Pa(w)renthood
Pope Francis just dropped an eyebrow-raising statement; he derided people who choose to have pets instead of bear children. He did not stop there, he further argued that such a decision strips us of our “humanity”. Based on a quick glance at my Twitter timeline and various international news outlets, Francis has disappointed if not angered a legion of animal lovers and animal rights groups, child-free advocates, and others. Despite these reactions, I would say Francis’ statement is not anomalous; it is completely understandable that the highest-ranking official of the Roman Catholic church, an institution that places procreational purpose at the centre of marriages, would make such remarks.
Negative receptions and spiritual disagreements aside, I would still encourage all of us to understand the statement in a more positive side. I am not being a Francis-apologist (my Reformist heart attests to this), nor that I am trying to assume Francis’ intentions. It indeed might be the case that the Pope hates pet-owning married people, or that he is simply worried that the number of Catholics globally have dwindled over the years due to de-conversion and smaller family sizes (the generations of big Italian and Irish Catholic families are over, I guess).
I will therefore situate my comments in the larger context of his speech, that was about the Earthly fatherhood of St. Joseph; as well as discussing the meaning of humanity, as evoked by Francis, in light of parenthood.
St. Joseph’s Fatherhood
I’ve kind of discussed this in my other essay: Joseph’s obedience to the tall order of becoming the Earthly guardian of Jesus was laudable, especially when understood in light of the cultural contexts of that time. He willingly accepted the responsibility to bring up, shelter, and provide for a child he did not father, whom his then-unwed fiancee miraculously conceived. I am not asking all of my readers to believe in the Virgin-birth story, but I am sure that you will find Joseph to be courageous, self-sacrificial, to say the least, and maybe a tad foolish (i.e., not economical).
So, if I were to interpret the case that Francis was trying to make with regards to St. Joseph and adoption of orphaned children, he was probably arguing that yes, raising babies and children who are not your own does not make sense.; and yes, it is far riskier than raising fur babies, who need not to be sent to school, taught about morality, discipled, brought up as contributing members of the society. But, especially to his Catholic audiences, he appeals to the example set by Joseph’s in “adopting” Jesus as his own.
Now, we are left with the following questions. If Francis were to simply encourage people to adopt babies, why is the link to pet ownership necessary? Moreover, how is parenthood a defining feature of humanity? Does it follow that to be human is to have babies?
I’ll feature my own reading of the situation.
Humanity in parenthood
I’ll start with yet another question: what does it mean to be human? This is a millennia-aged question, and numerous philosophers have posited their own rejoinders.
My favourite non-Christian take in defining humanity is informed by none other than Karl Marx: humanity is marked by our ability to exist creativity: the freedom from oppression in whichever form, and the equal access to resources required to live creatively. In addition, based on my observation many scholars and thinkers alike seem to define humanity based on the cognitive aspect of our existence: I think therefore I am; I am conscious and sentient, therefore I am.
An article by Martha Nussbaum (which I am grateful to have read in a class a couple of years ago) suggests that humanity is our ability to become less selfish, to exercise care and stewardship over the non-human components in our environment. Our humanity is thus defined by our capacity to be humane. This, based on my current knowledge and interpretation, appears to be surprisingly similar to how Christians ought to view “humanity” too.
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ””
Genesis 1:26–28 (NIV)
I am aware that some conservatives in the US misappropriates the verse to justify unhinged, environmentally damaging exploitation of resources. However, the key idea of this verse, in light of the whole passage about The Creation is that: 1) The Earth was created as “good”, and intended to be perfectly adequate for all its inhabitants; 2) Human beings were created to have the capacity to care for the Earth, as the image-bearers of The Creator; and thus 3) Only human beings have the capacity to care for the Earth and its inhabitants.
Back to our discussion about parenthood, it seems that our discussion bolsters the case for adopting pets instead of human babies. Well, if it is indeed a God-sanctioned duty to care for animals and plants alike, would not caring for pets count as embodying our humanity? Unlike Francis who probably will give a straight-up answer “No”, I would say: it’s incomplete.
When we view human beings in a more optimistic light, not as the manifestation of evil and destruction, at the core of our existence is the capacity to be and do good. Thus, I think there is an immense sense of responsibility to inspire each other and especially the younger generations to realise this capacity to be good. In other words, in caring and raising human offsprings, we can edify them to be responsible stewards of the Earth. Humans surely can raise animals and plants too, but neither animals nor plants have the capacity, nor the conscious desire to care for the Earth; whereas, humans do.
Therefore, what Pope Francis might try to remind his listeners was probably this innate quality of being human: to teach, to edify, to civilise other humans, so that we may be better stewards of the planet. Thus, when Francis decried the decision of many people to just care for animals instead of their fellow humans, he was lamenting the fact that people underestimate their potentials as the harbinger of goodness. To limit our extent of compassion and care only to things that bring us personal, momentary happiness will thus take away our humanity.
Parenthood for the depressed, pessimistic Millennials, Gen X-ers, and Gen Y-ers
The fatalistic, depressing self-deprecatory jokes are staple in the internet nowadays. And generally, people view the future rather bleakly: “ah we all probably will die in x number of years, why bother doing xyz”. Similarly, one argument that childfree-living advocates tend to centre around the depressing idea that “the world is ending soon, everyone is dying, why would you want to subject children under such torture?” Many single folks also shun away from the idea of building a family — for many reasons and I am not keen to be simplistic. However, anecdotally, a lot of my friends snide at the idea of having a family for the very reason of “not wanting to subject my offspring to the cruel world”. I must say, it does make a lot of sense.
However, I am grateful that Francis did not simply talk about biological parenthood, nor formal adoption practices. He also talked about “spiritual parenthood”. Quoted by the CNN:
Having a child is always a risk, either naturally or by adoption. But it is riskier not to have them. It is riskier to deny fatherhood, or to deny motherhood, be it real or spiritual.
Spiritual parenthood, in my understanding, refers to becoming father or mother figure in someone’s life; to mentor, be someone who cares, provides (maybe not materially, but emotionally) for them. In a Christian understanding, it would refer to taking the initiative to instruct someone spiritually, to become an example in faith.
Thus, even if someone objects child-bearing for whatever reasons, the call for parenthood is still applicable to them. We can now reimagine parenthood as an intentional attempt of mentoring, of bettering our fellow humans, of exhorting them to be good and well. To put it in Francis’ Catholic context, Celibate priests therefore are called to parenthood just as much as married people.
Thus upon understanding this broader definition of parenthood, to deny parenthood arguably deprives one the opportunity to lead a meaningful life, or to inspire others. It is indeed “riskier” not to assume parenthood, as it deprives the opportunity to — with regard to our earlier discussion — harness the potential to be and do good.
I love dogs and cats, and I so desire to adopt one or two when I finally own a house. But I have so much love — in the form of book and TV recommendations, personal stories, desire to learn and listen from others — which no cuddles can my future dogs and cats give. I also have the desire to share my passion, dreams and hope that Earth can be better cared for in the future — to whom shall I pass this message if not to my younger kins?
In short, I don’t think Francis’ statement was a hate-speech toward pet-owners, or families who choose not to have biological or (legally-)adopted children. Alternatively, we should probably not see it as an attack to demean our personal choices. It was, however, a critique of our tendency to dwell in our limitations, instead of our ability to inspire and edify each other, and therefore, an exhortation to realise the opportunity to be a force of good.
