Christian
Family and the Ecological Perspective.
Andrew
Szebenyi
Le Moyne College, 2009.
The parable
of the jigsaw puzzle.
Imagine that we
open the box of a gigantic jigsaw puzzle and pour the pieces onto the table
with anticipation of a challenge, motivated by curiosity. To make it all more
interesting, there is no picture on the box, so we do not know what to expect.
Each piece makes sense but only together with the correct others as they reveal
an ever larger section of the whole puzzle. The probability to find by chance
two matching pieces out of so many is rather small, but we have a better way to
deal with the task than relying on chance. First we may assemble the edges of
the picture. That gives us a frame in which to work. Then we can put the pieces
into groups according to some common characteristics, and then fit them
together within each group. This will give us several larger parts of the
puzzle. Finally, we can fit these larger parts to the frame and to each other
giving us the final image. Once the work is done, we may enjoy the assembled
work of art and say: This is really very nice. It was truly worth the effort.
The parable of
the puzzle represents something much more than just the story of a static,
lifeless picture on a table. It symbolizes the realities of life as we
experience them in time within the framework of our present understanding of
love and respect for life. This puzzle is alive, and as we work at it, it grows
and unfolds before us and within us. We are the ones who work at it day by day,
and at the same time we are also parts of the puzzle. The final completed work
of art will be the total reality of all human lives. As of now, the puzzle is still
a mystery and there is still a great deal of work to be done. At times we may
feel discouraged, or we may seem to lose interest, but then if we happen to
look at this puzzle of life anew with the eyes of faith, we realize that all
this is about the Kingdom of God, and that is more worth while than anything
else in the world. I attempt to present here some of the pieces of this awesome
and wonderful puzzle. LetÕs see what we can make of them.
¥
Love and
respect for life have many dimensions. One of them is the realism of
adaptability. I find that if I were to base my present values exclusively on
the way things were in the past, my understanding would be at least partially
false, and my conclusions would be to the same extent dysfunctional. We live in
a world that is not static but is unfolding in time in a dynamic balance of
constant change. It is through adaptability that life is maintained as the many
opposing and at the same time interdependent factors are moulded into the
balance of mutual support. This balance maintains life through time, and is the
key to the rich diversity of life on earth we see all around us. It would be
foolish to think that we are not part of this natural world. It follows,
therefore, that life cannot be understood properly either in static, or in
singular terms, but only in terms of dynamic relationships. In the science of
life we study these relationships in ecology. Without this ecological dimension
our love and respect for life would be distorted and unreal.
¥
The Second Vatican
Council was truly amazing. Recognizing the ever increasing separation and
hostility between two worlds, one secular, the other spiritual, and that this
separation is leading us into various forms of pastoral dysfunctionality, Pope
John XXIII saw the need for a new approach. He used the word, aggiornamento, or adaptability to best describe this
new approach, and made it one of the fundamental guidelines for the council
that soon followed. In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern
World, the council declared its respect for the truth and goodness that had
been brought into our world by modernization, including the many benefits
achieved by the sciences, and proposed to support the need for harmony between
culture and christian formation. This truth was powerfully expressed by the
council as follows: Let it be recognized, that all the faithful, clerical
and lay, possess a lawful freedom of inquiry and of thought, and the freedom to
express their minds humbly and
courageously about those matters in which they enjoy competence.
(Vatican
II. Gaudium et Spes ¤62)
¥
The global
human population is at present in a heavily off balance situation representing
a trend of growth that cannot be maintained on a finite earth. During the last
century our population increased six fold, from over one billion to well over
six billion. This extraordinary, and still ongoing increase represents
something unique in human history, never experienced before. In several
countries this increase reached a magnitude beyond the carrying capacity of the
local areas with devastating results. Any understanding of love and respect for
life would try to reverse this imbalance and so avoid such disastrous
consequences as famine, diseases, dissolution of social order, ecological
devastation, and loss of human lives. It is so very strange that while the
demographic imbalance is the result of human activities, we seem to be rather
at a loss to provide some solution to the problem. One of the culprits is the
blind view, according to which if one is good, more are better. The result is a
desire for unlimited growth in a limited world. The rational response to this
irrationality is to regain balance in terms of zero growth at a population size
that can then be maintained through time.
¥
For some the
idea of zero growth is so negative that they expect science and technology to
provide solutions, not by limiting growth, but by neutralizing the harmful
effects of unlimited growth, and they do not see the contradiction in this
hope. What science and technology can offer are realistic means to return to
balance. To satisfy this need is not the
same as to support good economy or to achieve the even distribution of
resources in the name of social justice. Such efforts may ease our situation
momentarily, but none of them can achieve the ecological balance that is needed
to maintain human life on earth through time. Faced with the problem of runaway
population growth, love and respect for life demand our return to ecological balance
according to the strict terms of the demographic equation, where population
growth is measured by the difference between birthrate and death rate in a
given year. Once balance is reached, the proper use of resources, and their
just distribution can become hopeful realities.
¥
The major cause
of the demographic imbalance we are experiencing is the reduction of death rate
due to improvements in medical care without a corresponding adjustment of
birthrate. Starting with better understanding of the importance of personal
hygiene, followed by the discovery of immunization against viral diseases, and
then by the discovery of antibiotics against bacterial infections, and more
recently by new medical technologies, death rate, especially in terms of child
mortality, has been much reduced on a global scale. Since birth rate, for
whatever reasons, has not been adjusted to these new conditions, a rapid
population growth followed resulting in our present heavily off balance
situation in a by now huge base population. The situation has become so
critical, that the mindset, according to which the present population dynamics
are not the problem, has become a dysfunctional mindset of denial, and an
opponent to love and respect for life in the real world.
¥
Why such resistance
and denial? One reason is historical. All through our demographic history the
global human population has been rather small. Under such circumstances the
EarthÕ capacity to provide resources and to support human life may have seemed
to be unlimited. Century after century the balance between birthrate and death
rate were close to zero with a slight edge in favor of a rather slow increase
in numbers. As a general rule, death rate was high, and to maintain balance we
had to reproduce at our full biological potential rendering our sexuality to be
as much procreative as possible. Since this has been going on for thousands of
years, it is easy to see that as a proper measure such maximization of
reproductive success may have appeared to be an essential part of human nature.
Karl Rahner in the Sesquicentennial issue of Theology Digest, under the title:
Experiment: Man, cautioned us about such hasty conclusion. He wrote that Very
often moral discussions have approached certain de facto conditions of human life
as if they were essential. Although not intrinsic elements of human nature,
they have been historically stable up to the present. Now this stability is
threatened by certain changes. Too often, continues Rahner, we have said that
this or that is contrary to the nature of ÒwomenÓ, or of the family, or is
against the natural function of a biological organ. In many cases, what we
described as ÒnatureÓ was only some relatively fixed condition which was
actually a changeable element.
(School of
Divinity. St. Louis University. Theology Digest. February 1968.)
¥
The crucial
question is, how to regain the balance in the demographic equation at a safe
population level, that can be maintained through time? Of course, safe means
below the carrying capacity of the earth. Unfortunately, the concept of carrying
capacity opens
PandoraÕs box, since it depends not just on the availability of resources, but
also on the way we use these resources. It depends on the standard of living, that varies considerably from place to
place. The moment such cultural determinants enter the equation, we are in the
shadowy world of quality of life. After all, what is enough? ShouldnÕt we want
more? In other words, we are back where we started, we are back in the
irrational world of wanting unlimited growth in a limited world.
¥
There are,
however, some quantitative terms that shed light on necessary limits. Provided
that we base our decisions on love and respect for life and regard it as
unacceptable to reestablish balance by those means which increase death rate,
including abortion, one such quantitative term is the number of children per
family necessary for a global population balance in terms of zero population
growth. The number is two children per family for most families. Of course,
this kind of quantitative statement may provide a general guide for the needed
reproductive restraint, but tells us nothing about the ways to achieve it, and
it is also silent about the many problems such restraint may imply in terms of
cultural diversity we all should be aware of and respect, and cultural biases
which are in need of healing.
¥
As to practical
solutions, what are the choices? In terms of love and respect for life, no
control measures favoring an increase in death rate are acceptable. Such
control measures are abortion, euthanasia, and those ÒcontraceptiveÓ methods
which prevent the implantation of an already fertilized ovum, that is human
life at its very beginning. Responsible control of fertility simply means the
prevention of conception in a family with already two children. There are
several ways to prevent conception. These are abstinence from intercourse,
having intercourse when no ovum is present, and preventing the sperm to reach
the ovum when ovum is present. In all these, it should be clear that the method
used is contraceptive and not abortive.
¥
In the
documents of the second Vatican Council, the Church in the Modern World
(Gaudium et Spes), under the subtitle, Harmonizing conjugal love with respect
for human life, in ¤ 51 the following has been stated: ÒThis council realizes
that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married
lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at
least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a
result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives are
hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married life is broken off, it is
not rare for its faithfulness to be imperilled and its quality of fruitfulness
ruined.Ó As indicated in the quote, the council realized, abstinence from
intercourse is not the right method for married couples to control the size of
their families. What is then being recommended by the council? It becomes clear
in the text that follows that there is still a great deal of aggiornamento to be made to provide truly functional
advise in these matters. Especially three areas should be considered. The first
area of concern is the need for pastoral realism paying respect to present
knowledge, and considering the practical meaning of any advise or directive in
terms of the diverse cultural circumstances people actually live in. Secondly,
as it has become very clear since the time of the council, we need to add the
ecological perspective to all that we do, particularly to matters of
reproductive restraint for the sake of ecological balance. This balance is a
fundamental condition of survival, and it is demanded by our love and respect
for life in the modern world. Finally, there is the need to recognize the
primary role women play in matters of procreation and there is the need to heal
a many centuries old cultural injustice of male bias in such matters. One way
to heal this injustice is being inclusive in all aspects of human life. Such
inclusiveness is still absent in statements of the council. For instance, ¤ 51
makes these matters a concern of the Òsons of GodÓ and not of GodÕs daughters.
¥
As a general
rule one should consider the health and comfort of the user of any method, as well
as their actual reliability. A method that is not reliable, or has serious
physical or psychological side effects in a particular case, cannot be
recommended in that particular case. In individual situations, the spouses
should be the well informed judges of what is acceptable and best suited to
them, to their marriage relationship, to their children, and to humanity.
¥
To follow oneÕs
well formed conscience is a good advise. But remember, Òwell formedÓ means well
informed, that is knowledgeable, and, therefore, any directive to form oneÕs
conscience needs satisfactory explanation. It is unfortunate that the weight of
the past is quite heavy in matters of human sexuality, and many of the cultural
biases we inherited are not helpful to provide functional answers to present
needs. Under such circumstances, it may be helpful to consider as a general
guideline that all created given and their use are good as we read in the book
of Genesis (1:31): ÒAnd God saw all that God made, and
indeed it was very goodÓ. Their
abuse, however, that is a way of use that would cause harm to oneself or to
others, is sinful. And finally any
effort to sanctify the created given by prayer and sacrament renders it even
better.
¥
As we look at
the pieces of the puzzle of life and try to fit them together into a sensible
and meaningful world, certain insights, and experiences suddenly make sense,
showing us those paths which are hopeful and worth to follow. Keep an open mind
and heart. All created given is good. Use them well with joyful gratitude. Do
not let any form of abuse enslave you and weigh you down. Meanwhile, here is a
prayer for all of us to our loving Creator God: Make us your servants in your
kingdom, and help us to renew the face of the earth.