THE CHURCH'S POSITION REGARDING THE UN POPULATION CONFERENCE
by Fr. J. Michael Venditti
All of you are probably aware that the United Nations is
sponsoring an international conference in Cairo on the subject of
population control; most of you are probably aware that the
proposed draft of the resolution that the conference members will
be considering has been pointedly criticized by the Vatican; some
of you may be aware that the Holy See has singled out the United
States as the chief instigator of those provisions in the draft
that it considers morally repugnant; but, it's a sure bet that
none of you are aware of exactly what the objections of the
Catholic Church are to this draft resolution, or what the
Catholic Church is trying to say on this subject. The reason
you're not aware of that is because the major networks and cable
news companies, which are, after all, puppets of the current
administration, have conspired to keep this information from you.
The news media report on the Catholic Church only when they see
an opportunity to portray the Church as a group on the fringe of
the mainstream of society, unyielding in its dogma, undemocratic
in its authoritarianism, unappealing in every way. To make their
stories digestible, the media tend to boil every story down to
its least common denominator; so, rather than give a complete and
nuanced presentation of Catholic teaching, they simply inform us
that the Church is causing trouble at the conference because of
its rigid stance on contraception and abortion, and leave it at
that. The impression given is one of a static, monolithic
institution which is out of touch with the problems of the day,
and which cares more about preserving its obscure and rigorous
dogmas than it does about helping people. As you have already
guessed, I have set myself today to the task of informing you of
the truth, correcting the lies told to you on television, and
defending the teaching of the Church. If you are one of the
millions of cafeteria Catholics, those who like to pick and
choose from the teaching of the Church only what they want to
believe, then you won't like what you hear. If, on the other
hand, you believe that the Church has received from Christ the
authority to teach on moral matters, and is guided by the Holy
Spirit in doing so, you will be interested.
We should begin by recognizing that the question of
population control is nothing new in our epoch. Plato, in the
Republic, and even more strongly in the Laws, called for a static
population as necessary to maintaining a high quality of life.
Aristotle agreed, but sought to temper Plato's idea by suggesting
that superfluous children should not be killed outright, because
that would be murder, but they should rather be abandoned in the
wilderness so that their fate would be in the hands of the gods.
But it's as well to remember that the problem hasn't always been
seen as one of too many people: prior to the first World War, the
alarm was being raised over the fear of not enough people; and
well into this century, even in the 1930s, the growing practice
of contraception was widely denounced--particularly in France--as
making for "national suicide," this being chiefly seen in terms
of not enough soldiers. And today, even amidst the current
sensitivity over the alleged problem of over-population, France
has embarked on an ambitious program, by means of financial
incentives, to encourage families to have as many children as
possible. The reason? Because a falling birth-rate causes a
larger and ever-growing geriatric population to depend for
support on a continually shrinking work force of younger
citizens.
You may not be aware of this, but about ten years ago the
United States, primarily due to the legalization of both
contraception and abortion, succeeded in achieving zero
population growth. Since then, our birth-rate, compared with the
survival rate of our elderly, has dropped into negative numbers.
This does not mean that our population is static; it does mean
that our old people now far outnumber our young people, and the
gap is becoming wider. Now, if this doesn't appear to you to be
a problem, just think of it in terms of your social security
benefits. You are aware, of course, that when you pay into
social security, you aren't paying into a type of bank account
from which you will draw later; the money you pay into social
security now is being used to pay the benefits of those who are
retired now. When you retire your money will have already been
spent; you're benefits will be paid by the young people who are
working when you retire. And as the number of people in the work
force continues to shrink and the number of people demanding
benefits continues to grow, it becomes more and more difficult to
keep the system solvent. I don't know if you've every watched
"Adam Smith's Money World," but if do, you may be aware that many
economists believe that by the time my generation reaches the age
of 65--and I'm 37 years old--, there won't be any benefits for
us. For the small number of young people that will be in the
work force to support my generation when we're 65, they'd have to
fork over two-thirds of their salary to social security. And you
can bet they're not going to do that. By the year 2050--which is
not that far off--many economists believe there will be no such
thing as social security. It will simply become impossible for
so few people to provide benefits for so many. You might want to
keep that in mind as Congress debates this idea of universal
health care. If the social security system is already doomed to
collapse in upon itself, then what effect will a nationalized
health care plan have? That's one of the reasons that many
European countries, who have had the kind of health plan the
president wants, are now abandoning those plans in favor of the
kind of privatized system we've had for years. They simply
can't afford it anymore. There just aren't enough people in the
work force to pay for it.
But, this is a homily at Mass, and it's more appropriate to
focus on the spiritual than the political. And the objections
of the Vatican to the proposed draft to be considered in Cairo
are not based on a concern for the economy. They are based upon
what we know about the sanctity of human life as revealed by God
in the Scriptures and in the teaching of the Church. Now, when
you say that, many people will react by saying, "Doesn't your
belief in the sanctity of human life require you to be concerned
for those in poverty? Isn't it necessary to do something to help
alleviate to suffering of the poor?" The answer, of course, is
"Yes." The problem is with regard to the means.
First, we have to clear the air of some myths; and the
first myth we need to dispense with is the notion that there
isn't enough space on the planet for five billion people. Any
elementary student of geography can tell you that that's not so.
Our population hasn't yet reached five billion; but, if you were
to take five billion people and stand them shoulder to shoulder,
back to chest, in one spot, they wouldn't cover half of Long
Island. Even in our own country, where we have millions of
people crammed into large cities like so many cattle, we also
have large tracts of uncultivated land in our mid-west that are
standing idle and empty. Space is not the problem.
More to the point, perhaps, is the myth that there aren't
enough resources on the planet to support any more people. This
is a myth almost universally accepted by most people, and which
is supported by the fact that there are people all over the world
that are starving. When you see people in third world countries
who are starving, it's very easy to conclude that there are just
too many people in the world. But is that, in fact, the truth?
You realize, of course, that most people do not have more than
one set of clothing; most people have never seen an automobile
let alone owned one; most people in the world have no concept of
things such as air conditioning, refrigeration, a daily bath,
central heat in winter, paved roads, tooth paste, permanent
press, books, electricity, etc. You do understand, I hope, that
almost 90% of the world's wealth and natural resources are in the
hands of less than 2% of the world's population. And even though
you may not consider your financial situation to be the best, and
may even consider yourself to have fallen on hard times--out of
work or whatever--, the fact is that you are part of that 2%. If
you have never gone hungry, or lost a child to starvation or
malnutrition, then you are one of the world's wealthy. Most
people in the world cannot make that claim.
Now, consider the United Nations proposal for dealing with
this problem: rather than redistributing the wealth of the world
so that more of the world's people share in more of the world's
resources, the United Nations proposes, instead, to provide the
poor with family planning and abortion. It other words, we will
eradicate poverty by eliminating the poor. This way, the white,
2% minority that controls 90% of the world's resources, can
assuage their guilty consciences and say they've dealt with
poverty without sacrificing one iota of what they have. Instead
of sending food to the third world, we throw condoms at them;
and that way everyone gets to eat their nice big dinners on
Thanksgiving Day with a clear conscience. On the surface we are
told that the concern here is for the poor; in reality, the real
concern that motivates those who constantly cry about the
problem of over-population is the maintenance of their own
comparatively opulent standard of living. Listen carefully, and
they will betray it themselves, every time you hear a population
liberal use the phrase "quality of life." And don't think that
I'm being a communist here. The privileges that we enjoy in the
Western world are excellent things, and I wish everyone could
enjoy them; but, the fact that most people in most parts of the
world do not enjoy them does not make life in those places not
worth living. What it does is impose an obligation on me, who
has much, to share what I have with those who have less. That's
from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
The irony here is that the people who are the subject of
the population conference in Cairo are the very individuals who
have not been invited to participate. Don't think for a moment
that the people you see on television, in places like India,
Ethiopia, Rwanda, etc., are in anyway desirous of receiving
family planning from the West. They come, after all, from
cultures that value children and family life, even if they're not
Christian. To them population control is not the answer; us
giving them some of what we have is.
So when some commentator on the evening news gives you the
impression that the Vatican is agitating at the Cairo conference
because it simply is trying to defend it's dogmas or is somehow
lost in time, remind yourself of the facts. The Vatican is
agitating in Cairo because it refuses to accept the notion that
people are a problem. Poverty is a problem. The unequal
distribution of wealth in the world is a problem. Starvation
and famine are problems. People are never a problem. You do
not eliminate people's problems by eliminating them.
Population control is nothing more than a cheaper
alternative to charity; a "final solution," to use Hitler's
words, which the rich white nations of the world want to impose
on the poor black and brown nations of the world; a way to
assuage our consciences without sacrificing our privileges. If
it is allowed to continue, it will become a sin crying to Heaven
for vengeance, if we, in our fat gin-sodden affluence, instruct
the poor to have fewer babies and not to reproduce in such
unmanageable and unsightly quantities. I hope, during this Mass,
that you will join me in praying, with our Holy Father, Pope John
Paul, that the truth about the sanctity of life will be heard in
Cairo, and that the United Nations, supported by our president,
will be prevented from carrying out its "final solution."
