The Editor's Mailbag

Islanders discuss birth control

“From their pulpits Catholic priests have turgidly denounced any interference with ‘God’s plan’”. . . The Bishop of Tonga, the Most Rev. J. H. M. Rodgers, assures us that this is not true in Tonga. And replying to Sio Magisi’s July article on Tonga’s birth control programme in which the allegation of “turgidity” was made, Bishop Rodgers has given us a revealing report on the Catholic Church’s view on the subject of birth control. He says:

Even granting for the sake of argu ment that the manner of rhetoric employed by the Catholic priests has smacked of turgidity, surely no be lieving Christian would hold it against a minister of religion who denounces any interference by man, the creature, with the plan of God, his creator?

Is this not what we know as sin?

Of course, by the use of inverted commas on the words God’s plan it is clear that Magisi and Tatola intend to ridicule what they consider to be the Catholic priests’ conviction about God’s plan. I would have thought that elementary Christian courtesy demands of us that we re spect the religious views held in all sincerity by others, even though they should differ from our own.

It would seem, nevertheless, that these two gentlemen are sadly de ficient in their understanding of the Catholic doctrine under discussion.

The church is not opposed to the prudent regulation of births, usually termed “responsible parenthood.”

Granted that there be reasons of sufficient weight, such as emanate from the state of health of either the wife or husband, or from economic circumstances, such as poverty, lack of sufficient resources to cope with yet another child and so on, then the Catholic Church approves the wise decision of parents to space or even limit their family.

The church merely states what she believes to be the moral law govern ing the general principles in this matter. The actual decision as to what constitutes the prudent regula tion of births here and now for this particular couple is their own personal decision, made according to the dictates of their rightly formed conscience.

But while the church approves family planning for solid reasons and even insists that in certain cases a married couple may well be obliged to regulate their family, when it comes to the question of what means should

be used to achieve this prudent regulation of births, the church cer tainly parts company with the ex ponents of most family planning pro grammes.

In the legitimate exercise of her teaching office on behalf of her chil dren, she declares that all artificial, mechanical and unnatural means of contraception including therefore any mutilation of healthy organs pre cisely to prevent conception—are opposed to the law of God and hence immoral. Note that such practices are considered to be immoral and hence forbidden, not because the church says so but rather because the law of God says so and this the church merely announces.

Any pulpit denunciation would be concerned only with means of con traception deemed to be immoral by Catholic teaching.

It may possibly interest your readers to know that with the warm approval of the medical department (and, incidentally, with the enthusi astic blessing also of the “Man behind Tonga’s Family Planning” Dr.

Mumui Tatola himself), we have now set up in this diocese a Catholic family planning centre in order to assist those couples, whether Catholic or not, who wish to regulate their families by the use of natural methods regarded by us as licit, such as the ovulation method of Dr. J. Billings which is proving so successful in Melbourne.

A final comment may not be en tirely without relevance lest any reader impute an undue authority to certain statements purported to have been made by Dr. Tatola. The title of “Doctor” is extended by courtesy here to Tongan assistant medical

officers who have successfully com pleted the course at the central medical school in Suva and so qualified to practise medicine in Tonga. It does not indicate the possession of a full medical degree from any approved university. This is not to cast any reflection on the devoted work of our AMO’s who serve their people with efficiency and dedication in often very difficult circumstances.

Book On Birth Control

Sir, —After reading Sio Magisi’s article “Man Behind Tonga’s Family Planning” in PIM (July, p. 69) I felt impelled to send him a copy of my booklet “Family Planning and Christian Marriage”, published by Collins in the Fontana Religious Paperback series. It might be an encouragement and a help in his programme.

A second thought was to send you a copy. As it sold extremely well in Rarotonga, you might find it worth while to give it a review in your magazine.

A. M. J. Kloosterman.

Rarotonga.

In his book Family Planning and Christian Marriage”, Dr. Kloosterman tries to explain the Roman Catholic viewpoint on contraception and the reason for its stand against some forms of contraception. He also suggests that couples can satisfy both the church and their own demands by following their own consciences in this matter; if couples believe they are doing right, then there is no sin.

Fiji's Birth Rate

Sir, — PIM (June, p. 29) reported that Professor W. D. Borrie had said at the Cook Bi-centenary Symposium in Sydney that, “Fiji had the most dangerous population situation in the Islands. It was com plex and potentially explosive. The decline in Fiji’s birthrate in recent years was due, not so much to the colony’s family planning scheme, but to later and fewer marriages among Indian women, following cessation of the immigration of Indian males”.

In 10 years Fiji has cut its birth' rate from 41.78 per 1,000 people to 28.97. Is that explosive?

Professor Borrie, Professor of Demography at the the Australian National University, has either got his facts wrong or he has been mis reported, and I would suspect the latter.

On p. 49 of the same PIM the American journalist, John Griffin, who knows Fiji at first-hand, wrote of Fiji, “Along with economic growth,, one bright spot in this situation hasi

Letters

been one of the most dramatic birth control programmes in the Pacific”.

Statistics show no “fewer marriages” among Indian women. On the contrary, there has been a rising trend, and the consistent number of marriages and relatively more marriages at a younger age than in the recent past, should have main tained a rising birth-rate.

The Fijian birth rate has in the last two years come down at a rate greater than the Indian one—and immigration of Fijian males is not a factor in this phenomenon!

Fiji has its population growth rate under control and its notable success has been mainly due to the desire of all races for fewer children; the steadily increasing proportion of ivomen in the child-bearing age group who are protected by one method or mother; the vastly increased con sumption of contraceptive devices; he enormous increase in attendances it family planning clinics; and the ncreasing willingness of the whole immunity to accept family planning idvice.

The statements attributed to ’rofessor Borrie are grossly incorrect.

R. L. Munro,

President, The Family Planning Association of Fiji.

Member Governing Body of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. luva.

A copy of Mr. Munro’s letter was ent to Professor Borrie who has eplied as follows: “Your [PIM] report was substan ally correct. My reference to the ffect of the cessation of the immigra on of Indian males was out of ontext in my paper as delivered, as re demographic consequences of this vplied to the previous generation, ot the present. In revising my paper n publication I have eliminated this tference.”

Professor Borrie went on to say lat Mr. Munro had sent him the 1 test birth-rates and that these slighted him. However, he did not tel that there was yet room for ~>mplacency because of the educa onal and employment problems hich were a legacy of the demo 'aphic events in Fiji prior to the id-60’s. Latest reports, he said, dicated that Fiji’s present popu tion would double by the year HO and that was “still pretty ex 'osive in human growth terms”.

Gilberts" Birth Rate

Sir, —I would like you to know how much I always enjoy PIM. Re turning to the South Pacific for a SPC conference in Tahiti, after an absence of almost five years, and meeting there many old friends from the Islands, I was astonished to find how much the reading of PIM had kept me in the Pacific picture during all these years, so that I could dis cuss problems and situations as if I had just been there.

In connection with my present assignment in Indonesia for the In ternational Planned Parenthood Fed eration, you will understand that your article on the Gilberts in June (p. 54), was of particular interest to me. However, allow me to correct a slight error. You write: “It has a birth rate of 2.9 per cent, (one of the highest in the world)” but what you clearly mean to say is “rate of increase” rather than “birthrate”. In fact the birth rate in the Gilberts must be con siderably higher than 2.9 per cent.

To be among the “highest in the world” it would have to be at least between 4.5 and 5 per cent., which it might well be.

However, according to the opinion of most “family planners” the term “highest birth rate in the world” is used too often to have very much effect any more. It is sufficient to state that birth rates are, in general, and with too few exceptions, “too high”, and to act accordingly.

I want to thank PIM for giving us monthly such a wealth of informa tion about such a fascinating part of the world. More power to you!

H.M.C. Poortman.

Djakarta.

Unique Niue

Sir, —I hope that both J. Edward Brown and the people of Niue will discount entirely the comments made by Able Seaman Anaki in July’s PIM (p. 35).

As one who lived for four years on Niue Island and who will never cease to regard it as one of the most fascinating islands in the Pacific, I have always enjoyed reading Mr.

Brown’s articles, which capture the exact spirit of the place and people.

Far from “Spoiling Niue’s Name”, his articles in PIM and elsewhere have surely made the outside world re alise what a unique and charming little community Niue is.

As for the impact of the article itself or the circumstances it de scribes on prospective tourists, let me beg the people of Niue not to try to make their cinemas or any other aspect of their way of life into a slick replica of conditions in

a small American, Australian or New Zealand community.

After all, if tourism has any justi fication at all, it is precisely that the tourists can see in what diverse ways the human race can find its happiness and its daily bread. I am quite sure that if the people of Niue have changed nothing at all of their way of life such as I knew it 12 years ago, tourists to Niue will enjoy every moment of their stay, and will go away determined, as I am, to come back again if at all possible.

Angus Mcbean.

Matakana Island, New Zealand.

American Rule

Sir, —I consider it most alarming that America should propose taking over her trust territories in the Pacific as a part of her Common wealth.

At a time when colonial powers are giving independence to their colonies, it is amazing that America should exert herself to enlarge her colonial possessions and expand her external territories and colonial power in this way.

America, always jealous of the might of the British Commonwealth and empire, thoroughly approved of the break-up and subsequent indepen dence of the British colonies, yet now herself seeks to impose on free nations of the Pacific an American Commonwealth ruled by Washington.

It has always shocked me that America should as boldly refer to Eastern Samoa as American Samoa, as if it was indeed her own territory and not that of the people of East Samoa.

c .

Sydney.