Believing NFP is intrinsically sinful

[thewanderer]

Thanks for your reply thewanderer. I think I understand your meaning better now (though still find a lot of trouble with the term).

Is it necessary for one to have an understanding of sex where the unitive and procreative aspects are unified? Is it sinful to deliberately separate out these purposes, whether in practice or in one’s mind?

That depends on what exactly you mean by that… there, unfortunately, isn’t good precise language to use when talking about all this so people get confused. (what I mean by that is that, while the language the church uses, and often that various individuals use, can have very specific meanings, those are often not the meanings commonly attributed to such words in normal speech, and so people often misunderstand what is actually being said)

ok

1. Having an understanding of sex where the unitive and procreative aspects are unified.

Yes, this is essential if by this one means that the two must always be united in the understanding of the meaning and purpose of sexuality. This does not mean that one must focus on the procreative aspect of sex during every act, or that one must always desire both ends, but that one should be careful that their more philosophical understanding of sexuality always have these two united.

1. Is it sinfult to separate the unitive from the procreative in ones practices

Yes, if by this you mean what the Church means in saying that each act must be both unitive and procreative (language which I think is unnecessarily confusing as it doesn’t mean you need to try to conceive every time, rather it means that one should never attempt to render an otherwise fertile - or presumed fertile - act of sex infertile.)
As noted, this does not mean that one must always engage in sex with the intention of conceiving.

Surely not…otherwise a couple who deliberately choose to practise NFP to avoid pregnancy indefinitely, for serious reasons, would be doing something wrong…they want to have sex purely for the unitive purpose and attempt to nullify the procreative purpose…but it is clear that they do nothing wrong.

If you look closely at what is being said then there is no contradiction at all. When a person’s understanding of sexuality embraces both aspects they can still focus more on one than on the other. They can even engage in relations solely with one of these ends in mind and that would not change or contradict the fact that their fundamental understanding of sexuality understands the unity between the unitive and procreative aspects. With NFP a couple abstains with the intent of postponing conception because of prudence. When they engage in relations they do it with the unitive aspect of sexuality in mind, they have not negated the procreative aspect of sexuality from their fundamental understanding, nor have they distorted their act by attempting to render an otherwise fertile act infertile.

So would you say they have a “contraceptive mentality” but it is not sinful…

or

That they do not have a “contraceptive mentality”?

So long as their fundamental understanding of sexuality is not compartmentalized then they do not have a contraceptive mentality.

This distinction is important, because I want to know if the term “contraceptive mentality” is a pejorative term (ie something wrong, sinful) or merely descriptive of a state of mind (where sex need not mean babies) but not necessarily sinful.

I don’t know that I would necessarily say it is sinful, because it is simply an understanding of sexuality, it is certainly incorrect, and will lead one to sinful actions. At the very least, even if it were sinful it would often be the case that people are not culpable for this mindset because it is something that was instilled in them by others around them. It would still be harmful for them, and so bad, but not sinful

What you describe here, I think, illustrates the problems with using this term in such discussions. A couple can contracept (morally wrong) without having a contraceptive mentality. A couple can have a contraceptive mentality but still use NFP with serious reasons (morally right). In both cases, the so called contraceptive mentality is unrelated to the moral issues, so why confuse the discussion by introducing this term? As I said before, there are two relevant issues - contraception or not; serious reasons or not - in the moral consideration of birth control. By your description above, the “contraceptive mentality” is a different issue that may or may not be related.

I did not say that there was no relation between any of these terms. Sorry, I know I’m not always very clear about this and its a confusing subject. I think, in fact, that the use of NFP encourages a healthy attitude towards sex and that the use of contraception encourages an unhealthy mindset, particularly through the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects in the fundamental understanding of sexuality. Because of the fact that contraceptives tend to encourage this particular mindset it has become termed the ‘contraceptive mindset’. However, this contraceptive mindset is not linked with NFP use except accidentally, in fact, NFP use can even discourage this mindset. Does that help clear things up?

 

[underacloud]

That depends on what exactly you mean by that… there, unfortunately, isn’t good precise language to use when talking about all this so people get confused. (what I mean by that is that, while the language the church uses, and often that various individuals use, can have very specific meanings, those are often not the meanings commonly attributed to such words in normal speech, and so people often misunderstand what is actually being said)

This is exactly why introducing another term is unhelpful.

(BTW the Church, via JPII, has on occasion used the term “contraceptive mentality”, but always in the context of the use of contraception. It is the use of the term with regard to NFP that has no basis in Church teaching and only confuses the topic further).

If you look closely at what is being said then there is no contradiction at all. When a person’s understanding of sexuality embraces both aspects they can still focus more on one than on the other. They can even engage in relations solely with one of these ends in mind and that would not change or contradict the fact that their fundamental understanding of sexuality understands the unity between the unitive and procreative aspects. With NFP a couple abstains with the intent of postponing conception because of prudence. When they engage in relations they do it with the unitive aspect of sexuality in mind, they have not negated the procreative aspect of sexuality from their fundamental understanding, nor have they distorted their act by attempting to render an otherwise fertile act infertile.
So long as their fundamental understanding of sexuality is not compartmentalized then they do not have a contraceptive mentality.

As I said before, this further illustrates that NFP cannot be used with a contraceptive mentality, since the use of NFP requires a couple to have a proper understanding of sex, to know that sex has procreation as one of its purposes. They understand and respect this purpose of sex by choosing NFP over contraception.

When someone practices NFP they reject contraception…so it doesn’t make sense to suggest that they can still have a “contraceptive mentality”.

I did not say that there was no relation between any of these terms. Sorry, I know I’m not always very clear about this and its a confusing subject. I think, in fact, that the use of NFP encourages a healthy attitude towards sex and that the use of contraception encourages an unhealthy mindset, particularly through the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects in the fundamental understanding of sexuality. Because of the fact that contraceptives tend to encourage this particular mindset it has become termed the ‘contraceptive mindset’. However, this contraceptive mindset is not linked with NFP use except accidentally, in fact, NFP use can even discourage this mindset. Does that help clear things up?

This can be a confusing topic. But introducing new terms makes it more confusing, not less. We don’t need the term “contraceptive mentality”.

Clearly we feel differently and neither of us is likely to change our view. And we’ve probably both stated our views sufficiently by now. Perhaps this conversation has now run its course? I don’t wish to be rude and leave it where I have had the last word, so feel free to respond further, but if you also think we’re just treading water now we could agree to move on…

 

[ConstantineTG]

Of course, contraception is gravely sinful, and so is using NFP with a contraceptive mentality. However, I’ve encountered some ultraconservative Catholics who claim that using NFP is intrinsically evil no matter what and that married couples with sufficient reason to avoid pregnancy must TOTALLY abstain from sex – even during infertile periods. They further claim the Church is wrong to allow NFP. My question is, while those who condemn NFP as intrinsically evil are obviously mistaken, is it heresy or something like that to believe such a thing? Thanks in advance.

But that is true, NFP is contraception if you use it to avoid getting pregnant. It is no different than using a condom. Sin is not what you do, but the intent of why you do it. So NFP to avoid pregnancy is no different from using a condom.

 

[thewanderer]

This is exactly why introducing another term is unhelpful.

(BTW the Church, via JPII, has on occasion used the term “contraceptive mentality”, but always in the context of the use of contraception. It is the use of the term with regard to NFP that has no basis in Church teaching and only confuses the topic further).

As I said before, this further illustrates that NFP cannot be used with a contraceptive mentality, since the use of NFP requires a couple to have a proper understanding of sex, to know that sex has procreation as one of its purposes. They understand and respect this purpose of sex by choosing NFP over contraception.

When someone practices NFP they reject contraception…so it doesn’t make sense to suggest that they can still have a “contraceptive mentality”.

This can be a confusing topic. But introducing new terms makes it more confusing, not less. We don’t need the term “contraceptive mentality”.

Clearly we feel differently and neither of us is likely to change our view. And we’ve probably both stated our views sufficiently by now. Perhaps this conversation has now run its course? I don’t wish to be rude and leave it where I have had the last word, so feel free to respond further, but if you also think we’re just treading water now we could agree to move on…

Don’t worry, you do not come across as being rude. Perhaps we will need to end the discussion, but, I guess I am just a little confused about why you think I am introducing a new defintion? Unless I am mistaken about what the Church means by a contraceptive mentality that is…
I guess what I was trying to say about NFP and a contraceptive mentality is that it is very unlikely that one would change their whole mentality and understanding of sexuality at the instant they decide to try to use NFP instead of ABC, oftentimes the mindset will carry over while the couple tries to better understand the churches teachings etc. Life doesn’t always work in neat little boxes.

In thinking more about all this I think I understand your problem with the term even more. I think it is true that people often talk of using NFP with a contraceptive mindset to say that they are using it selfishly, and if I am understanding you correctly it is this new defintion of a contraceptive mindset that you have a problem with. I tend to agree with you, this subject is already rife with enough misunderstandings of precise terminology, we don’t need to muddy the water even more. So if you are afraid that that is what I mean by a ‘contraceptive mentality’ please rest assured that it is not at all.

 

[thewanderer]

But that is true, NFP is contraception if you use it to avoid getting pregnant. It is no different than using a condom. Sin is not what you do, but the intent of why you do it. So NFP to avoid pregnancy is no different from using a condom.

That depends what you mean by contraception. As I’ve said before, this whole topic is so confused because of all the equivocation that goes on.

 

[LJN21]

Perhaps we will need to end the discussion, but, I guess I am just a little confused about why you think I am introducing a new defintion? Unless I am mistaken about what the Church means by a contraceptive mentality that is…

Just to address the one little point. The Church does not use the term when talking about NFP. It ONLY uses the term when talking about contraception with the default meaning of the term. The default meaning being, contraception leads to more abortions it doesn’t reduce them and they create moral decay and perversion society.

lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_10contraceptivrmind.html
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3417

 

[tominrichmond]

Really I think the biological drive vs abstinence is about the best way to tell if you reasons are just enough.

That’s a totally unrealistic view. Some couples would certainly abstain even against their “biological drive” if it meant avoiding the at least eighteen year expense and commitment involved in raising a child. Exactly why no one should presume to be their own judge in a decision which implicates grave moral fault if the wrong choice is made.

Your oft-repeated statement that “logically” NFP cannot be contraception is absurd. I do not think you know what that word means, to paraphrase a certain movie character.

According to a standard dictionary, contraception is defined as:

Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

My emphasis added. NFP is nothing other than engaging in sexual practices–fertility monitoring and periodic abstinence-- intentionally to prevent conception.

Therefore, NFP is a contraceptive method, it can be used as such by people wanting to avoid conception. It’s a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or for ill.

It’s amazing that anyone can believe that there is not widespread abuse of the permission to use periodic abstinence for grave reasons, if they simply look at the birth rate among our wealthy American Catholic families, which is practically the same as among the general population.

 

[LJN21]

Your oft-repeated statement that “logically” NFP cannot be contraception is absurd. I do not think you know what that word means, to paraphrase a certain movie character.

Well, that is an ironic statement.

According to a standard dictionary, contraception is defined as:
My emphasis added. NFP is nothing other than engaging in sexual practices–fertility monitoring and periodic abstinence-- intentionally to prevent conception .

We are arguing the morality of NFP, (as in, it’s NOT contraception) in Catholic terms, so it would be more appropriate to use a use a catholic dictionary

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=32788

CONTRACEPTION. Deliberate interference with marital intercourse in order to prevent conception. It is the performance of the marriage act with the positive frustration of conception. Also called conjugal onanism, from the sin of Onan, referred to in the Bible (Genesis 38:8-10); Neo-Malthusianism from the name of the English sociologist Malthus (1766-1834); it is popularly termed birth control, where those concerned with high birthrates have come to equate contraception with population control.
The Catholic Church has forbidden contraception from earliest times, and the number of papal statements dealing with the subject indicates the Church’s constant tradition. In modern times the most significant document was Humanae Vitae in 1968 by Paul VI. After referring to the long history of the Church’s teaching, he declared that the “direct interruption of the generative process already begun,” even though done for therapeutic reasons, is to be “absolutely excluded as a licit means of regulating birth.” Equally to be excluded is direct sterilization for contraceptive reasons. “Similarly excluded is every action that, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, purposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae, II, 14).
Few aspects of Christian morality in modern times have given rise to more difficulties of conscience than the Catholic doctrine on contraception. This was reflected in Paul’s admission, shortly after Humanae Vitae: “How many times we have trembled before the alternatives of an easy condescension to current opinions.”
One of the results of the Church’s teaching on contraception has been to emphasize her right to teach the faithful, even to binding them gravely in conscience, in matters that pertain to the natural law. Yet the basic motivation offered to married people to live up to this difficult teaching is highly supernatural, namely the prospect of loving one another in such a way that they will share the fruits of their affection with another person whom their mutual love will bring into being.

Emphasis mine. It is very clear that the act of contraception is a positive action taken on the part of the couple. Not having sex is a negative action, not a positive one.

Therefore, NFP is a contraceptive method, it can be used as such by people wanting to avoid conception. It’s a tool and like any tool it can be used for good or for ill.

It is most certainly not a contraceptive method.
A “birth control” as in “the regulating of births” it is, and is not against Catholic teaching in any way.
ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/MORMAR.TXT

Let this be made quite clear. The Catholic Church is not opposed
to rational birth-control as an end. Catholics, of course, do not
agree with the propaganda for birth-control based on the
difficulties of present social and economic conditions. Blessings
should not be surrendered when the causes making them difficult
can be changed. It should be intolerable that in a world of
plenty many parents are unable to have as many children as they
would like and could have, were the social structure not so
unjust. Nor can Catholics admit the disinclination to have
children because they are tiresome and worrying. Marriage is not
a perpetual honeymoon, but a serious responsibility, and none the
less happy for that.

The Catholic Church’s condemnation is directed at the means
employed for birth-control. What is opposed is not birth-control
or the regulation of births, but certain methods of ensuring
this. They are generally without qualification called birth
control, but more accurately they should be classed under the
term of contraception. They consist in altering or interfering
with the natural character of sex-intercourse, or its antecedent
or consequent processes. They are species of injustice or of
impurity: of injustice when the family and social quality of sex
is affected; of impurity when the sex impulse itself is
disorganized. All wrongful methods of birth-control fall under
these heads. Unjust methods may be reduced to sterilization and
abortion, impure methods to onanism.

It even defines what contraception is in this document: “They consist in altering or interfering with the natural character of sex-intercourse, or its antecedent
or consequent processes.”
Again, Contraception as defined in Catholicism is a positive action on the sexual union to render it sterile.

Continued…

 

[LJN21]

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
Humanae Vitae:

With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts,** decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time. **
Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

Here we have Humanae Vitae also stating that Birth Control is licit for serious reasons and due respect to moral precepts.
Humanae Vitae:

Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the

direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.
Again we have a pretty good working definition of contraception here too. “ …any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.” Then later it goes on to say:
Humanae Vitae:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse 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.

Either abstinence is not an ‘action’ (or practice ) or Humanae Vitiae just contradicted itself.

It’s amazing that anyone can believe that there is not widespread abuse of the permission to use periodic abstinence for grave reasons, if they simply look at the birth rate among our wealthy American Catholic families, which is practically the same as among the general population.

What is even more amazing is your assumption that this is the result of a national and widespread usage of NFP, instead of the more logical thought that it is due to the continued rejection by Catholics of the Church teachings on Contraception.

I’m also going to refer you back to Post #5 (forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9732647&postcount=5) which in brief complied more the teaching than I have here. Don’t forget to read the part about dissent from proclaimed teachings of the Church.

 

[thewanderer]

Just to address the one little point. The Church does not use the term when talking about NFP. It ONLY uses the term when talking about contraception with the default meaning of the term. The default meaning being, contraception leads to more abortions it doesn’t reduce them and they create moral decay and perversion society.

lifeissues.net/writers/clo/clo_10contraceptivrmind.html
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3417

Which would make perfect sense with my description of it. It is the mentality that use of contraception fosters. Which is where it gets its name, which is why it is rightly focused on. But mentalities don’t change in a day.

 

[LJN21]

Which would make perfect sense with my description of it. It is the mentality that use of contraception fosters. Which is where it gets its name, which is why it is rightly focused on. But mentalities don’t change in a day.

Find for me one, even just ONE couple or writer who talks about “We are using NFP because it’s the only moral way to regulate births, and if that fails we can always get an abortion” If you can do that, I will grant you NFP can be used with a “Contraception Mentality”. Otherwise, I know of no person, couple, or teaching regarding NFP where the implicit end if NFP failed was going to result in an abortion.

“If my contraception fails I can get an abortion” IS the “contraception mentality”.
“I want to have sex with my wife when she is infertile, but not have babies right now, so we will use moral and licit means to do that” IS NOT contraception mentality. It’s the lawful regulation of births mentality.

“Contraception Mentality” and use of NFP do not exist together.

 

[thewanderer]

Find for me one, even just ONE couple or writer who talks about “We are using NFP because it’s the only moral way to regulate births, and if that fails we can always get an abortion” If you can do that, I will grant you NFP can be used with a “Contraception Mentality”. Otherwise, I know of no person, couple, or teaching regarding NFP where the implicit end if NFP failed was going to result in an abortion.

“If my contraception fails I can get an abortion” IS the “contraception mentality”.
“I want to have sex with my wife when she is infertile, but not have babies right now, so we will use moral and licit means to do that” IS NOT contraception mentality. It’s the lawful regulation of births mentality.

“Contraception Mentality” and use of NFP do not exist together.

So you want to narrow the mentality that contraception encourages to abortion. Ok, if you insist on narrowing it to that then I can see why you dislike my use of the term. I am simply using it as the mentality that contraception encourages. While accepting abortion as good is certainly one of the things encouraged by using contraception it is not the only thing, and, in fact, accepting abortion as good stems from the segregation in a persons mind of the unitive and procreative aspeccts of human sexuality.

I’m sorry if I’m upsetting you by this conversation, I really don’t mean to be and I hope you can recognize that. I am merely trying to figure out what exactly is the mentality that comes from widespread use of contraceptives, since whatever that is is the contraceptive mentality. Now if you want to narrow the meaning to only refer to abortion and not the entire mentality that comes from contraception, be my guest, but please appreciate that I see no reason to narrow the meaning of this further and turn it into another specially used term with a different meaning than the words themselves actually suggest. There are enough of those in this whole topic already.

 

[tominrichmond]

It is mere equivocation to continue to claim that NFP is not a contraceptive method. I told you what a commonly accepted definition of contraception is, and that NFP fits clearly within that definition.
In addition to the former definition of contraception I’ve produced, here’s another one from the American heritage dictionary:

the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means. Artificial methods in common use include preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum (using condoms, diaphragms, etc.), inhibiting ovulation (using oral contraceptive pills), preventing implantation (using intrauterine devices), killing the sperm (using spermicides), and preventing the sperm from entering the seminal fluid (by vasectomy). Natural methods include the rhythm method and coitus interruptus

Now from the American bishops’ own website we learn that:

NFP is an umbrella term for certain methods used to achieve and avoid pregnancies. These methods are based on observation of the naturally occurring signs and symptoms of the fertile and infertile phases of a woman’s menstrual cycle. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy abstain from intercourse and genital contact during the fertile phase of the woman’s cycle.

Yet for some reason, you want to maintain that NFP is not a contraceptive method. I’m not sure why, since even vehemently pro-NFP folks must admit that NFP ***can be used in a way that violates the stated reasons for it’s legitimate use. Again, NFP is not something beyond critique, it is simply a tool, a way of avoiding (or more rarely, achieving) conception. HOW and in what manner ***a couple uses this tool decides whether there is sin involved or not. It can be used in conformity with the Church’s current view of it, or it can be used with an explicit desire to avoid pregnancy without any just cause at all, and simply to satisfy a couple’s materialism and desire to live a child-free life. In the former case a couple does not sin. In the latter case, they do. Both use NFP. NFP is not some doctrine of the Faith that can’t be questioned, it’s just a clever way to avoid conception that the Church has apparently approved in certain circumstances.

And while some certainly get upset at the idea that NFP is allowed at all, it seems a much larger contingent gets awfully defensive at the suggestion that there might be a problem with the way NFP is too often presented and practiced.

Guess it all depends on who’s ox is being gored.

 

[thewanderer]

It is mere equivocation to continue to claim that NFP is not a contraceptive method. I told you what a commonly accepted definition of contraception is, and that NFP fits clearly within that definition.
In addition to the former definition of contraception I’ve produced, here’s another one from the American heritage dictionary:

Now from the American bishops’ own website we learn that:

Yet for some reason, you want to maintain that NFP is not a contraceptive method. I’m not sure why, since even vehemently pro-NFP folks must admit that NFP ***can be used in a way that violates the stated reasons for it’s legitimate use. Again, NFP is not something beyond critique, it is simply a tool, a way of avoiding (or more rarely, achieving) conception. HOW and in what manner ***a couple uses this tool decides whether there is sin involved or not. It can be used in conformity with the Church’s current view of it, or it can be used with an explicit desire to avoid pregnancy without any just cause at all, and simply to satisfy a couple’s materialism and desire to live a child-free life. In the former case a couple does not sin. In the latter case, they do. Both use NFP. NFP is not some doctrine of the Faith that can’t be questioned, it’s just a clever way to avoid conception that the Church has apparently approved in certain circumstances.

And while some certainly get upset at the idea that NFP is allowed at all, it seems a much larger contingent gets awfully defensive at the suggestion that there might be a problem with the way NFP is too often presented and practiced.

Guess it all depends on who’s ox is being gored.

The problem is that you are confusing the commonly held definition of contraception to the more narrow definition which the Church condems. I’ve noted this several times already, but this particular subject is wrought with an unbelievvalbe number of misunderstandings based on the equivocation that is produced through the difference in the meanings of words as commonly used and as used by the Church in her precise, restricted, sense that is necessary for clearly explaining her teachings. If you confuse the two you are going to get nowhere.

The church does not condem contraception as generally used to mean “the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means” but rather it defines the word ‘contraception’ in a much narrower way that does not include periodic abstinance. The Church is not being contradictory here, people just don’t understand what the Church’s actual teachings are.

 

[LJN21]

It is mere equivocation to continue to claim that NFP is not a contraceptive method. I told you what a commonly accepted definition of contraception is, and that NFP fits clearly within that definition.
In addition to the former definition of contraception I’ve produced, here’s another one from the American heritage dictionary:

Now from the American bishops’ own website we learn that:

Yet for some reason, you want to maintain that NFP is not a contraceptive method. I’m not sure why, since even vehemently pro-NFP folks must admit that NFP ***can be used in a way that violates the stated reasons for it’s legitimate use. Again, NFP is not something beyond critique, it is simply a tool, a way of avoiding (or more rarely, achieving) conception. HOW and in what manner ***a couple uses this tool decides whether there is sin involved or not. It can be used in conformity with the Church’s current view of it, or it can be used with an explicit desire to avoid pregnancy without any just cause at all, and simply to satisfy a couple’s materialism and desire to live a child-free life. In the former case a couple does not sin. In the latter case, they do. Both use NFP. NFP is not some doctrine of the Faith that can’t be questioned, it’s just a clever way to avoid conception that the Church has apparently approved in certain circumstances.

And while some certainly get upset at the idea that NFP is allowed at all, it seems a much larger contingent gets awfully defensive at the suggestion that there might be a problem with the way NFP is too often presented and practiced.

Guess it all depends on who’s ox is being gored.

Let me show you what happens when you don’t get your terms correct, using use the exact same logic you are using, but for another Catholic Doctrine:

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Cannibalism as:

1. A person who eats the flesh of other humans.

And from the USCCB’s OWN website, we read:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

And we further read:

“Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my** body** which is given for you” and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my** blood**."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Based on this logic, we KNOW consuming the Eucharist is cannibalism, Christ came down to earth, became man, and we eat His flesh and drink His blood.
Yet for some reason, Catholics want to maintain this is NOT cannibalism, because they found some little loophole about it “maintaining the appearance of bread and wine” and the Church has legitimized it. Yet, while a very small contingent of Catholics do view this as cannibalism, a much larger contingent gets awfully defensive at the suggestion this might be cannibalism.

See how easy that was by ignoring the nuances involved in the whole matter?

At the end of the day, your understanding of what constitutes “Contraception” is flawed, and because NFP fits into your flawed definition, you insist on maintaining it is. If you want to continue to insist that, I can’t change your mind, but that is NOT the teaching of the Church, and your continuing to insist that it does contradicts Her revealed truth.

 

[LJN21]

At the end of the day, your understanding of what constitutes “Contraception” is flawed, and because NFP fits into your flawed definition, you insist on maintaining it is. If you want to continue to insist that, I can’t change your mind, but that is NOT the teaching of the Church, and your continuing to insist that it does contradicts Her revealed truth.

Presented below is my evidence from my earlier statement.

From FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO by JPII

(vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html)

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of “total” self-giving. Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.

**When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(90)

In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. **The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.

Notice the absolute separation of terms “Contraception” and recourse to the natural “Rhythm” of fertile and infertile cycles. They are even irreconcilable in scope and vision with each other.

 

[LJN21]

So you want to narrow the mentality that contraception encourages to abortion. Ok, if you insist on narrowing it to that then I can see why you dislike my use of the term. I am simply using it as the mentality that contraception encourages. While accepting abortion as good is certainly one of the things encouraged by using contraception it is not the only thing, and, in fact, accepting abortion as good stems from the segregation in a persons mind of the unitive and procreative aspeccts of human sexuality.

I’m not narrowing the definition, you are broadening it. Okay let’s look at what **stems from ** contraception:

Abortion
Sexual promiscuity
Fornication
The Myth of “safe sex”
The myth of “casual sex”
The undermining of Catholic Doctrine
The objectification of women

Now tell me which of those also stem from use of NFP? Tell me which of those outcomes a couple practicing NFP is going to hold or arrive at because of use of NFP?

I’m sorry if I’m upsetting you by this conversation, I really don’t mean to be and I hope you can recognize that. I am merely trying to figure out what exactly is the mentality that comes from widespread use of contraceptives, since whatever that is is the contraceptive mentality. Now if you want to narrow the meaning to only refer to abortion and not the entire mentality that comes from contraception, be my guest, but please appreciate that I see no reason to narrow the meaning of this further and turn it into another specially used term with a different meaning than the words themselves actually suggest. There are enough of those in this whole topic already.

I’m definitely not upset at all, exasperated is more accurate.

If you don’t know what the term means, why are you adding in ideas to what it might mean? Where do you get the idea “NFP is wrong when practiced with the contraception mentality” if you don’t know what it is?

As you said, let us look at the words themselves for a moment. “Contraceptive” “Mentality”. NFP is not contraception, so I’m not sure how that comes into the picture. It’s a method, not a mentality, so I’m not sure how that comes into the picture. Yep, I can’t understand why people try to fit contraceptive mentality and NFP into the “better not do this” category. If you are practicing NFP, you have already embraced the opposite of every outcome of contraception.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m not narrowing the definition, you are broadening it. Okay let’s look at what **stems from **contraception:

Abortion
Sexual promiscuity
Fornication
The Myth of “safe sex”
The myth of “casual sex”
The undermining of Catholic Doctrine
The objectification of women

Now tell me which of those also stem from use of NFP? Tell me which of those outcomes a couple practicing NFP is going to hold or arrive at because of use of NFP?

I would just like to say that if you think I am claiming that any of these stem from NFP then you have Seriously misunderstood what I am saying. I have in fact said the opposite quite explicitly multiple times so I really don’t know why in the world you would think I hold such a position.

I’m definitely not upset at all, exasperated is more accurate.

I truly am sorry for that, I am not trying to be difficult, but especially from this post I believe the problem is that you still do not understand exactly what it is that I am saying and what I am not saying.

If you don’t know what the term means, why are you adding in ideas to what it might mean? Where do you get the idea “NFP is wrong when practiced with the contraception mentality” if you don’t know what it is?

Where did I ever say that NFP is wrong when practiced with a contraceptive mentality? I said that NFP is wrong when practiced for selfish reasons, I said that a contraceptive mentality is wrong, and I have said that it is possible, for a contraceptive mentality to exist in a couple who is also, though unrelatedly, practicing NFP.

As you said, let us look at the words themselves for a moment. “Contraceptive” “Mentality”. NFP is not contraception, so I’m not sure how that comes into the picture. It’s a method, not a mentality, so I’m not sure how that comes into the picture. Yep, I can’t understand why people try to fit contraceptive mentality and NFP into the “better not do this” category. If you are practicing NFP, you have already embraced the opposite of every outcome of contraception.

I am not talking about outcomes, thats the whole point. I am talking about a fundamental understanding of sexuality and the consequences thereof. I am quite confident that you believe I am saying, or at least implying, much that I have no intention of implying.

 

[underacloud]

Don’t worry, you do not come across as being rude. Perhaps we will need to end the discussion, but, I guess I am just a little confused about why you think I am introducing a new defintion? Unless I am mistaken about what the Church means by a contraceptive mentality that is…
I guess what I was trying to say about NFP and a contraceptive mentality is that it is very unlikely that one would change their whole mentality and understanding of sexuality at the instant they decide to try to use NFP instead of ABC, oftentimes the mindset will carry over while the couple tries to better understand the churches teachings etc. Life doesn’t always work in neat little boxes.

I do see what you mean here now. Of course, such a couple should be congratulated for their obedience to the Church even when their understanding of the reasons is lacking, and hopefully over time their understanding will improve. Church teachings on contraception are hard to understand and to follow, especially if one has come from a secular background.

I’m not sure that fits into how JPII has used the term, which consistently has been with regard to the use of contraception and the negative attitudes to life (eg acceptance of abortion) and sex (merely recreational) that it fosters. But I see your point that a couple new to NFP could still hold some such attitudes to a degree. Unfortunately JPII cannot elaborate any further for us now, but we can wait to see how the term is used in the future.

In thinking more about all this I think I understand your problem with the term even more. I think it is true that people often talk of using NFP with a contraceptive mindset to say that they are using it selfishly, and if I am understanding you correctly it is this new defintion of a contraceptive mindset that you have a problem with. I tend to agree with you, this subject is already rife with enough misunderstandings of precise terminology, we don’t need to muddy the water even more. So if you are afraid that that is what I mean by a ‘contraceptive mentality’ please rest assured that it is not at all.

Yes, this is precisely my concern. I think we understand each other much better now.

 

[ahs]

But that is true, NFP is contraception if you use it to avoid getting pregnant. It is no different than using a condom. Sin is not what you do, but the intent of why you do it. So NFP to avoid pregnancy is no different from using a condom.

You are confusing birth regulation with contraception…or lumping them into 1 basket. Birth regulation is not a sin. Contraception is. Using NFP to avoid getting pregnant is birth regulation and, according to the Church, "represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood.” (CCC 2399). Contraception is an act to deliberately thwart the procreative nature of a sexual union. Here is a better clarification from the Compendium of the CCC:

1. When is it moral to regulate births?
   2368-2369
   2399
   The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
2. What are immoral means of birth control?
   2370-2372
   Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation. (Compendium of the Catechism, Pope Benedict XVI)

So, NFP to avoid pregnancy is as different from using a condom as abstinence from fatty foods (to avoid getting fat) is from practicing bulimia.

And just in case you have misunderstood and believe somehow that regulation and contraception are the same, and the Church’s doctrine somehow contradicts itself:

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love. (HV 16)