Contraceptives, population, poverty and unjust economic order

Homily on the Eighteenth Sunday of Year A  (Matt 14:13-21)

July 31, 2011

By Msgr. Lope C. Robredillo, SThD

NOTHING probably more indicates the wide economic gulf between the rich and the poor than the food they eat, in both quality and quantity.  In the United States, the problem is whether it is healthier to eat beef or not.  It is the American food—TV commercials say—and it is the food most Americans eat virtually every day.  But as notes Richard Corliss, in “Should We All Be Vegetarians?” it is for many an obscene cuisine.  More and more Americans have started going vegetarian, believing that it would help them live longer and healthier lives.  But, ironically, in other parts of the globe, a choice between beef and vegetables is a luxury, nay, a dream.  Reuters, for instance, reported sometime ago that widespread food shortages and rampant AIDS have put nearly 13M southern Africans on the very edge of survival.  The region’s crisis—the worst since the 1992 drought—was brought about by a combination of severe draught, floods, economic decline and government mismanagement.  According to Reuters, the residual debilitating effect of past conflicts and the region’s extremely high AIDS infection rate that has killed many farmers and left millions of orphans, aggravated the famine.

The reality of hungry millions recalls the Gospel today.  According to Matthew, when Jesus disembarked and saw a vast throng in a deserted place, “his heart was moved with pity” (Matt 14:14 ).  Obviously, the miracle story on the multiplication of the loaves is about the compassion of Jesus on the about 5,000 men, not including the women and children, who in following him have experienced hunger.  This story is quite relevant.  
For one thing, this serves as a corrective to the idea that limits the mission of Jesus to the spiritual realm.  For some people, the Church should have nothing to do with the material problems of humanity; her province is only the Bible and the altar.  For another, it shows us that Jesus was in touch with the problems of society, and that he tried to meet what was needed by the hungry crowd—food.  What is implied here goes beyond the exercise of one of the corporal works of mercy.  Rather, it has reference to the unjust social structure in which millions of people are condemned to hunger and poverty. That countless people go to bed without food because they are deprived of it politically, socially, and economically—this is a moral evil that cries to heaven for an answer.  In the Old Testament, when Israel was journeying in the desert, God gave them flesh to eat in the evening and fill of bread in the morning.  So the people would not go hungry, he provided them with quail and manna in the desert of Sin (Exod 16:7-8.13-14).

Hunger, then, is a social problem that seeks solution.  How is this solved?  Today, in view of the controversy spawned by the RH Bill in Philippine Congress, some columnists and editorialists write that the single obstacle to progress is the Roman Catholic Church for its refusal to countenance measures to curb population growth.  Beneath this observation is, of course, the perception that the problem is basically that too numerous are the mouths to feed.  This easily calls to mind the perception of Jesus’ disciples in the Gospel.  Seeing the thousands of hungry folks, the disciples suggested to Jesus to dismiss the crowd so they could go to the villages and buy some food for themselves (Matt 14:15 ).  Today, a number of experts propagate a Malthusian outlook, anticipating the collapse of civilization if population growth remains unchecked.  Too many women and men divide among themselves the small pie.  Since it is their teaching that hunger and poverty result from population growth, they flood us with condoms, pills, and all kinds of anti-life gadgets. The fewer the family members, the more comfortable life is.

The Gospel, however, does not see the problem this way.  While an unchecked population increase is to be recognized as a problem, a more fundamental one is the unjust sharing of the world’s goods—resources, knowledge, power, technology— which drives people to poverty and hunger.  Far from being a problem of dismissing the crowd, Jesus saw the problem as one of breaking and sharing the bread available.  Thus, he took the five loaves, broke them, and gave them to the disciples to distribute (Matt 14:19 ).  Because the loaves were broken and shared, a big miracle happened—all those present, thousands of men, women and children, ate their fill, and when the fragments were gathered up, these filled twelve baskets (Matt 14:20-21).  What are we to say in connection with this miracle story?   We say that the basic problem today is not so much the growth of the population, but that only a small percentage of it—those in the West—have the greater share of the world’s goods, while the many have to content themselves with what falls from the rich countries’ table.

Indeed, rich nations, rather than share their technical know-how, resources, technology and other goods, would even take advantage of the poor. They would, for example, not countenance balanced trade relations.   John Paul II, in his Sollicitudo rei socialis, emphasizing that imperialism is the cause of deteriorating poverty, points out that rich countries use mechanisms to get the wealth of poorer nations: “One must denounce the existence of economic, financial, and social mechanisms which, although they are manipulated by people, often function almost automatically, thus accentuating the situation of wealth for some and poverty for the rest.  These mechanisms, which are maneuvered directly or indirectly by the more developed countries, by their very functioning favor the interests of the people manipulating them.  But in the end, they suffocate or condition the economies of the less developed countries” (n 16).

It has been noted by many scholars that the Gospel today has Eucharistic overtones.  One, of course, does not have quarrel with that interpretation. The fact that the wording in v 19 (“He took the five loaves and two fish, looked up to heaven, blessed and broke them, and gave the loaves to the disciples”) recalls the words of Institution is an indication of its Eucharistic allusion.  But if this means anything, it is that a correct understanding of the meaning of the Eucharist must take into account the problem of hunger.*

***

Note: You can find Fr. Robredillo homily here. Archbishop Oscar Cruz has written a short but thought-provoking article. Always refer to the original articles. --joaquin salvador

just asking

The issue on Reproductive Health has already drawn many people to say so many things. In fact, various sectors of the society have taken various positions on proposing or opposing a supposed national mandate that, proponents claim, will alleviate poverty as it manages the population—as if this is possible.

Just like the untimely resurrection of moves to amend the Constitution, the premature stir of the Congress to push for the reproductive health bills brings to mind some practical questions that proponents of this unnecessary legislation should answer.

First: Should the issue on reproductive health be more objectively and properly called instead “unreproductive health”?

This is but calling a spade nothing else than what it is, i.e., a spade. Don’t you agree that the essence of thesis and the consequent phrase adopted in terms of “Reproductive Health” is to promote health by making this physical attribute precisely unproductive? For this reason, reproduction is thereby seen as inimical to health. In other words, reproduction should be avoided for reasons of health whereas it militates against such a physical well-being—particularly on the part of women.

Second: Is health good if this is deliberately rendered unfruitful, intentionally made unproductive or unreproductive?

Stagnancy, inertness and non-life giving when apparently considered expressions of health is beyond rhyme or reason. While recourse to euphemism is every now and then understandable, to claim that women’s health equals their non-generative state is unreasonable and wherefore unacceptable.

Third: Why is it those already produced or reproduced, are the ones against the reproduction of others just like them?

Do they feel so depressed and oppressed that they do not want others to be born, to see the light, to feel the world? Would they neither not have been reproduced at all? Do they find life so futile in having so inutile in living that they simply do not like others like them to be born at all? Would they rather have themselves instead “unreproduced” at all?

Fourth: Are those advocating for zero reproduction certain that they themselves have not in any way reproduced someone – like a bubbling son or a cute daughter?

In the event that they have in fact did, would they rather have their offspring returned to nothingness? To dislike if not to hate others who love to reproduce themselves is neither right nor fair.

Fifth: Those who are batting for a “two-children policy,” how would they count those born as twins, as triplets if not even more?

How would they count the children of a man from his other women? What about the widows and widowers with already two if not more children from their previous spouses and who then remarried? What children fall into the “policy?” What should be declared uncovered by it?

If the above questions sound funny or appear ridiculous, well, I was just asking.

+OVCruz, DD

September 5, 2008