The Catholic times. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1951-current, 1961-02-03

Crosby The Critic

John Crosby, the well-knoWn Syndicated TV critic,
has recently expanded his efforts to a much wider area
and is called a "crhic at large" by his publishers.
In the January % issue of the New York Herald
Tribune Mr.. Crosby wrote a column titled Dogma
Makes Strange Bedfellows,' in which he says that the
Catholic Church, the Communist party, and Wall
Street are "all in the same bed" because they favor
population increase.
THIS COMMENT was occasioned by President
KennedyS inaugural remark that the us. is pledged
to help those Sin the bonds of mass misery"
Mr.. Crosby says: ""There is only one solution ITO
the problem of mass misery and that is population
control. And that, in blunteSt terms, means birth con-
troll. And that in bluntest terms, is modern contracep-
ton, the greatest invention of the nineteenth century"
He GOES ON TO state that our planet was not
meant to hold three billion people without a vast
amount of mass misery. That we shall have mass
misery here in the US. too, unless unbridled popu-
lation is checked"
The columnist points out that the most ~forcefuI
opposition to artificial birth control comes from the
Catholic Church. And he states that if President Ken
nedy is serious about relieving mass misery, which to
Crosby means population explosion, then the Presi-
dent will break with his own Church, as he has done
In differing sharply with some of the hierarchy on
aid to ~parochial schools and the appointment of a
minister to the Vatican"
WE CoULD OMMEN at some length on these
statements but will content ourselves with two obser-
vations.
FIRST. for Mr.. Crosby to equate the Church's
position on birth control with the stand of some Of
the hierarchy on aid TO schools and an ambassador TO
the Vatican, is evidence that he does not realize that
one is an Interchangeable doctrine and the others are
simply opinions of individuals. They are not in the
same category.
SECONDLY. and Mr.. Crosby has the right to his
opinion, for the columnist to speak so categorically
and certainly about the future state of the world and
our country in the face of increasing population is as
Stunning an authority which he does not have.
We would prefer to look to experts in the field
for our position on population problems. We prefer
the statements of such economists as DR.. Colin Clark
who wrote in FORTUNE for December: Population
limitation is bad economics and bad politics" 1t has
been "a frequent and potent cause of claims by the
state to regulate economic life, the dependence Of the
individual upon state welfare services, excessive tax
alton, and deterioration of the value of money.
THOSE PEOPLES, on the other hand, who cour-
ageously and intelligently face the challenge of popt-
lation increase, will be rewarded by economic, politi-
cal, and cultural progress TO an extent beyond any
limits that we can now foresee."
So, according to this well substantiated view, pop
ulation limitation is not only morally wrong, which is
paramount. it is wrong for these other reasons as we'll.
AS FOR MR. CROSBY. may W. respectfully re-
mark that in the fields of demography and agronomy,
John Crosby is an excellent critic Of television-GAF