Editor’s Note: Organizations imposing population control methodologies attempt to co-opt religion through the reinterpretation of religious teaching. The Philippine NGO Council, in a recent publication, attempted to redefine Catholic religious teaching on population control as expressed in Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio and a position paper of the Catholic Bishops in the Philippines.
Matthew Habiger, OSB, Ph.D., a moral theologian educated at The Catholic University of America and a member of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, presents his answer here to the Philippines NGO Council.
In the Responsible Citizens’ Development UPDATE (15 September 1991, p. 2, Quezon City, Philippines), the claim is made that Pope Paul VI recognized the problem of overpopulation. The author of this article fails to distinguish between the Pope’s acknowledgment that some people make the claim of overpopulation, and his acceptance of that claim. Pope Paul VI does not accept that claim.
The Update cites section 37 of Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967). In the first paragraph the pontiff acknowledges that accelerated population growth creates many difficulties for development. Omitted by the Update is the following statement: “In such circumstances people are inclined to apply drastic remedies to reduce the birthrate.” We find here a selected use of the pontiff’s words. All Paul VI is asserting is that increased population creates greater challenges for development.
In the second paragraph he asserts that public authorities can intervene in this matter, within the bounds of their competence, e.g., with appropriate information, suitable measures, always in conformity with the dictates of the moral law and the rightful freedom of married couples. Omitted by the Update is the following statement: “When the inalienable right of marriage and of procreation is taken away, so is human dignity.” This, of course, rules out sterilization, abortion and abortifacient forms of contraception, methods very popular with IPPF and its associates all throughout the world.
At the end of the third paragraph of section 37 there is a footnote referring to Gaudium et Spes (GS) 50–1, 87. GS 50 makes the clear statement that “Marriage and married love are by nature ordered to the procreation and education of children.” It endorses both God’s moral law, and the advantages of a large family. “Married people should realize that in their behavior they may not simply follow their own fancy but must be ruled by conscience — and conscience ought to be conformed to the law of God in the light of the teaching authority of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of divine law. For the divine law throws light on the meaning of married love, protects it and leads it to truly human fulfillment.
“Whenever Christian spouses in a spirit of sacrifice and trust in divine providence carry out their duties of procreation with generous human and Christian responsibility, they glorify the Creator and perfect themselves in Christ. Among the married couples who thus fulfill their God-given mission, special mention should be made of those who after prudent reflection and common decision courageously undertake the proper upbringing of a large number of children” (GS 50B).
GS 51 teaches, inter alia, that our human fertility is one of God’s great gifts to us, to be cherished and protected. “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. Man’s sexuality and the faculty of reproduction wondrously surpass the endowments of lower forms of life; therefore the acts proper to married life are to be ordered according to authentic human dignity and must be honored with the greatest reverence” (GS 51c).
GS 87 is located in chapter five: “Fostering of Peace and Establishment of a Community of Nations.” GS 87 deals with the problems arising from rapid increases in population, and all of it should be read. I quote only the third paragraph:
Since there is widespread opinion that the population expansion of the world, or at least some particular countries, should be kept in check by all possible means and by every kind of intervention by public authority, the Council exhorts all men to beware of all solutions, whether uttered in public or in private or imposed at any time, which transgress the natural law. Because in the virtue of man’s inalienable right to marriage and the procreation of children, the decision regarding the number of children depends on the judgment of the parents and is in no way to be left to the decrees of public authority.
Now, since the parents’ judgment presupposes a properly formed conscience, it is of great importance that all should have an opportunity to cultivate a genuinely human sense of responsibility which will take account of the circumstances of time and situation and will respect the divine law; to attain this goal a change for the better must take place in educational and social conditions and, above all, religious formations, or at least full moral training, must be available. People should be discreetly informed of scientific advances in research into methods of birth regulation, whenever the value of these methods has been thoroughly proved and their conformity with the moral order established (GS 87c).
Returning now back to Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio (PP), we find the pontiff’s caution about the role of professional organizations, such as Planned Parenthood and IPPF, for countries in the process of development. “Every form of social action involves some doctrine; and the Christian rejects that which is based on a materialistic and atheistic philosophy, namely one which shows no respect for a religious outlook on life, for freedom or human dignity. So long as these higher values are preserved intact, however, the existence of a variety of professional organizations and trade unions is permissible” (PP 39). Since IPPF throughout the world has demonstrated little regard for God, His Church, or God’s moral order, let the Filipinos beware.
The poorer nations can never be too much on guard against the temptation posed by the wealthier nations. For these nations, with their favorable results from a highly technical and culturally developed civilization, provide an example of work and diligence with temporal prosperity the main pursuit.… The developing nations must choose wisely from among the things that are offered to them. They must test and reject false values that would tarnish a truly human way of life, while accepting noble and useful values in order to develop them in their own distinctive way, along with their own indigenous heritage (PP 41).
The Update then turns to Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae (HV 29 July 1968), and claims that Paul VI “admitted the world had a population problem.” The Update manipulates the text here to say things the pontiff never intended. In section 2 of HV, PQ Paul VI is simply raising some of the typical objections to the Church’s position on contraception, one being alleged overpopulation. He does not accept these objections as well founded or serious.
When quoting HV 2, the Update makes two serious omissions. After stating “Fear is shown by many that world population is growing more rapidly than the available resources,” the Update edits out “so that the temptation for authorities to counter this danger with radical measures is great.” This context changes the meaning of the statement completely.
After quoting “A change is also seen both in the manner of considering the person of woman and her place in society, and in the value to be attributed to conjugal love in marriage,” the Update edits out “and also in the appreciation to be made of the meaning of conjugal acts in relations to that love.” Since Paul VI teaches that individual acts of contraception are seriously immoral (cf. HV 14), they cannot be justified on the grounds of the lesser evil.
It is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom, that is, to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act — which is deliberately made infertile and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fertile conjugal life (HV 14c).
When we allow Pope Paul VI to speak for himself, there is little opportunity to misunderstand him. It is a mistake to think that Paul VI is unique among the popes of this century in teaching the intrinsic evil of contraception, sterilization, and abortion. I conclude with a statement made by Pope John Paul II in his most recent social encyclical, Centesimus Annus. He summarizes the entire issue at hand:
Human ingenuity seems to be directed more toward limiting, suppressing or destroying the sources of life — including recourse to abortion, which unfortunately is so widespread in the world — than toward defending and opening up the possibilities of life. The encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (SRS) denounced systematic anti-childbearing campaigns which, on the basis of a distorted view of the demographic problem and in a climate of ‘absolute lack of respect for the freedom of choice of the parties involved,’ often subject ‘them to intolerable pressures in order to force them to submit to this new form of oppression’ (SRS 25). These policies are extending their field of action by the use of new techniques to the point of poisoning the lives of millions of defenseless human beings as if in a form of ‘chemical warfare’ (CA 39c).
One thing the Responsible Citizens’ Development UPDATE cannot lay claim to is dealing responsibly with statements on population made by Pope Paul VI.
