This guest post, by Agnes M. Brazal, is part of our series engaging the book chapters of the newly published Reproduction and the Common Good: Global Perspectives from the Catholic Tradition. Brazal responds to Simeiqi He’s “Reconceptualizing Human Reproduction Beyond John Paul II,” available as a free download here.
Among the popes in modern times, John Paul II offered the most comprehensive discussion of reproduction in his 1960 book Love and Responsibility. Simeiqi He explains, in “Reconceptualizing Human Reproduction Beyond John Paul II,” that John Paul II was also involved in the formulation of Gaudium et Spes and Humanae Vitae; further, his book Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body has been written in defense of Humane Vitae (175).
In this essay, Simeiqi He examined the shift from John Paul II’s anthropocentric concept of human reproduction as a direct fruit of heterosexual marital intercourse with “no artificial interference” to Francis’ more expansive notion of human reproduction as the “reproduction of love in human societies through diverse forms,” aligned more with an anthropocosmic vision.
She traced the evolution of Karol Wojtyla’s early concept of human reproduction as procreation within the order of nature to include the order of person. In this framework, Wojtyła differentiated human reproduction (procreation) from animal reproduction by emphasizing that humans have a “conscious role in the work of creation” which goes beyond animal instinct.
For He, John Paul II’s framing of human reproduction around heterosexual conjugal sexual intercourse leading to childbirth, ultimately defining it as the sole ethical standard, is not only anthropocentric but also lacking and hampers the well-being of women, particularly in situations involving unintended pregnancies due to poverty, lack of access to contraception and lack of education, gender violence, healthcare concerns, and so on.
Francis introduced a fresh perspective by approaching human reproduction through the lens of love’s openness and fruitfulness. In Amoris Laetitia, Francis advocated for a wider perspective on fruitfulness, emphasizing love instead of just the conventional notion of having children within heterosexual marriage.
In chapter five, “Love Made Fruitful,” Francis emphasizes that love is what brings life. Although he recognizes that having children is one way to express the fruitfulness of love, he does not see it as the only or the most important expression of marriage. He referred to “an expanding fruitfulness” that takes many forms, including adoption, foster care, and efforts to heal the wounds of the marginalized, promote a culture of encounter, and advocate for justice (nos. 178-183).
Furthermore, Francis presents a new perspective on reproduction that surpasses John Paul II’s views, focusing on the interconnectedness of God, humanity, and nature. Rather than solely emphasizing the traditional heterosexual nuclear family, he highlights the broader human family and all of creation, the need to appreciate the wisdom of creation, and the family’s role in “domesticating” the world by fostering a sense of kinship with fellow humans.
He makes a connection between the thoughts of Francis, and French philosopher Henri Bergson. For Bergson, while intelligence analyzes everything mechanically, instinct operates more organically. If the dormant consciousness within instinct were to awaken and transform into knowledge, it could reveal the deepest secrets of life. Instinct essentially continues the process through which life organizes matter, making it difficult to determine where organization ends and instinct begins (200-201).
He argues that by reflecting Bergson’s ideas, Francis introduced a different perspective on instinct, transcending John Paul II’s anthropocentric view to embrace an anthropocosmic vision. The human moral life is redefined not as dominance over or conflict with animal instincts but as part of a process of creative evolution that connects back to the vastness of the universe, where “creation is of the order of love” (Laudato Si’, no. 77). Though He could have demonstrated or elaborated more on how Bergson directly influenced Francis, she has made an important contribution in this essay by foregrounding and explaining in-depth the more expansive view of human reproduction of Francis.
From an ecologically sensitive perspective that recognizes the interdependence in creation, human reproduction should always be viewed with and not in opposition to the rest of creation (other humans, society, and creatures). Furthermore, Francis’ focus on love as the foundation of life/fruitfulness has the effect, intentionally or not, of overcoming heteronormativity and providing a criterion for judging the “artificial” (e.g. artificial contraception, artificial insemination). It holds a family resemblance too with our proposal – in the article “Sexuality as Pangangatawan: A Postcolonial Feminist Perspective,” − to translate sexuality in Filipino as pangangatawan and to regard reproductive health/justice accordingly. The root word of pangangatawan is katawan (body). Pangangatawan means responsible embodiment, that is, to reflect in one’s bodily actions one’s values or convictions. In line with this view of sexuality, reproductive health/justice and responsible parenthood must attend with care to the health/welfare of the mother, the family, the bigger society, and the whole of creation, where love is made manifest in a sense of responsibility (pangangatawan) to everyone.
Agnes M. Brazal is Full Professor and Research Fellow in Theology at the De la Salle University, Philippines. Her latest publications include the co-edited book 500 Years of Christianity in the Philippines and the Global Filipino/a: Postcolonial Perspective (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024), “Sexuality as Pangangatawan: A Post-colonial Perspective,” in Toward a Bai Theology: Catholic Feminism in the Philippines (Claretian Publ., 2023), and “Asian Women’s Participation in the Synodal Process” Theology 127, no. 4 (2024): 251-259. She obtained her STD/PhD in Theology at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium. Brazal Google Scholar