Who could argue with the concept of “responsible
parenthood”? It just seems so…well…responsible.
No one wants to be an irresponsible parent! I think, though, that the
concept of “responsibility” has become something of a political issue, and also
one of those things people embrace for the social approval it enjoys. For
instance, we hear lots of talk about being “responsible” about the environment,
“responsible” about recycling, “responsible” about taking care of our bodies by
working out and/or dieting, etc.
 |
| Really?! |
It appears to me that the term “responsible” first came to
be applied to parenthood in Church documents during the Vatican II; the concept
appears in Gaudium
et Spes, in paragraphs 50-51. I suspect that the idea of “responsible
parenthood” had been in the minds of moral theologians for some years before
that; I doubt the concept sprang up overnight at the Council.
But what brought it about in the first place? I think a
major catalyst was the “overpopulation” scare, but this was part of the bigger
picture of the changes that were occurring at a rapid pace in the world faced
by the Church in the 20th century. Near the beginning of Gaudium et Spes, in paragraph 4, we are reminded
that:
Today, the human race is
involved in a new stage of history. Profound and rapid changes are spreading by
degrees around the whole world. Triggered by the intelligence and creative
energies of man, these changes recoil upon him, upon his decisions and desires,
both individual and collective, and upon his manner of thinking and acting with
respect to things and to people. Hence we can already speak of a true cultural
and social transformation, one which has repercussions on man’s religious life
as well.
As happens in any crisis of
growth, this transformation has brought serious difficulties in its wake.
If that was true then, how much more so now! In my own small
view of things, it seems to me that the changes in society – technologically,
socially, and morally – have been greater in the last 10 years than in the 40
that preceded it! I wonder if the Church, in Her desire to meet the needs of
the “modern world”, neglected to consider that what is “modern” today can
become outdated as soon as tomorrow.
At any rate…back to the overpopulation issue, which was a
serious concern at the time of Vatican II. I was born in 1953, and “overpopulation”
was a part of my vocabulary and awareness from as early as I can remember
thinking about such things. I remember staring out the car window as we went on
a Sunday drive, seeing hills and fields bare of houses or any sign of
habitation, and wondering, “How can there be too many people if there is so much
space left over?”
The
Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich was published in 1968, but the
idea had been around before that. In a recent article entitled “The
Overpopulation Myth and the New Morality”, Dr. Howard Kains says:
Ehrlich’s book was not the
beginning of the general panic about overpopulation, but had been preceded by
moves in the Johnson administration. In a 1965 speech to the United Nations,
Johnson advised that, “Five dollars invested in population control is worth a
hundred dollars invested in economic growth,” and insisted that sterilization
programs be implemented in India as a condition for famine relief from the United
States.
The concept of “population control” was just part of the
culture when I was growing up. You were supposed to get married and have two
kids – one to replace you, and one to replace your spouse. Anything more was…well…irresponsible.
The problem is, the overpopulation myth was just that: a
myth. It still is. It still affects the thinking of people regarding family
size, contraception, and “responsible parenthood”.
Let’s look at it from the viewpoint of the diabolical. Picture
Satan sitting in his office wondering, “How can I prevent the creation of more
souls?” Hmm. He puts the overpopulation concept into play, so that people,
becoming more and more aware of the world around them, will fear the creation
of new souls and the “burden” that will put on society. Next, in order to help
them accommodate their fear, Satan introduces artificial contraception. Great!
And not only that, he hides the fact that there are side effects ranging from
sterility to cancer…at least, he has been pretty successful in hiding that info
from the women who use chemical birth control.
Picture Satan giggling with glee in 1930 when the Anglicans
approve use of artificial contraception, and when all the Protestant churches
jump on the contraception bandwagon shortly thereafter. He’s a little miffed in
1968, when Humanae Vitae is promulgated, wherein that darn Catholic Church still insists that contraception is
immoral and Catholics may not use it.
But what does Satan do better than disobedience?!
Theologians, priests, and even bishops rise up to defy the Pope’s authority to
reaffirm the immorality of contraception; they cite “conscience” as a reason
for individuals to disobey the teaching of the Church on this subject.
The Church seems to have been convinced by “modern”
reasoning that it is not good to have many children. For instance, Humanae Vitae starts out with a
statement that
…there is the rapid increase in
population which has made many fear that world population is going to grow
faster than available resources, with the consequence that many families and
developing countries would be faced with greater hardships. …[G]reater demands
made both in the economic and educational field pose a living situation in
which it is frequently difficult these days to provide properly for a large
family. (par. 2)
So, for those who still want
to obey the Church, but who are worried about overpopulation and their own
potential inability to provide for a multitude of children, Satan has another
answer: responsible parenthood. And how do we achieve “responsible parenthood”
without artificial contraception? Enter NFP. Natural birth control…and it’s 99% effective! But the point, for
our purposes here, is that it’s still birth
control, and it’s promoted primarily – though not exclusively – for the
purposed of limiting spacing
the births of children within a family.
Yet there is firm evidence against the myth of
overpopulation, and we are seeing associated problems emerging for nations
like Japan, where the birth rate has been too low for too long. In Japan, we
can see hard evidence of the error of limiting births – not just pie-in-the-sky
speculation.
Besides, truth never changes. Either God said, “Be fruitful
and multiply” or He didn’t. I am quite sure that God did not say, “Go forth and beget according to responsible parenthood”,
and He didn’t say, “Be fruitful and multiply, but not so much that the earth is
overpopulated”. The value and virtue of a large family used to be understood
and taught; now, having many children is seen as selfish and irresponsible.
I also think our shepherds hedged their bets on “responsible
parenthood” by describing it as both “generous and prudent”. Well, it seems to
me that it’s hard to be both. Fr. William Gardner makes a very good point in a
soon-to-be published article that
It is noteworthy that the
Church does not preach “responsible witnessing,” or “responsible missionary
work,” or “responsible martyrdom.” And
this is rightly so, since these terms do not fit together. Instead, we honor saints like Maximilian
Kolbe, Francis Xavier, and Isaac Jogues for their heroic witness, their heroic
missionary work, or their heroic martyrdom.
And that begs the question: Why do we not promote the
concept of “heroic” parenthood?
Today’s society does not value
parenthood, children, or even women’s fertility. But a woman’s ability to
engage in sexual activity seems to be given a high priority. In a recent
article, Elizabeth Crnkovich asked “Why
Is Government (and Society) Discouraging Childbearing?” She notes (my emphases):
…[A] woman is expected to pass her most fertile years acting like a man, building up a strong
career, and making a lot of money. Only after she is thus “established” and has
“enough money” is she allowed to start thinking about having children.
In
all of this, of course, there is no
assumption that she will abstain from sex. Rather, she is expected to use
pills and implants, diaphragms and injections in order to foil conception and
escape the “burden of children.” …
At
a recent Family in America conference, Dr. Jennifer Morse, founder and
president of the Ruth Institute, spoke of society’s
lack of acceptance of women’s fertility. Young women are told they must be
just like men if they want to enter the workforce and fit in in the workplace.
They are advised not to have children right out of school because that will get
in the way of a career…
According
to Dr. Morse, fertility is not seen as the norm for women but is rather viewed as a problem. And since
society’s progressives view fertility as problematic, a government constituted
of progressives takes action to curb it…
The truth is, we need more children. Society in general
needs more children. Our own nation needs more children. The Catholic Church
needs more children. With that in mind,
consider these words from Gaudium et Spes
(par. 50):
…Let [parents] thoughtfully
take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those
already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they
need to reckon with both the material
and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life.
Finally, they should consult the interests
of the family group, of temporal
society, and of the Church herself.
The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in
the sight of God. But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but
must always be governed according to a conscience
dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive
toward the Church's teaching office…
Today’s young married couples seem to equate “responsible”
with “fewer”. But if one is truthful about the state of the world, and about
the state of the Church, I think one will likely come to the conclusion that “responsible
parenthood” cannot be taken to mean, simply, “fewer children”. Today, it
probably means “more children”. But “more
children” would mean more sacrifice for parents, and sacrifice is something of
a foreign concept to recent generations.
Nevertheless…
Perhaps “responsible parenthood” does in fact mean “generous
parenthood”.
Perhaps “responsible parenthood” does in fact mean “heroic parenthood”.
Be fruitful, and multiply!
