Contraceptive MENTALITY?

[TarkanAttila]

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast,** "every action which,** whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

We often say that the Church opposes contraception.
Perhaps that is the wrong word.

A better term might be: “The Catholic Church opposes a contraceptive mentality, and anything which enforces it.”

“Contraceptive mentality” being the bolded part of the above quote.

I suggest this because when people think “contraception”, they also think of NFP (which they also erroneously believe is the rhythm method) as contraception. Yet the RCC has no problem with NFP.

However, I get the feeling the Church does have a problem with any form of contraception, including NFP, *when it is used “whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” *and primarily as that.

Thus I believe we oppose a contraceptive mentality, of which* any* form of contraception can be a weapon for it, but especially artificial forms.

But NFP can be conducive to life, and is not necessarily closed to life.

 

[johnnyjones]

Getting ones “tubes tied” seems to fall into that catagory as well as a visectomy. The sex drive is one of the greatest temptations of man, so we must continually confess our improper sexual activity.

 

[manualman]

It’s even bigger than that. Every sexual controversy out there today has its basis in the failure of modern people to understand that marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are NOT three separate topics, but different facets of ONE topic: healthy human sexuality.

When people attempt to pry this one subject apart into separate subjects, misery and destruction always follow. You name it, fornication/adultery, IVF, cloning, sterilization, contraception, gay marriage, polygamy. These are all deviations from God’s design for human sexuality: Marriage and Intimacy in a loving, permanent relationship ordered towards making babies. You can’t break one or two pieces off without ruining the whole.

 

[TimothyH]

The original post is quite good, but I believe it should be taken to it’s next logical step.

The contraception mentality is the mentality of using another person for one’s own personal enjoyment. Blessed John Paul II taught that use of another person is the opposite of love, that the opposite of love for another person was utilitarian use of another human being for the benefit of self.

The culture of contraception, the contraception mentality, the culture of recreational sex, is a worldview which says that it is OK to use another person, as long as we both agree to be used by each other. Such a mentality cannot see sex, marriage or even the human person any other way because it does not have the abililty to see love as Christ saw it - a giving of self for the benefit of the other and a negation of self. A person with this world view cannot see love this way because such a person does not have Christ working in his life. I really don’t know what to do about it other than preach the gospel.

The bottom line is that society lies to people about what love is. Love is pleasure, love is eros. Love is never agape. Society tells us that agape is weak, and that such people are sheep. Society lies.

-Tim-

 

[tafan]

I will admit to having a complete dislike of the term “contraceptive mentality”. It is used a lot on this forum and everyone has their own defifition. It is not used in any church document that I know of. The church uses very specific and clear language, as the OP shows in his quote from the CCC, we should stick to that language. The church forbids very specific acts, that are very well defined;we don’t need to bring “mentality” to the table.

It seems analogous to the legal problem of criminalizing “hate crimes”.

 

[Mumbles140]

My one caveat is referring to NFP as a form of contraception. I understand what you are getting at, and this may be splitting hairs, but NFP is a form of birth control: it is open to life and, when used properly, is not grounds for mortal sin. However, the abuse of NFP is sinful, such as using it for one’s entire life to partake in the sexual act without ever having the intention to procreate, but that is hotly debated and should occur on a case-by-case basis with one’s priest. My point is, though, that I believe the term should be ‘birth control’ in the OP rather than ‘contraception’, since contraceptives literally mean being closed (against) conception.

Therefore, I believe it is correct to say the Church does oppose all forms of contraception, because in their very nature, they are not open to life. However, certain forms of birth control are, including both NFP and ‘the rhythm method’ (as outdated as that may be). That being said, I do agree that the Church opposes a contraceptive mentality as well, but I do not believe that statement includes abuses of acceptable birth control methods as wrong.

Again, this could totally be splitting hairs, but I feel a lot of people could be misled by reading that the Catholic Church doesn’t disapprove of contraception, but only the contraceptive mentality. It could lead to the argument that any form of contraception, so long as the intent was temporary, would be allowable. That then raises the idea of ‘being open to life’ and at that point, you have to differentiate birth control from contraception, and then show which birth control is open to life (NFP) and which isn’t (Artifical Birth Control).

 

[edwest2]

What Catholics should realize is that at one time, the media was friendly toward Christians and Christian beliefs in general. I was there. But gradually, over a 40 year period, groups kept putting bad examples in front of our faces, to the point where even Catholics think it is now somehow OK or average or normal. Growing up in the mid-1960s, it was drilled into our heads: “No sexual intercourse before marriage. Period.” We, meaning the kids in our Catholic school, except for a few, trusted our parents, trusted our teachers, and trusted our elders; most of whom were excellent role-models.

Even the music we listened to was about love, devotion and cherishing the one you love. No, it was not perfect, but almost everything around us echoed normal family living. But some people wanted to change the way we looked at human sexuality and it cost them millions of dollars. Starting in the 1970s, the media gradually started to turn on those values and begins using words that were not allowed to be used just a few years prior. The radio started playing music about no-strings-attached sex. Movies began to gradually change too.

Time magazine cover story about The Pill, 1967:

“Contraception: Freedom from fear”

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

Fear of what? Babies. That’s how advertising works. That’s how you sell Pills. You tell the public that you will be freed from fear.

1968 Pope Paul VI has Humanae Vitae published:

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

It reaffirmed constant Church teaching about artificial birth control. He also warned about increased promiscuity if his words weren’t heeded. The reaction? “… an event unprecedented in the history of the Church …”

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”

The Sexual Revolution could not be stopped by the Church. Hippies, radicals and anarchists encouraged us to smoke dope, live with and have sex with our girlfriends. I was actually told the following: “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.”

In the 1970s, men got the worst of it. We were hit the hardest and it was like a punch to the gut when I saw my first Adult Bookstore. Millions of dollars for models, photographers, printing, distribution, and buildings. And pictures were not enough - one of the old bars in my neighborhood now had topless dancers and soon, the whole country. Throw in some strip clubs too.

But they took it one step further. They sold Swingers magazines filled with ads with nude or mostly nude women you could contact for no-strings attached sex. Married, unmarried? No difference.

And it was all legal! And they had high priced lawyers who were ready to fight those religious nuts who wanted that filth out of our neighborhoods.

In 1973, the contraception of last resort, abortion, was legalized, not by the people but the Supreme Court. And we didn’t know about the lies until fairly recently:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

Peace,
Ed

 

[TheRealJuliane]

It’s even bigger than that. Every sexual controversy out there today has its basis in the failure of modern people to understand that marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are NOT three separate topics, but different facets of ONE topic: healthy human sexuality.

When people attempt to pry this one subject apart into separate subjects, misery and destruction always follow. You name it, fornication/adultery, IVF, cloning, sterilization, contraception, gay marriage, polygamy. These are all deviations from God’s design for human sexuality: Marriage and Intimacy in a loving, permanent relationship ordered towards making babies. You can’t break one or two pieces off without ruining the whole.

This.

The original post is quite good, but I believe it should be taken to it’s next logical step.

The contraception mentality is the mentality of using another person for one’s own personal enjoyment. Blessed John Paul II taught that use of another person is the opposite of love, that the opposite of love for another person was utilitarian use of another human being for the benefit of self.

The culture of contraception, the contraception mentality, the culture of recreational sex, is a worldview which says that it is OK to use another person, as long as we both agree to be used by each other. Such a mentality cannot see sex, marriage or even the human person any other way because it does not have the abililty to see love as Christ saw it - a giving of self for the benefit of the other and a negation of self. A person with this world view cannot see love this way because such a person does not have Christ working in his life. I really don’t know what to do about it other than preach the gospel.

The bottom line is that society lies to people about what love is. Love is pleasure, love is eros. Love is never agape. Society tells us that agape is weak, and that such people are sheep. Society lies.

-Tim-

And this. The downfall of our society started when we took these steps.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Excellent posts all around!

The original post is quite good, but I believe it should be taken to it’s next logical step.

The contraception mentality is the mentality of using another person for one’s own personal enjoyment. Blessed John Paul II taught that use of another person is the opposite of love, that the opposite of love for another person was utilitarian use of another human being for the benefit of self.

The culture of contraception, the contraception mentality, the culture of recreational sex, is a worldview which says that it is OK to use another person, as long as we both agree to be used by each other. Such a mentality cannot see sex, marriage or even the human person any other way because it does not have the abililty to see love as Christ saw it - a giving of self for the benefit of the other and a negation of self. A person with this world view cannot see love this way because such a person does not have Christ working in his life. I really don’t know what to do about it other than preach the gospel.

The bottom line is that society lies to people about what love is. Love is pleasure, love is eros. Love is never agape. Society tells us that agape is weak, and that such people are sheep. Society lies.

-Tim-

Amen, brother. The last thing this society wants you to be is selfless. After all, does selflessness put money into one’s pocket? Yet selflessness is the only thing which will make us truly happy. When we want nothing, not even life, we will have no anxiety.

I might add that the contraceptive mentality and this selfishness the culture promotes attack the basic building block of society - the family as the unit of society. The family is the smallest unit that is able to reproduce. Individuals cannot reproduce, and must start a family to do so. This is not to say sexual pleasure is only geared toward reproduction. But without this crucial social mechanism, the human race dies out.

 

[TarkanAttila]

My one caveat is referring to NFP as a form of contraception. I understand what you are getting at, and this may be splitting hairs, but NFP is a form of birth control: it is open to life and, when used properly, is not grounds for mortal sin. However, the abuse of NFP is sinful, such as using it for one’s entire life to partake in the sexual act without ever having the intention to procreate, but that is hotly debated and should occur on a case-by-case basis with one’s priest. My point is, though, that I believe the term should be ‘birth control’ in the OP rather than ‘contraception’, since contraceptives literally mean being closed (against) conception.

…
Again, this could totally be splitting hairs, but I feel a lot of people could be misled by reading that the Catholic Church doesn’t disapprove of contraception, but only the contraceptive mentality. It could lead to the argument that any form of contraception, so long as the intent was temporary, would be allowable…

I get what you are saying. And I agree. The secular world doesn’t know the difference between birth control and contraception, though. For most people the two are synonymous.

It might be good to educate people about the difference. That birth control is just a general term for anything used to regulate child-bearing, while contraception actively tries to prevent pregnancy by stopping the exchange of fluids, the formation of a child, or the child’s implantation. So long as it* prevents a possible pregnancy*.

Thus NFP is birth control, but not contraception. Right?

But anyway, I think that’s what we’re trying to say. When we use birth control as birth control, we are using it for the purpose God intended. When we use contraception or birth control for the purpose of contraception, we are sinning. Because we are using birth control for a contraceptive purpose.

 

[Mumbles140]

I get what you are saying. And I agree. The secular world doesn’t know the difference between birth control and contraception, though. For most people the two are synonymous.

It might be good to educate people about the difference. That birth control is just a general term for anything used to regulate child-bearing, while contraception actively tries to prevent pregnancy by stopping the exchange of fluids, the formation of a child, or the child’s implantation. So long as it* prevents a possible pregnancy*.

Thus NFP is birth control, but not contraception. Right?

But anyway, I think that’s what we’re trying to say. When we use birth control as birth control, we are using it for the purpose God intended. When we use contraception or birth control for the purpose of contraception, we are sinning. Because we are using birth control for a contraceptive purpose.

Precisely! And you hit the nail on the head - it is synonymous for most people, and so the Church (especially all of us!) need to educate our brethren about the differences, and why it is important to have those differences. We must let them know that there are types of birth control (NFP) that respect and honor the gift of sexuality from God, rather than abuse it for our own purposes.

Along that same thread, even though I am younger than 30, I remember that genitals were always referred to as “reproductive organs” when being discussed (i.e. in serious discussions, not slang). Now, I feel like that term has been replaced by “sexual organs”. Maybe it is just me, but I see this as another front where sexual pleasure is emphasized over procreation, rather than being “an extra benefit” from God…

 

[fix]

I will admit to having a complete dislike of the term “contraceptive mentality”. It is used a lot on this forum and everyone has their own defifition. It is not used in any church document that I know of. The church uses very specific and clear language, as the OP shows in his quote from the CCC, we should stick to that language. The church forbids very specific acts, that are very well defined;we don’t need to bring “mentality” to the table.

It seems analogous to the legal problem of criminalizing “hate crimes”.

I agree here. NFP is a morally neutral means, it cannot be a sin. One may be culpable for some sin when avoiding having children, but not a so called contraceptive mentailty. Perhaps the sin of selfishness or some such thing.

IOW, in such cases the use of NFP does not make the act wrong, it would be the intention that is wrong.

 

[tafan]

I agree here. NFP is a morally neutral means, it cannot be a sin. One may be culpable for some sin when avoiding having children, but not a so called contraceptive mentailty. Perhaps the sin of selfishness or some such thing.

IOW, in such cases the use of NFP does not make the act wrong, it would be the intention that is wrong.

You may misunderstand my point (which likely was not clear), or I may misunderstand yours.

I am simply saying, and this thread is illustrating it, that the term “contraceptive mentality” is not beneficial to the argument. Everyone seems to have their own definition or what they want to add. The church says precisely which acts are right and wrong:

With regards NFP,

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is **not motivated by selfishness **but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:

When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality

So NFP is ok when used for just and unselfish reasons. There is ample room for discussion on what constitutes just and unselfish reasons; but the term “contraceptive mentality” really doesn’t help those discussions IMO.

With regards artificial birth control:

In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil

Again, we don’t need to talk about mentalities, the specific acts are condemned quite clearly.

 

[fix]

You may misunderstand my point (which likely was not clear), or I may misunderstand yours.

I am simply saying, and this thread is illustrating it, that the term “contraceptive mentality” is not beneficial to the argument. Everyone seems to have their own definition or what they want to add. The church says precisely which acts are right and wrong:

With regards NFP,

So NFP is ok when used for just and unselfish reasons. There is ample room for discussion on what constitutes just and unselfish reasons; but the term “contraceptive mentality” really doesn’t help those discussions IMO.

With regards artificial birth control:

Again, we don’t need to talk about mentalities, the specific acts are condemned quite clearly.

We may be talking past each other. My point, which is supported by your quotes, shows that the means of NFP are never the sin of contraception. The act is not altered or disordered.

The intention of the actors may be sinful, but not because fertility is suppressed. It would be sinful based on unjust reasons to space births. NFP cannot be contraception.

I agree that the phrase contraceptive mentality is confusing and not accurate.

 

[fix]

Here is an article that explains much better than I can do:

Some will hold that NFP, though not contraceptive, has the danger of being used with the same intention as contraception. But this is philosophically unintelligible. The “end”, “goal”, or “intention” of contraception (speaking in terms of moral theory) is to render a particular sexual act infertile. The “mentality” of contraception is preventing procreation, i.e., making a procreative act no longer procreative.

Thinking about contraception and NFP in this way, it is quite clear that there is no possible way in which natural family planning could entail a contraceptive mentality. There is nothing contraceptive about NFP, therefore it cannot induce a contraceptive mentality. While it is theoretically possible that NFP could be used in a bad way (and even in a sinful way), it cannot possibly be used in a contraceptive way.