Believing NFP is intrinsically sinful

[manualman]

I’ve never found the term “contraceptive mentality” to be helpful in these discussions.

I actually do! Church teaching on human sexuality can be boiled down (IMO) to this:
“Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are NOT three separate subjects, but different facets of ONE jewel. Taking action to intentionally separate out one facet from the jewel inevitably destroys the jewel in the process instead.”

When you think about it, this is the underlying principle behind ALL those pesky catholic teachings our society has so rejected: fornication, adultery, IVF, contraception, homosexuality… All these things are attempts to carve off one or more facets from the jewel.

A “contraceptive mentality” is one in which a couple wants the marriage and the sexual intimacy, but wants these things to be entirely unrelated to babies. If you have this attitude while practicing NFP, you will be bitter and resentful about the NFP (been there!). The couple who needs to practice NFP (to avoid) and struggles to be grateful for the opportunities they DO have for intimacy, is reminded monthly of how profoundly sex and babies are interconnected. The couple grouchy about how often they have to abstain is perhaps developing a distorted sense of what sexual intimacy really IS.

To your point, a “contraceptive mentality” is one in which sexual intimacy has nothing to do with having babies unless one WILLS it to. Their jewel is broken.

 

[SusanneT]

I actually do! Church teaching on human sexuality can be boiled down (IMO) to this:
“Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are NOT three separate subjects, but different facets of ONE jewel. Taking action to intentionally separate out one facet from the jewel inevitably destroys the jewel in the process instead.”

When you think about it, this is the underlying principle behind ALL those pesky catholic teachings our society has so rejected: fornication, adultery, IVF, contraception, homosexuality… All these things are attempts to carve off one or more facets from the jewel.

A “contraceptive mentality” is one in which a couple wants the marriage and the sexual intimacy, but wants these things to be entirely unrelated to babies. If you have this attitude while practicing NFP, you will be bitter and resentful about the NFP (been there!). The couple who needs to practice NFP (to avoid) and struggles to be grateful for the opportunities they DO have for intimacy, is reminded monthly of how profoundly sex and babies are interconnected. The couple grouchy about how often they have to abstain is perhaps developing a distorted sense of what sexual intimacy really IS.

To your point, a “contraceptive mentality” is one in which sexual intimacy has nothing to do with having babies unless one WILLS it to. Their jewel is broken.

Well put !

 

[LJN21]

A “contraceptive mentality” is one in which a couple wants the marriage and the sexual intimacy, but wants these things to be entirely unrelated to babies. If you have this attitude while practicing NFP, you will be bitter and resentful about the NFP (been there!). The couple who needs to practice NFP (to avoid) and struggles to be grateful for the opportunities they DO have for intimacy, is reminded monthly of how profoundly sex and babies are interconnected. The couple grouchy about how often they have to abstain is perhaps developing a distorted sense of what sexual intimacy really IS.

To your point, a “contraceptive mentality” is one in which sexual intimacy has nothing to do with having babies unless one WILLS it to. Their jewel is broken.

I disagree completely. Being grouchy about NFP can have a million different reasons, my husband and I have been there and it had nothing to do with a “contraceptive mentality” but a lack of maturity. Boiling down the fact you are still growing in the your faith, spirituality and maturity to a phrase does nothing to fix the underlying issues with your character.

 

[LJN21]

Also show me in Church teaching where it using NFP with just reason and a bad attitude constitutes the dreaded “contraceptive mentality” and should be avoided at all costs?

I’m pretty sure what it does say is period abstinence can help foster other virtues. Maybe, that’s because it tends to highlight parts in your character that are flawed and need work. Frustration and grumpiness aren’t sign of the sin of contraceptive mentality but signs of a soul in need of purifying.

 

[manualman]

I didn’t think I made an “all couples that have trouble with NFP have a contraceptive mentality” comment. What I said was that given church teaching on the connectedness of marriage, sex and babies, I’d expect that all couples using NFP that genuinely DO have this ‘contraceptive mentality’ would be grumpy and resentful about the abstinance times. See the difference?

Sure other things can make NFP difficult. But if you consistently resent the abstinance times, it’s worth examing your conscience over. I’m sure glad I did, because recognizing the way in which I had spiritually tried to decouple sex and procreation allowed me to repent of it, be forgiven and start healing my outlook on sexual intimacy. Funny thing happened when I did that. The abstinance times no longer looked like a burden to bear and became a reminder of the deeper meaning of what sex IS. It wasn’t an overnight change in mindset, but it did slowly come.

 

[LJN21]

I didn’t think I made an “all couples that have trouble with NFP have a contraceptive mentality” comment. What I said was that given church teaching on the connectedness of marriage, sex and babies, I’d expect that all couples using NFP that genuinely DO have this ‘contraceptive mentality’ would be grumpy and resentful about the abstinance times. See the difference?

I see the difference I just think the idea is still flawed. If you are grumpy and upset and resentful there is something else wrong with your character. It has nothing to do with contraception or the mentality behind it. Frankly, I think NFP is do dynamically opposed to the idea contraception that the mentality is not possible. Its a hijacked phase to give people something to feel guilty about.

Sure other things can make NFP difficult. But if you consistently resent the abstinance times, it’s worth examing your conscience over. I’m sure glad I did, because recognizing the way in which I had spiritually tried to decouple sex and procreation allowed me to repent of it, be forgiven and start healing my outlook on sexual intimacy. Funny thing happened when I did that. The abstinance times no longer looked like a burden to bear and became a reminder of the deeper meaning of what sex IS. It wasn’t an overnight change in mindset, but it did slowly come.

I don’t see a contraceptive mentality, I see an immature understand of the fullness of the marital act. Abstinence made you cranky, you sat down to figure out why you were cranky and you through His grace you fix the issue and became closer to God. There is nothing in Contraception that makes that even possible. All contraception does is take you farther form God.

This pretty well sums up how I feel on it.
crisismagazine.com/2011/nfp-the-myth-of-the-%E2%80%9Ccontraceptive-mentality%E2%80%9D

 

[ahs]

It seems to me the issue of ‘a contraceptive mentality’ is key but also very hard to pin down.

…It is a fact that most Catholics practise contraception in part because they don’t trust NFP - but I don’t think a (disputed) lack of effectiveness renders NFP automatically acceptable (if it did, why not withdrawal, condoms etc). It is intention which counts.

I know when we used NFP we did it because I didn’t want to get pregnant, we didn’t want another baby (for a time at least) and had I got pregnant I would have been mortified. and regarded it as a failure of NFP. I’m 100% sure I’m not alone in feeling that way !? We would never use contraceptives, but to me that iwas having a contraceptive mentality and therefore sinful…

…A “contraceptive mentality” is one in which a couple wants the marriage and the sexual intimacy, but wants these things to be entirely unrelated to babies. If you have this attitude while practicing NFP, you will be bitter and resentful about the NFP (been there!)…

I see what you are both saying. Where I think NFP’rs differ from those with a true “contraceptive mentality” is here: Someone with such a mentality is not going to stick it out with NFP. NFP is difficult, especially in the abstinence period. But what have you both related as experience? You stuck it out…you continued to evaluate the need to avoid, communicate/pray, etc…instead of taking the eay route of contraception. People with that “contraceptive mentality” do not use NFP…and it they do, they don’t stick with it. Those people will contracept. I dare say that a couple who sticks with NFP is showing proof positive that they do not have this “contraceptive mentality” because, even though they KNOW that every sexual act has SOME potential for leading to procreation, they choose not to use contraception.

 

[ahs]

And to put this thread back on topic:

No, it isn’t heresy:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

It is a failure to give religious assent:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

And, it would be the sin of scandal if their erroneous judgments led someone to sin by falling into despair.

Yes, this makes sense.

Clarification question though:
So, does this mean it would be “Incredulity”, but not to the degree of heresy? Or does that paragraph mean that incredulity and heresy are 2 different things?

 

[underacloud]

I actually do! Church teaching on human sexuality can be boiled down (IMO) to this:
“Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are NOT three separate subjects, but different facets of ONE jewel. Taking action to intentionally separate out one facet from the jewel inevitably destroys the jewel in the process instead.”

When you think about it, this is the underlying principle behind ALL those pesky catholic teachings our society has so rejected: fornication, adultery, IVF, contraception, homosexuality… All these things are attempts to carve off one or more facets from the jewel.

A “contraceptive mentality” is one in which a couple wants the marriage and the sexual intimacy, but wants these things to be entirely unrelated to babies. If you have this attitude while practicing NFP, you will be bitter and resentful about the NFP (been there!). The couple who needs to practice NFP (to avoid) and struggles to be grateful for the opportunities they DO have for intimacy, is reminded monthly of how profoundly sex and babies are interconnected. The couple grouchy about how often they have to abstain is perhaps developing a distorted sense of what sexual intimacy really IS.

To your point, a “contraceptive mentality” is one in which sexual intimacy has nothing to do with having babies unless one WILLS it to. Their jewel is broken.

But once again the “definition” is imprecise and actually does not represent Church teaching well.

A couple who has a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy indefinitely may licitly use NFP to minimise (with perfect use of NFP even negate) the chance of babies. They want sex for its unitive purpose and want to minimise/negate its procreative potential, even though they remained ordered to procreation. This is totally OK, but would seem to fit into your notion of “contraceptive mentality”.

We may not separate the unitive and procreative purposes of sex. But when serious reasons exist, we don’t have to want the procreative purpose and can cooperate with nature to avoid it.

Given that the Church has clear teachings on NFP, I see no need to make up a term like “contraceptive mentality” that has a vague meaning and potentially obfuscates the issues rather than clarifies them.

 

[underacloud]

I disagree completely. Being grouchy about NFP can have a million different reasons, my husband and I have been there and it had nothing to do with a “contraceptive mentality” but a lack of maturity. Boiling down the fact you are still growing in the your faith, spirituality and maturity to a phrase does nothing to fix the underlying issues with your character.

I’ll also point out that there are some couples for whom the reason to avoid pregancy is so serious, and perhaps the woman’s fertile signs so difficult to read, that their practice of NFP limits sex to but one or two times per cycle. This can be a great source of frustration, grumpiness, etc. I would think their grumpiness is not a sign of sin, of some sort of “contraceptive mentality”, or immaturity, but simply a cross that they have to bear and offer to God. Their suffering is real and their emotions (grumpiness) natural. They practice NFP with the explicit goal of avoiding pregnancy, completely in line with Church teaching. Yet somehow people think they are doing something wrong?

 

[LJN21]

I’ll also point out that there are some couples for whom the reason to avoid pregancy is so serious, and perhaps the woman’s fertile signs so difficult to read, that their practice of NFP limits sex to but one or two times per cycle. This can be a great source of frustration, grumpiness, etc. I would think their grumpiness is not a sign of sin, of some sort of “contraceptive mentality”, or immaturity, but simply a cross that they have to bear and offer to God. Their suffering is real and their emotions (grumpiness) natural. They practice NFP with the explicit goal of avoiding pregnancy, completely in line with Church teaching. Yet somehow people think they are doing something wrong?

 

[helplesspilgrim]

I’ll also point out that there are some couples for whom the reason to avoid pregancy is so serious, and perhaps the woman’s fertile signs so difficult to read, that their practice of NFP limits sex to but one or two times per cycle. This can be a great source of frustration, grumpiness, etc. I would think their grumpiness is not a sign of sin, of some sort of “contraceptive mentality”, or immaturity, but simply a cross that they have to bear and offer to God. Their suffering is real and their emotions (grumpiness) natural. They practice NFP with the explicit goal of avoiding pregnancy, completely in line with Church teaching. Yet somehow people think they are doing something wrong?

You basically just described our situation. Except it’s 0 times a month. Yes it tends to make people grumpy and depressed. We try not to show it, and definitely not to each other, but i’d say it’s probably noticable when people look deep into our souls that there is a profound sadness.

 

[manualman]

A couple who has a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy indefinitely may licitly use NFP to minimise (with perfect use of NFP even negate) the chance of babies. They want sex for its unitive purpose and want to minimise/negate its procreative potential, even though they remained ordered to procreation. This is totally OK, but would seem to fit into your notion of “contraceptive mentality”.

It doesn’t fit into my notion of ‘contraceptive mentality’, but perhaps it still appears that way to some in print. I fully acknowledge my distinct fallibility in communication skills!

Even if a couple has a serious need to use NFP conservatively to be 100% sure not to conceive, they are much less likely to develop a ‘contraceptive mentality’. The definition I use of the term is this: “Contraceptive mentality - a mindset in which sexual intimacy by its nature has nothing to do with conceiving children unless one WILLS it to have that function.” The couple in question monthly deals with a fertile time in which they cannot physically expresse their love. By that sacrifice, they maintain a ‘procreative mentality’ in which sex does indeed have an innate link to having babies, even though they have serious reason not to get pregnant.

By contrast, a couple in which the woman has a pill to take every morning or the man has a sheath to install during foreplay is innately pushed towards growing to think of sex and baby-making as entirely unrelated topics. See the difference?

 

[LJN21]

“Contraceptive mentality - a mindset in which sexual intimacy by its nature has nothing to do with conceiving children unless one WILLS it to have that function.”

Really? This idea has nothing to do with Church teaching on the subject and is a logical fallacy. It is more of the “safe-sex” mentality than the “contraceptive” one. ANY time you have sex there is a ‘risk’ in getting pregnant. Anyone engaging in the act should already know this.

I mean I see what your saying but I just don’t even see how its remotely possibly if the couple knows anything about the birds and the bees.

 

[LJN21]

So, I was thinking about it while I was cleaning a bit.
Here is what I don't get. The phrase "contraceptive mentality" is not once used in any Church document on the licitness of periodic abstinence. We have documents talking about the fact its licit as long as the couple has **just reason** since the 1800's. It seems the questions started at that point, because the science was getting better, making it easier to more accurately tell fertility, but I fail to believe that women and midwives didn't have a pretty good idea how things work and the "calender" method isn't WAY older than that. The term "contraceptive mentality" as far as I can find has only been around since the '60's and it was coined talking about how contraception doesn't lower the number of abortions, it increases them. Contraception in one form or another has been around forever, earliest Church document, that I know of, condemning it was 80 AD the bible talks about it ect.. So, logically speaking, if both things have been around for hundreds of years and if there is some sin other than selfishness (which the Church does talk about) that is possible to commit, wouldn't they have addressed it at some point? How does a nebulous term that everyone has a different definition of and the Church as never used, do anything to help farther any conversation on the subject?

 

[tominrichmond]

Technically, denying the liceity of NFP is not denying a doctrine of the Church, so it is not heresy. But denying any magisterial moral pronouncement of the Church is temerarious at best and proximate to the heresy of denying the Church’s infallibility in matters of morals.

The problem with NFP is not that it is not permitted by the Church (it is) but that the terms of that permission are so often abused, misused, misunderstood and open to overly broad interpretation. Frankly the Church is partly to blame, because where the Church used to be pretty specific about such matters, now it is very vague.

So: what is a “just cause” or “good reason” that would alone permit recourse to NFP? Well, that has never been definitively spelled out, and so an individual couple is making their own decision as to whether there is just cause in their own case.

The problem is that no one is really suited be an objective judge of their own case; one is always going to be tempted to rule in own’s own “favor,” even if only subtly and maybe even with a good conscience.

My own belief is that the Church would be well advised to tell couples that they may not be their own judge of whether their circumstances constitute just cause to resort to NFP; they should use it only after a full and frank counselling session with a (hopefully orthodox) priest.

And even if the Church never says to do this, a prudent couple would still do it in my view, rather than risk offending God by engaging in fertility avoidance with a truly just cause.

But in any case, there can be no room for any person to make disparaging judgments of a couple because as it stands, each couple is left to their own devices to determine if they should be using NFP.

 

[manualman]

LJN, you don’t like the term. We get it. But pointing out that it doesn’t appear in official works of theology or doctrine doesn’t bolster your case.

I’m stunned that you disbelieve in the existence of people for whom sex isn’t related to baby-making. IMO, the majority of our culture is this way. Oh, sure they understand that ‘oopsies’ can happen. But the inherent mindset is one of “sex is about pleasure.” The widespread use of the term ‘oops’ only bolsters my point. If a baby happens in most sexual encounters, it will have been an accident that was in no way desired or contemplated, nor are the couple innately prepared to be receptive to it. In your own post, you acknowledge the way in which this mindset often leads to abortion. You already get this, but don’t like the term for reasons still obscure to me. Oh, well!

 

[LJN21]

LJN, you don’t like the term. We get it. But pointing out that it doesn’t appear in official works of theology or doctrine doesn’t bolster your case.

Well, at least I have offical doctrine and theology. How do you justify using a term to make people think they are sinning when the Church herself has never said such a sin is even possible?

I’m stunned that you disbelieve in the existence of people for whom sex isn’t related to baby-making. IMO, the majority of our culture is this way. Oh, sure they understand that ‘oopsies’ can happen. But the inherent mindset is one of “sex is about pleasure.” The widespread use of the term ‘oops’ only bolsters my point. If a baby happens in most sexual encounters, it will have been an accident that was in no way desired or contemplated, nor are the couple innately prepared to be receptive to it. In your own post, you acknowledge the way in which this mindset often leads to abortion. You already get this, but don’t like the term for reasons still obscure to me. Oh, well!

I didn’t say that, my babies don’t even have a clue what sex is yet

I’m saying even in sex ed the talk is centered around having “safer sex” to avoid pregnancy. Anyone that takes contraception is by action admitting that sex and babies go together. If it was an act of “will” contraception would not exists. The contraceptive mentality IS the thought process of “Oh well, when my contraception fails and I make a baby I can just abort it.” Which also belies the idea people don’t know sex and babies go together completely. This is why I think using in regards to NFP is completely incorrect. You have taken a defined term and giving it a brand new meaning and attached some unquantified sin to it.

 

[ahs]

Technically, denying the liceity of NFP is not denying a doctrine of the Church, so it is not heresy. But denying any magisterial moral pronouncement of the Church is temerarious at best and proximate to the heresy of denying the Church’s infallibility in matters of morals.

The problem with NFP is not that it is not permitted by the Church (it is) but that the terms of that permission are so often abused, misused, misunderstood and open to overly broad interpretation. Frankly the Church is partly to blame,

I can agree with most of this to this point. I think NFP does get presented too broadly with very little emphasis on “just causes” by those presenting it.

because where the Church used to be pretty specific about such matters, now it is very vague.

So: what is a “just cause” or “good reason” that would alone permit recourse to NFP? Well, that has never been definitively spelled out, and so an individual couple is making their own decision as to whether there is just cause in their own case.

The problem is that no one is really suited be an objective judge of their own case; one is always going to be tempted to rule in own’s own “favor,” even if only subtly and maybe even with a good conscience.

My own belief is that the Church would be well advised to tell couples that they may not be their own judge of whether their circumstances constitute just cause to resort to NFP; they should use it only after a full and frank counselling session with a (hopefully orthodox) priest.

And even if the Church never says to do this, a prudent couple would still do it in my view, rather than risk offending God by engaging in fertility avoidance with a truly just cause.

But in any case, there can be no room for any person to make disparaging judgments of a couple because as it stands, each couple is left to their own devices to determine if they should be using NFP.

Completely disagree here. It would be foolish to think the Church could be more specific than it is in what a “just cause” may be. As many couples are in the world equates to the total number of potential issues/reasons/causes in the world…each couple with their own very unique thresholds for tolerating the cicumstances. Thinking that the Church could list out a few “grave reasons” that every couple can use would require the Church to know, intimately, the limits/personalities/daily stressors/family relations/job status/income/etc… of every couple in the world…and to knwo how each couple will react to the various stimuli. Only God and the couple can know this.

No one is going to be “tempted” to rule in favor of not having sex during the time when they biologically are drawn more strongly to each other than any other time in the cycle. If their reason is not as serious as need be, they are going to forgo the “rule” and have sex. If they avoid sex in that period, it’s because they have a serious reason to do so.

 

[LJN21]

No one is going to be “tempted” to rule in favor of not having sex during the time when they biologically are drawn more strongly to each other than any other time in the cycle. If their reason is not as serious as need be, they are going to forgo the “rule” and have sex. If they avoid sex in that period, it’s because they have a serious reason to do so.