What the heck — Let’s turn on some Gregorian Chant and open up a can of worms.
Yesterday in Sydney, Pope Benedict XVI gave a big speech during which he said that Roman Catholics need to care more for the environment, since the planet’s resources were being “squandered” by human beings’ “insatiable consumption.” Here are the money quotes from His Holiness:
“God’s creation is one and it is good. The concerns for non-violence, sustainable development, justice and peace, and care for our environment are of vital importance for humanity …
“Perhaps reluctantly, we come to acknowledge that there are also scars which mark the surface of our earth - erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world’s mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption.”
I’m focusing on the words “sustainable development” and “insatiable consumption.” Aren’t these just a teensy bit related to population growth? And isn’t the Roman Catholic Church’s planet-wide opposition to birth control one of the big reasons why the human species keeps getting more and more numerous?
(In 1970 the world’s population was 3.69 billion, and 654 million of them were Roman Catholic. By 2005, those numbers were 6.49 million and 1.12 billion. Carry the one, divide by the square root of pi… and Roman Catholics were responsible for about one-sixth of global population growth during those years.)
The Church seems pretty pleased with itself, noting that between 2000 and 2006 alone, more than 28 million new Catholics were added in Africa alone — the very place where the “no condom” rules are making it hardest to keep population numbers stabilized. So much for “sustainable development.”
So what do you think? Should the Pope be lecturing the faithful about bending over backwards to preserve God’s creation while denying them the tools to avoid creating too many little destroyers? Or should I just shut up?
I’ll let someone else touch the abortion third-rail. I’m just thinking about population numbers.
Full disclosure: I was brought up in the Roman Catholic church (13 years of Catholic school, complete with priests and nuns), but I’m no longer quite so … how should I say it? … sectarian.
Bonus question: Is it sinful for the Popemobile to run on fossil fuels? (…especially since those fuels are literally the remains of dinosaurs whose existence is incompatible with a literal reading of the Bible…) And what about that 20-hour flight from Rome to Sydney? Happy Friday!
Are you actually surprised by another two-faced, hypocritical stance by the church?
Dinosaurs are not incompatible with the Bible. There were most likely dinosaurs on the ark with Noah.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
Love that site, Newbie.
QED, bitches!
Yeah, how else was he supposed to listen to records or wash the dishes? Wait, that was The Flintstones.
Hey, I agree with most people’s bitches about the Catholic Church (and I’m a Catholic, so you can guess how disgusted I must get) your logic does leave some pretty big gaps.
For instance, the 2 most populous and quickly developing nations in the world are China and India - definitely NOT Catholic. The growth of the Catholic Church in the last 30 years has centered around Africa and the former Soviet Sphere nations. Many of these people were ALREADY Catholic or Christian, and simply weren’t allowed to be vocal about it because of the Soviet crackdowns on the Church, or hostile Muslim regimes in Africa that would round you up and kill you.
And come on folks, can’t we just agree that MOST Christians don’t believe in a literal word-for-word translation of the Bible. They’re stories to teach morals, many of which are obvious rip-offs of previous religions or fables. Hell, you even mention Noah, which is an OBVIOUS translation of portions of the story of Gilgamesh.
I would say most Christians fall into my mold. I believe in dinosaurs, I believe in the Big Bang, I believe in evolution, and I also believe Christ was the son of God. Science is far from a deity killer when you think about it. Modern physics doctrine actually seems to require a God of sorts. When you have a law saying matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and can only change form, it begs the question where that matter and energy originated from doesn’t it? Even if you trace all the way back passed the big bang, it all had to originate somewhere at sometime, and there’s just no science that can explain where it came from.
Sorry for the exceptionally long-winded rant, but I get really pissed when people start assuming that logic and science somehow disprove faith. “God does not play dice with the universe.” - Einstein. Let’s try and remember that.
Awwwwww….. You’re going to hell for that.
Or at least to Richard Dawkins’s house for tea.
Here’s a passage of a speech our “dear” Pope did in Australia:
>>”I ask myself could anyone standing face to face with people who actually do suffer violence and sexual exploitation explain that these tragedies portrayed in virtual form are considered merely entertainment”<<
This come from the Leader of an organization who hid and protected pedophiles across the world. He’s quite the hypocrite type to forget all those who abused children in his mist.
It is always so easy to blame Adult entertainment with all the ills of the earth. Let’s just see if he can do the same thing with the people inside of the Church. Unlike the former, the sexually abused children dint received a check after a pedophile priest raped them.
What I don’t understand about the Catholic church is how a condom (or any birth control) is equal to abortion. At least with an abortion, you can make the argument that “life” has already been started, so to tamper with that, you are then violating God’s will. With a condom– is sperm considered holy? I don’t get it.
OT:The Pope’s mission nowadays is quite outdated. He can’t speak of the Bible and older traditions while attempting to play-act a modern role. The logic is diametrically opposed, and unless he is willing to admit that he’s wrong somewhere (highly unlikely), there will never be a reconciliation. Since hardly anyone believes he’s the voice of God on earth, why bother listening to him in the first place?
Sorry — You were just asking for it.
The Catholic Church is like a big, old, blind and toothless dog on a chain that growls and barks but doesn’t do a whole lot. I was Catholic before Catholic school turned me atheist, and can honestly say that even back then, when we had a halfway decent Pope, that no one really cared. The Catholic Church is two faced, has a running history of abuses and hypocrisy, and was built on not the blood of martyrs, but the blood of anyone who disagreed. Not that I am singling the Catholic church out. This particular organization happens to be the topic.
In short, the hypocrisy is no big shocker and really quite comical.
Oh. My. God. Where to start? As soon as I saw this, I knew it was crying out for that Monty Python clip….LOL!
Scott F, right on. Christians do not all take the bible literally, most of us do believe in dinosaurs, the Big Bang, etc. We gets it, okay? Not all stupid. I even laughed when Homer Simpson said “Praise Jeebus” As for that law that matter cannot be created or destroyed, “THE” prevailing theory now, I believe, is that at the moment of the big bang, ALL the matter that is currently in the universe was compressed into a teeny-tiny singularity. The theory now is basically that matter from nothingness. Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit, but that sounds exactly like creation!!! Matter from nothing. If you say that as a Christian, you are called a looney, but if you say it as a scientist, you are brilliant. BAH
I have noticed that most of your frothing-at-the-mouth atheists (present company excluded, CM, you don’t froth that I have noticed) started out Catholic. I wonder if anyone has ever done the numbers on that? Percentage of rabid atheists who started out Catholic? Most of the really intolerant, obnoxious ones don’t rail against Christians so much as against Catholics. It’s as if they are incapable of making the distinction. By some odd coincidence, this type is common on the science blog sites. HMMM
And a big THUMBS DOWN to the Holy Roman Catholic Church for discouraging condom use in Africa where AIDS is and has been for years out of control. Get with the times, Pope and Co. They probably just need all the orphans for converts.
A big thank you to Deceiver! Everybody talks about alternative sources of energy, green living, sustainable development, etc. The real problem is there are too many humans. If population growth were halted or reversed, most of these problems would be far less of a concern. But, population reduction is the third rail of environmentalism. Nobody will touch it. Every habitat can only support a finite population of a given species. Earth, viewed as a habitat for humans, is no different. If we keep breeding unchecked we will find the earth’s carrying capacity the hard way. Or is it god’s desire that we force ourselves into extinction?
Zorg, you’re obviously right on from a purely natural standpoint, but again you’re missing the forest for the trees. You can’t make direct comparisons about human population by looking at how other species operate. Why?
Because unlike all other species, we actively cultivate and cull our own food. In nature, as a population grows, food becomes more scarce, and then you hit the population ceiling and it plummets back to a sustainable level again. In humans, our food supply can actually increase as population goes up. This doesn’t even require the expanding of farm land in all cases, as new technologies (tools, fertilizers, insecticides, hydroponics, ect.) actually produce more food per existing acre of farm land. That’s why no one wants to touch the issue, because how are you going to quantify this stuff exactly? Every year we can feed more people, do we keep moving the number up?
Then you’ve got the problem that ‘developed’ nations like the US and EU nations have pretty stagnant or even shrinking populations. The places that really do need to cut back on birth rates don’t generally give a shit about the environment. Are we going to force them to somehow?
Oh, and please don’t use the word ‘extinction’. I hate that word, because it sets off those ‘oh God, oh God, we’re all gonna die!’ alarms. Even in nature most species don’t go extinct when food becomes an issue, their population just dips back down to a sustainable level. We’re not going to die out, but a few wars might start over it depending on who starts going hungry first.
You’re right, I did ask for the Monty Python clip! Completely forgot that I learned all I needed to know in life through their delicious brand of comedy.
I find it funny that the religious among us are defending the general intelligence of those with faith but not actually, ya know, answering the question. The post wasn’t “aren’t all Catholics stupid?” but …is banning birth control unrealistic in terms of a sustainable earth?
I do recognize there are a lot of Christians, and catholics, who are thoughtful, intelligent, and don’t explode when you mention Darwin. Totally give you that. But as one of the non-faithful could one of you who stayed with the church tell us if you follow the birth control = bad logic? Or are you saying that listening to the anti-condom Pope is akin to denying evolution and all that? I genuinely would like to hear how a faithful catholic feels about this.
llamasrule, thanks. I am not a rabid anything, really. I would think that being a frothing at the mouth atheist would be too much like…well, religion.
I recognize the intelligence of the average person no matter what their faith. Most people can reconcile science and religious teaching. That said, Phoenix brought up a good point that is more on topic about banning birth control and a sustainable earth.
I know that the question was not directed at me, but I can’t shut up.
I am not one to say that we shouldn’t reproduce in order to save the earth. It certainly wouldn’t hurt, but I strongly believe that what a person does with their reproductives is none of my business. I am not a mother, nor do I wish to be, but it’s not due to some noble wish to help Mother Earth. I just don’t want the responsibility, don’t want to give up racing the car, and my husband and I enjoy taking the dogs to the pub, not kids. I’m no one to criticize someone that has ten kids. My sister has had three in three years. Her body, her responsibility, her choice. She isn’t doing it because the Pope says to either.
The Pope is being unrealistic and irresponsible in clinging onto this birth control is a sin thing, though. Not because of the environment so much, though it is a small part of it and it is where the hypocrisy comes in, and in a most comical way. It’s because of the unwanted pregnancies that will happen regardless, many of which will end in abortion. It’s because of the diseases, especially in Africa, where children are born with HIV every day. It’s because kids are going to have sex outside of marriage as they have always done and always will, and should at least be responsible about it. The Pope is not an authority on something he is not allowed to do. Sorry.
im catholic, (cant say i go to church so ya know..) and i believe in birth control and abortion UNDER the right circumstances. so this is off topic but my boyfriend’s grandparents are strong catholics.. they didn’t believe in birth control back in the day and they had 13 kids. 13!!! can you imagine this world without birth control? god!
FYI - i meant abortion under the right circumstances lol
It’s cool to hear some thoughtful answers, being the atheist in an all catholic family. I just always remember when my cousin had her large, very catholic wedding to her fiancee…while 7 months pregnant with another man’s child…and where the ringbearer was her son from a third, unknown guy. The priest praised the fiancee for being a good catholic man and taking up this family. So I guess I’m saying that where I’m from, people tend to pick and choose their sins. Our folks figured sex outside of marriage was fine and birth control was sinful. Glad to hear there are more rational folks out there though. Personally I figure if you’re going to do one, go ahead for the other. It’s like a sin two-for-one deal.
There is a natural way to practice birth control, it requires women to understand thier bodies and such. It’s not a easy, as say popping some chemical pill everyday, but it does work.
Mojo- um, no…I’m assuming you are referring to the rhythm method which is NOT a “natural way to practice birth control.” It’s a natural way to play the odds, and it does decrease your chances, but that’s about it. It is NOT a viable, equal alternative to birth control. Plenty of women understand their bodies and give that method a shot because they a prevented by religion from using actual birth control and…they end up pregnant. Those who take a pill don’t do it as an easy out, or to avoid having to understand their own biology, people take the pill because they want an actual reliable method to prevent themselves getting pregnant. The “control” part of birth control.
There are also herbal, “natural” substances that help deter pregnancy, but the truth is that aside from abstinence nothing is reliable except for actual birth control methods such as condoms, the pill, etc. The science and statistics are just against the natural way unless someone finds something new. And claiming that natural means are just as good if you “understand” your body is pretty much saying that it’s a woman’s own fault if she gets pregnant using those methods. Sorry, but if you choose to go with alternative forms of birth control, you are way upping your chance of accidental pregnancy. It’s just a choice people have to make.
Scott F.
You’re wrong on three points. 1. Humans ARE subject to the same laws that govern any animal. Just because we modify our environment doesn’t mean we aren’t bound by the planet’s finite resources. That’s right, FINITE resources. The only resource on earth that comes from outside of earth is sunlight. Everything else is in a closed cycle of use and release. 2. Almost all aerable land is already in food production on the planet. Modify the land and crop genetics all you want, a maximum biomass production per unit area exists for every bit of soil. 3. Extinction is not an overreaction to anything. It is simply a fact of exixtence for every living organism. Check back in half a million years and see how many humans are walking the earth. The only way to factor these things out of reality is to substitute an alternate magical reality like religious dogma.
Alright, we’re like the animals then? We’re bound by all the same laws of finite resources? How many resources are truly ‘finite’ anyways? Coal, oil, natural gas, ect. Yeah, they’re finite.
You’ve got the miracle material: wood - that you can literally grow more of at will. With genetic manipulation we should have no trouble creating faster-growing strains in the near future that will increase turnover even more. Yeah, you’ve got a maximum number of people you can sustain with food, but where is that number?
See, if you pay attention to the past, then you’ve got a pretty good idea about all the bullshit that has gone into environmental movements, including fudging population numbers. Ever seen the movie Soylent Green? In the 70’s everyone was sure that we had reached our population plateau and wait for it… ‘we’re all gonna die!’. Well, actually, we were just gonna have to eat each other to survive. That was about 2 billion people ago man, and yet here we are… not eating each other.
‘Finite’ resources is a bullshit term anyways. Resources only become finite when you waste them. Pretty much the only place I agree with environmentalists is that we need to clean the air, clean the water, and stop throwing away perfectly good resources. How much of the iron, aluminum, tin, ect. that we’ve mined over the last 100 years is sitting in garbage dumps or auto wrecking yards? If we kept these materials ‘in circulation’ so to speak, then again you can spread the ‘finite’ resources much further and more efficiently. Besides, not to get all Star Trek on your ass, but how long is it really going to be before we start gathering resources from other celestial bodies? If we need them, we’ll get them.
And yes, extinction is an overreaction. Short of a cataclysm we couldn’t stop anyways (like an asteroid), humanity is not likely to suffer a complete extinction. We can adapt to nearly any circumstance, even better than animals can. Gets colder? Wear more. Gets hotter? Wear less. Global warming melts the polar ice? Move further inland.
These are not extinction-level problems unless you’re a mindless green freak that can’t grasp the fact that just because the world isn’t going to be EXACTLY the way it was yesterday, that we’ll all die. Yeah, life could suck down the road if we don’t take better care of the Earth - but you’re insulting people’s intelligence when you try to say it’s going to kill us all. Humanity has survived ice ages, plagues, the invention of the atomic bomb, biological and chemical warfare, 2 world wars, famines, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. I think we’ll be alright.
Another point in support of Scott F.’s post, which was great. The earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling well before we had the power to impact it. Our carbon emissions make up something like .3% of carbon emissions. During one of the “zoic” ages when the dinosaurs were around, we had huge warming trends and far higher carbon levels. I don’t think that the dinosaurs were driving around in SUV’s.
Fact is, that while yes, we have a responsibility to take care of the planet, let’s not martyr ourselves over it. Global warming/cooling, changes in landscape due to natural events, and extinctions due to these trends are all going to happen anyway.
I was at a seminar recently about population growth and the effect on the environment and it basically boils down to the fact that the birth rate should be 2.1 children for every fertile female. This would keep population levels steady.
It is an unarguable fact that countries that are Catholic are those where this rate is higher.
China, despite having the largest population, has managed to stop their population exploding (and before we start down that road, I don’t approve in any way of HOW they did it, I’m just saying they have).
It is socially and environmentally irresponsible for the Catholic church to continue with the “Contraception is a sin” line.
Oh, and I am a Christian who does believe that the Bible is fact.
“So what do you think? Should the Pope be lecturing the faithful about bending over backwards to preserve God’s creation while denying them the tools to avoid creating too many little destroyers? Or should I just shut up?”
Answer: you should just shut up.
God made the rule, not the Church and the Pope has no power to change it. I don’t see why he should care about what a bunch of tree huggers think anyway.
@katie
Please tell me what the “right circumstances” are for dismembering an infant in the womb?
Maybe she meant “rape and incest” exceptions? I’m just guessing …
Merriweather — if you take abortion out of the equation and just talk about birth control (the prevention of conception), are you arguing that God has a rule against it? I’m just confused.
…are you arguing that God has a rule against [contraception]? I’m just confused.
Yeah, you sure are. There are valid theological arguments against it that go back hundreds of years. I’m not Catholic, but Lutheran, and I think Catholics are probably right on contraception. (And if you read the article, Protestant churches also opposed contraception until around 1930.)
Oh, by the way, your bonus question is nothing but a cheap shot. In general, Catholics don’t interpret Genesis literally and believe in evolution, although they do believe God is the Creator, no matter how it happened. (Another thing I agree with Catholics about.) In fact, I bet that most Christians are *not* new-Earth Creationists.
Merriweather, wow. You really honestly believe that sex should be for no other purpose than procreation? Because that’s essentially what you’re saying. Wives who are barren or husbands who are sterile should not enjoy the intimacies of marriage? No one ought to practice the rhthym method or time sex for when they won’t be ovulating? By taking the “every sperm is sacred” stance, you are opening a lot of scary doors. And don’t say you’re not taking that stance, because you just said that “God made the rule” against birth control. And what better birth control is there than being infertile, sterile, not being in the ovulating phase of your cycle or being simply too old to have children? Therefore, by your rationale, all these sinners that have sex under these circumstances or indeed, anyone who has sex without the express purpose of procreating, are just that - sinners. People often fail to realize the practical reasons behind the church’s actions. There is no better way to recruit people to your church than to bring them into it from infancy, (or to conquer another civilization, but that takes lives and monetary resources) and the way to ensure you have the most recruits is to tell faithful followers that preventing new births in any way is an out and out sin.
And as far as the “right circumstances for dismembering an infant in the womb” goes, don’t even get me started. Something like 98% of abortions take place well before the 20th week, which is the absolute earliest that a fetus is considered “viable”, as in, could might possibly on very slim chance survive outside the mother’s womb and then only with the help of extensive modern medicine. In fact, most abortions take place before the 8th week of gestation. And then the vast majority of those that don’t, take place within the first trimester. Oh, and inside the womb, it’s considered an embryo, then a fetus, but never an infant.
The only man accused of Britain’s biggest bank robbery walked free from court yesterday after the collapse of his trial. More..
by xrtst302a