Recently, Pope Leo XIV warned European leaders that the continent has entered a time of “drastic sterility”. Most modernised nations are facing that problem and trying to address it by implementing family-friendly policies. According to Pope Leo, however, these policies are among the culprits of decline and really “promote discrimination against motherhood”. The solution to the fertility crisis is not to concoct the right collection of policies to promote motherhood. The solution is a recovery of the telos of woman.

Common proposed solutions to the fertility problem remain in the realm of policy – better family leave programmes, public childcare, etc. But these kinds of solutions do not work on their own. In fact, there is some indication that they make things worse. In The Decadent Society, Ross Douthat points out that the specific policies built to secure us against old age, and to free women to work despite their children, can actually lead to a decreased birth rate. They give us a greater sense of self-sufficiency, which naturally diminishes the importance of relying on family, and of relying on other families.

The crisis of fertility does not come from poor policy, but from the fact that we have forgotten what a woman is for. Many on the Left deny that womanhood is a biological reality. The Right is caught up in defending that reality, but has failed to explain what that biological reality is for. Modern conservatives are still liberal in that they believe in the supreme right of self-determination regardless of race, creed or even sex. To define a purpose for womanhood would limit women, and that is illiberal.

A fascinating articulation of what a woman is for (as well as a man) comes from the theologian Dr Deborah Savage. In response to John Paul II’s encyclical on the dignity of woman, she took it upon herself to articulate the dignity of man, and in doing so she came across a compelling framework in Genesis.

Simply put, we can tell what a man is for and what a woman is for based on what happens in the Garden. Adam is created in a world that is full of things (res) – animals, plants, even spiritual things like justice and goodness. This is his vista. Contrast this with Eve. Her vista, her world from the beginning of her existence, includes man. It includes a person. Faced with the beauty of man, the crown of creation, the res falls into the background as secondary in priority, and her focus is on the person.

This signals to Savage two distinct “Domains”, the Domain of Things and the Domain of Persons. Man is made for the former and woman for the latter.

A domain is not a confining “gender role”. A domain is a kingdom. It is the place where she rules. A woman’s body was made to receive, carry and nourish persons. This is what she was called to do whether biologically or spiritually. Our society no longer appreciates this domain. Women resent it and men pity it. This contempt for the Domain of Persons is why our policies will not fix the birth rate.

The birth rate would be fixed if more women embraced and lived out the Domain of Persons. So why do they not? Because we value the Domain of Things more.

You can see this in the policies we attempt to enact to “make motherhood easier”. Extended family leave, state-sponsored childcare, Medicaid for in-home carers, etc. These do not actually make it easier for a woman to be a mother. They make it easier for a woman to be a working mother.

The choice of staying home, of becoming proficient in the Domain of Persons, is looked down on in our society. And so our policy decisions are made in a way that treats having a child as a handicap, as something that needs to be remedied so that a woman can do exactly what a man does.

These policy decisions – expanded childcare, expanded maternity leave and all the rest – will not work if we assume that the Domain of Things is the only legitimate domain and the Domain of Persons is unnecessary. We do not get what we do not value.

What, then, are the policies we need to enact to fix the fertility crisis? The temptation is to start there, to demand a family wage and be done, but that gets the order backwards.

First, a small group of influential leaders must recognise and name the purpose of womanhood – that she is made for persons. This will start the movement of the culture in a direction more friendly to the Domain of Persons. Next, local churches must recommit themselves to caring for mothers in a special way, particularly the widow and the orphan. Many Catholics have largely abdicated that foundational responsibility to the welfare state.

Then we can have a discussion about policy. If the culture values motherhood on the one hand and the Church cares for mothers on the other, then we can better discern policies that will fill in the gaps, if there are any.

Changing the culture takes a long time, but we must act quickly. The birth rate is still falling as we speak.