Church and ministry leadership resources to better equip, train and provide ideas for today's church and ministry leaders, like you.
Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
…should not be allowed to have children.
Evil. Just plain evil.
Why is it that I never see the crazy things said on MSNBC? This blog has become so left wing I’m waiting for the rationalization of abortion and gay marriage to start anytime now.
Where would the Party of Personal Responsibility be with out tu quoques, blameshifting and denial?
In case you hadn’t noticed, my hostility to forbidding poor people to breed is a *prolife* position. It’s telling that you don’t seem to realize that.
Mr. Shea, I am 100% with you on this. I run into similar well-intentioned wickedness when, filled with cynicism, people argue that certain men and women who procreate and then continue having their parental rights terminated should be FORCIBLY STERILIZED. I get physically sick to my stomach when I hear people talk like that. I will never support forcible sterilization, no matter how many children someone has.
I used to hear it all of the time in *conservative* circles that I used to hang around… mainly Reformed Protestants. Oddly, I heard it a lot from my black friends talking about other black people… which is odd considering that’s exactly what Sanger wanted, to kill off the blacks.
Talk about a strawman. I asked a simple question which was spun into an ad hominem attack about me not “realizing that” you are prolife. That was not the question, but hey, way to deflect.
You probably don’t see them for the same reason I don’t, or the same reason Mark doesn’t write them up…
We’re not watching MSNBC.
Mark doesn’t watch Fox either. He said long ago that he doesn’t watch TV. He gets his views and impressions about the network from other sites. By the way, if one guest expresses a certain opinion that does not mean that it is the official opinion of the network. Mark is always making that assumption or claim.
MSMBC was but one example, but I’m sure you knew that.
No,I didn’t. CNN is the only other example I can think of. Maybe AlJazeera?
They’re FOX’ competitors, but they’re small potatoes. Be honored your propaganda station is biggest and best.
Seriously, what a lame response. Those other stations combined have more viewers than Fox and you act like they’re “no big deal” to cling to your false premise.
I guess “Thou shalt not bear false witness” means nothing here.
If you truly think that, then you haven’t been reading. You should also remember that many Catholics who identify with the fallen ideology of American conservatism end up regarding the lies that the right spews as part of Church doctrine. Mark sees through the lies. Hey, it ain’t just the left that’s flippin’ crazy. Unlike the left, however, the right actually pretends to be bffs with Catholics who claim to be true to the Faith.
I’ve been reading for 5+ years, and there’s a marked difference in attitude and attack the past couple of years. I’m not sure what generalized “conservative” spit in Mark’s cereal, but he is sure out to make all conservatives *pay*.
If you’ve been paying attention, you may have noticed that some conservatives forced Boehner out, with the proverbial straw being the reluctance to defund planned parenthood. But hey, conservatives lie as you say and Mark will cut through all of it! Join the Pharisee club now!
In this case, he didn’t really make anyone pay… he just linked to yet another fascinating piece by the Right, in which they expose themselves as antichrist.
And where are the “fascinating” articles by the Left?? Hello?
The point being is that this blog has had an almost singular focus on attacking conservatives, yet last time I checked, the Left and their supporting networks (pretty much all except the dreaded FOX) all hold fairly evil positions regarding human life and the family. YET, crickets chirp here…..
If you have any sense of honesty and fairness, then admit the Left is also an antichrist. Are you able?
Nobody watches MSNBC anymore. Why comment on it when it doesn’t have an audience?
Mark, you wrote the FOX guest said people on welfare “should not be allowed to have children.” Actually, that’s wrong, just plain wrong.
At the page you linked to, what the guy said was “If you’re making minimum wage, you shouldn’t be having children and trying to raise a family on it.” It wasn’t about the government or any other entity granting permission for people to have children. His point was people shouldn’t choose to have children they can’t afford to care for.
He’s a little cruder, and a lot harsher in spirit than I’m prepared to support. He could stand to have lots more sympathy for people in hard circumstances. His proposal to shame welfare recipients is reprehensible, and the laudable pursuit of welfare cheats doesn’t come close to justifying it.
But his point about having children, while not expressed very pastorally, doesn’t seem to be that much different from the church leader who said people shouldn’t be “like rabbits” and “Parenthood is about being responsible.”
This conservative is prepared to agree with Pope Francis.
“Actually, that’s wrong, just plain wrong.
At the page you linked to, what the guy said was ‘If you’re making minimum wage, you shouldn’t be having children and trying to raise a family on it.'”
Ah, that’s what he said! Got it! It’s all so much better now… koo, koo…
Real question here. When we came into the Church, several in our class asked about the old idea that Catholics are commanded to have as many kids as humanly possible. Not so, we were told. In multiple different talks and lessons and articles, we were told that considering circumstances in life can be a factor in when to have children or not. Not that contraceptives or, of course, abortion were the solution. Chastity was naturally an option. But considering life circumstances, such as income and finances, was perfectly fine. Now, was that wrong? Is that not what the Church teaches? If not, fair enough. If so,then is it much different than what the fellow here seems to be saying? I’m curious on that one.
And just this weekend Pope Francis extolled the values of having a family and that we need to address the components of culture that impedes families. Just saying – we are not commanded to have as many children as possible, but by the same token we are not to put obstacles in the way of having families. Our economic system does just that – it allows those of us with means to feel superior to and look down upon those without.
No worries, your class didn’t get it wrong. No where in the Catechism does it say, “If you’re making minimum wage, you shouldn’t be having children and trying to raise a family on it.”, which means “If you’re living under the poverty level, you shouldn’t have children”. That’s more like something out of Margaret Sanger’s memoirs.
So, if that’s the general attitude of the Right (which I’m assuming so if that’s what’s being preached on FOX News), then what options are there for a husband/wife, boyfriend/girlfriend on minimum wage if they accidentally get pregnant, I wonder? So, looks like the Right is pro-abortion to me… after all, it’s unacceptable for poor people to have children.
‘If you’re making minimum wage, you shouldn’t be having children and trying to raise a family on it.’
How is that still not blaming the poor for being poor?
The problem isn’t having children. The problem is employers not paying a living wage.
Isn’t that like throwing people in the pool, then condemning them for getting wet?
Where did I say anything about the state forbidding children. The guy said people on minimum wage should not be having children. What he does not say is that families should be paid a living wage so that they *can* have children (which was, by the way, part of the pope’s message). He is a shill for corporate greed and believes that the poor should forego families rather than the rich forego their wealth.
You didn’t say that the state should forbid children, but you did say he said that that “minimum wage earners should not be allowed to have children.” It is not an unreasonable inference to suggest that it is the state that would do that. So while that was not your intent, it was the effect of your words on some readers.
Oh for God’s sake… you mad that Mark pointed out the poop stain on your Fox News shrine?
FOX Guest Says Minimum Wage Earners should not be allowed to have children.
I remember when Mark was opposed to telling lies to achieve good ends. Ah, those halcyon days of yore! Seems like forever ago, doesn’t it? We were younger then. Idealistic. Some would say naive, but I like to think that we aspired to become better versions of ourselves.
One very quick ticket off my comboxes is to call me a liar. Bye!
But you did speak falsely, Mark. Was it sloppy reading? Sloppy writing? Sloppy thinking? Or was it indifference to the truth? MMS seems to think that you are too smart for the other explanations to be plausible. Me too. And the record supports your willingness to play fast and loose with the truth in order to facilitate your rhetoric.
For a guy who thinks nothing of launching unfair grenades at folks with whom he disagrees (or even thinks he disagrees) you are astonishingly thin-skinned.
You will soon prove it by banning me too.
And they come crawling out from under the rocks to protect and defend ‘Movement Conservatism’ in all of it’s anti-human anti-Catholic glory. Welcome back, Mikey! Go AMERICA!
Many today argue that a couple should be in a secure position, both financially and in other aspects of their life before they have a baby. The problem is, if they wait until everything is perfect, they will never, ever have kids. Also, the argument presumes that a family is making minimum wage when they decide to have kids. Lots of people, particularly in the last decade, may have started their families when they though they had good jobs only to have those jobs taken away. Instead of relying solely on state support, they took whatever jobs they could get, including minimum wage jobs.
The biggest problem with Western capitalism is that there is always pressure on producers to reduce costs, which practically makes it practically impossible to ensure a living wage for many jobs.
Many today argue that a couple should be in a secure position, both
financially and in other aspects…
The problem is, if they wait until everything is perfect…
But these are two different propositions. My father was earning minimum wage when I was born — he was getting $0.50/hr. — but he was in a craft and with a secure path toward better pay once he had demonstrated basic skills, like showing up for work. On time. He moved from apprentice to journeyman, finally to master printer. This path is no longer available as his entire craft is now obsolete and the industry in which he practiced it is defunct. (THAT is the real problem. That people must now make a living in entry-level, unskilled jobs.
And? What is the alternative? Postpone marriage and family forever in the hopes that you will get a better job? Lets be honest, for many people, these entry-level jobs are the best they are likely to do in the near future. The problem, as I pointed out, is that the structure of our economy forces companies to constantly be looking to cut costs, including in labor. As a result, really there is no such thing as a secure job.
Forever? Who says ‘forever’? That’s like waiting until everything is “perfect.” But once upon a time, in the long ago, prudence was regarded as a virtue.And deferred gratification was not a cause for laughter.
Evil or just plain stupid? It just seems to be the block headed bleating of an over privileged twit.
If he knows what amount constitutes insufficient income to beget and raise, then surely he must know what amount constitutes sufficient income to beget and raise. Out with it, man! Insufficient requires a standard of sufficient against which to measure.
And if one shouldn’t be having children or raising a family on that income, does he mean to suggest that if one does in fact beget or find oneself raising a family with that income, one should abort or abandon, respectively? Income, like so many other circumstances in life, is hardly static.
Does man serve money, or does money serve man?
But doubtless the important thing will be to defend the besuited talking head’s “prudence” and not the poor to whom he would deny children and family life.
The idea that men and women should make decisions as to marriage and children that are mindful of their practical ability to raise children is wholly unremarkable and entirely compatible with Catholic teaching. Only and idiot would suggest that this notion somehow endorses the murder of children either before or after birth.
While access to a living wage is related to the “practical ability” referenced above, it logically presents a different prudential question as to the efficacy of governmental mandates.
Imagine being a minumum-wage working father who has a child, then listen to what this idiot said again. Then think about the logical conclusions of that idiot’s comment.
Oh, and if you can find and post from Catholic teaching where it says that “if you work minimum-wage, then you should not have children,” I won’t publicly recommend for Mark to ban you from his blog.
Should read “Imagine being a minimum-wage working father who is already having a child” and “…should not be having children”.
Logic is not your strong suit, is it David?
You’ve failed to demonstrate why that is the case, so…
The logical conclusion of his remarks is embedded in his remarks, to wit — folks trying to live off minimum wage are not yet sufficiently financially stable to be trying to have children. The notion that he is therefore suggesting they should abort unborn children is as inferentially silly as is the notion that they should murder the children they already have. Now could he believe this? Sure. It is just that such a belief cannot be logically inferred from his statement. Hope that helps.
At least you posted a rebuttal! Better.
I addressed some of what you said in an above post, but the logical conclusion I’m talking about isn’t with regards to that statement, per se. It’s with regards to the case in which one is working minimum-wage and is having a child who is not born yet — they hear this comment, and either feel discouraged or compelled to “rectify” the situation (logic: if one is in the process of violating a command, they should stop violating that command immediately and if they’re able to do so). Given the wicked culture of death that plagues this country; in lieu of qualification, the man’s comment has disastrous implications.
I misspoke. “…without qualification”, not “…in lieu of qualification”.
“they hear this comment”
Which comment? The one I discussed?
I gather what you are trying to say is the shaming strategy he proposes introduces not only the wholesome potential of inducing people to avoid certain imprudent and immoral behaviors (his acknowledged goal) but also the pernicious potential of inducing people to engage in gravely immoral behaviors in order to avoid the shaming. Yes, this is a legitimate concern, and it is quite fair to raise it. What is not fair is to assume the speaker is morally indifferent to this concern. We just don’t know. What we do know is that over 40% of children in America are now born out of wedlock and approximately 50% of marriages end in divorce. The left, to the extent it even concedes these phenomena to be socially suboptimal, blames economic conditions. The right blames moral collapse. Both are likely right in part. Which side is more right is important from the standpoint of public policy.
Come on mark you never even listened to this. The word allowed is never mentioned. He says “shouldn’t be having” . Having a family when you cannot support them is irresponsible. He says it crudely but do not put words in his mouth.
Semantics. Both phrases suggest the same notion.
Also, wanting to have a child is a prudential judgement; one that depends on many circumstances that differ with each person. And, ultimately, it’s not up you. You are only a secondary cause of life. If life comes into being, however, it is the responsibility of the parents to protect, defend, nuture, and raise that life; if they are unable to do so or need assistance, then those in their immediate community are obligated to protect and defend that life, and provide support the best that they can. You only help others to better *exercise* their prudential judgement; the solution is *not* to edict that a specific group of people should not be having kids, especially to excuse your obligation to provide assistance if they need it.
David, your word “suggest” requires taking some serious inferential liberties.
I fail to see how, but I’m going by the literal comment from the article, anyway.
Well there is a difference between saying that it should be regarded as imprudent, and potentially immoral, to choose to have children with the financial strategy simply being “other people’s money” versus saying that it should be unlawful (i.e., not allowed) to have children in such circumstances. Same goes for having children outside wedlock. The Church Herself teaches that one should not choose to have children outside wedlock, but it is doubtful it would favor its criminalization even in a confessional state. Of course the Church rather plainly never permits abortion, and the statements at issue also cannot fairly be assumed to favor abortion, though it certainly would be a fair question to ask.
As best I can understand you, you are stating that the speaker was “suggesting” he favored criminal sanction (i.e., “the same notion”). I think that is taking unfair liberties.
No, I didn’t think he was suggesting criminal sanction. I simply regard what he said as either crappy advice or a crappy counterargument against the policy that was being debated. Or both.
Seems to me that what the Church teaches is to not have sex outside wedlock. She does not teach that if and when a child happens to have been conceived outside wedlock, that child should be rejected… But the speaker could certainly be “implying” that contraception should be the better choice for people only earning minimum wage, or, at worse, he may be suggesting that one’s choice of having sexual relations or not within marriage should be regulated… Of course, far from his mind is the idea that employers should pay living wages to their workers.
It seems to me that inferential liberties is the currency of this blog. I wonder why.
David : This much
reading between the lines smells like this story fits the “narrative”
in your heads about the evil crazy right wing conspiracy. Instead of the more
common use of the word ” shouldn’t” being a part of the prudential
decision making done by all people in tough circumstances. Something like..Hey we can’t afford to feed ourselves very well right now, maybe we shouldn’t have kids until we can. If a baby comes of course you love and nurture it. But that does not fit your narrative does it. You NEED it to suggest something like a desire of the commentator to want poor people to abort.
We can parse his words, but we don’t need to parse his sentiment. It’s a sheer drop to advocating sterilization of the poor. We’ve gone from killing off so-called “useless eaters” and created a new enemy in so-called “useless earners”. What a terrible path of self-destruction.
Precisely. It’s true that the pope has also called for people to live within their means (as a minor chord in his teaching). But the major chords are all directed at the rich to pay their workers a living wage (rather like St. James) and, as his remarks on the family make clear, to demand that this be so precisely so that the poor can enjoy marriage and family and not put them off due to poverty. The relentless message of FOX and movement conservatism in America is that this is “class war” on the defenseless rich. This guy on FOX says not one word about the right of the poor to a living wage so that they can support a family. He merely tells them to suck it up. The onus is *entirely* on the worker to not breed, not on the employer to pay the work enough to start a family.