Sexual morality over the centuries

[fineca]

Hi, the Church’s teaching on faith and morals is supposed to have been always the same, because truth can’t contradict itself. But it seems that the teaching on family planning has changed, in the middle ages the spouses were to have sex only with the intention of procreating, then later without the positive intention, and still later, now, with a positive intention not to procreate. It looks like a medieval Catholic priest would’ve judged that modern Catholic sexual morality allows mortal sin…
Comments, please!
Thank you**

 

[Crumpy]

someone smarter than me will undoubtedly respond to your question.

But, in the mean time, what is the source of your information?

I have raised a parallel question in several of the threads on masturbation. I was taught in Catholic high school that M. was a venial sin, and could be a mortal sin under certain circumstances.
That was clear in my mind.

But, now, people are quoting the Catechism on M. saying that it is a mortal sin, but not under all circumstances.

It’s the same sort of question that you are asking, but a different subject.

I suspect that there was little thought to organized “family planning” in the middle ages, as we know f.p. today. There’s also the matter of whether you can find isolated quotes on the subject, or whether there was a general (i.e. counciliar) statement on the subject.

I think abortion and infanticide were condemned in the earliest writings of the church fathers.

 

[Zahmir]

The Church has always taught that sex must be unitive and procreative. I don’t think that’s the question.

What you’re asking is how the Church interpreted this truth and set it forth for the people, which in reality hasn’t changed that much. First of all, I would recommend reading Love and Responsibility which explains this very idea.

I’m not a Church History expert, but maybe I can shed SOME light.

In the first instance, the Church focused primarily on the procreative aspect, believing that one should always have sex “intending” to conceive.

(I don’t know what you mean “without the positive intention”).

The Church now, however, has a more wholistic approach to sex, both procreative and unitive. But I can tell you right now that it is A SIN to have sex with the positive intention NOT to procreate. For one would be focusing solely on the unitive and not the procreative, which is wrong.

Rather, the general understanding of today’s teaching on sex is the somewhat like the following: “I may have sex with my wife at any time (even those times which she is unlikely to conceive) beacuse I am open to life. I look foward to having a child, but if this time would not be the best time for a child for grave reasons, i must practice abstience.”

Ideally, we would have families of 5… 7… 10. But we know that isn’t possible for most people today. On the other hand, it would be a very bad thing for a couple to not have sex all the time because they’re too afraid to have a child.

Pope John Paul says something to the effect that nature has provided man with a way (menstural cycle) to have some control over how many children he has. We can use nature, in this way, to space out children, but in times where having a child would not be good at all, abstience would best be practiced.

At all times, though the intention to have a child doesn’t have to be primary, a couple should not be opposed to having a child.