Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Matthew 11:28-30
They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them. Matthew 23:4
When I worked as a catechist, something that weighed heavily on my conscience was my task to “echo down”1 the Church’s teaching and not my own ideas. Whether I was teaching junior high students or adults in RCIA, I knew it was my responsibility to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the opinions of Paul Fahey (regardless of how enlightened or compelling I thought those opinions were).
I should not present my ideas, or the ideas of my favorite theologian, as if they were magisterial teaching. And if I were to say, “The Church teaches X,” I needed to be sure I could point to an actual teaching that reflected what I claimed. If I was going to invoke the authority of the Magisterium, the onus was on me to make sure it was actually a teaching. This is a simple ethical mandate, yet one so widely ignored by preachers, podcasters, and popular theologians that I’m no longer shocked when I see it.
And it’s with this in mind that I want to step into the ongoing conversation around NFP, or more specifically, what the Church does and does not teach about expressions of sexual affection within marriage.
Magisterial Teaching
Magisterial teaching—teaching from the pope or the bishops in communion with him—isn’t mere theological opinion. The Magisterium is “the living teaching office of the Church” and has the sole authority and “task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition” (Dei Verbum 10). This teaching office is also the “authentic guardians and interpreters” of natural law (Humanae Vitae 4). It would be inappropriate then for me, or anyone, to present a non-magisterial interpretation of Scripture or the natural law as if it were the definitive interpretation.
In addition, because doctrine develops, I cannot take historical teachings out of their context and present them as being authoritative now without considering how those teachings have developed. Dei Verbum states that “the Church constantly moves forward” until “the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (DV 8). Rather than seeing what is ancient as the greatest understanding of Revelation, Vatican II understood that as time progresses, the Church “moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth.” In a general sense, we have a greater understanding of Revelation now than we did in the 1500s, 1200s, or 400s.
Here, the organic images of rivers and trees that St. John Henry Newman used can be helpful. A river is greater and more powerful at its mouth than in the small mountain spring that is its source. Likewise, a mighty oak tree is grander and stronger than a sapling. Pope Francis captures this growth in understanding, even to the point of correcting past teachings, in his response to a 2023 dubium about doctrinal development:
“On the one hand, it is true that the Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but it is also true that both the texts of the Scripture and the testimonies of Tradition require interpretation in order to distinguish their perennial substance from cultural conditioning. This is evident, for example, in biblical texts (such as Exodus 21:20-21) and in some magisterial interventions that tolerated slavery (Cf. Pope Nicholas V, Bull Dum diversas, 1452). This is not a minor issue given its intimate connection with the perennial truth of the inalienable dignity of the human person. These texts need interpretation. The same applies to certain considerations in the New Testament regarding women (1 Corinthians 11:3-10; 1 Timothy 2:11-14) and other texts of Scripture and testimonies of Tradition that cannot be materially repeated today.”
In other words, the living Magisterium is our interpreter of historical texts, not the other way around. We cannot genuinely understand historical texts apart from the Church’s current teachings, and there is danger in accepting a historic teaching as authoritative if it has not been repeated in generations because “frequent repetition” of a doctrine is one of the ways for us to know how much assent we owe a magisterial teaching (Lumen Gentium 25). Attentiveness to the actual words the magisterium uses, and the words it no longer uses, is important for understanding the Church’s teaching.
The danger of representing historical teachings as automatically still requiring assent becomes evidently clear if we try to imagine a catechist telling a new convert to Catholicism that “none of those who are outside of the Catholic Church” including “Jews, heretics, and schismatics” can be saved and all of them are damned to Hell (Council of Florence, 1442 AD); or a pastor telling his congregation that receiving any interest on a loan is gravely evil (Vix Pervenit, 1745 AD) but that slavery “considered in itself and all alone, is by no means repugnant to the natural and divine law” (Instruction of the Holy Office, June 20, 1866); or a Catholic school principal writing a bulletin article asserting that Catholic parents are forbidden to send their kids to public school without the permission of their bishop (Divini Illius Magistri, 1929 AD).
We cannot read historical magisterial documents the way that fundamentalists read Scripture.
Abuse of Authority
Before engaging with NFP, I want to make clear that misrepresenting theological opinion as if it were magisterial teaching, even when done with the best of intentions, can cause real harm to others.
The Church says magisterial teachings require assent from the Catholic faithful (Lumen Gentium 25). So, as someone who strives to follow and be faithful to the Catholic Church, magisterial teaching weighs on my conscience more heavily than the teachings of my theology professor, pastor, favorite saint, or even a doctor of the Church. Frankly, I don’t owe those lesser—though not unimportant—authorities religious assent.
So if someone in a position of spiritual authority over others—be they a priest, apologist, or popular theologian—presents something that isn’t magisterial teaching as if it were, they are essentially demanding that those under their care give religious assent to their theological opinion. This is a gross abuse of power and an unjust imposition on the consciences of others. This person is claiming for themselves the authority to interpret the will of God. The abuse of power is worse still when the opinion is presented as definitive, because in that case the person is in practice claiming to speak on behalf of God, invading the consciences of others. It’s an act of violence against the dignity of the other.2
These harmful statements can be subtle, and said with the best of intentions. They can look like someone in a position of ecclesial authority saying things like: “You can only use NFP to avoid pregnancy if you’re at risk of death if you get pregnant again;” “Catholics can’t vote for X political party;” or “Babies who died without being baptized aren’t in heaven.” Notice how in all of these examples, some moral or theological idea is presented as if it were a definitive teaching of the Church, even though the phrase “The Church teaches…” isn’t explicitly said.
The harm from this kind of abuse of spiritual authority only compounds when sin and salvation are invoked. When someone in a position of spiritual authority declares that something is a mortal sin, and there is no magisterial teaching that says such a thing, they are effectively claiming the authority of the Church to threaten people with hell in order to try to get them to comply with a set of moral rules, rules that the Magisterium does not even teach.
This kind of reckless abuse of authority not only ties up unnecessary heavy burdens on others, but it can also cause a person to mistrust themselves and their ability to discern right and wrong. If my conscience is telling me that X behavior is not evil or sinful, but someone in authority is inappropriately presenting their theological opinion that X is gravely immoral as if it were the definitive will of God, then I’m left with the choice of either disobeying my conscience or disobeying God. This is a forced choice, one that lacks the freedom necessary for genuine trust and love of God and the Church.
To be clear, it’s not only priests or professional theologians who have real or perceived authority in the Church. A parish NFP instructor is the Church-endorsed point of reference on sexual morality for the couples they are teaching. Even if that person is just a volunteer, they are very much a spiritual authority in this context. Likewise, a Catholic marriage podcaster or blogger, anytime they invoke Church teaching or objective morality, is perceived by their followers as an authority in that area. If people are listening to you to better understand God’s will or Church teaching, you are an authority, and therefore it is your responsibility to use that power with care. This requires using that authority solely in service to the good of others and having “the most absolute respect for the conscience and person of the other” (Directory for Catechesis, 142).
However, I think it’s often the case that the marriage preparation couples and NFP instructors believe what they heard from Online Apologist or Theology of the Body Speaker is the Church’s teaching. I certainly used to. And why wouldn’t I? These individuals are promoted by bishops and speak with confidence. But to the degree I have authority over others, I still have the responsibility to make an effort to be sure I’m speaking the truth and not violating consciences. With power comes responsibility, and with greater power comes greater responsibility.
With that framework, I want to talk about NFP.
NFP
There’s a moral principle that’s repeated in Catholic books on sexual intimacy, YouTube apologetics videos, and NFP Facebook groups that many Catholics who use NFP and who strive to follow the Church’s teaching on sexuality have been told is Church teaching. This principle states that every sexual act between spouses must include “seed” being deposited in the vas debitum (to use medieval shorthand) or “PIV” (to use social media shorthand).3 In other words, as these authorities say, any sexual activity outside of marital intercourse is considered gravely immoral, a mortal sin, an act of masturbation.
After many years of hearing and repeating that moral principle, several years ago someone asked me the very reasonable question, a question I failed to ask myself earlier: Where is that found in Church teaching?
Most sources I saw repeating this principle cited Christopher West. So I looked through “Good News about Sex & Marriage” (revised edition). When discussing sexual intimacy between spouses that includes climax apart from intercourse, West directly tells his readers: “You’re not going to find an official magisterial statement addressing this issue directly” (page 92). And he was right.
I would expect a moral prohibition like this—that’s treated so normatively in these circles of Catholicism—to have its own paragraph in the Catechism as an offense against chastity. But it’s not there. I read through the Catechism, Gaudium et Spes, Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio, Persona Humana, Amoris Laetitia, and every post-Vatican II magisterial document on marriage or sexuality I could find. I found no clear teaching on this matter.4
I want to say plainly, the onus to present such a clear and definitive teaching is on the person claiming there is such a thing.
Humanae Vitae
Some individuals promoting this idea point to passages in Humanae Vitae, such as:
“The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life“ (HV 11).
“This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act. The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason” (HV 12).
“Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means” (HV 14).
The subject of each of these passages—indeed the subject of Humanae Vitae itself—is “the marital act” or marital intercourse, that is, the only act between spouses that has the capacity to create new human life. The Magisterium recognizes that there are multiple sexual “expressions of affection” and “acts” reserved exclusively to spouses (CCC 2350; Pope Leo, General Audience on October 21, 2026); but the text of Humanae Vitae addresses only conjugal intercourse.
It’s crucial to note that Pope Paul VI’s argument was not based on the vas debitum. Humanae Vitae did not say that contraception is prohibited because it violates the telos of “seed” or sexual pleasure. Paul VI’s moral teaching is that the act of marital intercourse—because it’s the act with the capacity to create new human life—has its own integrity, and any intentional violation of that integrity to frustrate procreation (contraception) is a grave violation of the natural law.
The morality of sexual expressions of affection apart from marital intercourse is not discussed in Humanae Vitae.
Masturbation?
I’ve seen other sources point to the Catechism to claim that these expressions of sexual affection are acts of masturbation or “mutual masturbation.” Now, nowhere in Church teaching is there anything like “mutual masturbation” discussed. This is a term, in my reading, foreign to magisterial teaching. Masturbation is, by definition, a solo activity. So right away it’s a stretch to say that the teachings about masturbation are actually about marital intimacy. But I think it’s worth walking through what the Catechism says here anyway.
The Catechism, quoting the CDF document Persona Humana, clearly teaches that masturbation is gravely immoral. However, the reasoning for why masturbation is immoral is because it’s the “use of the sexual faculty” outside of marriage.
“Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage [coniugale commercium in the original Latin] is essentially contrary to its purpose” (CCC 2352).
The Catechism is saying that masturbation is gravely evil, not because it’s sexual pleasure apart from intercourse, but because it’s sexual activity outside of marriage. Why?
“For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of ‘the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved’” (CCC 2352).
In other words, the Catechism is saying that sexual pleasure is meant for marriage because marriage is the kind of relationship “in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” From this it’s clear that expressions of sexual affection between spouses are not acts of masturbation.
It could be argued that the official English translation of the Catechism mistranslates coniugale commercium as “marriage” when it really means “the act of marital intercourse.” This is facially plausible since coniugale commercium can be translated as “sexual intercourse” (as in paragraph 14 of Humanae Vitae). In the Church’s documents, coniugale is consistently translated as “conjugal” or “marital” whereas commercium is translated in a variety of ways depending on the context.5 The Vatican’s official English translation of Persona Humana translates coniugale commercium as “normal conjugal relations.” And the next two sentences in Persona Humana make clear that “conjugal relations” refers to a conjugal relationship and not a specific sexual act:
“The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes ‘the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.’ All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship” (PH 9).
Given this context, it seems that “marriage”—the conjugal relationship—is an intentional and accurate translation of the meaning of coniugale commercium here in the Catechism.
Further, if it is true that any deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside of marital intercourse is what the Magisterium means, then a married couple intentionally arousing each other in any way outside of the immediate context of intercourse would be an act of masturbation. This conclusion seems utterly disconnected from normal marital life, redefines the normal definition of “masturbation,” and makes every intentional instance of sexual arousal gravely immoral unless it resolves in marital intercourse.6
The fact that this argument would require disbelieving the official translations of magisterial texts seems like further evidence that the Magisterium does not actually teach this in a clear and definitive way. If the Magisterium wanted to define masturbation as “the use of the sexual faculty outside of marital intercourse,” then they could have used less ambiguous language or they could have translated coniugale commercium as “marital intercourse” in any of their official English translations of Persona Humana, but they chose not to.
If this is a moral prohibition the Magisterium expects the faithful to know and assent to, the faithful would reasonably expect the Magisterium to clearly articulate it.
A More Chaste Way
Last year, Pope Leo XIV said that in the Church, “no one is called to dominate; all are called to serve. No one should impose his or her own ideas; we must all listen to one another…No one possesses the whole truth; we must all humbly seek it and seek it together” (Pope Leo, Homily on October 26, 2025). I would like to see apologists and popular theologians engage these questions about marital intimacy in the way Pope Leo proposes.
We can treat couples using NFP like adults, not wayward children. We can listen to their experiences without making assumptions or putting them in a box. We can simply be honest and say: “There’s no clear and definitive teaching about marital expressions of sexual affection apart from intercourse. Here’s what the Church does clearly teach about sexuality and chastity. Here’s what current and historical theologians have to say about this question. Here are the potential grave concerns. Here’s how I’ve formed my conscience. I trust you to inform and follow yours.” As Pope Francis taught: the faithful “are capable of carrying out their own discernment in complex situations. We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them” (Amoris Laetitia 37).
I want to reiterate how harmful this inaccurate presentation of Church teaching can be. I know of many couples who, for so many different and grave reasons, struggle with NFP. I’ve seen couples who love the Church, want to be faithful, and who are deeply open to life, crumble under the weight of moral burdens that are not clear or definitive teaching. Trying to carry these burdens can, and has, driven spouses apart, left couples feeling like their only option is permanent sterilization, and pushed families out of the Church.
What we need in our NFP discourse is greater chastity.
In his Apostolic Letter on Saint Joseph, Patris Corde, Pope Francis reflected on Joseph under the title of “Most Chaste.” Now, whenever I’ve heard that title for Joseph it’s always been “Most Chaste Spouse” in reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity. However, Pope Francis used the title “Most Chaste Father” to offer a reflection on what chaste love looks like between a parent and child, for someone in a position of authority over others. The pope wrote:
“Being a father entails introducing children to life and reality. Not holding them back, being overprotective or possessive, but rather making them capable of deciding for themselves, enjoying freedom and exploring new possibilities.
Perhaps for this reason, Joseph is traditionally called a ‘most chaste’ father. That title is not simply a sign of affection, but the summation of an attitude that is the opposite of possessiveness. Chastity is freedom from possessiveness in every sphere of one’s life. Only when love is chaste, is it truly love. A possessive love ultimately becomes dangerous: it imprisons, constricts and makes for misery.
God himself loved humanity with a chaste love; he left us free even to go astray and set ourselves against him. The logic of love is always the logic of freedom” (Patris Corde 7).
Apologists and theologians who impose grave moral rules in areas where the Magisterium is not clear or definitive are attempting to possess the other, coercing others to behave according to their set of standards. I imagine this is often done with the best of intentions: to save the soul or protect the good of the other. However, these authorities step outside their competency and try to manualize questions the Magisterium has not manualized. It’s a libido dominandi over other people’s libidos. But “the logic of love is always the logic of freedom,” freedom even to allow people to “go astray” if they choose.
Chastity—love that has been freed from the desire to possess or control the other—is precisely what we need more of as we engage in these conversations about NFP. This does not mean shaming myself for the ways I realize I may have misused my authority. Chastity is a virtue and a gift from God with “laws of growth which progress through stages marked by imperfection and too often by sin” (CCC 2343). But these imperfections and sins don’t cut me off from God, not at all. God runs down to meet me in my weakness, loves me, lifts me on His shoulders, and strengthens me to move forward. With God’s grace I can examine my conscience, take responsibility for my actions, make reparation where necessary, and strive to do better in the future.
*AI used to proofread this article
The word Catechesis, from the Greek katékhéo, means “to echo down.”
In the Summa, St. Thomas Aquinas says that orders that exceed the authority of the person giving the order are an act of “violence” against others, even if the order is meant to advance the common good (ST I-II, q. 96, a. 4).
Tellingly, both euphemisms are objectifying and instrumentalizing.
There is no teaching on this matter in any post-Vatican II documents, but there is a speech from Pope Pius XII—his 1956 “Address to participants of the Second World Congress on fertility and sterility”—about bioethical questions around fertility treatments that does touch on this issue. However, the relevant section of the speech is in Latin with no official English translation. I only found this text by digging through the footnotes of an old moral manual.
As mentioned above, Lumen Gentium presents our guide for what papal teachings require assent. It says:
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” (LG 25)
Pope Pius XII’s speech is of low magisterial weight (character of the document) and the Church has not repeated this teaching since even though it has had numerous opportunities to do so (frequent repetition). Further, Pius XII condemns the use of the sexual faculty outside of conjugal copulation (coniugalem copulam), a phrase that the Magisterium chose not to repeat in Humane Vitae or Persona Humana.
If this is a moral prohibition the Magisterium expects the faithful to assent to, per Lumen Gentium, I would expect it to be repeated in subsequent magisterial documents. It seems as inappropriate to pluck this out of its context and impose it on people today as it would be to lift a teaching from the 18th century to claim that any Catholic who receives interest on a loan is committing a grave evil.
For example, commercium is translated as “dialogue” in Lumen Gentium 37, “dealings” in Gaudium et Spes 25, “exchange” in Gaudium et Spes 44, “relations” in Gaudium et Spes 62, and “commerce” in Gaudium et Spes 85.
It would lead to the absurd conclusion that a married couple choosing to make out and cuddle in bed together, knowing they can’t engage in intercourse before the wife leaves on a work trip, is an act of masturbation.