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.
I was a child of the 60s and birth control came out when I was in college. We all celebrated what we then believed was freedom from the tyranny of pregnancy. Now, 50 years of life experience later, I find myself desperately trying, and unsuccessfully, to awaken the young women in my life to the tragedies of the so called "sexual liberation" awaiting them. I am a witness to all the Pope Paul said coming true.
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
When I read through these comments, especially the negative ones, I think we need to remind ourselves that we all are sinners. We have all fallen short of the glory of God. But it should not prevent us from aiming for the highest good! God Bless Bishop Barron.
Bishop Barron: "if people had followed the Church's intuition, women would be a lot more respected than they are in the current secular scene today"... Me: Amen!
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.
It's sad that it's so accurate. I am likely part of a small percentage of men who doesn't see sex as a toy. I am only in my early 20s and have already decided to have nothing to do with artificial birth control. I judge women by their behavior rather than their looks. To me, chastity is an attractive quality in women because it shows purity and self-control. Looks are secondary when it comes to a person's inner beauty. As a Catholic, I want marriage to be the way God intends it to be.
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.
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.
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
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
Thank you. Very contentious issue and the cause for stumble for many. Joy, and the cross inevitably, for those who subject themselves to the moral law revealed to us so prophetically. ✌🏻
This is not an easy subject and I'm so happy you tackled it, Your Excellency. Artificial birth control tells a woman "your body is not good enough as it is. You need this pill/drug." Our bodies exist the way they are for a reason. The problem is finding a potential spouse who agrees with Christ's teaching. Unfortunately, so many women have been brainwashed into thinking NFP doesn't work and contraception will solve all your problems. I feel so alone and sometime fear I'll be single forever all because I want to be a faithful Catholic. Just got put your faith in Christ. Please pray for all young Catholics in the world today. We could use it. Sacred heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in You
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.
The goal of contraception is for people who want to organize the size of the family/household. Before contraception many people had big large families with 4, 5, 6 and more kids. So to regulate/organize that, contraception is a welcome invention. Even more so for poor people.
When I first read Humanae Vitae a couple of years ago, I was very struck by how accurate all his prophecies were. One thing to point out in addition: You mentioned the U.S. government forcing groups to provide health insurance with free contraception as a fulfillment of the prophecy of government forced contraception. While true, I think a much more overt example is the 1-child policy of China or the 2-child policy of Vietnam. It is also clear, particularly in those cases, that abortion is linked to contraception as an extension of it when the original method fails.
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?
Thank you Bishop Barron. Its refreshing to hear commentary on this particular part of Humanae Vitae. I admire the courage of those who were faithful to Humanae Vitae in the early years and were consequently mocked. Sadly, our current culture is vindicating the wisdom of Paul VI's long vision. And thank you also for highlighting Francis' appreciation for Paul VI and the element of voluntarism present in abrogating to ourselves the authority to redefine nature. This theme intersects with Laudato Si, where Francis discusses our relationship to the entire natural world. The chaos of our culture's sexual dysfunction is mirrored in the ecological problems we are now facing. I hope that the attempts to resolve our ecological problems results in a renewed respect for nature, both in the world around us and in the world of our bodies, and a diminishment of the voluntarism that damages both.
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.
Bishop Barron, thank you for your leadership (on this topic and many others). Yes, Section 17 of Humanae Vitae was prophetic and accurate. Protestant churches opposed artificial contraception in earlier decades but fashion trends (and doctrines) can change. Even history can change for some as interpretations change. Truth is unchanging. Jesus Christ remains the same yesterday, today and forever.
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.”
I wish the Church would more actively and compellingly catechize on Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body. It's only by the grace of God that found me in college (not my mass- and religious education-going upbringing or Jesuit high schooling) that I didn't forever stick with the opinion that contraception and premarital sex are morally right as long as you're "in love." In my experience, more Catholics than not share this viewpoint. It strikes me that perhaps the Church sometimes avoids addressing these topics to avoid controversy. But now there's a whole generation of Catholics who can't even imagine that anything could be wrong with condoms or the pill. How can we change this? The Church's teachings on sexuality are really the most beautiful transcendent call I could image.
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.
The profound ramifications, as explained by BB, are obvious and yet so eye-opening. Catholic teachings set the highest moral standards because God's children are worth it.
Hi Bishop Barron. I may be missing something but I’ve never heard you comment on the Eastern Orthodox anywhere. Can I request at some point a video on your view of the Eastern Orthodox Church and their claims regarding the lack of patristic evidence for the papacy and other Catholic doctrines? Thank you, God bless
you have to earn a change, so even when the desire change happens that it is known that you can't stay even in this moment. Change will happen and happen again as it has happen in the ultimate catalyst and crucible nature. Yes some change happens unnoticed and unprepared, but the is not for us we were called into understanding that we may nudge nature into her ultimate demand. All thing bright and small, dull and decayed I hold in room as all things must depart and clear way for the new and what might be.
This quite perplexing. Can you explain to me what the church means by “ open to procreation” in relation to the sexual act. Any couple that is actively seeking NFP is de facto saying that they do not want children at that time. What’s the difference between this and using a condom? The mindset- the intentionality- is similar and thus makes both actions morally wrong. Secondly, I do not understand what Pope Paul meant by the integrity of the sexual act is procreative and unitive. What’s wrong with the act just being unitive?
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.
this is my one gripe with the church, I agree that a marriage should be open to life, but why every single sexual act? If a couple have had children, they have been open to life, if they then decide to start using contraception that doesn't negate the children they have already had
Bishop Barron, You are such a inspiration for me in practicing my Faith. My husband and I had 6 children in years. Of course, we didn’t want to bring any more children into our family, mainly for my sake. We happened to be a couple who conceived very easily. Pregnancies take a toll on women. There were many families who had larger families at this time around 1968. Anyway we decided we would not have any more children and had a permanent solution through a surgery procedure.. I feel we did what was right for me and my husband. Doesn’t God treat each person or couple in their own circumstance, rather than a flat rule or decree for Everyone. Any replies?
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
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.
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.
Anytime my wife and I, both raised Catholic, think about returning to the church after decades of being completely secular, I am painfully reminded of the rigid nature of the Church. After 13 years of marriage we have two children, both of which came easily when not using birth control. If we had never used birth control, it is conceivable that we could have 6 or 8 children by now. We don't have the resources, both financial and time, to appropriately care for that many children. The result would be neglected and improvished children. 1968 was a long time ago and the world has changed massively. The necessary investment in children has increased. Our use of birth control has not led to infidelity or turning each other into mere sex objects. If the Catholic Church wonders why the pews get emptier year after year, they needn't look much beyond this policy that, if surveys are true, isn't followed by the majority of Catholics.
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.
@@parkermcginley3708 Are you pulling your info on scientific research from catholic websites? every single child that is born decreases the human capital of previous child increasing the cost. also why de fck should the life with burden that they want to avoid why? because of 1 faillable document of the church that was rejected by most theologians and even pope own commision? more children means less sexual satisfation and that means more divorce.
Hello Bishop Barron, I really enjoy and appreciate your content. This subject matter is very important and I would like to pose a question to you. You spoke about the use of contraception makes way for men to use women as a means of pleasure, however, in this wave of feminism I hear a lot of women talking about using men for their sexual pleasure as a means of expressing their freedom, empowerment and pursuit of happiness. What would you say that, or better yet, how would approach a conversation with a woman who holds this belief?
Bravo, Bishop Barron! Just one comment: in connection with the part on governments imposing the use of artificial contraception on their populations, I thought you would have mentioned the quintessential example of this--China's one-child policy, introduced just 11 years after HV. If anyone doubted Paul VI's prophetic vision when HV came out, it should have been clear in 1979 that he saw the future very clearly.
My Grandmother had a family of 16 leaving little if any doubt higher education was out of the question,and I was one of 5 that lift us poor.only through government was I able to go to college. That experience resulted in only having 2 children enabling them to enjoy, sports,university and college and helped them buying a home. After 45years of marriage both respecting each thanks to vasectomy We travel and enjoy our lives.
There is something about this that I think gets overlooked. This encyclical was written in an era when eugenics was a very popular idea. Margaret Sanger gave her speeches promoting contraception and describing children as "a human weed crop" in a culture and time that believed some people didn't deserve to exist. German eugenicists studied the methods promoted by Sanger and others in America. We all know what happened then in the World War II concentration camps. In the 1930s the idea of contraception was very mixed in the minds of people with eugenics. I think the Church at the time was right to be concerned about this and to take a stand against such terrible ideas. And to prophesy many other troubles that would develop as Fr. Barron has described. I believe time has shown, however, that eugenics and contraception aren't the same thing. It is also not abortion. I think the Church needs to rethink this and focus on the really unnatural things going on that manipulate birth such as surrogates and sperm donors that can really mess up people's lives.
I've grown up in a time when contraception is the norm and anything else is abnormal. Its quite the mind bender to stop and see things as they really are. My only dilemma is this: If I get married and I dont use contraception, how do I know my wife wont get pregnant everytime we have sex and subsequently end up with 50 children?
@@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?
This is where I disagree - when the use of contraceptives go up, the rates of abortions go down. I would much rather people wrap it before sex than have innocent babies be killed in the womb. Not to mention condoms prevent the spread of std's and sti's, especially lethal ones like AIDS. I don't see anything wrong with a married couple using condoms until they're ready to have children.
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.
@@theoddestautist 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.
@@theoddestautist 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.”
Gosh this sure created some fierce comments. The pill allows both sexes to use each other. I would suggest reading St. JP II “Theology of the Body” and googling Christopher West and Jason Evert. These men are not priests, are married and I know Mr. West has children. May the peace of our Lord be with all and may the Holy Spirit open our hearts to the truth.
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.
When the pope stated contraception is sin, then it is sin. Because God said whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
What the good Bishop didn't mention, is what is a worldwide concern, certainly in countries where there is poverty - often extreme poverty. A Catholic family in India, with too many mouths to feed, needs help with their suffering, not some celibate man in Rome telling them they'll be committing sin if they make any attempt not to have more children. Shame!
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
I’m evangelical as is my husband, but the more I learn about God and know him more, I find my values aligning with Catholic values. My husband is not on board with me coming off of birth control. Any advice? I feel torn between my beliefs and my submission to my husband.
@@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.
I am dating a man who is middle aged like myself 46&47 years old. We spoke about marriage as a possibility and intended to wait till marriage but he just told me he is scheduled for a vasectomy on Friday. Is it better for me to break up with him for the sake of my soul? God is more important though it will be sad. I want to cry. He’s doesn’t see anything wrong with it yet he is a practicing Catholic😢
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.
Sex being an act that contains both unitive and procreative elements forces sex to be defined in a very limited way. There are many expressions of intimacy between spouses that are by nature lacking the procreative element. Even those that do posses it only do so under certain circumstances.
I grew up witnessing adults rolling their eyes at Humanae Vitae, and rolling my eyes myself, since I assumed they had it right. But Pope Paul VI had it right. His predictions -- every one of them -- are uncanny in their prescience.
Bravo, Bishop. I pray that you will have the courage to continue to vocally support Humanae vitae if your apologia for Pope Francis turns out to be mistaken.
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
Great video, even as a nonbeliever I found it interesting, but I think your missing a good look at history in the context of sexual practice and immorality and how women are treated. Women used to be far worse treated with far fewer rights prior to the 1900s , that’s documented facts, prostitution was legal until the mid 1900s with most cities having brothels , and you know it was not just single men going there. And legal prostitution is not a respectable view of women It’s women being available for the desires of men. Sexual immorality as it is classified by the church is older then the church that is why it’s in old Hebrew texts. Ancient Egyptians used birth control as did romans and Greeks and I would assume other societies in the east. I don’t think modern birth control made things worse, it just made it more accessible To the masses. You make great videos but in this one you paint a happy days style view of the world that never existed.
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.
@@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
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..,.
I fail to see how the outcry against sexual harassment has anything to do with the use of artificial contraceptives. Just because women feel comfortable enough to speak out against it today doesn't mean they haven't been experiencing harassment for all of human history.
How did previous eras differ in this respect, how would you compare relationships in 1868 with 1968, and today? Many critics now argue that Christina Rossetti wasn't really a committed Christian but a celibate lesbian poet. Christina and her brother Dante would make for an interesting discussion.
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
the contraceptions make it easier to just have sex without responsibility in even the partners heart you just become like an animal. I believe man no longer wants to commit because it is no longer necesarry to be married to have sex but the sad thing is that as time passes they don't respect eachother woman or woman at man.
Interesting. I never knew much about why the Catholic church was against contraception. But talking about morals, that's a bit much isn't it. Some of these high masters of morality were into kids, and the catholic church didn't seem to mind that.
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?
There are reasons for family planning?", "Can I afford to have children?", "Is it something I want?" "Is it the right time?" "How many can I afford?" and these are logical questions that couples should asked them selves and you really do not have to have children to complete a marriage. There are economic reason to have children and there are economic reason not to have children. Children are a major responsibility and can be an economic stress. It should not be a religious obligation to procreate for the lord, that is between the married couple only.
You’re right - except the end, like Bishop Baron pointed out. There’s a unitive and procreative aspect to a marriage. Two people bond and *UNITE* in order to be a foundation for happy and healthy children to thrive. That’s the point. Contraception was never part of God’s plan, and it’s wreaking havoc on society: - fatherlessness - hookup culture - STDs - infidelity and broken families Etc
"How many people have made this connection between getting rid of the unitive and procreative dimensions...and the treatment of women as objects..." Once again, I keep thinking of the Marquis de Sade. "Eugenie...lust is the only god you should worship ..crime pleases nature..." There is a reason Franz Kafka declared Sade the "godfather of the modern age".
Your Grace, could it not also be that adultery only seems to be worse now? Now that we have cyberspace and the Internet to contend with? Also, news now travels fast, and statistics are widely correlated, published, and kept track of. In Florence during the 15th and 16th centuries, promiscuity and adultery were FAR more out of control. The youth that I speak to seem a great deal more aware of sexual matters, sure. However, they also seem a great deal more informed and therefore far more cautious. I have far more hope for this generation than I had for my own.
Sorry, but I don’t buy the argument that the use of contraception is the reason why men like Weinstein see women as nothing more than sexual objects. I mean, how much was women respected before birth control even existed... not very much. Look, I don’t expect the church to change their position on contraception. But I do think the church need to change their attitudes about people who use contraception.
Dear Father Barron. Please forgive me for bringing up a theme out of context. I was just wondering whether You have watched Star Wars: the Last Jedi. I think that the film dismisses of the themes of self sacrifice, the Jedi faith and its cannon (both of which are central elements of the Hero's Journey narrative) in favor of a Protestant and highly individualized spirituality, and I find this rather striking. I hope You do a review of sci.fi, religion and politics.
While Bishop Barron is correct in his reading of Pope Paul's encyclical, it's targets were sometimes misplaced. The promiscuous society were untroubled by the interdictions of Vatican spokesmen, but Catholic society at large had to take on board these clearly spelt out demands on personal conduct. I'm old enough to remember families of 12 children being unremarkable at Mass, and 8 and 9 were routine. Previous generations, and not only Catholic families, had even more. Granted, child mortality was much higher than it is today, but even so many families reached maturity in large numbers. Let's be realistic, a healthy couple married at 23 years of age without a disciplined approach to sexual abstinence are going to have a child every couple of years, perhaps sooner. If the mother hit menopause at the early age of 43, she'll have 10 kids. In other circumstances it could be as high as 20. While some welcomed numerous children, many did not, but laboured under their duty as wives and Catholics. The official line was abstinence and/or a regime of avoidance via infertility cycles. The introduction of science to conjugal love was never going to work for the people it was intended to help, though middle class educated Catholics benefitted to a greater or lesser degree. Did Pope Paul's un-nuanced approach to marital procreation in Humanae Vitae present a clear message on the sanctity of life, or was it the final straw that saw the faith abandoned under the uncompromising weight of its demands? We can never know, but church attending Catholics seem to have 2, 3 or 4 children now. Whether that's realism or the rot setting in is for wiser heads to contemplate.
(question completely out of respect and curiosity) As a Catholic convert I am learning alot. I am really asking for a yes or no and I type this with nothing but respect and curiosity. So my job as a "young married woman" is to married. Married and sex is for procreation. Got that. So as a young married woman say with two kids (I have one) my job as a Catholic is to "trust God" not be on any birth control or use any condoms due to reasons. That will leave me after using nfp with the chances of many children. Now I as a woman who is doing what I am "asked of by god" will sacrifice my time. Now take all the woman in the world. Now tey for a career. You may not understand the sacrifice of a mother because, out if respect you are a single man (priest) and have time on your side. Now imagine half the woman in the world would like a career. Say some have passions and hobbies like all the men I the world. Now the men (husbands) have this time because they are not child raising. Now they are free to explore a career out of there hobbies and passions. Woman over here are busy pregnant, nursing and on limited with there time where men have time on your side as yours. Now I ask this with nothing but respect and honest curiosity. If I personally do not use a condom I am most likely having another baby even if I use nfp. SO my QUESTION to you is : the woman of the world will be limited to being pregnant, raising children because it is my god giving responsibility to statistically be a mother and have a hard time trying to have a career because I can't use a condom during my fertile week. Which leaves me limited to "mother". Yes or no. My job will eventually end up "mother" while the men get to explore other career paths. Again this is a genuine kind question. I am learning and exploring my role as a young married catholic woman.
*@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..
There is this inordinate fixation on the part of right wing conservative Catholics in the U.S. with "Humanae Vitae" as if this teaching on pelvic issues is the only magisterial act of Paul VI. They are too highly pelvic focused in their view of Catholic social and political engagement. They in a way resisted and rejected the other equally important teachings of the same Pope like "Populorum Progressio" (social and economic justice), "Evangelii Nuntiandi" (evangelization in a modern context), and "Octogesima Adveniens" (legitimate plurality of political options for Catholics).
This what you have to consider, that you do not have to complete a marriage by having children and children are not for eveyone and should not be a religious obligation. If a couple wants children, they have to plan on if they can afford it, is it something that they really want, how many can the couple afford and is it the right time to have children. I am 55 years old, never been married or had children with anyone. If I do ever get lucky enough to find someone to marry, I do not plan on having children at my age.
The interesting point to me is that the use or otherwise of contraception in no way affects the underlying desire to commit say adultery for example. Yes, contraception might make it easier for an adulterer to commit adultery without the consequence of conception but in no way does the availability of contraception determine an individuals desire to be an adulterer. The "wish to" which is a state of mind and the "ability to" which is a practical mechanism are different things. The Catholic Church as a presumably body of philosophers should be able to realise that the more important issue for address here is the "state of mind" rather than the act, In fact, as we all know, "the act" can have series consequences for human life such as sexually transmitted diseases and therefore the Catholic Church in their humility should favour contraception to save life and excess of population which gives rise to extreme poverty around the world. They should only be concerned with the "mental state"
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
Bishop, where can one find good arguments for and against the morality of artificial contraception? I have yet to come across a persuasive argument against it. And I'm a relatively well-catechised Catholic! For example, why should one believe that sex *ought* to have both procreative and unitive aspects, other than submission to the Magisterium? Why should one expect that removing the procreative aspect will cause men to objectify women? Another explanation is that those men also removed the unitive aspect, without which sex is obviously empty. He may have done this in pursuit of social validation as a lady's man, self esteem correlated with number of sexual encounters, or as a misguided oasis from loneliness with someone they don't see themselves loving. The separation of procreation from sex in itself need not be the problem. More generally, the fact that there have been undesirable and even tragic consequences as a result of "redefining the sexual act" doesn't necessarily reveal the project to be misguided. Chesterton argues that Christian orthodoxy itself is often accused of being a slippery slope toward this excess or that excess. For example, dualistic Gnosticism and pagan nature-worship. In fact, in every aspect orthodoxy stands on the edge between two excesses and the history of the Church is the careful navigation between them, with frequent falls one way or another that arouse balancing forces on the other side. So ideological instability is not proof of wrongness. The sexual revolution may seem like a slippery slope toward radical voluntarism but could instead simply require careful balancing to avoid harmful excesses. Most Catholic apologetics on sexuality competently critique the hook up culture. But I have yet to come across an effective critique of serial long-term contraceptive monogamy, followed by fruitful marriage, which is a pattern that is more widespread and less obviously harmful. Any books or talks you recommend?
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.
Men have always regarded women as objects t/b used. Use her and toss her away like a kid tosses a broken toy. This happened b/4 artificial birth control. I could relate stories how this has happened in the 1920's to my grandmother. As a former CNA in a nursing home, I'd like to know how much the Little Sisters pay their aides. Are the Little Sisters doing the patient care or have they hired CNA's at minimum wage and w/ no benefits. CNA's have families to support, too.
Apologies if this was said by others. Bishop Barron, you have to be aware that far from bemoaning the issues Pope Paul VI mentioned in section 17, most people are celebrating them especially regarding voluntarism in the sexual arena. So I'm not sure that pointing that out helps our case.
@@SherooDeen May I? For example - I am a mother of 2 born by CS and 2 in heaven, that's 4 pregnancies in 4 years, NFP non-practicable in our situation (cause my cycle was always such a mess after misscarriage/giving birth and I haven't slept good in years, for example). So after every misscarriage and after the births of our children I was always there with only 1 option - abstination. So we abstained. I know the pains of it from first hand. The loneliness (cause you are trying not to sin and that is hard when you're attracted to the man in your bed, right?) was overwhelming. And what now? Another pregnancy would endanger me and the baby. But I am 26 and I'm not capable to abstain another 20+ years. Also the part about the dignity of the women is just a joke. Men were unfaithful in all historical ages, cause there were almost no consequences. In our marriage I am the one with bigger need of physical ways of love. Especially when I ovulate. It si sooooo nice the church is saying to me I can have sex when I don't want to...
Just found this and had all my questions anwered. Bishop Barron's amazing comments on Star Wars www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/how-the-star-wars-franchise-lost-its-way/5681/
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.
So, when are churches going to focus on men's sexual misconduct. Because it seems like men stepping outside of their marriage, having more than one wife, or having sex outside of wedlock is never the topic of discussion.
Marie Ji in my experience the Church (though certainly not all actors therein) is the last institution on earth that actually talks about the importance of chastity and virtuous behaviour with regards to sexuality to men. Are you familiar with St John Paul II “Theology of the Body”?
On the last point - on government "forcing" contraception - I feel like that argument isn't truly applicable to the actual circumstances. The HHS mandate was that contraception be covered - not be MANDATED. I feel like that's an important distinction and one question I'd ask Bishop Barron on - Does the government "allowing" something to happen really dictate what Christians/Catholics should do? And further more - even if Government actions influence peoples perceptions of "what they can do/get away with" isn't that more on the people who practice them and not on the government itself? I only ask that because - shouldn't practicing Catholics or Christians push more for their own congregations to practice this behavior on their own accord rather than focus on the outcomes/whims of a democratically elected government that encompases a wider variety of faiths and opinions?
Natural moral law is the objective morality. But st Aquinas said that we decide our own secondary precepts and rules. Granted we need to observe divine law etc, but we need to use our own consciences when making our moral decisions. There is no point saying an action is absolutely wrong as the only thing that is good in itself is God and the only thing that is bad in itself is the satanic inversion of God's will. So unless someone wants to claim that they know god's will they cannot declare with certainty what is absolutely right and wrong. And just to respond to those who want to comment on Papal infallibility, yes I'm fully aware of how it covers faith and morals. But humanae vitae was not written ex cathedra (bishop Barron please correct if I am mistaken). Besides, my conscience can see a stark distinction between a married couple with children looking to practice "responsible parenthood" (Pope Francis) through use of contraception and one who resorts to abortion.
Andrew Capone secondary precepts are made to fulfill primary precepts. Sometimes we are obliged to obey them quite rigorously if we want to maintain the moral life. I’m not sure what it is you meant when you talked about knowing absolute wrong and right...maybe I’m misreading something, but yes through the Church we know what God wants for us. If you know the Decalogue (so called “10 commandments”) you know at least that of God’s mind. St Paul tells us as much, that “we have the mind of Christ”. This is part of the awesome and sometimes terrifying beauty of the dignity of the Catholic Faith: the intimate relationship we have with the very “mind of God”. As for HV, you are correct that it is not an exercise in the extraordinary (ex cattedra etc) Papal Magisterium, those are relatively rare. However, the teaching on contraception (and other matters discussed therein) is indeed part of the universal ordinary Magisterium and is thus infallible. Also, the repetition and insistence with which the Church has taught on this matter (thinking of the Magisterium of St John Paul II in particular) requires of the faithful a disposition of docility and obedience in faith. Conscience is a term from the Latin “con-scire” meaning “with-knowledge”. Knowledge for it to be correct needs to be properly formed, hence the talk of a “well formed” conscience which is so when it conforms to the Truth of the Catholic teaching on morality. We can have faulty “knowledge” when we believe in erroneous matters so our conscience can also deviate. It’s important that we conform our conscience to the teaching of the Church. Responsible parenting is a must for all Catholic parents. The use of contraception is however irresponsible as it contravenes the moral law as can be known in the study of Natural Law, but thanks to Church, we may know also know by Faith. I know how some teachings of the Church maybe difficult. Jesus certainly had His fair share of hard teachings. Certainly in the time of Jesus, his hard teachings often decimated his audiences who would leave Him after hearing His difficult sayings. The Church’s teaching on contraception has certainly been a similar sign of contradiction. I have to admit I’m not getting the abortion reference? Those are two separate sins and of different gravity, though both are grave matter. I know from experience how my own weakness brings me to stray from the path. I know contraception has been a teaching which has been a struggle for many Catholics to accept indeed many have gone on to become self-avowed dissidents of the Church’s teaching on this matter. However, I think if we have a spirit of “fides quaerens intellectum” where faith and obedience to God and His Church come before our human understanding, we may come to realize the fullness of the love God has in store for each and every one of us. I don’t want to make it sound fluffy and easy. I know it’s not. But I think that’s our path. Well that’s my very fallible 2 cents anyway.
Thank you for replying to my thoughts. In response: Secondary Precepts are only precepts if they fulfil the primary, so you can't have a secondary precept that is not 'rigorous', it follows or it does not. The precepts are not absolute rules. My point about knowing absolute right is that we cannot ever suppose that we know what is absolutely right, to do so would be to suppose we have the mind of God. Christ himself said "only the Father in heaven is good", so I do not hold that any one of us (vicar of Christ included) can presume that they 'know' absolute right. I know Christ said 'what is bound on earth is bound in heaven' etc., but my understanding is that this refers to infallibility, not to any old thing. The 10 Commandments are Divine Laws but they do not say anything about contraception. In fact they say nothing about sex, only that adultery is wrong (and that is cheating on your husband/wife) and that you should not covet another man's wife. Hardly a command against contraception. Either a teaching is part of the Church's infallibility or it is not. In my understanding, something does not become infallibly declared when a few popes say things in otherwise non-infallible declarations. When popes say things, they are stuck in history and another pope can't just go and contradict him, but that does not mean the teaching was infallible. (Bishop Barron please correct if necessary). In fact, Pope Benedict's and Pope Francis' failure to repeat the severity of the 'sin of contraception' in itself, but to rather emphasise the dignity of the person and the importance of sex within married couples says to me that they don’t necessarily hold to the notion that contraception is as bad a sin as abortion etc. Conscience does need to be informed, but it does not need to conform. To say that if you conscience contradicts or brings into question a Papal command then conscience is wrong, is to undermine the importance of conscience itself, and its dignity. “Your conscience is only right when it obeys the Pope’s encyclical” is a bit ridiculous. I accept that the Ten Commandments are an exception to this but they are established and biblical and notice that we don’t consider all 613 Torah laws as Divine Laws! Contraception by itself appears to contradict the moral law. So does killing in self-defence, or war, so does stealing for the good of others etc. But we would not consider soldiers to be out of communion with the Church, nor are all Catholics called to be pacifists. We need to interpret the Primary precepts for our lives. My reference to abortion is that to kill a foetus to parent responsibly is clearly irresponsible as it is a direct inversion of the will of God, it is killing an innocent human life, but practicing contraception in an otherwise fruitful marital relationship, is not a direct inversion of the will of God. Certainly not in the same way. Finally, Pope Paul VI contradicts himself a little. He said that sex in non-fertile times is ok. But that is sex at a time when you intend not to conceive. Contraceptive sex is the same. Sex when you don’t plan to conceive. So the intention is exactly the same. Bottom line, being a sex worker, or having one night stands, and using contraception is clearly different to being in a committed Catholic marriage and wanting to parent responsibly. Paul VI says that you can’t look at the sex in total but at each act of sex. I think that this is unhelpful. If a married couple have children, then clearly they are open to children. Further, if they cannot rely on NFP due to their circumstances then they are clearly using their consciences to make their moral decisions. I do not believe in absolute rules “contraception is wrong”, I believe in objective morality and that our consciences help us to find it. Remember, God gave us our consciences. We need to use them properly.
All of this is opinion-based none of these views expressed can be found in the bible. Speculation. People should left to their privacy and make their personal decision on contraception. Just a reminder, condoms are prophylactic and therefore also derivative contraception. Are we going to a small group of people decide for the rest of the general public if condoms are to be banned?
I'm enjoying your videos Bishop and mostly agree and uphold what you are preaching and found them helpful. But honestly, contraception causing sexual predation, I don't think so. This is really about control and domination not sex. Within marriage too sex isn't always about procreation, Song of Songs makes it abundantly clear that God is in favour of sex to deepen a relationship and after all have fun together. Some kind of contraception is welcome if like us you have three kids already and are too old for more but too young to give up on this God given aspect of life. I'm not in favour of ANY governmental control over the personal aspects of our lives.
grandmasterjoshh I doubt if predators give a hoot about consequences. On the other point, my permanant solution was a vasectomy. No idea what the RC's view about that. As a committed Christian for more than 40 years i believe that the Lord has no problem with it. There are many more important things that He is working in me. However my sex life is good and free from the worry of having more kids that I couldn't possibly raise properly at my age, I think that this is a responsible view.
But that was object of my first point in my first message to which you replied. If you want to discuss another point then please state it clearly. Thanks
Nick Barton the argument isn’t that contraception causes further sexual immorality but that it enables it and makes it easier. Dr Green a medical anthropologist discussed the way contraception leads to riskier behaviour (for example) which in turn brings about higher infection rates. An analogy can be drawn in the moral order. The Church’s teaching against artificial contraception claims that She is the one holding to a faithful and integral expression of God’s positive message and intention about the sexual bond in marriage. Indeed, She claims that the use of these contraceptives frustrates the plan of God by divorcing the unitive and the procreative in a irrational way.
grandmasterjoshh thanks for your posts. However, what you've written makes it clear to me why I'll never convert to Catholicism dispite the many things I admire about it.
Hi Nick. Just a few points: 1) The Catholic Church is totally opposed to sterilization, so vasectomies aren't cool with the fellows in big hats. 2) You've made your points logically and rationally, and you did the best thing for your family by wisely planning it. Don't feel any guilt. 3) There is nothing, NOTHING, in the Bible against birth control, so if you don't base your life on the pope du jour edicts, you're in the clear, mate. 4) I "debated" (I use that term very loosely, since I debated and he strawmanned) the grandmaster a few days ago. There's really no point. He'll ignore every reasonable thing you say and just return to his old "Well, you could have abstained, but you were sinful, lazy, and lust-ridden." It doesn't matter if another pregnancy would kill your wife. It doesn't matter if you have a genetic disease. It doesn't matter if you can barely support the kids you have. Nope, no excuses allowed for josh. Just a head's up.
I love this! Thank you! I talk about NFP on my Catholic mommy channel and I love that you talk about the dignity of women too! Beautiful!
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.
I was a child of the 60s and birth control came out when I was in college. We all celebrated what we then believed was freedom from the tyranny of pregnancy. Now, 50 years of life experience later, I find myself desperately trying, and unsuccessfully, to awaken the young women in my life to the tragedies of the so called "sexual liberation" awaiting them. I am a witness to all the Pope Paul said coming true.
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
When I read through these comments, especially the negative ones, I think we need to remind ourselves that we all are sinners. We have all fallen short of the glory of God. But it should not prevent us from aiming for the highest good!
God Bless Bishop Barron.
Bishop Barron: "if people had followed the Church's intuition, women would be a lot more respected than they are in the current secular scene today"...
Me: Amen!
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.
It's sad that it's so accurate. I am likely part of a small percentage of men who doesn't see sex as a toy. I am only in my early 20s and have already decided to have nothing to do with artificial birth control. I judge women by their behavior rather than their looks. To me, chastity is an attractive quality in women because it shows purity and self-control. Looks are secondary when it comes to a person's inner beauty. As a Catholic, I want marriage to be the way God intends it to be.
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!
Perfect message. Stop IVF. Children are not a commodity. Thank you Lord for raising up bishop. X
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.
Thank you for this video Bishop Barron! It was quite educating to learn about the wider context behind the opposition to contraception.
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
It's really essential and faith provoking teaching. A life is precious gift. What a prophet words of this Encyclical.
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
Thank you. Very contentious issue and the cause for stumble for many. Joy, and the cross inevitably, for those who subject themselves to the moral law revealed to us so prophetically. ✌🏻
This is not an easy subject and I'm so happy you tackled it, Your Excellency. Artificial birth control tells a woman "your body is not good enough as it is. You need this pill/drug." Our bodies exist the way they are for a reason.
The problem is finding a potential spouse who agrees with Christ's teaching. Unfortunately, so many women have been brainwashed into thinking NFP doesn't work and contraception will solve all your problems. I feel so alone and sometime fear I'll be single forever all because I want to be a faithful Catholic. Just got put your faith in Christ. Please pray for all young Catholics in the world today. We could use it.
Sacred heart of Jesus, I place all my trust in You
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.
God is merciful. Never forget that.
The goal of contraception is for people who want to organize the size of the family/household. Before contraception many people had big large families with 4, 5, 6 and more kids. So to regulate/organize that, contraception is a welcome invention. Even more so for poor people.
When I first read Humanae Vitae a couple of years ago, I was very struck by how accurate all his prophecies were. One thing to point out in addition: You mentioned the U.S. government forcing groups to provide health insurance with free contraception as a fulfillment of the prophecy of government forced contraception. While true, I think a much more overt example is the 1-child policy of China or the 2-child policy of Vietnam. It is also clear, particularly in those cases, that abortion is linked to contraception as an extension of it when the original method fails.
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?
Thank you Bishop Barron. Its refreshing to hear commentary on this particular part of Humanae Vitae. I admire the courage of those who were faithful to Humanae Vitae in the early years and were consequently mocked. Sadly, our current culture is vindicating the wisdom of Paul VI's long vision. And thank you also for highlighting Francis' appreciation for Paul VI and the element of voluntarism present in abrogating to ourselves the authority to redefine nature. This theme intersects with Laudato Si, where Francis discusses our relationship to the entire natural world. The chaos of our culture's sexual dysfunction is mirrored in the ecological problems we are now facing. I hope that the attempts to resolve our ecological problems results in a renewed respect for nature, both in the world around us and in the world of our bodies, and a diminishment of the voluntarism that damages both.
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.
Thanks for the person who did the Vietnamese subtitle. Didn't expect that. Really helpful for me.
Keep up the good work, I've been watching your videos and always walk away feeling better
Bishop Barron, thank you for your leadership (on this topic and many others). Yes, Section 17 of Humanae Vitae was prophetic and accurate. Protestant churches opposed artificial contraception in earlier decades but fashion trends (and doctrines) can change. Even history can change for some as interpretations change. Truth is unchanging. Jesus Christ remains the same yesterday, today and forever.
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.”
This so obviously correct. Thank you Bishop Barron.
Thank you Bishop Barron!!!!!
How many children do you have?
I wish the Church would more actively and compellingly catechize on Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body. It's only by the grace of God that found me in college (not my mass- and religious education-going upbringing or Jesuit high schooling) that I didn't forever stick with the opinion that contraception and premarital sex are morally right as long as you're "in love." In my experience, more Catholics than not share this viewpoint. It strikes me that perhaps the Church sometimes avoids addressing these topics to avoid controversy. But now there's a whole generation of Catholics who can't even imagine that anything could be wrong with condoms or the pill. How can we change this? The Church's teachings on sexuality are really the most beautiful transcendent call I could image.
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.
Aahh so good!!! I can't tell you how happy this video makes me! The Holy Spirit is moving!!!
You are definitely brain washed keep it up
The profound ramifications, as explained by BB, are obvious and yet so eye-opening. Catholic teachings set the highest moral standards because God's children are worth it.
Thank you. God Bless you everyday
Hi Bishop Barron. I may be missing something but I’ve never heard you comment on the Eastern Orthodox anywhere. Can I request at some point a video on your view of the Eastern Orthodox Church and their claims regarding the lack of patristic evidence for the papacy and other Catholic doctrines? Thank you, God bless
you have to earn a change, so even when the desire change happens that it is known that you can't stay even in this moment. Change will happen and happen again as it has happen in the ultimate catalyst and crucible nature. Yes some change happens unnoticed and unprepared, but the is not for us we were called into understanding that we may nudge nature into her ultimate demand. All thing bright and small, dull and decayed I hold in room as all things must depart and clear way for the new and what might be.
This quite perplexing. Can you explain to me what the church means by “ open to procreation” in relation to the sexual act. Any couple that is actively seeking NFP is de facto saying that they do not want children at that time. What’s the difference between this and using a condom? The mindset- the intentionality- is similar and thus makes both actions morally wrong. Secondly, I do not understand what Pope Paul meant by the integrity of the sexual act is procreative and unitive. What’s wrong with the act just being unitive?
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.
this is my one gripe with the church, I agree that a marriage should be open to life, but why every single sexual act? If a couple have had children, they have been open to life, if they then decide to start using contraception that doesn't negate the children they have already had
@@Adam-fj9px exactly. I have the same issue..
Bishop Barron, You are such a inspiration for me in practicing my Faith. My husband and I had 6 children in years. Of course, we didn’t want to bring any more children into our family, mainly for my sake. We happened to be a couple who conceived very easily. Pregnancies take a toll on women. There were many families who had larger families at this time around 1968. Anyway we decided we would not have any more children and had a permanent solution through a surgery procedure.. I feel we did what was right for me and my husband. Doesn’t God treat each person or couple in their own circumstance, rather than a flat rule or decree for Everyone. Any replies?
Very well put. Too bad we rarely hear about this in church today.
This was really good!
Dear bishop, you will take the responsibility of peoples suffering for not taking any steps to take me out from here.
Thank you Bishop for this
How many children do you have?
This Bishop is a great one!
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
My mother's Lutheran Church is fully on the artificial contraception bandwagon, and her parish hasn't baptized a child in 2 years.
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.
God Bless Bishop Robert Barron! Lord Do We Need Catholic Culture!!!
We is our self respect: integrity and dignity.
Anytime my wife and I, both raised Catholic, think about returning to the church after decades of being completely secular, I am painfully reminded of the rigid nature of the Church. After 13 years of marriage we have two children, both of which came easily when not using birth control. If we had never used birth control, it is conceivable that we could have 6 or 8 children by now. We don't have the resources, both financial and time, to appropriately care for that many children. The result would be neglected and improvished children. 1968 was a long time ago and the world has changed massively. The necessary investment in children has increased. Our use of birth control has not led to infidelity or turning each other into mere sex objects. If the Catholic Church wonders why the pews get emptier year after year, they needn't look much beyond this policy that, if surveys are true, isn't followed by the majority of Catholics.
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.
@@parkermcginley3708 Are you pulling your info on scientific research from catholic websites? every single child that is born decreases the human capital of previous child increasing the cost. also why de fck should the life with burden that they want to avoid why? because of 1 faillable document of the church that was rejected by most theologians and even pope own commision? more children means less sexual satisfation and that means more divorce.
Hello Bishop Barron, I really enjoy and appreciate your content. This subject matter is very important and I would like to pose a question to you. You spoke about the use of contraception makes way for men to use women as a means of pleasure, however, in this wave of feminism I hear a lot of women talking about using men for their sexual pleasure as a means of expressing their freedom, empowerment and pursuit of happiness. What would you say that, or better yet, how would approach a conversation with a woman who holds this belief?
say, stfu and leave
😇😇😇 God bless all! God loves us! Ever
Bravo, Bishop Barron! Just one comment: in connection with the part on governments imposing the use of artificial contraception on their populations, I thought you would have mentioned the quintessential example of this--China's one-child policy, introduced just 11 years after HV. If anyone doubted Paul VI's prophetic vision when HV came out, it should have been clear in 1979 that he saw the future very clearly.
My Grandmother had a family of 16 leaving little if any doubt higher education was out of the question,and I was one of 5 that lift us poor.only through government was I able to go to college.
That experience resulted in only having 2 children enabling them to enjoy, sports,university and college and helped them buying a home.
After 45years of marriage both respecting each thanks to vasectomy We travel and enjoy our lives.
Yeah girl you tell him, I am glad I am not alone
Prophetic indeed! Excellent analysis and argument!
There is something about this that I think gets overlooked. This encyclical was written in an era when eugenics was a very popular idea. Margaret Sanger gave her speeches promoting contraception and describing children as "a human weed crop" in a culture and time that believed some people didn't deserve to exist. German eugenicists studied the methods promoted by Sanger and others in America. We all know what happened then in the World War II concentration camps. In the 1930s the idea of contraception was very mixed in the minds of people with eugenics. I think the Church at the time was right to be concerned about this and to take a stand against such terrible ideas. And to prophesy many other troubles that would develop as Fr. Barron has described.
I believe time has shown, however, that eugenics and contraception aren't the same thing. It is also not abortion. I think the Church needs to rethink this and focus on the really unnatural things going on that manipulate birth such as surrogates and sperm donors that can really mess up people's lives.
Great Video! Many thanks!
I've grown up in a time when contraception is the norm and anything else is abnormal. Its quite the mind bender to stop and see things as they really are. My only dilemma is this: If I get married and I dont use contraception, how do I know my wife wont get pregnant everytime we have sex and subsequently end up with 50 children?
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.
Oh boy the way, personally I liked sex much better in marriage when not afraid of getting pregnant constantly. Just saying
This is where I disagree - when the use of contraceptives go up, the rates of abortions go down. I would much rather people wrap it before sex than have innocent babies be killed in the womb. Not to mention condoms prevent the spread of std's and sti's, especially lethal ones like AIDS. I don't see anything wrong with a married couple using condoms until they're ready to have children.
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?
@@theoddestautist 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.
@@theoddestautist 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.”
Gosh this sure created some fierce comments. The pill allows both sexes to use each other. I would suggest reading St. JP II “Theology of the Body” and googling Christopher West and Jason Evert. These men are not priests, are married and I know Mr. West has children.
May the peace of our Lord be with all and may the Holy Spirit open our hearts to the truth.
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.
When the pope stated contraception is sin, then it is sin. Because God said whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Stop
What the good Bishop didn't mention, is what is a worldwide concern, certainly in countries where there is poverty - often extreme poverty. A Catholic family in India, with too many mouths to feed, needs help with their suffering, not some celibate man in Rome telling them they'll be committing sin if they make any attempt not to have more children. Shame!
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
I’m evangelical as is my husband, but the more I learn about God and know him more, I find my values aligning with Catholic values. My husband is not on board with me coming off of birth control. Any advice? I feel torn between my beliefs and my submission to my husband.
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.
Scary how true it was.
I am dating a man who is middle aged like myself 46&47 years old. We spoke about marriage as a possibility and intended to wait till marriage but he just told me he is scheduled for a vasectomy on Friday. Is it better for me to break up with him for the sake of my soul? God is more important though it will be sad. I want to cry. He’s doesn’t see anything wrong with it yet he is a practicing Catholic😢
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.
Keep up the good work! “The new Bishop Sheen”
John Johnson interesting. I’ll look into it. Keep me in your prayers!
Sex being an act that contains both unitive and procreative elements forces sex to be defined in a very limited way. There are many expressions of intimacy between spouses that are by nature lacking the procreative element. Even those that do posses it only do so under certain circumstances.
I grew up witnessing adults rolling their eyes at Humanae Vitae, and rolling my eyes myself, since I assumed they had it right. But Pope Paul VI had it right. His predictions -- every one of them -- are uncanny in their prescience.
I get the logic and see the correlation with adultery, what about if a couple can’t have kids? They’re forced to adopt?
Bravo, Bishop. I pray that you will have the courage to continue to vocally support Humanae vitae if your apologia for Pope Francis turns out to be mistaken.
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
Great video, even as a nonbeliever I found it interesting, but I think your missing a good look at history in the context of sexual practice and immorality and how women are treated.
Women used to be far worse treated with far fewer rights prior to the 1900s , that’s documented facts, prostitution was legal until the mid 1900s with most cities having brothels , and you know it was not just single men going there. And legal prostitution is not a respectable view of women
It’s women being available for the desires of men.
Sexual immorality as it is classified by the church is older then the church that is why it’s in old Hebrew texts.
Ancient Egyptians used birth control as did romans and Greeks and I would assume other societies in the east.
I don’t think modern birth control made things worse, it just made it more accessible
To the masses.
You make great videos but in this one you paint a happy days style view of the world that never existed.
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...
best explaination...ever.
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..,.
I fail to see how the outcry against sexual harassment has anything to do with the use of artificial contraceptives. Just because women feel comfortable enough to speak out against it today doesn't mean they haven't been experiencing harassment for all of human history.
Governments and churches should stay out of the bedrooms of the nation.
RS. Canada
How did previous eras differ in this respect, how would you compare relationships in 1868 with 1968, and today? Many critics now argue that Christina Rossetti wasn't really a committed Christian but a celibate lesbian poet. Christina and her brother Dante would make for an interesting discussion.
Thank you Bishop may God continue to bless.you
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
What is recommended when NFP has not worked, and another pregnancy would be life-threatening for both the mother and the child?
Memorandum 200 by Henry Kissinger 1974. =" they may even impose their use on everyone."
the contraceptions make it easier to just have sex without responsibility in even the partners heart you just become like an animal. I believe man no longer wants to commit because it is no longer necesarry to be married to have sex but the sad thing is that as time passes they don't respect eachother woman or woman at man.
Childbirth is animalistic as well
Interesting. I never knew much about why the Catholic church was against contraception. But talking about morals, that's a bit much isn't it. Some of these high masters of morality were into kids, and the catholic church didn't seem to mind that.
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?
There are reasons for family planning?", "Can I afford to have children?", "Is it something I want?" "Is it the right time?" "How many can I afford?" and these are logical questions that couples should asked them selves and you really do not have to have children to complete a marriage. There are economic reason to have children and there are economic reason not to have children. Children are a major responsibility and can be an economic stress. It should not be a religious obligation to procreate for the lord, that is between the married couple only.
You’re perfectly right-until the very end.
You’re right - except the end, like Bishop Baron pointed out.
There’s a unitive and procreative aspect to a marriage. Two people bond and *UNITE* in order to be a foundation for happy and healthy children to thrive. That’s the point. Contraception was never part of God’s plan, and it’s wreaking havoc on society:
- fatherlessness
- hookup culture
- STDs
- infidelity and broken families
Etc
"How many people have made this connection between getting rid of the unitive and procreative dimensions...and the treatment of women as objects..."
Once again, I keep thinking of the Marquis de Sade. "Eugenie...lust is the only god you should worship
..crime pleases nature..." There is a reason Franz Kafka declared Sade the "godfather of the modern age".
I'd be really interested to know if you've heard of Jordan Peterson and if so, what your thoughts are on his lectures/debates :)
Your Grace, could it not also be that adultery only seems to be worse now? Now that we have cyberspace and the Internet to contend with? Also, news now travels fast, and statistics are widely correlated, published, and kept track of. In Florence during the 15th and 16th centuries, promiscuity and adultery were FAR more out of control. The youth that I speak to seem a great deal more aware of sexual matters, sure. However, they also seem a great deal more informed and therefore far more cautious. I have far more hope for this generation than I had for my own.
Sorry, but I don’t buy the argument that the use of contraception is the reason why men like Weinstein see women as nothing more than sexual objects. I mean, how much was women respected before birth control even existed... not very much. Look, I don’t expect the church to change their position on contraception. But I do think the church need to change their attitudes about people who use contraception.
neosoontoretro Well, it’s not the only reason! But it’s part of a pattern.
Dear Father Barron. Please forgive me for bringing up a theme out of context. I was just wondering whether You have watched Star Wars: the Last Jedi. I think that the film dismisses of the themes of self sacrifice, the Jedi faith and its cannon (both of which are central elements of the Hero's Journey narrative) in favor of a Protestant and highly individualized spirituality, and I find this rather striking. I hope You do a review of sci.fi, religion and politics.
Özlem Denli
Are you a Turk?
While Bishop Barron is correct in his reading of Pope Paul's encyclical, it's targets were sometimes misplaced. The promiscuous society were untroubled by the interdictions of Vatican spokesmen, but Catholic society at large had to take on board these clearly spelt out demands on personal conduct.
I'm old enough to remember families of 12 children being unremarkable at Mass, and 8 and 9 were routine. Previous generations, and not only Catholic families, had even more. Granted, child mortality was much higher than it is today, but even so many families reached maturity in large numbers. Let's be realistic, a healthy couple married at 23 years of age without a disciplined approach to sexual abstinence are going to have a child every couple of years, perhaps sooner. If the mother hit menopause at the early age of 43, she'll have 10 kids. In other circumstances it could be as high as 20.
While some welcomed numerous children, many did not, but laboured under their duty as wives and Catholics. The official line was abstinence and/or a regime of avoidance via infertility cycles. The introduction of science to conjugal love was never going to work for the people it was intended to help, though middle class educated Catholics benefitted to a greater or lesser degree.
Did Pope Paul's un-nuanced approach to marital procreation in Humanae Vitae present a clear message on the sanctity of life, or was it the final straw that saw the faith abandoned under the uncompromising weight of its demands? We can never know, but church attending Catholics seem to have 2, 3 or 4 children now. Whether that's realism or the rot setting in is for wiser heads to contemplate.
Hmn. Very stark words (and yes, prophetic).
(question completely out of respect and curiosity) As a Catholic convert I am learning alot. I am really asking for a yes or no and I type this with nothing but respect and curiosity. So my job as a "young married woman" is to married. Married and sex is for procreation. Got that. So as a young married woman say with two kids (I have one) my job as a Catholic is to "trust God" not be on any birth control or use any condoms due to reasons. That will leave me after using nfp with the chances of many children. Now I as a woman who is doing what I am "asked of by god" will sacrifice my time. Now take all the woman in the world. Now tey for a career. You may not understand the sacrifice of a mother because, out if respect you are a single man (priest) and have time on your side. Now imagine half the woman in the world would like a career. Say some have passions and hobbies like all the men I the world. Now the men (husbands) have this time because they are not child raising. Now they are free to explore a career out of there hobbies and passions. Woman over here are busy pregnant, nursing and on limited with there time where men have time on your side as yours. Now I ask this with nothing but respect and honest curiosity. If I personally do not use a condom I am most likely having another baby even if I use nfp. SO my QUESTION to you is : the woman of the world will be limited to being pregnant, raising children because it is my god giving responsibility to statistically be a mother and have a hard time trying to have a career because I can't use a condom during my fertile week. Which leaves me limited to "mother". Yes or no. My job will eventually end up "mother" while the men get to explore other career paths. Again this is a genuine kind question. I am learning and exploring my role as a young married catholic woman.
*@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.
Nice video!
So Holy Bishop I am decerning the priesthood, any advice on what I should do before heading to seminary?
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
There is this inordinate fixation on the part of right wing conservative Catholics in the U.S. with "Humanae Vitae" as if this teaching on pelvic issues is the only magisterial act of Paul VI. They are too highly pelvic focused in their view of Catholic social and political engagement. They in a way resisted and rejected the other equally important teachings of the same Pope like "Populorum Progressio" (social and economic justice), "Evangelii Nuntiandi" (evangelization in a modern context), and "Octogesima Adveniens" (legitimate plurality of political options for Catholics).
This what you have to consider, that you do not have to complete a marriage by having children and children are not for eveyone and should not be a religious obligation. If a couple wants children, they have to plan on if they can afford it, is it something that they really want, how many can the couple afford and is it the right time to have children. I am 55 years old, never been married or had children with anyone. If I do ever get lucky enough to find someone to marry, I do not plan on having children at my age.
The interesting point to me is that the use or otherwise of contraception in no way affects the underlying desire to commit say adultery for example. Yes, contraception might make it easier for an adulterer to commit adultery without the consequence of conception but in no way does the availability of contraception determine an individuals desire to be an adulterer. The "wish to" which is a state of mind and the "ability to" which is a practical mechanism are different things. The Catholic Church as a presumably body of philosophers should be able to realise that the more important issue for address here is the "state of mind" rather than the act, In fact, as we all know, "the act" can have series consequences for human life such as sexually transmitted diseases and therefore the Catholic Church in their humility should favour contraception to save life and excess of population which gives rise to extreme poverty around the world. They should only be concerned with the "mental state"
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
Bishop, where can one find good arguments for and against the morality of artificial contraception? I have yet to come across a persuasive argument against it. And I'm a relatively well-catechised Catholic!
For example, why should one believe that sex *ought* to have both procreative and unitive aspects, other than submission to the Magisterium? Why should one expect that removing the procreative aspect will cause men to objectify women? Another explanation is that those men also removed the unitive aspect, without which sex is obviously empty. He may have done this in pursuit of social validation as a lady's man, self esteem correlated with number of sexual encounters, or as a misguided oasis from loneliness with someone they don't see themselves loving. The separation of procreation from sex in itself need not be the problem.
More generally, the fact that there have been undesirable and even tragic consequences as a result of "redefining the sexual act" doesn't necessarily reveal the project to be misguided. Chesterton argues that Christian orthodoxy itself is often accused of being a slippery slope toward this excess or that excess. For example, dualistic Gnosticism and pagan nature-worship. In fact, in every aspect orthodoxy stands on the edge between two excesses and the history of the Church is the careful navigation between them, with frequent falls one way or another that arouse balancing forces on the other side. So ideological instability is not proof of wrongness. The sexual revolution may seem like a slippery slope toward radical voluntarism but could instead simply require careful balancing to avoid harmful excesses.
Most Catholic apologetics on sexuality competently critique the hook up culture. But I have yet to come across an effective critique of serial long-term contraceptive monogamy, followed by fruitful marriage, which is a pattern that is more widespread and less obviously harmful.
Any books or talks you recommend?
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.
Men have always regarded women as objects t/b used. Use her and toss her away like a kid tosses a broken toy. This happened b/4 artificial birth control. I could relate stories how this has happened in the 1920's to my grandmother. As a former CNA in a nursing home, I'd like to know how much the Little Sisters pay their aides. Are the Little Sisters doing the patient care or have they hired CNA's at minimum wage and w/ no benefits. CNA's have families to support, too.
Yes of course that has happened in every generation…. Except they were cautionary tales - like Jenny from Forest Gump.
Today, most girls are Jenny.
Apologies if this was said by others. Bishop Barron, you have to be aware that far from bemoaning the issues Pope Paul VI mentioned in section 17, most people are celebrating them especially regarding voluntarism in the sexual arena. So I'm not sure that pointing that out helps our case.
Back it up with bible
Amen
You needed one more comment
Glad I'm not a Catholic. I totally disagree with this.
I am catholic and I too disagree with this.
"This" is a broad stroke. Wouldn't you say? What specifically do you disagree with?
@@SherooDeen May I? For example - I am a mother of 2 born by CS and 2 in heaven, that's 4 pregnancies in 4 years, NFP non-practicable in our situation (cause my cycle was always such a mess after misscarriage/giving birth and I haven't slept good in years, for example). So after every misscarriage and after the births of our children I was always there with only 1 option - abstination. So we abstained. I know the pains of it from first hand. The loneliness (cause you are trying not to sin and that is hard when you're attracted to the man in your bed, right?) was overwhelming. And what now? Another pregnancy would endanger me and the baby. But I am 26 and I'm not capable to abstain another 20+ years. Also the part about the dignity of the women is just a joke. Men were unfaithful in all historical ages, cause there were almost no consequences. In our marriage I am the one with bigger need of physical ways of love. Especially when I ovulate. It si sooooo nice the church is saying to me I can have sex when I don't want to...
Saw this in reality with a woman I know
Just found this and had all my questions anwered. Bishop Barron's amazing comments on Star Wars www.wordonfire.org/resources/article/how-the-star-wars-franchise-lost-its-way/5681/
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.
So, when are churches going to focus on men's sexual misconduct. Because it seems like men stepping outside of their marriage, having more than one wife, or having sex outside of wedlock is never the topic of discussion.
Marie Ji in my experience the Church (though certainly not all actors therein) is the last institution on earth that actually talks about the importance of chastity and virtuous behaviour with regards to sexuality to men.
Are you familiar with St John Paul II “Theology of the Body”?
It is preached rather often, especially on Sunday's when David and Bathsheba is read.
Your excellence i believe yo are totally right in this matter Pope Paul 6 was right
On the last point - on government "forcing" contraception - I feel like that argument isn't truly applicable to the actual circumstances. The HHS mandate was that contraception be covered - not be MANDATED. I feel like that's an important distinction and one question I'd ask Bishop Barron on -
Does the government "allowing" something to happen really dictate what Christians/Catholics should do? And further more - even if Government actions influence peoples perceptions of "what they can do/get away with" isn't that more on the people who practice them and not on the government itself?
I only ask that because - shouldn't practicing Catholics or Christians push more for their own congregations to practice this behavior on their own accord rather than focus on the outcomes/whims of a democratically elected government that encompases a wider variety of faiths and opinions?
I’d also like to mention as far as governments imposing contraception on the citizens, just look at China with the one child policy
Artificial is not the issue!
Natural moral law is the objective morality. But st Aquinas said that we decide our own secondary precepts and rules.
Granted we need to observe divine law etc, but we need to use our own consciences when making our moral decisions.
There is no point saying an action is absolutely wrong as the only thing that is good in itself is God and the only thing that is bad in itself is the satanic inversion of God's will.
So unless someone wants to claim that they know god's will they cannot declare with certainty what is absolutely right and wrong.
And just to respond to those who want to comment on Papal infallibility, yes I'm fully aware of how it covers faith and morals. But humanae vitae was not written ex cathedra (bishop Barron please correct if I am mistaken).
Besides, my conscience can see a stark distinction between a married couple with children looking to practice "responsible parenthood" (Pope Francis) through use of contraception and one who resorts to abortion.
Andrew Capone secondary precepts are made to fulfill primary precepts. Sometimes we are obliged to obey them quite rigorously if we want to maintain the moral life.
I’m not sure what it is you meant when you talked about knowing absolute wrong and right...maybe I’m misreading something, but yes through the Church we know what God wants for us. If you know the Decalogue (so called “10 commandments”) you know at least that of God’s mind. St Paul tells us as much, that “we have the mind of Christ”. This is part of the awesome and sometimes terrifying beauty of the dignity of the Catholic Faith: the intimate relationship we have with the very “mind of God”.
As for HV, you are correct that it is not an exercise in the extraordinary (ex cattedra etc) Papal Magisterium, those are relatively rare. However, the teaching on contraception (and other matters discussed therein) is indeed part of the universal ordinary Magisterium and is thus infallible.
Also, the repetition and insistence with which the Church has taught on this matter (thinking of the Magisterium of St John Paul II in particular) requires of the faithful a disposition of docility and obedience in faith.
Conscience is a term from the Latin “con-scire” meaning “with-knowledge”. Knowledge for it to be correct needs to be properly formed, hence the talk of a “well formed” conscience which is so when it conforms to the Truth of the Catholic teaching on morality. We can have faulty “knowledge” when we believe in erroneous matters so our conscience can also deviate. It’s important that we conform our conscience to the teaching of the Church.
Responsible parenting is a must for all Catholic parents. The use of contraception is however irresponsible as it contravenes the moral law as can be known in the study of Natural Law, but thanks to Church, we may know also know by Faith.
I know how some teachings of the Church maybe difficult. Jesus certainly had His fair share of hard teachings. Certainly in the time of Jesus, his hard teachings often decimated his audiences who would leave Him after hearing His difficult sayings. The Church’s teaching on contraception has certainly been a similar sign of contradiction. I have to admit I’m not getting the abortion reference? Those are two separate sins and of different gravity, though both are grave matter.
I know from experience how my own weakness brings me to stray from the path. I know contraception has been a teaching which has been a struggle for many Catholics to accept indeed many have gone on to become self-avowed dissidents of the Church’s teaching on this matter. However, I think if we have a spirit of “fides quaerens intellectum” where faith and obedience to God and His Church come before our human understanding, we may come to realize the fullness of the love God has in store for each and every one of us. I don’t want to make it sound fluffy and easy. I know it’s not. But I think that’s our path.
Well that’s my very fallible 2 cents anyway.
Thank you for replying to my thoughts. In response:
Secondary Precepts are only precepts if they fulfil the primary, so you can't have a secondary precept that is not 'rigorous', it follows or it does not. The precepts are not absolute rules.
My point about knowing absolute right is that we cannot ever suppose that we know what is absolutely right, to do so would be to suppose we have the mind of God. Christ himself said "only the Father in heaven is good", so I do not hold that any one of us (vicar of Christ included) can presume that they 'know' absolute right. I know Christ said 'what is bound on earth is bound in heaven' etc., but my understanding is that this refers to infallibility, not to any old thing.
The 10 Commandments are Divine Laws but they do not say anything about contraception. In fact they say nothing about sex, only that adultery is wrong (and that is cheating on your husband/wife) and that you should not covet another man's wife. Hardly a command against contraception.
Either a teaching is part of the Church's infallibility or it is not. In my understanding, something does not become infallibly declared when a few popes say things in otherwise non-infallible declarations. When popes say things, they are stuck in history and another pope can't just go and contradict him, but that does not mean the teaching was infallible. (Bishop Barron please correct if necessary). In fact, Pope Benedict's and Pope Francis' failure to repeat the severity of the 'sin of contraception' in itself, but to rather emphasise the dignity of the person and the importance of sex within married couples says to me that they don’t necessarily hold to the notion that contraception is as bad a sin as abortion etc.
Conscience does need to be informed, but it does not need to conform. To say that if you conscience contradicts or brings into question a Papal command then conscience is wrong, is to undermine the importance of conscience itself, and its dignity. “Your conscience is only right when it obeys the Pope’s encyclical” is a bit ridiculous. I accept that the Ten Commandments are an exception to this but they are established and biblical and notice that we don’t consider all 613 Torah laws as Divine Laws!
Contraception by itself appears to contradict the moral law. So does killing in self-defence, or war, so does stealing for the good of others etc. But we would not consider soldiers to be out of communion with the Church, nor are all Catholics called to be pacifists. We need to interpret the Primary precepts for our lives.
My reference to abortion is that to kill a foetus to parent responsibly is clearly irresponsible as it is a direct inversion of the will of God, it is killing an innocent human life, but practicing contraception in an otherwise fruitful marital relationship, is not a direct inversion of the will of God. Certainly not in the same way.
Finally, Pope Paul VI contradicts himself a little. He said that sex in non-fertile times is ok. But that is sex at a time when you intend not to conceive. Contraceptive sex is the same. Sex when you don’t plan to conceive. So the intention is exactly the same.
Bottom line, being a sex worker, or having one night stands, and using contraception is clearly different to being in a committed Catholic marriage and wanting to parent responsibly. Paul VI says that you can’t look at the sex in total but at each act of sex. I think that this is unhelpful. If a married couple have children, then clearly they are open to children. Further, if they cannot rely on NFP due to their circumstances then they are clearly using their consciences to make their moral decisions.
I do not believe in absolute rules “contraception is wrong”, I believe in objective morality and that our consciences help us to find it. Remember, God gave us our consciences. We need to use them properly.
Psychology 101 - Correlation is not causation.
All of this is opinion-based none of these views expressed can be found in the bible. Speculation. People should left to their privacy and make their personal decision on contraception. Just a reminder, condoms are prophylactic and therefore also derivative contraception. Are we going to a small group of people decide for the rest of the general public if condoms are to be banned?
Well said your lordship!
I'm enjoying your videos Bishop and mostly agree and uphold what you are preaching and found them helpful.
But honestly, contraception causing sexual predation, I don't think so. This is really about control and domination not sex.
Within marriage too sex isn't always about procreation, Song of Songs makes it abundantly clear that God is in favour of sex to deepen a relationship and after all have fun together. Some kind of contraception is welcome if like us you have three kids already and are too old for more but too young to give up on this God given aspect of life.
I'm not in favour of ANY governmental control over the personal aspects of our lives.
grandmasterjoshh
I doubt if predators give a hoot about consequences.
On the other point, my permanant solution was a vasectomy. No idea what the RC's view about that. As a committed Christian for more than 40 years i believe that the Lord has no problem with it. There are many more important things that He is working in me. However my sex life is good and free from the worry of having more kids that I couldn't possibly raise properly at my age, I think that this is a responsible view.
But that was object of my first point in my first message to which you replied. If you want to discuss another point then please state it clearly.
Thanks
Nick Barton the argument isn’t that contraception causes further sexual immorality but that it enables it and makes it easier. Dr Green a medical anthropologist discussed the way contraception leads to riskier behaviour (for example) which in turn brings about higher infection rates. An analogy can be drawn in the moral order.
The Church’s teaching against artificial contraception claims that She is the one holding to a faithful and integral expression of God’s positive message and intention about the sexual bond in marriage. Indeed, She claims that the use of these contraceptives frustrates the plan of God by divorcing the unitive and the procreative in a irrational way.
grandmasterjoshh thanks for your posts. However, what you've written makes it clear to me why I'll never convert to Catholicism dispite the many things I admire about it.
Hi Nick. Just a few points: 1) The Catholic Church is totally opposed to sterilization, so vasectomies aren't cool with the fellows in big hats. 2) You've made your points logically and rationally, and you did the best thing for your family by wisely planning it. Don't feel any guilt. 3) There is nothing, NOTHING, in the Bible against birth control, so if you don't base your life on the pope du jour edicts, you're in the clear, mate. 4) I "debated" (I use that term very loosely, since I debated and he strawmanned) the grandmaster a few days ago. There's really no point. He'll ignore every reasonable thing you say and just return to his old "Well, you could have abstained, but you were sinful, lazy, and lust-ridden." It doesn't matter if another pregnancy would kill your wife. It doesn't matter if you have a genetic disease. It doesn't matter if you can barely support the kids you have. Nope, no excuses allowed for josh. Just a head's up.