In today’s world, we are almost led to equate the morality proposed by Christianity, by the Catholic Church, with that concerning relations between the sexes. In reality, this is not the case at all. The Gospels do not speak about sexual relations, except in two instances in which Jesus, to the astonishment of his followers, speaks with prostitutes in order to offer them forgiveness.

The true message of Christianity is another one: we find it in the Beatitudes (“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied; blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy...”), and in the works of mercy (“To give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty...” ).

As for relations between the sexes, the rules were those commonly accepted at the time — and not only then, but almost universally in all civilizations, albeit with significant variations. It is true, for example, that in the famous passage of St. Paul there is discussion of marital love (“submit yourselves to one another: wives to their husbands”), but with new tones, with feelings elevated by comparison with the mystical relationship between Christ and the Church. In substance, however, these were still the same principles that at the time seemed natural and just.

Therefore, when the Catholic Church proposes a sexual morality to be followed, it does not refer primarily to Gospel precepts, which are in fact very few, but rather to a morality described as “according to nature,” one that belongs not only to the time of Jesus but practically to all past civilizations, albeit expressed in different ways.

Only in recent times have certain principles come to be seen as outdated, leading to what is called sexual freedom. The idea has spread that intimate relations may take place whenever one wishes, outside rigid social rules. In short, sexual relations are considered legitimate not only within marriage, but also outside it.

Thus, for example, female virginity — which throughout history was regarded as an indispensable requirement for brides — now appears almost pathological.

Yet the rules that for centuries were regarded as self-evident do have a rationale rooted in nature. Let us consider marriage: it is the institution whose fundamental purpose is the most important function of every living being, the transmission of life. In the human species, however, reproduction differs from that of animals. Animals generally raise one generation at a time: once the offspring are sufficiently mature (usually able to reproduce themselves), the parental bond is broken and a new generation can begin.

In the human species, by contrast, the relationship lasts a lifetime, because the time needed for newborns to mature is extremely long: among living beings, we alone become grandparents. We are parents and children forever, and we also establish a relationship — often a very intense one — with the children of our children. For all this to be possible, the couple must remain united not only during the period of procreation, but throughout life, because the parental role (and later that of grandparents) lasts a lifetime.

It is true that in particular cases marriage may also be dissolved (through divorce or separation), but this is always, so to speak, an exceptional circumstance — a failure of the marriage itself.

Moreover, the fidelity of the spouses is the necessary foundation of their role: both parents are needed for the upbringing and education of children, the mother perhaps more directly, and the father perhaps more focused on supporting the family financially.

In particular, female fidelity has traditionally been considered more important (though not according to Christian morality), because it guarantees certainty of paternity: mater semper certa — the mother is always certain; paternity, however, depends on the trust placed in the wife.

In a world of free love, the family truly capable of raising and educating children enters into crisis. Children need both a mother and a father: when the family breaks apart, it becomes a continual trauma.

De facto unions, now so fashionable in place of formal marriage, may dissolve at any moment, as soon as one partner grows tired of the relationship or becomes attracted to someone else. So why not exercise one’s freedom and go one’s own way, leaving the other partner free to do the same?

This is far from simple; it is dramatic both for the children and for the parents themselves.

Furthermore, a relationship with a single spouse throughout life gives an imprint, a value, and a strength that no longer exist if one has been with many others: he is no longer MY man, she is no longer MY woman, if there have been many men or women before.

All this disorder leads to children themselves being seen as a difficulty, an obstacle to what is called our freedom.

This brings us to another issue that receives very little public attention: declining birth rates. Our advanced and prosperous societies are now afflicted by this phenomenon. If, on average, every woman has two children, the population remains stable; but if there is only one child per woman, demographic decline increases dramatically. This is a geometric progression, not an arithmetic one: in a single generation the population is halved, in two generations it becomes one quarter, in three generations one eighth. In practice, within a hundred years it almost disappears.

This is the destiny toward which our world is heading, despite all our technological achievements and prosperity.

Let us hope this does not happen, but nature has its laws: if we do not follow them, we are destined to be replaced by other peoples.

And besides, if parenthood is our most fundamental need, can we truly be happy if we do not fulfill it? How many women, approaching menopause, hurry to have a child in whatever way possible, because maternal instinct outweighs every other need.