Darwin: Supernatural selection and the survival of the most faithful.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Darwin: Supernatural selection and the survival of the most faithful.

1. Darwin4s Theory of Evolution says that mutations make species evolve. These mutations lead into new species, but among these, only they who are more fit survive as a new species. Those unfit eventually desapear, for their unfitness forbids them to live in an unfriendly environment. This is the Theory, in general lines, and it is more or less commonly accepted in scientific circles, with a few variations.

2. Now, Chesterton, in "The Everlasting Man", says, responding to those who ask into what will the human species evolve, that this "mutation" has already taken place, only people didn4t take notice. The mutation was Redemption, that mutated the human kind from a natural into a supernatural species.

3. After almost 2000 years after this mutation (very little time, compared with the dimensions of the evolution timeline) something very interesting happened. Human kind discovered anticonceptional methods and surgical sterilization. By that very time, there were loud alarms that superpopulation was at hand and the earth would not be able to bear all that people. Barely 25 years after (one genretion - a generation is normally considered as 25 years), what is happening with the human species? Let us see:

- China: 25% of world4s population, but growth has been being succesfully checked by severe government-induced birth control, including forced abortion. India is going much in the same way.

- Europe: alarming negative growth in population. Governments thinking in ways to induce people to have more children.

- North America: very small positive growth, probably tending to zero in the next decades.

- Latin America: I don4t know numbers of other countries (help me in this!), but Brazil, where I am, represents roughly half of that population, and culture/government is very similar in all these countries, so I think I may extrapolate. Brasil4s rates of populational growth were very high 20 years ago, but have been falling in alarming rates as well. By now, it4s growth rate is very near that of US, and tending down too. Middle class population has the same rates as US, poor people have many children, but government has been succesful in educating them, distributing contraceptives and sterilizing them for free in state hospitals. Official policy is not to induce sterilization, but in practice it is what happens. We have one of the highest rates of cesarian births in the world, and the first question the surgeon asks the new mother is if she wants to be sterilized in the cirurgical process, just to "save time and money" (for another cirurgy would not be necessary thereafter). Recently the newspapers denounced that one of our poorest states had 70% of women sterilized! State Government made that without fuss.

- Africa: Growth rates are high yet, but UNO is doing their best to "correct" the situation. Large sterilization efforts are to be expected.

- Islam: Here I really don4t have information; I4ll appreciate any you can give me.

So what?

Well, if the fear of superpopulation was the heat just one generation ago, humanity has deep reasons to start worrying about the extinction of the species by barely lack of offspring! (Nuclear weapons not condidered).

4. Who is having children, then?

Africans and other poors in other thirld world countries, for lack of money or knowledge to use contraception methods. But as the powers of this world don4t see poor growth with good eyes (for technology made cheap workers unnecessary, and they fear the poor - they may start a revolution or whatever), this will be soon corrected as well.

This means that in very very few generations, world population will be alarmingly going down.

Now, contrary to governments (which tippicaly hate poors, whatever they may proclaim) people don4t avoid having children for World4s overpopulation fear4s sake. They avoid children because they are costly and they give much work to their parents. The middle-class enlightened population of the World now in age to bring offspring was created by parents of the 468 generation, who, in the name of Liberty, bred them much in an off-religion fashion.

5. In that very same year, 1968, Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, which enticed loud cries throughout catholic circles. Since then, many catholics left the church, specially in the first world ant latin america. Ok, if you ask them, they will say they are catholics, but they think the Pope is a very good old man, to whom they owe respect, but not obedience. After all, that old man in Rome knows nothing about children, for he is celibatarian. So let he speak alone.

6. This means that in two or three generations, only "orthodox" catholics (and possibly Islam and other "fundamentalistic sects") will be having many children!!! In ten or so generations, descendants of these will populate the earth. Of course, not every children of them will follow their parents4 teachings, but these, in a very darwinistic way, will not have children as well (for is improbable that children will become cheap and easy to bring up). Only those who adhere to natural law (tought nowadays only by Rome) will survive. As adherence to natural law is not easy, these people will need supernatural help (a.k.a. "grace").

7. The conclusion is that Darwin, as interpreted by Chesterton, was right. Supernatural selection will lead to the survival only of the most fit, sorry, faithful !!! And those who see orthodox catholics as fundamentalists and fear that fundamentalism is growing and is a danger for free-thinking, they would better start making babies!

-- Atila (atila@somewhere.com), September 10, 1999

Answers

Dear Atlia, Since no one answered you, and you went to all that hard work, I will attempt an answer. What you wrote is not a question---more of a hypothesis. You are second-guessing the future not questioning it. I can only answer for myself and my own family and what I see around me. I've done my part, as I patiently explained to a priest when questioned on getting my tubes tied. If I have to answer to God on this, I'll take my chances. I've had 8 kids with no money and I do not know what Rome expects me to feed these guys, but they can't live on love and religion. I also have 2 toss-away kids too. These future adults faced school with no lunch, books, supplies, fees, appropriately clothing or any other things that most kids take for granted. They didn't take school trips or go skiing or join any athletic club. They never had a professional hair-cut or shoes other than runners or jeans that weren't worn by somebody else first. They got made fun of and laughed at but they all survived. There were enough of them that anybody dumb enough to pick on them never made that mistake twice. They grew up hungry, poor, tough and street smart--and Catholic. Today, those who have reached adulthood, are strong people who know how to work and make a living to support their own families. They don't believe in abortion, but they are not above using birth control. Sometimes, you have to make a judgement call on different issues in your religion, not that I think you should go around questioning every part of your religion, but sometimes common sense prevails. How many kids are enough? I know it is said that the Lord never gives you anything you can't handle but sometimes, just for your own survival, you have to draw the line somewhere. Being that I have medical problems, which have nothing to do with having kids, I have not been able to work to support these kids in the way they should have. They had to live in this moneyless pit for years. It has not been easy. I do not have a spouse in this picture either. Would I change it, if I could? No, there have been a lot of laughs and a whole lot of love passed around in this crew. Even now, if the call for help goes out from one of them, they're all there in a flash to do what ever it takes to fix the problem. All that have spouses have Catholic ones, this has been rather startling to me. All the grandkids get baptized. This has to be the work of the Holy Spirit. In the end, will the Catholics take control of the world? Not the ones in Calgary--they use birth control.

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 13, 1999.

Atila,

This was an excellent essay! I'm keeping this one filed away for future reference.

You are absolutely right. The contraceptive mentality and and its widespread practice is going to unbalance human population on this earth so rapidly and so thoroughly that it will make the so-called population explosion look like a firecracker. You don't fool around with natural law like that (voluntary and forced abortions, voluntary and forced sterlizations, massive contraception, etc.) and not get burned really badly. I predict that in two decades governments around the world will be paying parents to have more children, because societies will be falling apart due to a rapidly aging population and nobody to do the work.

Ellen, I envy you your 8 children; God bless you for having them and God bless you for enduring faithfully the difficult situation in which you raised them. They will remember your example. I don't want to take too lightly the burden of having so many children, but do please remember that NFP is morally acceptable and highly effective if a couple chooses for serious reasons to limit their family size. So your adult children have choices other than artificial contraception.

I have said for some years that the most subversive thing you can do right now is to have another child. Subversive, that is, to the Culture of Death and to all of the forces we see arrayed around us (both outside and inside the Church) to deny us access to fundamental freedoms and the authentic Catholic Faith.

Atila, your essay really gave me hope.

We have just been blessed with the conception of our third child; my poor wife is sick all the time :-(. Take that, prince of darkness!

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 13, 1999.


Ellen - You have eight children WOW!! It is obvious you have a hearing problem for it strikes me when you and your husband toddle off to bed he will ask. " Do you want to go to sleep or what? " Of course due to hearing impairment you answer " What? "

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 13, 1999.

Dear Jean, Yes, I have eight children. My "husband" and I had our marriage annulled by the Church 15 years ago. So, as I said, I have eight children, he has none, as he toddled off with someone else who had no children. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 14, 1999.

Ellen - You situation is sadly of the making due to economics and current political efforts. When studying biology in the long years past a question was put to the class as follows:

Case File: Mother aged 38 suffers TB malnutrition abusive relationship dire poverty.

Father: Aged 42 alcholic chronically unemployed abusive manic depressive.

Would you abort?? My answer based on science was Yes I would.

For those of us who said yes we hade aborted Ludwig Van Beethoven.

Point being we do not know what God's individual plan is. I do not condone nor condemn your decision for again it is a matter of an individual relationship with the all knowing all forgiving all loving Father. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 15, 1999.



Dear Jean, The subject of birth control has been controversial in the Catholic church for years. I never said I would abort any baby once it had "started." What I did say, is that there comes a time when enough is enough. Don't throw adoption at me either, unless you are either adopted or gave up a child for adoption. I am both adopted and have given up a child for adoption. Both senarios are haunting. My earthly father watched me hurt myself over and over again, every time I got pregnant. He finally threw up his hands in exasperation. I do not believe that my Heavenly Father would want me to intentinally hurt myself either. Not all men(Catholic too)want to have a sexual relationship with their spouse based on abstinance in fertile days. Most of my kids were not planned, as their conception came on "safe" days. The over-abundance of kids is a big part in why my marriage fell apart, not the only reason, but a big one. Now, my husband is married to a non-catholic and has sex whenever, me, I got my tubes tied and never have sex. Kind of a paradox. My descision to have the surgery was not so I could go out and have sex with whoever, but was based on the need to be absolutely sure that I would be around to raise the kids I already had. I do realize that the Pope says this is a no-no, but he really doesn't understand what it is like to be "blessed" so many times with kids I could ill afford. I am not allowed to be a priest because the bible says it has to be a man, partly because it takes the sort of person who can make objective descisions. Womens descisions are based mainly on emotions. The pope is not allowed to be a mother because he is not equipped either physically or emotionally for the task. In this part of relligion, the pope could have studied it a little more in regards to limiting family size. I do not live in Africa or parts of Asia, where half of my kids won't reach 5yrs old. The pope, himself, has made it very difficult for women in the church today, to abide by his rules. The staunchest advocaters of the unlimited family size are men and women with no kids or few kids. I firmly believe if men were able to bear children, there would be a lot of one-child families in the world. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 16, 1999.

Ellen,

With all due respect to your difficult situation, it is important to understand that the prohibition against artificial birth control and human sterlization is not the "pope's rule." It is God's rule; the popes are simply responsible to pass it on. The popes have no authority to change this teaching, just as they have no authority to change the Church's teaching on women priests. All Christians were agreed on this until 1930; since then, all of them have broken with that unbroken teaching of Christianity except the Catholic Church.

I'm curious, if you're willing to share with us: were you using Natural Family Planning or the rhythm method when you conceived during "safe" times?

God bless,

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 17, 1999.


Ellen - I am very well aware of the pain in you as I was a product of a novice being raped. My mother attempted to care for me but was not emotionally equipped to do so.

I was placed with a Jewish Family at age five and taken away at the age of twelve to live in a Catholic Orphanage which was a living hell in the 50's.

As a grown man now I look back and see the fraility of many including myself and have forgiven thank God all of them and myself through the grace of God. A humble man has immerged out of all of this I hope.

+Peace And Well Being+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 18, 1999.


[I must say I am alarmed that all the talk is of female sterilization as opposed to the much cheaper, safer, and much less complicated operation for males]

[Atila, I don't large families of RCs will take over the world - I know many non-Christian couples who want children; they just don't want more than three. I'll get back to your argument on another day]

[Jean & Ellen, I admire you for parting with some very private information, especially when you said of the "Who are we on this site?" thread that this was something you were both reluctant to do]

David,

With "all due respect" to your inconsistent argument, it is important to understand that some people simply do not want to have any more children, and that people like yourself have no right to patronize people like Ellen with "rules". You envy Ellen her eight children, but do you really? Do you really want to have any more children after you have raised your third? Think about it... EIGHT children! Most couples I know would shudder at that prospect. Ellen has done an incredible job; I certainly couldn't do it, and therefore I have no business challenging her decision or implying that it was sinful.

I do not want more than three children, and I will use artificial means to achieve this(which will include a vasectomy). Please explain to me the difference between NFP(which is acceptable), and artificial birth control & sterilization(which is not). Surely they are both means to the same end: the ability to enjoy a sexual relationship for its own sake, as opposed to sex being solely a means for conceiving children. Someone who uses a condom and someone who has sex during a "safe"(its more like russian roulette) period are both thinking "I want to have sex, but I don't want a child". Does the method of preventing contraception really matter? NFP, like every other method, violates the idea of sex being solely for procreation.

I'm not promoting abortion here - abortions should never ever be seen as contraception; it is the termination/killing/murder of a developing child. What I don't understand is how any intervention (natural of artificial) that prevents conception ammounts to the same thing. Women are born with much more unfertilized eggs than can ever be fertilized, and men produce billions upon billions of sperm during a lifetime. How are we to perceive this huge waste of potential life? This isn't artificial. I don't want to take Jean's excellent point(which applies to himself as well as Beethoven) out of context, but how many more great composers were dwelling within the ovaries and testes of that couple - we will never know, and this situation was not brought about by human invention.

In this thread no-one has argued that sex should be solely for procreative purpose(or that, God forbid, people shouldn't be allowed to ENJOY it). On that basis I see no difference between natural and artificial means of contraception(apart from natural methods being safer), and the Church's position sinks...

Ellen - I applaud you for your candour, but I can't agree with your statement that "Women's decisions are based mainly on emotions"; your point of view is far too logical to support such a view.

Someone posted a question about the state of the RCC in 2050; I think it will still be in good shape because(as I have suggested before) many Catholics are quite content to raise a finger(or two) towards Rome when it suits them. In most cases I think this is a bad thing, but I think the dissenters are right in this case. It is quite possible that the "controversy" over artificial family planning could destroy the RCC.

Regards

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), September 18, 1999.


Mathew - You inout is cherished indeed. As to sex for enjoyment I for one who have lived a life of physical pleasures being good food music art theatre and sexual relationships over the ryear shave come to the conclusion I was doing most of that stuff for my own sake and not for the glory of God the Father.

When one reads the psalms we are aware of the combination of the phsical with the spritual (emotional) as aspects of a full life in God. Many as was myself were blocked from realizing physical elements were meant to be enjoyed with the blessingof the Father.

Havng been brought up in the post war years in which I was taught my body was a dirty thing to own and be fettered with led to much deep confusion in my life.

As an educated and faithful adult I feel not think that if we are commited to the Father we listen and learn what it is He wants of us as both physical and spiritual creations

Sadly the Church had spoken with a forked tongue on this issue for centuries and we the laity have come to realize the God given Sciences allows us to live a healthier stronger and longer life then our forefathers. This I beleive is part of the Plan Of Man by the Father to have enjoy our time on this earth in His service.

Having been celibate for over seven years now does say I do not think of a partner but rather when the time comes and The Father opens te door for sharing peace and comfort with a partner I shall wait.

As to the issue of ontraception I am at a loss for when I see the earthly injustice of wealth distribution eg: someone with an income of say $500.00 per year which is more then what a normal person could spend and the suffering of the poor I as I say at a loss.

Charles Dickens in A Christmas Carol had the second ghost point out to the Scrooge the bian of society was ignorance and poverty shown in the two children sittng by the tombstone.

I still have problem with well fed satisfied clergy pontificating on the issue of large families. There are many ways in which lovemaking can be done and I feel there is where the lack of education is.

Ellen like many otheres are the victims in part to a patriarchal society of which Christ attempted to rectify by giving the women in His life dignity.

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 18, 1999.



<< With "all due respect" to your inconsistent argument, it is important to understand that some people simply do not want to have any more children, >>

True enough, and fine according to Catholic teaching, as long as they have serious reasons for limiting the size of their family. The Church does not say that we must have as many children as possible, nor did Paul VI of blessed memory, in Humanae Vitae define "serious reasons"; that is up to each individual couple to decide for themselves.

<< and that people like yourself have no right to patronize people like Ellen with "rules". >>

I realize that my way of explaining things is frequently less than ideal. That is my own weakness. If Ellen found my remarks patronizing then I hope she contacts me so that I can make adequate apologies. But how can it be wrong in principle simply to say in a public forum what the Catholic Church officially teaches? The Catholic Church officially teaches that contracepting or human sterilization is morally disordered, i.e. sinful. Is it wrong to say so? This moral principle was established by God (if you don't think so, read Genesis xx and tell me why God killed Onan) and was part of a patrimony shared by all Christians for the first 1900 years of Christendom. That includes all Protestant and Eastern Orthodox Christians as well, Matthew. Does the Holy Spirit guide falsely for so long?

<< You envy Ellen her eight children, but do you really? Do you really want to have any more children after you have raised your third? Think about it... EIGHT children! Most couples I know would shudder at that prospect. Ellen has done an incredible job; I certainly couldn't do it, and therefore I have no business challenging her decision or implying that it was sinful. >>

I have many friends and relatives who have large families. It is an incredible burden at times, but for all of them a greater joy. Yes, I really want more children after I raise my third.

I was not questioning Ellen's decision to limit family size, which is not intrinsically wrong, but only to be sterilized in order to achieve that, which is.

<< I do not want more than three children, and I will use artificial means to achieve this (which will include a vasectomy). >>

It was part of the original Hippocratic Oath that doctors "do no harm." Mutilating normal and perfectly healthy human bodily organs is repugnant; even pagan Greeks knew that. But it is a deep seated part of our contemporary zeitgeist that such a thing is perfectly fine, hence the rewriting of the Oath. It is certainly your choice to have no more than three children; the Church would not say that your choice is necessarily wrong, as long as you have serious reasons for this, but the Church would say that you should not violate the sanctity and integrity of the sexual act in order to accomplish this end. Surgical sterilization would do that. Why not just use NFP?

<< Please explain to me the difference between NFP(which is acceptable), and artificial birth control & sterilization(which is not). >>

Sure.

<< Surely they are both means to the same end: the ability to enjoy a sexual relationship for its own sake, as opposed to sex being solely a means for conceiving children. Someone who uses a condom and someone who has sex during a "safe"(its more like russian roulette) period are both thinking "I want to have sex, but I don't want a child". Does the method of preventing contraception really matter? NFP, like every other method, violates the idea of sex being solely for procreation. >>

Two men wish to support their families. One man gets a job and earns the money to do so. The other man robs a bank. The object of their actions was the same; the means by which they accomplished that were not morally equivalent. It is not intrinsically sinful to limit the size of one's family. But just because two different acts have this in common does not mean that those acts are morally equivalent.

The Church teaches that human sexual intercourse is ordered by God toward the procreation of holy offspring and the uniting of a man and woman ("one flesh"); Dr. Janet Smith puts it memorably, sex is about "babies and bonding." Sexual pleasure, actually, is secondary to both of those aspects; it's a nice (really nice!) extra thrown in there by the Creator.

An analogy: Consuming food is ordered toward nutrition. That eating is pleasurable and often a wonderful social occasion is purely secondary and not intrinsic to its ordered function which is to provide us with nutrition to live.

The ancient Romans used to have what they called vomitoria, where they would go to indulge in lavish amounts of sumptuous and rich food. They would eat their fill, purge themselves into great urns, and then go back to feast some more. This kind of behavior is intrinsically disordered because it seeks to isolate the pleasure of eating while directly thwarting the natural consequence of eating, absorbing calories and nutrition.

Sex is the same way. Our culture is fixated on sex as exclusively pleasurable (mostly forget unity and please, please, please forget that procreation stuff!). Grocery store aisle magazines are replete with "101 ways to have a better orgasm" but please, let's not talk about babies. But that is modern hedonism, not Christianity. The Church teaches that sex in which action is taken against either the unitive or procreative aspects is disordered. Women are only fertile a few days per month; sex during non-fertile times is not intrinsically wrong because it is still unitive and because no action has been taken against the procreative dimension of the act. Contraception is different morally because active means are used to thwart the procreative dimension of sexual intercourse (contraception means "against life"). It actively seeks to suppress one necessary dimension of a holy sexual act and in doing so results in disordered sex.

If I wear a condom or my wife takes bc pills, or I get a vasectomy we are acting directly against our fertility and hence against life (we are contra-cepting); we have taken action to nullify the procreative aspect of our lovemaking. If a couple simply makes love during a non- fertile time they have taken no action to thwart their fertility and hence their action (non-action, really) is not contraceptive.

Just as a side note, if you think that NFP is like playing "russian roulette" then you don't know anything about it. Unlike the older "rhythm method", NFP is based on hard science. It is highly effective; when used properly it is more effective than any form of contraception except surgical sterilization. It has wonderful benefits in a marriage. A husband takes equal responsibility for family planning and shows awe and respect for his wife's fertility. A wife does not feel like a sexual plaything (a frequent and unfortunate side effect of contraception, especially surgical sterilization, by the way). But, it requires cooperation and self- control.

As for "dissent" on contraception by Catholics, it is a very serious matter. The Second Vatican Council teaches that the official teaching of the Roman Pontiff, even if not ex cathedra, must be held with "sincere assent" by all the faithful (see Lumen Gentium, 25). The perennial Christian prohibition against artificial contraception has been upheld very officially by three popes this century; thus, according to Vatican II, it must be held with sincere assent by all the faithful (the opposite of assent is, of course, dissent). So for those who claim to be "Vatican II Catholics" (as all Catholics should!) it is incumbent on them to hold to this teaching. As with our Lord's teaching on the Eucharist in John 6, it is a "hard saying." Many have been scandalized by it and have left the Church, at least in their hearts if not formally. Still, it is the perennial Christian understanding about sexuality and it will not be changed.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 20, 1999.


That would be Genesis 38, not Genesis xx.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 20, 1999.

I would have tons of things to comment about the remarks done about my tiny elocubration. Thank you all. But I don4t have time now, alas.

For now, I would only like to add something Mother Teresa said in the speech she gave in the cerimony in which she received the Peace Nobel Prize. She said then, for everybody to hear, that she and her congregation were teaching NFP to the starving illiterate pariahs in Calcutta, and they were learning and using it very well. And if THEY could learn them, then everybody could. She went on to say something very obvious, but which for strange reasons people tend to forget. The Powers of this World, begining with the pharmaceutical industry and including doctors and the money they receive from those for prescripting contraceptives, and including governments who take their share in taxes, have no intention nor interest whatsoever in promoting NFP. There is very huge money out there. It is a crime that governments (specially in the Thirld World) promote contraceptive pills and condoms, even distributing them for free (that is, paid with MY money, in form of taxes) and tend to "forget" to teach the poor NFP, which would have at least three benefits:

1. Less money spent in pills, condoms etc. (the costs of teaching, i.e. hiring and training teachers, setting up places for classes etc. is there in all cases, because artificial methods must be taught as well), leaving tax money for REAL necessities;

2. Amazingly greater benefit for the women involved, as it is very well known that artificial methods ALL have side-effects and some can very dangerously affect women4s health (esp. pills and the disgusting DIU - I have a female friend 24 years old, single and with no children, who could have become sterile as an effect of a great inffection she got for using it). Off course, NFP has no side-effects and can only be good for everyone4s health.

3. NFP methods are known to be more reliable than artificial methods. So, if the goal is to avoid pregnancy, it4s a better bet to use NFP than the other.

I imagine you have little of this thing out there in the States, but here in Brasil (and I4m sure it4s worse in some other "developing" countries), I am enraged that the government takes MY MONEY (taxes) to buy pills in the U.S. (thus making our balance of trade even worse than it is already --> it damages our economy4s health too, not only women4s!) to give them for free to poor women to damage their health (in the name of "humanitarian assistence") without even having the same "success rate" in avoiding children they would get from NFP. And why is this? Well, those ministers and high officers in the Ministry of Health didn4t buy their Porsches and Mercedes out of their wages... The proliferation of the artificial methods has nothing to do with avoidind children... It DOES have to do with the most disgusting form of capitalism, the HUGE money that flows is this market. This is no communist talk: it4s Mother Teresa...

I doubt very much that, if we have the grace to go to heaven, we will find just one executive from the pharmaceutical industry there... this is not at all the only outrageous thing they do. Here in Brasil, after decades of huge inflation, we managed to go down to a 2-4% annual inflation rate in the last 5 years. Drugs have had an average increase of something like 150-200% in the same period... which are the drugs with the higher rates? You can guess: those who are vital for life and of continuing use, like insuline or high-blood-pressure control drugs for elders. Their prices increase day after day, as they know people can only complain, but not stop buying them. Actually, the poorest of our people DO stop buying, out of shher lack of money... and, of course, the die... THESE are the "humanitarian" guys who promote artificial methods... I4d rather stay on the side of the Pope and Mother Teresa instead of theirs... Even if I were an atheist... I think that at least I would be better accompanied.

-- Atila (atila@somewhere.com), September 22, 1999.


Atila - I feel as you do in these areas for even here in supossidly free Canada life is beoming less and less valued at all levels. The architects of society have come and gone over the many centuries and the faith in Christ has not wained.

Regarding who we may see in heaven I think many of us will be very surprised due to God's ways not being our ways. +Peace+

-- jean bouchardRC (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), September 22, 1999.


Dear Atila, That disgusting DUI is an IUD in Canada and the US. "Intra-Uterine Device"- just to clear that up. Any drug that is popular or used as a life-saving measure is way up in price here too. Anything that is used for a medical purpose to sustain life is high priced because people will pay anything to stay alive. For example, in 1975, I needed to buy and apnoea monitor for my son. It sounds an alarm if the child stops breathing. The cost was $400.00. When I went to buy one for my daughter in 1980, the cost had risen to $4000.00. The NFP that you talk about--is that Natural Family Planning? The only thing available when I was having kids was the Rhythem method. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 22, 1999.


Here´s an EWTN article confirming something I said here years ago.

--------------

UN REPORT TO SHOW FERTILITY RATES WORLDWIDE TO DROP BELOW REPLACEMENT NEW YORK, Feb 5, 03 (LSN.ca/CWNews.com) - A United Nations report due to be released later this month warns that the world will soon be in a dangerous situation of overall population decline. Far from the population controllers predictions that the world will be completely overpopulated, the UN demographers warn that the decline in fertility rate shows no indication of stopping at 2.1-- the replacement rate.

"All the evidence suggests fertility is falling rapidly in developing countries with no sign it is going to stop at the magical number of two," said Larry Heligman of the UN population division. The UN report warns that the average fertility rate will decline to 1.85 -- dangerously lower than the replacement rate-- by 2050.

The Sunday Times which provided a sneak preview at the report notes that Thailand's fertility rate went from 5 in the 1970s to just under 2 today. In Iran the rate has gone from 6.5 children in the 1980s to 2.75 today. While the current world average for women bearing children is 2.7, in the West the average is much lower with countries such as Italy at 1.2 children per woman.

Jacqueline Kasun, a researcher who has warned for years about the coming population decline and the erroneous predictions of those espousing overpopulation, warned that the crunch will be felt in attempting to care for the elderly with few earners to support welfare and pension systems.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 08, 2003.


Every country in Europe is currently below replacement level - that is, deaths outnumber births every year. Many countries, especially the more industrialized ones, are already forced to import people from Middle Eastern regions, just to fill essential jobs in society. A very likely result of this scenario is that European nations, including traditionally Catholic ones like France and Spain, will become increasingly Islamic, since most of the imported peoples are Muslim, and Muslims DO believe in large families!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), February 09, 2003.

Populations in the US is tending to shrink as well.

White european population already present below-replacement-level in the US.

Population in US is not shrinking because of recent immigration. Latin America immigrants still have many childreen.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), February 09, 2003.


Top: concerning the Church in 2050.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.

Side question: does anybody know where David Palm is?

He was the "official apologetics man" here at that time... I miss him!

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.


Atila,

I haven't heard from David for several years now. Last email I received from him was when he announced the birth of his child (I believe his second). After he formally left the forum, I had always suspected that he was our Moderator behind the scenes, but that's not the case as I have since learned.

I'll join you in saying I miss his input as well.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.


Hi Dave, it's a long time since I last run into you here!

Nice to "see" you! :-)

It was not Dave Palm who was putting together an apologetics site? Or writing a book? I think I remember him involved in a great project like that...

God Bless

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 20, 2003.


Hi Atila!

Good to see you as well :-)

David used to maintain an apologetics page on his website (http://www.mwt.net/~lnpalm/index.htm), but it hasn't been updated for years now. So I'm not sure exactly what he's up to. It may be that he needed to step back from the forum to take care of his growing family.

Hope all is well. Take care and God bless!

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), March 20, 2003.


Atila,

Your posts here are most informative and insightful.

I feel that the Church has put women on a pedestal in Its Teachings on human sexuality and reproduction.

The "contraceptive mentality" reduces a woman to something more like a "play thing," rather than showing appreciation for the dignity of the awesome God-given priviledge of childbearing with which she has been bestowed.

The amount of trust that a woman must place in God, reminds me of St. Peter's faith in Jesus, when he saw Our Lord walking upon the water. When Jesus bids Peter to come out of the boat, Peter does so willingly, but then, noticing the wind and the waves, succumbs to doubt and fears drowning...

When we look at the world, the expenses of clothing, food, medical care, (basics) not to mention the extras such as recreation, sports, music, etc., we can easily feel that we are drowning financially.

Although my husband and I have never been high-wage earners, the Lord in His kindness has always provided for our needs.

While we don't possess any material wealth, my children are my greatest riches (next to my Faith). I thank God for them!

It's sad that, even when leaving the hospital with a new baby, parents are given a "gift pack" that contains coupons for discounted contraceptives. The magazines published as aids to parents are all plastered with advertisements for contraceptives! Not very child- friendly, in my opinion!

That one voice that rings so true and pure, the voice of the Church, upholds the dignity of womanity in accordance with God's plan for humanity.

Pax Christi.

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), March 21, 2003.


Ys Anna, this world has become a "Not very child-friendly" place.

And all the radical feminist babble seems to have made the world a "not very woman-friendly" place as well.

God Bless.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), March 21, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ