A religious leader said substituting pets for children is a sin. Why?
Asked by
SQUEEKY2 (
23427
)
January 6th, 2022
Why is it a sin?
Isn’t more of a sin to have children and regret them, or not care for them properly?
I know I have beat this subject to death, but it really bothers me when shit like this is said.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
42 Answers
Who is that religious leader, exactly?
Anyone with some status in the religious world can say stupid things like that. It doesn’t mean everyone who follows the same religion has to agree. This is just another egomaniac who thinks because he is on the high up he represents God.
The Pope said something to that effect.
I’m not sure he called it a sin though (I read it an hour ago and can’t recall the word “sin”), but I will read more on it.
-
“Pope Francis has suggested that couples who prefer pets to children are selfish.
The leader of the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics said substituting pets for children “takes away our humanity”.
During a general audience at the Vatican, he said: “Today… we see a form of selfishness. We see that some people do not want to have a child. Sometimes they have one, and that’s it, but they have dogs and cats that take the place of children. This may make people laugh but it is a reality.”
Pet keeping was “a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our humanity”, he said. The consequence was that “civilisation grows old without humanity because we lose the richness of fatherhood and motherhood, and it is the country that suffers”.
While saying couples unable to have children for biological reasons could consider adoption, he urged potential parents “not to be afraid” of embarking on parenthood. “Having a child is always a risk, but there is more risk in not having a child,” he said.
Source (The Guardian)”
-
Selfishness.
Denial of mother- and fatherhood.
Taking away humanity.
I’m not a fan (at all), but he didn’t (apparently) said it is/was a sin.
@rebbel John Arbuckle is a sinner? That explains why he can’t get a second date.
@RedDeerGuy1 to be fair Jon Arbuckle and Garfield’s relationship can be more of that of a slave/master relationship than actual love. And besides he did get Liz in the end :)
Because the church is losing followers and thus income.
Plus, priests have less children to rape.
Religion and sex can get weird. Some feel sex is only for procreation and not simply pleasure. I understand their point of view though I disagree, especially in an overpopulated world.
We didn’t have children for several reasons, and perhaps some were ‘selfish’, but we see them as self-care. Also we are able to help more people by not having children ourselves, as it free’s up resources.
Finally, we aren’t supposed to judge eachother’s soul, that is only God’s job.
This kind of thing is a major turn-off in organized religion. (Eyeroll)
How many children did Jesus have?
One of the goals of any religion is to increase the number of followers of that religion. That’s why Catholicism bans most forms of birth control. When I visited Mexico in the 1980s, I saw people standing in fields of garbage, picking through garbage. This was right after the Pope had just visited and told the people of Mexico to populate. They wanted more Catholics, meanwhile the people were impoverished.
Pets are like children and no religion can change that.
Additionally the bible is full of animal care verses. Like 2nd Samuel 12.
Why? Religious leaders use religion to say whatever they want to serve their own interests and the interests of said religion.
I do not even agree that the world is overpopulated, in terms of resource scarcity. There is enough food being produced to feed everyone well. The problem is capitalism and resource distribution. An elite few hoard riches and live in luxury, withholding a life worth living from the masses.
That is also the reason why people in the west have less children. They can not afford them.
Compared to 1971, cost of living has increased 2 to 4 times as much as salaries and wages have.
It used to be the case, way back then, that when you were hired by a company, you could reasonably expect to be employed there until your retirement. That idea is a ludicrous fantasy today.
You could earn enough to buy a home, found a family, settle down. Made enough for one of you to stay home. You had the job security for that to make sense. Your kids could inherit the house when you croak.
Today, both have to work, just to survive.
Forget buying a house, you can not afford it.
And even if you could, you could get fired at any time, for no reason, without warning. Then you have to sell your house, because you have to move to another state for a new job. What is the point of buying a house in the first place?
Why bring children into this world?
@ragingloli: Add to what you said the fact that in previous decades, spending years at a job also meant retiring with a pension. Now, there are very few companies that offer a pension. Public service usually comes with a pension, although that’s eroding also (for example, NY state, you are no longer vested after 5 years). The pension was what enabled people to retire with some security in their old age.
Just another idiotic fruitcake who seems to think the world, and his religion, needs MORE PEOPLE!
@ragingloli I certainly could not afford children until I was almost 40 years old. By then it was too late. I’m not alone, I know so many people who could not manage it until they were well established in their careers and have debts paid off. Some can sneak kids in around 40 with fertility treatments but many simply can’t. Those that did throw caution in the wind and had them anyway may not get to retire. I blame housing that is not affordable and tuition that’s beyond insane.
Children mean more chances of more followers of said religion, more money coming into the church, more chance the religion will go on into the future, and increased power for the religion, there is power in numbers.
Some religions also preach that animals are lower than humans, and that animals do not go to heaven, only human beings do.
I didn’t see where the Pope mentioned “sin”. But really, is anyone surprised that the titular head of a religious sect that believes that procreation is super high on the list of “must do” things, would object to a scaling down of family numbers?
Unless you are a devout Catholic, @SQUEEKY2, I wouldn’t take it so to heart. There is a long list of things of which the Catholic Church doesn’t approve, I have ticked off a bunch of those boxes myself, but since I’m not Catholic, or even Christian, I don’t give a rat’s ass (or any other rat body part) about it.
You’ll feel better if you let this one go.
Because he’s stupid. A pet could never take the place of a child.
One of the tenants of the Catholic religion is to go forth and multiply. On down the road they get to charge the offspring taxes. And birth control is a sin for the same reason. More Catholics = mo money.
The OP didn’t say it was clergy from the Catholic Church.
The POPE said it. Read @rebbels post in the thread.
I read the thread. @rebbel wrote the Pope used the word selfish. Are we sure that is what and who the OP was referring to?
This selfish schtick jibes with what one of my Catholic friends told me about one the priests that used work at her church. That priest used to say the greatest gift you can give your children is siblings. He more or less said it’s more important to give children siblings than to give them fancy clothes or fancy college degrees.
Funny that the Pope calls them selfish while conveniently overlooking his selfish reasons for saying that.
Also funny that this Child-Molester-In-Chief has no children nor was ever married.
As a world leader for the Catholic Faith he is Supposed to garner more faithful followers otherwise he will be seen as week.
But to say its a ‘Sin” not to have children is way wrong as we all have the right to choice, just like he chose to be celibate and become a Priest,and then Pope.
Keep in mind that he is in the world center of Catholics ..ROme, Italy where he is outnumbered and Religiously followed. ( remember the mafia is there as well).
He didn’t use the word “sin.” He used the word “selfish.”
It’s absurd.
Here’s what Coloma had to say:
“Rubbish! With the planet pushing 8 billion humans at this time, the threat of climate change, loss of resources, and our, obviously, already precarious existence, what’s “selfish” are those that continue to reproduce like there’s no tomorrow. “Selfish” is not caring about the future you are leaving to your children. My daughter and her partner are opting out on having kids and while sure, it would be great to be a grandma I fully support their decision for all the reasons I mention. Lots of younger people are opting out on having kids these days and really, it’s the most responsible thing to do for the sake of our planet at this juncture.”
Coloma is 100% right @Dutchess_III , and thanks to everyone else that posted an answer I didn’t see this leader say that, Mrs Squeeky did ,and it got me thinking of a question .
In the course of our marriage people have said we were being selfish for not having kids but no one could explain how that makes one selfish.
Kids now a a days will probably never own a home unless they inherit it .
All of my kids own homes.
@Dutchess_III they are adults I am talking about todays children.
BTW, I agree with Coloma too.
@SQUEEKY2 if you hadn’t told me beforehand that this statement came from a “religions leader”, I would have thought a disgruntled old nobody said that. Seriously, there is just nothing tied to religion at all here, just an old man having a hard time accepting that perfectly normal people can choose not to have children. The only thing that is remotely related to religion is that this is a religious leader. I’ll take it as the same old man’s talk about how the youth is getting worse, nothing more.
”....youth is getting worse…” They’ve gotten worse through all of history!
Just ask Socrates. “Children; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room, they contradict their parents and tyrannize their teachers. Children are now tyrants.””
@Dutchess_III: In the words of Socrates, “Children need less screen time, and more quality time with friends and family.”
Today at the temple here in The Villages there will be a Blessing of the Pets event. Everyone is welcome, it does not have to be a Jewish pet.
“A Jewish pet.” ROFLOL!!
It never occurred to me that Cato might be Jewish!
Pretty sure Vanta is a Satan Worshiper tho.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
