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)?

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.