Be fruitful and multiply, Part Five

In this second to last installment of this series, we will look at the issue of population control. 

I found it interesting that when I looked up population control on Wikipedia, and looked in the part of the article entitled “opposition”, the very first opponent listed was none other than the Roman Catholic Church.  It quoted Pope Emeritus Benedict who said, in his message for the World Day of Peace in 2009, “The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight against poverty, actually constitutes the destruction of the poorest of all human beings."  

The United States and other developed nations will help poorer nations, but typically only if they keep those populations under control.   Listen to what John Paul II had to say about this reality in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life), in which the Holy Father compared the powerful governments of the world to the notorious Pharaoh!

The Pharaoh of old, haunted by the presence and increase of the children of Israel, submitted them to every kind of oppression and ordered that every male child born of the Hebrew women was to be killed (cf. Ex 1:7-22). Today not a few of the powerful of the earth act in the same way. They too are haunted by the current demographic growth, and fear that the most prolific and poorest peoples represent a threat for the well-being and peace of their own countries. Consequently, rather than wishing to face and solve these serious problems with respect for the dignity of individuals and families and for every person's inviolable right to life, they prefer to promote and impose by whatever means a massive program of birth control. Even the economic help which they would be ready to give is unjustly made conditional on the acceptance of an anti-birth policy.

Here is some proof that this is exactly what was happening.  An executive government level entitled National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests (NSSM200was published in 1974, but only declassified in 1989.  It was written by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and adopted as policy by President Gerald Ford in 1975.  It has not been replaced since.   The basic thesis of the memorandum is that population growth in the least developed countries of the world (LDC’s) is a concern to our nation’s security because the higher the population in underdeveloped countries, the more unrest there would be, and the harder for us it would be to access the natural resources of those lands.  It states as follows:

The U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries [see National Commission on Materials Policy, Towards a National Materials Policy: Basic Data and Issues, April 1972]. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.... The location of known reserves of higher grade ores of most minerals favors increasing dependence of all industrialized regions on imports from less developed countries.

See how this document really promotes selfishness?    Instead of allowing nations to develop and grow their population so they become self-sufficient, we seek to control them for our own needs.  John Paul’s analogy was right on.

The document goes on to seek as a goal as two-child family on average by the year 2000 While specific goals in this area are difficult to state, our aim should be for the world to achieve a replacement level of fertility, (a two child family on the average), by about the year 2000. ...Attainment of this goal will require greatly intensified population programs ... U.S. leadership is essential.    This would be achieved by ensuring these populations had access to birth control and abortion because as it states "No country has reduced its population growth without resorting to abortion.... under developing country conditions foresight methods not only are frequently unavailable but often fail because of ignorance, lack of preparation, misuse and non-use. Because of these latter conditions, increasing numbers of women in the developing world have been resorting to abortion”    Despite what this says, I would propose the framers of this document were really not interested in reducing abortions, but rather, reducing people.   If they were truly interested in the former, then they would propose moral and spiritual formation, not condoms, as the answer to reducing abortions.  This statement, I think, reflects a very dismal view of the human person, that we will instinctively turn to abortion to solve our problems.   Are we that cause-and-effect?   No, there are much larger issues at work here.

There is even more disturbing statements in this document.  Public relations spin is noted as something very important, even if it obscures the truth that a powerful self-serving government such as ours is behind everything.  It states:  We must take care that our activities should not give the appearance to the LDCs of an industrialized country policy directed against the LDCs. Caution must be taken that in any approaches in this field we support in the LDCs are ones we can support within this country. "Third World" leaders should be in the forefront and obtain the credit for successful programs.”  It also states “"In these sensitive relations, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion."   Note it does not state we should avoid coercion, just the appearance of it.   When spin is more important than the truth, danger signs should go up.

Now, like I said, this document has never been disavowed formally, so even today, its doctrine could still be practiced.   I am confident many billions of taxpayer dollars have gone into these efforts since this policy was adopted.    Even into the 2000’s international pro-life organizations were calling on the Bush administration to formally disavow it.   I could not find where they did.

What does the Church propose instead of all this?    It proposes that we keep in mind the following values or concepts when formulating social policy (each of which could be a post on its own, perhaps for a later time).

1)       Solidarity    People and nations standing with each other in pursuit of the common good.  We are all dependent on each other.   We must be our brother’s keeper.  The rich are dependent on the poor.  The poor are dependent on the rich.  (Note this is not simply a materialistic view of human persons and society!)    John Paul II said this in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis (The Social Concern):   "Solidarity is undoubtedly a Christian virtue. It seeks to go beyond itself to total gratuity, forgiveness, and reconciliation. It leads to a new vision of the unity of humankind, a reflection of God's triune intimate life.  It is a unity that binds members of a group together.    This document seemed to want to make the poor dependent on us only.

2)      Charity   As individuals and societies, we must learn to give to each other, “without counting the cost”.   We are to be concerned for the other, so much that we are willing to empty of ourselves for others, as Christ did for us.   We should not be seeking some benefit for ourselves, unlike what this document was proposing.

3)      Subsidiarity    This literally means to “sit behind”.   A community of a higher order should not interfere with a community of a lower order.  Rather, it should support it in case of need, and seek to coordinate its activities with that of the rest of society.  The classic example here is the government as the higher order, and the family as the lower order.  Does it not seem the opposite today, where families feel they are serving the government instead of the other way around?   That is what this document seemed to be proposing, the families of the poorer nations serving the government of the richer ones.

4)      Distributism  Social and economic structures should support social justice, and social justice is best served through wide distribution of ownership.  The world was created for the use and benefit of all God’s creatures, not just the rich and powerful.    There seems to be no such equality hinted at or called for in that document.

Any good social policy or program should reflect those four principles noted above.  Does that secret State Department document do that?  I think not.   Is a world where all of the above are practiced sound like a much better place to be than the world of us against them, us lording it over them, and us taking from them, that the State Department document promotes?  I would say so.

We must be careful for going along with any social policy that seeks to put anything except the human person at the front of its agenda.   Be careful when you hear phrases like “a better world”, “a better planet”.  The main focus of any good social policy cannot be on the material world, yes even nature.  The focus must, rather, be on the human person.    I am not saying to automatically disregard any policy that uses these phrases, but just be very, very careful, dig deeper, analyze beneath the surface.  I would even urge a little caution when you hear things like a “better community”.   Dig deeper.  Does it mean a communion of persons?  If so, then it might be OK.  If it means a communion of man and something else, like Mother Earth, then be careful.

Artificial population control goes against God’s command to be fruitful and multiply.  It is why the Church has always been opposed to it.    Let’s make sure we are well rooted in the heart, soul, and mind in solid Catholic spirituality so we can better discern hidden layers of selfishness, and even evil, underneath well-sounding, or even well-meaning programs social programs.  Let’s pray that if any of these programs are going on “behind the scenes” that they be exposed by the light of Christ, either working through us, or maybe even directly (like Saint Paul experienced when thrown off his horse on the road to Damascus).

As the principle of subsidiarity shows, it is more ideal for the family to be at the center of human affairs than the government.   The family, in Catholic social teaching, is the first and most basic unit of a society.  When it fails, so does society.    We must pray to Saint Joseph in his role as a head of the Holy Family, and the family of the Church, that he helps strengthen family life, and therefore, helps strengthen society at large.

Saint Joseph, pillar of families, pray for us.