is NFP a sin?

[Debora123]

I think I see where you are coming from but I am not sure… You feel as though putting a restriction on it makes it no longer a spiritual or emotional experience?

Mmm, not quite like that.

I feel as though the notion that a sexual encounter with one’s spouse becomes intrinsically evil if it does not end with a vaginal climax, focuses too much on the physical mechanics of sex rather than looking at the big picture. Does that make more sense?

 

[Debora123]

hmm, I guess I really don’t see it that way. Lets take a step back. The Church teaching about sexuality is that it is the complete uniting of two people which has a two-fold end, unity and procreation. When people say that it is wrong to take an action to remove procreation from sexuality they are not saying that sexuality is only about procreation or only about the physical act, but instead they are saying that those are not the only important aspects of sexuality. The way I see it is that the one contracepting is removing part of the great complex mystery of sexuality and diminishing its meaning and the person saying “don’t contracept” is instead saying “don’t diminish the meaning of sexuality by removing one of its dual ends”. Does that make any more sense? I know that that is not how you are inclined to see things, but, does it help at all?

What you’re saying makes sense, yes… what doesn’t make sense is the actual root of the issue. As you stated, the Church teaches that it’s wrong to take an action to decrease the chance of procreation from a sex act even if the intentions/circumstances are just. I have a hard time making sense of why that is.

 

[thewanderer]

What you’re saying makes sense, yes… what doesn’t make sense is the actual root of the issue. As you stated, the Church teaches that it’s wrong to take an action to decrease the chance of procreation from a sex act even if the intentions/circumstances are just. I have a hard time making sense of why that is.

I think its because, as I tried to explain, the Church sees that as diminishing the meaning of our sexuality. So, just like you think it diminishes the meaning of sex to focus on the mechanics too much, the Church sees it as diminishing to remove a part of sexuality. I actually agree with you that the way some people talk about sexuality really does diminish it. That the one rule is end in the right place really does make it seem purely focused on the mechanics. But I think it is complete BS that there is only one rule about sex. The finishing in the right place is the one rule with respect to the mechanics, but it is not at all the only rule. Both people have to be free of lust, have to be giving themselves fully to the other out of love, have to be considerate of the others wishes and desires etc etc. So it makes sense that what with so many people going around talking about the “1 rule” it makes it seem as though the Church is only focused on the mechanics. But again, remember that anytime you see a person with a pithy saying or short-cut way to explain something it is bound to be missing nuances of what is actually meant. Short pithy sayings can be very useful, but also unbelievably confusing and misleading.

 

[Debora123]

I think its because, as I tried to explain,** the Church sees that as diminishing the meaning of our sexuality.**

I gotcha.

I just don’t necessarily SEE why it diminishes it or how the Church came to that conclusion. I know natural law is used to precisely explain why that is, but as we’ve discussed previously in another thread, I can think of other acts that would go against “natural law” in the same parallel way yet those things aren’t sins.

 

[thewanderer]

I gotcha.

I just don’t necessarily SEE why it diminishes it or how the Church came to that conclusion. I know natural law is used to precisely explain why that is, but as we’ve discussed previously in another thread, I can think of other acts that would go against “natural law” in the same parallel way yet those things aren’t sins.

Yeah, I think we will probably just end up going round in circles on this one. If I do manage to find a better way to put my thoughts into words, though, I’ll let you know.

But do you at least see that telling people to not contracept etc doesn’t necessarily mean one is viewing sexuality through a merely physical and mechanical aspect?

 

[The_Bucket]

The notion that marital sexual activity can ONLY be loving and self giving and bonding IF the sperm goes inside the woman just makes sex seem so shallow to me. There’s just something that doesn’t sit right with me about spouses not being allowed to express affection to each other sexually unless it ends with a vaginal climax.

I understand that the teaching is not only difficult to live out but difficult to understand. If I extrapolate your logic, however, I arrive at the secular world’s conclusion on same-sex marriage.

“The notion that only sexual activity between two members of the opposite sex is loving and bonding seems so shallow. There’s just something that doesn’t sit right with me about people not being allowed to express affection to each other sexually unless it’s between people of the opposite sex and certainly not if you limit it to vaginal climax only!”

Given the intentions/circumstances to postpone children are just, I fail to comprehend why a sexual act between spouses becomes intrinsically evil because of a condom or a climax on a different part of the body. And I know you’ve answered this already on the very post I’m responding to lol… but it just doesn’t seem to logically follow for me for some reason.

I think I explained it best in the other thread related to the subject. So I’ll repost it here:

The Church’s teaching on sexuality is similar to its teaching on the sacraments. This makes sense since the Church teaches that spouses are renewing their marital vows when they engage in sexual intercourse. The Church is saying that signs matter. Actions matter. Whether the result is a child or not, the Church is noting that the sexual act must be one that is intended to reflect the love and sacrifice professed by the spouses at the altar and reflective of the love of the Trinity and the love the God has for us.

Even if spouses are infertile and introducing a condom into the mix or withdrawing before male climax would have absolutely no effect on whether there’s procreation involved… the signs and the actions still matter. The Church teaches that there is no such thing as a “private act.” Everything is interconnected through the Mystical Body of Christ and that includes actions and signs performed by spouses behind closed doors.

Signs have very significant meaning in the Church. Signs are part of how God shows His love for us. He showed it through the action of sending His Son for us and His Son showed it through the action of dying, resurrecting and leaving us with His Body and Blood in the Eucharist. The signs surrounding that sacrifice, the bread, wine, water and the crucifix near the altar are all critically important.

I concur that it’s shallow to say that the only way you can express physical love is through one way, but I think you’re missing some of the bigger picture. The Church only says that the ending has to be a certain way. How you get there is up to the spouses. In that way, the spouses reflect the various creative aspects of the members of the Trinity and the relationship between the Church and God. Each of the members of the Trinity show love in different ways. Each member of the Church has his or her own style and devotion. But all still have the same intention and the same end result: They are demonstrating self-sacrificial love for the beloved.

And so each married couple has different ways of reaching the same end in the marital bed. There are no proscriptions except that the end, if you desire to achieve said ending during a time of physical intimacy, truly reflect self-sacrifice and self-giving. You can’t really point to any part of contraceptive sex that’s sacrificial. It may be affectionate, passionate and even tender in nature, but it’s not sacrificial. And real love is sacrificial.

 

[Debora123]

But do you at least see that telling people to not contracept etc doesn’t necessarily mean one is viewing sexuality through a merely physical and mechanical aspect?

Oh of course not! I’m sorry if it came off that way. Of course I know that isn’t how any faithful Catholic actually views sexuality, and I know that’s not how the Church actually views sexuality. I guess that’s just how it comes off to me, even though I know that’s not the case.

Yes, the notion that any sort of sexual affection between spouses is evil and dirty and wrong unless it ends in vaginal climax, just comes off to me as a shallow, mechanical attitude towards sex. But that’s only because I have been unable to personally see it that way, not because I believe that that’s how the Church actually views sexuality.

I know it sounds weird and like I’m contradicting myself a little bit. Just please don’t take offense to me feeling that way, that’s not my intention at all.

 

[Debora123]

I understand that the teaching is not only difficult to live out but difficult to understand. If I extrapolate your logic, however, I arrive at the secular world’s conclusion on same-sex marriage.

“The notion that only sexual activity between two members of the opposite sex is loving and bonding seems so shallow. There’s just something that doesn’t sit right with me about people not being allowed to express affection to each other sexually unless it’s between people of the opposite sex and certainly not if you limit it to vaginal climax only!”

Well I definitely don’t see it that way… just to clarify.

I understand why things like premarital sex and homosexual activity are wrong. So I can make sense of those. And as I said, I definitely think that marriages should be open to life and avoiding children should only happen with just reason, etc etc. So just because I don’t see the logic behind this particular issue, doesn’t mean the rest of the teachings on sexuality can go out the window and sex becomes a free for all in my mind. That’s not the case at all.

 

[The_Bucket]

Debora,

I don’t mean to imply that you see things that way. Or that you don’t recognize the Church’s authority to teach what it teaches. I see it simply that you’re struggling to grasp a tough teaching. That’s something we all deal with.

In my life it’s been the death penalty. I’d just as soon as immediately take a convicted rapist or murderer out behind the courthouse following his or her conviction and shoot 'em. I’m not kidding. I think people who commit such egregious crimes have forfeited their lives. They are not above redemption for sure, but I don’t think their journey on this Earth needs to continue any longer.

Now, of course my personal belief is in line with the Church. I only support the death penalty in situations where capital punishment is needed to protect the citizenry at large. But my gut instinct says to just take 'em out back and shoot 'em like the diseased dogs that they are. So it’s been a struggle to reconcile my feelings and gut instinct with what I know is authoritatively true.

Personally I see the Church’s teaching on sexuality as the only thing that makes sense out there. It’s all or nothing to me. Nebulous lines like “well you can’t have a contraceptive mentality but contraception in limited cases is OK provided you have the right mindset” are just nonsensical to me. Because actions speak way louder than words. I don’t see how one could possibly engage in limited amounts of contraception and not have a selfish and skewed view of sex. The contraceptive acts will invariably color even the purest of minds with the greatest of procreative intentions.

I mean, I have always been against pornography and masturbation. Yet at the same time, I was also addicted to pornography and masturbation for a long time. At a certain point the cognitive dissonance got to be too much. I never stopped believing what I was doing was wrong, but I did stop caring about it. Heck, I even starting viewing myself as a spiritual martyr. I was engaging in these behaviors so I could better control myself during Phase II of NFP… because there was a long period of time where another child could have been a health disaster for my wife. So this way I didn’t take that risk AND I didn’t endanger her soul by going down another route.

Talk about an absurd twisting of the logic! I was saying “well, I’ll just go down so that my wife and family don’t go down with the ship… maybe that will earn me some points with God for wanting to spare them the spiritual pain.” How incredibly screwed up is that?

I guess the bottom line is that the Church has strong reasons for what She teaches and they do logically add up. Far from taking a mechanical, technical or overly specific approach, the Church is taking a holistic approach here.

 

[Debora123]

Personally I see the Church’s teaching on sexuality as the only thing that makes sense out there. It’s all or nothing to me. Nebulous lines like “well you can’t have a contraceptive mentality but contraception in limited cases is OK provided you have the right mindset” are just nonsensical to me. Because actions speak way louder than words. I don’t see how one could possibly engage in limited amounts of contraception and not have a selfish and skewed view of sex. The contraceptive acts will invariably color even the purest of minds with the greatest of procreative intentions.

Thanks Bucket.

Just one question though… doesn’t the “contraceptive mentality” apply strictly to the circumstances and intentions involved rather than the means itself? For example, a couple can have a contraceptive mentality while using NFP if their reasons aren’t just. Therefore, doesn’t this mean that having a contraceptive mentality really has nothing to do with what means of birth control you use (whether it be NFP or condoms), and applies only to the ATTITUDE one has while using said birth control?

The way Wanderer explained it (and I’ve actually seen it explained this way before by others) is that there are 3 aspects of an action that determine its morality. Intent, circumstances, and means.

A married couple can use NFP or condoms with the same exact intent, under the same exact circumstances. Neither the intent nor the circumstance is sinful given the reasons to avoid are just. It would logically follow then, that the only thing separating the morality of NFP and condoms is strictly the means used, and has nothing to do with anyone’s mentality (since their mentality is the same). So I guess this doesn’t really match up with the assertion that all couples who use condoms to avoid/postpone automatically have a skewed, selfish view of sex, and a contraceptive mentality.

Do you follow what I’m saying?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Thanks Bucket.

Just one question though… doesn’t the “contraceptive mentality” apply strictly to the circumstances and intentions involved rather than the means itself? For example, a couple can have a contraceptive mentality while using NFP if their reasons aren’t just. Therefore, doesn’t this mean that having a contraceptive mentality really has nothing to do with what means of birth control you use (whether it be NFP or condoms), and applies only to the ATTITUDE one has while using said birth control?

The way Wanderer explained it (and I’ve actually seen it explained this way before by others) is that there are 3 aspects of an action that determine its morality. Intent, circumstances, and means.

A married couple can use NFP or condoms with the same exact intent, under the same exact circumstances. Neither the intent nor the circumstance is sinful given the reasons to avoid are just. It would logically follow then, that the only thing separating the morality of NFP and condoms is strictly the means used, and has nothing to do with anyone’s mentality (since their mentality is the same). So I guess this doesn’t really match up with the assertion that all couples who use condoms to avoid/postpone automatically have a skewed, selfish view of sex, and a contraceptive mentality.

Do you follow what I’m saying?

I agree that it is theoretically possible to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality”.

However, *using *contraception, regardless of of whether the intent may be justified, automatically throws you into the “contraceptive mentality” because you’re… using contraception… right?

 

[Em_in_FL]

In other words… the church clearly teaches that BOTH the means and the intent are important aspects…

The Catechism says:

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

 

[Debora123]

I agree that it is theoretically possible to use NFP with a “contraceptive mentality”.

However, *using *contraception, regardless of of whether the intent may be justified, automatically throws you into the “contraceptive mentality” because you’re… using contraception… right?

Yeah… perhaps I don’t quite know what a contraceptive mentality is.

I thought it was along the lines of avoiding children with unjust reasons, but since one can use just reason to use a condom and yet that is* still *a contraceptive mentality, I suppose that’s not really what it means.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Yeah… perhaps I don’t quite know what a contraceptive mentality is.

I thought it was along the lines of avoiding children with unjust reasons, but since one can use just reason to use a condom and yet that is still a contraceptive mentality, I suppose that’s not really what it means.

Contraception means taking an action to avoid conception while having sexual relations.
You can put contraception into action through the means… and you can put contraception into a mentality through intent (doesn’t matter what means you use)…

Neither is acceptable.

 

[Debora123]

Contraception means taking an action to avoid conception while having sexual relations.
You can put contraception into action through the means… and you can put contraception into a mentality through intent (doesn’t matter what means you use)…

Neither is acceptable.

I’m sorry…I don’t follow.

Are you saying that “contraceptive mentality” has 2 meanings?

Meaning 1: Using contraception, even with just intentions.
Meaning 2: Using NFP with unjust intentions.

Is this correct?

 

[maryjk]

Yeah… perhaps I don’t quite know what a contraceptive mentality is.

I thought it was along the lines of avoiding children with unjust reasons, but since one can use just reason to use a condom and yet that is* still *a contraceptive mentality, I suppose that’s not really what it means.

I don’t know that anyone can really nail down what a “contraceptive mentality” means.

I see it as a term made up by people that want to question couples that use NFP. It isn’t mentioned anywhere in official documents. Read the CCC, it isn’t there.

 

[thewanderer]

Yeah… perhaps I don’t quite know what a contraceptive mentality is.

I thought it was along the lines of avoiding children with unjust reasons, but since one can use just reason to use a condom and yet that is* still *a contraceptive mentality, I suppose that’s not really what it means.

I think “contraceptive mentality” is yet another poorly defined and explained term. I think having selfish reasons and intentions for avoiding children is one thing, which can occur with either contraception or NFP and that the “contraceptive mentality” is another thing entirely. My understanding of it is a way of understanding sexuality that separates the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality in ones understanding of sexuality itself.

As for contraception leading to either selfish avoidance of children or a contraceptive mentality… I tend to agree that it does that, at least more so than NFP does. Is it technically possible to use contraception without selfish intent or a contraceptive mentality? Yes, it is possible, but I find it hard to see how someone could use it continuously without, at least to some extent, separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality in their way of thinking about sexuality. Does that make any sense?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Thanks Bucket.

Just one question though… doesn’t the “contraceptive mentality” apply strictly to the circumstances and intentions involved rather than the means itself? For example, a couple can have a contraceptive mentality while using NFP if their reasons aren’t just. Therefore, doesn’t this mean that having a contraceptive mentality really has nothing to do with what means of birth control you use (whether it be NFP or condoms), and applies only to the ATTITUDE one has while using said birth control?

The way Wanderer explained it (and I’ve actually seen it explained this way before by others) is that there are 3 aspects of an action that determine its morality. Intent, circumstances, and means.

A married couple can use NFP or condoms with the same exact intent, under the same exact circumstances. Neither the intent nor the circumstance is sinful given the reasons to avoid are just. It would logically follow then, that the only thing separating the morality of NFP and condoms is strictly the means used, and has nothing to do with anyone’s mentality (since their mentality is the same). So I guess this doesn’t really match up with the assertion that all couples who use condoms to avoid/postpone automatically have a skewed, selfish view of sex, and a contraceptive mentality.

Do you follow what I’m saying?

When one uses a condom, there are actually two intents not just one. Intent one is avoid having a child. (Intent not inherently wrong) Intent two is to have relations when they should be fertile and turn them infertile.

A couple who uses a condom has a contraceptive mentality de facto. They are performing an action that could lead to pregnancy and causing it to be sterile.

With NFP there is one intention, avoid a pregnancy. That is done by avoiding the sex act. They are not altering or changing the sex act. They are just abstaining.

A couple can have the most selfish reason in the world for doing NFP.
It never is the sin of contraception. None of the acts is contraceptive. The sin is being selfish toward their spouse and potential children.

A couple could have very serious reasons to avoid children. None of those reasons could permit a contraceptive act. There might be mitigating factors to reduce culpability, yet a contracepted act is always grave matter.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think “contraceptive mentality” is yet another poorly defined and explained term. I think having selfish reasons and intentions for avoiding children is one thing, which can occur with either contraception or NFP and that the “contraceptive mentality” is another thing entirely. My understanding of it is a way of understanding sexuality that separates the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality in ones understanding of sexuality itself.

As for contraception leading to either selfish avoidance of children or a contraceptive mentality… I tend to agree that it does that, at least more so than NFP does. Is it technically possible to use contraception without selfish intent or a contraceptive mentality? Yes, it is possible, but I find it hard to see how someone could use it continuously without, at least to some extent, separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality in their way of thinking about sexuality. Does that make any sense?

I’m not sure that term exists in any church documents though, hopefully someone will correct me. I thought the term was just one theologians used at times.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m sorry…I don’t follow.

Are you saying that “contraceptive mentality” has 2 meanings?

Meaning 1: Using contraception, even with just intentions.
Meaning 2: Using NFP with unjust intentions.

Is this correct?

It’s not a perfectly defined thing… not even something in church teachings. A “mentality” is a way of thinking, right? So if your mind is justifying the use of contraception (a moral wrong) then you would have a “contraceptive mentality”.
Using contraception is always morally wrong.

I think “contraceptive mentality” is yet another poorly defined and explained term. I think having selfish reasons and intentions for avoiding children is one thing, which can occur with either contraception or NFP and that the “contraceptive mentality” is another thing entirely. My understanding of it is a way of understanding sexuality that separates the procreative and unitive aspects of sexuality in ones understanding of sexuality itself.

As for contraception leading to either selfish avoidance of children or a contraceptive mentality… I tend to agree that it does that, at least more so than NFP does. Is it technically possible to use contraception without selfish intent or a contraceptive mentality? Yes, it is possible, but I find it hard to see how someone could use it continuously without, at least to some extent, separating the unitive and procreative aspects of sexuality in their way of thinking about sexuality. Does that make any sense?

I agree.
And while it may be theoretically possible for someone to abuse NFP with a contraceptive mentality (unjust intentions), it would be a LOT harder to put it into practice because there are actual sacrifices being made through abstinence when using NFP.