Should Catholic Teenagers understand and be knowledgable of NFP?

[Mary_Gail_36]

I did disrespect the marital act because I chose to separate babies from sex. Look, I know not all people do this. I did. Sex was for me and my husband to come together, especially after long term separations (deployments, training, schools…) and that was all.

You are a lady that is very respectful and helpful. You are always kind. You embrace your struggles and carry on. I have no doubt that your use of NFP is in line with proper thinking. Mine was screwed up, distorted and just plain wrong.

God has a good sense of humor. It didn’t work out the way I planned. It went completely opposite. And He knew that was best for me.

Hope it’s ok to mention. Obviously, it wasn’t all. You accepted all the babies God had for you.

Being “open” doesn’t mean, “I hope we conceive right now” or we are “doing it to conceive”. Open means respecting the act, and not corrupting it. Even if you would mentally not want to conceive at that moment, if you are acting in line with the Church, you are accepting His will.

There will be a point where most of us won’t be able to have children anymore. But the coming together of husband and wife remains holy.

Thank you for saying I’m kind. I appreciate that.

 

[bitterhope]

Hope it’s ok to mention. Obviously, it wasn’t all. You accepted all the babies God had for you.

Being “open” doesn’t mean, “I hope we conceive right now” or we are “doing it to conceive”. Open means respecting the act, and not corrupting it. Even if you would mentally not want to conceive at that moment, if you are acting in line with the Church, you are accepting His will.

There will be a point where most of us won’t be able to have children anymore. But the coming together of husband and wife remains holy.

Thank you for saying I’m kind. I appreciate that.

Thank you. Yes I did. And I’m so very glad that it worked out that way.

 

[jmjZelie]

Also there is a clear rejection of the virtue of continence going on. Christopher West noted the phenomenon of those who reject NFP directly as a result of not being able or wanting to practice continence in marriage. There is often a lack of balance in those focusing on the unjust use of avoidance, neglecting the reality of concupiscence within marriage.

Just posting StJPII’s lovely tribute to the virtue of continence in TOB…

ewtn.com.au/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb123.htm

ewtn.com.au/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb124.htm

ewtn.com.au/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb125.htm

Non-NFP continence is going to be necessary at times. That is just life. But it is not necessary to be willing to practice NFP. One can personally reject NFP and yet not be rejecting the virtue of continence.

For example, a spouse for whom the prolonged abstinence required for NFP was too much to bear does not sin in asking their spouse to consider abandoning the method and resuming regular marital relations.

Conversely, merely abstaining from marital relations is not necessarily holier than engaging in marital relations.

 

[jmjZelie]

My experience is somewhat limited because Australia doesn’t have a large traditionalist ‘tradition’ in Catholic circles the way the US does. The ones we’ve experienced were cult like, proudly snobbish about their holiness and aggressive towards Vatican II as a general rule. They give off an impression of locked arm boundaries and active defiance even though there is no actual physical compound… and reject assimilation with others not of their severe rigidity. This global community is where I’ve got to experience the generalised traditionalist moreso than at home.

I am not like that. Nor is anyone else I know in person. I am sorry that you have been exposed to such characters. In America, there are so many people who love the traditional forms of Catholic piety and who also recognize the problems within the Church from the infiltration of Modernism and are trying to promote the beauty of the Faith in the way it was practiced for centuries. Those are the kinds of people I have been blessed to meet.

 

[Rau]

I am not like that. Nor is anyone else I know in person. I am sorry that you have been exposed to such characters. In America, there are so many people who love the traditional forms of Catholic piety and who also recognize the problems within the Church from the infiltration of Modernism and are trying to promote the beauty of the Faith in the way it was practiced for centuries. Those are the kinds of people I have been blessed to meet.

Off-topic I know, but to what kinds of “modernisms” do you refer that infiltrate the Church/cause problems?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Off-topic I know, but to what kinds of “modernisms” do you refer that infiltrate the Church/cause problems?

Ray on several threads you have taken to “baiting” with questions like these. Why?

 

[jmjZelie]

Off-topic I know, but to what kinds of “modernisms” do you refer that infiltrate the Church/cause problems?

That would take hours of discussion. But thankfully, all of the popes of the past century, longer even, had been writing and speaking about the problem of Modernism. Go to the source for the best answers. Happy hunting.

 

[LongingSoul]

Off-topic I know, but to what kinds of “modernisms” do you refer that infiltrate the Church/cause problems?

Rau, only the Pope can be castigated for making ambiguous comments. The ‘holier than the Popes’ who live here can fling out any old thing and not be accountable. How dare you!

 

[Rau]

Ray on several threads you have taken to “baiting” with questions like these. Why?

The subject was introduced by another poster. I have no idea what constitutes Modernism in the Church context. I was curious.

 

[Rau]

That would take hours of discussion. But thankfully, all of the popes of the past century, longer even, had been writing and speaking about the problem of Modernism. Go to the source for the best answers. Happy hunting.

Hours? Just to list a couple of issues??

 

[jmjZelie]

Rau, only the Pope can be castigated for making ambiguous comments. The ‘holier than the Popes’ who live here can fling out any old thing and not be accountable. How dare you!

Wow.

I guess once you get “suspicious” of someone, you become increasingly hostile. No matter how much your initial accusations were mistaken. You don’t care. You will bear false witness about them over and over and over.

 

[jmjZelie]

Hours? Just to list a couple of issues??

Ever heard of the Syllabus of Errors? Written by a pope?

Yeah, not just a couple issues. And it has nothing to do with this thread.

Why are you baiting me?

For your reference
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors

Subsequent popes have written and spoken about Modernism’s infiltration of the Church.

 

[Rau]

Ever heard of the Syllabus of Errors? Written by a pope?

Yeah, not just a couple issues. And it has nothing to do with this thread.

Why are you baiting me?

Never heard of it, but will look it up. Why do you feel baited? Because Hoosier planted the suggestion? Or do you often react that way to genuine open questions?

 

[jmjZelie]

Never heard of it, but will look it up. Why do you feel baited? Because Hoosier planted the suggestion? Or do you often react that way to genuine open questions?

No. I thought about asking you that when I first saw your post. Then later I saw his. If you weren’t baiting, then I am glad I was mistaken. However, considering what has transpired in this thread today, it is a bit…odd…to ask if I always react that way to genuine open questions. Most of what was directed at me today cannot be characterized as such.

 

[Rau]

Ever heard of the Syllabus of Errors? Written by a pope?

Yeah, not just a couple issues. And it has nothing to do with this thread.

Why are you baiting me?

For your reference
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors

Subsequent popes have written and spoken about Modernism’s infiltration of the Church.

Ok, I now understand broadly what it is. My only comment is that much of what was written in the Wiki article is commonly held position among people at large (particularly atheists) but also others, which may be what you mean by infiltrating the Church. I’ve not seen any of it expressed or embraced by Church leaders.

 

[Rau]

No. I thought about asking you that when I first saw your post. Then later I saw his. If you weren’t baiting, then I am glad I was mistaken. However, considering what has transpired in this thread today, it is a bit…odd…to ask if I always react that way to genuine open questions. Most of what was directed at me today cannot be characterized as such.

I asked if you… “often”…, not “always”

 

[jmjZelie]

I asked if you… “often”…, not “always”

Ah, so I see. Well that makes a tremendous difference. Thanks for pointing that out. And you wonder why I asked if you were baiting me?


At least I asked you why simply, and still gave you an answer anyway.

If we are going to quibble about words this much, I don’t like that you used the word “react” instead of “respond”, as it has a hint of implication of irrationality.

Okay your turn. What words do you object to my using in this post: perhaps quibble? Maybe tremendous. Which one am I wrong to use? I need another one to add to my list:

Contraceptive mentality
Modernism
Always
…?

FWIW I am trying to use humor here, but as I have been OFTEN mischaracterized recently, I thought maybe I should mention it, lest it be taken as anger on my part.

 

[Rau]

Ah, so I see. Well that makes a tremendous difference. Thanks for pointing that out. And you wonder why I asked if you were baiting me?


At least I asked you why simply, and still gave you an answer anyway.

If we are going to quibble about words this much, I don’t like that you used the word “react” instead of “respond”, as it has a hint of implication of irrationality.

Okay your turn. What words do you object to my using in this post: perhaps quibble? Maybe tremendous. Which one am I wrong to use? I need another one to add to my list:

Contraceptive mentality
Modernism
Always
…?

FWIW I am trying to use humor here, but as I have been OFTEN mischaracterized recently, I thought maybe I should mention it, lest it be taken as anger on my part.

Not anger, perhaps sarcasm?

 

[jmjZelie]

Not anger, perhaps sarcasm?

Definitely sarcasm. Not anger. Just feeling frustrated.

This has been a long and difficult week already, and I have been feeling lots of pressure. One of my toddlers is potty training this week. I have been more active here lately because there are only so many things one can do while sitting next to a child on the potty chair.

I intended for it to help keep the boredom at bay, but then I got emotionally involved in some of the various threads.

Nothing a good night’s sleep can’t cure. Oh, wait. I didn’t get that either.

Anyway, back to the original question in this thread, yes I think Catholic teenage females should be educated in women’s fertility cycles, and learn how to watch her signs and mark a calendar, but charting to find fertile and infertile days?..no, I won’t be directly teaching that aspect. I do not anticipate teaching my son these details. Seems to me that he has no need of that sort of knowledge, other than the basic information about the fact that males have constant fertility and women are cyclical, and an understanding of what a period is. If and when he discerns marriage with a woman, then he can learn with his soon-to-be wife about the explicit details. So that is how I am planning on addressing it.