is NFP a sin?

[Debora123]

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.

I wouldn’t be surprised.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Yeah, its not used in official Church documents. But as I thought about it and talked with other people about it that is the definition of it that made the most sense to me. Contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects in reality, so a contraceptive mentality would be one that separates the two in thought. Which is an entirely different thing than to be selfish. I think it is silly to talk about people “using” NFP or ABC with a contraceptive mentality. They can be using them selfishly, but they either have or do not have a contraceptive mentality. A mentality is a way of thinking about something. Its not a way of thinking about something, not a way of acting.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Yeah, its not used in official Church documents. But as I thought about it and talked with other people about it that is the definition of it that made the most sense to me. Contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects in reality, so a contraceptive mentality would be one that separates the two in thought. Which is an entirely different thing than to be selfish. I think it is silly to talk about people “using” NFP or ABC with a contraceptive mentality. They can be using them selfishly, but they either have or do not have a contraceptive mentality. A mentality is a way of thinking about something. Its not a way of thinking about something, not a way of acting.

Yup… just like how *many *other sins can be accomplished both in action and in mind…

 

[Debora123]

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?

Yes.

I can definitely see how it would be more tempting to avoid for unjust reasons while using means other than NFP because NFP is more difficult. I can see how NFP helps keep things in perspective and makes it easier to stick with avoiding justly.

But likewise, I wouldn’t say that every couple who uses a condom (for example) is avoiding children for unjust reasons. I know you’re not saying that either.

 

[Em_in_FL]

But likewise, I wouldn’t say that every couple who uses a condom (for example) is avoiding children for unjust reasons. I know you’re not saying that either.

Agreed… but it’s still clearly taught to be morally wrong.

You can have good intentions for many sins…

 

[The_Bucket]

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 understand what you’re saying and I know it’s a subject of theoretical discussion on the forums, but I think it’s pure nonsense. And I base that thought on this:
The Gospel of Matthew:

What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go.Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.”

The first son is the couple who is annoyed from time to time about using NFP. Who is scared and extremely cautious or does not always have the best mindset. But the thing is… they keep using it!

The second son is the couple who says “yes sir!” to God and His Church when they command for our marriages and the marital act to be both procreative and unitive… then go about using contraception while still telling themselves that they’re really open to life.

 

[Debora123]

I understand what you’re saying and I know it’s a subject of theoretical discussion on the forums, but I think it’s pure nonsense. And I base that thought on this:

The first son is the couple who is annoyed from time to time about using NFP. Who is scared and extremely cautious or does not always have the best mindset. But the thing is… they keep using it!

The second son is the couple who says “yes sir!” to God and His Church when they command for our marriages and the marital act to be both procreative and unitive… then go about using contraception while still telling themselves that they’re really open to life.

I can definitely understand your scenario above, as it demonstrates the sin of disobedience. In which case, what I was trying to say in my previous post to you definitely would be nonsense. So I’ll agree there.

I guess what I had in mind was in a case where a married couple didn’t realize they were going against Church teaching… in which case their use of contraception would have nothing to do with disobeying God. Let’s look at this scenario:

Two married couples. One Catholic, one protestant. They each have a few kids already, and they both want more. However, due to serious health reasons with the wives, they were told by their doctor to hold off on kids until further notice.

The Catholic couple decides to postpone children by means of NFP… while the protestant couple decides to do the same by using condoms.

Obviously their intentions are the same - to postpone kids due to serious health reasons until it has been determined that it is safe to do so. Their circumstances are the same too… they both have a few kids already, they both want more, but they both need to follow the doctor’s orders for the well being of the family.

The only factor here that is different is the means used to avoid.

The protestant couple’s faith does not teach that contraception is wrong, and since they have both been devout protestants their whole lives, they have no way of knowing that using a non abortifacient contraceptive is intrinsically evil. They don’t even know what NFP means!

Now, can we really accuse this couple of being selfish if as far as they know, they are using an acceptable means of doing what needs to be done? Isn’t selfishness something that happens in our hearts, and not something that just automatically comes as part of an act? With that being said, I’m having a hard time seeing what part of my previous post can be classified as nonsense…

 

[The_Bucket]

First off, let me clarify that I meant that I think the whole discussion of “can NFP be done in a sinful fashion with a contraceptive mentality” is nonsense. I think a) No, it can’t and b) debating it is a massive waste of time since all of 8-10% of married Catholic couples use NFP so why are we getting into something that likely never happens and affects so few people. I was not saying that you were spouting nonsense.

Now, can we really accuse this couple of being selfish if as far as they know, they are using an acceptable means of doing what needs to be done? Isn’t selfishness something that happens in our hearts, and not something that just automatically comes as part of an act?

Getting to the heart of the matter, this is a different issue. Now you’re talking culpability. No, I would not imagine that God would hold this against these hypothetical Protestants. After all, this is what they were taught. Honestly, I also don’t imagine that good atheists are held to the same account regarding same-sex relations as we Catholics are. To whom much is given, much is required. We have been given an infallible institution and the Real Presence of Christ. Much is required of us.

However, as self-giving as this hypothetical Protestant couple may be with their spouses and with the community at large… they are still committing acts that are inherently selfish. The fact that they do not know that lessens their culpability or maybe removes it entirely. But it does not change the actual nature of the contraceptive act.

If someone is raised in a household where thievery and fraud is a way of life, would that person be held to the same account as you or I? No. But their thievery and fraud would still objectively be evil.

 

[Debora123]

First off, let me clarify that I meant that I think the whole discussion of “can NFP be done in a sinful fashion with a contraceptive mentality” is nonsense. I think a) No, it can’t and b) debating it is a massive waste of time since all of 8-10% of married Catholic couples use NFP so why are we getting into something that likely never happens and affects so few people. I was not saying that you were spouting nonsense.

Ohhh, wow yeah I completely misunderstood what you were referring to as “nonsense” lol. I thought you were saying that it’s nonsense to believe that anyone who uses contraception can have good intentions and just circumstances because what those people are doing is still sinful anyway… and so they are still selfish and wrong in their intent. I guess I wasn’t too sure what you meant, but I thought it was something along those lines.

Getting to the heart of the matter, this is a different issue. Now you’re talking culpability. No, I would not imagine that God would hold this against these hypothetical Protestants. After all, this is what they were taught. Honestly, I also don’t imagine that good atheists are held to the same account regarding same-sex relations as we Catholics are. To whom much is given, much is required. We have been given an infallible institution and the Real Presence of Christ. Much is required of us.

Agreed.

However, as self-giving as this hypothetical Protestant couple may be with their spouses and with the community at large… they are still committing acts that are inherently selfish. The fact that they do not know that lessens their culpability or maybe removes it entirely. But it does not change the actual nature of the contraceptive act.

You are right… someone not knowing that a particular act is wrong doesn’t make the act licit, it just lessens or removes culpability. The thing with selfishness though… I dunno. As far as I know, selfishness is something that happens in the heart… I can see how an act in isolation can inherently be wrong, but I don’t see how an act in isolation can inherently be “selfish.”

If someone is raised in a household where thievery and fraud is a way of life, would that person be held to the same account as you or I? No. But their thievery and fraud would still objectively be evil.

Agreed.

 

[spunjalebi]

Wow this thread got really deep.

Debora actually asked a lot of questions that I’ve thought about myself, honestly. One of the criticism against NFP use is you are still using it to avoid pregnancy, but we’ve already addressed that. I went into Church teaching and read how avoiding pregnancy in and of itself is not inherently sinful. However, I can’t help but understand how using a condom to avoid and using NFP to avoid are different.

Sure intentions and signs matter. Actions matter. That is true. Yet in both cases of avoidance, the actions are the same. The signs are the same. The intentions are the same. I guess when it comes down to it-- sexual intercourse in its “natural” state is what matters? That’s allowing everything about fertility to happen?

BUT (and we may have already gone over this)-- how is it allowing fertility to happen if you’re avoiding on the fertile days? It’s not the same as having sex with a condom when a woman is ovulating. But it’s still avoiding the situation of fertility.

Honestly, I’m trying to understand this. Yet sometimes it seems like Catholic teaching on contraception is just grasping at straws. We come across as a bunch of hypocrites who like to play semantic gymnastics that use poor means to justify the ends. Not my view, but those of non-believers and Protestants who think we want to have our cake and eat it too. Yes, I’ve been talking to too many anti-Catholics I admit.

What makes it even more tricky to explain is how the Church nearly allowed contraceptive use as part of its teaching. Wasn’t there a commission done back in the 1950’s or early 1960’s? The vote was a narrow one and it took the convincing of a few bishops to convince the Pope to not change the teaching, because it would mean the Holy Spirit left the Church and the Church is wrong. Of course, I do agree with that-- and I’ve been reading some of those historical documents and can see how there was a level of manipulation and politics involved. It still leaves me wondering how using an NFP-style method almost went out the window and contraceptive use was almost considered acceptable. I think of all of these things when I try to understand NFP.

I really do want to understand this and can’t shake the feeling that there’s too much terminology and not enough basis in Church teaching. What did people do before Billings developed the first method? Did people eventually stop having sex to prevent more children?

 

[JackieMom]

The thing I always wonder is what if a couple uses NFP, abstains according to the rules during fertile periods, but also uses a condom as a backup during non-fertile sex. The couple is still making the sacrifice of abstinence during fertile periods, but needs to ensure that a pregnancy does not occur, so uses a secondary method to provide extra safety. They don’t want to selfishly take advantage of the complete freedom contraception affords, but for a serious reason really do need to not get pregnant.

Is the problem that using a barrier during pregnancy-avoding sex too effective? Removes the possibility that just one sperm could survive and make a baby? I always thought that if God wanted a woman to get pregnant, it would happen regardless.

Just a philosophical question I’ve always pondered…

 

[thewanderer]

Wow this thread got really deep.

Debora actually asked a lot of questions that I’ve thought about myself, honestly. One of the criticism against NFP use is you are still using it to avoid pregnancy, but we’ve already addressed that. I went into Church teaching and read how avoiding pregnancy in and of itself is not inherently sinful. However, I can’t help but understand how using a condom to avoid and using NFP to avoid are different.

Sure intentions and signs matter. Actions matter. That is true. Yet in both cases of avoidance, the actions are the same. The signs are the same. The intentions are the same. I guess when it comes down to it-- sexual intercourse in its “natural” state is what matters? That’s allowing everything about fertility to happen?

The bolded is the part where you are mistaken. The Church does not see the actions as equivalent. With NFP to avoid all one does is gather knowledge about oneself and ones fertility, and then take that knowledge into account when making a decision of whether or not to have sex at any given point in time. Using Contraception is saying “yes, I know sexuality is inherently linked with procreation, and that it is a powerful act that comes with much responsibility because of its role in creating new life, and that I am currently fertile and it is currently imprudent for me to have a baby, but instead of using this knowledge to decide to abstain, and keep the link between sexuality and procreation intact, I am going to purposefully break that connection by removing my fertility from the act of sex”. You may not think there is anything wrong with the latter, but there is very clearly a difference here in the actions. The Church distinguishes between these two because of this difference.

BUT (and we may have already gone over this)-- how is it allowing fertility to happen if you’re avoiding on the fertile days? It’s not the same as having sex with a condom when a woman is ovulating. But it’s still avoiding the situation of fertility.

This makes it sound as though you have been misled by the confusing expressions used to explain this teaching. This sounds as though you think the Church teaches that it is only ok to have sex if it results in a baby. That is not at all what the Church teaches. Yes, I know that a lot of the language used by many Catholics when they discuss this can seem as though that is what is being said, but it really isn’t.

Honestly, I’m trying to understand this. Yet sometimes it seems like Catholic teaching on contraception is just grasping at straws. We come across as a bunch of hypocrites who like to play semantic gymnastics that use poor means to justify the ends. Not my view, but those of non-believers and Protestants who think we want to have our cake and eat it too. Yes, I’ve been talking to too many anti-Catholics I admit.

What makes it even more tricky to explain is how the Church nearly allowed contraceptive use as part of its teaching. Wasn’t there a commission done back in the 1950’s or early 1960’s? The vote was a narrow one and it took the convincing of a few bishops to convince the Pope to not change the teaching, because it would mean the Holy Spirit left the Church and the Church is wrong. Of course, I do agree with that-- and I’ve been reading some of those historical documents and can see how there was a level of manipulation and politics involved. It still leaves me wondering how using an NFP-style method almost went out the window and contraceptive use was almost considered acceptable. I think of all of these things when I try to understand NFP.

I really do want to understand this and can’t shake the feeling that there’s too much terminology and not enough basis in Church teaching. What did people do before Billings developed the first method? Did people eventually stop having sex to prevent more children?

What did people do before contraception? Reality is that sex is connected with babies. And reality is often harsh. People have to deal with much, much worse than a lack of sex every day. (And please, please understand that I am in no way trying to diminish the importance of sex within marriage or the struggle and hardship of having to abstain by saying this). The fact is that life is not easy, reality is not easy, its a struggle, with everyone dealing with their own difficulties. As Christians, we can turn to Christ to help us carry that burden, to make it easier. We can’t make life’s difficulties disappear, but we can make them manageable.

 

[Debora123]

What makes it even more tricky to explain is how the Church nearly allowed contraceptive use as part of its teaching. Wasn’t there a commission done back in the 1950’s or early 1960’s? The vote was a narrow one and it took the convincing of a few bishops to convince the Pope to not change the teaching, because it would mean the Holy Spirit left the Church and the Church is wrong. Of course, I do agree with that-- and I’ve been reading some of those historical documents and can see how there was a level of manipulation and politics involved. It still leaves me wondering how using an NFP-style method almost went out the window and contraceptive use was almost considered acceptable. I think of all of these things when I try to understand NFP.

Are you able to provide a source for this information?

I’m not trying to say I think you’re making it up, and I actually have heard that exact same thing from another poster here, I guess I just never really believed that that’s what it all came down to…

 

[The_Bucket]

You are right… someone not knowing that a particular act is wrong doesn’t make the act licit, it just lessens or removes culpability. The thing with selfishness though… I dunno. As far as I know, selfishness is something that happens in the heart… I can see how an act in isolation can inherently be wrong, but I don’t see how an act in isolation can inherently be “selfish.”

I don’t know if it’s semantics or the lack of depth in the English language that makes it hard to describe what I mean by a “selfish act” when there is no selfish intent. But I’ll try this analogy…

Say someone freely chooses to become an “actor/actress” in pornographic films. That person was not abused, is not in financial dire straits, is not on drugs, etc. Just makes the choice to do it and does not feel exploited in the least. Grew up thinking porn was OK and always wanted to be in such films because he/she thought it was exciting and cool.

Does that person’s personal feelings about the issue change the fact that he or she is indeed being exploited? I don’t even mean does it change the fact that it’s wrong, I’m saying does it change the fact that there is degradation even when the person does not feel exploited. The answer of course is no. How we feel does not always correspond with reality. Someone who works in porn may not feel exploited, but he or she is still indeed being exploited and degraded.

And JackieMom, the answer to your question would be that using a condom is still morally unacceptable. In fact, even infertile couples cannot use condoms. Even in situations where the wife is already pregnant or well beyond child bearing years, using a condom is gravely sinful.

Relative effectiveness has nothing to do with it. Look at this chart and keep in mind that it’s from the abortion-supporting Guttmacher Institute: guttmacher.org/graphics/factsheets/first-year-contra.jpg

Perfect use for STM is actually more effective than condoms. And, of course, perfect use is pretty rare. Typical use “failure rates” for fertility awareness methods are fairly comparable to condoms. So you’re not relying on a “better back-up method” with your hypothetical.

The problem with contraception is not that it’s more effective than fertility awareness… because in most cases it’s not. At least not when you consider perfect use. The huge disparity is between NFP method “typical use” versus “typical use” of other methods, but again, that’s neither here nor there. The moral problem with contraception is that it destroys the symbol of self-sacrificial love between spouses. Sexual intimacy is what separates the love of spouses from the love we are to have for our neighbors. If we are to love our neighbors as ourselves and lay down our lives for our neighbors… why would we want to degrade the symbol of the purportedly deeper love we have for our spouses?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

What did people do before contraception?

There is no “before contraception.” Contraception does not include just artificial methods, but also natural ones; e.g., Onan. There are also very primitive tribes whose woman use various things found in nature to change their cycles and thus their ability to get pregnant; e.g., the Zo’e and a certain type of tree bark. Given that, it is likely to have existed well before recorded history.

People have always figured out ways to limit the number of children they can have. Using NFP is simply another one, the difference being it is the one that was determined to be licit by the Catholic Church under specific circumstances.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

First off, let me clarify that I meant that I think the whole discussion of “can NFP be done in a sinful fashion with a contraceptive mentality” is nonsense.

I would disagree with this point, and the reason is that NFP can’t just simply be used to avoid having children, but it must be used with just reason. The only difference between using NFP with unjust reason and ABC is the means.

I recognize there are still some nuances, but they don’t do with away with the umbrella of contraceptive mentality, nor the sin associated with both acts. It just becomes a case of arguing about which mortal sin is worse.

 

[Em_in_FL]

There is no “before contraception.” Contraception does not include just artificial methods, but also natural ones; e.g., Onan. There are also very primitive tribes whose woman use various things found in nature to change their cycles and thus their ability to get pregnant; e.g., the Zo’e and a certain type of tree bark. Given that, it is likely to have existed well before recorded history.

People have always figured out ways to limit the number of children they can have. Using NFP is simply another one, the difference being it is the one that was determined to be licit by the Catholic Church under specific circumstances.

I’d go on to add that it’s the way that God designed the female human body to work - with fertile and infertile phases.

I know some will then make the argument that those old school contraception means (tree bark and medicinal plants, etc, etc) are also “natural”, but that’s not the point… they weren’t designed by God to be used in this manner - it’s destructive to the creation of a human soul and would go against the very first commandment of “Be fruitful and multiply”…

So yeah - it’s easily understood how NFP can be considered licit by the Church - it is in communion with God’s very design.

 

[JackieMom]

I would disagree with this point, and the reason is that NFP can’t just simply be used to avoid having children, but it must be used with just reason. The only difference between using NFP with unjust reason and ABC is the means.

I recognize there are still some nuances, but they don’t do with away with the umbrella of contraceptive mentality, nor the sin associated with both acts. It just becomes a case of arguing about which mortal sin is worse.

So should couples using NFP with a “contraceptive mentality,” whatever that means to you, be trying to conceive instead? Are people allowed to not have sex during peak fertility, or are they obligated to have sex at that time unless there is a serious reason to avoid?

NFP is not contraception, so how can it be used as though it were? And if couples already have a “contraceptive mentality” - why aren’t they just using contraception? It’s a lot easier and often more effective.

 

[Debora123]

I know some will then make the argument that those old school contraception means (tree bark and medicinal plants, etc, etc) are also “natural”, but that’s not the point… they weren’t designed by God to be used in this manner - it’s destructive to the creation of a human soul and **would go against the very first commandment of “Be fruitful and multiply”… **

I would just like to point out that I don’t think contraception necessarily goes against the commandment of being fruitful and multiplying in and of itself.

If just reasons are being used to avoid/postpone children, the couple are not required at that moment to be “fruitful and multiply.”

The sin would not be the avoidance of pregnancy, the sin would strictly be that of using illicit means to do so.

I don’t mean to be nit picky, I just know that it’s little things like this that really confuse people.

 

[Debora123]

So should couples using NFP with a “contraceptive mentality,” whatever that means to you, be trying to conceive instead? Are people allowed to not have sex during peak fertility, or are they obligated to have sex at that time unless there is a serious reason to avoid?

NFP is not contraception, so how can it be used as though it were? And if couples already have a “contraceptive mentality” - why aren’t they just using contraception? It’s a lot easier and often more effective.

“Contraceptive mentality” is a stupid, made up term with no exact meaning that makes sense.

Either way, the Church does teach that it is a sin to avoid children if a couple does not have just reasons to do so, regardless of whether they are using periodic abstinence or condoms or whatever.

So in a way, there still are restrictions to not having sex on the fertile days.