Overpopulation Justifies Contraception?

[Chortle]

Is there a limit to the Earth’s population? If there is, then how can this limit be reconciled the Holy Scripture’s instruction to “be fruitful and multiply” and the Church’s prohibition of contraception?

Some say that the Earth’s resources can only sustain a population of approximately 9 billion inhabitants and that to exceed this limit will lead to widespread starvation, misery, and death. According to Wikipedia, the population of the Earth is currently 6.72 billion and is projected, at its current growth trajectory, to reach 9 billion by 2042.

 

[Scottgun]

Birth regulation is legitimate as far as it goes. Contraception is immoral. So no, overpopulation would not justify contraception.

 

[1ke]

Is there a limit to the Earth’s population?

There doesn’t seem to be one. However, family size is a discernment process of a husband and wife and will be influenced by individual circumstances where they live.

If there is, then how can this limit be reconciled the Holy Scripture’s instruction to “be fruitful and multiply” and the Church’s prohibition of contraception?

Why do you think it can’t?

And, moreover, why do you title your thread “overpopulation justifies contraception”? These two things are not related.

Some say that the Earth’s resources can only sustain a population of approximately 9 billion inhabitants and that to exceed this limit will lead to widespread starvation, misery, and death. According to Wikipedia, the population of the Earth is currently 6.72 billion and is projected, at its current growth trajectory, to reach 9 billion by 2042.

“Some” people should have given up on Professor Paul R. Ehrlich of Stanford University after his 30-year track record of erroneous demographic and environmental forecasts. But, it seems they haven’t.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

Birth regulation is legitimate as far as it goes.

What do you mean by “birth regulation”?

 

[1ke]

What do you mean by “birth regulation”?

The individual decisions that a husband and wife make regarding the number, spacing, and timing of children that they have would be “birth regulation”. And, the Catholic Church does not teach is is immoral to restrict the number, plan the spacing, or postpone the timing of a child for a just reason (one that conforms to moral norms and criteria).

Moral means of birth regulation would be continence and/or use of the natural rhythms of fertility (a.k.a. Natural Family Planning).

Immoral means of birth regulation would be contraception, sterlization and abortion.

I’m not really sure what the OP is driving at. Contraception is intrinsically evil, and can never be a moral option. It *seems *as thought the OP is asking if “overpopulation” would be a justification for such immoral actions, to which the answer is “no”.

 

[Jefe_Wyatt]

The individual decisions that a husband and wife make regarding the number, spacing, and timing of children that they have would be “birth regulation”. And, the Catholic Church does not teach is is immoral to restrict the number, plan the spacing, or postpone the timing of a child for a just reason (one that conforms to moral norms and criteria).

Moral means of birth regulation would be continence and/or use of the natural rhythms of fertility (a.k.a. Natural Family Planning).

Immoral means of birth regulation would be contraception, sterlization and abortion.

Thanks for answering. I would add that another immoral means of birth regulation would be the state mandating those individual decisions, which is why I wanted clarification.

I’m not really sure what the OP is driving at. Contraception is intrinsically evil, and can never be a moral option. It *seems *as thought the OP is asking if “overpopulation” would be a justification for such immoral actions, to which the answer is “no”.

I have to agree that, given the belief that contraception is intrinsically evil, the ends do not justify the means. Even though you may wish to avoid overpopulation, something you believe is evil, you cannot use that to justify an act that (you believe to be) evil.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for answering. I would add that another immoral means of birth regulation would be the state mandating those individual decisions, which is why I wanted clarification.

Yes, indeed, coersion itself is immoral.

Although the person coerced would have mitigated culpability (since they lack free will) if they were to use immoral means such as contraception.

Many aid packages to third world nations includes coercive population control elements. These are repulsive and elitist.

I have to agree that, given the belief that contraception is intrinsically evil, the ends do not justify the means. Even though you may wish to avoid overpopulation, something you believe is evil, you cannot use that to justify an act that (you believe to be) evil.

Yes, absolutely a simple case of ends and means.

And, since this person posted on the Catholic moral theology forum, I presumed he/she wanted *Catholic *doctrine on the matter.

 

[Scottgun]

What do you mean by “birth regulation”?

1ke has it. The state stepping in and restricting births would be a wild violation of the prinicple of subsidiartiy among other things.

 

[TotallyConfused]

But, God’s command to Man was to Multiply and fill the earth.

When do you guys n gals think we fulfilled that command? I think we have already fulfilled and completed that command. He was speaking to a very small group of people at the time.
And, reading some threads here, I don’t know if NFP is all that effective…at what point are we doing more damage than good ?

 

[1ke]

But, God’s command to Man was to Multiply and fill the earth.

When do you guys n gals think we fulfilled that command?

He gave the command to all people, for all times. Procreation is the purpose of marriage.

I think we have already fulfilled and completed that command. He was speaking to a very small group of people at the time.

Do you think God was unaware of human destiny at the time he gave this command?

And, reading some threads here, I don’t know if NFP is all that effective…

“Effectiveness” is not the basis of its morality. For those with very serious needs to avoid pregnancy, there is continence.

at what point are we doing more damage than good ?

When we sin, we are always doing damage. At no point can committing a sin every be a “good”.

 

[TotallyConfused]

He gave the command to all people, for all times. Procreation is the purpose of marriage.

I thought the purpose of marriage is for the husband to leave his parents, and cling to his spouise and the two shall become one. (paraphrased, of course)

And to find a mate (like He gave Adam in Eve).

Procreation is a consequence of sex, sure, but it’s not the first and only reason of marriage.

Do you think God was unaware of human destiny at the time he gave this command?

No, but I think that God gave us intellect and wisdom to know that at some point we are not just 8 humans on an empty planet anymore.
It feels like humans are more like lemmings…following “be fuitful and multiply” blindly, just forging forward no matter how detremental the outcome will be to our future generations.

 

[1ke]

I thought the purpose of marriage is for the husband to leave his parents, and cling to his spouise and the two shall become one. (paraphrased, of course)

And to find a mate (like He gave Adam in Eve).

Procreation is a consequence of sex, sure, but it’s not the first and only reason of marriage.

Procreation is not a “consequence” of sex, it is the purpose of sex.

1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

No, but I think that God gave us intellect and wisdom to know that at some point we are not just 8 humans on an empty planet anymore.

Of course he gave us intellect. That is why people are called to discern their vocation to marriage and responsible parenthood once married.

It feels like humans are more like lemmings…following “be fuitful and multiply” blindly, just forging forward no matter how detremental the outcome will be to our future generations.

No one has advocated that people do anything “blindly.”

 

[TotallyConfused]

Procreation is not a “consequence” of sex, it is the purpose of sex.

By your Catholic laws, Sex has a dual purpose, for pro-creation and unification, so that’s maybe half true.
However, I was speaking of marriage.

Sex’s consequence is children, but it’s purpose is two-fold…
Marriage is for a man and a woman to become one and make a life for themselves.

Of course he gave us intellect. That is why people are called to discern their vocation to marriage and responsible parenthood once married.

The picture is bigger than that.
If we interpret this command at face value, then we will surely be causing determent to ourselves and our children and the environment…just by following this at face value.
Many millions of people don’t discern like you said, because they do not know this, or even realize that they need to. They just carry on and on and it will cause the ruin of the planet.

All I’m saying is that we should not follow like blind sheep or Lemmings, use some of the god-given intellect we have and apply the commands for the good of the planet.

No one has advocated that people do anything “blindly.”

But the implications of this teachings certainly makes me think of that. See my response above.

At some point, man will destroy himself by following this command blindly. When are we going to bring reason into the equation.
Even the kind of reason that the church teaches are only if you have super-serious grave reasons are you to employ NFP.

 

[1ke]

At some point, man will destroy himself by following this command blindly.

This is an assumption. There is no evidence that this is true.

Even the kind of reason that the church teaches are only if you have super-serious grave reasons are you to employ NFP.

The Church does not teach one muyst have a “super-serious grave reason” to employ NFP. The Church teaches one must have a just reason that conforms to the moral law.

 

[Chortle]

I’m not really sure what the OP is driving at. Contraception is intrinsically evil, and can never be a moral option. It *seems *as thought the OP is asking if “overpopulation” would be a justification for such immoral actions, to which the answer is “no”.

Yes, 1ke, this is what I was after. I was playing the Devil’s Advocate because I wanted to know how to argue against contraception when I’m told by others that it is an intelligent, reasonable and necessary action to take in order to be a good steward of our planet. Your answers to my question have been helpful.

You know, the idea of the threat of overpopulation seems to be the big underlying justification of contraception (and abortion) in our culture. This idea continues to be taught in our schools. People actually believe that they are doing a moral good when they contracept (and abort) because they believe that these actions serve the common good of humanity.

Yes, the ideas Professor Ehrlich expressed in his book The Population Bomb (1968) still seem to have a strong foothold in the imagination of our society.

 

[TotallyConfused]

This is an assumption. There is no evidence that this is true.

Global Warming, for one.
Over population forcast figures. Natural resources, etc.

The Church does not teach one muyst have a “super-serious grave reason” to employ NFP. The Church teaches one must have a just reason that conforms to the moral law.

Yeah, untill you want to define that “just reason that conforms to the moral law”.
Then you find out how super-serious of a grave reason you require to officially have to practive NFP.
Not even finances to care for the children is enough reason to postpone pregnancy.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…following “be fuitful and multiply” blindly, just forging forward no matter how detremental the outcome will be to our future generations.

If *all *humans fail to follow God’s “be fruitful and multiply” command, there won’t be any future generation.

 

[TotallyConfused]

If *all *humans fail to follow God’s “be fruitful and multiply” command, there won’t be any future generation.

Thanks for the “sarcastic” eyes…

But it’s my point exactly.
By following God’s command to the letter we will wipe out humanity.

Add a little wisdom into the mix and then we become responsible stewarts and not lemmings.

Oh, and I won’t roll eyes back

 

[Brendan]

Is there a limit to the Earth’s population? If there is, then how can this limit be reconciled the Holy Scripture’s instruction to “be fruitful and multiply” and the Church’s prohibition of contraception?

One thing to keep in mind is that the creation of a new human is impossible without the direct and active participation of God.

Having a child is not something than can happen with out God, and even then, not in a way that God simply ‘allows’ to happen (such as sin), but God must actively participate by Willing a new soul into being.

Therefore, there really cannot be ‘overpopulation’ since there can be no more people created that God Wills there to be.

In fact, due to things like abortion and other forms of murder, there are actually FEWER people on this Earth than God Wills there to be.

So, in answer to your first question, yes there is a limit, it is the limit to which God desires to create new souls and not one person more.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Thanks for the “sarcastic” eyes…

But it’s my point exactly.
By following God’s command to the letter we will wipe out humanity.

Add a little wisdom into the mix and then we become responsible stewarts and not lemmings.

Oh, and I won’t roll eyes back

No, you won’t roll eyes. You just insult those of us with large families and accuse us of ruining the planet and wiping out humanity. I consider children to be blessings, not environmental hazards.