Feb 122015
 

It was a little disappointing when the secret conclave elected a man to the papal throne who seemed more reasonable than the demented old ideologue who had gone before.  On the face of it, Jorge Bergoglio was more a man of the people than the bitter old Josef Ratzinger, former head of the Inquisition and enforcer-in-chief under Karol Wojtyla.

Pope Francis waves to crowds as he arrives to his inauguration mass on 19 March 2013.

It was disappointing, but only because Ratzinger provided so much opportunity for ridicule compared to the reasonable, sane, kindly Pope Francis, and to be fair to him, Bergoglio has done much to be praised.  He constantly attacks the remoteness of the Curia, he mixes with the common people and he does not lead an opulent life.  In many ways, he’d need to be careful that  they don’t murder him as they did Albino Luciani, otherwise known as John Paul I.

In his early utterances on homosexuality, Bergoglio asked the historic question, Who am I to judge?, and we all agreed.  Who indeed?  Who are you to judge, and who are your bishops to judge, and who are your priests to judge, and who are your Catholic ideological vanguard to judge? Who are the likes of the self-appointed Iona Institute to judge?

At last, we were thinking, a humble pope who understands that his  opinion is just that.  An opinion.

But masks are made for slipping, and so it came to pass that Jorge Bergoglio last week expressed his views on beating children.

It’s all right, this pope thinks, to hit a child as long as you don’t hit the child on the face.

One time, I heard a father in a meeting with married couples say ‘I sometimes have to smack my children a bit, but never in the face so as to not humiliate them’.

That’s because, you see, it’s never humiliating to be struck by somebody bigger, when they want you to obey them.

That’s why this sort of behaviour is legal among adults, isn’t that right?  This is why bosses are allowed to hit their employees as long as they don’t hit them on the face, which would be humiliating.  This is why the Pope is allowed to leap from his throne and kick the living shit out of any cardinal who disagrees with him.

How beautiful! said the Pope of the violent father.  He knows the sense of dignity! He has to punish them but does it justly and moves on.

In other words, Slap!  Take that you little bastard. Now shut up.

This is how the kindly new Pope sees parenthood, but why wouldn’t he see it that way, having no experience of it himself?

This week, Jorge Bergoglio came out with another gem.

Couples who choose not to have children are being selfish, according to a man who chose not to have children.

In a world where over-population is a huge problem, couples who choose not to have children are being selfish.  They’re not being responsible.  They’re not being sensible.  They’re being selfish.  They’re not even making a sacrifice, even though the concept of sacrifice is at the heart of Bergoglio’s ideology.

Somehow, in Pope Bergoglio’s world, when he makes a decision about his life, it’s a commitment, but when somebody else makes the same decision, it’s selfishness.

That tells you all you need to know about the Vatican and the apparatchiks who control it.

Including the kindly Pope Jorge.

 

  13 Responses to “Choosing Not to Have Children is Selfish, says Pope, Who Chose Not to Have Children”

Comments (13)
  1.  

    I think he meant choosing not to have ‘catholic’ children is selfish.

  2.  

    Does this joker ever give up, the Catholic Church must have been going through their membership numbers and noticed a decline, so it’s time to forth and multiply in the name of their leader ie. The pope.

  3.  

    Aren’t his comments a thinly veiled attack on contraception? Having lost open arguments on family planning, the church tries a more oblique approach

  4.  

    That cross-dresser in a dress, made me think of this Monty Python scene/clip

  5.  

    Hello All.
    I venture the thought that should any group wish to extend their influence far and wide, it would be a good idea to out-breed other groups. Contraception / childlessness puts a crimp in that plan.

  6.  

    Only you mentioned out-breeding. Why is that important to you? It sounds a bit creepy.

  7.  

    Nothing more than an idle thought. You’re right, it does sound a bit creepy. I’ll have a word with myself.
    It holds no importance for me, my mind was simply running along the lines of the RCC’s stance on contraception. Clearly the more born “in the faith,” as it were, from the point of view of the RCC, or any group come to that, a larger membership would be a positive thing
    Does that clarify?

  8.  

    I doubt it, frankly. He’s not a fool and he knows that children won’t be automatically raised as Catholics. So the out-breeding idea doesn’t work.

  9.  

    Point taken Bock.

  10.  

    Same man, Mr. Bergoglio, while on one of his recent trips admonished a lady for having 6 or 7 children (I always lose count after 1), quote `to be good Catholics, we don’t have to be like rabbits’, he also said that 3 children was an ideal size or something to that effect (again, I lose count after 1 child), yet the same man endorses `Humanae Vitae’. Bock : the problem with the RC Church is that they dug a massive hole for themselves when they brought out the Human Vitae crap sometime in the 60’s and they just can’t get themselves out of it without admitting total and absolute idiocy on their part and the conning of tens of millions of gullible believers and there were plenty of them in holy Ireland and still are. The RC Church have played their part in the massive human over population of this planet, 4 fold increase in the last 1 hundred years and Mr. Bergoglio still has the neck to bring out an encyclical on Nature and our Environment sometime in the near future. But re know the RC Church are good at squaring circles and getting themselves out of holes.

  11.  

    Choosing Not to Have Children is Selfish, says Pope, Who Chose Not to Have Children, nope the pope is gay like most of the Curia (not a choice) so up to now he couldn’t have children but now he can have “gaybabies” soon the Vatican will need a kinder garden. Now that’s spooky as the paedophiles will need to be shackled to their altars.

    Frankly

  12.  

    I drifted by as I found your post title amusing. However, being raised as a Catholic it made me aware that I hadn’t known the current Pope’s name nor the previous Pope’s name. Does that make me a bad Catholic?

  13.  

    Yes that makes you a bad,,not interested type of catholic

Leave a Reply