What the Church REALLY Teaches About Sex, Contraception and NFP w/ Jimmy Akin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- This clip was taken from a recent livestream with Jimmy Akin. Watch the full interview here: • 10,000 Objections to C...
In this clip, Jimmy discusses what the Church teaches about contraception, abortion, sex and NFP. If you have questions about what you should believe about anything of these topics, then this video is for you!
===
📚 My new book: www.amazon.com...
🔴 FREE E-book "You Can Understand Aquinas": pintswithaquin....
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd
Rumble: rumble.com/c/p...
I love my wife too much to ask her to use birth control. I have been married 28 years and have 8 kids. My family is the good thing in my life. I thank God everyday for The Church teaching on birth control that has blessed me so abundantly.
That’s great. Good for you!
Awesome!!!
You could use it you know. Condoms hurt no one. It's not great for a woman's body to have baby, after baby, after baby........
With humility and kindness, Matt change that thumbnail. For many of us addicts especially after three weeks abstinence, that thumbnail is enough to set some of us off, even if in thought and not website. God bless you
@@RileySoares I hear what you saying, and agree to an extent, but this is also not said with caritas towards your brother. Show him some more love with this truth at least
NK- praying for you
You’ve got this!!
I agree! For people dealing with sexual trauma, it's also difficult to look at.
@@RileySoares You must not understand addictions
I will pray for you right now stay strong you got this with the help of our Lord, our mother, the saints and me. I’m rooting for you. Don’t listen to fools who pretend they don’t struggle with things they wish they didn’t.
There's NO OVERPOPULATION
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Nonsense.
Outbreed the infidels and establish a Catholic state
No, there's not. We need more humans, indeed. Soon, in Europe, social security is going to become impossible.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Population is decreasing. Soon, Europe and USA are going to have very huge problems on retirement since no one is paying for it. Tu comentario es poco informado para ser de un católico.
@@gorequillnachovidal thats a very low bar considering how industrialization really lowered the quality of life in the 1800s
The difficult question is: I'm married, me and my wife are open to life. We have children. But we want to space children for medical/economic reasons, etc. Picking the infertile periods to have sex is difficult, requires a lot of monitoring and entails a lot of risks. Putting a rubber thing on your penis gets it done easily. Why take the risky route? What is the difference if the goal is the same? Why is doing X a sin if you do it one way but the same X is not a sin if you do it another way?
Mind you, I'm not trying to undermine Church teaching. I want to obey the Church. But this is quite difficult to comprehend for me.
one is a barrier. the other is not. NFP brings the marital act to a close inside a woman whereas the other method doesn't.
@@artifexdei3671 I really want you to convince me I'm wrong. I dont mean this as a challenge, I'm just being honest. I want to understand Church teaching.
The USCCB recommends NFP as a 99% effective means to postpone/avoid pregnancy. Some say this is even more effective than contraception. But if it is more effective, it seems like an argument against NFP rather than for it. First because it only assures you of the same result you seek in contraception, and indeed makes contraception seem more open to life than NFP.
If your sperm is sure to be fruitless if you practice NFP, finishing inside the woman's body doesn't seem to make more than a formal, exterior difference. The intention in your heart, in your interior life, is still to avoid pregnancy. And Christianity is all about prioritizing the interior life above mere external practices.
@@ThePhilosorpheus there's a fundamental difference between the two methods - one is instant whereas the other requires deeper level of intimacy between the spouses and working with natural cycles for procreative and unitive purposes. one is meant to prevent pregnancy, the other doesn't as all it does it falls within a natural rhythm. if the couple doesn't want kids, then by following NFP they do it within the confines of God's design for human bodies, not human design e.g. barriers. NFP is very effective, but b/c it's a natural method there's always a chance of conception. couples using this method must take it into account. using contraceptives shuts conception right out of the gate, as it's very purpose is to prevent conception. eventhough this method may be less effective then NFP which poses another argument - why go with something that is inferior in quality then?. lastly, if a couple doesn't want kids they truly should abstain if that's their decision. this way no NFP or barriers are needed.
There are metaphysical and ontological reasons why artificial contraception is wrong. Saints enlightened by the Holy Spirit through the centuries have known the deep mysteries entailed by sexual intercourse. As St Paul says "this mystery is great". Unfortunately I haven't found a comprehensive written testimony on the matter as often Saints give personal advice to help individuals - it is a bit too intimate for public discourse. I was reading a book written by a person who had close contact with of a Saint of the 20th century who had the gift of the Holy Spirit to be able to see what happened in the depths of the soul of people when they made love. And thay Saint said that depending on what they did they either came closer and loved each other more or they ended up getting divorced. Why? Because things that seem to our naive eyes as merely external technicalities have immense connections to the psyche, the spiritual and psychological dimension. The word mystery is indeed appropriate.
@@milton.lemonpie that goes for any area of life, everything we do. marriage is one aspect of it, etc. people can either draw closer to God or move away, depending on their actions.
I was expecting a talk on why contraception is wrong instead providing an alternative way that isn't wrong.
Thumbnail is a little scandalous. But I suppose because Matt doesn't have the internet there is no way the thumbnail guy could send it to him for approval.
Just to help the discussion, may I clarify what elements of it are scandalous? I suppose arranging a photoshoot for the thumbnail could be done in a sinful (or at least inappropriate) way, but I think the act shown in itself is not really scandalous, since sexual intimacy is a good, when in the context of a loving marriage.
@@ipso-kk3ft oh please.
@@ipso-kk3ft it's clearly two naked bodies having sex. This is a source for scandal for some.
@@ipso-kk3ft sex is supposed to be a private thing between the two spouses
They changed it
What I don't get about the teaching against the use of contraception is that when NFP is used, the intent is to minimise the risk of becoming pregnant (for whatever reason). When contraception is used, the *exact same thing* is accomplished. Pregnancy risk is minimised.
What's the difference between the two?
Contraception doesn't minimize the chances of getting pregnant, it makes it impossible. That's the problem
NFP is natural. the other method is invasive.
NFP requires both couples *working together*, getting in touch with the (female body), the natural cycles. This natural, more subtle way, demands periods of abstinence and self-control, all of which are good for the human person, and the human couple. Artificial birth control puts a plug in your creative fertile capacities, therefore there is no need to be in tune/harmony with your cycle, no need for periods of self-control, (learning sel-control is good for the human person, and also in relationships), and finally no need to communicate and work together as a couple, which arguably diminishes the bonding aspect of the sexual union.
While NFP (Natural Family Planning) is natural, it can be abused.
NFP doesn't seperate the act of sex from the consequence of reproduction and the creation of life. Plus, it shows the couple are still open to having a child if the woman does become prgenant.
So what is the biblical justification for why condoms would be wrong for a married couple to use?
I knew a girl who got pregnant while her boyfriend was wearing a condom.
@@testerbend2865
Did it probably break?
First, there are multiple issues that the Bible doesn't directly address. Second, the issues the Bible doesn't directly address require reason. We have a natural law given in God's design and is the manner in which God intended his creation to function. One such function is sexual intercourse and the natural consequence of that act. God designed sex to only be enjoyed within the context of a marriage and open to the procreation of children. To interrupt that function is a direct violation of God's natural law. It is literally idolatry; a person who wants to enjoy the sexual union either outside of marriage or with a denial to the openness to life is choosing to worship self rather than God. There are methods to avoid pregnancy that do not violate God's law given appropriate justification.
Always be generous with life. God provides for his children. Don’t ever think you do it on your own, as Bishop Schneider says.
1 Corinthians 7 and the Song of Songs give pretty clear depictions that sexual relations are not only for the purpose of procreation, but also for the purpose of pleasure and growing in intimacy with one another. I don't see how you can make a biblical case for contraception being sinful.
It is anti life. Not open to life.
"Not only for the purpose of procreation" is a clue. Contraception is not just "pro-intimacy", but also anti-procreation. That's why it's contrary to the Law of God.
For those who aren’t able to conceive it is very awkward going through catholic marriage prep. About 90% of the classes revolve around having children. Makes you feel like you shouldn’t be getting married in the church.
More than 90% CAN and SHOULD have children, so that is what the norm of instruction SHOULD be.
I hear you! The focus should be put on openness to life, that’s the important part. God doesn’t have the same life plans for everybody.
I feel like if you know you can't bare children why are you getting married as a catholic?
@@eg4848 because marriage is more than just having children. Yes it’s a wonderful blessing to be able to have children but not everybody can. You can adopt. You can love and serve your spouse. You can grow in holiness. You can do wonderful work for the Lord being a married couple that couldn’t have children.
@@eg4848 Openness to life does not require having children of your own. You can be infertile but be godparents, educate the next generation, adopt, etc. to exercise an openness to life.
How about a DEBATE on this topic? It could be: "Is Contraception Sinful?"
I’m prescribed birth control bc I was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome, for which hormonal birth control is the only treatment. I just don’t understand how this is wrong... am I supposed to not take the treatment for my disease and allow myself to be at an increased risk for ovarian cancer??? Am I supposed to never have sex again bc of a medication that I will have to take for the rest of my life? It doesn’t make sense.
My understanding is that the church does not oppose your use so long as your intention if not to keep from conceiving.
So, what about the baby's right to live? And why not live celibately if you know that a baby would die, or could die more likely, if that's what's gone on in your body? This doesn't stop you from becoming a mommy, due to what you've said about your anatomy, for there's the option of adoption, and just like Moses stepmom in "Exodus", the story, you'd be the child's real mom as well.
In addendum: nobody needs to have sexual contact at all; I'm very happy to be a virgin even into middle-age as a guy, but why would that matter what my anatomy is, pray tell, when in reality parenthood, the purpose of sex, the focus is on raising and protecting the child... and even a newly fertilized egg is a baby, as science well knows now.
principle of double effect
What Thomas said
First of all, if you're even remotely trying to behave yourself, the only condition for allowing sex to begin with is with your spouse, and consensually and permitting new life to begin without obstructing it at all- anything outside of that is sinful.
So, are you saying that
(A) NPF is ok, or
(B) NPF must be used to determine the fertile window, which is the only appropriate time to be sexually intimate?
@@AnnaMarieLeBlanc Not so much, but rather if the child comes into being, which can biologically happen at any time, the baby must be accepted from the moment of fertilization of the egg, which's when life begins.
@@chissstardestroyer which is consistent with the Church’s position
@@AnnaMarieLeBlanc It's also consistent with biology, the latter thereof is where I drew from, solely., as well as consistent with basic logic.
Can you talk about how to talk with family/spouses about not using contraception following birth foe "medical reasons" or "safety"
Think of Abraham and Sarah, or Zechariah and Elizabeth.
The explanation given here is just one small step closer to logically say condoms is morally acceptable between married couples.
That is true. A sin is still a sin. If the main purpose of sex is procreation and it's sinful to engage in sex with an intention to restrict procreation, it's sinful no matter if it's NFP or condoms. Not everything that the Church doesn't explicitly condemn is lawful. Some things were condemned only after some doctrinal development, still they were considered as being always wrong. Sometimes it's good to use your mind if you cannot discern, not just do whatever is permitted. The latter is not a logic a devout Christian should follow.
@@kurtrawicz1455 so then if there is a known infertility, would it be be wrong for the married couple to have sex?
Not really - condoms are just another form of contraception
@@thstroyur so is NFP
@@minasoliman So is abstinence, by your logic. You're missing the point: _contra_ ception is anything that fundamentally disrupts, that goes counter to _con_ ception; NFP, however, is just like abstinence, or even unintended infertility, in that it doesn't introduce an artificial means to disrupt the biological _telos_ inbuilt in the sexual act - rather, it acknowledges it. Contraception is so popular - specially after the so-called sexual revolution - because at the end of the day people think they're entitled to sexual pleasure no matter what; even after they plaster some moral caveats on top of it to preserve, say, heteronormativity and the institution of marriage, the pleasure is the only thing that really weighs in the minds of many - and here lie the roots of many evils, such as abortion and child abuse...
I can not say I am persuaded by these propositions. Contraception is not in the same ball park as abortion which is not the same as infanticide. I can not comment about all couples planning sex in such a contrived but that certainly is not how it worked in my relationships. We can of course disagree cordially. Peace and love in Jesus Christ.
Contraception is different from abortion, but Abortion is certainly infanticide, as the baby in the womb has already a soul. A spermatozoide or an ovum are not human beings, they are cells. But a fetus surely is a person.
@@hervedavidh4117 This is where I disagree with Mr Aiken. Contraception is not the same as the other two categories of abortion and infanticide for certain. The latter two are on a fuzzy but definite continuum. 5weeks pregnant is not the same as 20weeks and so on... But there is a life in there germinating and at some point a soul. I feel broadly pro life - though as a man I am not bearing or carrying the child in utero. I am also pro contraception. Needless to say this is not exactly approved Catholic teaching but then again... I do not consider myself Catholic!
@@jimisoulman6021
You and me as a 5 years old children, is not you and me as teenagers and is not you and me as adult grown men. Those are steps of our life's dévelopment, common to every person. Those steps include the time we were in the womb of our respective mother (1 week, 5 months, or 9 months). Nothing fuzzy here. It is pretty clear and genetics science says so.
Catholic teaching is not against natural regulation of birth. Catholic teaching is against everything artificial that impact the natural function of bodies. Tough one but this is It.
@@hervedavidh4117 yes. When I mean by contraception I mean the pill, condoms etc... Not having sex when the woman is not ovulating. I am fairly certain the Catholic Church is against that... and hence why I am Christian not Catholic.
It is certainly my experience that if God wants you to have a child, provided you are sexually active, it does not matter what you put in the way.
I understand Yes sex is okay between a married couple.♥️
Matt, (or Matt's pr team), I really hope for better from this channel than that thumbnail.
I'm sorry, I'm new to this video, but I don't understand what's wrong with the thumbnail? Was there an another thumbnail?
@@mathewjose4753 there was a different thumbnail originally. They have changed it.
@@sarahbartsch3275 ok
I say this with love: please change the thumbnail. For those of us dealing with sexual trauma, it's disturbing and triggering to look at.
Please cope with it. Or watch another channel.
Very suggestive thumbnail.....
Always think it’s hilarious when Catholic families with seven kids talk about how great NFP works. Lol 😂
Well it probably helped them space out the kids :)
Look at you thinking you’re morally superior to people who chose to have 7 kids. It does work. They’ve chosen to have those children. That’s the point of it all. The point is to consciously make a choice every month together as a couple whether you want to have children or not. My husband and I are practicing NFP and we use it atm to not have children, but the reverse is true too. You can use it to have children and plan for it. You’re supposed to discern together as a couple to determine if you want another. It works either way, and it’s crazy how it does.
AAAAAAH! ONLY CATHOLICS would ask such questions 🤣🤣🤣
Does it really matter what weapon you choose The intent is murder and you pull it off you've committed the sin If it is a sin to avoid pregnancy it doesn't matter what method you use if you approach married life to avoid conception and you pull that off it doesn't matter what method you use your intention was sinful but you might say well the intentional hypothetical murder The weapon doesn't matter and one more objection I've heard is that natural family planning is a non-act because you're abstaining it's, non- actyourive abstaining in relations for long periods of time everyone knowing that's anything but a non-act You are trying to reign in a force a primal urge that overcomes most people, So if you're able to do it you were certainly acting, and don't lie to me, But also I would say that well you can commit that same murder we were talking about.
Please change the thumbnail
Shwoooo I was scared for about 9 minutes.
People are so sensitive over a thumbnail picture! if you don’t like it close your eyes, scroll down, exit the app, it’s literally that simple! The world it’s not going to conform to you. You’re going to see things you don’t like or agree with. But if y’all act this triggered for a thumbnail that you could literally just scroll away from you’re going to have a tough life friend. Thanks for putting out great content Matt 👍🏼
I guess they changed the thumbnail. What was so offensive about it?
@@jakec947 it was a couple in a bed with only their feet showing
@@jakec947 I see they also changed the title. The original stated something along the lines of “what the church teaches about couples that can’t conceive having sex”
Thank God for this comment.
You can't try to stop the procreation, if it happens against you will, ok, if you cause this, is a sin
Scripturally I'm a member of the Church, but not a catholic. I'm not sure there's anything Scripturally wrong with it.
If its a denomination's dogma, that's a different kettle of spiders. Reckon you gotta choose a Berean approach & not man made decisions.
It's not a "denomination's dogma", because "denominations" are a Protestant thing, not a Catholic/Orthodox thing. I don't recall verses _specifically_ condemning artificial methods of contraception (though I think there are some in the OT), but the case here rests perfectly in terms of natural law. Protestants, however, have no problem in dismissing natural law because their _sola scriptura_ dogma blinds them to the truth in anything that isn't a direct quotation of the Bible - and as a result, we end up with stuff like that skit at the beginning of Monty Python's _Meaning of Life_
Lol I already knew when I read this comment that you would be attacked in the replies 😂. I don’t get why we have to be so nasty to each other.
@@AnnaBanana-tx9rf Neither me nor the guy after were "attacking" anyone - we're merely standing up for truth - just like someone standing for the truth of 2+2=4. If you were to go your average secular Joejane and tell him/her/them/zem that all this 'choose-your-own-gender' crap we hear all the time is nonsense and biological sex is objective, you'd also be charged with "attacking" them; should we then not care at all about this issue, and shut our mouths because we're afraid of being so "nasty to each other"?
I’m afraid that the teaching on contraception was lost long before Francis Church. If Pope Paul wouldn’t defend it himself, having repeated it in ‘Humanae Vitae’, not many people are going to be impressed by Jimmy Akin. How many children does the average Catholic family have? The teaching may be true, noble, consistent with Catholic teaching on sexuality in general, but it is quite lost.
at what point is this more-so a representation of the Trinity and not so much evolutionism veiled in Catholicism? I heard lots of stuff I once heard in my secular highschool level biology class, with regards to evolution, in this video than I did real philosophy and theology about sex.
That's the beauty about theology. It should perfectly align with our understanding of nature. As God is not some separate competitive thing against the world but was the establisher of it and by extension the nature we see and if we follow it are also leading to right spiritual life as well. This is seen clearly in regards to sexual practices
Yes, evolution is real? I'm confused, do you honestly believe that evolution is not in line with Catholicism?
"(Macro)evolution" isn't synonymous with "biology" - and I haven't heard a lick of the former in this video, so you may want to point at a specific example, if there is any...
Lol. What exactly is he saying.... funny guy.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Is withdrawal really a sin or is it acceptable…I know God gets mad at Onan
Yes, it is a mortal sin. The only permissible thing is NFP.
@@Unclenate1000 NFP and withdrawal are categorically not the same thing.
Did you really need to put a depiction of sex in the thumbnail? Isn't that a bit pornographic?
No depiction of the sexual act where actual genitalia were shown.
@@den8863 that would be fully pornographic..
@@seekingtheoncesaved2834 yes, hence the thumbnail is not.
@@den8863 you don't get the "hence" of the word " bit". I'm saying it isnt pornographic, but it is causing you to think that way. HENCE BIT.
This speaker is not credible and comes off sounding ridiculous.
Per usual.
And _ad hominem_ are still not real arguments, last time I checked
@@thstroyur But there are some people who cast themselves in roles that make the temptation irresistible. Can he not realize that FrancisChurch has made him irrelevant?
Fallacious logic
@@hashtagaroma7778 There is no formal ‘logic’ in what I said, which would pertain to a ‘This is true, therefore that must be true’ kind of proposition. I gave my opinion as a statement. If you want to disagree, fine. But invoking ‘fallacious logic’ is nonsensical.
So condoms are murder? Does this channel ever do anything besides emotional non-sequiturs that are only tangentially related to the title?
In what way is a condom murder?
Rewatch the video. I agree this channel does do that but this was also very well explaining the base question in the thumbnail and differentiates it from condoms.
where did he say that condoms are murder?
@@sneakysnake2330 The title and the discussion require an answer regarding forms of contraception other than the rhythm method and abortion. He says the rhythm method is fine because it's natural, but draws an analogy between abortion and post-birth murder (which I'll grant for expediency's sake). Now, where do condoms fit in this false dichotomy? I'll admit I'm stretching a bit here, but they're not natural. Unless he's trying to quietly signal that condoms are OK (which would go against church doctrine, or at least against public perception of it in a way he'd need to clear up), he's pulling a verbal shell game that pushes it to the other side of the false dichotomy he presents (abortion or rhythm method).
@@MZONE991 He never mentions condoms. He discusses rhythm method (without naming it) and (by analogy) abortion. His avoids discussing other methods but presents a false dichotomy that we are invited to shove other forms of contraception into.