The contraceptive mentality

"Why do you keep on using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means."

In my (albeit limited) experience, it doesn’t take long for a discussion on natural family planning in Catholic circles to turn down the road of warning of the ever-ominous “contraceptive mentality.” I heard such warnings throughout my engagement and now into early marriage– “NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality,” “watch out for that contraceptive mindset!”, and I regularly see the term used and even featured from Catholic influencers and resources. Though it seems to mean a different thing to different people, the “contraceptive mentality” is often linked to trying to avoid pregnancy through use of natural family planning without a sufficient “grave reason,” or even just avoiding pregnancy through NFP, full stop.

The concept intrigues and concerns me, for many reasons, but chiefly because it creates anxiety and guilt for Catholic wives and mothers that need not be there–not to mention, it appears to be a misconstruing of the truth.  Even if not directly using the phrase “contraceptive mentality”, statements that claim practicing NFP specifically to avoid conception for a season equates to a season of not being open to life may seem true on the surface, but are riddled with error beneath it. 

Talking about conception, natural family planning, and the discernment of one’s childbearing and rearing is perhaps one of the most sensitive topics out there, and rightly so–so I am attempting to proceed with caution and begin with where I believe the problem lies. There’s a few different angles here, and questions to answer. First, what is the “contraceptive mentality?” Is it a term used by the Church (and in the spirit of Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, does it mean what we think it means)? How do avoiding conception through NFP and contraception differ? And finally, is openness to life compromised by TTA (trying to avoid)?

A search for the term “contraceptive mentality” in trusted Church documents yields a couple results, specifically from Pope St. John Paul II. He is regarded as having coined the term, and its use within his own writings is for a far different purpose than how the term seems to be wielded on the Catholic net. In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, John Paul uses the term “contraceptive mentality” to describe the psychological link made between abortion and contraception in a culture that has normalized (and even enshrined) both: 

“It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the ‘contraceptive mentality’-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived.” (Evangelium Vitae, 13)

Already, this sheds some light on our liberal use of the term “contraceptive mentality” and the subsequent anxiety it creates. It was a term coined for a broken part of our society (one which we are certainly not entirely uninfluenced by, more on that later), not on a mentality that comes with trying to avoid conception. Further, John Paul is quite literally pitting the contraceptive mentality against responsible parenthood–the term used by Pope St. Paul VI to promote discernment and use of natural means in family planning in Humanae Vitae. He lays out several important aspects of what responsible parenthood takes into account: 

​​With regard to the biological processes, responsible parenthood means an awareness of, and respect for, their proper functions. In the procreative faculty the human mind discerns biological laws that apply to the human person. With regard to man's innate drives and emotions, responsible parenthood means that man's reason and will must exert control over them. With regard to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.

Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society.

From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator. The very nature of marriage and its use makes His will clear, while the constant teaching of the Church spells it out.” (Humanae Vitae, 10)

In summary, responsible parenthood involves firstly respecting sexuality, the sexual act, and its operations by pursuing licit means in a sexual relationship between spouses, and never losing awareness of the inherent dual nature of human sexuality: unity of spouses, and procreation of children. Second, it means that we subject our sexual passions and emotions to our reason and will, striving to eradicate sin and selfishness. Next, it involves being prudent about our social, physical, psychological, and financial situations and taking them into account when discerning what God is asking of us in our procreation. The pope entreats couples to let these sensitive matters be a dialogue between them and God, with a properly formed conscience and deep surrender to the will of God having the final say. Finally, Paul VI says that responsible parenthood has two modes: it can be “exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.”

Here we find the truth of what the Church calls us to, and it is diametrically opposed to what John Paul II poses as “the contraceptive mentality.” One involves a constant journey of giving, receiving, and discerning–and one attempts to assert control over situations that are disagreeable to us for whatever reason. 

There is quite a bit of debate about what constitutes a sufficient “grave” reason to avoid conception, according to the Church, and it’s helpful to ground the discussion in the categories Paul VI lists in the above passage: physical, economic, psychological and social. Many argue that a serious reason means extreme illness or financial strain, but these categories are ultimately a bit vague for a reason–the Church trusts married couples with the precious gift of fertility, and gives them the resources needed to form themselves so they don’t abuse it. Further, this should help us breathe a sigh of relief: mothers, your psychological health matters to the Church. Your physical health matters to the Church. The strength of your marriage, finances, and home matters to the Church. The social atmosphere and conditions you may find yourself in–a lack of community, support, or safety–matter to the Church. Most of all, your children, present or future, matter to the Church, and she desires for them to live the fullness of life. What is serious to one family is subjective, not because we get to create our own “truth,” but because the Church trusts us to become holy in the ways that only we can as individual families. 

The prudent guidance given above, again, shows two very opposed realities. Further, a quick examination of St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition of the moral act sheds further light on the inherent differences between avoidance through NFP and prevention of pregnancy through contraception. Aquinas says an act’s “object” is essentially what the act is about, relative to reason–the purpose of the act is what gives it its form. The integral nature of contraception–what the act is about, according to reason–is the artificial prevention of pregnancy (or in the cases of some contraceptives, the very early termination of a pregnancy). Hence the name contraception, or “against conception.” Contraception engages in the act that naturally causes conception, and acts directly against that natural order.

The integral nature of avoidance of pregnancy through NFP is entirely different. What the act is about, according to reason, is not acting directly against conception, but instead attempting to defer it. The act that naturally causes conception has to be engaged in in order for something to be against it. It may sound technical, but it’s important. 

So, can NFP actually be used with a “contraceptive mentality?” I think not. Contraception and avoidance through NFP are fundamentally different acts. It’s not openness to life on one side of the fence, and avoiding through NFP and contraception on the other. The use of NFP by nature involves an openness to life. It inherently means surrendering control of your fertility, and the awareness that every single time you have sex, you understand that it is potentially procreative, and you refuse any means to act against that nature if conception happens when you didn’t perhaps intend it. Whether you’re trying to achieve or avoid through NFP, the very use of it involves an openness to life. 

What can happen, and we would be remiss not to recognize, is that avoidance through NFP can be used for selfish or otherwise illicit reasons. This doesn’t make avoidance illicit, but rather the reason that is giving the act its form illicit (think Aquinas). Once again, the Church entreats us to use our well-formed consciences and surrender to God’s will. Using avoidance through NFP because you don’t want to gain pregnancy weight is (probably) not a serious reason. Using avoidance because your postpartum body needs to recover from birth is. Using avoidance simply because you want that promotion is (perhaps) a selfish reason, but using avoidance because your husband is finishing grad school while you work and your family needs financial security isn’t. There’s so much nuance to this, truly–hence why we have to stop using blanket terms to speak to other people about their fertility. It is not on one person (or collective) to determine what constitutes a serious reason–the true authority we have, the Church, did not specify for a reason.

But, using NFP–an act that is inherently open to life–for selfish or illicit reasons is a different act than using contraception. I’m not saying it’s a good thing–it’s not. But it is different. So, pinning the term “contraceptive mentality” on NFP just simply isn’t reasonable, at the end of the day. 

What does this mean for us? Well, first, we can talk less about other people’s fertility. We can hold back that judgment we want to make when a friend isn’t conceiving as soon as we thought she would, or when someone in the pew in front of you seems to be spacing their kids out further than you did. Unless someone discloses a reason for their avoidance of pregnancy in a private conversation where your feedback would be fruitful or welcomed, don’t give it, whether to their face or behind their back. And before posting about NFP, we can make sure what we’re saying is more supported by the Church than by our own practices and opinions. Before we label a couple as being “not open to life,” even in our minds,  we can recognize that not only are we not one of the people in that marriage,  but also that even if it is true, it is the Holy Spirit’s job to convict, not ours. Instead, what we can always pray and hope for is that we all continue to form ourselves, as a Church and in our marriages, to use the gift of fertility with the proper mentality. At the heart of it, the Church does not equate quantity of children with quantity of holiness, and neither should we.