a) It is true that in part the birth rate is regressing in the wealthy countries due
to methods condemned by the Church. The best proof that these techniques are evil and that
the Church has the right and duty to condemn them is precisely that the countries in which
they are used have fallen below the rate of
fertility needed for the replacement of their population.
In the rich countries, this rate is
2.1 children per woman of childbearing age. One can easily see that these methods are bad
from the results to which they lead. If they continue to be applied as they have been, the
nations which use them on a grand scale will disappear.
From 1960 to 1980 the birth rate among women of
childbearing age went from 2.57 to 1.60 in Belgium. In France it went from 2.56 to 1.62,
despite the significant immigration. In turn, the latter poses different problems. Is it an exaggeration, then, to speak of the suicide of a nation?
Whether one wants to listen to the Church or not when
she condemns these methods, the fact remains, and attention better be paid to it, that
they are ravaging the countries in which they are widely used. They are not, therefore,
good.
b) On the other hand, it is entirely
correct to say that in countries where there is absolutely no effective protection for the
poor, aggravated poverty increases in a formidable way the desire to have numerous
children, because that is the sole means of survival. All who work the earth know
that poor people often say: "There will be at least one or another of my children who
will feed and care for me when I get old."
How can one say the Church is wrong? She says that in
societies that do not protect the poor strata of the population, it is poverty itself that
drives one to this way of surviving pinned to the affection of a child. The deep and
really unique reason that inspires this conduct -one which Marx perfectly identified- is that the
child represents the sole riches of the poor. To have a lot of children is the only
recourse the poor have for surviving in the future.
When there is no social security, who will feed the aged
if not their children? And since these children are themselves victims of a very elevated
mortality rate because they are badly cared for and don't have enough to eat, they have to
make quite an effort to survive.
Hence, it is perfectly logical to say that when one
fights effectively against poverty, this search for assurance -- from offspring -- loses its
reasonableness. This new situation, then, diminishes the desire and need for numerous
descendants.
c) Catholic moralists, accordingly, have no reason to
hide behind such a situation. They must, on the contrary, denounce it and contribute
towards its remedy. To those who ask approval for their "modern" methods, the
Church recommends: "Take note of where your actions are leading you. You were
told that these methods were evil; see, nature itself is showing you that you're doing
evil to yourselves and to others."
d) However, the Church has never pretended that it is
easy to reach a regulation of births, in a given population, by honorable methods. She emphasizes, nevertheless, a
regularly hidden fact: namely, that once one uses dishonorable and inhuman methods, one
is headed for catastrophe. Either it doesn't work,
or one kills oneself.
We must end by wondering whether the reproach of
hypocrisy shouldn't be sent to another address.
BACK TO "THE CHURCH & DEMOGRAPHY"
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
NEXT QUESTION
