He was talking about something said by a previous pope:
But then he extended the thought to include people who had too many children, without planning for the possiblity of the carers death or dissability:
By the magic of the internet and the media, saying that having children may be selfish has transmorgified into “not having children is selfish”
No…I think Mick takes time out for meals, sleep and performances.
I don’t know why you are citing a press conference from 2 weeks ago. Here is the transcript of the remarks we are talking about.
In context:
The Pope needs to lay off Lester del Rey novels.
You are in error over Pope Francis said. Roman Catholicism has never had a problem (other than a tendency to pity them a bit too much) with married couples who are childless because they cannot conceive children. Some infertility treatments are opposed by the Roman Catholic.
There’s always the legend/mystery that was Pope Joan to think about.
:dubious:
I’m one of the Jesus freak liberals (though I’m sure the fundies would claim that being a liberal inherently makes me secular), but I would note that most of us libruls are capable of discerning between shades of gray. We can say we like most of what Obama is doing, but criticize him for some of his actions. And this happens without our transitioning directly from ‘O-bots’ to Obama-haters.
Same with Francis. He’s a big improvement over the rest of the past half-century’s worth of Popes, but we also are aware that he’s not going to overturn a whole bunch of established Catholic dogma. I think I said in a previous Francis thread that just the shift in emphasis, raising the importance of economic justice from the lip-service level that Ratzinger gave it, to a concern that’s front and center with him, makes a big difference all by itself, without even hinting at changing any pre-existing Catholic doctrine.
This is a little trickier than “X good, not-X bad” but it’s not rocket surgery. People can do this sort of thinking.
Given how I took the brunt of inherited mental and physical health issues that run on both sides of my family, I don’t know that I’m being selfish to refuse to pass on what basically amounts to genetic weakness in my species.
Sadly, yes, I think that this is a guy who likes being liked.
That said, I think it’s a GOOD thing for my fellow conservative Catholics to realize that
The Pope isn’t always going to be on our side
It’s not healthy to get too USED to the idea that the Pope will always be on our side
Hero worship (especially of JP2) isn’t healthy, and neither is demonization.
I’ve been thinking about this lately. In so many books and movies, liking and wanting kids is shorthand for being a good, loving, generous, and kind person, and not wanting kids is shorthand for being a selfish person, who is probably a villain in other ways. As I knew when i was 18 already that I didn’t want kids, this shorthand bugs me.
I think that if you don’t have kids because you have genuine ecological concerns, or don’t want to pass on bad genes, or because you know you wouldnt be a good parent, it is an unselfish choice.
I think if you decided not to have kids, even though you have good circumstances, simply because you are too damn lazy to care for them, it is both selfish, but also good good for the potential kid, if you don’t have them. Yet again, sometimes becoming a parent is the making of a person, turning a self-centered git into good human being. And sometimes not.
If you have kids just because you are driven by hormonal desire for them – I’ve known people, both men and women, who;ve gotten baby fever badly – that is selfish.
But sometimes it works out brilliantly well. And sometimes not.
It’s not an easy yes/no, selfish/unselfish.
Um, as Catholics should y’all not be concerned as to whether you are on the Pope’s good side? 
But seriously, those three points are fair call. The “liberal” side *have *been getting a bit too damn breathless about Francis even when he merely restates longtime doctrine in “kinder, gentler” words. And people tend to forget that the oft-maligned Benedict was JP2’s own trusted right-hand man. OTOH 50 years later we still have a few people whining over Vat-II.
People sometimes miss that the RCC’s proclamation of Eternal Truth and claim of continuity all the way to Peter does not mean rigid immobility, otherwise it would not have survived this long: the *form *evolves, as befits something run by humans. What’s underlying is what should not change. But like I said WRT the last two successions, anyone thinking that someone will be elected Pope who’ll change the RCC into the ELCA is just dreaming, everyone keep their shirts on.
Funny thing is, Julius II is talking to Peter. Who was married. Matthew 8:14 – he had a mother-in-law.
This is sad?!
Yeah, what’s that all about?!
How is Francis not “on our side” if what he is saying is in line with conservative Catholicism?
Not continuously, geez! I rest every seven days.
Yeah, but, still! 168 hours straight! [Shudder]
Every single reason for not having children is on my resume, but there are people who tell me “You don’t have children? I feel sorry for you.”
The same people call my sister a child abuser for raising four daughters with her first partner, and four more with her current wife.
Say what??! 
Hilarious, yet true. One point for you.