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.

Be fruitful and multiply, Part Four

In previous posts, we have discussed Scriptural and Papal teachings that frown on under population, as well as practical effects of under population.   In this post, we will discuss a little bit the spiritual effects of under population.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a notorious one.   It tends to be shied away from a lot today because of the imagery it uses, and its perceived anti-homosexual message.  We have to, though, as Catholics, not shy away from those parts of the Bible that we find uncomfortable.  While we can pick and choose what our favorite parts of the Bible might be, we have to embrace the whole of Scripture as the inspired Word of God, both our favorite parts,  and our not so favorite parts, and see what the message may be that God is telling us, even in those parts we find difficult to read.

Here is the story as found in Genesis 19, and then we will discuss some points afterward as it relates to our subject.

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and bowed down with his face to the ground.  He said, “Please, my lords, turn aside to your servant’s house and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you can rise early and go on your way.” They said, “No; we will spend the night in the square.”  But he urged them strongly; so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; ^and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.”  Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, ^and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.  Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”  But they replied, “Stand back!” And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and he would play the judge! Now we will deal worse with you than with them.” Then they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near the door to break it down.  But the men inside reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door.  And they struck with blindness the men who were at the door of the house, both small and great, so that they were unable to find the door.

 Then the men said to Lot, “Have you anyone else here? Sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or anyone you have in the city—bring them out of the place.  For we are about to destroy this place, because the outcry against its people has become great before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.” So Lot went out and said to his sons-in-law, who were to marry his daughters, “Up, get out of this place; for the Lord is about to destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law to be jesting.

When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, or else you will be consumed in the punishment of the city.”  But he lingered; so the men seized him and his wife and his two daughters by the hand, the Lord being merciful to him, and they brought him out and left him outside the city.  When they had brought them outside, they ^said, “Flee for your life; do not look back or stop anywhere in the Plain; flee to the hills, or else you will be consumed.”  And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords;  your servant has found favor with you, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, for fear the disaster will overtake me and I die. Look, that city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there—is it not a little one?—and my life will be saved!”  He said to him, “Very well, I grant you this favor too, and will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.  Hurry, escape there, for I can do nothing until you arrive there.” Therefore the city was called Zoar.  The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.

Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven; ^and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.  But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

Abraham went early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord; ^and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah and toward all the land of the Plain and saw the smoke of the land going up like the smoke of a furnace.

So it was that, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot had settled.

Clearly, the Lord was displeased with the behavior of the men who were seeking to “know” (in other words, to have sexual relations) with the male guests of Lot.   (They turned out to be angels, of course, but that had not been revealed at that point.)    Now, some commentators try to work around this story by saying that what the Lord was truly displeased with was a lack of social justice being practiced in those towns, or the wickedness of those cities in general, and that, and not the homosexual behavior specifically, is why they were destroyed.  But I looked up the passages they referred to in Isiah 1, Ezekiel 16, and Deuteronomy 23 and I unfortunately cannot support their conclusions based on those passages.

However, one could possibly theorize that maybe the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, were the men trying to force themselves on their guests; in other words, it was more the non-consensual aspect of it, more so than the homosexual act, that caused him to finally destroy the town.   This theory posits that if they kept their behavior to themselves, this behavior, while it would not please him, would not lead him to destroy the city because of it.   This argument, I admit, is a bit of stretch, but it is possible, and much more plausible than the theories posited by those aforementioned commentators, in my opinion.  (I am guessing we cannot consider Lot’s action of offering his daughters up immoral because I am guessing that his daughters would have consented to prevent the guests from being victims of sodomy, and to prevent the men of Sodom from committing that act.  This sounds egregious by our standards today; offering up one’s daughter like that, and them consenting to be used like that, but back then, maybe not.)

Also, we should keep in mind that it was all the men of the city who came to Lot’s house that night, not just some.  Recall that Abraham had pleaded with the Lord in the chapter before that if some innocents were found, he would not destroy the city.   The Lord consented.  However, unfortunately, none were to be found, and it was destroyed.   So, in other words, any individual practicing homosexual sex, or any other sin, should not see him or herself as the cause of his or her entire city being ruined (although it does put his or her individual salvation in jeopardy).

So what does all this have to do with the topic at hand?   Well, I think we can take this lesson from it.  If many people in a culture, as was the case in Sodom, use sex in a way, which is designed by God to help us be fruitful and multiply, and instead, use that gift in a way that at worst, negates that possibility, or at best, where that possibility is not wished for, then we, in effect,  cause fire to reign down upon us, and we destroy ourselves.   If we use sex simply for sensual enjoyment,  or if we use sex as a means of controlling someone,  and therefore, do not use it, at least in part, to be fruitful and multiply, then we risk death, either by our own fate because we fail to populate, or perhaps, by the wrath of God.  

A nation that under populates risks being destroyed.  We, especially in the Western world (North America and Europe specifically) need to pay heed to this.  We need, even if just a few of us, to be those lone wolves in a wicked culture that will cause the Lord’s wrath to pass over us.   Let’s pray that we are among those that Abraham spoke of in the previous chapter in Genesis that will hold back the wrath of the Lord:

Then the Lord said, “How great is the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah and how very grave their sin!¹ I must go down and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me; and if not, I will know.”

So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham came near and said, “Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?  Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will you then sweep away the place and not forgive it for the fifty righteous who are in it?  Far be it from you to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?”  And the Lord said, “If I find at Sodom fifty righteous in the city, I will forgive the whole place for their sake.”  Abraham answered, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.  Suppose five of the fifty righteous are lacking? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five?” And he said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.”  Again he spoke to him, “Suppose forty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of forty I will not do it.”  Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak. Suppose thirty are found there.” He answered, “I will not do it, if I find thirty there.”  He said, “Let me take it upon myself to speak to the Lord. Suppose twenty are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of twenty I will not destroy it.”  Then he said, “Oh do not let the Lord be angry if I speak just once more. Suppose ten are found there.” He answered, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it.

Unfortunately, no just men were found in Sodom.  It was destroyed. 

May we commit ourselves to justice and righteousness, and commit ourselves to obey the just God who commands us to turn from wickedness, do good, which includes, being fruitful and multiplying, and in doing so, save our nation and culture.

Joseph most just, pray for us.

Be fruitful and multiply, Part Three

In the first two posts in this series, we looked at some Scripture verses, as well as a few selections from papal encyclicals , which, in my opinion,  offer evidence that it is the will of God that the population increase, and therefore, there are reasons to be concerned about the moral and spiritual health of our nation (and many other nation’s) declining birthrate.   In this post, we will step back briefly to discuss some practical effects of under population.  (We will return to the spiritual in the posts after this one.)

1)      When a nation under populates, it must rely more on immigration to support itself.  When a nation is desperate for people to support its economy, it naturally becomes easier to immigrate to it, whether that is intentional or not.  In these circumstances, it is difficult to manage who comes into a country.  Unfortunately, this means these nations are more vulnerable to terrorist threats.   One sees this with great vivacity in Europe with the number of recent terrorist attacks in Britain and France. 

2)      When a nation under populates, it loses its culture and identity.    In the first post of this series, we noted that all of the countries on the President’s travel ban have higher birthrates than the United States, and just about every other industrialized country.   These countries have large populations that do not like America.  They deem us as  “morally lax” because we give women rights, and allow gays and lesbians to live freely and openly like the rest of us.  They think we are imperialistic.  They do not like democracy or capitalism.   As their population increases, and our decreases, then their values will take hold, and ours will lose their ground, not necessarily in the truth of our values, but in their living out, simply because we do not have enough people to defend them.

3)      When a nation begins to under populate, it ages.   There will not be enough working people to support the elderly population.  Pensions will decline.   The temptation to euthanize will become greater.  An economy where more and more of a percentage of its population cannot work becomes less viable.   Taxes will have to be raised on those who are working to support the aging population.   It becomes a vicious cycle.

4)      When a nation under populates, it creates a labor shortage that goes well beyond having economic consequences alone.   Less labor equals less capital.  Capital comes in many forms; economic, intellectual, cultural, and spiritual.  There is simply no replacement for a human being when it comes to capital.  A machine lacks the creativity that a human person does.  A machine may be able to produce things, but it cannot design or create things.  Only human persons, made in the image and likeness of God, can create.  When a nation loses its creativity, it not only loses economically, it loses culturally.

5)      When a nation under populates, contrary to popular wisdom, the environment suffers.   Common wisdom dictates that the more population is controlled, the better for the environment.  I do not believe this to be true.  (We will discuss population control efforts in more detail in a future post in this series.)  Think of it this way.  The more people we have, the easier and less expensive it would be to build things like electric cars and wind turbines.   The more people we have, the more opportunities there are for work, and therefore, less travel needed, and less fuel used.  Sometimes, we just have to sit back, and really think through some of our assumptions.

6)      When a nation under populates, workers face severe financial consequences.  With lower population, there is less demand for things.  With less demand, comes a corresponding call for lower production, which means fewer jobs, and fewer wages for the jobs that do exist.  When workers earn less, the standard of living falls.   Savings and retirement goes down, which means people have to work longer to survive. 

7)      When a nation under populates, important societal structures receive less support.   The government receives fewer taxes.   It cannot support the military like it should, and a nation’s ability to defend itself weakens.  Families do not have the support they need.   There are fewer doctors, nurses, teachers, fire, police, and soldiers.  And institutions like the Church have fewer people to support it.  (We will go into more details on the effect of under population on the Church in a future post in this series.)

There are probably other effects that are not listed here, but this should give you the idea that when we do not reproduce as we should, very concerning things happen.  It really is interesting to note that one does not hear of these things in modern popular discourse.  As I have stated, it is really the opposite we often hear, that we are overpopulated.   We see things like hunger, environmental degradation, and disease, and we instantly assume there is an overpopulation issue.   The world cannot sustain itself, we think.  We have too many people to feed.  We have too many people and it is causing the environment to decay.   We have too many sick and old people.

Why do not we think differently?   Instead of thinking this way, I propose we think of these issues another way.   Instead of thinking about there being too many people to feed, think that we do not have enough people to feed them.  Instead of thinking the environment is being hurt because there are too many people, think instead that we do not have enough manpower to build and invest in alternative energy sources.  Instead of thinking that there are too many sick and old people in the world, and therefore, we need to eliminate them, think instead there are not enough people to take care of them, and that, not the sick and old people themselves, is the problem.

I think it is important that we develop a new mentality to the problems facing us in society today.  Man is not the problem, man is, rather,  the solution!  We need more men and women, with vitality and creativity, to address the problems we face.  The problems will not get better by practicing population control.   They will get better by realizing the genius that the human person is as the pinnacle of God’s creation.   Read and meditate on these words from Psalm 8, and tell me afterwards that decreasing the number of these creatures on the Earth will solve our problems!

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
    the moon and the stars that you have established;
 what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
    mortals  that you care for them?

Yet you have made them a little lower than God,
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
You have given them dominion over the works of your hands;
    you have put all things under their feet,
all sheep and oxen,
    and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea,
    whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

O Lord, our Sovereign,
    how majestic is your name in all the earth!

Wow, what a beautiful expression of the dignity of man.

And we want to decrease their number?  Heaven help us.

Joseph, some have said, was the perfect man.   He was humble, obedient, and charitable.  Whether he was perfect or not, the truth is he was a man.   We read in the Infancy narrative,  In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David (Luke 1:26-27)

Joseph, spouse of the Mother of God, pray for us.

Be fruitful and multiply, Part Two

In my last post, I introduced the challenge of a declining population, which I believe is at the root cause, or at least contributes, to just about every challenge we face as a society today.   Fewer people means less creativity to solve problems, less intellectual capital, and less people to drive our economy and culture.   If we think of an analogy from the environment, more of the world is becoming like a desert and less like a garden.  When the womb is barren, so becomes the world.

In the past post, we mentioned some papal teaching, and listed several Scripture posts, from the Old Testament and the Acts of the Apostles, which I claim make my point that it is not the will of God that our birthrate be low.  In this post, I would like to do a little more of that, but specifically focus on the words and deeds of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels.   I will present some verses that I would propose that it is the will of Christ that we reverse our population trend.   I admit these are not traditional ways of interpreting these passages, and I do ask for your indulgence as I perhaps gave a spin on these that are not usual, but I would propose they are not in conflict per se with any interpretation that has been given on them in the Tradition of the Church.

Let’s start with this famous line from Our Lord.  “What profit is there for one to gain the whole world yet lose or forfeit himself?” (Luke 9:25)   When one person gains a lot of land, typically they take the land for themselves.   Now, a godly person would share that land with others, or at least allow others to live on the land. However, I don’t think that type of person was who Our Lord had in mind when he said this.   It could be said, based on this saying, that Our Lord prefers that there be a multitude of people in a given land, and not just one.

Later in that same chapter (verses 51-55), we read,  “When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.  And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem.  When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”^[ But he turned and rebuked them.  There is never a problem that is solved by eliminating people, and therefore, having fewer people on the Earth!  This is a lesson we can draw from the words and actions (or inaction) of Jesus in this passage.

In Luke 11: 27-28, we read the following:  While he was saying this, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!”  But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!”   The woman was praising one woman who gave birth to to one child.  The Lord kind of implies there is nothing remarkable about that.  On the other hand, says that what is real blessed are the many who obey the word of God.  One of God’s commands  is to be fruitful and multiply.  One woman giving birth to a child, a natural process, is indeed good.  However, what is much better is many giving birth out of obedience to God’s word.   The more, the merrier!

The parable of the fig tree speaks to those who are barren, and the need to be patient.  Fruit will come if we do the right things! Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none.  So he said to the gardener, ‘See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?’  He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it.  If it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”   The Lord does not like barrenness in the spiritual nor physical world.  But we should never just toss the barren womb away, or forget about it!  We need to pray, persevere and do whatever we can to make it possible to bear fruit.   More often than not, God will take care of the rest, and bless us with fruit if we do.  (For those for whom he does not, I have some words at the end of this post.)

Our Lord loves babies!  We read further in Luke’s Gospel (18:15-17)  People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they sternly ordered them not to do it. But Jesus called for them and said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs.  Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.”   If it was just one infant, I do not think the disciples would have objected.  But there were many.   It did not bother Our Lord, he enjoyed it.   Babies give delight to him.  The more babies there are, the greater the Kingdom of God shines forth!

The Parable of the Ten Gold Coins (Luke 19:11-26) speaks of God’s expectation for us to multiply.  As they were listening to this, he went on to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. So he said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return.  He summoned ten of his slaves, and gave them ten pounds, and said to them, ‘Do business with these until I come back.’  But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us.’ ¹⁵ When he returned, having received royal power, he ordered these slaves, to whom he had given the money, to be summoned so that he might find out what they had gained by trading.  The first came forward and said, ‘Lord, your pound has made ten more pounds.’  He said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been trustworthy in a very small thing, take charge of ten cities.’ Then the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your pound has made five pounds.’  He said to him, ‘And you, rule over five cities.’ Then the other came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your pound. I wrapped it up in a piece of cloth, for I was afraid of you, because you are a harsh man; you take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’  He said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! You knew, did you, that I was a harsh man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow?  Why then did you not put my money into the bank? Then when I returned, I could have collected it with interest.’  He said to the bystanders, ‘Take the pound from him and give it to the one who has ten pounds.’  (And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten pounds!’)  ‘I tell you, to all those who have, more will be given; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.  The Lord’s preference is for us to take what we have, or better put, what has been given to us by God, and multiply it.   We have been given life, truth, and love.  We are expected to reproduce.

Here is one final passage to consider.  On the road to Calvary, Our Lord speaks to a group of women who were mourning and lamenting what was happening to him.     But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’  Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us’; and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’  For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?” (Luke 23:28-32).  The Lord tells them that while what was happening to him may appear bad, what was really bad would be a future world where humans do not want to give birth.   Does this sound a little bit like our world today?  

Again, these interpretations I have given here are mine, and there are other levels and meanings to each of these passages.   However, I hope I have made a case that I think one would be justified, based on these and other passages in the Gospels, to conclude that low birthrates are not in accordance with God’s plan for his Creation. 

Before I close, let me just say a word to those women who like to bear children, but cannot.  It is a pain that I cannot begin to imagine what it is like.  It is indeed a cross to bear, and Our Lord suffers with you.   He does not like it any more than you do.  He wept over the barrenness around him, and the barrenness he foresaw and spoke of while on the road to Calvary.    Your suffering can be united with his, and as we all know, his suffering bore fruit for the whole human race.   Your suffering can likewise bear fruit.  It could be spiritual fruit, and/or it may just bear physical fruit, too, like, for example, if you decide to adopt.  But however you decide to respond to this cross you have to bear, know that God suffers with you, and like how he had a plan for our salvation through the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, so the Father has a plan to make your suffering, redemptive, as well.  Grab onto it, and like Jesus, in the end, you will experience victory.

For those who in this situation, turn to Saint Joseph, who is solace of the wretched.  For those who experience the truly “wretched” condition of barrenness,  and for those who perhaps were able to conceive, and chose not to, and now feel “wretched” because of it,  Joseph can be your consolation.  He suffered for Our Lord during his lifetime as we have discussed in previous posts.  Some of this suffering is enumerated in the Infancy narrative, but I would venture there was a lot more suffering than was explicitly mentioned.  Joseph had to work by the sweat of his brow, and because he was not conceived immaculately like Our Lord and Our Lady, he felt its effects.  His family was poor.  I am sure he struggled  to provide for them everyday.  And finally, beyond the physical suffering, I am sure he struggled emotionally and spiritually to understand the mystery that was his son.   To those who are barren, I say, with Saint Joseph at your side, lean on the Sacred Heart of Our Lord.

Joseph, solace of the wretched, pray for us.