NFP Hipocracy

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

Alan, I can see that this is too subtle for you. Let’s go over this again. Maybe I’ll eventually say it in the right way to get through. If NFP couple thinks they can’t get pregnant at a certain time but God puts the egg and everything else necessary in the right place for conception and the couple engages in sex, what are they doing to thwart conception? Nothing. They are not trying to alter God’s plan. They are totally aware that this could happen and accept that conception could occur at any point if God wishes.

OK. So at the particular time they are engaging in the sex act, they are not doing anything to thwart conception. Therefore, they can “let 'er rip” and not worry about conception because a) they don’t believe in worrying about conception during actual intercourse, and b) they have taken scientifically proven steps in anticipation of this sex act to ensure that it is highly unlikely that conception is possible. They understand, however, that there is a remote chance that things will not turn out the way they are planned and they will conceive.

If ABC couple thinks they can’t get pregnant because they are using ABC and God chooses to let that method fail and puts everything in place for conception, they are actively trying to render this act of God impotent.

In this case, at the particular time they are engaging in the sex act (unless they are using withdrawal) they are not doing anything to thwart contraception. They don’t worry about conceiving because they have taken “artificially” scientifically proven steps in anticipation of this sex act to ensure that it is highly unlikely that conception is possible. They understand, however, unless they are total dimwits, that there is a remote chance that things will not turn out as planned and they will conceive.

You can’t render the marriage act impotent if you are not engaging in it! You can only render it impotent if you wrap yourself in latex, make some other barrier, chemically castrate, etc.

If you want to cooperate with God’s plan for procreation and really trust Him to do what’s best, then you should not have to exercise any special care when you have this act, or you’re rigging the system. This objection is made in HV but not completely addressed in a satisfactorily logical way. Again it gets back to an article of faith; you either buy the Church’s teachings or you don’t.

This is just, of course, one part of the argument. You also have to take into account the necessity of using NFP, Natural Law, and a few other things that go into the morality of NFP. I think you have to look at the whole rather than disecting individual parts. If you try to separate motive, method, design, etc. you get an even fuzzier view.

I agree that the whole area is very “fuzzy.” If you were to just come out and say, “ABC is evil and NFP is not because the Church says so,” then I can respect that, and there is no argument. If you think you understand it and try to explain it, however, then instead of simply declaring your faith in the teaching authority of the Church, you are presenting yourself as an authority and subject to being misunderstood by the likes of me.

If I really tried, perhaps I could articulate your point of view. It still wouldn’t make sense to me, though, because it is based on certain moral facts the Church has declared that are not subject to logical interpretation, such as the immorality of separating the two components of the marital act.

Now, I ask you, if you believe you have “seen” the logic and believe in the Church’s teachings, and I am willing to accept the Church’s teachings even though they make no sense, which of us is Thomas and which of us is the one who has believed without actually “seeing” the logic? Perhaps you have seen the logic, and if so, I would enjoy seeing it too. I guess I want to be Thomas and not Thomas at the same time.

Alan

 

[rheins2000]

bear06:

Once again, yes, if God wants a baby to exist it will either way.

This is not an arguement for using NFP as birth prevention. For God, if he wanted to,could make a baby exist without any help from anyone.

That’s like saying you can do anything you want. By saying that, then artificial contraception would fall under the same reasoning of “if God wants a baby to exist it will, either with artificial contraception or not.”

You are taking human free will and human decision making out of the process. The main point of this whole discussion has been the intent of the couple in their relations in marriage.

bear06:

HOWEVER, when we use a condom, etc. we are trying to thwart this.

You are also TRYING to thwart this using NFP as a method of preventing births…do you not see this?..its about the mindset as well as the means.

bear06:

An NFP couple is not because they are always accepting that this could be the case and if God should choose to make what we think is an unfertile time, the right time, we are doing nothing to try and thwart this reality.

They are only accepting that this COULD be the case, just as those who use condoms are as well.

Besides, NFP is one of the most effective methods of preventing births there is…I don’t know the statistics, but I am almot positive it is a more effective way of preventing births than condoms, diaphragms, etc.

bear06:

An NFP couple is NEVER doing anything to render conception impossible.

No method renders conception impossible, artificial or natural. It is only the intent or action that is, as its ends, trying to render conception impossible that is the main issue. That is why the Catechism says any act that ‘proposes… to render procreation impossible’.

bear06:

We are doing everything it takes to create a baby if God chooses.

What!!!..then why use NFP? This statement doesnt make any sense.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

rheins2000:

What!!!..then why use NFP? This statement doesnt make any sense.

Dear rheins2000,

In hundreds of posts exchanged on this topic, I can only conclude that the premises and conclusions of the Church teachings on birth control, such as HV, are not explainable by anybody I’ve seen try so far.

If that is in fact the case, then perhaps we must admit that it is beyond mortal understanding and simply accept it in much the same way we accept Mary’s assumption, transubstantiation, the Trinity, and all those mysteries.

If that is not, in fact, the case, do you agree that 1) the Church teaching is that ABC is intrinsically evil but that NFP is not given “serious” reasons to exercise responsible parenting, and 2) this teaching is correct or even infallible? You seem to be making the same points as I do that certain ABC techniques cannot be logically shown to be different, morally, than NFP. Given a couple’s reason to avoid conception is licit, as outlined in HV, do you believe there is a moral difference?

Alan

 

[DVIN_CKS]

What I think rheins is trying to say is that, unless for serious reasons (which only the couple and their spiritual advisor can determine), married catholic couples are to have a pro-child mentality **each and every time ** they engage in the congugal act. NFP should be irrelevant unless you are using it to conceive a child. If you are using it to avoid conception, then your mentality is the same as the couple using ABC.

Having sex during a woman’s infertile cycle in the hopes that conception doesn’t occur is not putting a lot of trust in God to plan your family. This is like saying, “I’m open to God’s will…but I’m going to try and avoid it”.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[bear06]

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes, you’re wrong.!

I can honestly say that you’re just not getting it. I’m glad to see that Alan can now rely on the back up I use when somebody just doesn’t get it which is always “the Church is right!”

This basically has to just come down to a Pascal’s Wager type situation, otherwise we can beat the dead horse!

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06…my post was more for rheins to respond to since I was trying to re-iterate his angle on the discussion.

The teaching that NFP is an acceptable method of regulating one’s family size (which you and many others hold to) also requires one to believe that she/he has a role to play in determining the outcome of God’s will in her/his life. I believe that rheins is saying that this isn’t what the Church teaches.

 

[bear06]

DVIN CKS:

bear06…my post was more for rheins to respond to since I was trying to re-iterate his angle on the discussion.

The teaching that NFP is an acceptable method of regulating one’s family size (which you and many others hold to) also requires one to believe that she/he has a role to play in determining the outcome of God’s will in her/his life. I believe that rheins is saying that this isn’t what the Church teaches.

 

[bear06]

Oops! I guess I somehow hit the send button. Wouldn’t this be free will? We can accept or reject God’s will. It would seem that someone is assuming that using NFP is a rejection of God’s will rather than a cooperation with it.

I was thinking about Alan’s last response and I really think that one of the barriers to this discussion is the constant flipping back and forth between method and mentality. I know everytime I think I’m answering why the method of NFP is Ok with God the argument is made that would seem to go back to the mentality. It would almost seem like we need a 3 column chart forum to argue this one!

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06:

We can accept or reject God’s will. It would seem that someone is assuming that using NFP is a rejection of God’s will rather than a cooperation with it.

How do I know what God’s will is for me personally?? I know His will for mankind in general * is to “go forth and multiply”, but I have absolutely no clue as to how many children God wants me - personally - to have. I know how many** I * ** want to have and how many I think ***I * ** can handle. How can I cooperate with something that I don’t know? If I really trusted God in giving me the number of children He desired, I wouldn’t need to bother trying to figure out my fertility cycle and then “work around it” to avoid an “unplanned” pregnancy. One could argue that taking advantage of the time of the month when a woman’s desire is the highest and her fertility the greatest would seem to be “cooperating” MORE with the will of God. That is, afterall how He designed us to “go forth and multiply” successfully.

I was thinking about Alan’s last response and I really think that one of the barriers to this discussion is the constant flipping back and forth between method and mentality. I know everytime I think I’m answering why the method of NFP is Ok with God the argument is made that would seem to go back to the mentality. It would almost seem like we need a 3 column chart forum to argue this one!

I agree! This is a topic that includes thought on: intent, method, and natural law mentality.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

bear06:

I was thinking about Alan’s last response and I really think that one of the barriers to this discussion is the constant flipping back and forth between method and mentality. I know everytime I think I’m answering why the method of NFP is Ok with God the argument is made that would seem to go back to the mentality. It would almost seem like we need a 3 column chart forum to argue this one!

DVIN CKS:

I agree! This is a topic that includes thought on: intent, method, and natural law mentality.

Dear bear06 and DVIN CKS,

You are right. I see the discussion flip-flopping.

On intent, I think the OP and rheins2000 have a great point. NFP and ABC are both wrong according to the Church when used for “selfish” reasons. What exactly, constitute “responsible parenthood” as opposed to “selfish reasons” is left for the individual to figure out, with some guidelines. I do not have a problem with the Church teaching on that, especially because she is in fact relativistic on the actual details of how to decide but instead chooses to develop a pro-life mentality in the faithful.

On method, I personally don’t see why the Church teaches to call ABC “intrinsically evil” but she has done so. I don’t understand her premises (that the procreative and unitive functions must never be separated) nor do I understand the logical attempts anyone speaking in her behalf has made thus far to justify her conclusions. There may be a logic higher than I am capable of understanding, but then again maybe it doesn’t subject itself to logic at all. As I have stated in other threads, I don’t have a horse in this race. One of the reasons I argue against those who think they can logically “convince” me the Church makes sense is to defend others who don’t understand it but also don’t accept the Church’s teaching authority like I recently didn’t; another reason is to provide an exercise platform for wannabe apologists who haven’t come up with anything that suits me yet – just in case they care.

On the natural law thing, I’m not sure. I don’t know what exactly this theory implies in general or as related to this discussion.

Alan

 

[Jennifer_J]

AlanFromWichita:

On method, I personally don’t see why the Church teaches to call ABC “intrinsically evil” but she has done so. I don’t understand her premises (that the procreative and unitive functions must never be separated) nor do I understand the logical attempts anyone speaking in her behalf has made thus far to justify her conclusions. There may be a logic higher than I am capable of understanding, but then again maybe it doesn’t subject itself to logic at all. As I have stated in other threads, I don’t have a horse in this race. One of the reasons I argue against those who think they can logically “convince” me the Church makes sense is to defend others who don’t understand it but also don’t accept the Church’s teaching authority like I recently didn’t; another reason is to provide an exercise platform for wannabe apologists who haven’t come up with anything that suits me yet – just in case they care.

On the natural law thing, I’m not sure. I don’t know what exactly this theory implies in general or as related to this discussion.

Alan

I’ve been trying to follow this thread and it’s revolving arguments. I think maybe this is where the argument needs to focus. I don’t claim to have any answers, but I’ve been thinking about this and trying to figure out a logical argument (not my strongest suit! lol). I think the answer lies is seeing the extremes of the unitive and procreative positions.

Let’s say a couple only wants the unitive aspect in their life–they contracept (chemical, barrier, sterile) or only have relations during definite infertile times so as to not have any children. If you take procreation to the extreme, the couple sees how many children they can make irregardless of financial, health or various other factors. These 2 aspects not joined together, can create an imbalance that is not healthy to the individuals or the couple. The Church sees these 2 aspects within each person and says they should be unified for a healthy person and a healthy marriage. So in joining the unitive and procreative aspect, we are allowed to “enjoy” each other both to have children and to just be together. If a situation arises where spacing of children is needed then NFP is the recourse to use because it respects the unitive aspect of marriage as well as allowing the couple to be open to life–no barriers other than time.

In marriage, the couple give themselves entirly to each other in an act of selfgiving. When we contracept with ABC (chemical, barrier or sterile) we are witholding part of ourselves from our spouse by using an actual barrier (chemical barrier or real barrier or surgical barrier). The use of NFP would involve a temporal barrier, I guess? But this lack of fertility is a natural occurance within the woman–one that can be used for the unitive aspect with the knowlege that conception could occur. Can this be abused? Certainly, we humans can find the loophole in anything! Does it make the Church’s teaching less correct? No, it just means we fall into sin very easily.

I’m sure I haven’t convinced you of anything! Maybe I’m as clear as mud, but maybe it’s a slightly different way to think about this topic??? Good luck and God bless on your journey of faith.
Jennifer

 

[johnnyjoe]

DVIN CKS:

johnnyjo…you bring thoughtful arguments to this discussion as does rheins. I would prefer not to see the term “Trads” being used since it seems a bit uncharitable (even though you may not mean it to be).

I see your dilema…you have a bishop/priests who have endorsed what you teach about NFP, so naturally you do not question that what you are teaching is in error of the Church. I get that.

Thank you for the kind remarks. My “uncharitablity” comes from having someone protray the NFP lifestyle as outside of the authentic teachings of the Church. That supposition flies in the face of the practice of the faith all over this globe, the pronouncements of our own Holy Father, and the Teaching Magesterium of the Church, which has MANY documents that support NFP as a just way to space births and determine family size.

Reines approach narrows this discussion to veracity of claim - is my “authority” better than your “authority” - and not about the authentic living out of the marital sacrament. For the entire history of the faith, abstinence during the fertile time has always been considered a virtue, if a couple wanted to determine how many children they wanted to have. Rheins makes such abstinence out to be a sin. That is a grave distortion of the Church’s teachings, and it confuses those like yourself into believing that the Church does not teach with one voice on this matter.

It is NEVER a sin not to have sex. You can make claims that it is, but to force upon someone the notion that you are sinning against God’s wish for us to be generous at the service of life because you don’t want to have sex tonight, is to denigrate the sacrament of matrimony into “proof” of our faithfullness to God. It is narrow and punitive and misleading.

I have also had discussions with priests about guidance regarding birth control and I have gotten unanimous responses that tell me that it is a decision between me and God. I leave not really getting the answers I seek. I understand that since Humanae Vitae was released that the church has pretty much been split over the issue of birth control and the majority of Catholics have been left to themselves for guidance in this important teaching (and may explain why such a high percentage of Catholics use some form of birth control). My husband and I never once got any specific teaching from our priest while we went through pre cana on this issue. My parents were very “liberal” catholics and felt that birth control was a matter of using your free will to discern what was best for you. So, to sum things up here…I feel the Church has failed miserably in teaching me what I need to know about the intricacies of my sexuality and the role it plays in my marriage.

And your experience is the NORM, not the exception. Rheins speaks from what we would call a “providentialist” perspective, with the added judgement of an arbiter for what “generous” in the service of life should look like for everyone.

We consider as a prime part of our apostolate, the further education and formation of priests in this matter. Our bishop, who I referred to earlier, has spoken to us specifically about how we can help him better train the priests of our diocese in this matter. We cannot look to the Church’s backward looking pronouncements like Rheins does, for the culture has chosen. This is not a matter of debate within the Church - the wording in HV is clear, the wording in the Cathechism is clear - the use of NFP is licit and encouraged for those who consider themselves having “serious” reasons for postponing a pregnancy.

Rheins would narrow what “serious” should mean, but I have told him repeatedly that that criteria is not for him to set - but he is unmoved.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Originally Posted by DVIN CKS

Knowing that there are priests and bishops out there that give conflicting opinions as to what the church teaches and how we should interpret documents like the CCC and HV is troublesome.

It conerns me deeply that if the evidence that rheins has provided has any validity to it that it would mean that A TON of Catholics have been very much mislead. It would mean that everything you think NFP is, all of a sudden is NOT.

This whole discussion boils down to whose bishop/priest is right and whose is wrong. Who is teaching in accordance to Rome and who isn’t? At this point, I don’t know what to believe…but will start doing some more reading in the hopes of finding the REAL truth to the matter. You and rheins can’t both be right.

And this is the effect of Rheins shadow-boxing. He cannot find any prohibition of the use of NFP, so he dances around the edges and plants seeds of doubt. His position helps perpetuate the confusion, and gives solace to those in the Church who think the Church should allow Artifical Birth Control. I have used the word “Trad” because it is a mind-set that perpetuates a triumphalistic and judgemental attitude toward the practice of NFP. I have witnessed it causing woment to resent and denigrate their husbands, and have seen men, in particular, see the sacrifice of married life to be something more for thier wifes than for themselves.

In Ephesians 5 we see St. Paul calling men to love their wives as Christ loves the Church, with total sacrifice - even unto death. A man who cannot marshall his sexual urges under this discipline, to be charitable to his wife and give her the “breathing room” she needs to be a great mother, has a cowardly and mean-spirited understanding of the sacrament of matrimony. I am not pointing arrows at Rheins specifically, I am speaking to the pain I have witnessed in relationships where the man cannot see how his definition of “serious” reasons doesn’t trump is wife’s “serious” reasons. The leadership of the man in the home is not to be coercive, it to be the very reflection of the love and sacrifice Christ offered on the Cross.

I would hope that in your searching, you look too the great news of Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, and how this important “body” of work will be shaping the Church’s understanding of human sexuality for years to come. It is not a subject that “sound-bites” well, but is rich with depth and insight into the very deepest questions our sexual urges bring to bear. It is a powerful and transformative process, to study this work, and I encourage getting some of the newer materials out, like Chrisopher West’s introductory book, to ease your way into understanding the Theology of your Body, and how this issue is the core issue of our day.

 

[johnnyjoe]

Does the Church really teach that NFP is ok?
Does the Church “promote” NFP?

This from the USCCB - who does have an NFP office, by the way, and who does promote NFP every year with NFP Week. This year it was in July, I believe…

Natural Family Planning
In fact, as experience bears witness, not every conjugal act is followed by a new life. God has wisely disposed natural laws and rhythms of fecundity which, of themselves, cause a separation in the succession of births. (HV, #11)

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the in fecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier. (HV, #16)

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. (HV, #16)
In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. (FC, #32)
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of births. 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, and humanprocreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart. (Catechism, 2368)

 

[johnnyjoe]

USCCB document continued…

Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation andthe use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. Thesemethods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them and favorthe 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:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality…The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourseto the rhythm of the cycle…involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. (Catechism, 2370)

Diocesan Development Program for Natural Family Planning • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops • 3211 Fourth St., NE • Washington, DC 20017 • 202/541-3240 •
nfp@usccb.org

 

[crazyage3]

From what I’ve come to learn is that some pills and I UD prevent the fertilized egg from implanting. That is abortion isnt it? Of course the church is against abortion. I think that is the main reason. Also, the other methods put a barrier between you and your spouse. God did not intend for that barrier!

adrienne

 

[Traci]

Scott Waddell:

That is not correct, the purpose of sex is twofold in a particular order:

PRIMARY: The production of children.

SECONDARY: The morally legitimate (within marriage) satisfaction of the sex urge.

God did not make women fertile 100% of the time, so the conditions are not always there for the primary, so sex in infertile time moves smoothly to the secondary purpose. When you use ABC, you disrupt the order, willfully forcing the secondary to be primary. This is why the Catechism often speaks about wrongs being disordered.

Scott

Great response Scott That really spoke to me…the more I learn of NFP the more I like it…it amazes me how awesomely God created us and how we work!!!

A few months ago and I was actually using ABC, as many others I went on it for “medical reasons” and have been on it since. I had previously felt that ABC was no different than NFP…they both controlled pregnacy. I was so wrong…since joining the Catholic Answers forum and reading the information and experiences people have posted and discussed, I have been doing some investigating on ABC and educating myself on the Church’s teachings. Now I can excitedly say that I have abruptly quit ABC and got to confession ASAP! I never understood/realized the Churchs’ stance on the issue until now. I feel overwhelmingly blessed to have found this site and I feel that my eyes have been opened by the grace of God to the evils of ABC. Not to mention I feel like a woman again and I am loving experiencing my body the way it is supposed to be.

Anyway, I just wanted to thank everyone’s knowledge and responses! Thank you for the truth and the examples set by everyone here!

 

[DVIN_CKS]

thanks johnnyjo…your insights/info. are helpful.

One of my biggest hang ups about NFP (which I’ve mentioned before) is that a woman must sacrafice part of her “gift” if the couple wants to avoid conception.

Our sexuality is something that we should view as a wonderful gift from God. Do we not see our sexuality as “parts of a whole” (i.e. procreative + unitive = congual love as God intended). The “parts” of our sexuality would be our maleness and femaleness…my eggs, his sperm. Is it correct to say that the church teaches that any human manipulation of these two is unnatural?

The second part of the gift of sexuality is our desire to express it and to enjoy in the pleasure of the act as fully as possible. This is the “unitive” part. The “pleasure” aspect is in the giving and the receiving and should not carry selfish motives with it. Wives should be giving to their husbands, just as husbands should be giving to their wives. So far, so good.

God designed women to have their desire for the act peak when our fertility is greatest (around ovulation time). Naturally, I understand why. I enjoy taking advantage of these times of the month when my body is more “in the mood” for sex. To practice abstinance during this time of the month (which would be necessary to reduce the chances of pregnancy) would make me feel like I was robbing myself of something God intended for me to have. For this same reason, I wouldn’t recommend the BCP because it also works against/suppresses the body’s natural “desire for sex”. Note: I’m talking specifically about the way a woman’s body is naturally wired. I’m not referring to the “emotional element” (i.e. flowers, candles, doing chores, and all the other loving things husbands do to help “set the mood”).

NFP allows women to understand their bodies and how they are programmed to work. Are there any women who feel like they are “cheated” from this “unitive aspect” while practicing NFP?

If you are getting down to the nitty gritty of what is considered “natural” and what’s not (as I believe NFP teaching tries to do), then how do you respond to this objection?

I have not yet gotten the book by C. West, but will do so. Maybe he addresses this concern?

 

[mercygate]

DVIN CKS:

To practice abstinance during this time of the month (which would be necessary to reduce the chances of pregnancy) would make me feel like I was robbing myself of something God intended for me to have.

Are there any women who feel like they are “cheated” from this “unitive aspect” while practicing NFP?

Yes. People do consider this an issue. It all comes down to how strong and how valid your reasons may be for choosing not to rob yourself of the other thing God intends you to have – the baby.

When this was still an issue for me (I’m past it now), I always found abstaining during the time my body was most ready for intercourse to be a poignant reminder of God’s goodness in uniting the pleasure of the mariage act with the procreative power.

 

[mass4life]

One priest put it to me this way. A contraceptive mentality is a sin. It is a sin to use artificial birth control just as it is sinful to use NFP with the intent of the effects of contraception.

NFP can only be rightfully used by husbands and wives whom God is leading to not procreate at the moment. The ordinary call of the Lord is to increase your family unless grave matters arise to do otherwise. The otherwise in every faithful Catholic couples’ case is either total abstinence, or abstinence in the fertile period only.