What to expect when no one is expecting

As Dan Flaherty mentioned, Weekly Standard writer Jonathan V. Last wrote a book about the danger of western societies (like the United States) not having enough children.

The book just came out yesterday and I’ll have to get myself a copy. I’ll admit that I chuckled at the quote on the book’s cover by satirist P.J. O’Rourke: “A powerful argument that the only thing worse than having children is not having them.”

Anyway here is Last on CBS This Morning. He did an exceptional job answering the criticisms of an growing population.



46 thoughts on “What to expect when no one is expecting

  1. abadilla says:

    I think by now he is gone with the wind!

  2. Frantastic1 says:

    The question then becomes how do you encourage people to procreate? More people will not procreate because we banned gay people from marriage. That’s preposterous.

    I think you need to figure out what your priorities are here.

    1. JoshuaMercer says:

      Jonathan Last says in his book that research indicates government policy to encourage procreation is not successful. So he concentrates his energies on the gap between how many children people say they want and how many they actually have. Perhaps the solution is to shorten the length of college or start it sooner. There might be other policies that Last recommends to help people to reach their goals. I’ll have to read the book. But promoting gay “marriage” won’t help procreation. Gays cannot procreate.

      1. Guest says:

        So you support laws allowing gay people to marry?

        1. JoshuaMercer says:

          I support marriage as the unique union between one man and one woman.

          1. FatherTim says:

            That’s not the question before us a society. We can each have our own beliefs about marriage even when gay couples are allowed to marry. Allowing gay couples the right to marry doesnt affect what i believe or what i can teach our parish. The question before us is should our laws be written such that gay couple are excluded from marriage and denied all the rights and benefits that heterosexuals enjoy.

            Do you support laws that limit freedom by banning gay couples from marriage under our laws?

          2. naturgesetz says:

            “The question before us is should our laws be written such that gay couple are excluded from marriage and denied all the rights and benefits that heterosexuals enjoy.” No, the question is whether our laws should be rewritten to pretend that a homosexual relationship is exactly the same thing as the marriage of a man and a woman.

            If you think gay marriage is possible, you don’t know what marriage is, Father.

            And don’t be so sure that the legalized fiction of same-sex marriage won’t ever effect what you can do or say in your parish. You have only to look to Canada to see how teaching Catholic doctrine can be seen to be hate speech, and how schools can be required to follow a curriculum which approves homosexual activity.

          3. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. You are right. This person who is posting, whatever he may call himself, is not in step with the Church.

          4. DivineWordRadio says:

            Father, as I noted above, the government is shooting itself in the foot by not promoting procreation. I would hope that you are choosing to teach Catholic doctrine on marriage and wrongfulness of sexual relations outside of a man and woman in the Sacrament of Marriage.
            If, as you say, the question before us is should our laws be written that gay couples are excluded from marriage, the answer is yes.

      2. FatherTim says:

        I think the point is that inability to procreate is often cited as a reason to ban gay people from marriage. You admit that “encouraging procreation” is not a valid reason to ban gay people from marriage. So what is the reason?

        I find many gay couples in my parish are raising children. One couple went to great lengths to have a child. Gay couples don’t procreate directly, but many do procreate in the same ways that infertile straight couples have children. What reason do we have for telling a straight couple with adopted children that they are worthy of marriage while we tell the gay couple that also adopted that their family does not deserve protection? It seems that this is a question our faith must answer.

        1. JoshuaMercer says:

          Every child should be raised by his father or mother. When this is not possible, we should encourage adoption so that this child can still be raised by a woman and a man. But the desire of same-sex couple to raise a child should never outweigh the needs of a child to be raised by a man and a woman.

          1. FatherTim says:

            Banning gay people from marriage doesn’t help insure that more kids are raised by a mother and father and you just said government is inefective at encouraging people to procreate.

            All you do when you ban gay couples from marriage is that you harm them. You judge them. You express your moral disapproval of them. These are not things that Christians are called to do.

          2. chris scanlan says:

            Father, I a little disappointed in the lack of cohesiveness in your argument and the teachings of the church.

            1. I think we both agree that the church teaches (and rightly so) that all men and women is a child of God and has the dignity that is deserving of our love and respect.

            2. Fornication outside of the SACRAMENT of marriage is a sin. plain and simple. This includes homosexual AND heterosexual folks.

            3.Since gay couples are incapable of the sacrament of marriage, any sexual acts committed on their parts are sins. Plain and simple.

            and in conclusion.
            To promote gay marriage (not a sacrament and therefore a sin in act on homosexual desires) is to do a disservice to all of our SSA brothers and sisters in Christ.
            So the promotion of gay marriage (secular and within the church) is in reality, something that is harmful to those with SSA in the same way telling teenage boys and girls that it’s ok to fool around with each other instead of respecting themselves and their bodies.

          3. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. “Father Tim” has been exposed. Thank you, Mr. Peters.

          4. Paulspr says:

            Father Tim has evidently been censored. It’s not the same thing as being exposed, in fact, it’s the exact opposite.

          5. abadilla says:

            If there is anyone here that could be censored is you, yet I have a theory why you haven’t been. As difficult as you and I can be, we do not resort to personal insults or profane language and I think that is probably the boundary one does not cross here. Paul you must admit, at times it has gotten quite ugly here at CV. Yes, at times you irritate me and I presume I irritate you, but we make an effort not to get really ugly in our conversation and I think that makes the difference with moderators.

          6. Marvin Derks says:

            Why do you think Paulspr could be censored?

          7. abadilla says:

            I think by now you are writing to the ghost of Father Tim. I don’t think his posts are any longer in circulation.
            I guess Mr. Peters’ patience has its limits.

          8. chris scanlan says:

            And thank goodness Mr. Peters’ patience did have its limits. What a dishonorable thing to do: mask yourself as a Catholic priest to confuse those faithful to the hierarchy. I will say, I’m proud that he was recognized as a fraud and booted as quickly as he was. I think it’s a testament to our ability as good Catholics to recognize the wolf is sheep’s clothing as well as not being the blind followers the world takes us to be.
            (i do hope that the person behind “father tim” had the opportunity to read my comment and that it made some sense to him.)

          9. abadilla says:

            Hi. Chris,
            Well, I begun to suspect there was something wrong when he became confrontational with Monsignor Charles M. Mangan. I also grew a bit suspicious when he began to contradict Church teaching.
            Definitely the wolf in sheep’s clothing and Mr. Peters must have sensed that much.
            I really find it fascinating and also anoying when some folks come in here “pretending” they know Catholicism and its teachings when it is utterly obvious they don’t. It is also frustrating when, in desperation, they resort to insults like “you’re crazy,” ‘you’re a bigot,” “you are hateful,” “you want to pounce on homosexuals,” etc?
            I don’t ask anyone to agree with me or the Church on anything. We impose nothing, but some folks should have the courtesy to come into a Catholic forum, disagree politely, and then get lost since by hurling insults they are never going to make their point.

          10. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Yes, Abadilla, I suspected that “Father Tim” isn’t a priest when the first comment he offered, which was directed to me, was an exhortation that I watch my mouth. This seemed odd for one priest to say to a brother priest. He didn’t like the fact that I encouraged Paulspr to respond to the charge leveled by someone that he claimed that the Church, within the last few weeks, had changed Her Teaching. This is, of course, impossible. After “Father Tim” left, and then later Paulspr and Marvin Derks, both Frantastic1 and Tranxtian appeared on board, and Greg B. returned. You wonder if that is somehow orchestrated.

          11. abadilla says:

            Monsignor, I’m just glad “Father” Tim was exposed early on. I did worry about the scandal he would give readers by pretending to be a Catholic priest.
            As for Frantastic1 and Tranxtian and Greg B, I also wonder, but especially the first two since Marvin Derks and Paulspr left. I presume Marvin and Paul simply took new names and here they are again causing havoc and confusion by wanting rights that exist only in their heads. However, I’m encouraged by the fact that the moderators are not as patient as once they were. Sooner or later they will find out who is who.

          12. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. We don’t ban homosexuals from marrying someone of the same gender. They are already banned.

          13. Agreed there are so many studies which have shown the detriment of children being raised by homosexual couples. It is not good for a child to be raised in that situation, even homosexuals in France stated this when there was the protest for the protection of marriage between one man and one woman. Children have the best chances in life studies have shown when raised by 2 married parents – this is shown in secular studies and is a purely statistical reason why we must try to encourage marriages which last and are between a man and woman.

          14. Paulspr says:

            Again, there are not any credible studies that actually show this. Relating a lie in order to defame gay parents isn’t an honorable thing to do.

            Regardless, we don’t punish people because they are bad parents. Deadbeat dads that don’t pay their child support are the worst kind of parents, but they are permitted to marry in every single state in our country. If you really cared anything about children, you would be out trying to ban deadbeat dads from remarrying.

          15. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Relating a lie in order to defame the Church isn’t an honorable thing to do.

          16. abadilla says:

            “Deadbeat dads that don’t pay their child support are the worst kind of parents, but they are permitted to marry in every single state in our country.”
            You have a point. If it were up to me, a deadbeat dad would never be able to get married and have children he is not willing to support.
            There are credible studies and the data shows it is not good for kids to be reared by homosexuals couples nor is it good for children to be raised by heterosexual couples who live a horrible life where a child is deprived of love and parental protection, and good child-rearing skills.

          17. Frantastic1 says:

            Yet you’ve never bothered to do so. However, you have wasted hours and hours trying to discriminate against gay people.

            Don’t you think that says something?

          18. abadilla says:

            I don’t remember seeing you in the forum, and since I don’t discriminate against anyone, gay or heterosexual, your accusations sound hollow to me.

          19. Frantastic1 says:

            Banning gay people from getting a marriage license from the clerk at their local city hall is discrimination, not matter how you look at it.

          20. abadilla says:

            Would you agree with me that there is “good” discrimination as well as “bad” discrimination? If someone who has never taught shows up in the high school where I work without a degree, the administration whould not hire that person. Are they not discriminating against the applicant? Of course they are, but one could hardly call it “bad” discrimination. The applicant simply is not qualified to teach without a degree. Let us say that Catholicism does not believe anyone who is not a male and a female should get married? Yes, it is “dicrimination,” but a type of discrimination which is essentail to maintain the traditional family, the first cell of society.
            Is that the same thing as saying that gays should have no legal rights whatsoever that can ensure them benefits that all have? No, but you just want to make the Catholic Church look like the wicked witch of the West no matter what, conveniently forgetting we are not the only institution that rejects gay marriage.
            Also, don’t forget that the subject of this post is demographics and how they affect the population of any given country, not gay issues.

          21. Frantastic1 says:

            No, I would not agree that there is good discrimination. Further, keeping gays out of marriage does not help heterosexual marriage in any way. Those are either strong or week based on the people that are in those marriages.

            I don’t need anyone to save my marriage by banning gays from having their own marriage. Thank you.

          22. abadilla says:

            “No, I would not agree that there is good discrimination.”
            So, I am 63 and if I want to enlist into the army and they say “no” to me, that’s wrong of the military to do that to me? Is it not discrimination on the basis of age?
            I happen to believe that the military would be discriminating against me, but I would never call their decision “bad” discrimination.
            So, you think someone who waks into a school without a degree and is rejected for not having a degree, (discrimination) is wrong?
            God forbid you were to run our justice system.
            How is your argument reasonable?

        2. naturgesetz says:

          It seems to me that when the biological parents become unable to raise their child(ren)

          1.) adoption by family members, if possible, is best,
          2.) failing that, adoption by a married man and woman is desirable,
          3.) failing that, a stable, long-term foster home arrangement should be sought,
          4.) adoption by a single parent or a same-sex couple is preferable to being passed through a series of short-term or abusive foster homes.

          I think the Church needs to think through the adoption issue thinking only of the welfare of the child and the duties of family, and realize that to be raised by a gay couple is not the worst possible situation for a child, and avoid offensive hyperbole such as calling it “violence” to the child, just because it isn’t ideal.

          1. naturgesetz says:

            Another point. You write, “Gay couples don’t procreate directly, but many do procreate in the same ways that infertile straight couples have children.” First, to say that they are procreating is a misuse of the word. More importantly, IVF is wrong for everybody. When it involves a surrogate mother or sperm donor, it is a form of infidelity. You should not be encouraging it or condoning it.

          2. Paulspr says:

            These are your personal beliefs. I was beaten by my straight drunk father and had to have facial reconstruction. My belief is that a child in a loving gay couples home is infinitely better than with a straight couple where one parent is a drunk. Yet the law gives a tax credit to the straight drunk that beats his children on a daily basis while requiring the loving gay couple a disadvantage. That’s wrong.

          3. abadilla says:

            “These are your personal beliefs. I was beaten by my straight drunk father and had to have facial reconstruction.”
            I’m sorry Paul, and this is why we sometimes do not know who is writing to us behind a computer key board, but don’t let that horrible experience color the many cases in which a heterosexual father has indeed been a good father. I met my father at age 38 and although even at that age I needed him to say “I love you son,” his cultural background prevented him from ever saying that to me. In my old age and after his passing, I still would like to hear those words but I have made peace with myself knowing that in Latin America far too many fathers simply don’t say those things to their sons. However, the abuse you suffered is inexcusable!

      3. Frantastic1 says:

        If government policy to encourage procreation is not successful, then why do we have marriage laws?

        1. JoshuaMercer says:

          Marriage laws are still important to ensure that children created by men and women are raised by their mother and father. And yes there are families who feel they can’t afford more children that might change their minds with a more family-friendly policy. But what Last is saying is that couples who only desire one or two children are unlikely change their mind because of tax incentives. What he’s interested in doing is finding those policies which help families who want two or three children but end up having only one or two.

          1. FatherTim says:

            What about the children that are being raised by gay couples? Doesn’t society have a right and responsibility to insure that those files are stable and that those fathers and mothers continue to raise those children? I think it is rather cold and uncaring to suggest that those children should not be afforded protections for their families.

          2. There have been numerous studies that demonstrate that gay couples raising children actually causes psychological damage to the children and inhibits them in later life – there is a reason that it takes a man and a woman to procreate and a reason why this marriage is THE marriage that can and should occur.

          3. Paulspr says:

            No, there have been no studies that show this at all. In fact, a study from 2011 shows that lesbians may raise children that are better adjusted than the children raised by heterosexuals. Regardless, banning gay people from marriage doesn’t prevent them from having or raising children. What it does do is insure that the children that are ALREADY BEING RAISED BY GAY COUPLES, are put at a disadvantage by depriving them of the stability and legal protections that marriage brings to other families.

            I find it quite distressing that any catholic would advocate for a law that specifically puts a family at a disadvantage just because they are different.

          4. Frantastic1 says:

            No. There actually aren’t any studies that show what to claim. Gay couples are capable parents.

          5. DivineWordRadio says:

            There are 3 options available for government involvement in any activity. It can promote the activity, it can permit the activity, or it can prohibit the activity. There is no real justification for promoting the activity of homosexual “marriage.” In fact, this very issue indicates that what we should be promoting is marriage with procreation.

          6. Paulspr says:

            There are many governmental purposes to “promoting homosexual marriage”. It provides stability for those couples and a commitment to care for each other (and to avoid governmental services). Additionally, allowing gay couples to express the same commitment as other couples provides emotional benefits that make them more productive.

            There is no reason to disadvantage gay couples by depriving them of rights and benefits that are given freely to other coupes. As Joshua has so eloquently noted, this “marriage is for procreation” argument is complete rubbish.

          7. abadilla says:

            “As Joshua has so eloquently noted, this “marriage is for procreation” argument is complete rubbish.”
            Apparently Last does not feel “marriage for procreation is complete rubbish” or are you advocating the demise of humanity? Having saved a child, that doesn’t make sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.