard, you are correct.

But if you look at my first post in this thread, I specifically pointed out overpopulation in the third world. In that regard, it is not a myth where you have more people than resources. So we either ship the babies out of the third world, or we encourage them to have fewer children until they can establish suitable resources to provide for their population.

That's the reason for the rampant starvation and disease in those nations.

Or we actively encourage the message of Christ in it's fullness so the resources that are there get to the people who need them. And where resources lack they are brought in through charity and love.

JasonV · Jan 26, 2007

Davidnic said:
Or we actively encourage the message of Christ in it's fullness so the resources that are there get to the people who need them. And where resources lack they are brought in through charity and love.

Im not disagreeing David. But Im asking you to be practical. What's more likely to have an immediate impact:

A. The west develops an immediate change of heart, and all the clean water and food you can eat are sent to the third world without regard to economic burden or concern of local developement.

or

B. Send cheap condoms and teach the people of the third world how to use them.

This may be a logical fallacy I've created, but I've oversimplyfied to make a point. Condoms are cheap, easy to use, and will help stem the rampant poverty in the third world quicker than even helping them develop their own resources to meet population demands.

BrotherKnight · Jan 26, 2007

Fantine said:
It is terribly offensive and untrue to infer that people who have smaller families are "murdering their children" or that by caring about the environment and our natural resources they are endangering their immortal souls.

Or that their common sense is "severely skewed" if their goal in life is to raise a loving family with sufficient time and resources to ensure their health, education, and welfare.

If that is what you got out of my post you have misunderstood me.

Davidnic · Jan 26, 2007

JasonV said:
Im not disagreeing David. But Im asking you to be practical. What's more likely to have an immediate impact:

A. The west develops an immediate change of heart, and all the clean water and food you can eat are sent to the third world without regard to economic burden or concern of local developement.

or

B. Send cheap condoms and teach the people of the third world how to use them.

This may be a logical fallacy I've created, but I've oversimplyfied to make a point. Condoms are cheap, easy to use, and will help stem the rampant poverty in the third world quicker than even helping them develop their own resources to meet population demands.

But we can not take an immoral step for immediate impact. I think our hearts are not far apart on points in this issue (that we wish for these people to have good lives), but we have fundamental disagreements. But to be practical if people feel that they have an easier way then they will take that over the more difficult morally correct road. We see this time and time again in human history. That is why the Church must stick to the difficult road, because it is the most effective and faithful to the Gospel. The logic of sending condoms is taking life away to save it later. Less children by stopping their lives, so there are less children to feed. It is not a place we should go.

It is not an issue of population demands. The resources are there. They are just misused by those above the people who need them.

But before this gets to debate, feel free to continue this with me by PM.

JasonV · Jan 26, 2007

Davidnic said:
But we can not take an immoral step for immediate impact. I think our hearts are not far apart on points in this issue (that we wish for these people to have good lives), but we have fundamental disagreements. But to be practical if people feel that they have an easier way then they will take that over the more difficult morally correct road. We see this time and time again in human history. That is why the Church must stick to the difficult road, because it is the most effective and faithful to the Gospel. The logic of sending condoms is taking life away to save it later. Less children by stopping their lives, so there are less children to feed. It is not a place we should go.

It is not an issue of population demands. The resources are there. They are just misused by those above the people who need them.

But before this gets to debate, feel free to continue this with me by PM.

I agree that we both want better lives for the people in question. It's a difference of methodology and theology. Whereas I am more than willing to throw the theology out, you are not. I respect your view and will not escalate the discussion here or in private.

Thanks for letting me voice my view on your board.

ProCommunioneFacior · Jan 26, 2007

BrotherKnight and David, Amen!

Vatican official condemns self-genocide of human race

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Dona Quixote

Legend

Well-Known Member

2Cosmic2Charlie

Guest

JasonV

Guest

Well-Known Member

Ave Maria Gratia Plena

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Dona Quixote

JasonV

Guest

Well-Known Member

JasonV

Guest

Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.

Well-Known Member

JasonV

Guest

I'm an ultra-traditionalist, run for your life ;)

Similar threads

Vatican official condemns self-genocide of human race