The maniacal mind of Mark Steyn - by Jonathon van Maren

August 8, 2013 (Unmasking Choice) - Few writers have the breadth and scope of Canadian-born commentator Mark Steyn. He calls himself “The One-Man Global Content Provider,” and he is easily one of the most popular and prolific conservative polemicists writing today, producing everything from obituaries and Broadway reviews to tomes on Islam and demography.  His work has been reviewed by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and renowned British novelist Martin Amis.  Amis, whom Steyn wrote very critically of in his book America Alone, provides one of the most accurate descriptions of Steyn’s writing: “Mark Steyn is an oddity. His thoughts and themes are sane and serious—but he writes like a maniac.”

And so he does—on the rise of Islam in the West, on liberty-stifling Big Government, on the decline of masculinity, on plunging birthrates. And he also happens to be very anti-abortion—and his comments on the matter are, as usual, witty and incisive.

I had the opportunity of interviewing Steyn a couple years back when I did freelance work for The Jewish Independent. Steyn was coming into town to speak at the Hillel gala, and a few of us were going to have lunch with him a day or so prior to the event. As I asked him questions for my Independent article, I decided to throw in a question about abortion, just out of curiosity.

“Why does anyone think Europe needs huge numbers of Muslim immigrants?” Steyn replied, “Supposedly to keep their welfare state in business, because they are the children that Europeans couldn’t be bothered to have themselves. One third of German women are childless. If you just take your average, dopey Western feminist at a university campus in North America today, and she’s concerned about patriarchy, [she thinks that by] forming a pro-life club you’re forcing your backwards, patriarchal views on her. If she thinks you’re the big, stern, dominating patriarch, she ought to wait twenty or thirty years in the average Canadian city. She’ll be figuring out what the people in Amsterdam and Brussels and Malmo and Paris are beginning to figure out right now—that there’s a whole, far more motivated breed of patriarch that’s going to be walking around those cities. That’s what the dopey, clap-trapped, cobwebbed 1960’s feminist doesn’t get—that abortion is an indulgence and the indulgence only works for a generation or two before a bunch of other people take over and rebuild the future you weren’t interested in building for yourselves.”

And suddenly, abortion is put in context. It’s not simply killing—although it certainly is that. It’s cultural suicide. It’s emblematic of the bloody, narcissistic tailspin of the West at twilight. It is, as Mark Steyn refers to it elsewhere, Big Government’s back alley.

“The back alley is back, and supersized,” he writes, “When the pro-choice rally ends and Cameron Diaz, Ashley Judd and the other celebrities d’un certain age return to Hollywood, and the upper-middle-class women with the one designer baby go back to their suburbs, a woman’s ‘right to choose’ means that, day in, day out, the blessings of this ‘right’ fall disproportionately on all the identity groups the upscale liberals profess to care about—poor women, black women, Hispanic women, undocumented women, and other denizens of Big Government’s back alley.”

But does the touching and suffocating compassion of Big Government and its enforcers encompass pre-born human beings with its long tentacles? Unfortunately no, as Kermit Gosnell, the butcher of Philadelphia, and so many others have proven. An indication of moral bankruptcy, Steyn notes: “One solitary act of mass infanticide by a mentally-ill loner calls into question the constitutional right to guns, but a sustained conveyer belt of infanticide by an entire cadre of cold-blooded killers apparently has no implications for the constitutional right to abortion.”

Thugs and bullies kill babies, or “fetuses” if you prefer, because they cannot fight back or make noise—at least not noise unmuffled by the body of his or her mother. And ideological thugs and bullies, desperate to maintain their right to frivolously frolic away the future with sterile sex hammer down on any who publicly disagree with their feticide free-for-all. Think of what happened last year, when Komen, an organization dedicated to fighting breast cancer, decided briefly to pull their paltry donation to abortion giant Planned Parenthood. Komen was soon brought grovelling back into line by Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and her fellow hench-womyn.

“Ms. Richards’ business is an upscale progressives’ ideological protection racket,” Steyn noted wryly, “for whom the ‘poor women’s’ abortion mill is a mere pretext. The Komen Foundation will not be the last to learn that you can ‘race for the cure,’ but you can’t hide. Celebrate conformity—or else.”

Abortion, as any literate human being can tell you, kills a human being. Abortion, as any moral human being can tell you, is a human rights violation. And abortion, as Mark Steyn tells us, is a cultural indulgence that can’t last more than a few generations. Abortion is a symbol of everything that threatens the West, from plunging birthrates to skyrocketing self-absorption to the slow rise of Big Government’s Brave New World.

For as Mark Steyn wrote, “When the state has the ability to know everything except the difference between right and wrong, it won’t end well.”

On contraception and the coming violence: Interview with Pope’s personal theologian - by John-Henry Westen

VATICAN CITY, July 11, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – “I think clearly we can see that the economic crisis which we are observing in the western world is a direct consequence of 1968, of the rejection of Humanae Vitae (the encylical that reiterated the Catholic teaching against contraception), of the rejection of the Church’s teaching, and the approval of the sexual revolution, which has caused a demographic crash.”  Those were the words of Rev. Wojciech Giertych OP, the Theologian of the Papal Household, in a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com in which the highly-placed prelate related some fascinating history and projections. (See video of this part of the Giertych interview)

Beyond pointing out the reality of people working less and living longer, which creates economic instability, Fr. Giertych discussed “the moral issue of spending money and throwing the debt on the next generation, on a generation which has been partly aborted, which has not met with the generosity of the parents,” and described it as “the preparation of a violent conflict between generations.”

“I am seeing this brewing, certainly in Europe,” added Fr. Giertych. “In America at least you have a public debate about the morality of extending the public debt and throwing the responsibility on the future generation.”

Children living in poverty because their parents experienced a tragedy or war, can live with their circumstances, understanding the calamity that led to their state, he explained.  He contrasted that, however, with "a vast segment of society saying we are poor compared to what the generation of our parents had, not because there was some catastrophe, but because the generation of our parents consumed all the [wealth] and threw the responsibility on us.”

The papal theologian drew attention to the violent youth protests and mass unemployment across Europe.  “They are generally demonstrating saying, ‘We have the right to receive’, because their parents received grants for their studies, they received cheaper housing, and so they have this sense of entitlement which is a consequence of socialism – somebody has to give.” 

Fr. Giertych warned “ultimately there will be a violent conflict.” 

He said: “And the states are finally saying, ‘We cannot give. There is a limit, you know. How far can we go?’ And of course the state may produce money and be more and more in debt, but ultimately there will be a violent conflict, and euthanasia is one aspect of this conflict, which is a direct consequence of the expulsion of the transmission of life and the living out of sexuality. Ultimately it boils down to contraception – it’s a consequence.”

The Church, he said, will have an answer for the youth, one they will need to and be glad to hear. “I think there will come a moment where the young people will need to hear, will be glad to hear from the Church a voice which will be on their side, and a voice which will point to the egoism of the hedonist generation that has distorted society,” he said. “And it has distorted society beginning at a very important focal point, which is sexuality… and we are seeing the consequences.”

We began our discussion with the Papal theologian how the Catholic Church could defend its ‘hard teaching’ on contraception. 

Fr. Giertych emphasized that the issue is about a reality that applies to everyone. He explained, “it’s not only a question of being in sync with Church teaching, it’s being in sync with reality, with the nature of the human person and the nature of love, which we received from God, whereas the Church’s teaching is showing us the way towards that supreme love.”

For Fr. Giertych there is nothing difficult about the answer of why the Catholic Church forbids contraception. “Because it distorts the human sexuality, and elevates the moment of sexual pleasure, whereas it denies the fundamental finality of sexuality, which is the transmission of life,” he said. “Sexual activity has been created, devised by God, as a way of transmitting life and expressing love, whereas contraception separates the transmission of life which it excludes, and then focuses uniquely on the pleasure, which generates, as a result, egoism.”

“The main reason why the Church says ‘no’ [to] contraception,” said Fr. Geirtych, “is that it destroys the quality of love, and marital love, which is a way of expressing the graces of the sacrament of matrimony, which is a way of living out the divine charity which is infused in the body and soul of the spouses.”

He explained that “marital love is to be of the supreme quality” but “contraception boils down to the saying of the spouse, ‘There’s something in you that I love, but there’s something in you that I hate, and I hate the fact that you can be a mother. So I require that this will be poisoned.’ Well, this is not love. It is not possible for a husband to say to his wife, ‘I love you truly,’ if at the same time he demands that she poisons in her body the capacity to transmit life, to be a mother.”

“That distortion of sexuality,” he said, “distorts human relationships, distorts the entire living-out of human sexuality.”   

 He added:

"When sexuality is not tied with the virtue of chastity, which trains the person how to integrate the sexual desire within charity, then everything is rocked. And certainly we are seeing this once contraception became so easily available. We’re seeing, successively, the distortions of sexuality, and problems on the level of human relationships, of marriages breaking down, of a violent aggressiveness of women who are discovering that they are being abused as a result of contraception, and so they’re landing in an aggressive feminism, with rage against men. Contraception is leading to abortion, because it treats the potential child as an enemy, and if something goes wrong and a child is conceived then the child is easily aborted."

In Lampedusa, Europe Is Also Emigrating. To the South - by Sandro Magister

In Chiesa

Algeria now has the same birth rate as Norway. Tunisia that of France. Demographics is reversing the scenario of an Islamized Europe. Philip Jenkins explains how and why

ROME, July 8, 2013 - Just as Saint Francis began his mission by going to kiss the lepers, so also the first pope to bear his name is pushing himself to the limits of the human, at the beginning of his mandate.

As the destination of his first voyage, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has chosen the tiny island of Lampedusa, in the hinterlands between Italy and Tunisia. And he has wanted it this way - he has explained - because he was "deeply touched by the recent sinking of a ship that was transporting migrants from Africa, the latest in a series of similar tragedies,” with the intention of “praying for those who have lost their lives at sea, visiting the survivors and refugees, encouraging the inhabitants of the island and appealing to the responsibility of all so that care may be taken of these brothers and sisters in extreme need.”

Lampedusa is the symbol of a dramatic geographical and civilizational boundary. Many of the migrants and refugees who land there are Muslims. And they are part of that migratory wave which some fear will soon transform Europe into a sort of Islamized “Eurabia.”

In reality, not only has this alarmist scenario been hazy for quite some time, but it also appears more and more disproven by the facts.

There are even some who maintain that the opposite will prove true. Not an ever more Islamized Europe, but a Maghreb and a Middle East ever more "European."

The key to this interpretation is demographics, above and beyond politics and religion.

One of its supporters is a scholar highly experienced in the analysis of great global transformations, the American Philip Jenkins, a member of the Anglican Communion, professor of humanities at Pennsylvania State University, in an article in the latest issue of “Vita e Pensiero," the magazine of the Catholic University of Milan.

The article is reproduced below. And in the same issue of “Vita e Pensiero" it is accompanied by the concurring evaluations of two other specialists: Khaled Fouad Allam, Muslim, professor of sociology of the Muslim world at the University of Trieste, and Giuseppe Caffulli, Catholic, director of the publications of the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land.

In applying Jenkins's theses to the Christians who live in northern Africa and in the Middle East, Caffulli demonstrates how the plunge in birth rates that is increasingly bringing these regions closer to Europe is also impacting the Christian populations living there, which "could become a minority on the way to extinction" if it were not for the increasing arrival in those same lands of Christian immigrants from the Far East, above all from the Philippines and southern India.

***

THE MUSLIM WORLD'S COMING EUROPEAN REVOLUTION
by Philip Jenkins


A revolution is sweeping North Africa and the Middle East. No, not the one you've been hearing about in the media -- all the protests against dictatorship and oppression, in Egypt and Tunisia, and most violently, in Libya. The revolution I'm referring to certainly affects all those countries, profoundly, but its effects promise to outlast any change of regime, or even any new constitutions. Barely noticed by the West, many Muslim societies are experiencing a demographic transformation that is going to make them look far more European: more stable, more open to women's rights and above all, more secular. That change underlies all the current political upsurges.

The magic number in this story is 2.1, which is the fertility rate a society needs if its population is to remain constant. If the typical woman has significantly more than 2.1 children during her life, then that society's population will expand, and it will be a youthful community. If the rate falls below 2.1, then populations will stagnate and decline, and the average age will rise.

According to a familiar stereotype, Europeans have lost the long term vision that would make them want to have large families, and religion no longer provides such an incentive: the closer a woman lives to Rome, the fewer children she has. When commentators look at modern Europe, they worry about the long term prospects for low fertility nations like Italy (1.39), Germany (1.41) and Spain (1.47). Pundits are all the more concerned when they compare these European rates with the notoriously high-fertility Third World demographic profiles that long prevailed across the Middle East. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which those mainly Muslim Middle Easterners outbreed and overwhelm the staid Europeans, creating an Islamicized Eurabia.

But here's the problem. In just the last thirty years or so, those very Middle Eastern countries that used to teem with children and adolescents have gone through a startling demographic transformation. Since the mid-1970s, Algeria's fertility rate has collapsed from over 7 to 1.75, Tunisia's from 6 to 2.03, Morocco's from 6.5 to 2.21, Libya's from 7.5 to 2.96. Today, Algeria's rate is roughly equivalent to that of Denmark or Norway; Tunisia's is comparable to France. Counter-intuitively, that remark about "the closer to Rome" also holds good on the southern, Muslim, side of the Mediterranean.

Just what is happening here? Everything depends on the changing attitudes and expectation of the women in these once highly-traditional societies. Across the region, women have become increasingly involved in higher education, and have moreover moved into full-time employment. That sea-change simply makes it unthinkable for women to manage a rampaging tribe of seven or eight children. Often, too, images of women's proper role in life have been upended by extended contacts with Europe. Migrants to France or Italy return home with changed attitudes, while families who stay at home find it hard to avoid the media portrayals of Western lives they see via cable and satellite dish. Maybe Europe and the Middle East are merging into one common Eurabia - but it's far from clear which side is doing a better job of imposing its opinions on the other. Presently, it looks as if the Maghreb is becoming European.

Such a wrenching change cannot fail to have political implications. In a country with a Third World fertility rate, it is very unlikely that women will seek or be granted education: their designated career path as mothers is starkly clear. Meanwhile, adolescents and young men proliferate, and provide ample cannon fodder for armies or militias, to whom life is cheap. (Yemen's fertility rate is still over 5.0, Somalia's is 6.4).

But then imagine a newer, more European society, in which men and women are intensely concerned about their nuclear families, and have invested their love and attention into just one or two offspring. As citizens become more educated, they are not prepared to accept the demagoguery and systematic corruption that has long passed for government in those regions. They see themselves as responsible members of a civil society, with aspirations that demand to be met: they feel they deserve full democratic participation. Of course the recent turmoil began in Tunisia, with its very low fertility rate and its intimate ties to France.

Sudden demographic change also seems to be closely linked to secularization, a point of potentially great significance in the Middle East. Smaller family sizes can result from a decline in religious ideologies, but falling fertility can itself drive such a decline, as has happened in modern Christian Europe. When children abounded, as they did in the 1950s, strong pressures kept families close to religious institutions, as they sought common religious training and religious rituals. parents attended churches to ensure their children received the familiar cultural heritage. Church prestige rode high when priests were shepherding hundreds of local children through annual confirmation classes. But as the children became scarce from the 1970s onwards, so the churches emptied. At the same time, couples highly concerned with their own personal and emotional fulfillment became increasingly impatient about clerical attempts to enforce morality laws. Women, especially, became highly disaffected from the mainstream churches.

If the European precedent is anything to go by, that could well provide a model for religious developments in the Maghreb over the next decade or two. A society so dependent on women in the school and the workplace simply cannot support the kind of intransigent orthodoxies offered by the familiar Islamists. Extremists may not vanish overnight, but they will have to adapt substantially to present their message in a civil society with a powerful taste for democratic values and gender equality.

Demography is not, of course, the whole story. But it has to play a full part in any attempt to understand the current political revolutions in the Middle East.

Melhor investimento - Emprego mais bem remunerado - por Nuno Serras Pereira

09. 05. 2013

Bem sei, bem sei; nunca estudei economia nem finanças. Nem tenho formação académica em filosofia política, nem em sociologia; nem, além disso, tenho qualquer tipo de licenciatura. Mais não sou do que um tosco remendo na nas vestes da gloriosa Ordem franciscana. E, no entanto, ninguém me despersuade de que o melhor e mais urgente investimento, por parte de uma nação e de um estado como nosso, é na renovação das gerações, no crescimento da natalidade; apesar de todos os dias ouvir e ler opiniões dos mais graúdos economistas e fiscalistas que, na sua generalidade, ignoram petulantemente este “factor”.

Na suposição de que aquilo que afirmo é verdade, então daí derivará, como consequência inevitável, de que o trabalho, a profissão – que neste caso coincide com a vocação -, mais bem paga deverá ser, sem margens para dúvida, a da paternidade/maternidade (expressões como “parentalidade”, para além de não serem bom português, são ideologicamente venenosas), principalmente no matrimónio – isto é, no casamento natural -, onde os filhos são gerados, nutridos, educados e socializados. O casamento natural, e a família que dele resulta, é a sementeira e o útero, das sociedades sãs, das nações com futuro, da convivência amistosa, da justiça misericordiosa.

Se o estado obtuso se tem, cretinamente, nas últimas décadas, como a diluviana evidência o tem demonstrado à saciedade, empenhado com todas as veras na limitação dos nascimentos e na destruição da família; e se monetariamente em tudo corta menos nessa persecução suicida, então a única salvação, por mais abstrusa que se afigure aos católicos deformados e aos descrentes, será confiar na Providência Divina e acolher os filhos, sem manhas contraceptivas, que Deus quiser, obrigando, desse modo, à mudança de mentalidades e de comportamentos dos actuais ídolos eclesiásticos, dos poderes partidários, governamentais e estatais. 

Parece uma temeridade. Não é. Não queiramos fazer a figura da mãezinha que preocupada com a ida do filho para a força aérea, lhe recomendava instantemente: filhinho voa baixinho e devagarinho…

The Dangers of an Aging World - By Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

WASHINGTON DC, April 19 (C-FAM) Wolves prowl the streets of abandoned cities. Only prostitutes are left to take care of the elderly. War is looming. This is 2013 and the global population is aging. 

These are only a few of the alarming anecdotes retold at a conference last week. Decades of policies to reduce the number of people on our planet have had an effect, and it is generally not a good one, report the authors of three recent books on demographics. Read More

Why is Europe committing demographic suicide? - by Carolyn Moynihan

In MercatorNet

Frankly, not even the experts have the faintest idea

Everybody knows about the economic woes of Europe. In the media you cannot get away from it. What we seldom hear about is a problem that puts debt crises and austerity riots in the shade: the region’s demographic suicide. Europeans, on the whole, are not having enough babies to replace themselves -- a trend which threatens the workforce, support of the aged and even the continued existence of some nations. It is a problem that goes back well before the recent housing bubbles and busts, bank failures and bailouts. It is probably a cause of the latter.

Yet it is a mystery to the people we rely to predict such things. Demographers, economists and psychologists are scratching their heads over a phenomenon that breaks all their statistical models and paradigms of human behaviour. Why would people who are prosperous (and, despite the current situation, western Europe is) not want to do what human beings have always done and leave a posterity? How can they contemplate the eclipse of their nation?

One answer might be that the public is simply not aware of what is happening. Lant Pritchett, an economist and Professor of the Practice of International Development at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, told MercatorNet: “Scientists of perception study ‘change blindness’ and can show people have a hard time even visually seeing gradual change, much less gradual change at the social level. Unlike the advocates for climate change there are no ‘extreme events’ like Hurricane Sandy in demography so it is hard to get attention onto the inevitable consequences of current fertility.”

Dr Pritchett and colleague Martina Viarengo are the authors of an essay, “Why Demographic Suicide? The Puzzles of European Fertility”, which is part of a collection of essays published recently by the New York based Population Council in honour of a distinguished scholar, Paul Demeny. The papers are heavy going but repay the effort to grasp what population experts are saying right now.

This is certainly the case with “Demographic Suicide…”, which states clearly the seriousness of persistent low fertility and the fact that the usual experts simply do not know how to account for it, let alone come up with a remedy. The authors speak of below replacement fertility (BRF) as “a revolution in human affairs”, a “paradigm-shattering phenomenon”. They are not exaggerating. They end by posing the “big open question of how children fit into an overall pattern of ‘family’ in the post modern era.”

“Replacement” as the goal of population policy

Sixty years ago the question was completely different. Influential people like the founder of the Population Council, John D. Rockefeller III, were worried about population growth in the developing world resulting from the fall in death rates (thanks to better health care) and continuing high fertility. They thought that people could not have good quality lives with so many mouths to feed. The fact that former colonies of Europe were becoming independent and you never knew what they might do politically added to First World jitters. Nothing but a concerted effort to stabilise population would do. Demographers did their projections and “replacement fertility” (2.1 children per woman) became their holy grail.

With backing from the UN and the cooperation of Third World governments the “war against population” (as economist Jacqueline Kasun has called it) was launched. The contraceptive pill was rapidly deployed with government subsidies. Abortion became a reproductive right. These methods had their strongest effect in the rich countries, where fertility had been in decline anyway but was boosted by the post-war baby boom. Developing countries took to draconian methods such as sterilisation campaigns in India and the one-child policies in China. Economic development, education and health care also contributed to lower birth rates.

Globally, the goal of replacement level fertility is now within reach. According to the UN’s medium estimate the average woman today will have 2.36 children – down from 4.95 in the early 1950s. New research suggests the 2.1 mark will be reached by around 2050. The trouble is that, while some countries will still be above that magical figure, some will be well below. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that even globally population will stabilise; decline is more probable. Already half the world’s nations, including many of the less developed, have total fertility rates (TFR) below replacement.

Some of the lowest rates in the world are in East Asia, but among the 27 countries of the Europe Union not one currently has a TFR of 2.1 or more, although Ireland, Iceland, Turkey and perhaps France are around 2, and the UK and the Nordic countries have rates between 1.87 and 1.98. At least a dozen EU countries are under 1.5; Spain and Germany are on 1.36 and Italy 1.41 (2010-2011 figures).

Behind these figures are the decisions of women and men shaped not by the imperatives of evolution or the rationales of economics – let alone the assumptions of demographers -- but by factors that experts in those fields are not even equipped to understand.

Demography, as Pritchett and Viarengo point out, is a descriptive discipline and cannot make predictions without a behavioural theory to go with them – which it did not have when its practitioners assumed that fertility would magically stabilise at replacement.

Evolutionary psychology, a popular source of behavioural theory, might (might) tell us what humans will do about procreation in the context of limited resources (have fewer but better quality offspring), but it seems quite useless to explain why people whose wealth and social status are increasing would stop having children. “BRF in Europe seems a paradigm-shattering phenomenon for evolutionary psychology,” Pritchett and Viarengo note.

The economic model

That leaves economics, Pritchett’s own discipline and one that he admits is also at a loss to fully account for persistent low fertility. “The joke about economists is that they are people with a head for numbers that lack the personality to be actuaries,” he told us in an email.

We had asked what could motivate nations to turn this problem around. He said: “I am pretty good with numbers but not only do I not know the answer to this question, being a new phenomenon, we have yet to discover numbers and data from experiences of turning it around so I don't know even know what to do to begin answering this question: that is why the piece was titled ‘puzzles’ not ‘answers’."

All the same, economics has a lot to say about procreation and most of it is a little bit shocking to the layperson who comes across it for the first time. Roughly it goes like this.

Children are “complex capital goods” in whom parents invest with the expectation of a return, or “child services”. These services can be produced by a large number of low quality children or a small number of high quality children. In conditions of rising income people want fewer but higher quality children, investing more in their education and so on. This drives up the price of a child -- together with an opportunity cost in the form of the time it takes to consume the services (pleasure or satisfaction) a child produces -- compared with other goods, such as a summer holidays or a better house.

The trouble with this type of behaviour is that children can be priced off the market completely – and perhaps unintentionally – because once you get down to one child the next step is not a “little bit” of high quality child, but none at all; not a gradual change but a “massive discontinuous drop in the demand for child services,” as Pritchett and Viarengo put it. This can be seen in rates of childlessness in a few European countries at or approaching 20 percent among women aged 45. (There are sub-regional differences which are interesting and worth looking up in the essay.)

Substitution

Clearly, childlessness is the biggest challenge for population theorists. What might people be choosing instead of a child? Pritchett and Viarengo look at possible substitutes for the “little hedonic bundle” that a baby represents and find two likely candidates.

The first is social security for the aged, which replaces the support aged parents once expected from their children – something that is unsustainable, though, in conditions of population decline. The second is the market work that women have embraced and that may return them more meaning and status than motherhood has done up until now.

When it comes to a substitute for the love and intimacy that having children provides in traditional family life, however, the authors of “Demographic suicide” are stumped.

They note that “sexual activity, childbearing and marriage have become disconnected so that increasingly it is socially acceptable to have one without either of the other two,” particularly in northern and western Europe. But: “It is not at all obvious to us what is going on with the ‘demand for intimacy’.” While in some countries people continue to have children without getting married, and in others to marry but have very few children, there are signs (in Finland, for example) that marriage and fertility – especially through an increase in childlessness – are declining together.

“What is substituting in the lives of women and men for the love and intimacy that came from parent–child relationships? It is certainly not a significant increase in marital love and intimacy without children substituting for less marital love and intimacy with children—particularly in countries where marriage and long-term cohabitation have declined.”

One answer to this question might be “same-sex relationships”. But even where children are added to these partnerships by technical means they can hardly solve the social problem of low fertility. And even if they are regarded as married that is not going to boost the birth rate.

Yet marriage, properly defined, does seem to be the answer – the only one we know from long experience -- to the demand both for intimacy and for enough children to give the human race a future. Pronatalist policies such as baby bonuses, paid parental leave and gender equity in the workplace appear to have made some difference to the birth rate in countries where they have been introduced, but there are human motivations that such incentives do not touch – things like till-death-us-do-part commitment to a spouse and the willingness to sacrifice easier pleasures for the joy of seeing mutual love bear fruit in the form of a child.

The question, finally, is what can foster such motivations. In the past it was religious faith. Is there any substitute for that?

A força da família em tempos de crise - Nota dos Bispos Portugueses

A família, um bem social

1. Consideramos da maior oportunidade, no atual contexto da sociedade portuguesa, atravessada por uma crise social e económica de particular gravidade, que se traduz para muitos em desalento e falta de perspetivas de futuro, colocar em relevo o bem insubstituível que representa a instituição familiar, «origem e património da humanidade» (Bento XVI).

A família representa um bem público, um bem social. Podemos encará-la na perspetiva do seu relevo privado, como um bem para a realização pessoal, no plano afetivo, espiritual ou outros, de cada um dos seus membros. Mas devemos também encará-la na perspetiva do seu relevo social, do bem que representa para a sociedade no seu todo. Podemos caracterizá-la como a fonte básica do capital humano, social e espiritual de uma sociedade, a que assegura o seu futuro e o seu crescimento harmonioso. A saúde e coesão de uma sociedade dependem, por isso, da saúde e coesão da família.

Só a família concebida a partir do compromisso definitivo entre um homem e uma mulher pode desempenhar esta função social. As alterações legislativas que, entre nós como noutros países, vêm redefinindo o casamento de forma a nele incluir uniões de pessoas do mesmo sexo, esquecem esta verdade fundamental.

A família é a primeira e mais básica das instituições sociais, antes de mais porque assegura a renovação das gerações, sendo a primeira função de qualquer comunidade a de assegurar a sua própria sobrevivência e renovação. E cumpre essa função porque representa o contexto mais adequado e harmonioso para a educação das novas gerações.

A família é o santuário da vida e do amor, lugar da manifestação de «uma grande ternura, que não é a virtude dos fracos, antes pelo contrário denota fortaleza de ânimo e capacidade de solicitude, de compaixão, de verdadeira abertura ao outro, de amor. Não devemos ter medo da bondade, da ternura» (Papa Francisco).

Razões da insubstituível importância da família

2. Na família respeita-se a dignidade da pessoa humana, esta é encarada como ser único e irrepetível. Nela não há lugar para o anonimato. Nela a pessoa é acolhida e amada pelo que é, não pelo que faz ou pelo que produz. Por isso, o contexto familiar é aquele em que os mais vulneráveis, incluindo os doentes e portadores de deficiência, não deixam de ser valorizados.

A família é a primeira e mais básica escola de sociabilidade. Nela se aprende a convivência com o outro e o diferente; o homem é diferente da mulher, os irmãos nunca são iguais, e os filhos nunca são o reflexo da imagem dos pais.

Na família a solidariedade não é imposta, é espontânea e calorosa. Ela é o campo privilegiado da gratuidade, do dom desinteressado, onde espontaneamente se dá sem esperar nada em troca e com a maior das alegrias.

Na família a autoridade é exercida como serviço e por amor.

A renovação das gerações no seio da família também permite a mais harmoniosa aliança entre a tradição e a novidade. As gerações mais velhas transmitem às gerações mais novas, como a sua mais preciosa herança, aqueles valores perenes que não estão sujeitos à usura do tempo e não passam com as modas. As gerações mais novas representam a abertura ao novo, ao dinamismo e à criatividade, que tornam vivos esses valores perenes.

Num outro aspeto a família representa o contexto mais adequado e harmonioso para o crescimento e educação das novas gerações. A família nasce da unidade e complementaridade das dimensões masculina e feminina, que cooperam, nessa unidade e complementaridade, para a integridade da educação humana.

O casamento, como união entre um homem e uma mulher, tem representado nas sociedades e culturas mais diversificadas um símbolo dessa riqueza que representa a dualidade sexual, da unidade dessa diversidade. A mensagem bíblica exprime-o com as palavras do Génesis: «Deus os criou homem e mulher … e viu que a sua obra era muita boa…». Esta riqueza da dualidade sexual, da unidade e complementaridade dos dois sexos, está presente na família e, por seu intermédio, deve penetrar em toda a sociedade. Todos os âmbitos da vida social ganham com o contributo simultâneo, diversificado e harmónico das especificidades masculina e feminina, que são complexas, não são rígidas e uniformes, mas são uma insubstituível riqueza.

A família e a crise económica e social

3. A crise económica e social que o nosso país atravessa vem evidenciando, precisamente, a riqueza que representa a família. Tem sido a solidariedade familiar, que se traduz em solidariedade entre gerações, em muitos casos, o primeiro e mais seguro apoio de quem se vê a braços com o desemprego, ou a queda abrupta de rendimentos, com a consequente incapacidade de fazer face a compromissos assumidos que se destinam à satisfação de necessidades familiares essenciais, como a da habitação.

Mas esse apoio não é suficiente. A crise também evidencia que a comunhão e solidariedade que se vivem no seio da família não pode limitar-se ao seu âmbito interno. A família não pode fechar-se sobre si. Esse espírito de comunhão e solidariedade deve partir da família e alargar-se à sociedade inteira. Deve traduzir-se na entreajuda entre várias famílias. As experiências de muitas comunidades cristãs são já disso testemunho, mas não é demais salientar a necessidade de se multiplicarem essas experiências de partilha entre famílias.

Na raiz da crise que atravessamos estão fracassos de um modelo económico assente na maximização do lucro e do consumo. Afirma Bento XVI na sua mensagem para o Dia Mundial da Paz deste ano (n. 5): «O modelo que prevaleceu nas últimas décadas apostava na busca da maximização do lucro e do consumo, numa ótica individualista e egoísta que pretendia avaliar as pessoas apenas pela sua capacidade de dar resposta às exigências da competitividade. Olhando de outra perspetiva, porém, o sucesso verdadeiro e duradouro pode ser obtido com a dádiva de si mesmo, dos seus dotes intelectuais, da própria capacidade de iniciativa, já que o desenvolvimento económico suportável, isto é, autenticamente humano tem necessidade do princípio da gratuidade como expressão de fraternidade e da lógica do dom».

A gratuidade típica das relações familiares deve servir de modelo para este novo paradigma de desenvolvimento económico.

A família e a abertura à vida

4. Talvez o mais eloquente sinal de que a crise da instituição familiar se traduz em malefícios sociais seja o da crise demográfica, que muitos consideram o mais grave dos problemas sociais das sociedades europeias, numa perspetiva do seu futuro mais ou menos próximo. As últimas estatísticas apontam Portugal como um dos países com mais baixa taxa de natalidade em todo o mundo.

A família abre-se, por desígnio natural, à vida.

Poderá parecer irrealista salientar a importância desta abertura à vida no atual contexto social, em que o desemprego e a precariedade laboral atingem de modo particular os jovens. Este facto deve levar-nos a não nos resignarmos com esta situação, como se ela fosse inevitável, como se a economia não devesse estar ao serviço da pessoa humana, e fosse a pessoa humana a dever sujeitar-se às exigências da economia. Salienta Bento XVI na encíclica Caritas in veritate (n. 25), a propósito da instabilidade laboral, que quando «se torna endémica a incerteza sobre as condições de trabalho, resultante dos processos de mobilidade e desregulamentação, geram-se formas de instabilidade psicológica, com dificuldade a construir percursos coerentes na própria vida, incluindo o percurso rumo ao matrimónio».

Mas, por outro lado, a crise que atravessamos também é reflexo da crise demográfica. Numa sociedade em envelhecimento, as despesas públicas serão cada vez maiores em pensões, saúde, etc., e as receitas cada vez menores. Assim, o financiamento do Estado há de ser cada vez mais problemático.

É claro o bem que representa hoje a maior longevidade, o facto de os idosos viverem mais tempo do que noutras épocas. O que é problemático não é isso; não há idosos “a mais”, porque estes são sempre uma riqueza, e nunca um peso. O que é problemático e causa desequilíbrios é que não nasçam crianças.

Afirma ainda Bento XVI na encíclica Caritas in veritate (n. 44): «A abertura moralmente responsável à vida é uma riqueza social e económica. (…) A diminuição dos nascimentos, situando-se por vezes abaixo do chamado “índice de substituição”, põe em crise também os sistemas de assistência social, aumenta os seus custos, contrai a acumulação de poupanças e, consequentemente, os recursos financeiros necessários para os investimentos, reduz a disponibilização de trabalhadores qualificados, restringe a reserva aonde ir buscar os “cérebros” para as necessidades da nação. Além disso, as famílias de pequena e, às vezes, pequeníssima dimensão correm o risco de empobrecer as relações sociais e de não garantir formas eficazes de solidariedade. São situações que apresentam sintomas de escassa confiança no futuro e de cansaço moral. Deste modo, torna-se uma necessidade social, e mesmo económica, continuar a propor às novas gerações a beleza da família e do matrimónio, a correspondência de tais instituições às exigências mais profundas do coração e da dignidade da pessoa. Nesta perspetiva, os Estados são chamados a instaurar políticas que promovam a centralidade e a integridade da família, fundada no matrimónio entre um homem e uma mulher, célula primeira e vital da sociedade, preocupando-se também com os seus problemas económicos e fiscais, no respeito da sua natureza relacional».

Ajudam a combater a crise da natalidade medidas fiscais, que promovam o emprego juvenil, ou que facilitem a conciliação entre o trabalho e a vida familiar. Mas o contributo decisivo para vencer a crise demográfica situa-se no plano da cultura e da mentalidade. Há que superar o “cansaço moral” e a “falta de confiança no futuro” a que alude a encíclica Caritas in veritate. Saber que a vida é sempre um dom que compensa todos os sacrifícios – só com esta consciência pode ser vencida a crise da natalidade.

Qualquer mensagem de desvalorização da vida humana acarreta consequências negativas a este respeito. Uma delas – sem dúvida a mais grave – é o aborto e sua banalização a que vimos assistindo entre nós com a cobertura da lei vigente. Afirma, ainda, sobre esta questão, a Caritas in veritate (n. 28): «Quando uma sociedade começa a negar e a suprimir a vida, acaba por deixar de encontrar as motivações e energias necessárias para trabalhar ao serviço do verdadeiro bem do homem. Se se perde a sensibilidade pessoal e social ao acolhimento duma nova vida, definham também outras formas de acolhimento úteis à vida social. O acolhimento da vida revigora as energias morais e torna-nos capazes de ajuda recíproca».

A família, um projeto duradouro

5. Para vencer a crise demográfica, como em relação a muitos outros aspetos relativos à sua função social, há que acreditar na família como um projeto duradouro, assente num compromisso de doação total e não na volatilidade dos sentimentos. Só nesse contexto é razoável a decisão de ter filhos. Se a saúde e coesão da sociedade dependem da saúde e coesão da família, esta está estritamente ligada à sua estabilidade.

Vai-se generalizando, porém, a opção por formas de convivência marital precária, que recusam esse compromisso; tal como é cada vez mais frequente o recurso ao divórcio, o que a legislação vigente também não deixa de facilitar em extremo.

Salienta, a este respeito, a exortação apostólica Familiaris consortio (n. 11), de João Paulo II, que «a sexualidade diz respeito ao núcleo íntimo da pessoa humana» e se realiza «de maneira verdadeiramente humana, somente se é parte integral do amor com o qual homem e mulher se empenham totalmente um para com o outro até à morte». A doação física total é verdadeira só na medida em que envolve toda a pessoa, também na sua dimensão temporal, com a comunhão de projetos para o futuro: «se a pessoa se reservasse alguma coisa ou a possibilidade de decidir de modo diferente para o futuro, só por isto já não se doaria totalmente». Esta totalidade corresponde também às exigências de uma fecundidade responsável, a qual supõe o contributo contínuo do pai e da mãe para o crescimento harmonioso dos filhos. 

Por isso, ainda segundo essa exortação apostólica (n. 11), «o “lugar” único, que torna possível esta doação segundo a sua verdade total, é o matrimónio». Este «não é uma ingerência indevida da sociedade ou da autoridade, nem a imposição extrínseca de uma forma, mas uma exigência interior do pacto de amor conjugal que publicamente se afirma como único e exclusivo, para que seja vivida assim a plena fidelidade ao desígnio de Deus Criador». Esta fidelidade não mortifica a liberdade da pessoa, «põe-na em segurança em relação ao subjetivismo e relativismo, fá-la participante da Sabedoria Criadora».

A esta luz, não é demais lembrar a responsabilidade que representa a preparação, mais remota e mais próxima, para o casamento. Uma preparação que envolve as famílias, as instâncias educativas e a Igreja.

Importa, ainda, salientar como, também neste aspeto, deve evitar-se que cada família se veja sozinha a enfrentar dificuldades que possam conduzir à rutura. A experiência de um casal que soube superar as suas dificuldades de relacionamento pode servir de ajuda para outros que se confrontam com essas dificuldades. Experiências de entreajuda entre famílias neste campo também devem multiplicar-se no âmbito das comunidades cristãs.

E se é verdade que a Igreja nunca deixará de proclamar a indissolubilidade do casamento, antes de mais perante quem se prepara para o contrair, tal não pode significar insensibilidade ou indiferença perante o sofrimento de quem experimentou um fracasso matrimonial, independente de qualquer juízo de culpa, que até pode nem existir. A Igreja acolhe e acompanha com solicitude essas pessoas.

Olhamos com simpatia e apreço os movimentos e instituições que se preocupam e dedicam à família, encarnando o amor de Deus e manifestando-lhe o rosto amável da Igreja.

A sociedade à imagem da família

6. Muitas vezes a família é encarada como um refúgio que protege de um ambiente hostil da sociedade que nos rodeia, um oásis de harmonia no meio do deserto, um espaço de humanização no meio de um mundo desumanizado. E é assim de facto. Mas também podemos encarar a família de outra perspetiva: como a fonte e o fermento de onde parte a renovação da sociedade. É assim através dos filhos, que se devem proteger das más influências da sociedade, mas que também a esta podem dar muito do que recebem na família.

Os valores que se vivem na família – a pessoa amada e acolhida como ser único e irrepetível, o amor gratuito, a solidariedade espontânea, a autoridade como serviço, o valor do doente e do idoso, a aliança da tradição e da inovação, a unidade e complementaridade das dimensões masculina e feminina, a fidelidade e o compromisso – devem estender-se, por seu intermédio, a toda a sociedade: às empresas, aos serviços públicos, às escolas e hospitais, às comunidades eclesiais, às associações. A família é o modelo, o dever ser de qualquer convivência humana.

Num contexto de crise económica e social, que para muitos se traduz em desalento e falta de perspetivas de futuro, é esta a mensagem que queremos transmitir, como antídoto a esse desalento e como ajuda à superação dessa crise: que a família seja reconhecida e apoiada na missão social que só ela pode desempenhar.

Fátima, 11 de abril de 2013