badgenome said:
Very good. That was exactly my point, so your post could have ended right here without devolving into all the wackdoodle nonsense. I'm not saying it's reasonable to conclude that the church must have ever approved of contraceptives, but that it is a possibility since we don't even know what medieval European contraceptive practices were because that knowledge was so systematically obliterated after the plague, let alone how the church felt about each one. Since the practice of contraception seems to have been tolerated in Europe prior to the plague, this change in church policy could have represented merely a more militant enforcement of an consistent church doctrine (from disapproving but tolerating it to completely eradicating it), or this doctrine could have - like so many others - changed from time to time depending upon political convenience. That, of course, is the problem with mixing politics and faith: the former always subjugates the latter. |
I would say that you likely do see a shift in views after birth control became much more readily available to the masses and a more major issue. I believe it is going into the 20th century you saw the issue come much more to the forefront as you saw birth control campaigned for.
Anyhow, this gets away from the original subject of the poor and church teaching, and if there may be a shift to an increased focus on social justice.
