NFP: What is the “contraceptive mentality?”

By Rachael Killackey

Published on May 26, 2025

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

While it can feel technical, parsing out the differences between using NFP to achieve or avoid pregnancy and using contraception is important—for the sake of both clarity and conviction. Even if the phrase “contraceptive mentality” isn’t used directly, statements implying that practicing NFP to avoid conception for a season equates to not being open to life may seem true on the surface but are riddled with error underneath.

Talking about conception, natural family planning, and the discernment of childbearing and rearing is one of the most sensitive topics out there—and rightly so. There are a few angles here, and questions to answer: What is the “contraceptive mentality”? Is it a term used by the Church? What does it truly mean? How do avoiding conception through NFP and using contraception differ? And finally, is openness to life compromised by TTA (trying to avoid)?

RDNE Studios / Pexels

Where the term “contraceptive mentality” comes from

A search for the term “contraceptive mentality” in trusted Church documents yields a couple of results, specifically from Pope St. John Paul II. He is regarded as having coined the term, and his use of it is for a different purpose than how the term is widely used today. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul uses “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)

Adobe Stock

Responsible parenthood, rightly understood

This already sheds some light on how the term “contraceptive mentality” was meant to be used. It was coined to critique a broken part of our society—not to describe a mentality behind TTA. Further, John Paul contrasts this mentality with responsible parenthood, a term used by Pope St. Paul VI to promote discernment and the use of natural means in family planning in Humanae Vitae. Paul VI lays out several key aspects of responsible parenthood:

“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, first, respecting sexuality and its functions by pursuing only licit means of family planning. It means never losing awareness of the inherent dual nature of human sexuality: unity of the spouses and procreation. Second, it requires that we subject our passions to our reason and will, striving to overcome sin and selfishness. Third, it means being prudent about our circumstances—social, physical, psychological, and financial—when discerning what God asks of us in procreation. Finally, Paul VI makes clear that responsible parenthood includes both generously choosing to have more children and, for serious reasons, choosing not to have more—for a time or indefinitely.

This vision is diametrically opposed to what John Paul II calls the “contraceptive mentality.” One is a constant journey of discernment and surrender; the other seeks control over fertility in ways that reject its nature.

There’s considerable debate about what constitutes a “grave” reason to avoid conception. It helps to ground that discussion in the categories Paul VI outlines: physical, economic, psychological, and social. Many argue that “serious” reasons must be extreme, but these categories are intentionally broad. The Church trusts married couples with the gift of fertility and offers them the tools to form their consciences well. What’s serious to one family may differ from another—not because we create our own truth, but because each family is called to holiness in a unique way.

Kateryna Hliznitsova / Unsplash

Is natural family planning really the same as contraception?

St. Thomas Aquinas’s definition of a moral act also helps clarify the difference between NFP and contraception. Aquinas says that an act’s “object” is what the act is about, relative to reason. The object gives the act its moral form. The nature of contraception is to directly interfere with the biological process of conception—hence, “against conception.” It disrupts what would naturally occur.

Avoidance through NFP is fundamentally different. Its object is not to act against conception, but to defer it—by abstaining during fertile times. It’s technical, yes, but significant.

So, can NFP be used with a “contraceptive mentality”? If we take the term as originally intended, it doesn’t seem so. Contraception and NFP are different in kind. NFP, by its very nature, involves openness to life. Each act of intercourse remains open to the possibility of life, even when pregnancy is not intended.

RDNE Studios / Pexels

When discernment becomes disordered

That said, NFP can be used for selfish or unwise reasons. This doesn’t make the method illicit, but rather means the reason may be morally disordered. Aquinas would say the object is still good, but the intention may not be. Avoiding pregnancy for shallow reasons—say, not wanting to gain weight—is not the same as doing so to recover physically postpartum. Wanting a promotion might be a selfish reason—or it might be necessary for your family’s survival while a spouse finishes grad school.

Using NFP selfishly is not the same as using contraception. It may not be virtuous, but it’s not the same sin. Using the term “contraceptive mentality” in reference to someone’s use of NFP, especially without knowing their situation, is often a mislabel.

Adobe Stock

Openness to life isn’t about numbers

So what does this mean, practically? It means we can hold back judgment when a friend isn’t conceiving “on schedule” or when another family spaces their children differently than we did. Unless someone shares their reasons with you—and welcomes your input—hold back your critique, publicly and privately.

Before posting about NFP, let’s be sure our message is rooted more in Church teaching than personal opinion. Before labeling a couple as “not open to life,” remember: you are not in that marriage. And even if they aren’t open to life, it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict—not ours.

Instead, we can pray for ourselves and others to continue forming our consciences and marriages so that we use the gift of fertility with the proper mentality. The Church does not equate the quantity of children with the quantity of holiness—and neither should we.

4.5 29 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
27 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Julie
Julie
21 days ago

I always considered NFP as openness to life–because God can (and does!) still work during those intimate times, when the couple believes they are infertile.

A dear friend told us about a conversation with her DIL. She had just had baby number six and was feeling very overwhelmed. “When is it ‘enough’?” She asked. My wise friend said, “Today it is enough. And tomorrow. And maybe many days after that. But you may discover in a year, that it isn’t ‘enough’ and realize God is calling you to more. ” I just thought that was such a beautiful way to respond to the “overwhelm” of parenthood.

Fruitful
Fruitful
11 days ago
Reply to  Julie

Or two or three years, when the infant is that age, and the other 5 kids are in different stages… and maybe the older ones are in greater need for your personal touch that you haven’t been able to give… and you discern your kids’ needs responsibly too

Joanna
Joanna
21 days ago

Excellent and articulate article! Though, isn’t that the way of the devil? To divide and deceive faithful Catholics over a wonderful thing… NFP! In my almost 26 years of marriage, we have always practiced NFP and it is NOT the same as contraception and NOT always easy. It is quite a personal issue – between God and the couple. And only God can guide them towards the gift of life, however many children that will be.

Rev. Fr. Philip-Michael Tangorra, STL, JCD (Cand.)
Rev. Fr. Philip-Michael Tangorra, STL, JCD (Cand.)
11 days ago

What no one ever discusses regarding NFP is the theological-canonical reality of the bonum prolis (good of offspring) known as the Ius ad Corpus (Right to the Body) for “acts per se apt to the generation of offspring”. In the matrimonial jurisprudence of the Popes, Roman Curia, and Roman Rota both spouses exchange the right to each other’s bodies for sexual acts able to produce offspring. Thus, neither spouse can unilaterally deny consent to the other spouse for sexual acts able to produce offspring. Further, the mutual consent to refrain from sexual acts able to produce offspring ends the moment that either spouse reasonably and naturally acts to engage in a sexual act able to produce offspring. NFP cannot be used to deny either spouse the right to the other’s body and specifically for the purpose of reproduction. When such a denial occurs the exchange of matrimonial consent is being abused, and if this was the intention of either spouse going into the marriage then the marriage can be declared null and void on the grounds of contra bonum prolis by any Tribunal with jurisdiction via the annulment process. NFP is meant to be temporary and only for grave reasons, it is not meant to be a “way of life” within marriage. For that reason, it should not be taught to all couples preparing for marriage, because many, if not most couples, lack the legitimate grounds to mutually consent to refrain from sexual acts per se apt for the generation of offspring since the Ius ad Corpus can never be suspended or revoked in a sacramental marriage.

Bill
Bill
11 days ago

With all due respect Father, your comment lacks charity and mercy. You pen that some people cannot be trusted to discern God’s calling therefore insinuating that God cannot be trusted to work in the hearts of a married couple. Your comment is legalistic and frankly, your words are frighteningly critical. Your words even contradict St John Paul the Great! I’m concerned for the young women who read your post as you speak to the confusion about NFO but offer an argument that is as harmful as the contraceptive mentality (yet clothed in the authority of a priest).

Excellent article and much needed! Couples- pray! Listen to God’s voice. Nurture your marriage so the children God gives you grow up seeing love and mercy in their home.

Andrew Wolfe
Andrew Wolfe
11 days ago
Reply to  Bill

I’m sorry but frankly Fr Philip-Michael gave substantially more material for personal discernment than the article did. These concerns sound legalistic to you but they’re the only way to fully engage the issue of “contraceptive mentality” in TTA and not practice that.

Sex is not a need and infertile sex is not a right. Holiness is a command.

Mirko Kljajic
Mirko Kljajic
11 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Wolfe

NFP and contraception is not a sin. Preventing something is not a sin. Abortion is a sin.. And sorry, sex is a physical and mental need. Sex is he only act when husband and wife are becoming one body and one spirit which doesn’t need every time to create life. Priest are talking nonsense. I would hear them after many sleepless nights and working 12 hours shift to be able too support family and provide normal life to kids, and all sacrifices in rising them, putting them thru schools and colleges. Prist does not know what is sacrifice and what it means to be good parents. I am catholic and living in catholic marriage but sorry prist, i needed enjoyable sex at the and of exausting week and time make us both happy.

Fruitful
Fruitful
11 days ago
Reply to  Mirko Kljajic

NFP is not contraception. It uses what God gave us: reason, the wife’s monthly cycle, and the walk with God called faithful discernment.

But Contraception, by pill, barrier, intentional prevention for pleasure alone, *is* a sin, brother. The Church teaches it, so it’s so.

Your wife was given a bodily cycle by God and you were given the charge of learning self-control and respect for her needs over your bodily needs by God.

God requires sacrifice of the pleasures of sex even at times, in marriage.
“Period.”

God bless you both for your hard labor and sacrifices to provide for your family. He will always give you what you need, though the road to Heaven is hard and narrow. Godspeed.

Walter
Walter
9 days ago
Reply to  Mirko Kljajic

I’m unsure why poisoning or monkey-wrenching a human body to deliberately render it infertile seems not sinful to you.

Fruitful
Fruitful
11 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Wolfe

Sex is not a need. Nor a right. You said it. So it can be legitimately contained through refraining from pleasure during well-discerned periods. You might be, being in your 60s, speaking from a place of regret, or living amidst the destruction of your contracepting generation.
This is a new generation of Catholics, well-armed in faith.

Joanna
Joanna
11 days ago

NFP is consistent with church teaching on the value of children, the dignity of human life and the responsibility of parenthood. It respects the marital act as the means of both love and procreation. Unlike artificial contraception, it requires both giving of oneself in love and chastity, whether by trying to achieve pregnancy or avoiding it for just reasons. There are legitimate reasons to avoid pregnancy and one cannot assume that “most couples lack the legitimate ground to mutually consent to refrain from sexual acts per se”. It is through the guidance of the church in addition to the couple’s discernment, through prayer, of God’s will for them to determine if their reasons are legitimate for avoiding pregnancy. It is the church’s responsibility to teach NFP to couples preparing for marriage, along with the openness to life and the gift of the marital act. If NFP were not taught to couples preparing for marriage, in sheer ignorance, many might turn to contraception. The gravity of this situation is dependent upon the church guiding couples in sacramental preparation to realize that in engaging in the marital act, they are cooperating with the love of God and are called to give life, ordering the marital act to procreation, thus, giving them a means to do so with NFP.

Fruitful
Fruitful
11 days ago
Reply to  Joanna

NFP is momentarily sacrificing one’s immediate desires for the other spouse’s (or the never-mentioned present children’s) well-being! Sounds very Catholic to me.

Erika
Erika
11 days ago

At what point does one spouse’s desire for the marital act override the other’s right to deny the marital act? Your comment makes it sound like as long as one spouse desires the marital act, the other spouse *must* engage in the act regardless of their own desires. Maybe this is a triggering subject for me because my unhealthy marriage. However, I know from personal experience that spouses don’t always think selflessly when the desire hits and sometimes engaging in the marital act can cause harm to the spouse not desiring the act. Sometimes it is unjust for one spouse to demand the marital act and exercise their ‘marital right’ against their spouse’s wish. While intention can matter, I don’t believe universally saying spouses can’t morally deny the other the marital duty for the purposes of NFP, but they can for other intentions.

I do not use this argument lightly, but conception and carrying of children *is* more of a physical and emotional burden on the woman, so she should at minimum be given equal voice in deciding whether the marital act should be performed or not. Again, it’s likely I have emotional baggage from my unhealthy marriage, but your comment struck me like a physical blow. It is unhealthy for individuals and relationships for one spouse to impose their will over the other without discussion or consideration.

Part of the beauty of NFP is that the spouses are supposed to communicate and decide their intentions practically on a daily basis. Without NFP couples should also communicate, but your comment makes it sound like the default is as long as one spouse wishes to partake of the marital act, the marital act *must* be performed from a moral perspective. That negates any communication and says one spouse can simply demand their ‘marital right’ without consideration of the other spouse. However that runs counter to ‘love your wife as I have loved you’ and only reinforces ‘wives submit to your husbands’ (with the caveat that theoretically either spouse can selfishly demand their rights, not just men). Marriage isn’t a dictatorship or monarchy. Spouses are to be help meets for one another and respect one another, not unilaterally making decisions for one another without discussion.

As fallen humans we have a tendency to twist what is good, in this instance the marital act, into something that can be bad. In a perfect world, couples would have children as they came without fear or struggle. However, we do not live in a perfect world and we are not perfectly selfless and always considerate of our spouses. That’s what we should always strive for, but we all fall short. We can’t achieve perfection on our own—we need God and even our spouses to help us. However, on God is perfect, so sometimes our spouses can also lead us astray. Your comment, in my opinion, assumes both spouses have achieved selfless perfection. The imposition of one’s desires upon another person, even within a marriage, should not be the default position.

Fruitful
Fruitful
11 days ago

Father, do most spouses who cannot be trusted with NFP in your judgment (and who/how do we judge which couples are capable of bearing the NFP teachings…? Women were gifted by God with a monthly cycle for a reason. Men are required by God to learn self-control and respect for their wives’ physical and mental health for a reason. It seems obvious to me)–

Do those untrustworthy spouses usually go into the initiating of sexual acts with the intent of producing children? Especially “unilaterally”

Or to fulfill their momentary bodily desire?

Mary
Mary
9 days ago

This comment seems to rely primarily on the 1917 Code, versus the 1983. Matrimonial consent hinging on “ius ad corpus” was a noted change in the 1983 code, where consent was defined in spouses’ giving and acceptance of each other to establish marriage.

Bradley Chronowski
Bradley Chronowski
11 days ago

It was taught to us as how effective it is at avoiding pregnancy. Maybe by the generation who first embraced contraception. Priests don’t say much about it either. It didn’t work for us and still seems like contraception.

Katherine Dunn
Katherine Dunn
11 days ago

To me I always thought it was like telling God, no, I don’t want to have children. Who’s to say that when the urge to unite as one isn’t the exact time that God wishes us to conceive children? People planning around the woman’s cycle in order to avoid pregnancy sure seems like a big No to God’s creation. If He thought we couldn’t handle it, then there would be no child conceived. If He puts a child in a woman who is ill or a family with financial struggles, there’s a reason for that.

Andrew Wolfe
Andrew Wolfe
11 days ago

So I’m disappointed in this article.

This sounds rather like rationalizing any use of NFP. Citing grad school as a grave reason seems ridiculous. The distinction of the contraceptive mentality from “TTA” is unconvincing and the term “TTA” sounds like an evasion.

This article used the term “abstaining” exactly once. Never did it engage the bottom line of Paul VI’s mention of exercising self-control, that is, that if you are really “TTA,” perhaps you just shouldn’t have sex.

There’s no mention of family size and, frankly, there may be reasons that two siblings critically benefit from a third, or a fourth.

Contraceptive NFP may or may not be a problem. I’ve known at least one couple (now in their 60s, like me) that definitely used NFP as contraception. Are there more? Not sure I’ve met them. Family size in the parishes is absolutely a “don’t ask-don’t tell” proposition.

At the same time, complete abstinence from sex to limit your family to two or even one child is just as contraceptive in mentality.

Please dig deeper than the short five-year burden of grad school to limit childbearing.

Erika
Erika
11 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Wolfe

I think you’re missing the definition of what TTA while using NFP means…it literally means you don’t have sex on peak fertility days. In other words, you abstain from sex. Catholic themed NFP (like Creighton Method) instruct against foreplay, petting, mutual self stimulation, or any sexual act on TTA days. Catholic methods of NFP instruct against the use of barrier methods or withdrawal methods of performing the act as well. So, by TTA the couple denies themselves not just the act itself, but any form of sexual pleasure.

By using NFP without any artificial means of avoiding conception, the couple affirms their openness to life even if they’re trying to avoid the creation of that life. Part of NFP (when used with Catholic morality) involves knowing sex *can* lead to babies even when the acts were supposedly naturally infertile. Basically, NFP uses the God-designed fertility cycle to achieve or avoid pregnancy but never takes ‘control’ over these natural cycles like contraception does. It’s more like dieting than having your stomach stapled because it requires you to physically restrain yourself instead of relying on an outside means to ensure your body can’t function as it was designed.

I’ve never really understood the premise that not having sex, even on a fertile day, could be wrong or sinful. There are countless reasons a couple may not exercise their marital duty during their peak fertility beyond TTA. Is it some sort of moral imperative to exercise your marital duty on every peak day? Is there some unwritten moral law that days if you’re married you *have* to engage in the marital act every day or on every fertile day?

You also dismiss the 5 years of graduate school as not enough of a reason to avoid pregnancy, but that seems like a very individual circumstance. What one couple can handle is not the same as what another couple can handle. I believe that is why Pope Paul VI and Pope JPII didn’t give hard & fast rules for what situations were permissible. As the article states—it *is* possible to use NFP selfishly, but that doesn’t equate to immoral or contraceptive. As a previous comment stated, NFP allows each couple to decide, on a daily basis sometimes, when enough is enough, whether the enough refers to avoiding (more) children or achieving (more) children.

Fruitful
Fruitful
11 days ago
Reply to  Erika

Nor did God in His Word give hard and fast one-size-fits-all laws on family size and ideal child numbers, though the larger the better, sure, but He gave women a monthly cycle *for a reason*! And He gave men the requirement to learn self-control *for a reason *.
The present children’s needs themselves ought to come into play when discerning appropriate timing. Gid Himself gave us this use of reason attached to prayer.

tradwife29
tradwife29
11 days ago

Matrimony, the word itself means mother or to become a mother. Why are Catholics so short sighted? Look back to Casti Canubii. The end of marriage is children!
NFP is like walking a fine line, trying to stay on the side of truth, but easily slipping into sin.
Children are a gift from God and we should accept them as such.

JKH
JKH
11 days ago

2 Questions:
The other side of this is the person in the marriage who believes it is their duty, not out of love, to have sex daily in order to have as many children as possible. This may be the mindset of both parties going in but rarely by both parties after several pregnancies.
I don’t care to hear your doubts that these marriages exist, I know they do.
Is there any consideration for the young people who marry and one spouse discovers the other decided to not grow up? Divorce is on the horizon, it can be seen from the front door. Is the adult in the marriage still obligated to continue as though the other spouse will finally take up their responsibility?

Fruitful
Fruitful
11 days ago
Reply to  JKH

And I know a few eldest daughters of many who suffered in the Extreme Fruitful marriages of their parents… and declined to follow in their philosophical footsteps. The present children’s needs ought to be discerned with God too.

Sarah
Sarah
11 days ago

My first (and, to date, only) pregnancy resulted from my honeymoon. My husband and I said we would “wait to have children”, but that didn’t stop us from, er, “celebrating” in Hawaii.

I’ve often heard that God laughs when we humans make plans.

After getting pregnant, I was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. It may not have been in time if I weren’t carrying a baby. The pregnancy led to an increase in blood volume, which produced immense pressure in my head at the site of the tumor in my right frontal lobe.

I was able to carry my daughter (now 19 years old and 100% healthy) and have the operation to remove the tumor.

Long and short, I believe that it was God’s plan for us to conceive on our honeymoon in order to save my life. Without discovering the tumor when we did, I might not have survived at all.

Just to show us, you never know what God has in store for you. Trust in the Divine.

ROBERT JOSEPH BUGIADA
ROBERT JOSEPH BUGIADA
10 days ago

I got kicked out of the Facebook page “Catholic Political Nerds” because they said that I had a “contraceptive mentality.” I said that the vocation of Parenthood is a calling, similar to that for the Priesthood. Not all people are called to be parents, and many would be bad parents if they became parents just because they felt it was something they were supposed to do.

Matthew
Matthew
10 days ago

We have heard it said that the marital act is both unitive and procreative.

I argue that by saying NFP is a contraceptive, one becomes obligated to use NFP. NFP gives married couples a probability of when a woman is or is not fertile. If performing the marital act outside the fertile window is considered contraceptive, then that means one becomes morally obligated to only perform the marital act within the fertile window. Therefore, not knowing when a woman is fertile would be ignorant and the ignorance in and of itself would become contraceptive. Furthermore, this argument eliminates the unitive nature of the marital act due to sole focus on the procreative nature.

The one aspect of NFP that is not discussed here is how NFP promotes fasting. We fast from meat on Fridays, not because meat becomes intrinsically evil on Fridays but because we acknowledge God’s great gift for us on one particular Friday many years ago. We fast from food during Lent and at other times because we acknowledge our dependency on God, all He provides for us, and to detach ourselves from this Earthly life.

Show me a man who wouldn’t want to perform the marital act at breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Hyperbole aside, it is unrealistic to say that a wife should submit to whimsical desires of the flesh. As husband and wife, there is discernment as to when to have children. This is where fasting comes in. To abstain from the marital act during the fertile window acknowledges that God is the source of all life. Fasting only elevates.

To say this argument is more of a nit would be an understatement. I will conclude in saying again that NFP gives married couples a probability of fertility. Performing the marital act is always unitive and procreative. Even though the probability becomes lower at certain points, in the end it truly is how we respond to the gift of life.

Aileen
Aileen
7 days ago

It is true, however, that some people will use NFP in a contraceptive manner, such as saying, “I just don’t want kids right now,” rather than being open to what God intends for them. Or deciding that they only want 2 kids, not because of a serious problem but because that’s all they desire so they can get on with other pursuits. We have to be careful in discerning our own motives in this. It’s important to avoid judging anyone’s motives as stated in the article because we don’t know if the couple has a valid reason to avoid pregnancy at this time, or even the possibility that they are struggling with fertility problems and would actually have more children.

27
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x