A Paper Presented at
the 74th Annual Education Conference
of the Catholic
Medical Association
“Building a Culture of
Life in a Society that has lost its sense of God: International Forces
promoting an anti-natalist ideology
in a Secular Social
Order”
by The Most Reverend
John C. Nienstedt
I. Introduction
Shortly after the death of our late,
beloved Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI, an article
appeared in the National Catholic Register that I thought was particularly
perceptive and worthy of note.
On the editorial page of that issue, a
columnist observed that there was a “profound difference” between the global
society that confronted Pope John Paul II in 1978 and that which challenges
Pope Benedict XVI today. As I read the
analysis, it occurred to me that, without question, the Holy Spirit, acting
through the College of Cardinals, has selected two Pontiffs eminently prepared,
each in his own respective time, to face the major threats that would seek to undermine
the Church’s mission of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Let us think back to 1978, a year that began
with President Gerald Ford in office and ended with the presidency of Jimmy
Carter. It was then that the
Cardinal Karol Wojtyla was elected Pope
in October of that year. He was the
first non-Italian elected to hold that office in 100 years. His Polish countrymen soon endorsed his world
view which was rooted in the inherent dignity of the human person and they thus
joined forces under the inspiration of Solidarinose
to overthrow the tyranny of Communism. General
Wojciech Jaruzelski, who
presided over the demise of Communism in
Now let us fast-forward to the year
2005. The
Onto that world scene, the Cardinals of
the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, elect a 78 year old
theologian, who emerges from the highly secularized society of
Commenting on
“How
many winds of doctrine have we known over the last few decades! How many ideological currents! How many schools of thought! The little ship bearing the thoughts of many
Christians has frequently been shaken by these waves, thrown from one extreme
to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertarianism; from
collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious
mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so on. Every day new sects arrive, and
But,
the Cardinal went on to say, there is an alternative:
“We,
nonetheless, do have another measure: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An ‘adult’ faith does not follow the ways of
fashion and the latest novelties; an adult and mature faith is profoundly
rooted in friendship with Christ. . . . We
must bring this adult faith to maturity, to this faith we must lead Christ’s
flock. And it is this faith – faith
alone – that creates unity and is realized in charity. . . . In the measure in which we approach
Christ, so truth and charity come together in our lives too.”[2]
During this August World Youth Day held
in his native
II. The
“New Paradigm” of International Health Care
This notion of the world’s “strange
forgetfulness of God” had already been observed by Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragán, president of the Pontifical Council for
The Cardinal acknowledged that
proponents of the “New Paradigm” do accept some notion of a divinity, but this
is only a “poetic and aesthetic god” that each individual makes up for him or
herself. This is definitely not the God
of the Bible.[5]
A new global ethic seeks to replace all
previously known religions with a spirituality that is concerned with the
objective global well-being of all human persons within a world order of
“sustainable development.”
“By
sustainable development is meant a development where the different factors
involved (food, health, education, technology, population, environment, etc.)
are brought into harmony so as to avoid imbalanced growth and the waste of
resources.”[6]
As the Pontifical Council for the Family
points out, however, it is the developed countries of the world that
determine for other nations what the criteria for “sustainable development”
will be. Thus certain rich countries and
major international organizations are willing to help developing nations, but
on the condition that they accept public programs that systematically control
birth rates.[7]
In the New Paradigm, Cardinal Lozano
asserts, “sustainable development” becomes the supreme ecological value. He said and I quote,
“It is a
spirituality without God, at the secular level.
Its ultimate objective is the viability of the present world, and man’s
well-being in it.”
“Practically
speaking, it is a new secularist religion, a religion without God, or, if one
wishes a new god, that would be the earth itself, to which the name Gaia is
given. This divinity would have man as a
subordinate element.”[8]
The Cardinal went on to say,
“The
series of values upheld by the New Paradigm are values subordinated to this
diversity, which is translated into the supreme ecological value that it calls
sustainable development. And within this
sustainable development is the supreme ethical objective of well-being.”[9]
According to the Cardinal, the grave
danger of this New Paradigm is its lack of an objective standard for
truth. Consensus on what to do or not to
do rests on subjective opinions, which in turn gives rise to an ethic or
bioethics that has no consistency.
Christianity, on the other hand, offers
a True Paradigm, based on an objective and universal ethics. The first principle of this ethics is that
human life is created by God. And from
this is derived the second principle, that human life is received, not as
property, but as something to be cared for.
“The human person,” concluded the
Cardinal, “is the synthesis of the universe and is the reason for everything
that exists. Present-day biomedical
sciences and technologies must be at the service of human life and not
vice-versa. They are to construct man,
not to destroy man.”[10]
The major forces behind the “New
Paradigm” with its secular ethic, said the Cardinal, are the United Nations’
World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
These two institutions have allies in various Non-Governmental
Organizations (referred to as NGO’s), which are prominent promoters of an anti-natalist global ideology, among whose number are: the Women’s Environment and Development
Organization, Earth Council Green Peace and the International Planned
Parenthood Association. The efforts of
these organizations have had far reaching effects.[11]
III. The United Nations
As you will recall, 170 out of 191
member governments of the United Nations gathered last month in
The official agenda for the gathering,
however, which did not gain much media notice, was the evaluation of the Millennial
Goals, adopted by 189 World Heads of State in the year 2000 and which propose
to end extreme poverty worldwide by the year 2015. The September gathering was meant to evaluate
progress made on the goals and to determine how to move forward toward the attainment
of those goals.[13]
There are eight millennial goals:
1. To eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
2. To achieve universal primary education;
3. To promote gender equality and empower
women;
4. To reduce child mortality;
5. To improve maternal health;
6. To combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other
diseases;
7. To ensure environmental sustainability;
8. To develop a global partnership for
development.
The first seven goals concentrate on the
specific techniques for eliminating poverty.
The eighth goal implies that the accomplishment of those previous goals will
be achieved by the investment of wealthy countries in delivering aid, providing
debt relief and establishing free trade policies.
One of the underlying concerns behind
the Millennial Goals, not explicitly mentioned but never very far from the
surface, is the question of overpopulation.
In terms of the “New Paradigm” of sustainable development, as described
by Cardinal Lozano, overpopulation has a huge impact on the outcome of these
goals.
The question of the world’s overpopulation
has been a concern for the United Nations since its inception. Two years after its being chartered in 1945,
the Population Commission of the Economic and Social Council was established for
the following purposes: 1) to gather
data concerning populations, 2) to
analyze the influence of population policies; and 3) to study the interplay of demographics on
social and economic factors.[14] This Commission helped formulate a World
Population Plan of Action at its conference in Bucharest in 1974, continued to
monitor its progress at the 1984 International Conference on Population in
Mexico City, then again to render an update in Cairo at the 1994 International
Conference on Population and Development and ultimately to review its overall
progress at the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women held in Beijing.[15]
At first the Population Commission was
only involved in the gathering and analyzing demographic statistics, their
estimates and projections. By the
mid-1960’s, however, its emphasis had shifted to a more aggressive agenda in
providing governments with advisory services, as well as training and action
programs,[16]
including fertility and family planning.
While not the U.N.’s first International
Conference on Population and Development (commonly referred to as ICPD),[17]
the Cairo Conference in 1994 has been described by most commentators as a
watershed moment for the advancement by secular forces to stem population
growth in
At the Cairo Conference, 11,000
registered participants representing some 180 governments and over 1,000
non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) agreed that population issues must be
addressed more forcefully if development policies are to succeed.[18] They also agreed that population issues are
not just a matter of numbers; that they are first and foremost about people –
about human beings and their inherent right to development and to lead a decent
life no matter where they happen to be born.
But, a much greater emphasis was placed on the concepts of women’s
empowerment and gender equality as the primary building blocks for population
and development policies.
One begins to appreciate from the
language used in the formulation of the
In its Programme
of Action, adopted at the end of the Cairo session and listing some 1,170
action items, “sustainable development” is described as those integrating
efforts aimed at population control through economic and development strategies
for the purpose of alleviating poverty and improving the quality of life for
the world’s population.[19] The Programme
charges that:
“Development
strategies must realistically reflect both the short-, medium- and long-term
implications of, and consequences for, population dynamics as well as patterns
of production and consumption.”[20]
In this regard, the Programme
calls on the developed countries, including the
(a) To ensure that comprehensive and factual
information and a full range of reproductive health care services, including
family planning, are accessible, affordable, acceptable and convenient to all
users;
(b) To enable and support responsible voluntary
decisions about child-bearing and methods of family planning of their
choice, as well as other methods of their choice for regulation of fertility
which are not against the law and to have the information, education and means
to do so;
(c) To meet changing reproductive health
needs over the life cycle and to do so in ways sensitive to the diversity
of circumstances of local communities.
The final draft of the Programme was challenged by the Holy See with
reference to paragraph 8.25 which proposed that:
“In
circumstances in which abortion is legal, such abortion should be safe.”
The Holy See objected to that sentence on
the basis that abortion could never be properly “legal” since it is a violation
of a person’s most basic human right.
The Holy See was supported in its objection by the countries of
It is only fair to point out that a positive
consensus had also been reached by the Cairo Conference with regard to
abortion, namely:
1) that abortion should not be promoted as a
means of family planning;
2) that legal aspects relating to abortion are
a sovereign matter;
3) that priority should be given to the
prevention of abortion.
The 1994 ICPD in
“At the
In such a political context, it was also
no surprise that the Beijing Conference also pushed for greater expansion of
legalized abortion as a legitimate method of family planning.
This past February 2005, the so-called “
The
Since the February meeting of the
Beijing +10, pro-life, non-government organizations (NGO’s) were barred by U.N.
officials from speaking to or lobbying member states at the preparatory
sessions for the Millennium Summit +5 Conference that was just held in
September. At the same time,
International Planned Parenthood Federation, the National Youth Network for
Reproductive Rights, and Family Care International (all abortion proponents) were
invited to speak to the participants. It
is believed that this change of approach reflects the discomfort on the part of
U.N. officials to the interventions of the
In late August of this year, the Holy
See had to issue a warning that a document entitled, “Religious Declaration on
the MDG’s, Women’s Rights and Reproductive Health,”
was being circulated prior to the September U.N. meeting for the purpose of
broadening the terms, “reproductive health” and “reproductive rights” to
include abortion, contraception and other illicit means of family planning.[25] The Holy See raised public awareness of this
initiative because it knew that, if adopted, these resolutions would render
useless the Church’s efforts to defend the value of human life. Again, the forces behind the “New Paradigm”
continue to push hard for their secular agenda.
Speaking to the 60th Session of the U.N.
General Assembly on
“. . .
we cannot offer an ambiguous, reductive or even ideological vision of
health. For example, would it not be
better to speak clearly of the “health of women and children” instead of using
the term “reproductive health”? [Or]
could there be a desire to return to the language of a “right to abortion”?[26]
Certainly among his listeners there were
many present who prefer ambiguous language in order to mask their desire to
promote abortion as a tool in the campaign for “sustainable development.”
Overall, then, when reading the rhetoric
employed at the
I. The Relative Value of Life
The
question of population control is inevitably one that overwhelmingly concerns wealthier
nations in that it is an agenda item of the “haves” rather than the
“have-nots.” While not saying so
directly, the question of “too many people” comes to mean “too many poor people
for the comfort of the rich.”[27]
The
question of population is one that is quite different from asking how many
pairs of shoes are too many to have in one’s closet, or how many cars are too
many for a city to tolerate. When it
comes to the human person, one has to admit that the question of “how many is
too many?” implies a value judgment. When the seven Russian Naval officers were
trapped last August in a submarine on the floor of the
Consequently,
when governments and non-governmental organizations speak of “population
control” they reflect, consciously or not, a non-Christian, even an
anti-Christian mentality; a mentality which presumes that human existence is
not an absolute value, but rather a quantifiable one. It is one thing to speak about the problems
people have, it is quite another to speak about the problem that people are.[30] When one begins to use such language, the
slide to a totalitarian way of thinking is not far away.
The
Christian holds the conviction that only God has dominion over life and
death. Yet, it is precisely this concept
of God that the population policy makers seek to avoid, relegating control over
the world-wide situation to themselves and their own judgments. The Church, on the other hand, insists that
people are more than statistics and that they have fundamental rights because
of their inherent dignity. The Church is
called to promote and defend human life against all attacks and to reject
contraception, sterilization and abortion as solutions to the population
problem.[31]
As Pope
Paul VI once said, “All population policies and strategies, in the judgment of
the Holy See, must be evaluated in light of the sacredness of human life, the
dignity of every human being, the inviolability of all human rights, the value
of marriage and the need for economic and social justice.”
He went
on to say, “Surely each person and couple has a responsibility to the local and
world community; but to see all progress as dependent on the decline and
population growth betokens of shortness of vision and a failure of nerve. Economic aid for the advancement of people
should never be conditioned on a decline in birth rates or in participation in family
planning programs.”[32]
Given
such a moralistic rationale, it is easy to understand why the
II. Linking
Food Production to Population
Secondly,
it was Thomas Malthus, an Englishman, who was the
first to raise the question of population control in 1793. In his research, he directly linked the
problem of over-population to that of adequate food production. Malthus estimated
that populations would grow at a rate that would outpace food production. Malthus summed up
the problem by saying,
“Population,
when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increased only in an arithmetical
ratio. A slight acquaintance with
numbers would shew the immensity of the first power
in comparison of the second.”[34]
Malthus’ dire predictions, however, did not come true. Food production easily kept up with
population growth and the increasing population brought improved health care,
better food production, lower mortality rates, increased economic development
and longer life spans instead of the increased poverty and starvation that he
predicted. This pattern continues
today. Economist Dennis Avery explained
in 1975 that, “Food production was more than keeping pace with population
growth since the world had, more than doubled world food output in the past
thirty years. Food supplies have risen
25% in the populace
For
example, rice and wheat production in
In
speaking at the United Nations Population Award gathering in 2004, United
Nations Deputy Secretary, Louise Fréchette, reaffirmed
that the UN’s policy continues to rest on that fallacy:
“A decade
after
A year
prior to that, Thoraya Obaid
of the U.N. Population Fund in a press release was less subtle:
“We cannot
confront the massive challenges of poverty, hunger, disease and environmental
destruction unless we address issues of population and reproductive health.”[39]
In
contrast to this assertion is the statement made by Dr. Rafael M. Salas, UNFPA
director in 1984,
“We have
always been able to produce more food than population. The problem is in the distribution of
food. There will always be periodic
areas of crisis, as is happening now in African, but in global terms, “No.”[40]
The main
point here underlines the U.N.’s assumption that the chief way of eradicating
poverty in the world and providing development for the world’s poor is by
curbing the number of children produced.
A
representative for U.S. Women of Color (an American NGO) at the Cairo
Conference proposed an alternative plan of action:
“Industrialized
countries should reduce poverty by tackling social and economic imbalance, not
just by pushing contraceptives. We don’t
want to wait until the single, unmet need, for contraceptives has been
satisfied before realizing that we have utterly neglected to boost social and
economic progress and failed to alleviate poverty.”[41]
Social
and economic imbalances, however, are realities that protect the “haves” from
the “have nots” in a global society. A greater willingness to curb the excessive
consumption of the industrial nations in order to support the well-being of
poorer nations is what is required. But
at present, there seems little motivation within the secular vision of the
In his
encyclical letter, Mater et Magistra, Pope
John XXIII underlined this very point:
“A
provident God grants sufficient means to the human race to find a dignified
solution to the problems attendant on the transmission of human life . . .
besides the resources which God in his goodness and wisdom has implanted in
Nature are well nigh inexhaustible and He has at the same time given man the
intelligence to discover ways and means of exploiting the resources for his own
advantage and his own livelihood. Hence,
the real solution of the problem is not to be found in expedience, which offend
against the divinely established moral order and which attack human life at its
very source, but in a renewed, scientific and technical effort on man’s part to
deepen and extend his domain over nature.
The progress of science and technology that has already been achieved
opens up limitless horizons in this field.”[42]
The U.N.
and world governments must not wait for a resolution of the population question
before they begin working in partnership to raise the standard of living in
poor countries. The
III. Coercive
Influence
Finally,
in most U.N. documents concerning “sustainable development,” statements are
generally included which oppose coercive tactics in order to achieve population
control. Married couples, it is said,
should be free to make their own decisions about the number of children they
wish to produce.
Nevertheless,
for all its lip-service regarding the “voluntary” nature of a couple’s decision
to beget children or to choose their own form of family planning methods, the
question must be raised as to how free couples really are in the face of the
enormous financial outlay to make family planning methods of contraception,
sterilization and abortifacients available in Third
World countries.
As one
commentator points out,
“It has
been adequately proven that poor people without economic security are forced to
have more children. To force them to
have few children or no children, without changing the socio-economic
conditions of their life that make it rational for them to have more children
is not a politics of choice; it is a politics of coercion. Similarly, to push hazardous contraceptives
on
Unfortunately,
the amount of monies devoted to family planning services provides heavy
pressure on the moral decision-making of those couples. Government aid packages require that all who
receive public assistance be given family planning education. Personal statements by recipients indicate
that they believe they must practice birth control in order to continue
receiving such aid.[44]
In his
encyclical letter, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, Pope John Paul
II describes the situation clearly,
“On the
other hand, it is very alarming to see governments in many countries launching systematic campaigns against birth,
contrary not only to the cultural and religious identities of the countries
themselves, but also contrary to the nature of true development. It often happens that these campaigns are the
result of pressure and financing coming from abroad, and in some cases they are
made a condition for granting of financial and economic aid and
assistance. In any event, there is an absolute lack of respect for the freedom
of choice of the parties involved. Men
and women are often subjected to intolerable pressures, including economic
ones, in order to force them to submit to this new form of oppression. It is the poorest populations that suffer
such mistreatment, and this sometimes leads to a tendency toward a form of
racism, or the promotion of certain equally racist forms of eugenics. This fact, too, which deserves the most
forceful condemnation, is a sign of
an erroneous and perverse idea of
true human development.”[45]
In
contrast to “sustainable” development, the Catholic Church speaks of
“authentic” development. Again in his
encyclical, Solicitudo Rei
Socialis, Pope John Paul II describes such
development as being intrinsically connected with respect for human rights, “In
conformity with the natural historical vocation of each individual.”[46] Such development does not subject the human
person and his deepest needs to the demands of economic planning and selfish
profit. It is not attained by exploiting
the abundance of goods and services or by having available perfect
infrastructures. The Holy Father writes:
“When
individuals and communities do not see a rigorous respect for the moral,
cultural and spiritual requirements, based on the dignity of the person and on
the proper identity of each community, beginning with the family and religious
societies, then all the rest – availability of goods, abundance of technical
resources applied to daily life, a certain level of material well-being – will
prove unsatisfying and in the end contemptible.
The Lord clearly says this in the Gospel when he calls the attention of
all to the true hierarchy of values:
‘For what will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits
his life?’ (Mt 16:26)”[47]
“True
development, in keeping with the specific
needs of the human being – man or woman, child, adult or old person – implies,
especially for those who actively share in this process and are responsible for
it a lively awareness of the value of the rights of all and of each
person. It likewise implies a lively
awareness of the need to respect the right of every individual to the full use
of the benefits offered by science and technology.”[48]
To give
an example of just how such economic and social pressures are orchestrated, I
would like to site the situation that has occurred in Singapore over the past
three decades during which the government adopted strikingly different policies
in its attempt to control fertility and, at the same time, to provide an
adequate supply of labor to its working force.[49]
Here
family and futility policies were carefully tailored to facilitate economic
growth. In the 1960’s, the
In the
late 1970’s, however, the government realized that the plummeting fertility
rates was beginning to have serious detrimental effects on the country’s
long-term economic supply of women laborers.
Since
The
dilemma was resolved by resorting to another form of manipulation. The government decided to give the more
educated and higher income ethnic majority, namely the Chinese, tax rebates for
bearing a second, third or fourth child.
In addition, the government provided these mothers with childcare
subsidies, priority in housing and more flexible work schedules.
With
regard, however, to the less educated and lower income minority (namely the
Malay population), financial incentives were only given if they agreed to have
fewer children. A woman under the age of
thirty was credited $10,000 to be sterilized after the birth of her first or
second child. This money could then be
used for priority housing.[51]
Rightly,
these policies have been criticized for their social engineering approach of
manipulating differing ethnic groups in what is described as a modern form of
social eugenics.[52] It also points out how “tyrannical” civil
governments can become when there is no objective ethical standard for
determining what may or may not be harmful to the dignity of human persons, in
respecting their inalienable human rights and in preserving the common good as
the criterion for regulating the political process.
Another
source of coercion is the sheer amount of money dedicated to family planning
programming. Here, the World Bank has
emerged as a major financier of population control. From 1969-1979, it spent $278 million on
population programs. By 1990, this
figure rose to $500 million, by 1993 to $1.3 billion, and by 1995 to $2.5
billion.
The main
financial arm of the United Nations in this area is the United Nations Fund for
Population Activities, or UNFPA.
Set up as a trust fund in 1967, UNFPA’s role
is to build up a nation’s capacity to respond to needs for family planning, to
promote understanding in population factors (population growth, fertility,
mortality, special distribution and migration), to assist governments to
develop population goals and programs and to provide financial assistance to
implement them. UNFPA is the largest
internationally funded source of population assistance to countries with
population problems.[53] The fund is financed principally by volunteer
contributions from governments, over a quarter of which has, up until recently,
come from the
Because
the Bush administration believes that the United Nations’ program of
reproductive health services does in fact support coercive abortions and
sterilizations, it has withheld $127 million in funds appropriated by Congress
for the UNFPA. This action has
been severely criticized by proponents of the “New Paradigm.” [55]
In 1970,
its first year of operation, UNFPA received $15.4 million from 20 countries and
allocated $9 million in 200 projects. By
1983, the figure rose to $122.7 million.[56] Today UNFPA is the largest single source of
multilateral population assistance to developing countries, assisting in almost
2,000 projects designed to curb population growth on every continent. By the year 2000, annual cost projections for
the United Nations funding targets were:
1) $10.2 billion for family planning programs;
2) $5 billion for “reproductive health
services”;
3) $1.3 billion for AIDS and STD’s (sexually
transmitted diseases) prevention;
4) $500 million for research and analysis.[57]
The
UNFPA has some significant, independent financial donors. In 1998, Microsoft Company chairman, Bill
Gates, donated $1.7 million to UNFPA.[58] The previous October, media tycoon, Ted
Turner, gave the U.N. a $1 billion five-year grant for this and other
projects. The primary sponsor for the
1994 Cairo Conference was the Rockefeller Foundation, which has supported
population control and abortion programs since its inception in 1909.[59] The financial impact of these American
entrepreneurs on the promotion of family planning programs in the
Conclusions
These three assumptions, the relative
value of life, the linking of population to poverty and the influence of
coercive pressures, need to be challenged by the world community that is, after
all, meant to be represented by the U.N.
In its 1994 reflection entitled, Ethical
and Pastoral Dimensions of Population Trends, the Pontifical Council for
the Family advised caution when reviewing much of the information published
about demographics by population control programs and to be vigilant with regard
to those practices that do not respect the human person.[60]
The Council goes on to list a number of
specific practices that should be challenged by the Church and her members,
namely:
“1) The
many attempts on the part of the “population crises ideology” to influence
international agencies and governments.
2) Invoking so-called new “women’s rights”
while underestimating the woman’s vocation to give life.
3) Invoking environmental questions in an
excessive or improper way to justify coercive population control.
4) Attempts to spread abortifacient
products such as RU-486 in the developed countries and, above all, in poor
countries.
5) Spreading sterilizations everywhere.
6) Making devices against life such as the intra-uterine
device commonplace and distributing them.
7) Violating the absolute and inalienable
rights of individuals and families.
8) Abusing moral, intellectual and political
power.
9) Promotion of drugs, pornography, violence
and the like.”[61]
The Council urges Christians and all
people of good will toward further education in the way many population control
movements use the media to project economic and demographic information that is
both simplistic and inexact.
Professionals should be encouraged to provide correct knowledge that
rejects a fear of life and the future and, on the other hand, respects the
human person and the family. Governments
must reject false concepts of “reproductive health, which promote different
methods of contraceptives or abortion” and they should instead promote respect
for a woman as wife and mother.
The anti-baby” mentality, so
characteristic of population control programs, refuses to acknowledge God as
the sole Creator of life, thus contributing to a “culture of death.” As Cardinal Lozano affirms, this is the “New
Paradigm” that rejects the notion of Transcendent God and thus reduces moral
decision-making to the realm of subjectivism.
As Pope Benedict XVI has proclaimed, this kind of relativism is the
challenge to the Gospel in the twenty-first century and it will require the
efforts of every Christian believer to overcome.
Our message to the nations of the world,
represented at the United Nations’ Organization, needs to reflect the
sentiments of Pope Paul VI, who said:
“You
must strive to multiply bread so that it suffices for the tables of mankind,
and not favor an artificial control of birth . . . in order to diminish the
number of guests at the banquet of life.”[62]
Thank you for your attention.
[1] See “Brainy History,” at www.brainyhistory.com/years/1978.html.
[2]
“Homily of His Eminence, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger at the Opening Mass of
Conclave, April, 2005,” Inside the
[3]
Pope Benedict XVI, “Eucharist: Setting Transformations in Motion,” Origins,
vol. 35 no. 12 (
[4]
See “Bioethics Challenged by a ‘New Paradigm,’ Says Papal Envoy: Cardinal
Sounds a Warning for World Day of the Sick,” in Zenit.org (
[5] Ibid.
[6]
Pontifical Council for the Family, Ethical and
[7] Ibid.
[8] “Bioethics Challenged . . .,” 2 of 3.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12]
See Colum Lynch, “U.N. Members Undercut Annan’s Quest for Reform,” The
Washington Post, no. 282 (
[13]
See “World Summit Comments to Universal Access to Reproductive Health by 2015,”
at www.millenium
campaign.org, (
[14] Edward J. Gratsch, The Holy See and the United Nations 1945-1995 (New York: Vantage Press, 1997), 249.
[15]
See Basic Facts About the United Nations (
[16] Everyone’s United Nations, ninth edition (New York: United Nations, 1979), 174.
[17]
Other significant conferences:
[18] See Lindsay Grant, “The Cairo Conference: Feminists vs. the Pope,” NPG Forum Series at www.npg.org (July 1994), 11 of 17.
[19] See Programme of Action, par. 3.3.
[20] Ibid.
[21]
Anne Shepherd, “Abortion Debate Deferred as More Voices Join the
[22]
Robert H. Bork, Slouching Towards
[23]
See Shena Muldoon, “Win Some, Lose Some,” Inside the
[24] See United Nations Press Release, “UN OK’s Abortion and Population Control Proposals (July, 1999), 1 of 1.
[25]
See Memorandum from Msgr. William Fay, General Secretary, to the Bishops of the
USCCB on “U.N. Millennium +5
[26]
Angelo Cardinal Sodano, “Address to the 60th Session of the General Assembly of
the United Nations,” at www.holyseemission.org
(
[27] Christopher Derrek, Too Many People? A Problem in Values (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1985), 57.
[28] Vandana Shiva, Women’s Rights Reduced to Reproductive Issue,” Third World Network Features at www.iisd.ca (September 1, 1994), 1 of 6.
[29]
See Associated Press, “British vehicle cuts cables snarling Russian sub,” The
Journal (
[30] See Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (London: Pan/Ballentine, 1972), 83.
[31] Pope Paul VI, “Address to Mr. Antonio Carillo-Flores, Secretary General of the World Conference on Population,” AAS, 66 (1974): 252.
[32] Ibid.
[33]
See Stephen Vincent, “U.N. Catholics On the Front Lines,” in the National
Catholic Register, vol. 81, no 39 (
[34] Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, (New York: Penguin Books, 1970), 71-72.
[35]
Julian Simon, ed. The State of
[36] Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: Economics and Ideology of World Population Control (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 33. Also see: FAO Production Yearbook, 1981 and U.S. Department of Agriculture, World Indices of Agricultural Food Production, 1974-1983.
[37] Ibid.
[38]
UN Press Release, “Deputy Secretary-General Praises Winners of 2004 UN
Population Award,” at www.un.org/News/Press
(
[39] See Mary Jo Anderson, “Imposition: The Collapse of the United Nations,” Crisis, vol. 23, no. 9 (October, 2005), 12.
[40] Dr. Raphael M. Salas, Director of UNFPA, speaking before the Mexico City Conference, Newsweek, European Edition (August 13, 1984), 25.
[41] Lindsey Grant, “The Cairo Conference: Feminists vs. The Pope,” NGO Forum Series at www.npg.org (July, 1994), 6 of 17.
[42] Mater et Magistra, par. 189.
[43] Vandana Shiva, 2 of 6.
[44] See Vandana Shiva, “Population Control A Denial of Individual Rights,” Third World Network Features at www.iisd.ca (September 1, 1994), 3 of 6.
[45]Pope John Paul II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, in the Encyclicals of Pope John Paul II, ed. J. Michael Miller, C.S.B. (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Press, 1996), Par. 25.3 and 25.4 on pages 446-447.
[46] Ibid., par 33.3 on page 456.
[47] Ibid., Par. 33.4 on page 456.
[48] Ibid., par. 33.5 on page 456 and 457.
[49]
See Jean L. Pyle, “Women, the Family and Economic Restructuring: The
[50] Ibid, 5 of 7.
[51] Ibid., 3 of 7.
[52] Ibid.
[53] See Basic Facts About the United Nations, 189.
[54] See Kasun, 199.
[55] U.N.F.P.A. Press Release, “UNFPA Saddened by U.S. Decision Not to Rejoin National Support for Multilateral Work to Protect Women’s Health, at UNFPA website (16 September 2005), 1.
[56] Kasun, 199.
[57] Grant, page 10 of 14.
[58] Catholic World News, “Bill Gates Gives to Population Fund,” at CWNews.com (April 23, 1998), 1 of 1.
[59] See Anton Chaitkin, “Population Control and the U.N.: Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N.! at www.apfin.org., 1 of 6.
[60] See Pontifical Council for the Family, 1-32.
[61] Ibid., 23 of 32.
[62] Pope Paul VI, Address to the United Nations, 6.