Overpopulation and sexual morality

[mek42]

Near the beginning, men were few, thus the order to procreate. Now, men are not so few, in fact we approach overpoulation. If we reach a state of overpopulation, where uncontrolled birthing of children is truly poor stewardship of natural resources, is it expected that the Church will change her position on certain issues of sexual morality?

 

[GEddie]

Near the beginning, men were few, thus the order to procreate. Now, men are not so few, in fact we approach overpoulation. If we reach a state of overpopulation, where uncontrolled birthing of children is truly poor stewardship of natural resources, is it expected that the Church will change her position on certain issues of sexual morality?

The Church cannot change its moral teachings, as they derive from the law of God.

Who defines the state of overpopulation, anyhow?

ICXC NIKA

 

[TK421]

The world is not overpopulated or in danger of being overpopulated. That idea really is sensationalist-driven nonsense.

And no, the Church will not (and cannot) mysteriously change its mind on a moral doctrine. Hypothetically speaking, if the world somehow reached a point where we were on the brink of ecological collapse, that could be a merit for practicing NFP, but contraception and the objectifying that comes with it would remain morally unacceptable. But really, it’s not a scenario I’m remotely concerned about to begin with. Demographics in several parts of the world are collapsing.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Near the beginning, men were few, thus the order to procreate. Now, men are not so few, in fact we approach overpoulation. If we reach a state of overpopulation, where uncontrolled birthing of children is truly poor stewardship of natural resources, is it expected that the Church will change her position on certain issues of sexual morality?

Couple thoughts on this:

The church allows for NFP (natural family planning) which when done properly is very successful in planning out children.

I used to be a overpopulation control advocate, but in our western world this is not an issue. Our populations are actually declining or stagnant.

In the words of Jurassic Park, “life finds a way”. As such we cannot control this outside of immoral means (in addition to birth control) I’m talking like abortion/genocide/forced sterilization etc…

As such it is best to not play God in this arena.

 

[Elizium23]

The Population Control agenda is not limited to areas of sexual morality. It encompasses things such as abortion, contraception, homosexuality, anthropogenic global warming, and immigration reform. The problem with Population Control is that while the culture(s) who choose to follow it commit suicide, the cultures who do not do so easily move into the gaps and take over among the dying cultures. We can see this clearly in the takeover in Europe by Muslim immigrants. They are conquering “not by the sword, but by the womb”.

It is up to faithful Catholics to shun all aspects of Population Control and obey God’s divine mandate to “be fruitful and multiply”. We must cast off contraception and homosexuality in particular and build strong, faithful, and LARGE families which can move into the aforementioned gaps and take over when the Culture of Death commits its ultimate suicide on the altar of Moloch.

I contend that it is fundamentally impossible to overpopulate the Earth. There comes a point where it is physically impossible to feed everyone in a given area and therefore either people leave that area or they slowly die of starvation. This happens not worldwide, but in isolated areas of the world where food distribution is poor. The rest of the world is more or less able to sustain growing populations by improved food production and distrubition. I think with the rampant Population Control issues the world now suffers, it would be impossible for so many people to be born that the Earth and her resources would be overwhelmed. Impossible.

 

[GodCommands]

I look at this question and I have to ask this unique question: If we are overpopulating, then how many souls are there to fill these bodies? I sincerely believe that when a child is born, out of wedlock, or in, there is always the question of what belief will the child be brought up believing? If the world is populating with souls that do not believe; with souls who think that they are the answers to their own prayers; with souls who believe in no power beyond their own… then is this truly “over-population?” If God allows a life to be borne unto this world, then that life has a soul, but God knows the odds of those souls coming to Him are low (remember John 3:19). So… is earth over-populated, or is heaven under-populated? Maybe both, right?
So, while the World is immature, while children are borne unto children who neither know Christ, no want to, does that child’s soul stand a chance of over-populating anything, let alone the only thing that counts: Heaven. As long as there is space in God’s Kingdom, there will Never Be Over-Population. IMO

 

[chris62]

Our populations are actually declining or stagnant.

.

I believe there are countries, such as Japan, where, in about 20 to 30 years time, the population will plummet.
They are in negative population growth now, and a high percentage of the population at present there is over 60.
Sayonara.

Over-population is a myth spread by pro-abortionists.

 

[po18guy]

Near the beginning, men were few, thus the order to procreate. Now, men are not so few, in fact we approach overpoulation. If we reach a state of overpopulation, where uncontrolled birthing of children is truly poor stewardship of natural resources, is it expected that the Church will change her position on certain issues of sexual morality?

Define “overpopulation”

 

[cjforJesus]

The world is not overpopulated,but I believe the resources are often poorly managed.

 

[Gilly_flower]

The reason populations are stabilising or even declining is because of contraception. If contraception disappeared we would rapidly see a return to the days when families of ten or more children were commonplace. And it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to see that a woman with ten children, having ten children of their own, will be grandmother of a hundred and great grandmother to a thousand…And such unfettered growth would certainly create famine and wars over resources…
.

 

[JRKH]

Near the beginning, men were few, thus the order to procreate. Now, men are not so few, in fact we approach overpoulation. If we reach a state of overpopulation, where uncontrolled birthing of children is truly poor stewardship of natural resources, is it expected that the Church will change her position on certain issues of sexual morality?

No - there is no reason for the Church to change her teachings on sexual morality since there is nothing in her teaching to prevent a proper and morally acceptable management of population and resources.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_Plato]

The reason populations are stabilising or even declining is because of contraception. If contraception disappeared we would rapidly see a return to the days when families of ten or more children were commonplace. And it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to see that a woman with ten children, having ten children of their own, will be grandmother of a hundred and great grandmother to a thousand…And such unfettered growth would certainly create famine and wars over resources…
.

So the answer is to kill the would-be intruders off before they are born, then?

It seems to me that you have set up a false dichotomy. Your two options

1. overpopulation
2. birth control via contraception or abortion

What about:
3) responsible sexual behaviour?
4) NFP?

Abortion and contraception are, in actuality, “wars” over natural resources; wars being waged against the unborn by the privileged in order to retain their position of wealth and power without having to bear the cost of giving up sexual pleasures.

This is a question of misplaced priorities. Until moral considerations are placed above pleasure as principles of order, there will always be contentions. That the victims are voiceless is convenient for the empowered decision makers, but that does not make the behaviour any less immoral just because those who gain suppose they have completely vanquished and disposed of those they view as threats to their position. The killing fields continue to cry outrage in eternity.

 

[Z_Ninja]

The reason populations are stabilising or even declining is because of contraception. If contraception disappeared we would rapidly see a return to the days when families of ten or more children were commonplace. And it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to see that a woman with ten children, having ten children of their own, will be grandmother of a hundred and great grandmother to a thousand…And such unfettered growth would certainly create famine and wars over resources…
.

I suppose my family is part of the problem since I’m the 4th of 8 children. Though not a mathematical genius, your theory is incorrect as I don’t have 8 children of my own, only having 3, 3 of my brothers have 2 each, while one of my brothers has 3 with one on the way. by your calculations, we should have 64 children among us, but there are only 12 (+1 on the way). This is only 18% of what you are predicting, hardly a case of overpopulation and unfettered growth.

 

[Z_Ninja]

Near the beginning, men were few, thus the order to procreate. Now, men are not so few, in fact we approach overpoulation. If we reach a state of overpopulation, where uncontrolled birthing of children is truly poor stewardship of natural resources, is it expected that the Church will change her position on certain issues of sexual morality?

The Church will not change her position on sexual morality. What must change are society’s position on sexual morality. I would say uncontrolled birthing of children is NOT poor stewardship of natural resources, rather it is the product of society ignoring sexual morality in the first place. The introduction of contraceptives and birth control contributed to this sexual revolution making casual sex an accepted part of society. People think, “we’re being careful using protection or I’m on the pill” , but then are surprised when the woman becomes pregnant. It is irresponsibility on the part of those who are having casual sex. But, let’s just blame the Church on her position regarding sexual morality and blame families that have more than 2.3 kids. Let’s let society decide what is moral behavior and what is socially acceptable.

 

[thomasemmanuel]

It is highly unlikely that the Church will ever change its position on sexual morality. Why should we? Natural Family Planning is permissible (in accordance with the Humanae Vitae) and it works. No other form of control is necessary.

With a little common sense, some scientific knowledge and a solid will, we can control our family sizes without breaking the rules of the Church.

 

[ahollars]

Our infant mortality rate has plummeted. Longevity has increased. Health risks have declined. Medicine has improved. War is on the decline. Crime is down. Safety awareness has spread. Education is adapting. Science and technology have allowed more productivity with fewer resources and less energy in shorter time.

Population has not increased. It is our death rate that has taken a shift. Over time, this will correct itself to become the new normal.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Define “overpopulation”

Simple. Overpopulation is when the amount of resources cannot support a given population of a species.

For example, if one person was one the moon with no spacesuit, the moon would be overpopulated because no resources exist for this person to survive. Nature would takes its course and the person would quickly die.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Over-population is a myth spread by pro-abortionists.

People like to believe this type of garbage because it makes the “other side” look radical and therefore they can just dismiss their ideas without thought or research. People that take that approach are as radical as the other side they criticize.

There are many of us that take the sensible approach based on facts (resources vs. population) and do not believe that abortion is the appropriate way to handle population growth.

 

[Gilly_flower]

I suppose my family is part of the problem since I’m the 4th of 8 children. Though not a mathematical genius, your theory is incorrect as I don’t have 8 children of my own, only having 3, 3 of my brothers have 2 each, while one of my brothers has 3 with one on the way. by your calculations, we should have 64 children among us, but there are only 12 (+1 on the way). This is only 18% of what you are predicting, hardly a case of overpopulation and unfettered growth.

And how sure are you that all eight of you are not using any form of artificial contraception? The most casual glance around Sunday Mass will find few if any double figure families, and I doubt very much this is down the the widespread use of NFP.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Unlike many posters here, I do not think the answer “Use NFP” suffices to respond to your question. I’ve used NFP (Creighton method), and at least two of my children were conceived on days that were not fertile. So, if there were morally extreme circumstances, in which overpopulation were a real and obvious problem, the law would have to adjust.

But the Catholic teaching would not. Let’s do a small scale. Suppose there are 10 people (five married couples), and only food enough for 12 people. In this case, it would not be morally conscionable for every couple to procreate according to their ability and predilection. This should be obvious, no? So some of the couples would have to abstain entirely from sex, or follow some *severely *truncated NFP method.

Which couples? Well, you could rotate, or you could assign by lot somehow, or both. The key here is your goal in making such rules: you are attempting to promote life. All avoidances are predicated on keeping people alive.

Would it be hard for these couples? Sure. But lots of people have to abstain their whole lives, so it’s not really an undue burden.