“Responsible parenthood, as we use the term here, has one further essential aspect of paramount importance. It concerns the objective moral order which was established by God, and of which a right conscience is the true interpreter. In a word, the exercise of responsible parenthood requires that husband and wife, keeping a right order of priorities, recognize their own duties toward God, themselves, their families and human society. From this it follows that they are not free to act as they choose in the service of transmitting life, as if it were wholly up to them to decide what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator.” (Paragraph 10)
In this claim, the pope defines the term responsible parenthood and goes on to say that husband and wife though they are given the sacred facility to transmit and create life, should keep in mind to what extent they should use such a gift given the societal and economic effects. They should keep in mind the bearings of their actions in the context of their duties to themselves and to the world. In other words, though they are given this gift they are NOT free to act as they choose and use this gift with caution and with all the bearings of their actions in mind.
This is on the line of reasoning behind the China’s 2 child rule. While China doesn’t extend this into making it unlawful to use preventative measures such as abortion, contraceptive measures, etc to abide by this law, the Pope does. Later on in his Humanae Vitae, he declares such birth control methods as unlawful and that men and women should exert the proper amount of control to abide by their duty towards the society and to God the creator.
Limiting progeny is beneficial in the light of exhausting the Earth’s resources and overseeing the risk of overpopulation of the world. However, making this a case of abstaining from certain conjugal acts through self control and in the name of duty towards God, as the Pope seems to be superfluous and unnecessary. The pope is looking at the situation through a purely religious perspective and condemning the act of preventative measures to limit children, asserting that this is a breach of “the human and Christian doctrine of marriage”. However also in this document, the Pope also asserts that this act is the fulfillment of the relationship between the husband and wife, the closest and most intimate way they interact with each other. So in limiting this act, he is addressing the consequences of the action but not addressing one of the causes of doing such an action—fulfillment of marital relations as well as creation of life. China addresses the consequences of the action but also does NOT inhibit the action itself as long as the proper precautions are taken and the law abided by. This seems to be a more rational as it addressing the political and economic consequences of the action but also addressing the social necessity of the action. It is not inhibited altogether but instead it is modified so that it does not have economic or societal negative implications. While the Pope may be right speaking from his political standing and religious standing, he is not taking into perspective the fact that while it is solving one aspect of the action it is creating problems in the psychological, relationship, and basic identity elements also inherent in the action.
The pope is making his testaments based on his view of culture, and in the context of the morals and principles, and his view of “God’s will”/divine way, but he is not taking into consideration as well as not fulfilling the other aspects of culture such as the psychological part of martial relations. In inhibiting the action, he makes room for possible strain on the psychological health of this sacred relationship. He says that this control should be exerted in the name of God, and the preventative measures are unlawful due to those impinging on God’s sacred gift of transmission of life. This is again arguable as to whether preventative measures are unlawful and opens the door to a whole other debate on whether contraceptive measures are in conjunction with human ethics and values. However in isolating human culture and views on martial relations and the economic implications of this, it seems that China’s law is more apt.
Of course even in dissecting China’s law, it can be said to be infringing on an individual’s identity as many individuals prefer and take joy in having bigger families, and by the government limiting this freedom, it can be said that this is inhibiting individual’s expression of culture. However in the light of the consequences, economically and other wise, China’s law seems to be justified.
No comments:
Post a Comment