A Catholic Mom's Life hey Heather!!!! Your video on Catholic Etiquette is up next on my watch list! Have a blessed day, both you and Bishop Barron.

Heather has a great channel.

My Wife follows your channel, she feels very isolated using NFP, do you have any suggestions in that regard?

A Catholic Mom's Life

A Catholic Mom's Life Keep up the good work! I am eternally grateful to the women who taught NFP in the late 1980's. They were instumental in directing my life towards true happiness.

think in adoption,. In Central America, Latin America and Africa where woman have 3,4,5,6 children usually from different fathers, this woman alone and marriage can`t provide even food to their children entire families live on streets, or inhuman condition and usually the mother is pregnant again. I will kind you remember there every child you bring to the world may end in hell and there is no way you can`t guarantee they will go to heaven so you will be held accountable for their eternal torture in hell and damnation for the children you bring to the world..,.

What was so great about marriage culture in the 60s? Massive rates of domestic violence and abuse shotgun weddings etc. Absolutely marriage and relationships have improved.

I know a women that has "casual sex" and now she is pregnant & the Dad claims he isn't the Father. He wants zero responsibility for taking care a family, he just wanted free sex, not a family

Don't listen to this idiot, PR6342. Your soul is telling you to do the right thing. You will have eternity to be grateful. GiRayne, not so much.

You're right. I apologize. But do you deny the nature of your mean spirited post? We have a young man who is attempting to live a chaste life, yet you excoriate and shame him publicly. The Church - and some would say natural law, or at least common sense - would support a personal decision to live a pure life. Perhaps he tires, as many do, of the empty 'hookup' culture that de-emphasizes honoring and valuing the whole person, and not using them as an tool for personal pleasure. This has nothing to do with "patriarchal/orthodox" norms, and is illustrative of a prejudicial attitude towards traditional morality. Such a perspective has existed for many centuries for a reason. If you wish to know why, a good place to start is with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read about chastity as a virtue, and WHY it's important.

Yeah, no axe to grind here.....movin' on. Good luck.

GiRayne ok atheist

Powerranger6342 Praise God! Wish there were more men like you!

Hey deepthinker, I think you need to think a bit more deeply: Bishop Barren says that humanity needs to be limited to procreative sex only, as a requirement for men to be able to respect women? Let that sink in. To blame the tool of contraceptives for the act of men disrespecting women, is quite a viewpoint. It strips the power off the integrity of both men and women all together. Bishop Barren says: men can't respect women unless all sex is procreative. Amen.

@@Jaqvander Bishop Barn never says that, what he is saying is that contraception should be removed so it stops men from using women as a short of pleasure objects, and rather than viewing you partner as apart of you, using them instead as a way to deprive pleasure.

@@Jaqvander no………….. Bishop Baron, Humanae-Vitae, & Pope Paul VII are saying that artificial birth control / contraceptions are the MEANS by which (or CAUSE of) many men treat women just as objects to be used for pleasure - evil and unfortunately common. Intercourse does not always mean that a baby is created. And The Church allows for NFP (look up Natural Family Planning) in grave situations and times when it is necessary to hold off having children. I implore you to do the research first before criticizing.

There are men who will wait, but to find them you have to go to the places they are. That means you have to get on Catholic apps or go to young adult events and set yourself up for success. Or have other Catholic friends who can set you up. There are tons of Catholic men who are willing to wait for the right woman

And they should stop having sex during marriage too! There you go! Case closed.

Norah Ismail so true that children are not commodity. I’m really passionate about early childhood well being but I wonder... some people claim not to “like kids”. This seems like something that must have been taught somewhere along the way in society. Seems there should be a natural warmth and care towards children and their well being. The ideas of abortion, contraception and I think, even early daycare treats children as things and not people. My heart is on fire to help. How I wonder? How? ❤️ Lord please help me.

100% correct.

The Chinese gave up the one child policy a couple years ago. They now have a two child policy.

ChesterKhan I had heard that, although it is still a good example.

You do know that the one-child policy came about because Chairman Mao had encouraged the Chinese to have as many children as possible, and the result was a massive famine? The Chinese government had to institute the policy to correct that initial decision. I wish people would learn from history rather than repeat it.

It doesn't really matter why it came about. The point was that the Chinese government fulfilled the prophecy of forced contraception in the form of forced abortions and (if I remember correctly), forced sterilization if too many abortions were necessary for a given woman. Additionally, there are other ways that could have been used to deal with the population explosion and resulting famine including: increasing crops, importing food, emigration, encouraging (without forcing) less children (one distinctly Catholic way of doing this is to encourage more people to take on religious celibacy in the various religious orders).

It matters immensely why it came about since the rational for why Mao wanted to increase the Chinese population (he believed that by having the largest nation by population, he would also have the strongest and most influential) is the same reason why the Catholic Church encourages (implicitly now, explicitly in the past) large families. I have read several reports which claim that, if we were to farm completely organically (without the use of petroleum based fertilizers for crops, hormones and antibiotics for animals), we would have to have a human population of no more than 2 billion (ideally 1 billion). Given that the UN estimates that the population will be 9-12 billion by the end of this century, you can understand why encouraging people to not use effective family planning is a recipe for disaster. Not to belabor the point, but there are several issues with your prescription to combat overpopulation (something that many Christians claim is not even an issue to begin with btw). Increasing crops means using more fertilizers which pollute the water and strip the soil of nutrients. Not to mention that China has a very low ratio of fertile land to humans to begin with. Emigration just makes one country's excess population the problem of its new host (which, in turn, causes the native population to become resentful towards the new comers for taking jobs, benefits, and diluting the national identity as we have seen with the rise in anti-Latino sentiment in the US). Encouraging fewer children is by far the best solution, but the Catholic Church's "solution" of just say no has never proved effective. Even in times of war and famine, people engage in sex and have unwanted pregnancies. Much as with the 6 Million Dollar Man, we have the technology to solve or greatly mitigate this problem. Why not be sensible and use it before the governments of the world are forced to institute a mandatory, world-wide one (or none, for some) child policy?

think in adoption,. In Central America, Latin America and Africa where woman have 3,4,5,6 children usually from different fathers, this woman alone and marriage can`t provide even food to their children entire families live on streets, or inhuman condition and usually the mother is pregnant again. I will kind you remember there every child you bring to the world may end in hell and there is no way you can`t guarantee they will go to heaven so you will be held accountable for their eternal torture in hell and damnation for the children you bring to the world..,.34

Umm, many of those ecological problems are because we have 5 billion+ people than what the earth can support without petroleum based pesticides and fertilizers. Many (most?) of our environmental issues could be solved or greatly reduced by use of MORE birth control, not less.

once again the pill caused the population explosion.

The polio vaccine tells people that their bodies are not good enough as they are. Suck it up and contract the disease. God will know his own. Sounds pretty nutty, huh? That's how you sound to women, my friend. Women have not been "brainwashed" that NFP doesn't work; most of us have seen it first or second hand in our families with mothers and grandmothers who suffered through endless pregnancies while trying that "method." Not to mention anyone can look around the world at impoverished countries where birth control is not available and see the toll taken on women. Yeah, I know, we're the fallen daughters of Eve meant to be nothing more than incubators, but most of us ain't having that. Sorry that you can't find an equally brainwashed woman to share your Duggar fantasies.

+Cassandra'sCurse I do see the points you are trying to make in your other comments, but I think comparing the act of using contraceptives (with only the specific intent to render one unable to have kids) to the polio vaccine is flawed. The way vaccines work, from what I remember, is by merely introducing a rendered-harmless sample of a virus’ antigens into the person’s body, so that the immune system can build up a response to the disease much sooner, preventing someone from getting sick (or as sick in the future). Vaccines do not alter the way the body works and, if anything, actually helps the immune system carry out its intended function better. If you make that comparison to a Catholic apologist, they are very likely to respond that one’s ability to conceive is not a disease and that contraception works by making the body not function as it naturally would. At the same time, I heard that the Catholic Church does promote the use of contraceptives for medical reasons unrelated to fertility (if the primary intent is to treat a separate condition like acne, while the contraceptive effects are looked upon more as accidental side-effect or by-product, rather than the core intent) or in cases of rape (as long as it does not work by being an abortifacient, so emergency contraception is allowed in those cases). I know I remember saying this at least a year-and-half ago, last time we bumped into each other, but regarding the issue of impoverished countries, if I was a secular humanitarian person suggesting ways to combat the spread of STDs and people having bigger families than can be supported in those areas, I would not suggest forcing even religious groups to readily hand-out birth control to everyone. If one is simply trying to seek relief from his physical urges and/or have at least some intimacy with his/her spouse during the times they are not ready to have another child (and also have no reliable knowledge/tools for NFP), then I would just remind them that masturbation does exist. It would be just as effective as complete abstinence at preventing pregnancy, I imagine it would be easier to stay clean and not worry about spreading STDs (especially if one is doing it alone), it would not require money to be spent on buying condoms/drugs (said money could then be used to provide other things for the impoverished men), and it would not require pressuring Catholic institutions to actively participate in that act or promote it (even though the Church still disagrees with self-masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex without the accompaniment of normal intercourse, etc. those acts can take place purely in people’s private lives and not require to Catholic services to supply anything for them to do it). The only cases this leaves out are sexual assault and rape (which unfortunately also happens rampantly in impoverished countries and is obviously something one can never claim the women is responsible for), but there is no reason I know of why the Catholic Church should object to being told to supply emergency contraception in those specific cases (again, provided it does not work by being an abortifacient), especially since I already heard official Church spokesmen saying that it would be permissible in those circumstances.

Yes, Mark, I do vividly remember your "method" of birth control. As I said before, the Catholic Church views these practices to be every bit as sinful as using artificial contraception. Since barrier methods and sterilization does not impact a fertilized egg in any way (removing the fallacious but often used "abortifacient" argument against the pill and IUD) and they allow the couple to remain much more physically close than your proposed (but equally sinful) methods, the RCC should allow them. But they won't, because the cycle of poverty (fed by generation after generation of impoverished, often unwanted, children) tends to produce more believers and keeps women "in their place" more than sane family planning. Not to mention I have seen, on more than one occasion, priests like Father Longnecker make the argument that everyone should have to suffer through celibacy, and the lack of periodic abstinence in marriage has led to both the priest/nun shortage and the sex abuse scandal. It's pretty grotesque. There is no way, given Humanae Vitae, that emergency conception would be given even in cases of rape (which, of course, if it were allowed, we would have the same issue as when certain states allowed abortion only for rape. Miraculously, cases of unreported rape were at their height during these times. Women, when under such pressure, will do the reasonable thing and lie about their conceptions). Emergency contraception is nothing more than a high dose of birth control pills, so if the RCC denies the use of the pill prior to intercourse, why would they allow it post-intercourse? Besides, I have actually heard several people on the anti-abortion side (not just Catholics) describe conceptions via rape to be "God's will" and "something beautiful which took place from something ugly." It's incredibly inhumane and disgusting, but I understand the logic. If we do not put the actual rapist to death and we hold that even a fertilized egg is a baby, then why should his child face an execution? It makes sense in their bizarro world. Finally, I see the vaccination analogy as quite spot-on. Vaccination works by tricking the body into "thinking" that it has already had the disease by delivering a small portion of the dead virus to the system. The Pill works by tricking the body into thinking that it is already pregnant by simulating the hormones found in pregnant women to prevent ovulation. Both violate the natural world, and both carry possible side effects which pale in comparison (for most people) to their benefits. It's time to be honest with ourselves that, when we seek out organ transplants, blood transfusions, vaccines, antibiotics, etc, we are not placing our lives/trust in God; we are placing it in medicine. For good reason; medicine gets results. Peace.

+Cassandra'sCurse Thank you for your reply and, in general, I have a lot of mixed feelings about this messy issue, albeit still caring for what the Catholic Church has to say and agreeing with a lot of the basic sentiments without issues. Regarding some of the things like how the Catholic Church would still consider my hypothetical alternate proposition to be sinful, I would still prefer secular humanitarian groups suggesting that, at least from the little bit I do understand, in part because the Catholic Church can still freely state their beliefs but the people engaging in those activities won’t have to ever approach a Catholic group and demand some kind of active involvement from them (in the same way that some would be expect to ask Catholic groups for contraceptive pills). If the individual people disagree with the Church and decide they want to do that, then they can just do it in their private lives and still ask for help from Catholic humanitarian groups in addition to any non-Catholic groups. So at least one of the major sources of the whole controversy, which otherwise adds more fuel to the fire, would be absent. While I can definitely believe that that are some corrupt/hypocritical people in the Church (or any religious organization for that matter), who would think about deliberately perpetuating the cycle of poverty in hopes that it will earn them more followers (or that we should “keep women in their place” as baby factories), I would not exactly believe that *every single* individual within the Catholic Church believes that, especially with various priests and saints I recall knowing over the years that have demonstrated great integrity and prudence. The problem of people willing to do those corrupt things as a means to an end seems to me more like a problem of individuals running the institution rather than something for which to blame the Church itself and what it stands for. In America alone, for instance, we know that the ideals that America as a whole stands for in that all men are created with equally dignity, endowed with unalienable rights, and deserve equity and fairness under the law. Yet of course there were some individual people (particularly in the south) that claimed American values supported depraved things like Slavery and so forth. It would not mean America itself is to blame, but the hypocritices that do these things and still go to bed at night calling themselves good Americans. While I do understand one’s disillusionment with the mindsets some people may be trying to run the Church with, I might be stating the obvious but just because some people might try to preach the Church’s teachings with evil intent does not, by itself, automatically make the claims themselves wrong. Again, I am sorry if I am stating the obvious and I do not know whether you do this, but keep in mind that if you are trying to debate Catholic apologists against their claims, do not say “the Church wants to continue the cycle of poverty” or “the Church just wants women to objectify women as baby-making tools” as actual arguments against the Church’s beliefs about contraception (not that I have an issue with you saying that in general when discussing your POV). If you were to treat those as arguments that singlehandedly invalidate the Church teachings, then that would essentially be a fallacious “ad hominem” argument. Regarding the people who believe that we should show apathy towards rape victims by saying God outright wanted the child of rape to be born from that, or that we need to specifically depend on excess children to get more clergymen, I have heard people saying that myself, and it makes no sense and makes me want to puke. Again, so far I interpret that as a problem of individuals within the Church rather than the Church itself and what it stands for at its roots. One other thing is that I am convinced there absolutely IS a logical difference between contraception regarding consensual sex versus rape. One of them involves both married people deliberately choosing to engage in sex without openness to life (which is the specific mentality considered sinful, not the use of contraceptives themselves), while the use of contraception in the latter scenario is another aspect of a woman defending herself from an attacker who should have never come within 50 feet of her. I have seen some official spokesmen on EWTN stating this difference (so at least official preaching individuals do believe those cases are apples and oranges, whether or not you believe that this then reflects the Church itself). And from the doctrine I have looked up over the years, that mindset behind it is what the Church considers sinful rather than the drugs itself (which I why I have found cases where drugs with contraceptive effects would still be allowed), so I imagine that if anyone claiming/believing themselves Catholic does not believe we should offer emergency contraception to rape victims, you would have the ability to logically debate them on their own turf and try to prove to them that, even by the very doctrine they themselves follow, they are wrong. As for the notion that we are not automatically not trusting in God whenever we take any form of medicine, a lot of religious people would disagree, since it is believed that we should also trust that God will often seek to help us through other people and not just direct intervention. Take this joke for example, if you have not already heard it: “A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning that the riverbanks would soon overflow and flood the nearby homes. They ordered everyone in the town to evacuate immediately. A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.” The neighbors came by his house and said to him, “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.” As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise up the steps, a man in a canoe paddled by and called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” But the man again said, “No thanks, God will save me.” The floodwaters rose higher pouring water into his living room and the man had to retreat to the second floor. A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” they shouted. But the man refused, waving them off saying, “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!” The flood waters rose higher and higher and the man had to climb up to his rooftop. A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded with the man, "Grab my hand and I will pull you up!" But the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!” Shortly after, the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned. When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?” And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”” One can still argue that vaccines and hormonal contraceptives are apples and oranges depending on how one defines the roles of the immune and reproductive system. If you define the immune system as “building up a resilience to foreign pathogens entering the body,” then the fact that the disease is introduced in a rendered-harmless form would not be “tricking” the immune system and it boosts its function for later. If the reproductive system’s role is defined as producing children, and one does something that disrupts that cycle and makes it harder to succeed in making more children, then it is arguable that these are not the same. If I were to be honest, though, I do have two issues that makes it hard for me to wholeheartedly embrace the Church’s full teaching on sexual ethics. If you want to hear them, I can write another comment. This post is already incredibly long as it is.

Hi, Mark, and thanks for another interesting post. You've packed a lot here, so I'll only address a few points, and if there's something you'd rather address in more detail that I omitted or didn't fully investigate, please restate it in a follow up post. As for your final point, yes, I would love to hear your issues with this matter. I've seen otherwise intelligent, forward-thinking people struggle for years to square the circle of "Well, when the Church says X, it doesn't really mean X. What they mean is . . . " until they come to terms with the fact that, yes, the Church actually does mean X. More importantly, after decades of trying to play nice, the Church has been taken over (at least in the US) by very conservative elements which have decided that they don't want the "cafeteria Catholics" to haunt the pews anymore (but have no qualms about using our baptisms to inflate the numbers) and have decided to enforce this nonsense. I've decided to let them have it since I've rejected the supernatural anyway, but others like yourself feel differently. Just know that they regard your compromise as every bit as sinful as my complete rejection, so there's that. First point: I understand what the secular humanist group is saying, but reproductive rights are to me a non-negotiable part of human rights. The problem, as I see it, is that religious orgs have this much power and control over the lives of impoverished people in the first place. A woman who cannot control how many pregnancies she has is essentially enslaved by biology. If there were a religion or culture which practiced racial slavery in the modern age, we would not stand for it, but women are completely expendable. We don't insist that Saudi Arabia gives their women equal rights; we're willing to sacrifice their welfare for petroleum. That's how I view the issue of religions controlling health care. Medicine does not operate according to dogma. If religious orgs can't or won't provide people with adequate health care, they need to leave the field and allow secular doctors to do their jobs. I was in the Catholic Church until my late teens (and still had a connection for years after leaving the practice), so I am aware that there are many wonderful, amazing people who are a part of the Catholic Church. I have personally known brothers, priests, and sisters who were some of the most giving, kind individuals on the planet, and they identified the reason why they sacrificed so much was to live the Gospel. Once upon a time, I was immensely proud to be Catholic. I loved that the Church was the original form of Christianity, that it had such beautiful, mystical rituals, that it (largely) embraced science like evolution and climate change, etc. However, in the past two decades, the Church seems to realize that its liberal base is leaving, so conservatives have seized power and have turned it into an anti-abortion, misogynist, gay bashing social club with plenty of Evangelical speak thrown in (when I was a kid, the only people who spoke of "born-again experiences" and "having a personal relationship with Jesus" were Evangelicals, but in recent years, I've seen Catholics take these terms and make them their own. It's very troubling, because, not only does it signal a departure from the intelligent Catholicism which valued evidence, debate, and logic, it also highlights that the Church is willing to sacrifice a defense of science in order to align with the Evangelicals. As a result, Catholics have become close to Biblical literalists, are beginning to deny the aforementioned science, and have embrace End Times mythology. This is not good for the religion or the country). To your point about intent: man, few things annoy me more than this nonsense. Why? Because my own mother almost died due to this rubbish. She had a tubal pregnancy, and the "medical advice" she received from her completely unqualified priest was to continue the pregnancy, pray that God implants the fetus in the womb, and if he does not, allow only at last resort the medical staff to remove the tube itself with the fetus in it to technically give the fetus a chance to survive. If she had listened to her doctor, she would have had an abortion, saved the tube, and not have risked major surgery and complications. As it stood, her tube was at the point of bursting when it was finally removed. All of this was acceptable because, much as when a woman takes birth control pills "just" for menstrual cramp relief that just happens to control pregnancy, she did not intend to abort the fetus. So, even though this resulted in the fetus' inevitable death, it was A-okay. Now, my mother was a woman living in the Western world who had access to decent health care. Bear in mind tubal pregnancies are a major killer in the 3rd world (where many hospitals are Catholic-run), and many of those women, given the same advice, would not have been so lucky. The end result is what matters most. And yes, I've heard that story before. It's witty, unless you've read the OT and realize that once upon a time, God had no problem actually parting seas, appearing before people, having bread rain from heaven, etc. It's amusing that God is rather like an ageing starlet and has become a recluse in old age. I hope that addressed some of your points. Please message if I missed anything or you'd like to share your faith struggle. Peace.

think in adoption,. In Central America, Latin America and Africa where woman have 3,4,5,6 children usually from different fathers, this woman alone and marriage can`t provide even food to their children entire families live on streets, or inhuman condition and usually the mother is pregnant again. I will kind you remember there every child you bring to the world may end in hell and there is no way you can`t guarantee they will go to heaven so you will be held accountable for their eternal torture in hell and damnation for the children you bring to the world..,.1234

How many children do you have?

Well the problem with the act being purely unitive is the increase in its possible abuse as sex is supposed to be rarer than it is to increase the desire and sacredness associated with the act, the less food you eat (to a point) the better the food you eat is. You are correct that emphasizing one aspect might be to the benefit of a couple though, and that is allowed if a couple desires a child they may use NFP to time their relations to be ideal for that purpose. NFP though works by a totally different means than birth control, that is, self control, this in relation to the sexual act is a great thing and enriches the act. NFP is also open to God, if God wants you to have a child NFP is unlikely to help you stop that in the sense that it is by its very nature prone to human error.

You are definitely brain washed keep it up

How many children do you have?

say, stfu and leave

Must create Republic of Gilead! Did you ever think that maybe, just maybe, the parishioners are making the best choices for their families by not having more children? This economy is rough and given the expected rise in automation, things will be pretty bleak for the laborers of the world. It's far better to have 2 children you'll support, love, and nurture rather than 10 you'll neglect.

I doubt that they were making a "choice", but just going along with the pack. The economy is rough for most of the world most of the time so that isn't a reason. People have children out of love, and love naturally multiplies itself. Given that your name includes a curse, why don't you remove it?

Unfortunately, love does not put food on the table or pay the bills. Throughout much of the world, the primary occupations are still manual labor-based, and more children means more people to help with farming, tanning, etc without pay. I highly doubt anyone who has lived in the Western world would want to raise a family in conditions in which children are seen as little more than unpaid labor, most don't attend school, and are freely beaten if they do not "earn their keep." This is the sad reality, mon ami. As for the name, I'm a fan of pagan myths as well as Christian ones, so that's the story behind that. Not to mention that Cassandra warned the people of their impending doom, and they chose to ignore her, much in the way modern Cassandras like scientists who decry overpopulation and climate change are ignored by people who would rather live blindly. So there's that.

Death is certain, regardless of how much food is on one's table.

Okay, death is certain no matter how much love someone has. What's your point? The issue isn't whether people die; it's about the quality (not quantity) of life while they're alive. And when you have kids you neither want nor can afford, the quality of their lives is likely to be pretty low.

Well if they are not going to teach it or talk about it…. How about you? Somebody has to 🤷🏻‍♂️ Of course be sure to get some good spiritual direction from a good priest.

think in adoption,. In Central America, Latin America and Africa where woman have 3,4,5,6 children usually from different fathers, this woman alone and marriage can`t provide even food to their children entire families live on streets, or inhuman condition and usually the mother is pregnant again. I will kind you remember there every child you bring to the world may end in hell and there is no way you can`t guarantee they will go to heaven so you will be held accountable for their eternal torture in hell and damnation for the children you bring to the world..,.zzn

@@a.39886 This is presumption and unjust profiling of those who live on three continents. Think of Jesus Christ, who commissioned the Apostles to go into the world and make disciples of all the nations, to baptize them, to teach them to obey ALL that Jesus commanded. When we disobey the King of Kings (even in small things), there will eventually be consequences. It is good to pray: Lord, have mercy.

@@upthehill8251 you may try to avoid this hard true but with the exception of terrible cases of abuse, all other conception is consensual in the act, nobody forced you to have intimacy and then have children, it was you who brought them into the world and you will also be guilty if they end up suffering eternally in hell just for satisfy your carnal desire,,,, Think that every day you see your children there will be Satan, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and all other devil religion and the world and the flesh itself trying to damn your child for eternity the moment they are born,,,

@@upthehill8251 Let13 me explain the following: People bring a child into the world, it is most likely that he will end up being condemned to hell, which is established in the bible in Matthew 7: 13-14. “13 You can only enter the kingdom of God through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to hell; That is why many people prefer them. 14 But small is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and very few people find it." There is no way that as mere humans we can guarantee that if we have children they will go to heaven, so we will be responsible for allowing them to come into the world and then their future eternal torture in hell and damnation. Even those who try to search cannot because Satan, other evil religions, the world and the flesh itself are doing everything possible to condemn them to hell for eternity from the moment they are born. James 1:14-15 1 "14 But each one is tempted, when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then lust, after it has conceived, gives birth to sin; and sin, being finished, gives birth to to light death. John 2:16: “men alienated from God governed by their passions, by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and by the pride of life” Luke 13:23-24. 23 Someone asked him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And he replied, 24 “Do your best to enter through the narrow gate, because I tell you that many will try to enter and will not be able to do so. Now if we as humans deal with this truth here on earth, and we are aware that except for terrible cases of abuse, every other conception and life that comes into the world is consensual in the intimate act, we cannot say that nobody forced us to bring children into the world, it was we ourselves who brought them into the world and if they end up being condemned, we would be part of that process since we could choose not to become intimate in the flesh, either in sin or within marriage. Being an omniscient God, that is to say, he has perfect wisdom and knowledge of what is going to happen and even despite knowing that most of the population was going to be condemned to hell, he allowed existence to continue even when I could have avoided all the pain and suffering of hell for the majority of his creation. First with Adam and Eve knowing that they were going to eat the forbidden fruit and then with Noah exterminating the world through the flood and saving his life and his family. Genesis 2:16-17 “16 Then the LORD God commanded the man, “You may freely eat from any tree in the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you do, you will surely die.” Genesis 6:7 “7 Then the LORD said, “I will wipe the human being whom I have created from the face of the earth. I will destroy human beings, domestic animals, those that crawl on the ground and the birds of the sky because I am sorry I made them.”

Özlem Denli Are you a Turk?

they would like you to use the rhythm method of birth control which is iffy at best

@@lifezoe naw, NOT the rhythm method - look up real NFP - if followed properly it’s actually more reliable than contraception. And the point is to be open to life anyway - read up on big families who live frugally but are far happier. Also I think there was a study of 1400 couples who only practiced NFP and there were 0 divorces.

@@SeanMichaelAfable why not just do sexual acts in conjugal love and just not ejaculate inside the woman? that marriage can still be open to making children while at different periods where for example there are no finances to support a child sexual acts can be enjoyed . Wheres the immorality in that? if you read humanae vitate it says "Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong." By that sentance NFP is also wrong because it is deliberately contraceptive. I see no real difference between ejaculating in a woman during her infertile periods and ejaculating outside. Both will not result in pregnancy. I'd even say that ejaculating outside is even more moral because its even more guaranteed not to impregnante and thus create a child when there are unfavorable factors that prohibit the support of new life. The only danger that I can see is that spouses can degrade eachother to sex objects but good spouses that love eachother and have faith can use their reasoning and implement some days where they practice chastity to prevent gluttony in lust. So this way the marriage is happiest since its still open to creating babies, sexual acts that are required for bonding are present and the spouses don't degrade themselves to sex objects because they practice some chastity and no artificial methods of contraception have been employed. I ask where is the immorality in this?

@@nananina982 that method is not reliable, and it is a grave sin. Look up Onanism.

think in adoption,. In Central America, Latin America and Africa where woman have 3,4,5,6 children usually from different fathers, this woman alone and marriage can`t provide even food to their children entire families live on streets, or inhuman condition and usually the mother is pregnant again. I will kind you remember there every child you bring to the world may end in hell and there is no way you can`t guarantee they will go to heaven so you will be held accountable for their eternal torture in hell and damnation for the children you bring to the world..,.1

It might not have done those things to you both, yet, it's not to say it isn't what happens with lots of other people. Therefore the option is just having sex less...

I think most catholics would say the church has become less rigid, not necessarily to its benefit, I think you may overestimate the costs of lots of children, while initial costs are high with more children costs becomes exponentially lesser as experience grows, hand me downs and things of that nature are utilized (which are good for the environment and decrease wastefulness), economics rears this out as well with multiple papers discussing the costs of people not reaching replacement in terms of population and the lack of large families contributing to a weakening in psychological health, the church has recommended 5 children to a household and modern psychological research bears that this is a much wiser course of action than it initially appears with lots of evidence showing those children's increased resiliency. I will not lie and say there is no sacrifice of time and money with more children, but the catholic church says that it is your responsibility to live with that as a burden on the marriage, you were not meant to have 3 boats or all of your wants catered to and living that way will make life less meaningful. Parenthood is sacrifice and trying to artificially decrease the sacrifice is not good for you or for society at large.

Being at the age of 46 or 47, seems a little too late to have children and did he have any children from previous relationships? You really do not have to complete a marriage by having children. What is more importune is your love between the both of you, not having children. Having children should never be a religious obligation.

The pill slowly kills your body and soul.

You ought to obey God rather than man.

​@@mrloski2915 God.commands her to obey her husband. So if she is to obry god, then she obeys her husband. Except in grave sin. The answer should obvious.

You recommebd men talking abiut contraception? Are they the ones who give birth? It's like women giving lectures on prostate problems just because they're married.

jp ??

I mean just in case the current commission to study the document has some ulterior motive as some news outlets have indicated. Generally, I'm just applauding your continued orthodoxy and pray that you persevere in case we're headed into more turbulent time in the Church. That's all. www.ncregister.com/daily-news/humanae-vitae-comes-under-fire

think in adoption,. In Central America, Latin America and Africa where woman have 3,4,5,6 children usually from different fathers, this woman alone or even marriage can`t provide even food to their children entire families live on streets, or inhuman condition and usually the mother is pregnant again. I will kind you remember there every child you bring to the world may end in hell and there is no way you can`t guarantee they will go to heaven so you will be held accountable for their eternal torture in hell and damnation for the children you bring to the world..,.

Childbirth is animalistic as well

Yeah people like Elon Musk preach about population collapse, but not everyone is a billionaire! Small families mean you can give more to the children you do have

Dominic Berning Pray. And find a good spiritual director. Blessings to you!

Bishop Robert Barron ok thank you so much Bishop. I will pray for you during my daily mediation. God bless

I am copying and pasting part of a comment I made just now to someone else down below, if you want to hear what I personally think of the matter so far: “...At the same time, I heard that the Catholic Church does promote the use of contraceptives for medical reasons unrelated to fertility (if the primary intent is to treat a separate condition like acne, while the contraceptive effects are looked upon more as accidental side-effect or by-product, rather than the core intent) or in cases of rape (as long as it does not work by being an abortifacient, so emergency contraception is allowed in those cases). I know I remember saying this at least a year-and-half ago, last time we bumped into each other, but regarding the issue of impoverished countries, if I was a secular humanitarian person suggesting ways to combat the spread of STDs and people having bigger families than can be supported in those areas, I would not suggest forcing even religious groups to readily hand-out birth control to everyone. If one is simply trying to seek relief from his physical urges and/or have at least some intimacy with his/her spouse, during the times one is not ready to have another child (and also has no reliable knowledge/tools for NFP), then I would just remind them that masturbation does exist. It would be just as effective as complete abstinence at preventing pregnancy, I imagine it would be easier to stay clean and not worry about spreading STDs (especially if one is doing it alone), it would not require money to be spent on buying condoms/drugs (said money could then be used to provide other things for the impoverished people), and it would not require pressuring Catholic institutions to actively participate in that act or promote it (even though the Church still disagrees with self-masturbation, mutual masturbation, oral sex without the accompaniment of normal intercourse, etc. those acts can take place purely in people’s private lives and not require to Catholic services to supply anything for them to do it). The only cases this leaves out are sexual assault and rape (which unfortunately also happens rampantly in impoverished countries and is obviously something one can never claim the women is responsible for), but there is no reason I know of why the Catholic Church should object to being told to supply emergency contraception in those specific cases (again, provided it does not work by being an abortifacient), especially since I already heard official Church spokesmen saying that it would be permissible in those circumstances.”

You respond with logic and evidence, Kevin. Those are the only things that should matter in this debate. If NFP leads to effective family planning and financially stable families, then trot that evidence out. Honestly, I'd love to see it. However, I might add that, because of this mandate, the abortion rate fell the lowest it has been since the passing of Roe vs. Wade. No Republican president, no matter how grand his promises, delivered anything like this. Obama's policies reduced the abortion rate by 40%. This is huge, and should be celebrated by both sides. By any metric, he is the most pro-life president of recent decades. Why is there near silence and outright lies about his policies (like the common spiel that the Little Sisters were so persecuted when they were given an easy out before the mandate ever began)? It's because he accomplished this is logic and reason by providing affordable and easily accessible birth control and quality sex ed. Funny thing, when you give people the info and means to prevent an accident, it often works. Obama's achievement should have been celebrated in every church throughout the land. After all, 40% fewer "babies" were killed, right? Anti-abortion sites celebrate if they prevent 2 abortions a month; Obama prevented 40%. But those young women didn't end up as cautionary tales stuck with kids they didn't want and couldn't afford, so those numbers don't count.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion! I didn't say a thing about the situation prior to Humanae vitae, and I certainly don't think that period was nothing but "happy days." I did indeed argue, along with Paul VI, that the widespread use of artificial contraception has led to a worsening of the status of women in our society.

Bishop Robert Barron thanks for the reply, I’ll look into it deeper 😃

@@busdrivermike13 I kind of see busdrivermikes point. Women are more " powerful " & " dominant " than ever . as a matter of fact she decides when, where, & with whomever SHE wants to have sex . women enjoy sex too.

@@busdrivermike13 uh, yeah, but back then they didn’t glorify and praise it like they do now in modern society…. Exhibit A: Look at @shaggy bail’s comment above mine

​@@shaggybail1240 Yeah it was so much better for women before the 60s when there were 0 women in any positions of power...

Andres Riofrio Pope JPII spent much of his adult life teaching on exactly this, it’s called the Theology of the Body.

Elizabeth Anscombe's classic "Contraception and Chastity" is a good place to start. Why Humanae Vitae Was Right: A Reader has a good selection of essays, including Anscombe's and another really good one by McInerny. Here's a link to Anscombe's article: www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwiw9c764dPYAhVj44MKHczMCJwQFggtMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmcdonaldcentre.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F04%2Fhv-was-right-reader.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1-OJcAsoHUiU5UR3sikV_v I hope this helps!

Also, Barron is not saying this is the *only* reduction of the marital act. The example you’re talking about, reducing the unity aspect, means distorting “unity” to make it mere “conquest” or possession understood in a dishonorable way. The church does explicitly acknowledge that married persons “own” each other, but not in a worldly way as in your example! This concept is already in St Paul’s letters.

There are not compelling arguments to deny people the right to control their own fecundity, you silly twit.

Ah yes, the plug your ears and yell loudly defense. Bravo.

Stop

You cannot commit or condone one morally evil act as a means to possibly thwart another. Also, contraception isn’t 100% effective anyway. Contraception is readily available and there are still 3000 abortions everyday. Have to stop abortions and then people might think of the consequences to their actions.

@@SeanMichaelAfable where does it say in the Bible that contraceptives are morally evil?

@@oliviarose3513 the Bible is our history, The Catechism is a collection of The Churches teachings for the past 2000 years since Christ. It’s in the Catechism.

@@SeanMichaelAfable Jesus viciously opposed the Pharasees' oral tradition. "And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." Luke 11:46 "*Do not add* to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." Deuteronomy 4:2 God says what's morally evil, not us.

@@oliviarose3513 yes, the Pharisees tradition, NOT the apostles: 2 Thessalonians 2:15 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the *TRADITIONS* which ye have been taught, whether by *WORD*, or our epistle.”

There will always be bad popes, bad bishops, bad priests, bad nuns…. Because there will always be PEOPLE in The Church…. “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” - Jesus His whole reason and mission for coming is to save us from our sins. He also warned us that there will be wolves in sheep‘s clothing. So it doesn’t surprise me that there are bad people in the church, because they’re people… and they’re in it. Sadly, some don’t reform. Thankfully we have the Saints like Mother Teresa.

The teachings doesn’t become false just because some teachers fail to live up to them. Also, Bishop Barron definitely isn’t one of the predators, so why even bring that up as a response to his reflections on the matter?

think in adoption,. In Central America, Latin America and Africa where woman have 3,4,5,6 children usually from different fathers, this woman alone or even marriage can`t provide even food to their children entire families live on streets, or inhuman condition and usually the mother is pregnant again. I will kind you remember there every child you bring to the world may end in hell and there is no way you can`t guarantee they will go to heaven so you will be held accountable for their eternal torture in hell and damnation for the children you bring to the world..,.1

I grieve for Star Wars as well. No more light vs darkness, no more good guys & bad guys. Moral relativism reigns and everything is gray.

exactly :) I feel that the film is an assault on the archetypes that made Star Wars a compelling narrative. I was especially put off by the way evil was depicted -- almost as a symptom of a juvenile mindset with little structure or depth. I am also trying to understand the terminological shift from empire to first order, from jedi faith to jedi religion, and from rebellion to resistance.

John Johnson interesting. I’ll look into it. Keep me in your prayers!

*@Amy Francis* the answer is easy: just look at the statistics and ask yourself - whats the *biological perspective* of the nations with women NOT like you who have careers? DEATH! Which Western Europe is currently facing because turned away from Humanae vitae. So men, your Christian Roman Catholic man dont do all that out of spite for the sake of it and just for his satisfaction, he shall do it for his family, Christendom and his nation. the GREATEST work and career of ALL is - motherhood..

Stefan and u say this as a man doing your man thing. The greatest thing is motherhood u say? As a man? U r a man? R u a mother. Sleep. On that....

Stefan and two Of the greatest wars were when the woman were at home not working.

Look at society and fatherlessness rates now and compare to then. Then get back to me.

Before contraception there were lots of illegitimate children who were treated terribly. Society isn't perfect now at all but things have never been better in the past

Yes of course that has happened in every generation…. Except they were cautionary tales - like Jenny from Forest Gump. Today, most girls are Jenny.

Yeah girl you tell him, I am glad I am not alone