Proper Response to "Population Control"

  • Thread starter Thread starter DamianaJo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cojuanco said:
In the long term, if current trends continue, due to certain behaviors in the West (and more radically so in Red China) some of which are immoral and known to most in this conversation, the population is projected to stabilized at 9 billion for the optimist, and to decrease from that number if one is pessimistic. That sort of trend troubles policymakers even in the Global South, as similar trends manifest themselves as they industrialise.

Even supposing, arguendo, that it will continue to increase in the long term, however, one or none will inevitably lead to long-term shrinkage, which causes untold problem for sustaining modern government, particularly the welfare state, which requires a static or increasing population to function properly. The alternative would be the reduction of the intervention of the state to levels that previously only happened in the early nineteenth century. The ideal policy in such a scenario would be to promote “two or three” children, as on average this will replace the two parents and to a certain extent those who for some reason or another did not have children (for example Latin Rite priests, those in consecrated life, the infertile, those with SSA)

If it is necessary to control the increase of the population, Catholics must obviously not employ any immoral methods to do so, any more than we should solve the problem of urban crime by rounding up all the young men of a locality and locking them up until they reach the age of 25.
Click to expand...
And by “immoral methods” you mean allowing married couples to use birth control(let’s pretend abortion is illegal, I’m just talking ABC here), all because some person or persons( who is it who actually makes the decision on maters like these?) in Rome says it’s “an immoral method”, that makes it “immoral”?
 
LittleDavid said:
And by “immoral methods” you mean allowing married couples to use birth control(let’s pretend abortion is illegal, I’m just talking ABC here), all because some person or persons( who is it who actually makes the decision on maters like these?) in Rome says it’s “an immoral method”, that makes it “immoral”?
Click to expand...
It is not just “some person in Rome”. It is what has been held via capital-T Tradition. In fact such was held even by all the Protestant Churches until the 1930s. But the Catholic understanding cannot concieve of such a reversal.

The Legislator in this case is not even the Church, but God, in any case. God made the law. It is merely the (mostly thankless in this case) duty of the Church to enforce it as best she can.
 
LittleDavid said:
And by “immoral methods” you mean allowing married couples to use birth control(let’s pretend abortion is illegal, I’m just talking ABC here), all because some person or persons( who is it who actually makes the decision on maters like these?) in Rome says it’s “an immoral method”, that makes it “immoral”?
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by “allow.” If you are referring to authoritative catholic teaching, then of COURSE. It’s pretty much one of the main jobs of the teaching authority of the church to discern what is good and what is evil so as to educate the faithful.

If you are talking about civil government, that’s another matter. As I understand it, the state is expected to enact laws that generally conform to Natural Law as closely as possible. In cases where the populace is in rebellion against aspects of Natural Law there exists a hierarchy of importance for civil laws. Laws permitting direct violations of the natural rights of others such as murder / abortion must be pursued with all vigor. Laws that have a less clear impact on others call for the application of some wisdom. If the majority of a populace will not submit to a law on a topic not directly protecting the human rights of another, it may be the best course of action to pursue persuasion instead of force on that principle first. As Prohibition illustrated, laws enacted against the will of large portions of the populace can backfire, so it is best to use prudence in such cases. Today in most western countries, it would be morally counter-productive to attempt to outlaw condoms and pills. Rather than persuade people, it would alienate them.

Rebellion against Natural Law can only last so long. The empirical evidence is pretty clear that nations where contraception is culturally acceptable, widely available and affordable, those nations have significantly BELOW replacement fertility rate. Long term, those cultures will either vanish or repent of the contraceptive mentality. There really is no other option.
 
DamianaJo said:
Hi everyone!

My name is Damiana and I am new to these forums. Well, sort-of. Often when I have a question regarding the Catholic Faith, my search takes me here. I hope that this forum will be a place to seek some more answers to questions I have regarding the defending of the faith, and provide a Catholic community for me, particularly while I am away from any semblance of Catholicism in my current situation.

I am a current student at an incredibly progressive and liberal college in northeastern Vermont. After having spent two years at a solid Catholic educational institution, I decided to continue my education at this college in the northeast because of my profound interest in agriculture. In any event, I am extremely frustrated with the lack of moral values in this place. On the one hand, I more or less expected that it would be this way, and because I am so close to graduation, I will not leave the school. Aside from the apparent lack of moral values and the horrible sinfulness promoted here, I am perpetually discouraged in a particular aspect of what is being taught within my classes. I am here seeking a degree in Forest Studies, so I have been taking core classes (such as ecology, environmental science, etc.) and many other natural science courses. While the actual information presented in these courses is almost always in line with what is actually happening in the world (often a major disregard of environmental resources for unnecessary personal gains), one continuous theme of “population control” continues to come up in each of my classes. Every professor preaches the need to have “one or none” when it comes to children. I realize that any attempt I make at trying to change their minds will probably be quite trivial, but I believe that it is important to express my beliefs in an articulate and non-argumentative manner. I did so in one class and things went well; however, in an upcoming class next week, we’ve been assigned this reading: docs.google.com/a/sterlingcollege.edu/file/d/0BxLIDnrq33B3RGhYVmdkTTdpazA/edit that absolutely blows my mind in its level of disregard for human life. Do any of you have any suggestions as to how I should go about defending my belief in humans as intended for dwelling on this great planet? Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks so much!

Damiana
Click to expand...
Hi Damiana,

You will have to look outside your current field of study to learn why ‘population control’ is being preached by your professors. In other words, is one child or none a valid concern?
  1. Farmers in the United States are paid billions of dollars every year to grow nothing. Why? Say that the annual consumption of corn for people and livestock is 6 billion bushels. You cannot grow more because it would go to waste.
farm.ewg.org/
  1. There is no money in growing, packaging and transporting food to feed people who can’t afford to buy it. Yes, the US does send some grain as foreign aid, but again, someone has to pay for that.
gao.gov/key_issues/international_food_assistance/issue_summary
  1. Population control, in general, is a fiction. In 1968, a book titled the Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich predicted that we would overpopulate and starve out the world’s population in a short time. It did not happen. Here is the cover of the 1969 edition.
amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345216571/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0SJQRN7TTY59F8FWB1TM
  1. Learn about Thomas Malthus, who feared that helping the poor would lead to national bankruptcy. His thoughts date to the late 1700s.
"Malthus revised his theories in later editions of An Essay on the Principles of Population, taking a more optimistic tone, although there is some scholarly debate on the extent of his revisions.[1] According to Dr. Dan Ritschel of the Center for History Education at the University of Maryland,
Code: 
"The great Malthusian dread was that "indiscriminate charity" would lead to exponential growth in the population in poverty, increased charges to the public purse to support this growing army of the dependent, and, eventually, the catastrophe of national bankruptcy. Though Malthusianism has since come to be identified with the issue of general over-population, the original Malthusian concern was more specifically with the fear of over-population by the dependent poor![20]"
In the 1950s, evangelist Billy Graham met with President Eisenhower about providing the country’s surplus wheat to the poor.
  1. You need an unbiased look at global population growth trends:
census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_population.php

As you can see, the plan is to drop below a 1% global growth rate soon.
  1. There is a global agenda to ‘manage’ populations through contraception and abortion, and to help by using more sane and rational ideas.
www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GAC_MissingLinkSustainableDevelopment_GlobalAgenda_Overview_2012.pdf

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
  1. Population control, in general, is a fiction. In 1968, a book titled the Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich predicted that we would overpopulate and starve out the world’s population in a short time. It did not happen.
Click to expand...
… because a guy named Norman Borlaug managed to breed his high-yield wheat strain – literally months before the crisis predicted by Ehrlich et.al. would erupt.
 
“edwest2” - With all due respect, your argument that, “Population control, in general, is a fiction. In 1968, a book titled the Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich predicted that we would overpopulate and starve out the world’s population in a short time. It did not happen.”

Is like me saying,“Jesus Christ’s return, in general, is fiction. In the 1st Century A.D. a book titled the Bible by various Jewish authors, predicted that he would return and establish his kingdom in a short time. It did not happen.”

Just because it didn’t happen in the time frame of the book entitled the Population Bomb, doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.
 
manualman said:
Depends on what you mean by “allow.” If you are referring to authoritative catholic teaching, then of COURSE. It’s pretty much one of the main jobs of the teaching authority of the church to discern what is good and what is evil so as to educate the faithful.

If you are talking about civil government, that’s another matter. As I understand it, the state is expected to enact laws that generally conform to Natural Law as closely as possible. In cases where the populace is in rebellion against aspects of Natural Law there exists a hierarchy of importance for civil laws. Laws permitting direct violations of the natural rights of others such as murder / abortion must be pursued with all vigor. Laws that have a less clear impact on others call for the application of some wisdom. If the majority of a populace will not submit to a law on a topic not directly protecting the human rights of another, it may be the best course of action to pursue persuasion instead of force on that principle first. As Prohibition illustrated, laws enacted against the will of large portions of the populace can backfire, so it is best to use prudence in such cases. Today in most western countries, it would be morally counter-productive to attempt to outlaw condoms and pills. Rather than persuade people, it would alienate them.

Rebellion against Natural Law can only last so long. The empirical evidence is pretty clear that nations where contraception is culturally acceptable, widely available and affordable, those nations have significantly BELOW replacement fertility rate. Long term, those cultures will either vanish or repent of the contraceptive mentality. There really is no other option.
Click to expand...
My question rephrased is, does the pope alone make decisions for the Catholic church?(I.e.-birth control is not OK) What is the Magisterium(the pope and bishops, or is it the actual rules themselves)?
 
LittleDavid said:
My question rephrased is, does the pope alone make decisions for the Catholic church?(I.e.-birth control is not OK) What is the Magisterium(the pope and bishops, or is it the actual rules themselves)?
Click to expand...
Excellent question. The best answer is in an old book by Ludwig Ott called “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.” I can’t hold a candle to him. Not even a spark.
But since I estimate that about 0.003% of forum references are actually investigated, I’ll give my feeble, less-than-spark attempt anyways.

There is a hierarchy of revelation as understood by Catholicism. The period of General Revelation closed with the death of the last apostle. There will never again be new and worldview shattering revelations like those made through Abraham, Moses or Christ. Scripture is the primary sourcebook for that general revelation, but cannot be reliably decoupled from Sacred Tradition which is the authoritative interpretation of Scripture. Sacred Tradition is made up of the writing of the Early Fathers, Ecumenical Councils, Doctors of the Church and probably a few other sources I missed. (Note that unlike Scripture, this does not classify every written word by one of those sources as divinely inspired, just that the bulk message of those sources will be true).

But Sacred Tradition requires authoritative interpretation just as much as Scripture does. Any printed authoritative document does (digression: this is why the USA has a Supreme Court and not just a Constitution). The bishops in communion with the pope are charged with conducting that interpretation and authoritatively providing that interpretation to the faithful as necessary. Christ promised divine protection to the church in order to preserve faithful teaching (though demonstrably not faithful living out of it!).

The pope is required by fidelity to Christ to render judgment on issues in a manner that is faithful to Scripture and Tradition. He wouldn’t be able to make changes that violate them if he tried (divine protection, remember?).

So when people ask the pope to provide guidance on the matter of contraception, it’s his JOB not to simply provide his opinion, but to research what Scripture, Tradition and previous popes and councils, the current crop of bishops have consistently taught on the matter (if anything) and why. (Another consultation is the “Sensus Fidelis” or sentiments of the faithful, but that should be considered across history, not confused with a current opinion poll). Changes on a topic can occur if the reason for the past stances were disciplinary (for example requiring the faithful to fast on certain days), but not if those past stances had been based on immutable moral principles.

Like I said, I barely scratch the surface. Read Ott for the real deal.
 
With prices ranging from $99.50 to $266.46 for Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, I will certainly welcome your comments, and not be buying the book, but thank you, it’s great to know a good source for add’l info. My question on if the Magisterium is the “teachings” of the pope and bishops or the actual “committee” of pope and bishops is…??
 
We have population control in the US.

No one realizes it. Those who do are called “conspiracy theorist”.

Why do you think Cancer is much more common these days?

Cancer is the governments most cynical population control ever, and everyone disregards it.

And medicine. Why do you think most medicine gives side effects, and you have to take more medicine after the side effects. The federal reserve profits from medicine. These are the same people that control the world from the distance. They are the one’s who have this idea of population control.
 
You can sometimes find a copy of Ott in better parish libraries to borrow. Not the sort of parish that has CCD kids spending their 1 hour a week of instruction coloring pictures of Jesus, of course… Here’s a brand new copy from the publisher for $40 tanbooks.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/79

The Magisterium is the entirety of the teaching authority of the church. At it’s most comprehensive level, it includes Scripture, Tradition, the EFs, the council documents, the Doctors of the Church, historic papal teachings, the bishops and the pope presiding over (not the same as dominating, mind you) the whole thing for interaction with particular moments in history, i.e. now.

The word gets used sloppily sometimes in a way that implies that the pope IS the Magisterium. For those who only see the world in terms of power and control, that’s understandable. But the pope has very little power and an enormous amount of responsibility. His duty is to faithfully preach the gospel as handed down from Christ. Only a teeny, tiny piece of his job is to examine seemingly new challenges and mediate disputes among the faithful to interpret what the gospel implies for that issue. There really are very few NEW issues under the sun. Ancient Egyptians, Romans, Conquistadors and modern Americans all share the same human nature.

A very limited analogy for the Magisterium (not the whole church) is an old Oak tree. The pope represents the bud end of the branches. Those growing ends CAN alter direction to adjust to changing conditions, but they can never be divorced from the branches (bishops), trunk (councils and EFs), and roots (Scripture).
 
VincentChristop said:
We have population control in the US.

No one realizes it. Those who do are called “conspiracy theorist”.

Why do you think Cancer is much more common these days?

Cancer is the governments most cynical population control ever, and everyone disregards it.

And medicine. Why do you think most medicine gives side effects, and you have to take more medicine after the side effects. The federal reserve profits from medicine. These are the same people that control the world from the distance. They are the one’s who have this idea of population control.
Click to expand...
I think your tin foil hat is on just a little too tight.
 
LittleDavid said:
“edwest2” - With all due respect, your argument that, “Population control, in general, is a fiction. In 1968, a book titled the Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich predicted that we would overpopulate and starve out the world’s population in a short time. It did not happen.”

Is like me saying,“Jesus Christ’s return, in general, is fiction. In the 1st Century A.D. a book titled the Bible by various Jewish authors, predicted that he would return and establish his kingdom in a short time. It did not happen.”

Just because it didn’t happen in the time frame of the book entitled the Population Bomb, doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.
Click to expand...
Your comparison is not valid. I’m referring to scare tactics. The reality is if people don’t have enough food, clean drinking water and proper sanitation, most of them, wherever they are, will die. The odds are the same if they have one child or 10. Add a lack of good medical care and the odds of an early death increase.

Peace,
Ed
 
There actually is nothing wrong with population control, provided it is done in a moral manner for the right reasons. If that were not the case, obviously NFP utilized for the purpose of not having children would be prohibited.

Obviously declining population will cause major problems in many countries, for the simple reason that these very same countries have set up an economic system that depends on an ever-increasing population. That’s not a problem with population, but rather the people in the population. Change the economic system to adapt to circumstances.
 
TheWarriorMonk said:
There actually is nothing wrong with population control, provided it is done in a moral manner for the right reasons. If that were not the case, obviously NFP utilized for the purpose of not having children would be prohibited.
Click to expand...
On this much, we agree! Mother Theresa actually taught poor women about their fertility and the use of a primitive form of Billing’s method NFP for pregnancy spacing and lowering the chance of pregnancy for women in circumstances that warranted it.

The problem with government and NGO pushes is that they tend to focus on pill and condom pushes that have a long and established history of eventually leading to BELOW replacement fertility. Mature industrialized populations without culturally acceptable and widely available pills and condoms, on the other hand, have a historical track record of achieving about replacement rate (with occasional disruptions like the post WWII baby boom which was really about the end of the war and a resulting frantic desire for “normalcy”, not lack of contraception).
 
I haven’t read all of the responses

So the problem is more with resources than land, right? Specifically, water and fossil fuels?

What I don’t understand is why we, as human beings with dignity and worth, supposedly have to suppress ourselves/ignore that dignity and worth (abortion/contraception/etc) to solve these problems rather than solving the actual problems. That is, for a water problem, find out how to do mass desalinization. I simply can’t believe there is not enough water on this planet. I don’t know the facts on this, but is there any effort at all going on to work out “water shortage” this way? If we accept the fact that serious water shortage in the current system is going to be real in the near future, then why is there so much effort put towards killing our own race through euthanasia, abortion, contraception, rather than an effort to use the ocean as a water source? There simply HAS to be a way to do this.

For a fossil fuel problem, well, I don’t know. Solar energy? My whole thing with this is, I can accept the fact that there’s overpopulation, in the sense that we are more or less running out of resources. I don’t know if it’s true, but I can accept that - it’s just that there HAS to be a moral solution to it. Immorality is not the answer - if anything, that will only make things worse.

OP, I suppose I didn’t really answer your question, but those are my thoughts anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top