I am grateful for the opportunity to comment on COMMENTARY’s article [February] by Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake. Under the heading of “Birth Control and Public Policy” the authors have discussed or touched upon such profound issues as the morality of birth control, the question of church-state and civil liberties, the role of authority in the Catholic Church, the workings of the democratic process, the concept of a pluralistic society, and the relationship between Catholic clergy and laity. And, in the space of slightly less than seven pages, they have created more confusion in each of these areas than I would previously have believed possible.
I do not have seven pages available to me. My remarks, therefore, will be concentrated on one point, the relationship between public policy, birth control, and foreign aid, the issue which began the current controversy—a fact that readers of the Davis-Blake article may have some trouble in recalling.
Let me begin by citing a recent State Department report. “It can be theoretically demonstrated,” the report said, “that given sufficient development and utilization of the world’s resources, the earth can adequately support a much larger population than any that can be expected by the year 2,000.” Rejecting contraception by mechanical and chemical means as immoral, Catholic scholars agree with this statement. As they see it, the basic problem is how the underdeveloped countries are, in the language of the State Department, “to make the jump to the state of adequacy from the present situation in which most of their people are living at bare subsistence levels.”
In line with this reasoning, Catholic thinkers stress the need for expansion of productive capacity, development of natural resources, measures for international social justice, and the like. But such technical questions are not at the heart of the present debate; the central point is the moral question and its relation to public policy.
To the believer, the actions of men—and of Caesar—must be viewed in terms of a God-centered morality. This is true of Protestant, Catholic, or Jew, and the question of population control is no exception.
In Japan today, more than one million abortions are carried out each year as part of the country’s program for population control. Although there was considerable American influence in the establishment of Japan’s birth control program, I suspect that most American citizens would strongly disapprove such a policy of planned abortions. Similarly, in India thousands of men and women submit to sterilization each year; indeed, the social worker who persuades an individual to submit himself to sterilization is paid a per capita commission. Again I suspect that the majority of Americans would disapprove of this procedure.
Roman Catholics are one with other Americans in considering such programs of planned abortion and wholesale sterilization immoral. To the Catholic conscience, however, contraception by mechanical or chemical means is also immoral, as it is to some Protestants and some Jews. Given this fact, what would our critics have us to do? When it is urged that policies Catholics consider immoral be made a part of official U. S. programs overseas, what choice did the Catholic bishops of the United States have except to repeat once more the traditional Catholic policy in this matter?
At stake here, it should be remembered, is a matter of public policy. It is being proposed that tax money be spent on a policy Catholics consider immoral, as well as politically and psychologically dangerous. To suggest that Catholics keep silent on this issue because their views may not be shared by the majority represents a strange conception of democracy.
_____________
In discussing the Catholic Church, the Davis-Blake article employs a familiar if distasteful gambit. On the one side, the thesis goes, there are the bishops and priests, who are cast in the villain’s role; on the other side, there are laymen, who are more to be pitied than scorned. The clergy resorts to “legislative coercion,” brings “political pressure to bear,” and insists “that the faithful obey.” Catholic laymen, however, are divided into two groups, the enlightened and the still shackled, depending, of course, on whether they share the views set forth in the Davis-Blake article. The assumption is made throughout that loyalty to the Church and loyalty to America inevitably clash; the Davis-Blake Catholic is torn between sharing “democratic values” and conforming to Catholic teaching. No Catholic will recognize this picture of the Church, and it should be obvious that we are unlikely to appreciate this rather primitive line of argumentation.
To me the Davis-Blake statistical methods seem curiously free-wheeling, but whether the authors are correct in thinking they have turned up one million, two million, or even five million Catholics who practice artificial birth control is irrelevant here. The fact remains that the believing and practicing Catholic freely grants to the Church the right to teach with authority on matters of faith and morals. If I read the Davis-Blake article correctly, this is essentially what bothers them: they simply do not like the way my conscience is formed. Perhaps this is fair enough, although I should note that I find their views equally distressing and their insistence on imputing the worst motives to Catholic bishops offensive. But if I understand the American idea aright, this theological aspect of the matter is a debate between the authors and me, not between me and the government.
There is in the United States no religious test for either citizenship or public office. Questions of theology do not fall within the competence of the state, and it is not the business of the American government to concern itself with how a Catholic or any other citizen forms his conscience; in a pluralistic society in which people differ widely in religious convictions and conscientious views, government must as a practical matter simply take note of the fact when many citizens do object to particular policies on grounds of conscience.
Suppose birth control were not the issue. Suppose a proposal were made that a national lottery be carried out under the auspices of the U. S. government, with all the proceeds to go to the underdeveloped nations. As a Catholic I do not consider gambling in itself to be immoral; nonetheless I realize that it would be preposterous to make such a suggestion. Why? Because legislators, knowing that the scheme would be morally repugnant to millions of Protestants, would not consider it for a moment—and quite rightly, too. But again I can only ask why things should be so different when it is the Catholic conscience involved. Why does advancing the Davis-Blake point of view on birth control represent permissible, even commendable participation in political life, while Catholic efforts to influence national policy are described as “political pressure” and “legislative coercion”?
In the Davis-Blake article, even non-Catholic officials who do not think birth control should be part of the foreign aid program are “fearful of Catholic pressure” and “will sometimes publicly subscribe to the position of the Church on public issues instead of following their own view.” If my memory serves me, in the present debate this charge would mean that such diverse figures as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, and Eleanor Roosevelt all yielded to “ecclesiastical pressure” instead of following their own views. Political figures who agree with the Davis-Blake thesis, of course, fall into quite a different category; they are, wonderful to say, “evidently better informed.”
_____________
We have here in the United States a government of limited powers, in a sense broader than the usual meaning attached to the phrase. In an age which has seen the rise of the absolute state, this is a fact for which we should be increasingly grateful. I like the fact that we make provisions for conscientious objectors to war. I like the fact that Protestants’ objections to legalized gambling carry real weight. I like the fact that legislation for humane slaughter must take into account the beliefs and practices of Orthodox Jews. And in the same spirit I urge that the conscientious convictions held by me and millions of my fellow Catholics should not be lightly set aside.
Birth control is one of the most divisive issues in American life. In the course of the current debate, misleading and inaccurate charges have been made, and here I would include many of the statements in the Davis-Blake article. But one thing seems inescapable; on this issue it is impossible to reach the kind of national consensus necessary for successful public policy. Under these circumstances it seems the height of political folly to suggest that birth control be made an official, tax-supported part of United States policy overseas. The question of birth control, I submit, should be left to the nations involved and to the conscientious convictions of their own people, while popular support is rallied in this country for that which is really imperative and which the birth control debate is obscuring: the necessity to expand productive capacities in the underdeveloped nations on a scale far beyond anything we have yet done. This is a positive program on which we might all agree. To divert attention from it by a domestic controversy over birth control strikes me as sheer madness. To imagine that such a course will help the underdeveloped nations is simply self-delusion.
To my mind, the kind of thinking displayed by Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake would ultimately eliminate the influence on public policy not just of Catholicism but of all religion. Noting toward the end of their article that the underdeveloped countries will doubtless pursue their population programs whether we help or oppose them, the authors say: “The current debate in the United States over birth control is more important for this country than for the people of Japan, India, and many other ‘backward’ lands. . . .” On this I agree, and I think that their article provides another demonstration of how far we still are from understanding what it means to live in a genuinely pluralistic society.
______________
[The following letter is by the director of the department of economics at Saint Louis University, a Jesuit institution. He notes that he is himself not a Jesuit, adding, “my views are strictly mine, not those of the institution.”]
To the Editor:
The article by Kingsley Davis and Judith Blake on “Birth Control and Public Policy” seems based on a misconception of the nature of Catholicism. Catholics believe that divine law is binding upon all persons, and that it is made known by revelation or by natural law (the nature of man). It is not a subject for individual decision nor for majority vote. Surely it would be a mistake, at this late date, for COMMENTARY to try to make Lutherans of us by attributing to us a belief in the absolute predominance of individual conscience.
The authors’ statistics on the practices of Catholics are, therefore, irrelevant. All they prove is that Catholics may commit sin, surely no surprise to anyone. Since Catholic doctrine is not determined democratically, these practices do not forecast doctrinal changes. Similarly, there is no cause to berate the bishops who did not and could not change this doctrine.
Catholics believe that birth prevention by artificial means is immoral for all persons, as contrary to natural law. No Catholic may, in good conscience, follow such practices nor actively promote them for others, even for non-Catholics. Whether society is well or ill served by legal prohibitions is a matter for each individual to decide, since this is a political question, not a moral one. Your authors miss the distinction. Many Catholics oppose the Massachusetts and Connecticut laws forbidding dissemination of information, just as many people who oppose alcohol may be against prohibition. The New York case and the foreign aid question are quite different. These involve spending our money to encourage immorality. You should not be surprised if we object, even though we may not bomb the Capitol if we should lose.
The majority has, on occasion, ridden roughshod over the moral views of minorities. Pacifists are forced to pay taxes to support arms, orthodox Jews for pork inspection, and snake-handlers and flagellants are forbidden to practice their religion. The majority may force us to contribute to birth-control clinics.
I would suggest that such majoritarianism be reserved for very serious matters. Is public participation in birth prevention of this magnitude, or are private resources adequate for the job? And if public resources are used, whose conscience is being infringed by whom?
Joseph P. McKenna
[Mr. Davis and Miss Blake will reply to their critics in a future number.]
_____________
