What They Didn't Tell You About NFP, Chastity, Marriage, and the Rest

[@c.b.s.3495]

THANK YOU SO MUCH! My fiancé and I were so confused by the required NFP class... you affirmed what we thought.

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

Glad it was helpful!

[@sneezachoo]

Thank you gents! I couldn’t agree more with people getting married earlier. Among many other topics, hearing someone else say that made me smile.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Matthew Baker Agreed* I always have to add the caveat, though, that marrying earlier is only better than later IF the other crucial variable is equal and that is personal virtue and maturity. Yes, a 32 year old can be very immature, but a 20 year old is much more likely to be. I think helping people grow personally and also have realistic expectations going into marriage as well as raising youth to be in a position where they are ready for marriage by their early 20s is the greatest need.

[@sitka49]

48 percent of those who marry before the age of 18 are likely to divorce within 10 years,

[@christinehaley8097]

With all due respect, I don't see any advantage to marrying early. Quite the contrary. One hasn't learned to really know oneself let alone one's partner. You haven't been able to travel, explore life and different jobs without the responsibilities of family. A lot of growth and changing happens during that time. Being tied down young to a partner, the lifelong commitment of children before before there is a foundation in the financial and emotional life seems unwise.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@christinehaley8097 Which is exactly why all those things are present in society today where relationships are few, marriages are few and divorce only follows marriages. I could believe it if we saw the opposite from society now.

[@phoult37]

59:00 Excellent discourse on the historical difference between courtship and modern dating. Regarding "basement dating," too many parents "trust" their kids...in reality, they are simply putting temptation in front of their kids just waiting for them to fail.

[@jen1963]

Learned so much from this! Hope you guys do more episodes together.

[@johnchurch160]

Thanks for this, guys! I wish I had known a lot of this in my past. God bless you both.

[@AnnulmentProof]

"We'll have to do part two.." Yes, waiting for that.

[@elizabethr7146]

ALWAYS love the opening music!!!

[@gaudiumrome]

In regards to 1:44:35 - I fail to understand how one can be doing NFP for legtimately grave reason but still be this open to life. "If we concieved right now, that would be great." No it wouldn't be great, that's why we're doing NFP lol. But I guess my lack of understanding in this is why we are consistently abstaining right now.

[@AnnulmentProof]

OJ is innocent, Bruce Jenner is a girl, gender is fluid, and NFP is open to life.

[@angelahull9064]

NFP is about discernment with the help of fertility signs, not for perpetual prevention of conception altogether.

[@gaudiumrome]

@@angelahull9064 Yes I'm aware

[@MyImmaculateQueen]

This is fast becoming my favourite You Tube channel. This is helping me understand so many aspects of my faith. I am now working my way through the entire uploads and loving it!!! Why are the priests not providing this information? Feed the flock priests!!! We are starving to death, literally.

[@maggiesace389]

I agree! Fast becoming my regular "go to! In the end, each of us is responsible for our own soul - best to LEARN Catholic faiths rich, instruction, meaning, and history!

[@audoremus]

This video really made me think. I got really into Theology of the Body which was good in helping me see the conjugal act as holy and beautiful, but my formation was definitely incomplete and have felt pretty jaded about the promises well-meaning Catholic celebrities promised to couples who used NFP and saved themselves for marriage. It was not all hearts and butterflies. More honest discussion on these topics is needed. You could have talked for two more hours on this.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

audoremus I have a catechetical allergy to hearts and butterflies.

[@iliya3110]

"I hate going to the grocery store [because of temptation]." Hahaha.... Amen brother. Thought I was the only one. Consoling to know I'm not alone there. I hate the grocery store for this very reason. I'm always thinking, "Come on... I just wanted to buy some milk and now I have to battle the demons. I wish I just had a cow I could milk at home. This sucks." But then I have to remind myself, "Without temptation no man can be saved", said our holy and God-bearing father St. Anthony of Egypt.

[@jesusisthetruth2061]

Loved this convo, thanks men.

[@misspiccola11]

You two are awesome! True gentlemen. God bless you both. Keep re-teaching the world. I have been hurt by the dating scene many times. Thanks be to God when God called me out, I fled and have never turned back. Thanks be to God.

[@IoannesBaptista]

You guys are doing precious work, keep it up!

[@yordany4526]

You guys are awesome! Thank you for the work that you do!

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

Thanks Yordany! Please support the work: www.patreon.com/meaningofcatholic God bless!

[@dmm3843]

Is there a follow up video to this one? This was great. Learned a lot! Thanks guys!

[@chrissys5785]

Post Partum Depression, Depression from Miscarriage, Hormonal shifts...it's all really real and debilitating. I think there needs to be nuance. Who is to judge how grave a women's depression is? How much mental unwellness is ok? It is unfortunately not researched enough on a secular level and on a church level. Loved this podcast. Thank You.

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

It would seem that anything that makes woman or man unable to fulfill their other duties would constitute a grave cause to abstain. Post partum mental difficulties can be debilitating and fall under such a grave cause in my opinion.

[@chrissys5785]

mary albrecht In the case of reproductive issues no NFP or birth control would be necessary. The other cases that you stated could be grave as well. Post partum depression is a form of mental illness but of course other severe mental illnesses could be grave as well. I experienced this growing up. My parents only had 2 children and I believe they were totally just in doing so. They could. Not have handled anymore. Life isn’t always the ideal.

[@aaronaukema1284]

@mary albrecht Of course, prior to 1960, the Church had already defined grave causes, and given assistance to parish priests to counsel parents appropriately...and this is what Tim and Kennedy are referencing After 1968, the idea of "grave reasons" was made into ambiguity, because of Paul VI's innovation that "unity of the spouses" is equal to the having and raising of children.

[@etcwhatever]

@@TheMeaningofCatholic thank God because i suffer from chronic depression and want to have as many children as possible. But i dont know how the hormonal and physical changes from motherhood will affect me. I also take medication so im scared of how it will be like when i get married. But im willing to do Gods will. Althought it is likely i will need to use nfp sometimes. I hope i can have at least 3

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@etcwhatever I would drop all prescription drugs and meditate at the foot of the cross.

[@Seethi_C]

Confused by 1:49:15. Wouldn't condoms also be licit under this case? Since condoms can sometimes fail, is it also not contraceptive?

[@etcwhatever]

But remember onan spilled his seed outside of the natural place. Putting the seed into the condom could count as onanism

[@kristinwannemuehler9757]

Are you using a condom to enhance your procreative abilities or impede them? Then, did your body naturally grow a condom over your penis or did you put it there? Pretty sure you can figure this one out for yourself.

[@voxpopuli8132]

To Mr. Hall: When they say to You: Laudetur Iesus Christus!, the response is: "In aeternum, amen." That is how they do it in Europe, that is how the FSSP and SSPX do it. or there is the Weather Blessing, when the priest says "Sit nomen Domini benedictum!" to which the response: *"Ex hoc nunc et usque in saeculum!"* That is where _saeculum_ is used, along with the little Doxology (Gloria Patri... et in _saecula saeculorum,_ amen).

[@MarcoCuauhtemocMejia]

Great upload

[@AnnulmentProof]

1853 dubium: NFP was *not* allowed. What *was* allowed was not judging the innocent spouse who reluctantly permitted the sinning spouse to "use NFP" so as to avoid onanism/adultery. This is exactly what Cardinal Patrick Joseph Hayes was referring to in 1920 when he said NFP was to be "tolerated as an extreme remedy of preventing sin." (not preventing babies - that is what abstinence is for)

[@derekvillarreal5207]

Nice work, God bless

[@hornatham1487]

Awesome 👏.God Bless to both of you.

[@captaines5726]

Actually I agree with you guys. My mind is changed

[@andrewlane7486]

Great talk! Concerning NFP...How would you respond to someone who says, “We are not acting contrary to the primary purpose because we are open to life if it should occur? Why is that not enough?” I was trying to explain why you need a grave cause to a young couple recently and they said, were not prepared to give a child a good life yet... education, care etc. I don’t feel that this is a truly grave cause but I don’t know how to approach it.

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

Andrew Lane a grave cause is what can make the ordinary into an extraordinary situation. There is a hierarchy of goods for the family, which have degrees of gravity. The most grave goods are things like food, shelter, mental sanity. The primary purpose of marriage as procreation is grave, but not as grave as those things. Having a “good life” in terms of unnecessary things is not grave, and would rank less than procreation, thus this can not justify NFP

[@andrewlane7486]

The Meaning of Catholic Thank you! That seems to make sense. I was so glad to see you guys address this, as I have been chewing this problem over along with a few of my brother seminarians. This will be important for my marriage prep... like it was said- at least to tell them before (and perhaps again after) they go to the “nfp is great” party.

[@jefffinkbonner9551]

Andrew Lane The way Fr. Wolfe explained in a Sensus Fidelium video is that firstly, “NFP” is better described as “periodic abstinence” because that uses language familiar to moral theology vs the language of the culture of death (family planning.) Mainly though, periodic abstinence should be viewed and thought of as a tool to be applied when prudent and necessary for a grave reason and Not as some ongoing lifestyle that is only punctuated upon a winning lottery ticket being purchased the day world peace breaks out.

[@5150show]

Outstanding

[@connorjanovy1539]

Great intro!!

[@bernadetteb1715]

Did you ever do a part 2 for chastity in marriage ?

[@PeterShieldsukcatstripey]

moving intro.

[@kristinwannemuehler9757]

I have a good friend who is married, has 8 children, has had maybe 5 miscarriages, and is 35 years old. She has had repeat hernias, this last one was a C-section, and her OB advised NOT having any more children as it would seriously put her life at risk. This couple tried NFP previously, but it seemed as conservative as they tried to use it, still would become pregnant despite submitting charts to NFP instructors, etc. What happens when there is good reason like this case to use NFP, but it does not work to postpone or prevent pregnancy and it is imprudent to perpetually abstain?

[@kristinwannemuehler9757]

This story ended up with them submitting their situation to a couple dozen Catholic ethicists, and with the exception of 1-2 ethicists saying they weren't using NFP properly, the rest recommended a vasectomy and were confused why they hadn't had this done multiple children ago. So sad. The husband went through with it, and now says, "well, at least we don't have to worry about getting pregnant anymore..." Have mercy!

[@AnnulmentProof]

Have kids or use the grace of marriage to abstain.

[@kristinwannemuehler9757]

@@AnnulmentProof I completely agree. My husband and I had some big discussions about if this had been us and decided we would set a day or two to perform the marital act, abstain outside of that, and if pregnant, place it in God's hands. Give him room for a miracle and His Will to be done. We could always use more married saints for the church!

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

@@kristinwannemuehler9757 that’s exactly what they should have done. I am so glad to read other couples discussing what sacrifices we may have to make in life. We either believe all of this stuff or we don’t. We trust God or we don’t. There’s no halfway.

[@rmo6749]

Gold!

[@digitaljman5744]

Cultivating virtue. Yes!

[@ryanhunt9463]

You mentioned St. Alphonsus and Doctors of the Church not leading us into error in the areas of their "doctorate," where does that come from? I haven't yet been able to find a source for it

[@pilot2502]

I thibk they make things up

[@sitka49]

against gimmicks like Exodus 90. They do not lead to authentic spiritual growth. They lead most people to one of two outcomes, equally spiritually dangerous. Someone succeeds in the program and is at risk of spiritual pretest/delusion, thinking they have grown spiritually to a degree they haven't truly come close to actually attaining, or, they fail to complete the program and run the risk of becoming spiritually dejected and despondent. I'm all for building community as young men and striving to be accountable to one another. That's definitely helpful. But the whole exodus 90 thing with their, "Work out x amount of minutes and take cold showers every morning" thing is not spiritual. It is the product of this weird backwards masculinity that seems to be running in trad circles these days where masculinity is seen as young Catholic men smoking cigars, drinking whiskey, wearing tweed, going to the gym together and praying rosaries together as bros. It's like a Gay fraternity at a university pretending to be a monastic order.

[@wthibeau]

Link to a good psalter?

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

Not seeing a movie because it blasphemes the name of Our Lord would be a great subject for another show.

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

Trey E right here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/maHFkquNfLJ8ers

[@miselemondele]

I discussed this subject with my ICKSP Canon and he said that there is a variety of teaching about the Church Fathers re: the 2nd commandment. Fr. Ripperger's extreme stance on the matter is good but not the only proper viewpoint. Because the sin had already been committed we are not necessarily supporting the sin or the broadcasting company's immoral viewpoints by watching a film that has blasphemy/profanity in it. Watching movies can be a form of lawful recreation. The exception would be that if we were watching it because it had the profanity which hopefully we wouldn't do. This is not to deny that a better choice would be to support Catholic themes in the cinema. However, extreme legalism has its own pitfalls.

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

@@miselemondele Doesn't pass a consistency test. The movie contains real, not simulated, child or animal cruelty, we wouldn't take anything other than the so called extreme view. I wouldn't anyway.

[@miselemondele]

@@StJohnPaulXXIII okay. i didn't know that specific. I was just providing the other viewpoint in general.

[@StJohnPaulXXIII]

@@miselemondele I just use that as an example. 1) There is something that could be in a movie that would make the movie itself objectively evil. 2) Profaning the Holy Name is at least as evil as cruelty to creatures or other evils we would consider no compromise matter. 3) Therefore blasphemy is no compromise matter.

[@lejoromi]

Guys what do you recommend doing if priest doesn't understand courtship and wants you to have a longer engagement "to really know each other"? Fiancee and I are in this problem. Followed courtship process, but now priest won't marry us until a year from now (already been engaged for 4+ months). Does obedience (to parish priest) overrule desire to not have a long courtship?

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

Depends. I would ask a trusted third party - does this third party agree with you or the priest? Follow the third party’s advice.

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

If the third party disagrees with the priest, find a new priest and be honest with him about everything.

[@lejoromi]

@@TheMeaningofCatholic That's what I was thinking. I've had a third party (friend, seminarian) weigh in, and gave me the same advice. Thanks guys!

[@AnnulmentProof]

"You can do the conjugal act for these secondary ends." Wouldn't that be making the secondary ends the primary reason for the act - which is "forbidden?"

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

You do not have to have the intention to conceive a child in order to illicitly engage in the marital act. You can have desire for your spouse and have that be fulfilled, that is not forbidden nor sinful.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@verum-in-omnibus1035 ." For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which 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." Casti Connubii 59. Not having procreation as the primary purpose is "forbidden."

[@andrewchabot8290]

@@AnnulmentProof Actually, Verum - in - Omnibus is correct. So long as you don’t frustrate the natural purpose of the act, the secondary end is subordinated to the primary.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@andrewchabot8290 NFP uses timing - to frustrate.

[@andrewchabot8290]

@@AnnulmentProof I can see where you would think that, but that’s not how I read Casti Connubi 53-59. The focus seems to be on the “intrinsic nature of the act” rather than a reduction in probability, which is the best medicine could ever do. Another piece of evidence that your reading is not the intended meaning of the Church is that the Church blesses “avoiding children” through “virtuous continence” a few paragraphs up. As a matter of principle, I think this is incompatible with your statements on NFP. I used to agree with you on this, but the more I read Casti Connubi, the more confused you appear to be on the entire document.

[@lucidlocomotive2014]

Kennedy, do you think it’s wrong for a skinny man to eat more than he needs to survive, with the intention of bulking up? Not everyone struggles with a weight. A lot of us guys struggle with building and keeping muscle on

[@asdfasdf3989]

Yeah, I don't think that that is wrong, and I would guess that he wouldn't include that.

[@asdfasdf3989]

Obviously sometimes one might have to be careful with that too.

[@Seethi_C]

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how using NFP can be used in a sinful way depending on the circumstance. If NFP can be used in contraceptive way, but can also licitly be used for grave reasons. But we would never say it's ok to use a condom (non-abortifacient, and not "infallible" as Timothy stated) for any of the grave reasons you mentioned. Why is one wrong regardless of the circumstance, but the other is only wrong sometimes? On another note, does the sin occur when you have sex on infertile days, or does the sin occur when you abstain from sex on the fertile days? It doesn't seem that either of those actions on their own can be sinful. Appreciate any clarity.

[@aaronaukema1284]

In moral theology, there are three types of acts: intrinsically good, moral neutral, and intrinsically evil. Intrinsically good acts are those acts that are specifically ordained by God, like praying. Morally neutral acts are, in and of themselves neither good nor evil, but such values are based on intention and situation (typing on a keyboard is morally neutral, but if I type sinful things, then it becomes a morally bad thing). Some acts are, in and of themselves, intrinsically evil, like abortion. Any act which interferes with the principle end of the conjugal act is intrinsically evil, primarily because it divorces a secondary end (pleasure) from the God-ordained end (children). Such acts include mechanical or chemical "disruption", or even acts that remove "release" from the act itself (defined as sodomy or self-abuse). These acts denigrate the other spouse to a mere means to an end (the pleasure). Seeing as the conjugal act is oriented to a positive good ordained by God (children), it cannot be, in and of itself, intrinsically evil, but can be used in a manner that is sinful, in certain conditions, which include time and place as well as intention.

[@sitka49]

@@aaronaukema1284 Yes, NFP may well be a highly effective method of having an active sex life while avoiding conception. A method that has no medical side effects, brings married couples closer, improves their understanding of themselves and each other, and reminds them of their relationship with God. What's not to like? Except that the official Catholic position on NFP and contraception is not, "NFP is the best, safest, most uplifting form of contraception." Rather, the official Catholic doctrine is, 1) "NFP isn't contraception," and 2) "Contraception is inherently and universally evil." Point 1) is absurd, and point 2) doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. As a result, it is entirely possible for someone to agree with every point you make about NFP, while still disagreeing with your conclusion that the Catholic church is getting it right. To elaborate: 1) NFP enables a couple to engage in sexual relations while intentionally minimizing the possibility of conceiving. That is, by definition, a form of contraception. I'll offer a few definitions to make it clear: It misses the point not because NFP is bad, but because those advantages are not the official reason the Catholic church promotes it. And the other three weeks of the month, it's deliberately-sterile sex. And NFP is not contraceptive in the week or so that it involves abstention. However, what about the week after that? The week where a couple engages in sexual relations only because they know that they will be sterile, and if they thought otherwise, they would not do it. Their hearts and minds intend for their actions to be only unitive and not procreative; if there was a chance of achieving both functions, then they would back off. Sex only fits into their plans so long as procreation is not a reasonably possible result. In that week, Natural Family Planning is clearly a contraceptive plan.

[@HerotPM]

You mentioned that children have a right to a mother who can stay at home with them. Supposing the man is working his hardest to get the family to a financial place where the mother can be a stay at home mom, but they are not quite there yet. Is that a cause worthy of holding off for a few more months from having children and using NFP until the family is at a point where they can have a child, or another child, without having to have the mother not be a stay at home mom?

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

That would have to be something a priest would judge. However, to my knowledge, it does not quality as a grave cause, since a woman can work outside the home if there is a financial need. This would indicate that children could create such a financial need.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

A woman can also work from within the home, there are many ways without abandoning her children to strangers to bring extra income. And in our wealthy modern country, I often doubt people who think they really cannot afford the mother to stay home with the children. I know families with eight children on one income, making under $70,000 a year.

[@HerotPM]

Question is irrelevant to my family now. We decided to give up on NFP, just hail Mary it and have babies. It's super tight, but God has taken care of us so far with my wife as a stay at home mom and me as the sole income. Work from home stuff is not as easy to come by as people like to think, nor does my wife have time for it on top of child rearing, but we're getting by.

[@TheNarrowGate101]

Can grandparents bless their grandchildren?

[@cameraguy6297]

1:47:45 - at that point, of having 3 or 4 kids in a short period of time, why don't you use contraceptives if you have already discerned with your wife and God's will that having more kids soon will be a bad idea. If you are are avoiding consummating as frequently as before, you're not getting the graces within marriage. At that point you're just abstaining from sex, so and trying your own form of contraception thru abstinence. Why not just use physical contraception at that point?

[@aaronaukema1284]

In moral theology, there are three types of acts: intrinsically good, moral neutral, and intrinsically evil. Intrinsically good acts are those acts that are specifically ordained by God, like praying. Morally neutral acts are, in and of themselves neither good nor evil, but such values are based on intention and situation (typing on a keyboard is morally neutral, but if I type sinful things, then it becomes a morally bad thing). Some acts are, in and of themselves, intrinsically evil, like abortion. Any act which interferes with the principle end of the conjugal act is intrinsically evil, primarily because it divorces a secondary end (pleasure) from the God-ordained end (children). Such acts include mechanical or chemical "disruption", or even acts that remove "release" from the act itself (defined as sodomy or self-abuse). These acts denigrate the other spouse to a mere means to an end (the pleasure). Seeing as the conjugal act is oriented to a positive good ordained by God (children), it cannot be, in and of itself, intrinsically evil, but can be used in a manner that is sinful, in certain conditions, which include time and place as well as intention. You are missing the idea that abstaining isn't a bad thing, when done for the right reasons. The Sacrament provides the grace, the conjugal act does not. Abstaining can, when done with the correct mindset, provide more grace than the conjugal act...

[@standev1]

Because using contraception is a mortal sin and is never allowed.

[@candelario4288]

Inherently evil

[@AnnulmentProof]

If the interpersonal relationship is "just as important" as procreation, then anything which affects the communion of the spouses, i.e. having too many children, or that is it too expensive to have and raise children, then they would argue that for the sake of the "unity" of the marriage, that they should be allowed to use NFP.

[@corporateshill7473]

My wife's grandma had 12 kids, among them are mostly fall away Catholics, several current and recovering drug addicts, divorcées, protestants, and homelessness. Only two, including my father in law, have kept the faith and even he smoked weed for like 15 years. Clearly a case of too many children for the couple to handle, but this situation which is very real to them never gets addressed.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@corporateshill7473 "With God all things are possible." Sounds like there was enough food - must have been sin involved.

[@corporateshill7473]

@@AnnulmentProof Must be.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

@@corporateshill7473 if your wife’s grandfather was a good faithful Catholic man that would not be the statistics of their family. That is the unfortunate reality. And I noticed you didn’t mention him, so I assume he wasn’t a rock for the family. When children see their father as a faithful Christian man, practicing the faith daily upwards of 95% will remain faithful, stay in the Church and be decent people.

[@asdfasdf3989]

You guys kind of act like women don't desire sex.

[@leticialozano5042]

43:00 is this really true? Is it mortal sin for us parents if our children engage or watch inappropriate things while in the care of other people? We can't be with our children every second of the day, what If in an emergency a parent has to leave their child to a family member but that family member isn't the most devout catholic and could scandalize your child?

[@christinehaley8097]

What are your beliefs for couples who marry later, after 40 or 50? Fertility is not an issue.

[@AnnulmentProof]

What belief in particular are you thinking about ?

[@christinehaley8097]

Since procreation wouldn't be the purpose of the marriage, is intimacy encouraged or respected at that time of life?

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@christinehaley8097 Procreation is always the purpose. Casti Connubii 59 says conjugal acts are licit post-fertility.

[@christinehaley8097]

Wow, I had given up receiving an answer. If procreation is considered the purpose, sex is licit, not illicit? It kind of doesn't matter at that time, it sounds like you're saying. A lot of people over 50 marry and procreation wouldn't be their purpose. I appreciate the answer and your telling me your, or the Catholic views. Thank you.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@christinehaley8097 if the intrinsic nature of the act + hierarchy of ends is preserved, it's fine. Nfp/contraception overturns the hierarchy of ends..menopause does not.

[@Seethi_C]

I've always learned that the two ends are procreation and unity of the spouses. It sounds like you are saying it's actually procreation and remedy for lust. I'm having trouble seeing how that's a superior view. It kind of turns your spouse into an object to create babies and curb your appetite. Also, how exactly does the virtue of chastity fit in here? If I just go to my wife and request sex when I'm feeling horny, why are single men expected to stay chaste without that outlet?

[@feliciacahyadi6821]

Because at old times marriage starts at 14-16. 20 is seen as too old for a woman. People already in college and off to work. And their life expetancy is around 70 at best. "Single gents" is literally 14 y.o. boys to 20 y.o.men. It's not asking much. That gets pushed farther and farther and making a famoly taken a back seat compared to flimsy emotion nowadays is said to be "love". People now question marrying young, because honestly the economy of living with many kids starting at age like 16, and finishing college seems so impossible now. It is indeed an effort to fulffil the Church law. But it is the law.

[@ZeldaZonk-zt8fr]

They are missing big time on the very concept of chastity... 💃🇫🇷🥂 🌱

[@Ashley-li5yv]

The primary purpose of marriage is creating children for heaven. It doesn't make the wife a baby making factory. There is no dichotomy. The purpose of marriage is to have and raise children in the faith and that in loves mutual love and affection between spouses. A strong family needs affectionate and loving parents and not ones that use each other for pleasure The secondary purpose of marriage is mutual help of spouses which includes remedy of concupiscence. The remedy is in the bedroom and out. Nothing like having a bunch of small children running around to calm the sexual appetite! But if one spouse is in danger of committing a mortal sin, then he or she may (and possibly should) ask their spouse for relations to avoid the mortal sin. It is a loving act to help one's spouse in that way. And it helps direct the struggling spouses sexual desires away from the evil desires and towards his or her spouse which is it's only appropriate expression.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

“Why are single men expected to stay chased?“ Because God said so. Because not staying chaste ruins society. Because it’s the natural order of the cosmos. You’ve been taught in the Novus Ordo theology, so I can see why this is hard to understand.

[@Seethi_C]

@@verum-in-omnibus1035 My question clearly went over your head. I was not questioning the Church’s teaching on sex before marriage. I’m also not sure what the liturgy has to do with this

[@asdfasdf3989]

Why do you put little to no responsibility here on women? You're mislead if you think women are never looking for sexual sin.

[@AnnulmentProof]

"I'm not going to fight against it." Now Fight Procreation.

[@sanctealphonse4510]

Funny when I hear people speak of lifting weights as good, hard, manual labor. I don't think working out in a sterile, air conditioned, environment in ideal positions, selectively working on certain muscle groups while wearing comfortable gym attire qualifies. Instead I would see it as working outdoors in the heat, in the dirt, in the mud, getting callouses, shoveling animal poop while enduring the smell and poop dust, trenching, pouring concrete, working on the car, building outbuildings, animal shelter, setting fence posts etc... I guess that is just country life vs city life though.

[@berniepeng]

Not to many people live on a farm, or have enough land to do what you suggest.

[@Ashley-li5yv]

My husband lifts weights and it has long helped him in his pursuit of purity and chastity. It is hard work even if there are activities that are harder

[@chrissys5785]

"Medjugorge craziness" lol

[@candelario4288]

1:29:00

[@AnnulmentProof]

If NFP without grave cause makes secondary purposes #1, how does NFP *with* grave cause make procreation #1?

[@KenDelloSandro7565]

Only Priests and Bishops should pray over you because it comes down to authority. A father can pray over his family but not the other way around. Never and I mean NEVER allow a layman to pray with hands over you.

[@asdfasdf3989]

What about a deacon?

[@christinehaley8097]

What about a nun?

[@johnnotrealname8168]

@@christinehaley8097 I think someone older than you can? Not sure.

[@AnnulmentProof]

Isn't NFP simply maintaining the [conjugal] right without the [multiply] debt?

[@777theright88]

There is a ton of good things that i personally go out of this podcast. However, the way you paint men as some sort of deviant animal and the “catholic view” is to protect women from men. That is gravely immoral. As if women cant be guilty of the same thing.

[@asdfasdf3989]

The biological bond from sex for men might be weaker, but it is still there.

[@AnnulmentProof]

NFP is as open to life as the pill. Neither are infallible.

[@AnnulmentProof]

"NFP is for grave cause." Casti connubii 59 says NFP is "forbidden" because it elevates the secondary and above the primary.

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

Do squirrels eat acorns?

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@Catholic-Perennialist not around here, how about in your neighborhood?

[@Catholic-Perennialist]

@@AnnulmentProof They must get pretty hungry then. Around my neighborhood, they have to break natural law just to survive, seeing that the primary function of an acorn is to produce an oak tree, and eating an acorn subverts this primary function. On a similar note, do you drink your bath water?

[@ryanscottlogan8459]

They might not have a phone?Are we talking about 1920 lol

[@standev1]

After learning the moral theology on the married life, marriage doesn't seem an attractive option anymore. So much trouble! It seems more feasible to just suppress the lust altogether in celibacy than trying to control its burning while at the same time giving it more fuel by occasional conjugal acts. No wonder St. Paul advised against entering into marriage in 1Cor. 7.

[@TheMeaningofCatholic]

It’s not trouble actually. Marriage is a great joy. It sounds like this came across very puritanical, which is not our intention. The moral theology is discussing the barriers of natural law. The joy and sacramental grace of marriage is beyond description.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

One could easily say that about life in general “so much trouble.” That’s a very narrow and unwise way to look at human interactions. Marriage is one of the most challenging things a human being Will do, but also one of the most rewarding when we keep it Christ centered.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

@@TheMeaningofCatholic Agree 100%.

[@standev1]

@@verum-in-omnibus1035 Saint Paul warns those who marry that "such shall have tribulation of the flesh" (1Cor 7, 28), and he pities them. The doctrine of Saint Paul is neither narrow nor unwise.

[@chad6252]

St Paul i believe was speaking of the extreme better to be married if you will fall,. If you can remain celibate as a single person then the arguement would be to remain single. To me my suspicion was he was getting the same questions over and over,. Better to address it in writing

[@SaintNektarios]

@4:30 Onan was killed because he broke the obligation to have a son with his deceased brother's wife. According to Genesis 38: 8-10 Onan's duty was to “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother.”

[@thecrab7953]

Scripture has the punishment for breaking that obligation laid out in it which is public humiliation-not death. He was killed for violating the natural law and contracepting.

[@AnnulmentProof]

Pre Pius XII, NFP 'grave reasons' were to avoid sin. Post Pius XII, NFP 'grave reasons' were to avoid babies, too. I can't see how Pius XII can "make this ok" since to decide to use marriage primarily for other than procreation is to make the secondary into the primary - which is "forbidden" by Casti Connubii #59.

[@chad6252]

This post sounds like your misreading Pius Xii he lays out Grave reasons for nfp to be licit. The approach you are using i think can impose black and white rules an a subject that is less so...

[@chad6252]

Taylor marshall lays it out clearly in one of his videos

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@chad6252 if nfp is not natural, it does not matter how "grave" the reason is.

[@AnnulmentProof]

@@chad6252 how can it be natural to use the matrimonial act primarily not for matrimony?

[@chad6252]

@@AnnulmentProof Hi John, if you are not using any contraceptive by virtue of the marital act you are open to being both unitive and procreative even if the act is during a nonfertile time. You are trying to impose a sin on something thats not sinful. My next question, do you struggle with scrupilosity? Often times folks with scrupilosity struggle in a few "gray areas" the Church hadnt officially ruled on. Pax Tecum

[@Thomasrice07]

This is no way to live. God's creation is beautiful. God's radiant love is no match for carnal lust.

[@AveChristusRex]

What do you mean Christianity is false?

[@asdfasdf3989]

What is no way to live?

[@andrewsmith5623]

There's only one time that a couple must complete the conjugal act and that is to consummate the marriage. If the couple abstains from the conjugal act for the rest of their marriage they have been open to children (consummated marriage) and thus have fulfilled the primary end of marriage. NFP is just abstaining at certain times based upon the natural cycle of a woman's body and abstaining is not sinful. There is also a natural check given which is the affection between the spouses. There is no such thing as contraception mentality when it comes to NFP because there is no intermediary act or cause that is preventing conception; its just abstaining.

[@asdfasdf3989]

St. Paul says to abstain when agreed upon for prayer. Permanently abstaining right after consummation in order to never have kids seems to violate that.

[@verum-in-omnibus1035]

You absolutely do not have the proper understanding of the purpose God intended for marriage and the Catholic theology that has been developed, prior to the modernist infiltration of course. Your statement is erroneous.

[@jesusisthetruth2061]

@@verum-in-omnibus1035 would you recommend any readings / books on this topic?

[@tomhealey8214]

I'm at the beginning of your video, and you mentioned Ralph Martin .."solid" Catholic, which is interesting because i do not see him in a favorable light. I'm not surprised that you characterize Martin as"solid", and l agree, he knows church teachings, and he lives by the law.. .. but does he have the depth of the*** Love For Christ*** in his immortal soul? I doubt it. I think of Ralph as more of a hypocritical Pharisee. He talks the talk, but he does not want to pay the price that we must pay to grow into radical holiness. I don't think it's just happenstance that he is involved in the so called Charismatic Movement. And am l right to claim that this Pentacostalism is his attempt to correct the imbalance of his hidden sterile soul. Which to me is a pathetic joke. I've listened to his self-righteous talks where he arrogantly cajoles Catholics to greater "holiness", completely blind to his own double standard of his profound attachment to the psychological(or perhaps even demonic)states dressed up as the Christian "spiritual" life. The Charismatic Movement is spiritually sterile, because deep down in their supposedly Catholic hearts, they are tragically attached to feelings or spiritual highs. To submit to purification of our hearts by which l do not mean what Protestants think of as their "spirit filled hearts". But to submit to neverending purification of our souls by Sanctifying Grace. I do not believe that Ralph Martin understands that his **ATTACHMENT** to this Protestant movement within the Catholic Church PREVENTS THE SOUL'S SURRENDER TO SPIRITUAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL PURIFICATION/HEALING BY GRACE. The Protestantization of the spiritual genius of Catholicism is inescapably shallow, and tragically many prefer the shallows over the great depths the church, through the Holy Spirit, invites us to immerse our wounded souls in.

[@Jerds]

I wonder what you think about Fr Ripperger who helps out charismatic groups in their formation since apparently being approving of a different branch of Catholicism is so bad. And I’m not sure where you get such holiness that you can judge a man off of something so arbitrary as that. He’s walked the walk as well as talked the talk and does many good works. Get off your high horse bud.

[@tomhealey8214]

@@Jerds BUD, you are way over your head spiritually. I'm not on any "high horse", and if the truth offends you about Ralph Martin, then deal with it. The only walk Martin has done is to take the easy way out by aping the stupid and probably demonic Pentacostals. For a spirituality that is un-Cstholic, he needs to repent, take up his crosses and follow Christ, not goofy Protestants. ++ with regard to what I characterize as his spiritual mediocrity i could say the same to just about all Catholics today. ++ and if you think that Fr Ripperger's thumbs up regarding the infiltration of heretical Protestant "worship" practices into the church means that it must be ok, then you are dumb as well as mindlessly rude. I have profited a lot from some of this priest's theologically brilliant videos, and I understand that he is an exceptionally fine exorcist, which God knows the church desperately needs today. But with regard to his so called approval of the Charismatic movement...then he is sadly wrong, completely and utterly wrong. Look, if you disagree with me, that's your business, but SPIRITUALLY....even from your short comment full of unquestioned, unrecognized assumptions, you reveal that...YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. ++ SO PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND AGAIN TELLING ME ABOUT MY FONDNESS FOR "HIGH HORSES". EVERYTHING I SAID ABOVE IS EXACTED AT THE PRICE I'M WILLING TO PAY TO DEFEND THE CHURCH I LOVE.

[@andrewstahl3531]

12 beers every four days? Lightweight... lol

[@djb5255]

Nobody takes you guys seriously when you talk about splitting bills with your wife in college. Did Daddy pay your way through?