Believing NFP is intrinsically sinful

[underacloud]

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?

Yes, I see a clear difference. The latter couple is using contraception…that is what a “contraceptive mentality” is.

A couple using NFP by definition is doing something very different. One cannot use NFP for contraception. It is a logical impossibility, as described in HV as to why infertile times are acceptable for sex…because it is a cooperation with nature, not something the couple do to deprive the sex act of its procreative end.

The article posted by LJN21 sums this up very well, as below…

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]

I love this bit from the linked article:

Finally, I must note that there is something very suspicious about many of the conservative Catholic critics of natural family planning. They will often misuse language in a manner which obscures what the Church really teaches about NFP and contraception.

Whether we consider the philosophically unintelligible language of “NFP with a contraceptive mentality” or the mistranslation of “justae causae” as “the most extreme circumstances,” NFP’s critics are tying up heavy burdens hard to bear. They are binding people’s consciences in matters where there is room for freedom of opinion. This recalls Christ’s rebuke of the Pharisees, and suggests the sin of presumption.

(Rev. Ryan Erlenbush)

 

[tominrichmond]

Of course couples who do not want children are always going to find in their own favor if left to their own, unaided consciences. Yes, even to the extent that they will forego relations when relations would otherwise be most desirable.

I didn’t say the Church should issue specifics, I said the Church (and common sense) ought to lead a couple to seek an independent ear who can honestly guide them in deciding if the causes ***they perceive ***as sufficiently grave to avoid conception are in fact grave.

Then you might find that fewer Catholics are contracepting via NFP because “there are too many people on the planet” or “we can’t afford college for more than one or two” or “we can’t maintain the lifestyle that we’ve chosen if we have more” or a thousand other similar relatively frivolous excuses for denying new life. Ever wonder why there are so few large families in the average wealthy American parish now? Are all these couples really and truly unable for grave reasons to have more children, children from whom will come new vocations, new saints, new holy mothers and fathers?

As it stands now, nothing really prevents a couple from discerning their own, no doubt compelling reasons to avoid conception.

Reminder: it’s a grave sin against God wrongfully to prevent conception even once without good and sufficient cause. I wouldn’t risk my soul on my own self-directed conscience if I could simply place the situation in the hands of my confessor and be guided by him as by the voice of God.

 

[LJN21]

Then you might find that fewer Catholics are contracepting via NFP because “there are too many people on the planet” or “we can’t afford college for more than one or two” or “we can’t maintain the lifestyle that we’ve chosen if we have more” or a thousand other similar relatively frivolous excuses for denying new life. Ever wonder why there are so few large families in the average wealthy American parish now? Are all these couples really and truly unable for grave reasons to have more children, children from whom will come new vocations, new saints, new holy mothers and fathers?

That a bunch of new reasons I’ve never heard anyone actually advocating or using, and all reasons I’ve heard people who use contraception advocating. Whats more contracepting using NFP is logically and physically not possible. Contraception is the means NOT the ends of the act. Even with just reason contraception is always intrinsically evil.

As it stands now, nothing really prevents a couple from discerning their own, no doubt compelling reasons to avoid conception.

The Magisterium doesn’t seem to have a problem with this.

Reminder: it’s a grave sin against God wrongfully to prevent conception even once without good and sufficient cause. I wouldn’t risk my soul on my own self-directed conscience if I could simply place the situation in the hands of my confessor and be guided by him as by the voice of God.

I didn’t know my confessor was infallible. Actually this is a pretty bad idea depending on where you are. I know of people in conservative parish that have had major health issues and have had to appeal their confessors “no” to his superiors, who said yes. Oh BTW she had 4 kids under 4 and a complicated miscarriage. I also know confessors who honestly don’t care what your reasons are so long as your not contracepting. Really I think the biological drive vs abstinence is about the best way to tell if you reasons are just enough.

 

[maryjk]

I didn’t know my confessor was infallible. Actually this is a pretty bad idea depending on where you are. I know of people in conservative parish that have had major health issues and have had to appeal their confessors “no” to his superiors, who said yes. Oh BTW she had 4 kids under 4 and a complicated miscarriage. I also know confessors who honestly don’t care what your reasons are so long as your not contracepting. Really I think the biological drive vs abstinence is about the best way to tell if you reasons are just enough.

 

[Listener]

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.

I think they are going against the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 10:

“At the beginning of Creation God made them male and female; for this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and the two shall become as one. They are no longer two but one flesh.”

If that isn’t clear enough, the Church has traditionally taught that you have an obligation not to “deny” your husband or wife.

The logic almost gets comical:

Practice ABC? Sin.
Practice NFP? Sin.
Practice permanent abstinence? Sin.
Throw all caution to the winds? Sin (of endangering the wife’s life).

So I guess if you have a life and death reason to avoid pregnancy, everything you could possibly do is a sin.

No wonder some people have trouble understanding the Church’s position on birth control.

 

[thewanderer]

“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.”

:tiphat:

This is by far the best description of what is meant by a “contraceptive mentality”. This mentality definately exists in the world today and can exist in a couple using either NFP or ABC, just as it can be absent from couples using either ABC or NFP. It is generally speaking true that NFPers are less likely to have this mentality and ABCers more likely, but it is a completely different issue from the means themselves and so can be present, or absent, from couples using any of these means to avoid.

 

[underacloud]

This is by far the best description of what is meant by a “contraceptive mentality”. This mentality definately exists in the world today and can exist in a couple using either NFP or ABC, just as it can be absent from couples using either ABC or NFP. It is generally speaking true that NFPers are less likely to have this mentality and ABCers more likely, but it is a completely different issue from the means themselves and so can be present, or absent, from couples using any of these means to avoid.

Have you read this article that was linked to earlier?

crisismagazine.com/2011/nfp-the-myth-of-the-%E2%80%9Ccontraceptive-mentality%E2%80%9D

In Catholic teaching, a couple may use NFP if they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, for now or indefinitely. Made up terms that both are vague and “philosophically unintelligible” (as the article describes) are not helpful to the discussion around this.

 

[thewanderer]

Have you read this article that was linked to earlier?

crisismagazine.com/2011/nfp-the-myth-of-the-%E2%80%9Ccontraceptive-mentality%E2%80%9D

In Catholic teaching, a couple may use NFP if they have serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, for now or indefinitely. Made up terms that both are vague and “philosophically unintelligible” (as the article describes) are not helpful to the discussion around this.

They are helpful if they are actually pointing out a problematic mindset. Why should I care whether or not the Church has officially used this particular term to describe this problematic mindset? The description of it given above is very clearly a description of a view of sexuality that is inherently contradictory to the Catholic understanding of sexuality. Who cares what term is used to describe this dangerous and unhealthy mentality? The point is that it is something to be avoided.

And trust me, I understand where you are coming from in being upset about people throwing around ‘contraceptive mentality’ or ‘grave reasons’ (I know you didn’t bring up that one, but it is one I have brought up similarly myself in the past) in an unhealthy way which causes people to be overly scrupulous. Yes, NFP as a method is perfectly licit, so long as one has just/serious reasons, ie, is not being selfish. Despite this, it is possible for people to have an incorrect and dangerous view of human sexuality, even while trying to follow Church teachings by using NFP etc. Why is it such a bad thing to point out this danger?

 

[thewanderer]

I would just like to add that that article is trying to refute the idea that NFP is either intrinsically linked to such a thing as a ‘contraceptive mentality’ or that it would encourage, even occasionally, such a mentality. Neither I nor manualman are claiming any such thing. Saying that sometime somewhere a person using NFP could *happen *to also have a contraceptive mentality does not mean you are imply that NFP somehow causes it. You are not talking about a causal relation of any kind, just a matter of co-incidence.

 

[underacloud]

They are helpful if they are actually pointing out a problematic mindset. Why should I care whether or not the Church has officially used this particular term to describe this problematic mindset? The description of it given above is very clearly a description of a view of sexuality that is inherently contradictory to the Catholic understanding of sexuality. Who cares what term is used to describe this dangerous and unhealthy mentality? The point is that it is something to be avoided.

And trust me, I understand where you are coming from in being upset about people throwing around ‘contraceptive mentality’ or ‘grave reasons’ (I know you didn’t bring up that one, but it is one I have brought up similarly myself in the past) in an unhealthy way which causes people to be overly scrupulous. Yes, NFP as a method is perfectly licit, so long as one has just/serious reasons, ie, is not being selfish. Despite this, **it is possible for people to have an incorrect and dangerous view of human sexuality, even while trying to follow Church teachings by using NFP **etc. Why is it such a bad thing to point out this danger?

But again, what exactly is this view/mentality? I still don’t find the “definition” offered to be precise or very explanatory.

And why is it dangerous?

If a couple has a just/serious reason for avoiding pregnancy, they may use NFP licitly to enjoy the other purpose of sex, which is unity of the couple (including their enjoyment of sex). For them, the procreative possibility of sex may be unwise or even dangerous, so they minimise the “risks” in a manner consistent with Church teaching. They explicitly do not want sex to be about procreation, but remain open to the limited possibility. Do they have a “contraceptive mentality”? manualman earlier said they do not. If you agree with that, please describe a couple who use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality”.

 

[underacloud]

I would just like to add that that article is trying to refute the idea that NFP is either intrinsically linked to such a thing as a ‘contraceptive mentality’ or that it would encourage, even occasionally, such a mentality. Neither I nor manualman are claiming any such thing. Saying that sometime somewhere a person using NFP could *happen *to also have a contraceptive mentality does not mean you are imply that NFP somehow causes it. You are not talking about a causal relation of any kind, just a matter of co-incidence.

Actually, the article is refuting the very notion of a “contraceptive mentality”, calling it a myth and philosophically unintelligible.

In avoiding pregnancy, there are basically two relevant issues:

1. One either contracepts or doesn’t contracept.
2. One either has serious reasons for using NFP or one doesn’t have serious reasons.

These are the relevant questions…introducing a third vague and unintelligible notion doesn’t help us in answering either or these two questions.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually, the article is refuting the very notion of a “contraceptive mentality”, calling it a myth and philosophically unintelligible.

In avoiding pregnancy, there are basically two relevant issues:

1. One either contracepts or doesn’t contracept.
2. One either has serious reasons for using NFP or one doesn’t have serious reasons.

These are the relevant questions…introducing a third vague and unintelligible notion doesn’t help us in answering either or these two questions.

Based on a very specific idea of what a contraceptive mentality would be if it did exist. It completely ignores the idea that manualman brought up as a possibility.

 

[underacloud]

Based on a very specific idea of what a contraceptive mentality would be if it did exist. It completely ignores the idea that manualman brought up as a possibility.

Which I’m still trying to make some sense from. As per my previous post…

But again, what exactly is this view/mentality? I still don’t find the “definition” offered to be precise or very explanatory.

And why is it dangerous?

If a couple has a just/serious reason for avoiding pregnancy, they may use NFP licitly to enjoy the other purpose of sex, which is unity of the couple (including their enjoyment of sex). For them, the procreative possibility of sex may be unwise or even dangerous, so they minimise the “risks” in a manner consistent with Church teaching. They explicitly do not want sex to be about procreation, but remain open to the limited possibility. Do they have a “contraceptive mentality”? manualman earlier said they do not. If you agree with that, please describe a couple who use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality”.

 

[thewanderer]

Actually, the article is refuting the very notion of a “contraceptive mentality”, calling it a myth and philosophically unintelligible.

In avoiding pregnancy, there are basically two relevant issues:

1. One either contracepts or doesn’t contracept.
2. One either has serious reasons for using NFP or one doesn’t have serious reasons.

These are the relevant questions…introducing a third vague and unintelligible notion doesn’t help us in answering either or these two questions.

There is no reason for practicing NFP which necessitates that one has a contraceptive mentality. The two events, when they occur simultaneously, are not related, they just happen to occur together at the same point in time in the same person.

I’m sorry that you find his defintion too vague. I am not sure how better to describe it, like I said, I think this is the best description of it I have heard, particularly in the fact that he brings in the idea of children are related to sexuality only when I desire them to be. Ok, I think I can see now why it is confusing. You think this could be mistaken to mean that it is wrong for a couple to desire to avoid a pregnancy? That’s not at all what it was meant to imply. It was meant to imply the segregated attitude many people have of sexuality where sex = pleasure and nothing else, it has absolutely no connection to procreation. Procreation is compartmentalized into a completely different part of their thought. Sure, they know that babies require sex, but they keep the two ideas segregated in their minds. Maybe this still isn’t very clear, but hopefully it helps.

 

[thewanderer]

Which I’m still trying to make some sense from. As per my previous post…

Originally Posted by underacloud

*Well, hopefully my last post will help clear up, at least a little, what it actually is, as for why it is dangerous? The answer to that is that it is a twisted view of sexuality which, in itself is a bad thing, and which leads one to want to act contrary to the nature of human sexuality, which, eventually, will just end up harming yourself and others.
*

 

[ahs]

Of course couples who do not want children are always going to find in their own favor if left to their own, unaided consciences. Yes, even to the extent that they will forego relations when relations would otherwise be most desirable.

Desirable in whose eyes? Are you judging for any given couple when sex should be desirable for them? A couple cannot decide this on their own? And what makes you so certain that any given couple’s conscience is unaided? Is there some teaching you can point me to that tells me how to tell whether or not another couple has a well-formed conscience when it comes to NFP? Any teaching that says they need to rely on their confessor as opposed to the Catechism, or the Compendium, or Humanae Vitae, etc…?

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…unless they have a serious reason for abstaining. 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.

I didn’t say the Church should issue specifics, I said the Church (and common sense) ought to lead a couple to seek an independent ear who can honestly guide them in deciding if the causes ***they perceive ***as sufficiently grave to avoid conception are in fact grave.

We do have an independent ear, per se. It’s called a well-formed conscience. The Church teaches us that we are to use this well-formed conscience in making such decisions. Or are you suggesting that there are no couples that have such a well-formed conscience? Or perhaps you disagree with the material with which a well-formed conscience is formed?

Then you might find that fewer Catholics are contracepting via NFP because “there are too many people on the planet” or “we can’t afford college for more than one or two” or “we can’t maintain the lifestyle that we’ve chosen if we have more” or a thousand other similar relatively frivolous excuses for denying new life. Ever wonder why there are so few large families in the average wealthy American parish now? Are all these couples really and truly unable for grave reasons to have more children, children from whom will come new vocations, new saints, new holy mothers and fathers?

I think you are confusing contraception with natural birth regulation. Contraception does not happen with NFP/NBR. If people don’t have a large family and they are using NFP, it’s because they have a just cause/serious reason for it. Whether these couples really and truly are unable, for grave reasons, to have more children, children from whom will come new vocations, new saints, new holy mothers and fathers, is up to each couple. It’s not for you to judge. If a couple is abstaining from sex during the fertile period, it’s because they have a serious reason to do so. It seems as though you believe a family should have xx number of members in order to be a holy or valid family…is this what you believe?

As it stands now, nothing really prevents a couple from discerning their own, no doubt compelling reasons to avoid conception.

And you find fault with this? Or no?

Reminder: it’s a grave sin against God wrongfully to prevent conception even once without good and sufficient cause. I wouldn’t risk my soul on my own self-directed conscience if I could simply place the situation in the hands of my confessor and be guided by him as by the voice of God.

It’s also a sin against truth to cast judgment on a couple about whether or not you believe they have a just cause for avoiding conception, or even whether they are avoiding or not. (See CCC 2475-2487.) And let us not forget that God has given His Holy Spirit to guide us, with our well-formed conscience, and that 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…unless they have a serious reason for abstaining. 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.

I’m glad you won’t risk your soul. I won’t either.

I’ll leave you with this to contemplate…from someone’s confessor…who is guiding many people.

Finally, I must note that there is something very suspicious about many of the conservative Catholic critics of natural family planning. They will often misuse language in a manner which obscures what the Church really teaches about NFP and contraception.

Whether we consider the philosophically unintelligible language of “NFP with a contraceptive mentality” or the mistranslation of “justae causae” as “the most extreme circumstances,” NFP’s critics are tying up heavy burdens hard to bear. They are binding people’s consciences in matters where there is room for freedom of opinion. This recalls Christ’s rebuke of the Pharisees, and suggests the sin of presumption.
(Rev. Ryan Erlenbush)

 

[underacloud]

I’m sorry that you find his defintion too vague. I am not sure how better to describe it, like I said, I think this is the best description of it I have heard, particularly in the fact that he brings in the idea of children are related to sexuality only when I desire them to be. Ok, I think I can see now why it is confusing. You think this could be mistaken to mean that it is wrong for a couple to desire to avoid a pregnancy? That’s not at all what it was meant to imply. It was meant to imply the segregated attitude many people have of sexuality where sex = pleasure and nothing else, it has absolutely no connection to procreation. Procreation is compartmentalized into a completely different part of their thought. Sure, they know that babies require sex, but they keep the two ideas segregated in their minds. Maybe this still isn’t very clear, but hopefully it helps.

But isn’t this exactly what an NFP practicing couple do…they compartmentalise sex into fertile and infertile periods…and they specifically use the infertile period because procreation is minimised or negated?

But when I asked about this earlier, manualman gave this reply…

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?

So by this explanation, a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy maintains a “procreative mentality” because they recognise the innate link to babies.

Again, it seems be definition a couple using NFP (with serious reasons) cannot have a “contraceptive mentality”…they necessarily have a “procreative mentality” because they respect the innate link between sex and babies.

So once again I ask the question that remains unanswered: please describe a couple who use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality”.

 

[thewanderer]

But isn’t this exactly what an NFP practicing couple do…they compartmentalise sex into fertile and infertile periods…and they specifically use the infertile period because procreation is minimised or negated?

No, not necessarily. Sure, they compartmentalize their acts of sex into fertile and non-fertile, but their fundamental understanding of human sexulaity is not necessarily compartmentalized, and, in fact, practicing NFP can, at times, help people to reunify the unitive and procreative aspeccts of human sexuality in their understanding. This seems particularly through encouraging couples to gain a better understanding of Church teaching on sexuality so that they will have the strength to continue to abstain rather than resorting to contraceptives.

But when I asked about this earlier, manualman gave this reply…

So by this explanation, a couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy maintains a “procreative mentality” because they recognise the innate link to babies.

Again, it seems be definition a couple using NFP (with serious reasons) cannot have a “contraceptive mentality”…they necessarily have a “procreative mentality” because they respect the innate link between sex and babies.

So once again I ask the question that remains unanswered: please describe a couple who use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality”.

Essentially, I would say it would be a couple who did not grow up really understanding the Church’s view of human sexuality but is trying to follow Church teaching by using NFP. They haave not yet overcome their previous view of sexuality, have not yet come to understand the full truth of the Church’s understanding of sexuality, but have at least made a step in the right direction by trying to follow the Church’s teachings by using NFP. That would certainly be one example, I do not know if there would ever be other situations where the two, practicing NFP while having a contraceptive mindset would overlap, probably in a couple where one is only following NFP because their spouse insists, I’m sure there are other cases where this can happen. Like I said, this mentality isn’t related to NFP as such, but can coincide with the practice of NFP. Its not a black and white issue where the instant you start charting your view of sexuality has come in line with church teaching. Nor would it be true to say that using contraceptives necessitates that one has a contraceptive mentality. Yes, someone using contraceptives does not fully understand/accept the Church’s understanding of sexuality, but they might still see the link between the pleasure, bonding, and procreation, even if their understanding is lacking in other areas.

 

[underacloud]

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

No, not necessarily. Sure, they compartmentalize their acts of sex into fertile and non-fertile, but their fundamental understanding of human sexulaity is not necessarily compartmentalized, and, in fact, practicing NFP can, at times, help people to reunify the unitive and procreative aspeccts of human sexuality in their understanding. This seems particularly through encouraging couples to gain a better understanding of Church teaching on sexuality so that they will have the strength to continue to abstain rather than resorting to contraceptives.

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?

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.

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

or

That 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.

Essentially, I would say it would be a couple who did not grow up really understanding the Church’s view of human sexuality but is trying to follow Church teaching by using NFP. They haave not yet overcome their previous view of sexuality, have not yet come to understand the full truth of the Church’s understanding of sexuality, but have at least made a step in the right direction by trying to follow the Church’s teachings by using NFP. That would certainly be one example, I do not know if there would ever be other situations where the two, practicing NFP while having a contraceptive mindset would overlap, probably in a couple where one is only following NFP because their spouse insists, I’m sure there are other cases where this can happen. Like I said, this mentality isn’t related to NFP as such, but can coincide with the practice of NFP. Its not a black and white issue where the instant you start charting your view of sexuality has come in line with church teaching. Nor would it be true to say that using contraceptives necessitates that one has a contraceptive mentality. Yes, someone using contraceptives does not fully understand/accept the Church’s understanding of sexuality, but they might still see the link between the pleasure, bonding, and procreation, even if their understanding is lacking in other areas.

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.