Accompanied by an increasing sense of dismay among those who look objectively and quite scientifically at the published population forecasts, even those of the United Nations which has an undeniable anti-natalist bias, our world is soon to begin an almost unimaginable descent in population that will either mean a reversion to distant historic times or even the near extinction of the human race.  This is no longer in debate, and it is documented extensively in “Population Control”, Steven Mosher, Transaction Publishers, 2008.  That book documents the present situation in world population and is worthy of intense attention. Mosher is President of the Population Research Institute.

Doomsday scenarios are not unknown to modern populations: comets striking the Earth that wipe out the Sun's rays; earthquakes on the New Madras Fault killing untold millions; droughts that are cyclical and may destroy our food supply; pollution of our oceans with PCBs will cause world-wide cancer; the melting of the Polar ice cap will flood whole countries; the Ozone shield , etc., etc. - all of which are merely in the realm of possibility at some time in the future.  Population is quite different.  We can actually count heads, know life-spans, know fertility rates, and know child- bearing years.  We now know with certainty that pent-up billions of old people will die and that the world's population will begin to decline in 2050.  Old people alone, having swollen out of all normal proportion because of reduced fertility among the young, will cause the population to drop by many billions.  The future will depend on a radical positive change in the overall world fertility rate.  Will our grandchildren and great grandchildren bear more than replacement levels, in an environment of great economic distress and a collapse of the presently existing political structures and support systems?  A continuing-to-collapse world population to 2 or 3 billion people by the year 2100 is all we can presently expect.   Information available through the UNFPA and independent sources confirm this forecast.

History tells us that population collapse has occurred from time to time.  The Greeks alone have had this phenomenon at least twice.  People stopped having babies in a relatively affluent society.  They were replaced over time by other fertile people from surrounding areas.  Today the situation is actually taking place globally and simultaneously.  Anti-natalist influences in worldwide societies have provided several social, cultural, and economic forces which have radically changed things: Divorce, facilitated by the absence of children, made possible by contraception and abortion, late marriages if any at all, further influenced by affluence and a pervasive culture of “individualism”, all exacerbated by the influence of a growing life-expectancy made possible by modern medicine.

To speak openly about these things is to immediately draw down almost universal derision, except perhaps from an element in society which finds impending disaster in everything from Holy Scripture to Aliens from foreign worlds.  What is suggested here seems different.  It is supported by well-established scientific and mathematical facts.  The population plunge beginning around 2005 is irrefutable.  The only possible alteration in the final outcome may be caused by the seemingly unlikely increase in the fertility rate of baby girls yet to be born, the very persons so commonly rejected by abortion and infanticide in numerous societies.

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany, recently spoke of 500 million Europeans without any caveats relating to population trends.  A decade ago, the President of France spoke about the demise of Europe.  Clearly, there is a denial of reality in some elements of society.  Demographers know for certain that two out of three Europeans will have disappeared by the end of this Century.  Japan and Russia are already in an advanced state of collapse.  Russia is losing one to two million citizens a year.  Japan is closing schools all over the country for the same reason.  China continues its rejection of more than one child, and its society leans heavily to the male, as does the Indian.

The problem facing humanity is so immense, pervasive and profound that despair is easily the winning emotion for those who lack a belief in our Father God.  How God will draw good out of the situation is far beyond our imagining, but an end to the present world and a transition into the glorious world to come, the one which He has promised to those who love Him, is not so easily dismissible.

This essay presents what seems to the author like an under-appreciated perspective relative to our devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Her great privileges in the Divine plan for humankind almost seem to overshadow her virtuous exercise of freedom. It is that active virtuous pursuit of God's Holy Will that presents us with an ideal which is based in the human condition. In her wisdom, she always kept evil at a distance. What God made possible, Mary made a reality under the influence of Grace. She was a perfect custodian of her human heart.

On a recent occasion, when I introduced a few of my grandchildren to the Miraculous Medal, and the thrilling story of St. Catherine Laboure, I realized acutely the possibility of misunderstanding the message contained within the words surrounding Mary's image—"Ô Marie, conçue sans péché, priez pour nous qui avons recours à vous". It had occurred to me many times before, but explaining it to a young Catholic, newly reaching the age of reason, presented a problem, particularly in the environment of today's distorted display of sexuality that seems to haunt every form of public communication, corrupting both the old and the young, often polluting the possibility of clear converse. Many uninformed persons express bewilderment at the sentence with which we are presented: "Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee." How, they think, can an enlightened mind speak of sin in the context of conception, particularly in marriage? Isn't this just a reflection of Catholic reservations about sex and "impurity"? This made me reflect on my own growing years.

Many years ago when I was a boy in Catholic schools, I think two particular and relevant things were better understood and more heavily weighted: 1) The nature of the Original Sin by Adam, including the inherited effect on his children; and 2) the Catholic ideal of a pure heart. It seems to me that both need a proper, uncomplicated re-introduction to the young because it is clear that those topics are directly influenced by today's popular excuses for bad behavior. A starting point for any Christian is to ponder what the Virgin Mary said in Paris to St. Catherine in 1830 (as noted above); at Lourdes to St. Bernadette in 1858 ("I am the Immaculate Conception"); at Fatima in 1917 to Lucy and her two companions ("God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart"); and later, this same message again to Sister Lucy in 1929.¹ These messages from Heaven help us to see that Original Sin and purity of heart are central points of reference in understanding Redemption, and the Christian life.

The "Immaculate Conception" refers to the action of God in preserving Mary from the inherited effects or "stain," as it is commonly called, of the Original Sin of Adam, which is shared by the rest of mankind as a fallen nature. As we read in St. Paul, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do." (Romans, 7:19). Just like her Son, Mary was presented with the same circumstances and temptations of human life as the rest of us are, but through a special gift from God, she had no attachment to sin, and at no time did she ever commit even the slightest actual sin. She had a free will, as all persons do, but she always made wise moral choices when faced with temptation, and so, we may say, she exercised the greatest possible virtue since she chose "the good" throughout her whole life. With a stainless soul, and a stainless humble heart, God thus found her a worthy receptacle for the conception of the Son of God—God Himself—by the Holy Spirit. We can thus begin to see that she provides us with an emulative model of conduct.

In the centuries before the Messiah, it is storied that the Jews wondered why his coming was taking so long. A conclusion was reached that no woman had yet been born who was good and humble enough to be worthy of the privilege of being his mother. Eventually, Mary was that person. Through her sinless life, and profound virtue, came our Salvation. Commonly, when we speak of Mary's pure heart, we use the words, "The Immaculate Heart of Mary." It is an implied reference to the result of the "Immaculate Conception," and the virtuous life she always led. Since she is unique in human history, she was able to say to St. Bernadette at Lourdes,² using the singular adjective, "I am the Immaculate Conception," and she thus refers all glory and praise to her Creator for the Grace she received to live her utterly beautiful, and totally praiseworthy, life.

Mary's unique sinlessness might make us ponder why her intercession is sought under several titles that have particular relevance to the thesis of this essay. In the "Litany of Loretto," we hear: "Virgin of Virgins, Mother most chaste, Mother undefiled, Virgin most pure." Oddly, these titles all seem to impute a certain sexual or carnal morality when "purity" is considered. In fact, however, her purity is much more profound. Imitation of Mary should not be constrained by an implicit comparison and preoccupation with our common limitations in dealing with sexuality. Without belaboring the physicality of these titles, all of them seem to fall short of what I am trying to explore, namely the plain reality of Mary's virtue-filled life—the purity of her "mind, soul, and heart." It was always focused on, centered in, and exercised, purely and solely, on behalf of her Son. Ironically, perhaps these titles for Mary, in the minds of the poorly informed, may also contribute to the misperception of Catholic teaching about the use of the generative privilege of marital life, portraying it as somehow, in some measure, less than pure. I wish to suggest, however, that an offsetting but deeper, more revealing, and summarizing title for the Blessed Virgin Mary might be added to any litany when we think of Mary, and invoke her help: "Perfect Custodian of the Human Heart, pray for us." Purity is achieved only with God's help and a guarded heart.

Always mindful of her lowliness, Mary guarded her heart, and centered it entirely on her beloved son, Jesus. She herself, cooperating with God's initial and continuing Grace, kept her person solely for Jesus throughout all the events of her ordinary life. Her life was a pure, unalloyed gift to Him. St. Paul's description of Love, in I Corinthians 13, only hints at the depths of Mary's virtuous life: "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others (objectify others.³, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

This brings us to a reflection which adds yet another dimension to our consideration of Mary's pure gift of self. We might, perhaps humbly, elaborate the catalog of St. Paul by considering the nature of all truly "human acts;" that is, those acts which we deliberately and freely perform. Most ethicists separate human acts into three categories: good, indifferent, and evil. It is in the "indifferent" category that we can discover the astonishing depth of Mary's great virtue—virtue that we can strive to imitate.

We may reasonably suggest that most human acts are what ethicists consider to be "indifferent." We walk at one speed and not another; we perform acts of minor service for another; we attend to our personal acts of cleanliness; we study for one hour, instead of two; we go to bed at a planned hour, not later; after whimsically reading a book, we use our time well by planning our day, etc.; all with the result that we effectively pass over the opportunity to turn ordinary prose into the poetry of prayer. If each of these acts were done with the intention of honoring God—the more immediately and directly the better—in fact, there might be no indifferent acts as such. This brings us back to our consideration of The Blessed Mother. It seems eminently reasonable and fitting to be convinced that Mary always chose, in her earthly life, to take the better way, or, putting it more appropriately, to modify all her actions in such ways as brought honor and glory to her Son, even in the smallest detail. "Great holiness consists in carrying out the ‘little duties' of each moment."⁴ In this, we find the beginnings of our potential emulation of her virtue—the amazing perfection with which she practiced custody of her heart, not considering anything outside the realm of her Christo-centric life. Everything properly hers was guarded for Him alone.⁵

In the title of a "custodian," we may see the possibility of a truly virtuous life for ourselves, whereas, if we focus only on the uniqueness of Mary's status in Salvation history, and her great privileges, we may also overlook the virtues that we ourselves should emulate, however imperfectly we may succeed. When using the term "Custodian," our personal spiritual and physical limitations, and our sins, are thus cast in a more "adversarial" way. The lives of us all are not without sin and error, and yet, we can amend them, and gain again, the virginity, and the chastity, and even the purity, and wholeness of a giving and selfless life, after falling in whatever way. The history of Christian holiness is filled with this reality. Going further, giving away one's physical virginity in holy and Sacramental marriage can be seen as a gloriously virtuous act. Marriage might even be thus represented as the peak of a virginal life, when marriage is seen in its true vocational character, rather than as an anti-pole to the Consecrated life of Religious.

Our admiration for the Blessed Mother should be appropriately extended in our prayers and contemplation from a focus on her unique privileges, to a stimulating reflection on, and a practical emulation of, her most heroic virtue. "Custody of the heart" is, I believe, that central, positive virtue. That virtue can be, not only admired, but also acquired, as compared to her incomparable, and inimitable physical integrity, and privilege, which are, in fact, the exterior "markers" of her personal virtue, and holiness. By so doing, we may move from admiration of the impossible (for us) to an engagement with the truest virtue, and the "Greatest Commandment," to love God with one's whole heart, soul, and mind (Matthew, 22:36).

The term, "Custodian of the Heart," which each of us certainly is, with regard to ourselves, is a consideration which might make us reflect on its many characteristics. Several come readily to mind. The human dimension of Mary's achievement becomes apparent with but a few moments of thought:

It is an active virtue, not a merely passive disposition;

It keeps the enemy at a distance;

It suggests a focus on a single objective—God's Will;

It avoids dissipation;

It wills never to waste time;

It orders all things to union with God;

It maintains a sense of God's presence at all times;

It anticipates moral danger;

It sees God in everyone, and everything;

It refuses to slake human thirst at anything but the well of Life.

The virtuous, humble humanity of Mary might be more easily admired and reflected upon if we consider the custodial life she led in the context of her holy family. It is something for us to contemplate so as to celebrate her truly human, and utterly charming personality, the very one Our Lord still loves so dearly, and that holds Him, and each of us, tenderly in its thrall and, however figuratively, in her arms. Here, we can profitably consider the Holy Rosary.

Of course, anyone familiar in the least way with the appearances of the Blessed Mother at Fatima is deeply committed to praying the Holy Rosary. She asked for this repeatedly—certainly not for any reason of self-glorification. Such a thought is unimaginable. It must simply be to help mankind focus on the central reality of history—God entered fully into human life by becoming one of us in all things but sin, and this was made possible by Mary's humble "Yes." Our Eternal Salvation was hinged to that one word. Her whole life thus became a practical model.

This manifestation of her ordinary humanity might even suggest some new "Mysteries" to use in praying the Holy Rosary—the context in which most Catholics deal with Mary on an everyday basis. I have read (I cannot remember where) that in the original documents which formalized the prayers of the Holy Rosary, it was suggested that nothing should discourage "the faithful" from introducing, and reflecting on, other "Mysteries" in the lives of Our Lord and the Blessed Mother. With this in mind, after considering many situations in the Gospels, in Tradition, and in popular piety for "Mysteries" with affinity to each other, so as to facilitate easier recollection, and appropriate use in the traditional recitation of the Holy Rosary, I settled on the following suggestions that seem to express Mary's intimate involvement with her family, and her opportunity to hallow the smallest details of life.

The Mysteries of Mary's Ordinary Life

1. Humble servant of the Lord

2. Model Custodian of the human heart

3. Loving wife of Holy Joseph

4. Homemaker for her Holy Family

5. Wondrous teacher of her Son's compassion

There are many Catholics who have grown up with the practice of saying a daily Rosary. They regard it as an assured way to not only contemplate the great events in the lives of Jesus and Mary, but also as a way to increase awareness of the presence of God as they move through their days. That result could hardly be otherwise. Mary's only intention is to draw us closer to her Son. These Ordinary Mysteries may be helpful.

This Essay leads to a single conclusion given to us in the expressed desire of Our Blessed Lord, as told to us by His Mother, in that initial Fatima message of 1917. It is still of the utmost importance, and in great need of implementation: Jesus. . .wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. To those who accept this, I promise them the salvation of their souls, and they will be loved by God like flowers placed by me to adorn His throne.

Hopefully, this discussion about custody of our hearts in imitation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will make a practical contribution to this devotion.

Footnotes:

¹  We may profitably explore certain historical facts that seem relevant. It was Nov. 27, 1830 when the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to St. Catherine in Paris, and used the term "conceived without sin." It was 100 years later, on June 13, 1929, that Mary asked for recitation of the Rosary, and the consecration of "Russia" to her "Immaculate Heart." It took more than 30 years for a consecration of the whole world to take place, though it was done without the specific mention of Russia. Perhaps, it is not unreasonable to correlate these facts with a similar events in 1689 and 1789. The French King, Louis XIV, ignored a request from Jesus in an apparition to St. Margaret Mary Alacoqe, to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart, and avoid great catastrophes. It was not done until June 17, 1789, by his successor, Louis XVI, four years before he lost his head to the guillotine in 1793. Sr. Lucy quotes the Blessed Mother in 1931, "Like the King of France, they will repent and do so, but it will be late." We can see that actualizing our devotion to her must be central to the effort.

²  Remarkable is the date of the Apparition to Bernadette. It was March 25, 1858, the feast day of the Annunciation and the Incarnation of Our Lord, when the Angel Gabriel told her she was "Full of Grace." Also noteworthy is that the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception had been declared by Pope Pius IX in 1854, four years earlier. These notable dates draw our attention to the intimacy of Earthly events with Heaven's calendar.

³  Objectifying others, i.e., seeing in another person an object of personal pleasure, use, or satisfaction, is certainly the root of lust, and of unworthy, or deficient human behavior. It is, in my assessment, the psychological basis of the term "impurity" when discussing human behavior, and is the antithesis of true love, friendship, and the service of others, as understood in Christian morality. Objectifying others debases our motives and makes them impure.

⁴  Saint Josemaria, The Way, #817.

⁵  As we consider our normal human life, hour after hour, day after day, we may think of the seeming impossibility of reflecting and dedicating each moment as it occurs, as if we had a constant "back and forth" between whim and will, so to speak. A thoughtful person has suggested a solution to this seeming impossibility in offering the reflection that time itself is merely a continuous presentation of opportunity to the human person. We can thus see that Mary made a deliberate choice of good at every opportunity. This mode of expression seems to better fit the possibilities of human nature. It also bridges the reality of Mary's earlier years, and her maturity when moral reflection entered her personality.

Who can deny it? Our Western civilization, and now virtually the rest of the world, in a great and monstrous act of sycophancy, seems intent on destroying the human race. Demographers tell us with certainty that in a mere 40 years, the world's population will begin a collapse, slow at first, and then in a great horrifying plunge, called by some of them "The White Pestilence" ("White" being more relevant to our hair than our ethnicity). These easily forecast effects will be even more severe than the unpredicted historical outbursts of the Black Plague. World population will go from 9 billion to 3 billion or less by the year 2100. At that time, the fertility rate will be between a diminishing 1.85 (the U.N.'s unsubstantiated hope) and the more realistic 1.2 of a disappearing population. There is no new governmental fertility program that can be fashioned which can escape this outcome. The present generation of more religiously dedicated younger people can only mitigate the effect of the "end game" for their grandchildren by having babies now and passing on the True Faith. (Steve Mosher's recent book "Population Control" is a great reference that needs study by every serious person.) The children of today's elderly will experience the beginnings of this great human drama; their grandchildren will see the plunge; their great grandchildren will know the end results. It would be crass to assert that the "White Pestilence", just over today's time-horizon should be the great motivator for Catholics to respond to their marital vocation, but today certainly is a time to recognize the awful results of the world's manifest growing rejection of life, particularly for the last 50 to 100 years. Only the great ideal of a full-fledged Catholic Faith, lived with youthful ebullience, can serve God's Will.

Today, the Church's reply to this great impending event of the 21st century has been limited to a rhetorical rejection of abortion and a wimpish finger-shaking at contraception and divorce. Even the Vatican's representative at the UN talks of "Sustainable Development" and other such euphemisms employed by Planned Parenthood and the UNFPA. Instead, it must give a resounding vocational call to generosity in family life, however belated. Bland "Oh my!" type observations that Catholics are no longer different from the people among whom they live is not merely to observe the obvious, it is to leave them in the midst of the foul swamp where they have wandered to die. But how will they confront their mistaken ways and march back to the dry land if they have an uncertain bugler? Protestant Randall Terry of Project Rescue has the right message, "Throw away your contraceptives and have the Children God wants you to have."

Most Catholics (54% in the last US National election) no longer even believe that aiding and abetting the continuation of abortion is utterly incompatible with continued membership in the Church, or its overwhelming importance vis a vis every other public question in our National life. Surely, if one gives a fair reading to the intent of Canon Law and the Catechism, regardless of the evasions employed by both the pro-aborts and the pastoral Episcopacy, this is incontestable. Without any sense of rancor, or desire for punishment or vengeance (incomprehensible sentiments in any Catholic, regardless of who might accuse them, even a Bishop), a recognition of apostasy, heresy, and grave public sin must have public consequences on the practical level. The Eucharist itself is being publicly abused. Bishops disgrace themselves and cause scandal when they discount the expressed and manifest mind of the Pope and Canon Law about pro-abortion public figures receiving Holy Communion. They "waffle" on the question and forget that the law is a teacher, but unenforced law is a nightmare.

We can observe that the Church does not routinely announce to non-Catholics that they will be denied the Eucharist when they attend Mass. The Bishop's directive on this topic, though infrequently spoken, appears in many missals in the pew. Non-Catholics know that they should not approach the Eucharist. Similarly, divorced persons, and persons living in some attachment to sin or irregular marriage, do not approach the Eucharist. Heroic persons in such situations simply stay in their place at that time of the Mass, regardless of human respect. If those who aid, abet, promote, legislate, acquiesce to, assist, or commit abortion are not told explicitly that they have excluded themselves from the Church, there will never be comparable behavior on their part, and they will continue to erode respect of the Holy Eucharist.

Cardinal Stafford's recent comments on the occasion of a review of Humanae Vitae were remarkably grave. His insights were certainly not simplistic. They displayed a serious understanding of Salvation History and where we are today as a result of the recent Presidential election and the voting pattern of persons claiming to be Catholic. After positioning the Eucharist squarely in the center of Catholic marriage and all its attendant issues, he quotes from the Encyclical itself, "we are to be true with body and soul". Nevertheless, standing in distinct opposition to this has been the ambiguous "jawboning" of American Bishops. Rightly or wrongly, today they are widely perceived, by Catholics and non-Catholics as well, to be uncertain about their conclusions on abortion since there is no observable public result. The causes of this are probably many, but the "pastoral" tone of their governance and their recent public record of distrustful behavior is prominent in the list. Many Catholics do not believe the Bishops when you say abortion is always and everywhere wrong. Furthermore, it is commonly and reasonably understood that many of the clergy believe contraception is morally permissible, and abortion acceptable when it does not work. Public testimony of mature and faithful priests re-enforces this belief. Further still, the indecent presentation and teaching of NFP, under the auspices of the Church as if it were some new dogma ("99% effective in avoiding conception", Archdiocese of Phoenix, e.g.), has destroyed any concept of self-sacrificing dedication to the fecundity that God expects of a Catholic couple. Few take seriously any more the teaching authority of the Church on abortion. Three vignettes from recent days make this point.

1) Two elderly ladies in my retirement community, on the last day of the prayer campaign to end abortion, just before the election were seated in the Blessed Sacrament chapel saying the Rosary in a soft voice, their heads leaning toward each other. One, a life-long Democrat, had announced in adamant and aggressive tones that she could not wait to vote for Obama. The other, not so clearly political, had indicated that her vote was for McCain because of Obama's stance on abortion. Their contradictory positions and the consequences seemed to go unnoticed in the pious confusion of the Obama supporter.

2) I asked a 90-year-old lady, a friend who had announced her vote for Obama, if she knew what FOCA meant, thinking she did not and might be persuaded to change her vote if she did. "Oh, yes. It means the Freedom of Choice Act to allow abortion." "But abortion means the murder of a child", I said. "Oh Bernie, we have to have some choices, don't we?", was her reply.

3) A retired lawyer, formerly employed in Democrat legislative affairs who has been publicly praised by the Church, baited me to discuss Congresswoman Pelosi's public statements about the Church's theology on abortion. I demurred. He is virtually a next-door neighbor and I did not want to create difficult feelings by speaking too glibly. Instead, I sent him some of the clear explanations that appeared in a Catholic publication and followed it up a few days later with two pieces of Church generated literature that was intended to help people in making a principled vote. His anger came back to me in a note that explicitly threatened friendship with me if I persisted in "preaching" to him (something that I simply had not done). He said he was "proud" to have voted for his political party's choice.

The situation begs the question: Must not Bishops make it absolutely clear that pro-abortion conduct means a person no longer holds to the Catholic Faith, and that such persons have excommunicated themselves? It seems to me that nothing short of public recognition of this fact, in the case of public figures, will make this point clear and focus the attention of both Catholics and the general public.

Recently, I heard that Venerable John Cardinal Newman once said, "Persons influence us, voices melt us, looks subdue us, deeds inflame us. Many a man will live and die upon a dogma: no man will be a martyr for a conclusion." Rhetorical conclusions seem like all we've had so far.

The Graph presents a period from about 1825 through about 2125. From a relatively stable history through 1900 of less than 2 billion people, the world's population doubles within shorter and shorter periods of time. Using the words of others, the cause was not that 'we have been breeding like rabbits, but that we were not dying like flies'. Health care increased our longevity. Counter-intuitively, but simultaneously, our fertility rate dropped from 6 per child-bearing woman to the present falling rate of 1.54. World population will top-out around 8 billion around the year 2050, and it will be dominated by the elderly. It will then begin a decline that competent demographers already anticipate with certitude. Even the U N's Population division, one of the most prominent promoters of anti-natalist population limits (which they euphemistically justify under the label of "sustainable development"), revels in a drop of many billions of persons in 50 years. The UN Population Division does not provide any support for an end to the drop, other than a vague and unexplained expectation that the fertility rate will somehow settle at 1.85. The persons left between 2100 and 2125 will be dominated, even more completely, by persons beyond child-bearing age as a cumulative result of the disappearing fertility rate. And yet, reality is much graver, as even a casual referral to the Graph reveals. A 1.5 fertility rate in 2050 simply means we will not replace ourselves, and that rate is probably the best we may expect as survivors face the future with less and less optimism and less and less willingness to undertake the burden of child-rearing.

As we move toward 2050, the more and more obvious radical aging of the world's population and the fast-diminishing proportion of young people to support their physical and economic needs will only begin to announce the grimmer consequences yet to follow. Social Security arrangements in all the world's developed economies will become intolerable. Society and governments will likely come adrift. Older persons without family assistance will be put in grave situations as interdependencies will be grievously affected. The dislocations and dilemmas we are already seeing in some countries even today, such as in Russia (a population that is shrinking by nearly 1 million/year and at an increasing rate) and Japan (I recently heard that a most of Japan's work force will be gone in the next 50 years), China, countries of Africa, Latvia, Spain, Italy, France and even the U.S. (despite its immigration of Southern peoples), are only the mildest indication of what is to come in the sudden and uncontrollable collapse of populations world-wide.

We may ask ourselves, is any of this avoidable in any way? Is there any mitigating intervention that is possible? What should be our attitude toward family life and the goals of society's most basic unit, in the light of such a dismal forecast? Most importantly, how does this fit in with our role in fulfilling God's Will in the world, the objectives of His Church, and how we can organize ourselves, as a people on Earth, into a functioning temporal Communion of Saints that permeates society and transforms it, even as it is being punished, cleansed and purified for its awful anti-populist offenses to God? The words of Scripture should resonate in our ears with concern: "When He comes again, will He find Faith on the Earth?"

The key to understanding the Graph is the continuous drop of the fertility rate over the last 50 years which it presents. Nothing in the Graph reveals any mitigation of the collapsing situation, but just as the fertility rate is the cause of the impending situation, any reversal of that rate in today's world would also present the answer to the possibility of a long-term recovery and the softening of the end result. An answer can only be found in children and a return to truly generous family life founded in a serious Human/Christian/Catholic reliance on, and response to an incredibly generous God (while simultaneously knowing that we must expect to share in the purifying consequences of history). Everyone is free and the difficulties parents can anticipate may well seduce even persons with a deep religious sense an into an essentially extinction mentality. The "White Pestilence", which is anticipated in the later part of this Century, will certainly be worse than the unanticipated "Black Death" of the past. The difference between hope and the worst anticipatable outcome will certainly depend on heralding the Christian Gospel by Christians who live it to the full in the hope of Salvation. Christians will have to make a great ‘Venture for Faith’ in a revolution "which has in it a great risk of what we think we have in this world, for what we do not yet have in the life hereafter." (Cdl. Newman in Ventures of Faith). Begin the revolution by reading Mosher's book.

^* Population Control, Steve Mosher, 2008, Transaction Publishers

In my opinion, they would do well to learn from Mount Calvary.  But I think the folks running the Archdiocese are too stuck in their happy-clappy ways to think outside the box in any way that involves looking back at our heritage. Fortunately, Archbishop Lori is the exception to that. He has been a great supporter of the Latin Mass at St. Alphonsus, which has experienced even greater growth since the FSSP took over the parish, and they’re in an even worse neighborhood about a mile away from Mount Calvary. And their median age is probably around 18.

What’s the definition of insanity?  And how does it apply here?

As a computer programmer, I frequently had need of some test data.  I would often use the following text, which is almost verbatim what was announced in the test, with a small modification that would make me smile.

This is a test.  This is only a test.  This is a test of the Emergency Broadcast System.  The broadcasters of your area, in voluntary cooperation with federal, state, and local authorities, have developed this system to keep you informed in the event of an emergency.  If this had been an actual emergency, the attention signal you just heard would have been followed by official news, weather, and sports.

This concludes this test of the Emergency Broadcast System.

The Three Big Lies™ are:

There is no God.

God doesn't love you.

You are God.

On the surface these three lies seem to be mutually exclusive. But on a deeper level, we see that they are like the three primary colors an artist mixes in various proportions to make the exact color he's looking for. A little bit of this lie, a whole lot of that one, and a smidgen of the third, all mixed together create a new lie of a particular "color," often just the right color we need to convince us that the evil to which we are attracted is really a good.