Credo ut intelligam

A fellow blogger has recently written at least two posts on the dangers of intellectual pride [1] [2] which has prompted a little introspection. But publishing one's thoughts is not a proof of pride, and so I blog on, hopeful that my love of truth is stronger than my ego, and herewith add my own two cents on the subject.

An example is worth many words. In this case, two examples, with a common theme, to illustrate both intellectual pride and intellectual humility.

After 40 years, it continues to become more painfully clear that Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae was indeed prophetic. The widespread acceptance of artificial contraception has led to legalized abortion, the breakdown of marriage, sexual license, and a host of other ills that currently plague our society, all of which were warned against by Paul VI. Moreover, both John-Paul II and Benedict XVI have reaffirmed the validity of this papal encyclical, and much harm has come from ignoring it.

In his July 21, 2008 column entitled "Humanae vitae: After Forty Years", Fr. Richard McBrien was pleased to quote Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop John Quinn, and Jesuit Richard McCormick. Much more extensively, McBrien quoted some of his own previous columns to emphasize that he himself was one of the first and most consistent questioners of Humanae Vitae. He is apparently pleased with his own "foresight" in countering the Church's teaching on contraception. Within one of these self-quotes, McBrien quotes Pope Paul VI as welcoming "the lively debate aroused by our encyclical". He did not quote John-Paul II or Benedict XVI. ^[3]

As a catechumen coming into the Catholic Church in the 1920's, a young Dietrich von Hildebrand likewise asked why birth control should be considered immoral. When told that he must accept the Church's teaching authority, he immediately replied, "Credo ut intelligam" - "I believe in order to understand." Such remarkable humility reflects a childlike faith, not in one's own insight, but in the Church. That, though composed of sinners and always in need of reform, she is God's holy ark of salvation, and can be trusted to teach the truth.

This young philosopher eventually became a modern doctor of the Church, noted especially for his brilliant contributions to doctrines on marriage and sexuality, and was among the first to defend Humanae Vitae in 1968. His widow Alice continues to speak and write on these themes today. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote of von Hildebrand:

I am personally convinced that, when, at some time in the future, the intellectual history of the Catholic Church in the twentieth century is written, the name of Dietrich von Hildebrand will be most prominent among the figures of our time.

This illustrates, I believe, the wonderful irony that intellectual humility is the door leading to true intellectual prowess, being unimpeded by the shackles and distortions of ego and error.

---

Note 3: Fr. McBrien's website does not permit me to link directly to the "Humanae vitae: After Forty Years" article, but you may go to richardmcbrien.com and navigate to it.

Forty years

Forty years I endured that generation.
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray
  and they do not know my ways."
So I swore in my anger,
  "They shall not enter into my rest."
     - Ps. 95:10,11

As the Invitatory Psalm warns us every morning, God's patience is not limitless. O, we may find some temporary comfort in soft and flacid churchspeak. We may allow ourselves to be lulled by the gentle assurances of God's tender mercy, no matter what we do. But deep down, we kinda know it ain't so soft. We know that presumption is a huge error, and that there comes a time when God says "Enough!". God gives us time to repent. That, in fact, is precisely what time is for - that we may repent. But time ain't forever. How much time does God give us? That is the question.

July 25, 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae. Now, I won't insist upon a literal understanding of the term "forty years", but somehow, sooner or later, something's got to give. Through the prophetic charism given him, Pope Paul VI warned us in 1968 of what would follow if we accepted the practice of artificial contraception. He warned of widespread abortion, of the coarsening of society, of the breakdown of marriage, of rampant sexual licentiousness, of the victimizing of women as objects. And for forty years, Humanae Vitae has been ignored and even openly opposed - not just by atheists nor even by Protestants, but by Catholics, by priests and bishops and good Catholic couples. And so, because we have chosen to ignore the warnings, they have tragically come to pass. And still we do not heed.

How long, O Lord?

O, by the way, the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is just 4½ years away.

---

Related posts:

Roots of abortion
Contraception connection
Contraception connection - 2
War Against Population
Population control (or - David's sin)
Thanatos antidote - 2

Thanatos antidote

At the end of my 'Thanatos' post below, i touched on a theme that i will now try to expand upon. Namely, that there are alternatives to the cultural despair over consumerism.

Consumerism isn't the only force driving the population control ideology. Materialism and hedonism contribute as well, but these two vices are quite ancient; consumerism is the new kid on the block. Only after we were well into the Industrial Revolution was consumerism even possible - so i believe it deserves special attention and a creative, thoughtful response.

Allow me first to define a couple of key terms. For this topic, a consumer must be defined as someone who consumes resources that will not be replenished within a reasonably brief period of time - let us say within the span of a human life, and/or who produces waste which is not neutralized within a reasonable period of time. Both ends of this industrial, consumerist pattern are problematic, causing harm to other forms of life, and to Earth itself.

The "ism" in consumerism refers to the dogmatic belief that to thus consume is an inherent part of living as a civilized human being, that we must live that way. We're all familiar with the incessant drumbeat message: With every passing year, we consume more resources, produce more waste, and cause more devastation. The 6:00 news tells us of a new environmental crisis; we watch a nature documentary and learn of another endangered species; we open a popular magazine and read of global warming. We accept the word 'consumer' as our rightful moniker, and we meekly take upon ourselves the sinister meaning of that identity. The unspoken, perhaps subconscious logic is clear:

 1. Nature is beautiful but fragile.
 2. Man consumes, and so destroys nature.
 3. Therefore, we are doomed, and it's our own fault.

Perhaps some folks prefer to alter the 3rd point to point to some other people as the sole problem; some may openly advocate drastic population controls. In any case, the general effect is that it evokes a type of low-grade despair. Or maybe panic, and a frenetic search for an immediate panacea. At one level, it can be seen that not all human activity is despicable. Burning natural gas to warm our houses may be consumeristic, but burning wood from a local forest, if done properly, is not. Radioactive nuclear waste may be a serious problem, while kitchen scraps can easily be composted. But it all seems so overwhelming, and these small points so insignificant.

The more intense the despair and panic, the more stark are the counterproductive effects. The public figures producing the loudest and shrillest cries of alarm are often the very ones living in a profusely wasteful manner, while conjuring lame arguments of self-exemption. Despair and panic are like that, producing paralysis and a counterproductive exacerbation of the problems.

Even more problematic: this panic and despair can lead, either explicitly or subconsciously, to a sort of collective self-disgust, and a fear or loathing of our own generative instincts. So we stupidly buy the myth of overpopulation, and turn aside from a generous love of human life. We don't want to thrive, because we are secretly ashamed of our life. (Ironically, i believe that the current cultic obsession with titillating sex also stems from this unaddressed fear of our reproductive powers.)

If these words resonate at all, here is my plea: Let us shake off the mesmerizing effects of this despairing line of thinking. Realize that the second premise of the above logical syllogism is very refutable. We do not have to live in a way that destroys our world. Let us embrace a more intelligent and more constructive syllogism.

That logic begins by recognizing that God created this world for us to live in. We are not an accident, nor are we intruders; we are meant to be here. In truth, we are meant to thrive, and we are meant to be stewards of this world (and, who knows, perhaps eventually beyond, to other parts of the universe!)

We should not expect or even try to turn this around on a dime. It took about 200 years of industrialization to get to our present wasteful state. It may take awhile to climb back out, and into a more healthy and sustainable system of living. My point is that despair and panic are not the way to go. Shrill and desperate cries of alarm tend to paralyze rather than mobilize. The more reasonable way is to first embrace a better syllogism:

 1. God's creation is good.
 2. Man is the pinnacle of God's creation.
 3. Therefore, let us exercise responsible dominion and stewardship.

It all begins with faith, the most reasonable state of mind for a human being.

Thanatos

An early twentieth century movement seriously proposed the practice of selective breeding of the human species, usually known as eugenics. Margaret Sanger, a vocal eugenist, openly lamented the unrestricted propagation of "inferior types". She wrote about producing a "race of thoroughbreds", and eliminating "human weeds". (See this link for starters.) Founder of the American Birth Control League, today's Planned Parenthood, she mainly targeted her birth control measures to the poor, immigrants, and other minority groups. These remain the primary target clientele for Planned Parenthood today.

A similar eugenics philosophy lay behind Hitler's pogroms against Jews and other "inferior" peoples. It would seem that eugenics in practice must always become genocide. Well, the Allied forces defeated Hitler militarily, but the poisonous thinking of racism, eugenics, and genocide remains, still espoused by many, whether openly or covertly.

Moreover, beginning in the 1960's or so, another toxic idea related to human propagation began to be fed to us: that our very presence on this planet is a problem; that we by our nature are destroying the earth that we depend upon; we're using up finite resources and producing waste at an ever accelerated clip, the problem grows more acute every year, and the only apparent solution is to reduce our numbers.

Myth (mith), n.: A widely held belief based upon an imaginary or legendary story.

This story, usually told by well-fed academics of Europe and America, seems always to portend an imminent, deadly threshold. I am not discounting or minimizing the real crises and human need in many areas. Yet threshold after threshold is passed, and the anticipated doom doesn't materialize. Indeed, global per capita real income and standard of living appear to be holding steady or even modestly growing. Are there limits to human population growth? I suppose all finite things have limits. Are we near our own limit? I know of no reliable evidence that would suggest that we are, nor have i seen proof linking any particular crisis to a root cause of "too many people". Yet the myth, and the conviction of impending doom, continue to afflict many. (Ah, but there may well be an impending doom to fear - that of the righteous judgment of God upon our ungodly beliefs and practices!)

Now, here's where it gets interesting: Put the two toxic ideas together, and what you get is something very much like today's Planned Parenthood agenda, or the United Nations Population Control programs. Namely, you get the racist and genocidal campaign to 'help' the folks in poorer parts of the world (which just happen to be Hispanic, African, or Asian) to discover the sexual revolution and to have fewer children. You get foreign assistance offered only upon the adoption of liberal abortion laws, forced or coerced sterilization, etc. This was Margaret Sanger's eugenic goal from the get-go: target the 'inferior' peoples, doing whatever is necessary to ensure that they have fewer babies.

Herein lies the poetic irony (and divine judgment?): Demographic trends suggest that the people who have drunk most deeply of the toxic myth are precisely those from whose ranks the myth arose, but who were not targetted for extinction by Sanger and Hitler, nor by the myth makers, nor by current Planned Parenthood and United Nations population controllers. Germany and Japan, for example, are experiencing a severe drop in birth rates, far below replacement levels. France, at two births per woman, scarcely replacement level, has one of the highest birth rates in Europe. Worldwide, all birth rates seem to be slowing, but there is a definite demographic shift away from the formerly dominant and ascendant European stock, to folks from Africa, the Middle East, and Central and South America.

So, now the generalized fear of population growth takes on a more racist tone. Many in the U.S. feel threatened by the growing influx of people from Latin America. Europeans grow more wary of the rising tide of people, largely Muslim, from the Middle East. White Russia may soon become predominately Muslim and Chinese. Much is written, and feelings run high, regarding the perceived shift in demographic power.

I can't help thinking that there must be a connection here... That the eugenics/genocide ideology of Hitler, Sanger, et. al., rooted in racial fear, has now morphed into a sort of Thanatos syndrome, a culture-wide death wish on the part of the very people who were to become Sanger's "race of thoroughbreds", a paralysis of our collective will to propagate and thrive. Ironic that the debased thinking of Sanger and Hitler may actually have helped to fuel the very population changes they most feared!

What about a challenge to the premise: Do we, in fact, have to live in the consumeristic mentality that leads to such anti-life despair? Must we adopt the self-loathing mantra of the population control agenda? Or might we do better to try to rediscover a sustainable way of living, in which human beings are rightly seen, not as a liability, but as a vital resource? I hope to expand upon this hopeful thought.