Yes. That answered my question! Still astounded at your ability to find the highest quality guests and thusly the highest quality content. You're not bad either Matt.
@@psychotriaelata9735 What an insane thing to say. If that's the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself.
My fiancée is hesitant about doing the NFP classes for our marriage prep, because she does have PCOS and uterine fibroids, which heavily hinders fertility chances. As a result, she has had to go to her gynecologist and doctors and has learned a lot about her irregular cycle, and she just thinks NFP is basically going to be that. I want to do the class with her so I can learn more about her body as well so I’m not so in the dark about what’s happening. Please pray for us in our marriage prep and that our future marriage will be fruitful and able to multiply. ☺️☺️
I'm sorry, I still am not convinced... People practice NFP to avoid pregnancy... How is that different from a contraceptive? Yes it is different practically, but the sought outcome is just the same...
@@stgerardmajellafc I don't disagree with what you are saying. But surely it is still problematic to be having sex in a way that deliberately avoids pregnancy? Especially if a couple doesn't really have 'serious' reasons to be avoiding pregnancy. How can we say 'children are a blessing and a gift from God' or 'I am open to life' and then go and practice something contrary to this in our sex life? By the way, I am still single, so I have yet to face this very real issue of family planning.
@@alexlanne6632 What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
@@Burt1038 What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
But the definition of contraceptive is something to prevent pregnancy from sex. When you use NFP you are having sex, when you are abstaining you are not
@@lucidlocomotive2014 With NFP you are preventing pregnancy by not having sex. You are not adding anything or engaging in an action to prevent a pregnancy. You are simply using research and stats to avoid sex on high probability days.
@@giovannivitaleii1333 I’m Catholic but that really sounds to me like mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that is really seems like it’s just natural contraception. I am open to being wrong though and in fact I want to be wrong
@@lucidlocomotive2014 Contraception is an act that prevents conception from taking place in a situation where it might have. When you have sex on infertile days, you are doing nothing to prevent conception. Where is the sin - when you abstain from sex or when you have sex? Both are licit as far as I'm aware.
@@_MysticKnight contraception as defined in Humanae Vitae - "...any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation..." The "sin" would be in tracking your fertility (in other words, an action which before sexual intercourse is specifically intended to prevent procreation) to ensure that you only ever have sex when you know that it is virtually impossible to get pregnant. Only VIRTUALLY impossible though, not ACTUALLY impossible, as sometimes NFP will fail, similarly to other contraception.
This is complete and utter mental gymnastics. It’s about the intent, NFP intends to reduce the likelihood of conceiving a child by almost 99% while still getting pleasure from participating in the marital act. I am on my way into the faith with my family, but seeing so many Catholics actually believe this is disheartening.
NFP is natural and in alignment with God's design for the body because it respects the natural states and functions of the body. Abstinence is a natural state of the body. Having sex and allowing the sex to complete (without any interrupting or thwarting of the end result) is also a natural state of the body. Contraception on the other hand subverts the natural state and function of the body. Thus, contraception denies God's design for the body.
Don’t be fooled. In order to be Catholic a person must have the Catholic Faith. Most guests here believe in the false teachings of Vatican II, like NFP.
@@jacobgraf7284 This is cope too. Having sex uninhibited is far more natural than using traditional forms of contraception, sure, but in the Humanae Vitae it EXPLICITLY states that “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare”. It’s also expressed in the document that sex must remain intact for the purpose of procreation and that the “generative process” should never be intentionally interrupted, which “natural family planning” FULLY flies in the face of. Paul VI’s intention and message were very very clear.
@@deloiie Is abstinence a sin in marriage? Do you suppose that a couple must have sex 24/7 lest they sin? Certainly not. So there must be some ratio of sex to abstinence that is acceptable.
I dunno, I’d always go by the the “what would the ancients think?” mentality. Like for the majority of human history, wouldn’t it be as simple as: abstain and not abstain? Are moderns too complicated for simple black and whites?
There have actually been some contraceptive methods used in the ancient past, such as certain animal skins for condoms and abortifacient consumables, not to mention pulling out. When it comes to much of human history, everything’s different and yet nothing changes.
Abstaining and not abstaining are acceptable forms of family planning in the catholic understanding, but we also realize that children are a gift and fertility has been a reward for Israel when they’re obedient and that spouses ought not withhold themselves from each other, but I bet you already knew that. Of course NFP as we have it now wasn’t invented until people understood the cycles in female reproductive biology (early 1900s) so we don’t see any explicit affirmations of this from early church fathers, yet part of me is willing to believe that early Christians were somewhat aware of female fertility during periods, but I can’t confirm. The church has always known about contraceptive methods and has always condemned it. Here’s a site with some early church fathers’ quotes on that topic: www.catholic.com/tract/contraception-and-sterilization
For most humans in history the problem was not having too much children it was trying to have enough children that some might make it to adulthood and reproduce themselves. Our hunter gather ancestors world population took thousands of years to double their population and long term breastfeeding of children up to 3 years acted to a large degree as a natural ' child spacer ' contraception. Plus our hunter gathering forefathers ( well mothers) started their fertile years earlier and finished earlier. When the agricultural revolution took place our population boomed ( but the price was a far less healthy population ) but still people needed to try have as many children as possible because many still died in comparison to modern times and there was no guarantee any may survive to help you in old age so people still tried to have a lot in the hope some made it. In the industrial age the population boomed again in cities ( again with an even level of health in the population , the average Victorian slum dweller was a poor specium of human compared to his hunter gathering ancestors ) but even back in only 1900 only half of children made it out of childhood. The issue seems a technological one not faced by our ancestors 🤔
@@TheKevin9000 What an insane thing to say. If that's the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And Catholic Church initial wanted to allow it, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
Hello, the main purpose for marriage is procreation. Anything you do that prevents procreation from happening is mortally sinful. NFP is simply another form of birth control. This is covered in Catholic teaching. Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#54) “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#17) “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.” Keep in mind what the primary end is -procreation and education of children. Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#59) “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which the husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.” Abstinence is not a secondary end of marriage. The secondary ends of marriage are subordinated to the primary end of marriage (procreation and the education of children). The same encyclical cites St. Augustine, “Intercource even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.” Don't be fooled by Paul VI's Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae (#16) “...married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercource only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” This is evil and against Catholic teaching. The fact that Paul VI approved the heresies in Vatican II proves he was not a pope. He approved of many anti-Catholic religions which also proves he was an apostate and not the pope. For more information on the NFP deception, go to endtimes(dot)video or TH-cam and search the video, “NFP: A Birth Control Deception '' Sincerely
@@TheKevin9000 You regard it as sinful to not have sex with your wife at every possible opportunity? You believe you must engage in intercourse every single chance you get or it's a sin?
Her answer is spot on. The only problem is the practical application of it. Even if you think you have a grave cause to practice NFP, YOU are not the judge of that. It's a discussion between BOTH spouses, AND a Holy and knowledgeable priest. Good luck finding that these days outside of the trad orders.
@Matt Fradd I noticed that this video had an ad for a birth control product, Annovera. I'm thinking it's due to metadata. Is there a way to fight TH-cam over it or would it be just fine that such an ad fund this awesome video, to counteract the contraception mentality? Talk about a fantastic paradox!
Hey Matt, I have greatly enjoyed your videos as they have been a wonderful blessing in my life, and I thank God that he has you in this ministry. I was hoping that you could do a video addressing Thomas Aquinas writings on Just War Theory. With all this talk about the the state, and all of this political turmoil. I think it would be pertinent as Christians to discuss the role a Christian should play in the state which would include military service. Thank you for all that you are allowing God to do in you. Have a wonderful day. God's Peace.
@@beatlecristian What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the PROCREATION and the education of children.” Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined PRIMARILY BY NATURE for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately FRUSTRATE its NATURAL POWERS and purpose sin AGAINST nature and commit a deed which is shameful and INTRINSICALLY VICIOUS.”
I appreciate your quotation, but is not the whole point of NFP is that it is natural? It does not frustrate what is natural, but instead act in alignment with the windows of infertility that God has ordained within the bodies of women. Am I missing something?
This all ignores that some women, who utilize “contraceptive” pills just to regulate their bodies, which naturally would be debilitating. For us it preserved her body and we fully intended and did have children. We have 2 kids, we daily spend our time in their care and education.
The difference between contraceptives and NFP is that contraceptives separate intercourse from reproduction. With birth control you can partake in the pleasure of sex without the willingness or commitment to the possibility of pregnancy. NFP allows intercourse only if you are willing to “risk” pregnancy. Which is the way God intended it, in my opinion!
I am absolutely for NFP, but I think that the arguments for it are sometimes lacking. The majority of conservative Protestants use contraceptives for the same number of reasons listed by Lila for couples to use NFP. The problem is that one can assume that if one can use NFP for the wrong reasons and that is why is primarily wrong then one can assume that what makes contraceptives primarily wrong are these intentions. These Protestant's intentions are still good, but what is wrong is that the giving of oneself is lacking and results in a marriage that lacks the fullness of meaning when the two become one flesh. What makes it wrong is not only the intention. It is the fact that when a husband and wife come together they are not offering everything that they are to each other. If one is using contraceptives they are refraining from giving everything that they would if their bodies were behaving naturally. Marriage is a total offering of oneself. If a husband and wife consummate their marriage on a non-fertile day, the woman and man still offer everything that they have to other.
What an insane thing to say. If that's the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And Catholic Church initial wanted to allow it, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
@@AnnulmentProof If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And Catholic Church initial wanted to allow it, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
@@hus390 NFP, like all contraception, is intrinsically evil because it overturns the hierarchy of ends. The Catholic Church condemns NFP, but the modernists within the church promote it. You're right, it is obviously gymnastics to say contraception is anti-life but NFP is pro-life.
Why is a reason not to get pregnant "serious" (financial, stress, health, etc) if you're a Catholic using NFP....but "not a serious" reason if you're using a condom? The goal is the same right?
So you think your motives/intent don't have to do anything with how you are going to be judged? If you kill someone as a result of protecting your family against an attack without trying to kill the person, it is the same as killing someone purposely for selfish reasons? You can abstain to dedicate yourselves to prayer or while being away from your spouse or a number of other valid reasons. If you abstain just because you might create life, what does that say about how you love? Let's say a couple abstains before marriage but does everything else besides sex. Theoretically it is no sin, but what does it say about their relationship towards God and submission to God's will? Maybe it is my lack of love thinking NFP is morally similar to other forms of abstinence, and my pride the unwillingness to change my opinion regarding that topic. I just have a hard time imagining a loving person not being open to as many children as God allows.
I heard the "Theology of the Body" guy put it this way. There is a difference between going into a church to pray versus going into the Church to desecrate things versus simply not entering the Church. There can be reasons not to go into the Church. That's not sinful in itself. But it's always sinful to go into church and misuse it. So, NFP to diminish the chances of a pregnancy by avoiding the act that causes pregnancy is not sinful in itself (can be if you just aren't open to new life without cause, as she said). But that's different than sterilizing the act by barriers or exogenous hormones so that you can misuse the act for purely selfish motives.
Its a long discussion about the will of God, the purpose of human life, and lots of things that which if you don’t subscribe to, can make all of this seem alien and extreme (compared to the western status quo). Basically, this is not a discussion we would seek to have with non-Catholics. Because clearly, you don’t believe in basic Christian teachings that would be foundations for understanding why NFP could be immoral. Understand, what separates normal religion from cults, is that you are free to not believe in any of this and live your life as you see fit. And at most, we are called to love and pray for you. If you’d really like a better understanding (and aren’t just here to virtue signal and call names), you could read the Bible, the Catechism, and Theology of the Body to start.
@@clairesuzanne1 I definitely believe in basic Christian teaching, I just don’t believe in having as many kids as possible and having to live off tax payer dollars as a result 👍
@@alyssawalker1900It is the christian teaching (natural law) that one should abstain from sex if one does not want to have children. This is always permissible in a marriage. 😊 True love is also not consuming, but chaste
What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
Anti Contraception is one of the most non sensical teachings of the Catholic church, hands down! It actually renders the legitimate anti abortion stance hollow because being anti contraception while also being anti abortion, is like being Anti-seatbelts while being anti- accidents.
Im protestant and I disagree, I believe both are wrong, and I agree with my Catholic brothers that no birth should be “unwanted. I also agree that any such attempt to stop life and the bodies proper function in place of pleasure is wrong. This does not mean that therefore our stance on abortion is weak! I understand where you are coming from, but in no way does being anti contraception weaken the case for the anti abortion view. The Sociological studies are almost all in agreement that contraception INCREASED the amount of premarital births (so much for the seatbelt analogy) Now despite that being the absolute weakest case for the anti contraception view, there are others that make more sense. This is natural law, which you should be familiar with especially if you want any grounds to say homosexuality is wrong, without it you have no logical reason to explain why such an action is wrong other than divine command theory. Natural Law states that things are “Good” and moral because they are allowed to function in proper ways. This not only gives God the opportunity to bless the married couple with children, but also allows Gods creative natural order to flourish as intended. Purposely restricting a function (such as the case of contraception where proper biological functions are decreased) is EXACTLY what happens with homosexual relations, as the parts are either used in the wrong way or in ways that inhibit their function. Being anti contraception does not by any extension of the imagination mean that you are weakening the case for anti abortion, but you are actually strengthening it.
That would be true if it weren’t for the clear negative effect contraceptives have had on our culture. Once you separate the act of sex from its natural end (reproduction) and sell it off as entertainment for the young adults, then you incentivize a contraceptive mentality: you can have sex without the “consequences.” Given how contraceptives occasionally fail, what are you left with but an unplanned/unwanted child that you aren’t prepared for, and since you still have this contraceptive mentality of avoiding the consequence, you seek the “backup method.” Such mentality is also culpable for the rampant hookup culture and possibly even the rise in divorce rates and breakdown of the family, ie fatherlessness, which has so many negative effects on society it’s a surprise nobody wants to talk about it. Contraceptives also make it possible for men to exploit their (temporary) female partners, getting them knocked up and then ditching them with a child they can’t hope to raise on their own, which constitutes a large majority of abortion cases. Contraceptives allow men to make use of women like candy wrappers to be eaten and thrown out. Aren’t we against objectifying women?
False equivalence. 2 things can be wrong at once. That’s like saying it is evil to acquire more things to support your family because it might tempt someone else into the sin of stealing from you. Or that it is evil to look after your personal fitness/health because that would make you more attractive and cause someone else to have sins of lust. There are 2 entirely separate actions and decisions. There is no law of physics that forces a human to abort an “accidental” child. And no law of physics that forces humans to have sex when they are unprepared for children. A properly inspired society/community could avoid both contraceptives and abortions.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Yes. That answered my question! Still astounded at your ability to find the highest quality guests and thusly the highest quality content. You're not bad either Matt.
She s really beautiful.she looks middle eastern. Do you know her background?
@@psychotriaelata9735 What an insane thing to say. If that's the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself.
My fiancée is hesitant about doing the NFP classes for our marriage prep, because she does have PCOS and uterine fibroids, which heavily hinders fertility chances. As a result, she has had to go to her gynecologist and doctors and has learned a lot about her irregular cycle, and she just thinks NFP is basically going to be that. I want to do the class with her so I can learn more about her body as well so I’m not so in the dark about what’s happening. Please pray for us in our marriage prep and that our future marriage will be fruitful and able to multiply. ☺️☺️
Despite Knowing her medical problem the probability of not getting pregnant easily , you are still willing to marry her. You must love her a lot
I'm sorry, I still am not convinced... People practice NFP to avoid pregnancy... How is that different from a contraceptive? Yes it is different practically, but the sought outcome is just the same...
@@stgerardmajellafc I don't disagree with what you are saying. But surely it is still problematic to be having sex in a way that deliberately avoids pregnancy? Especially if a couple doesn't really have 'serious' reasons to be avoiding pregnancy. How can we say 'children are a blessing and a gift from God' or 'I am open to life' and then go and practice something contrary to this in our sex life? By the way, I am still single, so I have yet to face this very real issue of family planning.
Because you can't sin for something you didn't do?
@@declannewton2556 you could not be more wrong if you tried.
@@alexlanne6632 What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
@@Burt1038 What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
A more accurate way to put it would be to say that NFP is not a contraceptive in the same way that abstaining is not a contraceptive.
But the definition of contraceptive is something to prevent pregnancy from sex. When you use NFP you are having sex, when you are abstaining you are not
@@lucidlocomotive2014 With NFP you are preventing pregnancy by not having sex. You are not adding anything or engaging in an action to prevent a pregnancy. You are simply using research and stats to avoid sex on high probability days.
@@giovannivitaleii1333 I’m Catholic but that really sounds to me like mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that is really seems like it’s just natural contraception. I am open to being wrong though and in fact I want to be wrong
@@lucidlocomotive2014 Contraception is an act that prevents conception from taking place in a situation where it might have. When you have sex on infertile days, you are doing nothing to prevent conception. Where is the sin - when you abstain from sex or when you have sex? Both are licit as far as I'm aware.
@@_MysticKnight contraception as defined in Humanae Vitae - "...any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation..."
The "sin" would be in tracking your fertility (in other words, an action which before sexual intercourse is specifically intended to prevent procreation) to ensure that you only ever have sex when you know that it is virtually impossible to get pregnant. Only VIRTUALLY impossible though, not ACTUALLY impossible, as sometimes NFP will fail, similarly to other contraception.
This is complete and utter mental gymnastics. It’s about the intent, NFP intends to reduce the likelihood of conceiving a child by almost 99% while still getting pleasure from participating in the marital act. I am on my way into the faith with my family, but seeing so many Catholics actually believe this is disheartening.
NFP is natural and in alignment with God's design for the body because it respects the natural states and functions of the body. Abstinence is a natural state of the body. Having sex and allowing the sex to complete (without any interrupting or thwarting of the end result) is also a natural state of the body. Contraception on the other hand subverts the natural state and function of the body. Thus, contraception denies God's design for the body.
Don’t be fooled. In order to be Catholic a person must have the Catholic Faith. Most guests here believe in the false teachings of Vatican II, like NFP.
@@jacobgraf7284 No it is not. NFP is demonic.
@@jacobgraf7284 This is cope too. Having sex uninhibited is far more natural than using traditional forms of contraception, sure, but in the Humanae Vitae it EXPLICITLY states that “Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents’ welfare”. It’s also expressed in the document that sex must remain intact for the purpose of procreation and that the “generative process” should never be intentionally interrupted, which “natural family planning” FULLY flies in the face of. Paul VI’s intention and message were very very clear.
@@deloiie Is abstinence a sin in marriage? Do you suppose that a couple must have sex 24/7 lest they sin? Certainly not. So there must be some ratio of sex to abstinence that is acceptable.
I dunno, I’d always go by the the “what would the ancients think?” mentality. Like for the majority of human history, wouldn’t it be as simple as: abstain and not abstain? Are moderns too complicated for simple black and whites?
There have actually been some contraceptive methods used in the ancient past, such as certain animal skins for condoms and abortifacient consumables, not to mention pulling out. When it comes to much of human history, everything’s different and yet nothing changes.
@@killianmiller6107
I suppose by ancients I mean ancient Christians
Abstaining and not abstaining are acceptable forms of family planning in the catholic understanding, but we also realize that children are a gift and fertility has been a reward for Israel when they’re obedient and that spouses ought not withhold themselves from each other, but I bet you already knew that. Of course NFP as we have it now wasn’t invented until people understood the cycles in female reproductive biology (early 1900s) so we don’t see any explicit affirmations of this from early church fathers, yet part of me is willing to believe that early Christians were somewhat aware of female fertility during periods, but I can’t confirm.
The church has always known about contraceptive methods and has always condemned it. Here’s a site with some early church fathers’ quotes on that topic:
www.catholic.com/tract/contraception-and-sterilization
@@killianmiller6107
Thank you for the article and your explanation
For most humans in history the problem was not having too much children it was trying to have enough children that some might make it to adulthood and reproduce themselves. Our hunter gather ancestors world population took thousands of years to double their population and long term breastfeeding of children up to 3 years acted to a large degree as a natural ' child spacer ' contraception. Plus our hunter gathering forefathers ( well mothers) started their fertile years earlier and finished earlier. When the agricultural revolution took place our population boomed ( but the price was a far less healthy population ) but still people needed to try have as many children as possible because many still died in comparison to modern times and there was no guarantee any may survive to help you in old age so people still tried to have a lot in the hope some made it. In the industrial age the population boomed again in cities ( again with an even level of health in the population , the average Victorian slum dweller was a poor specium of human compared to his hunter gathering ancestors ) but even back in only 1900 only half of children made it out of childhood. The issue seems a technological one not faced by our ancestors 🤔
You're not sinning by NOT having sex (during the fertile period or otherwise).
If you're using NFP and you don't have a grave reason, you are sinning. Married couples have a positive obligation to be fruitful.
@@MarkusAvrelius No doubt. "In their mind" is the key part of your reply though.
@@TheKevin9000 What an insane thing to say. If that's the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And Catholic Church initial wanted to allow it, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
Hello, the main purpose for marriage is procreation. Anything you do that prevents procreation from happening is mortally sinful. NFP is simply another form of birth control. This is covered in Catholic teaching.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#54) “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural powers and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.”
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#17) “The primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of children.”
Keep in mind what the primary end is -procreation and education of children.
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (#59) “For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial right there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which the husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
Abstinence is not a secondary end of marriage. The secondary ends of marriage are subordinated to the primary end of marriage (procreation and the education of children).
The same encyclical cites St. Augustine, “Intercource even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of offspring is prevented.”
Don't be fooled by Paul VI's Humanae Vitae.
Humanae Vitae (#16) “...married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercource only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.”
This is evil and against Catholic teaching. The fact that Paul VI approved the heresies in Vatican II proves he was not a pope. He approved of many anti-Catholic religions which also proves he was an apostate and not the pope.
For more information on the NFP deception, go to endtimes(dot)video or TH-cam and search the video, “NFP: A Birth Control Deception ''
Sincerely
@@TheKevin9000 You regard it as sinful to not have sex with your wife at every possible opportunity? You believe you must engage in intercourse every single chance you get or it's a sin?
Her answer is spot on. The only problem is the practical application of it. Even if you think you have a grave cause to practice NFP, YOU are not the judge of that. It's a discussion between BOTH spouses, AND a Holy and knowledgeable priest. Good luck finding that these days outside of the trad orders.
No need to involve a priest in the discussion. It is between a husband and wife.
@@songbirds3712 Grave cause is not a personal decision.
@@jamessalerno4234 Actually it is. Husband and wife.
@@danielepereira3878 that is simply not what the Church teaches about grave cause.
Why can we not judge how to make family decisions? Can we judge how to educate our kids? Or budget? What makes this different?
How about a DEBATE on this topic? It could be: "Is Contraception Sinful?"
How is NFP any different than using condoms .
Little difference. Here the barrier is time not physical. But yes conteaceptive mentality is sinful in and of itself.
@Matt Fradd
I noticed that this video had an ad for a birth control product, Annovera. I'm thinking it's due to metadata.
Is there a way to fight TH-cam over it or would it be just fine that such an ad fund this awesome video, to counteract the contraception mentality? Talk about a fantastic paradox!
Hey Matt, I have greatly enjoyed your videos as they have been a wonderful blessing in my life, and I thank God that he has you in this ministry. I was hoping that you could do a video addressing Thomas Aquinas writings on Just War Theory. With all this talk about the the state, and all of this political turmoil. I think it would be pertinent as Christians to discuss the role a Christian should play in the state which would include military service. Thank you for all that you are allowing God to do in you. Have a wonderful day. God's Peace.
NFP should be abstaining from sex unless you are trying to make a baby.
How about no.
Because God created sex mostly for the unity of the spouses.
@@beatlecristian What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
@@beatlecristian Ah no, God created sex mostly for making a baby
Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 17), Dec. 31, 1930: “The primary end of marriage is the PROCREATION and the education of children.” Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii (# 54), Dec. 31, 1930: “Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined PRIMARILY BY NATURE for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately FRUSTRATE its NATURAL POWERS and purpose sin AGAINST nature and commit a deed which is shameful and INTRINSICALLY VICIOUS.”
I appreciate your quotation, but is not the whole point of NFP is that it is natural? It does not frustrate what is natural, but instead act in alignment with the windows of infertility that God has ordained within the bodies of women. Am I missing something?
This all ignores that some women, who utilize “contraceptive” pills just to regulate their bodies, which naturally would be debilitating.
For us it preserved her body and we fully intended and did have children. We have 2 kids, we daily spend our time in their care and education.
The difference between contraceptives and NFP is that contraceptives separate intercourse from reproduction. With birth control you can partake in the pleasure of sex without the willingness or commitment to the possibility of pregnancy. NFP allows intercourse only if you are willing to “risk” pregnancy. Which is the way God intended it, in my opinion!
You realize nfp and contraceptives both operate at about a 1% risk right?
Avoiding and holding back are the same thing. Pretty simple.
I am absolutely for NFP, but I think that the arguments for it are sometimes lacking. The majority of conservative Protestants use contraceptives for the same number of reasons listed by Lila for couples to use NFP. The problem is that one can assume that if one can use NFP for the wrong reasons and that is why is primarily wrong then one can assume that what makes contraceptives primarily wrong are these intentions. These Protestant's intentions are still good, but what is wrong is that the giving of oneself is lacking and results in a marriage that lacks the fullness of meaning when the two become one flesh. What makes it wrong is not only the intention. It is the fact that when a husband and wife come together they are not offering everything that they are to each other. If one is using contraceptives they are refraining from giving everything that they would if their bodies were behaving naturally. Marriage is a total offering of oneself. If a husband and wife consummate their marriage on a non-fertile day, the woman and man still offer everything that they have to other.
Consummation is one act. NFP is a technique
What an insane thing to say. If that's the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And Catholic Church initial wanted to allow it, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
@@AnnulmentProof If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And Catholic Church initial wanted to allow it, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
@@hus390 NFP, like all contraception, is intrinsically evil because it overturns the hierarchy of ends. The Catholic Church condemns NFP, but the modernists within the church promote it. You're right, it is obviously gymnastics to say contraception is anti-life but NFP is pro-life.
Why is a reason not to get pregnant "serious" (financial, stress, health, etc) if you're a Catholic using NFP....but "not a serious" reason if you're using a condom? The goal is the same right?
Abstinence is also a contraceptive.
So you think your motives/intent don't have to do anything with how you are going to be judged? If you kill someone as a result of protecting your family against an attack without trying to kill the person, it is the same as killing someone purposely for selfish reasons? You can abstain to dedicate yourselves to prayer or while being away from your spouse or a number of other valid reasons. If you abstain just because you might create life, what does that say about how you love? Let's say a couple abstains before marriage but does everything else besides sex. Theoretically it is no sin, but what does it say about their relationship towards God and submission to God's will? Maybe it is my lack of love thinking NFP is morally similar to other forms of abstinence, and my pride the unwillingness to change my opinion regarding that topic. I just have a hard time imagining a loving person not being open to as many children as God allows.
I heard the "Theology of the Body" guy put it this way. There is a difference between going into a church to pray versus going into the Church to desecrate things versus simply not entering the Church. There can be reasons not to go into the Church. That's not sinful in itself. But it's always sinful to go into church and misuse it. So, NFP to diminish the chances of a pregnancy by avoiding the act that causes pregnancy is not sinful in itself (can be if you just aren't open to new life without cause, as she said). But that's different than sterilizing the act by barriers or exogenous hormones so that you can misuse the act for purely selfish motives.
And what if you use a barrier for non selfish reasons?
Agenesic NFP technique is always sin be because it places secondary purposes ahead of primary purpose. "Forbidden" Casti connubii 59.
What authority do you have to declare it sinful?
@@anthonyaiello166 casti connubii 59: docs.google.com/document/d/102QTjUHVmZA0BqsRLPc2exHlNzGjs20BSx5QB5RTMmA/edit?usp=drivesdk
@@anthonyaiello166Lay authority by the grace of God due to reason and intelligence given to interpet natural law principles.😊 He's absolutely right
@@karlheven8328 so no authority, got it lol
@@anthonyaiello166 You only listen to authority or also to arguments based on sound logic and common sense lol.
awesome
If it depends on how it’s used... then there can be morally acceptable contraception.
It’s not traditional
So you have to want kids? You can't choose what you want.
What's NFP?
Natural family planning
What if someone doesn’t want to be pregnant? Why does she need a reason for it? This is cult-like
Its a long discussion about the will of God, the purpose of human life, and lots of things that which if you don’t subscribe to, can make all of this seem alien and extreme (compared to the western status quo). Basically, this is not a discussion we would seek to have with non-Catholics. Because clearly, you don’t believe in basic Christian teachings that would be foundations for understanding why NFP could be immoral.
Understand, what separates normal religion from cults, is that you are free to not believe in any of this and live your life as you see fit. And at most, we are called to love and pray for you.
If you’d really like a better understanding (and aren’t just here to virtue signal and call names), you could read the Bible, the Catechism, and Theology of the Body to start.
@@clairesuzanne1 I definitely believe in basic Christian teaching, I just don’t believe in having as many kids as possible and having to live off tax payer dollars as a result 👍
@@alyssawalker1900It is the christian teaching (natural law) that one should abstain from sex if one does not want to have children. This is always permissible in a marriage. 😊 True love is also not consuming, but chaste
@@karlheven8328 so you’re saying NFP is permissible (abstaining when fertile)?
NATURAL LAW IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO CHRISTIAN ETHICS
What an insane thing to say. If procreation is the sole purpose of sex, then why does the Church promote NFP as alternative. Why don't you have sex during the days when you are most fertile as well, rather than dodging it??? Because you don't want to get pregnant. 🤷🏽♂️ You want to enjoy sex without the consequences. The level of mental gymnastics by Catholics is stunning. .... It's depressing to see how women mindlessly defend the absurdity that came out of celibate (sexually oppressed) priests. You had no role in coming up with these doctrines. Think for yourself. And why even avoiding pregnancy is bad?? It's like saying using sunscreen is bad because it prevents the naturally occurring skin cancer?🤯 .... And Catholic Church initially wanted to allow the pill, then American priests pressured the Pope not to, because they feared a lose of face to Protestants in USA (since Prots allowed the pill since it came out in 1930. - these are intelligent people). Then the Pope went against the committee he assembled, and said it's a sin. ⚠️ Ever sense, Catholics has been defending the absurd and hurting the poor the world, all because of "loss of face" fear of American priests. 🤦🏽♂️
Anti Contraception is one of the most non sensical teachings of the Catholic church, hands down!
It actually renders the legitimate anti abortion stance hollow because being anti contraception while also being anti abortion, is like being Anti-seatbelts while being anti- accidents.
Im protestant and I disagree, I believe both are wrong, and I agree with my Catholic brothers that no birth should be “unwanted. I also agree that any such attempt to stop life and the bodies proper function in place of pleasure is wrong. This does not mean that therefore our stance on abortion is weak! I understand where you are coming from, but in no way does being anti contraception weaken the case for the anti abortion view.
The Sociological studies are almost all in agreement that contraception INCREASED the amount of premarital births (so much for the seatbelt analogy)
Now despite that being the absolute weakest case for the anti contraception view, there are others that make more sense. This is natural law, which you should be familiar with especially if you want any grounds to say homosexuality is wrong, without it you have no logical reason to explain why such an action is wrong other than divine command theory.
Natural Law states that things are “Good” and moral because they are allowed to function in proper ways. This not only gives God the opportunity to bless the married couple with children, but also allows Gods creative natural order to flourish as intended. Purposely restricting a function (such as the case of contraception where proper biological functions are decreased) is EXACTLY what happens with homosexual relations, as the parts are either used in the wrong way or in ways that inhibit their function.
Being anti contraception does not by any extension of the imagination mean that you are weakening the case for anti abortion, but you are actually strengthening it.
That would be true if it weren’t for the clear negative effect contraceptives have had on our culture. Once you separate the act of sex from its natural end (reproduction) and sell it off as entertainment for the young adults, then you incentivize a contraceptive mentality: you can have sex without the “consequences.” Given how contraceptives occasionally fail, what are you left with but an unplanned/unwanted child that you aren’t prepared for, and since you still have this contraceptive mentality of avoiding the consequence, you seek the “backup method.” Such mentality is also culpable for the rampant hookup culture and possibly even the rise in divorce rates and breakdown of the family, ie fatherlessness, which has so many negative effects on society it’s a surprise nobody wants to talk about it.
Contraceptives also make it possible for men to exploit their (temporary) female partners, getting them knocked up and then ditching them with a child they can’t hope to raise on their own, which constitutes a large majority of abortion cases. Contraceptives allow men to make use of women like candy wrappers to be eaten and thrown out. Aren’t we against objectifying women?
False equivalence. 2 things can be wrong at once.
That’s like saying it is evil to acquire more things to support your family because it might tempt someone else into the sin of stealing from you. Or that it is evil to look after your personal fitness/health because that would make you more attractive and cause someone else to have sins of lust.
There are 2 entirely separate actions and decisions. There is no law of physics that forces a human to abort an “accidental” child. And no law of physics that forces humans to have sex when they are unprepared for children. A properly inspired society/community could avoid both contraceptives and abortions.
Except not all pregnancies are a car crash.
@Frenchmans fury ok we get it you're 17 and a Richard Dawkins fan.