Series on Marriage: Periodic Abstinence & NFP
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- Part 4 of Father's sermon series on marriage. This on on the dangers of misusing NFP. For more please visit www.romans10sev... & remember to say 3 Hail Marys for the priest
My mom was #17 of 18 kids. May God bless father for speaking about the errors of NFP.
I am thankful to be here. Thank you grandma.
So many of my truly Catholic friends are in the minority since we are not sterilized surgically OR using any contraception. It is truly astounding how many Catholics do not practice this teaching.
That's honestly absurd.
@@declannewton2556 is that absurd that people sacrificed themselves entirely for the family? Or that the original poster exists? Would it be better if she didn`t.
Thank you for posting this! NFP is not a permanent state. It is not the norm and you can’t just make this an arbitrary decision. Not only must there be just and right reasons, but this is a practice that must be surrounded by much thought and prayer, as well as revisiting each other to discuss their periodic abstinence regularly. If you mindset is set on the idea of not having a child, then you should stick to total abstinence until you get this mindset corrected. Go to your spouse and together go to God about this and pray that you may see the primacy and joy of having children. Great sermon! I’m so glad that many are getting informed on this topic. God bless!
I truly appreciate this Priest & his teachings; like water for the soul. As a practicing Catholic for 16 years I have listened to +1000 homilies and talks. When a priest and/or vowed religious presents orations referencing papal encyclicals and teachings from the canonized saints it is as if I can breathe again. Thank you!
Thanks so much for this talk - not something I've heard touched upon by a priest in real life, more's the pity.
Just one objection/question though - is it right to define NFP as periodic continence? I know many people who use NFP for conception. Perhaps this is what Popcat was thinking when he recommends discernment using NFP?
Otherwise I agree, discerning from a position of periodic continence is to turn everything upside down. And I freely acknowledge that most people probably use NFP to avoid, not acheive conception.
If NFP places a secondary purpose ahead of the primary purpose, how could it ever be legitimate?
In some cases there is a serious risk that the conceived baby will be lost in miscarriage with little or no chance of even being baptised before dying. Such conditions include but are not limited to ie placental abruption which is a medical condition where the placenta prematurely separates from the uterus resulting in miscarriage. In cases like that NFP may be legitimately used, and if the condition cannot be remedied the NFP can be used even for the whole duration of marriage.
@@hicnar All agenesic NFP places secondary ends ahead of primary, does it not?
@@hicnar Placental abruption is something that is dependant on each pregnancy. Just because that happened in one pregnancy it doesn't mean it will keep happening. Full on abstinence makes sense if it is a recurrent issue. By continuing to have sex, the woman can still get pregnant using NFP.
@@AnnulmentProof In some cases using NFP and not fulfilling the primary purpose will result in less damage than either trying to conceive and loose babies before they're born and by not baptising them, leaving them effectively with no chance for the beatific vision, or potentially breaking the marriage by putting one spouse at risk of being tempted to commit adultery. If you ask me, the ideal solution in such case would be complete abstinence, but this can be only voluntary, agreed by both and that's because when people get married they exchange mutual, perpetual and exclusive rights for acts that are sufficient for generating children and there is no clause saying that if attempts to generate children bring more harm than good (ie as described above) these rights cease to exist. Therefore one spouse without the consent of the other can not unilaterally decide to stop marital life and here's where the NFP can be used for the good of the marriage, to prevent potential sin of adultery etc. Again, ideally it would be great if they both decided to abstain, but we do not live in ideal world and as we all know "it takes two to tango".
@@jacobkalee First of all both age and ie hypertension are factors in this equation. Women younger than 20 and older than 35 are at greater risk of experiencing that. Also it is just an example - one of many, perhaps not the best one and that's why I typed "not limited to".
My mom is the 5th of 6 kids, and my dad is the 3rd of 4 kids. With my mom though, her parents had been using contraception (not Catholic but Baptist) trying to keep from conceiving. My parents sterilized themselves by getting a vasectomy not long after having four children of their own. About a decade later, when mom was in her 40s, she had a hysterectomy that caused her to experience early onset menopause. Recently, she told me about how her cycles were always really long (like 30-33 days between each new period). My own cycles had only gone wonky like a few times due to excessive stress so 26 to 28 days is pretty normal for me.
Hi maybe God is calling you to the fullness of the truth,His one,holy,catholic and apostolic Church.🌹🌹🌹🙏
I had periods in highschool that were two weeks on, one week off, two weeks on, etc for two years. They were heavy and painful. When I got older I discovered red raspberry leaf and vitex. Those two herbs dramatically altered my periods to more normal and regular. Doctors need to learn about herbs, but then again, there's little money in healing people, but much more in cutting them up.
I’m thinking if it’s expected to abstain until marriage, it should likewise be well to abstain After marriage too. I’m thinking thee times the amount of courtship time .
Why? Sex belongs in the married state only.
As far as I know, if the marriage isn't consummated within one year, I believe that would invalidate it. I could be wrong, but I think a priest says that somewhere. I heard it a few years ago.
I'll also mention that Fr. Ripperger says if two people are not ready to have children when they get married, then they aren't ready to get married. I absolutely agree with that since we must give ourselves to our spouses and we owe them that debt, and it's a mortal sin to deny a reasonable request.
There's lots of abstinence in marriage. After baby is born, when either spouse is sick, when a pregnant wife is on pelvic rest for the health of the baby, when the couple is separated for whatever reason, etc.
i dont get why hoolia and others were interferring we knew natural family planning and went to classes at our gyno very disappointed they enforced their christian timing without a talk
It would seem to me that it would be more difficult than some would seem to abuse NFP or rhythm or whatever. Since you're simply omitting conjugal union for a short period I mean. And from what I've heard from conversations is that it's not necessarily as effective as some would hope. My parents used contraception until they found out it's sinful nature. Eventually they did something called rhythm planning or whatever, which was explained to be less technical than NFP, and they still had 8 children. I'm discerning mairrage so I'm beginning to concern myself with this information. Prayers would help for my journey. God bless.
The rhythm method is less technical but less effective. NFP (The Creighton Model) is very precise and can even aid in achieving pregnancy for those struggling with infertility. It is more technical at the beginning but once you understand your body it is simple. Overall, a woman is infertile most of her life. Remember, NFP can only be used for serious reasons as the purpose of marriage is procreation. Lastly, infertility is plaguing our population and couples are very fortunate to be able to have even one child.
Ahh Fr. Wolf!
A holy atom is an image of...
The Husband of EVE. THE FEMALE COG.(ChildOfGod),Christ+ obe cent by GOD,:,
The quote from Sheer implies that "Less fashionable school" does not mean a public school war zone. Walk the talk and lower those $12k annual Catholic school tuition bills.
Just Call Me Oscar $12,000 is no more than that of public schools cost per child (and actually far less in many regions) while simultaneously offering far superior education. Alternatively, there’s tax funded home schooling.
@@LosCristeros317The nuns no longer teach for free at the schools. Therefore, the teachers (lay people) need to be paid a just salary. Private s hook teachers usually make far less money than public school teachers.
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m that goes to show more "funding" doesn't equal a higher quality education. Public schools spend more money, yet offer vastly inferior education. It's basically just a day care for young adults. I would know, since I only graduated from a public school a few short years ago.
@@LosCristeros317 Very true. You can do more with less. I taught in both types of schools and the education quality was far superior at the private school. At the public school, I found myself doing paperwork more than teaching, constantly having to stop the lesson to address bad behavior, fights, and calling security. I felt bad because only a handful of students actually cared and the majority wanted an easy grade. Teachers were addressed for failing students and were met with a dismissive attitude when we called security for bad behavior. I had students curse at me make disrespectful comments. It was really rough. The private school was the exact opposite.
@@user-ks3qr5fk6m unfortunately, wealth and opportunity naturally fosters entitlement, lack of direction and laziness. The only hope of curtailing these evils is to instill objective morals, discipline, and respect into one's own children. If one's parents fail here, at best they likely won't reach their full potential and at worse they'll become a menace to society. If all else fails, at least parents directly paying for their child's private education has the threat of "if you don't adequately apply yourself, I won't waste my money and you can go to a public school". Just my thoughts.
of course logically speaking, periodic continence and other methods of contraception are only really different in terms of methodology. There is nothing that necessarily makes them different in terms of either the end or the intent. In which case, the acceptability of continence under serious circumstances, logically allows the acceptability of other contraceptive methods, since both facilitate the intent and the end, which morally speaking, are the most important aspects of any act
From the looks of it, the error that NFP apologists fall for is consistent reference to a ridiculous, deontological view of morality where things are just wrong because they just are, as opposed to a more pragmatic, consequentialistic framework
+Unclenate1000 Please don't handwave things you don't understand like this, it can incite undue scandal. Does anyone seriously claim that NFP shares none of the same intent as artificial contraception? The methodology is what has always been the primary bone to pick. And you're kidding yourself re: your embracing of consequentialism. It's all well and good to type about it, but I think your tune would change real quick if your home was paved over without notice to improve the nation's highway system, your daughter murders your 3-year-old grandson because she just can't handle him right now and her life is absolutely miserable, etc etc. We must always analyze the moral validity of actions, despite the good end someone is looking to achieve. In the case of NFP, abstaining from sex (not doing) is metaphysically COMPLETELY different from wrapping plastic around your penis or chemically neutering yourself (doing). And as such the moral analyses are completely different.
+Jeffrey Sanders "In the case of NFP, abstaining from sex (not doing) is metaphysically COMPLETELY different from wrapping plastic around your penis or chemically neutering yourself (doing)."
unfortunately another common mischaracterization i repeatedly hear from nfp apologists. But NFP isn't primarily about avoiding sex during fertility, it is precisely different from simple abstinence in that is about intentionally taking advantage of the preexisting cycle of infertility in order to serve the same end and intent as what someone using a condom or a pill would do. If there's nothing wrong with that, then there shouldn't really be anything wrong with using technology to facilitate that end and intent.
At best, you could say NFP is different in that the methodology is passive as opposed to active.
And i find you're and many other people's serious mischaracterization and misapllication of consequentialist ethics to be disturbing. Keep in mind that even if the theory lead to some stupid sounding or unfavorable conclusions, that doesn't actually render the theory incorrect, just that showing that deontological ethics leads to the stupid conclusion that you must always tell the truth even if lying would save innocent lives, etc, refutes deontology.
+Unclenate1000 What are you even arguing against? The Church doesn't say that intention to avoid pregnancy is inherently wrong-- if there were, it would be sinful to avoid it regardless of financial or health situations. But she doesn't claim and has never claimed for this to be the case. It is a prudential decision. If circumstance would have it that bringing a new child into the world would currently be particularly irresponsible or untenable, then so it is. And so you don't perform the act aimed at bringing children into the world. It is however possible to avoid child rearing by means which themselves are inherently wrong, of which abstaining is not one (for abstaining is not doing). For example, bringing a child up to age 6 and then slaughtering him. Regardless of financial, health, etc. circumstances, that is simply not okay. The same type of consideration is made for misuse of the sexual faculties in the sexual act-- misuse is immoral. NFP is not a misuse. Again, it's not a use at all. It's being in a position to have sex at some particular time and simply saying, "no". We are not necessarily called to have sex at any particular time.
Look, I get that you reject Aristotelianism. But please better understand what it is you're fighting against before doing any fighting-- you're seriously muddling the issue. And I don't know what you're even getting at re: my point against consequentialism. If you would have a problem with someone paving over your house for a good intention or killing your grandkid for a good intention, then you aren't adhering to your own position. And that has nothing to do with "my deontological ethics". It is entirely a characterization of your outlook.
I likely should not have replied to this, as you are pretty far out of your depth here. So I will stop now. I just didn't want casual comment-browsers to be whisked away by your condescension and use of big words like 'deontology', as though you really had a thorough grasp of the Church's reasoning. Please take it easy, and God bless.
+Unclenate1000
"At best, you could say NFP is different in that the methodology is passive as opposed to active."
This is exactly the distinction that makes authentic NFP morally permissible and artificial contraception morally problematic. It's why we don't arrest people for not donating their money to homeless people, but we do arrest people for stealing money from homeless people, even though the same end is achieved (a homeless person doesn't have money). NFP, like not donating to a homeless person, passively allows a negative pre existing condition to continue, AC, like stealing money from a homeless person, actively reverses a positive pre existing condition.
Showing that a theory has unfavorable consequences does show it to be incorrect. It's called argumentum ad absurdum, and it's one of the oldest and most fundamental refutation techniques in all of philosophy. If someone claims that your theory leads to unfavorable consequences, you have to either show why your theory doesn't lead to those consequences, or you have to bite the bullet and accept them. I'll save you some time, the only way for consequentialism to avoid the absurd conclusions pointed out by Jeffery Sanders is to adopt a kind of rule utilitarianism, and the only viable form of rule utilitarianism is divine command theory, because only divinely ordained rules can be guaranteed to always produce the best consequences.
DrOman5596 to be clear, i have nothing against a reconciliation between consequentialism and other moral frameworks such as virtues for ex;, which you appear to be suggesting.
No, still, showing that a moral theory might lead to unfavorable outcomes does not in fact render the theory itself wrong. Just because the outcome might be unfavorable (to some if not many) doesn't make that outcome right or wrong automatically. Just because we don't like something doesn't prove that that something is wrong, of course.
It has more to do with whether or not the moral theory actually functions in reality and can actually get off the ground, of which deontology does not, since it's logic is circular; saying that certain acts are wrong simply by the "nature of the act" itself, which really translates to "it's wrong because it just is".
Meanwhile all consequentialism is asking is basically that the rightness or wrongness of any act actually goes by a cause-and-effect basis, where an act is wrong because it either likely or inevitably leads to bad outcomes (and any type of outcome, such as spiritually related outcomes, can be factored in. It doesn't have to just be about worldly outcomes, despite what many people simply assume with this theory)
again for clarity, the reason why i even brought up this entire discussion of moral theories is that it is clear that the condemnation of active contraception along with the simultaneous acceptance of passive contraception (continence) is based off of and could only ever be based off of a purely deontological thought process (while both NFP and AC have the same consequences and intent, AC is actually simply wrong due to the act itself, indifferent of outcome)
That is where my objection originates, basically
Every couple in America has a grave reason to utilize NFP because most mothers need to work outside the home to pay the bills ... and working outside the home is a grave responsibility that often makes it difficult to be pregnant and take little children to an expensive day care center by 7:30 AM before getting her self to work by 8:00 AM.
And NFP can be utilized by every couple in America because of the constant risk of no-fault divorce, which is a new phenomenon....since the 1960's when every state legislated no-fault divorce...making everyone - except the most devout coupes - insecure. The grave consequences of no-fault divorce are grave enough to limit family size for survival in a no-fault divorce environment, where even Catholics get divorced at a 43% rate. That is a grave risk...and a grave reason to utilize NFP.
?? Stay home with your babies and live simply. It can be done. I have 6 living kids in America and am married 20 yrs.
@@terribist No offense to your age/generation, but alot of older people did have a far different economy that invoked light to modest college debt and available well paying jobs. Young people getting married now are in severe debt with stagnant wages. My wife finished college with +$35k in debt, and I know some over $50k and as high as $100k. My doctor was able to pay for his schooling while working over the summer! Scripture says debt is sinful. You say I should produce half a dozen children while paying off excessive college debt, a mortgage, cars, and sustaining my family? Remove debt first, then raise a family. Poverty does no good for a child. You may say, don't get married until you can have children, which I can agree with, and that ideology was feasible for the last generation. I was married at 26, and my wife and I try our best to abstain because I don't want to abuse NFP, but we are in a serious financial situation. My point is, I don't believe there are black and white rules for NFP. Yes it certainly can be abused, but it can also be resourceful.
@@unknownfacts4902 not everyone is called to juggle a large family. Don't know how old you think I am. Husband and I both had college debt and slim pickings for jobs for a few years. We obviously did not have 6 kids all at once. It can be done with sacrifice and NFP.
Communists love working moms. Casti connunii 120 says no to working moms.
@@AnnulmentProof also the over-educated nut-case mom who just LOVES her career. If you're thinking of courting and she's got college debt run....run as fast as you can. Even convents and seminaries cannot take you if you have student debt. The poisonous over-education of our youth MUST stop. Or else socialist free higher-ed is the only answer, which is equally corrupt on the mind and soul.
It ironic that a bachelor talks about these things
A priest is a spiritual father...he is married to the Church, spiritually.
Not a bachelor: a priest. And not ironic in the least. Must I be a rapist in order to help someone who is a rapist? Must I be a psychopath to help someone who is a phsycopath? Of course not.
As ironic as an oncologist who has never had cancer treating cancer patients.
Chaste priest telling leitty to be chaste? Idk makes sense to me 🤷♂️
A priest is married to the Church. NOT a bachelor....whatever that protestant concoction is...
HOLYATOMS