[further contents]
Conscious Birth Restriction
Birth Control: An Open Letter
The "Committee on Birth Control"
SEMI-MONTHLY
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915
THE AMERICA PRESS
59 East 83rd Street
NEW YORK
THE CATHOLIC MIND
By Richard H. Tierney, S.J.
A Lecture Delivered in Buffalo, August 27, 1913, at a
The opportunity of addressing this Federation is a
source of great pleasure to me. As a member of a church which during
its whole existence has waged a constant, strenuous, intelligent
warfare against the social evil consequent on the fall of man, and as
a teacher whose life is consecrated to the education of boys and young
men, I rejoice at the chance of paying tribute to the lofty purpose
and unselfish zeal of the members of this society. Your purpose,
gentlemen, is sublime; your zeal inspiring. And it is good that such
is the case. For there is need of both in view of the delicate
problem which is calling for solution.
This question of sex hygiene is not merely
pedagogical, nor yet one that affects temporal interests only, such as
the health of the individual and the present welfare of the family and
state. Though it does not neglect these, still it reaches beyond them
and has its chiefest concern with the eternal destiny of man, the fate
of his immortal soul. Man's temporal and eternal interests are
involved in the problem. Hence its unique importance.
In the final analysis, the question concerns the
abolition of sexual sin. Many suggestions have been made for the
accomplishment of this. That which is most in favor at present
advocates the public teaching of detailed sex hygiene to our school
children.
A careful study of the proposed courses reveals
therein two elements, one intellectual, the other ethical. The former
is detailed; the latter vague and purely naturalistic. The course
adopted, therefore, will appeal primarily to the intellect. Its main
effort will be knowledge, information; not will-power, not virtue,
either natural or supernatural. The course is incapable of arousing
strong moral forces. The appeal is made to the wrong faculty. The
emphasis is put in the wrong place. Hence motives for right conduct
will be weak and ineffective. Information, aye, even love of
learning, can not keep a man upright before God, can not cleanse a
heart or keep it clean. Knowledge is not moral power. There is a
deep psychological truth in the horrid sneer of Mephistopheles that
man uses reason to be more bestial than the beast. Does not Coleridge
insinuate a similar idea by saying that it is principally by the will
that we are raised over the estate of an animal? Both men read
history and knew something of psychology. They were not theorizing.
Knowledge of itself saves nobody from delinquency.
Almost all our sinful men and youths realize that
some dread disease follows sexual sin. The result is not virtue, but
precaution to avoid the disease. Better sanitation, not more morality
is the outcome. A race of hygienists, not a galaxy of saints is the
result. An apostle of this movement sums up my contention in this
pithy sentence: "I confess that I am not moral, but I am hygienic."
Hygiene is a barrier of straw before the onrush of the primal passion
in man. Christ, not hygiene, saved the world. Christ, not hygiene,
will clean the world and keep it clean. Hygiene will but give point
to Sophocles' burning words: "Fair to the eye, but a festering sore
within."
Some ten or twelve years ago the physical dangers
of this sin were brought to the attention of our college boys. The
horrors of venereal disease were laid bare in lecture and pamphlet.
Nothing was hid. A marked improvement in morals has not been noted.
Your society is distributing a play called "Damaged Goods," whose
lesson is my lesson, to wit: knowledge is not a protection against
passion. The keen psychologist, William James, approaches the same
truth when he insists that sensuous images must be combated by ideals
that lie beyond the intellect.
Why, ladies and gentlemen, if belief in a personal
God and an eternal hell is at times scarce sufficient to keep men
clear of impurity, is it too much to say that insistence on hygiene
will be altogether ineffective for the preservation of chastity?
Solomon, who was wise beyond measure, answers:
"As I knew that I could not otherwise be continent
except God gave it, ...I went to the Lord and besought Him." As it
appears to me, not only will the detailed teaching of sex hygiene
prove ineffective of the very noble purpose in view, but it will even
thwart that purpose.
This phase of the question must be examined
critically and dispassionately. Such an examination necessitates the
consideration of some facts concerning children of ten or twelve or
fifteen years and youths of eighteen and nineteen years. At these
ages the faculties are untrained and to a large extent undisciplined.
The imagination is flighty and irresponsible and extremely susceptible
to sensuous images. These images impress themselves on the fantasy
and notably influence the actions and often the whole life of the
youth. Moreover, the will of the child and youth is weak and
vacillating and subject to the allurement of pleasure in whatsoever
form it may appear. Now the sex passion is for the most part aroused
through the imagination. As a rule the first impulse is not
physiological. It is psychological. It almost invariably begins in
the fantasy. A vivid sensuous image occupies the fantasy. Sensible
pleasure is then experienced, and there is no force to combat it
effectively. The will is weak, untrained. It appreciates a good, and
either falls to it forthwith or delays its poor resistance till the
soul is aflame with the fire of concupiscence. The detailed teaching
of sex hygiene, especially if it be done through book and chart, will
make a strong impression on the young imagination. Sensuous images
will crowd the faculty as bats crowd a deserted house. The condition
already described will follow, viz., sinful thoughts, sinful desires,
sinful conversations, preludes to other crimes which we prefer to pass
over in silence.
Nor is this all. For obvious reasons this
instruction is apt to put forward by some years the time of
suggestion, and temptations which normally belong to the age of
eighteen will be experienced at the age of twelve or fourteen.
Experience and psychology tell the result. A month ago a medical
doctor told me that the pastor of some boys who had attended lectures
on sex hygiene complained that he found his boys joking and laughing
unseemingly over the pictures drawn by the lecturer on the board.
There is scarcely need of pointing the lesson; but I will say that we
can not afford to concentrate the attention of our children on sex
details. Safety lies in diverting their attention from them. In
truth, the safety of most adults, trained though they are, depends
largely on the same process. A moment's reflection will convince the
thoughtful that even physiology supports this contention.
But to continue: Two of the great natural
protections of our children are modesty, or reserve, if you will, and
shame; not prudery, mark you, but healthy and healthful shame. Both
are sniffed at as an outgrowth and upgrowth of dogmas and
superstition. They are neither one nor the other. They are an
instinct of nature. This is true, especially of the latter, which is
seen in children before they reach the age of reason. Modesty and
shame, then, are natural protectors of chastity. But the public and
frequent discussion of sex details will destroy both. Familiarity
will breed carelessness. The lesson of the class will become the
topic of conversation. Reserve will go. Shame will disappear. Sin
will follow. Thus your good intentions will be frustrated. A few
weeks ago a careful periodical announced that discriminating critics
attribute the deplorable condition of morals in one of our high
schools to the very cause just now discussed.
The more I ponder the means advocated to combat the
social evil, the stronger grows my conviction that this whole movement
will eventually fail of its high purpose. Successful house-building
does not begin high in the air at the steepletop. It begins in the
ground. Therein are laid firm and fast foundations which ultimately
support the tower. Chastity is the tower. Deep down in the soul must
be placed foundations for its support. Such foundations are
self-control, self-sacrifice, obedience to conscience and external
authority, modesty, love of purity, respect for self and others, high
reverence for motherhood, and all the traits which combine to make a
sweet, noble, strong character. Elemental character-training is the
first important step towards purity. Sex instruction will not give
character, if for no other reason, because it is not deep and
comprehensive enough. Without character, sex instruction is as chaff
before the wind. And, sad to say, our children lack character. Their
ideals are low. Their wills are slack of purpose. At home the youths
are absorbed in luxury or frivolity, or both. And for reasons which
we need not discuss here, our schools do not open the eyes of their
souls to the higher and finer realities of life. For only too many,
life is but food and raiment and pleasure. In their estimation, meat
is more than life; raiment more than modesty; pleasure more than
virtue.
If your movement would be successful it must first
concern itself with this state of affairs. It must reach down to the
very elements of character. It must acquaint the child with the
things of the spirit, and then teach him to love the things of the
spirit. A child is naturally moral. Even the new experiences of the
age of puberty are accompanied by strong moral impulses. As a
consequence the task of forming his soul is not supremely difficult.
Failure in this matter does not come from the difficulty of the task,
but from neglect of the task. A boy properly managed is as willing to
care for the soul as the body. His delight over his growing muscles
is often exceeded by joy over his growing strength of character.
Athleticism of the spirit can be made as congenial to him as
athleticism of the body. But, alas, his instructors are often more
concerned with the latter than the former. Mutatis mutandis,
all this is equally true of the girl.
But do not misunderstand me. Though I insist that
such formation is both the first necessary step towards your final aim
and an excellent, though perhaps indirect, training for purity, yet it
is sadly inadequate. Life on the highest plane is impossible without
God and religion. And chastity belongs to life on the highest plane.
The conclusion is Solomon's: chastity is a gift of God. And if you
dislike Solomon, the conviction is Plato's and the converted Carlyle's
and others' who have fought the battle of life. This is not mere
rhetoric. Experience as a priest has taught me that the children of
religious schools are vastly more moral that the children of
non-religious schools. The difference between the two classes is
striking to a degree little appreciated by most people. And there is
a certain fiery nation, a Niobe amongst nations, distinguished for its
faithfulness to religion. The result is a purity which is the
admiration of the unprejudiced.
Not long since a doctor who has given lectures on
sex hygiene in one of our western States spoke to me of her work. No
one could have been more earnest in your cause. Yet she insisted on
two points: the difficulty of getting suitable instructors--an item
worthy of your consideration--and the futility of sex instruction
which is not supported by an appeal to God and prayer. As far as she
could see, the boys and girls got profit through that alone, if not
entirely from that. Unfortunately her appeal to the religious
sentiment raised so strong a protest that it had to be discontinued.
Will the same not happen if this saving element is introduced into the
lectures by this Foundation? And if such an element is not
introduced, will your lectures be fruitful of good or evil?
Be convinced, ladies and gentlemen, that religion
alone will be of lasting benefit in this campaign. God, not hygiene,
is the supreme need of the hour. Our children must have brought home
to them the idea of a personal, omnipresent, omniscient God, who
rewards virtue and punishes vice. Nothing can replace God in their
souls. The human heart is made for God. It is hungry for Him,
thirsty for Him. Without Him there is a void in the soul, a craving
for something that should be and is not, a haunting sense of lack,
which, in St. Paul's judgment, causes the ungodly to make unto
themselves gods of the things of earth. The need of this Federation
bears eloquent testimony to the nature of the thing of earth which is
the god of many.
On the other hand, if God is put into the life of
the child, all is different. The child is consecrated to something
holy and has no serious thought for sin. God is present in his
thoughts, God is present in his words, God is present in his actions.
The child and all that is his, thoughts, words, and actions, are
wrapped round with divinity. He stands with God for God, not with
vice and for vice. Herein is the lasting hope of your movement.
Herein is profit, herein protection, herein eternal life.
These, then, are my convictions about the public
and detailed teaching of sex hygiene. They are not favorable to your
movement in all its details. Neither are they adverse to all its
details. Eliminate from your lectures the details of sex hygiene;
cast aside text-book and chart. Train your children's character.
Teach them that purity is noble and possible; that vice is vile and
carries with it its punishment; that marriage is inviolable; that the
family is sacred. Your boys; teach them that their bodies are vessels
of honor, the habitation of an immortal soul made in the image and
likeness of God, redeemed in the Blood of Christ; train them from
their early years to reverence womankind, to fall down in veneration
before motherhood, God's sweet gift to women. Your girls; teach them
reserve, modesty in manner and dress; tell, oh, tell them that in
them, in their purity and self-sacrifice lies the hope of our beloved
nation. This done, carry your campaign further. Purge the press,
cleanse the novel, elevate the theater, abolish animal dances, frown
on coeducation after the age of puberty. In the words of St. Paul:
"Be instant in season, out of season; reprove, entreat," so that all
men may realize the great obligation of life, which is know God and do
His behests.
THE CATHOLIC MIND
By Paul L. Blakely, S.J.
Are we brutes, or have we fallen to a level below
the brute, for which there is no name but perversion? A brute may be
held in some respects a noble creation, swift of foot it may be,
glossy of coat, a delight to the eye. Even your hog with ringed nose
tip-tilted above the swell of the mire, is as God made him. He has no
rational soul; but he is absolutely true to his instincts. Within his
lowly sphere, he fulfils, by the compulsion of nature, it is true,
Falstaff's resolution to live cleanly as a gentleman should. For he
is no pervert. He has no desire to limit or end his kind. In
comparison with the beast which the harpies of modern social progress
would make us, he is a ministering angel, kindly, gracious and
lovable.
In the pages of certain American newspapers and
magazines, this social progress is "gabbling like a thing most
brutish." We are regaled with details hitherto confined to the pages
of textbooks on veterinary science. Whether or not the methods of
birth restrictions therein recommended are fit and profitable may be
left to the decision of the expert stock raiser. They are intended
for brutes, and they may be suited for brutes, but man is not a brute.
He has a rational soul. Independently of divine revelation, he knows
the difference between right and wrong, and he can not free himself
from the responsibility attaching to acts freely posited. He differs,
therefore, and essentially, from the beast of the field. To apply the
methods of stock raising to the human race is a thing more vile and
stupid than any plot cooked in the befuddled brain of drunken Caliban,
at home in his mud. For Caliban, be it remembered, very like a hog in
many respects, like a hog was no perverter of the law of his nature.
According to Section 1142 of the New York Penal
Code, to give information leading to race suicide is a misdemeanor.
"This law," says an apostle of modern progress, "is a disgrace and a
scandal." "The most progressive men and women," warns another, "can
see the danger to the race in this and similar archaic legislation."
"It is a matter of common supposition," adds a third, "that
contraceptives are used by the well-to-do and better-educated classes.
It is fairly evident that such methods are not being used by the
poorest and most ignorant people. Thus the rate of increase is coming
fastest from those who, by their physical and mental status and their
environment, are least able to bring into the world healthy children,
and to raise them to be efficient men and women." "Any person with a
scientific education," argues a lady, who recently sued for wages due
her for advocating, as a disinterested witness for "the uplift,"
certain moving pictures banned by the New York police, "must believe
that this law should be repealed. The knowledge of birth control
should be given to all classes." This is the noisome argument of the
"uplifters," most of them, to our shame be it confessed, women, who
are endeavoring to repeal or amend Section 1142, the one poor, slender
bar which prevents those for whom statute law is the sole norm of
morality, from doing what they can to put an end to the human race by
frustrating the law of nature.
The ostensible purpose of these vampires of society
is to improve the human race. This they will do by popularizing a
practice which directly and primarily makes the continuance of the
human race impossible. Without restricting marital rights, this
practice will relieve the contracting parties of the burden incidental
to the rearing of children until such time as husband and wife are
able to perform these duties satisfactorily. When this stage,
economic, physical or moral, has been reached, it is proposed to allow
the law of nature to operate without interference. It is also plain
that a general knowledge of effective contraceptives will be of great
value to persons contemplating or sustaining illicit unions.
It may be remarked at the outset, that no proof is
offered, or can be offered, tending to show, first, that the physical
organs functioning in procreation, are made fitter for their office by
deliberate, habitual misuse; or, secondly, that the moral and psychic
changes induced by this practice, and affecting the domain of the
will, strengthen the individual to assume the necessary burdens of
parenthood. But apart from these considerations, and granting for the
moment that, year by year, thousands of human beings come into
existence diseased and crippled, to fill our foundling homes, or to
pass from surroundings of poverty and vice into hospitals, lunatic
asylums and jails, let us come to the fundamental point at issue: Can
men and women freely posit the act of which procreation is the natural
term, and licitly shirk parenthood?
To this question, a negative is the only possible
answer. No interference with the law of nature can be tolerated,
whether the act leading to procreation be promiscuous, or sanctioned
by the bond of marriage. If, in a given instance, valid reasons make
the natural result of the union of the generative principles
inadvisable, this end must be attained, not by a perversion of the
functions of nature, but by abstinence.
This position, championed notably by the Catholic
Church, is founded neither upon an arbitrarily chosen basis of
man-made morality, nor upon changing reasons of expediency. It rests
upon the natural law, the rule of conduct found in the constitution of
our being. It was to this law that Cicero referred when he spoke of
that ordination "not written, but born within us; which we have not
learned or received by tradition, or read, but which we have sucked
in, imbibed, from nature itself." St. Augustine, one of the
master-minds of time, defines it "as the reason or will of God,
commanding the observance of the natural order and forbidding its
violation"; St. Thomas, as "the rational creature's participation in
the eternal law." It is not given by supernatural revelation; both in
being and in point of time, it is prior to revelation, strictly so
called. It presupposes, as Kant admits, that knowledge of God which
is acquired, not through revelation, but by reason; and its purpose is
to guide all contingent beings to their natural end.
A master of jurisprudence, Blackstone, offers the
following illuminating comments upon the natural law:
As man depends absolutely upon his Maker in all
things, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his
Maker's will.... This will of his Maker is called the law of
nature.... When He created man and endued him with free will to
conduct himself in all parts of life, He laid down certain immutable
laws of human nature.... He laid down only such laws as were founded
in those relations of justice that existed in the nature of things
antecedent to any positive precept.... These are the eternal immutable
laws of good and evil.... which He has enabled reason to discover, so
far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions.... This
law of nature.... is binding all over the globe, in all countries and
at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this.
It is not necessary, then, to invoke supernatural
revelation to show that acts militating against the preservation of
the human species are in violation of the natural law, for, as
Blackstone points out, this law is made known to man "by reason, so
far as is necessary for the conduct of human nature." Man has, by his
nature, the propensity and power to propagate his kind. This power,
unless we are to accept a philosophy of hedonism and anarchy
destructive of all society, is not given primarily for the good of the
individual, but for the good of the species. Man can not attain the
development suggested by nature without society; society can not exist
if the generative function be perverted. The preservation of the
human race, imperatively demanded by right reason and order, can be
secured only by the means provided by nature. According to nature's
law, the effect of the union of the generative principles is, de
se, procreation. But the use of contraceptives effectively
prevents procreation. It is, therefore, a violation of the natural
law, and of its nature, forbidden.
To this argument, the following rebuttal has been
offered. It is not intended to advise a permanent use of
contraceptives. Like every human faculty, the generative power is to
be exercised only under a wise restraint and with full understanding
of its consequences to the individual and to society. But the natural
law is not defeated by a single isolated act, or, indeed, by a series
of such acts, restricted to a given pair. On the contrary, the true
purpose of the law, the conservation of society, is best served by
producing, through selective processes, a stock which will evolve a
more highly perfected race.
In reply, it must be said that the time limits
proposed by the advocates of birth restriction have no bearing on the
argument. Common sense bears witness that the essential morality of
an act is determined by its agreement or disagreement with a fixed
norm; and this without reference to past conduct or to resolutions for
the future. Lying is lying, whether I propose to give over lying
after a single isolated infraction of the truth, or whether I have the
unalterable determination of lying as long as I have breath. An
individual is rightly called a thief, despite his intention to tread
the ways of honesty after he has acquired a competency by thieving.
Furthermore, it is nothing less than anarchy to sanction a violation
of law on the ground that a single infraction does not effectively
destroy the general purpose of the law.
Equally outside the question is the avowal of these
advocates, that their sole intention is to improve the human race.
The end does not justify the means; and it is with their methods, not
with their intentions, that precise issue is raised. The order that
is in the essence of things postulates that a faculty attain the end
to which its nature impels it, and for which it is primarily and
essentially intended. Such interference, then, as effectively
prevents the faculty from attaining its end, violates the nature of
that faculty. To uphold the contrary of this proposition involves a
denial of the existence of the natural law. Now, no argument can
obscure the fact that the primary end, intended by the very nature of
the generative principles, is procreation; for these principles by
their nature tend to this end and to no other. But the use of a
contraceptive directly and effectively prevents the generative
principles from attaining the end for which they are primarily and
essentially intended, and is, therefore, an act specifically
prohibited by the natural law.
Times have changed from the days when mother, wife,
child, were terms which bore about them a sweetness and a sanctity
almost supernal. We have thrown God out of our literature, our
philosophy, our politics, our schools, our practical lives, and now we
are taught that it is holy to eliminate Him completely from our very
nature. Hence we are brought face to face with that most horrible of
corruptions, the unnatural rottenness that is worked by fleshly lust
unchained. In the first chapter of Romans, St. Paul bears witness to
the fearful perversion of a once hardy, virile people. What stands
between us and like ruin, if the counsels of these modern apostles of
unutterable vileness, "whose very name it is a shame to speak,"
prevail? The truth of the living God, the law expressed in their
nature, they made a lie; for this cause God gave them over to shameful
affections. It is inevitable. Blot out God, and eternal night
descends; and through the reeking vapors, the harpies hasten to feast
upon this decadent mass that once was decency, high-mindedness, the
purity of womanhood and the honor of man.
THE CATHOLIC MIND
To Clare Gruening Stillman,
My Dear Madam:--A careful searching of memory
and an anxious examination of conscience have not enabled me to
discover any act or utterance of mine which would justify you in
expecting that I should consider favorably your invitation, which I
have received, to become a member of the Birth Control League. I
regard the practice which your organization desires to promote as
immoral, degrading and stupid. The so-called contraceptive devices
are intrinsically immoral because they involve the unnatural use, the
perversion, of a human faculty. One of the most important human
faculties is used in such a way as to frustrate its natural end. Such
conduct is quite as immoral as self-mutilation, or the practice of
solitary vice. Any person who rejects this fundamental moral
principle concerning the wrongfulness of perverting a faculty, must
logically hold that there is no such thing as intrinsic immorality,
that moral badness is always identical with individual disutility, and
that anything is right which any individual thinks is useful for him.
The practice in question is degrading because it
perverts conjugal intercourse from cooperation (potential if not
actual) with the Creator into a mere means of sensual gratification.
It brings husbands and wives down to the level of mutual instruments
of indulgence. The disgusting calculation and repulsive artifice
which characterize the various contraceptive devices, tend inevitably
to diminish conjugal reverence, self-respect and mutual respect. It
is doubtful whether any normal man or woman ever began such practices
without suffering a severe moral shock, or continued them without
serious moral degeneration. It is not surprising that men and women
who thus pervert one of the highest functions of life, and the most
intimate relation of marriage, should grow obtuse in their perceptions
of the sacredness and exclusiveness of wedlock, and of the binding
character of conjugal obligation. It is not a mere coincidence that
childless marriages, and one or two-child marriages should form such a
large proportion of the cases in which divorce is sought on "statutory
grounds." Incidentally I would observe that, so far as I know,
physicians are practically unanimous in declaring that all the
contraceptive practices are in some degree injurious to health.
These practices are stupid because they are so
evidently subversive of the end which the Birth Control League profess
to promote; namely, human welfare. And the advocates thereof are
short-sighted and superficial. They have not learned the obvious
lessons of human history, nor grasped the fundamental facts of human
psychology. They fail to realize the inevitable by-products of the
practice. It is probably true that if the poorest laborers could
restrict the size of their families, they could raise their standard
of living, and increase to some degree their material welfare. But
this is only one of the consequences. When we take a comprehensive
view of the situation, we find that any group, class, or nation that
once becomes addicted to the use of contraceptives does not give it up
after the immediate material ends have been attained. They are not
content to take advantage of these devices merely until they have
reached a level of reasonable comfort. They continue them in the
interest of ease and luxury. This is what has happened and is
happening in those sections of the middle and upper classes that have
adopted the abominable vice, and there is no good reason to hope that
the poorer classes would fail to follow their example.
Now, the restriction of the number of children to
one, two or three for the sake of ease and material satisfaction,
inevitably produces a disinclination to endure hardship, an inability
to put forth painful effort, and a general weakening of moral fiber.
This means a decline in every sort of efficiency; for the capacity to
endure and the ability to do without, will forever remain the
essential conditions of achievement. Talk as we will about "the joy
of work," the sober fact is that every kind of labor involves painful
exertion if it is carried on continuously, effectively, and up to the
limit of one's capacity. There are few if any active persons who
would not find it more pleasant to diminish considerably the amount of
time and effort that they spend at their tasks. Now, a social
practice, like the use of contraceptives, which aims at a life of ease
and a shirking of unpleasant duties, reduces fatally the power of
endurance, and the ability to carry on sustained and effective labor.
It affects the few children that are born even more than the parents;
for it deprives them of the necessary training in endurance, and keeps
before them the bad example of their luxury-loving elders. They are
not only small in quantity, but poor in quality; that is, in moral
quality, which is the supreme human quality. The social group that
has thus weakened its moral fiber inevitably declines in social power
and importance. Witness the decadence of the New England strain in
our own population; the condition of the French nation, as described
and deplored by such authorities as the great economist,
P. Leroy-Beaulieu; and the imminent degeneration that threatens
certain sections of the English-speaking peoples in more than one
country, as set forth in detail by Mr. Beale in his "Racial Decay."
I have no intention of denying that large sections
of the laboring class have only too much opportunity to cultivate
their capacity for endurance. They would be not only more comfortable
but more efficient if this opportunity were considerably diminished.
But the only safe way to bring about this result is by bettering their
condition economically. The remedy advocated by the Birth Control
League is futile and disastrous, inasmuch as, in the long run, and
sometimes in the "short run," it impels its votaries to the other
extreme, to the pursuit of ease and luxury, and to the adoption of
ideals and practices which inevitably produce moral deterioration and
a serious decline in efficiency. Wherever the small family cult is
practiced, it is both the effect and the cause of a conception of life
which regards an indefinite increase of material satisfaction and
sensations as the highest good. It involves the most far-reaching
exemplification that the world has ever known of what Carlyle called
"pig-philosophy." Why should we be in haste to fasten this curse upon
the laboring classes? Until such time as the poorest laborers are put
in possession of living wages, they have within their power an
entirely innocent means of keeping down the number of their offspring,
namely, conjugal abstinence. Those parents who have sufficient moral
strength to adopt this means will be in no danger of
character-degeneration through the presence of a small instead of a
large family. Those who do not feel equal to this sacrifice can not
afford to run the risk of the moral deterioration which follows the
use of contraceptives. They need that natural and compulsory form of
self-denial which a large family involves. I am well aware that it is
easy to find exceptions to the dire consequences that I have
attributed to the practice of the small family cult; but my statements
apply to large social groups, and assume that the practice is
maintained through two or three generations. In these conditions
experience has shown, and continues to show, that the thing is
socially disastrous.
Were I a believer in the doctrine that "the end
justifies the means," I should, as a Catholic, rejoice in every
extension of the nefarious practices advocated by the Birth Control
League. For I should feel assured that every such extension was
hastening the day when Catholics would become the predominant element
in our population. Already the tendency in this direction has been
considerably accelerated through the prevalence of the small-family
cult among non-Catholics. Unfortunately many Catholics have been, to
some extent, contaminated by the bad example set in this matter by
their separated brethren. Nevertheless, the extent to which Catholics
will become addicted to this vice will always remain relatively
insignificant. For the Church will forever oppose it as something
intrinsically and eternally immoral, and will deprive those who
persist in it of access to the Sacraments. In the struggle for
existence which the use of contraceptives has created, the Catholic
element in our population will survive because it is the fittest to
survive; that is, because the Catholic element will retain and sustain
those moral qualities that are the chief factor in fitness for
survival among human beings. The mass of Catholics will continue to
cultivate those qualities which are the only safeguard against the
development of rotten hearts and flabby intellects. Catholics will
have not only the quantity, the numbers, but the quality as well; for
in the nurture of human beings quality can not be maintained without
quantity. The clearest proof of this statement is the fact that, as
between, say, one hundred large families of the poor and an equal
number of middle-class families who represent the second generation of
votaries of the small-family cult, a larger number of efficient and
achieving persons will arise out of the former group than out of the
latter.
I am invited to send two dollars for membership in
the Birth Control League. I must respectfully decline, with the
observation that I would much rather give the money to an organization
for the training of prize fighters. It would aid in the development
of at least some manly and human qualities.
Yours, "more in sorrow than in anger,"
JOHN A. RYAN, D.D.
THE CATHOLIC MIND
By AUSTIN O'MALLEY, M.D.
Section 1142 of the Penal Code of New York makes it
a mis-demeanor, punishable with imprisonment for several years, to
give information subversive of the end of marriage: the procreation of
children for the greater glory of God and their own eternal happiness.
Although it is no honor to our civilization that such a law is needed,
the law is good; as might be surmised, however, it does not meet with
entire approval.
It seems there is a society in New York called the
"Committee on Birth Control," and under the auspices of this committee
a woman who was a teacher before she was suspended for criticizing the
Board of Education, recently called a meeting of the "Scientistical"
to discuss ways and means to put wheels under this bill, and thus open
our libraries and bookshops to translations of French, Italian and
German pamphlets reeking with paganism. This woman acknowledged that
the endeavor of the meeting would be to further the work of the editor
of the dead and buried Woman Rebel, who was indicted, for
sending the Woman Rebel through the mails, by a Government
which does not grow faint at the moral aroma of the Menace,
that spiritual reading of the submerged or decadent. Several other
women quite past the whooping-cough period, were present to boost the
"uplift" at this meeting. The uplift has a pious interest in the
poor. The prime mover in the present wretched campaign says that as
things now are, rich women are not obliged to have children because
they can buy the wisdom they require to crack the Ten Commandments,
but the poor are less favored.
The agitators in this conference yearn over the
poor so intensely that they will tear themselves loose from real
money, not for bread, of course, but for a kind of printed matter
which a decent street sweeper would not lift on his sliding shovel.
The poor have so many superfluous children that the little ones are
half-starved; therefore do not see to it that they are fed, but make
their mothers victims of a base passion, and there will not be any
little ones to feed. What a pecuniary saving for the State.
St. Vincent de Paul, save us from the wrath of God!
The most helpless idiot if baptized is as far above
a non-existent child as St. Bridget is above a Committee on Birth
Control, but even if it were not, what right would that fact give to
any man to prevent human life? No one must get married, but if he
marries he has to meet the law of God, or God will meet him, no matter
how all the short-haired apostles of the uplift buzz to the contrary.
This morning at Mass I listened to a great churchful of Irish children
sending up wave on wave of a litany before the feet of the Mother of
Fair Delight, and this flock of the lambs of Christ went to the
sanctuary rail in pattering line after line, line after line, and they
came down with tiny hands clasped and the light of His Sacred Heart
shining through them from within, (God bless you, Pius X, for
listening to Him and the hunger of love of Him!) till one could not
see the altar-candles for the glory of it; yet these unfortunate
gomerils of the uplift would send certain pamphlets, which may not be
named, to the white-souled mothers of those who have been suffered to
come to Him in peace and joy. God save us from harm!
France has eaten this apple of the knowledge of
evil, and in the first six months of 1914 when Europe was still at
peace the total number of births in that country was 381,398; a
decrease of 4,000 on the year 1913. At the same time the deaths
increased 20,845. Thus the population of France during the first six
months of 1914 decreased 24,816. For the past thirty years the French
birth rate has steadily decreased while the death rate has increased.
January, 1916, will find France with about 700,000 less people than
she had in January, 1914, and the greatest mortality will be in her
unmarried young men. No matter what change of heart the war may bring
to France any increase in her population can not possibly be expected
at least before 1925. On the other hand, in Germany from 1890 to 1915
the birth rate of males has been about two to one for France. The
Germans will therefore put under arms for the twenty years to come
twice the number of men France can. Will France, then, get her
revenge? If she wants to stay on the map as a second-rate power she
will have to look for help to a higher warlord than a man of earth.
Our Committee on Birth Control would like to turn this nation into
another France.
Birth Contol League Founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921 and
was the predecessor of Planned Parenthood of America. Over 1,000
quotes from Birth Control Review (1917-1940) can be read at the web
site of Human Life International (
http://www.hli.org/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/000/611hhecn.asp)
in the Life Issues section under Planned Parenthood and other sources.
Margaret Sanger's philosophy can also be found in her Pivot of
Civilization, and her Woman and
the New Race.
Caliban A beastlike slave in Shakespeare's
The Tempest. He was the illegitimate son of a witch and a devil
and behaves more like a depraved human that a supernatural being.
Because he attempts to rape Miranda (Prospero's daughter), he is
confined to brute slavery. His name is a legitimate 17th
century spelling of "cannibal." There is hope for his regeneration at
the end of the play, however, as Caliban states: "I'll be wise
hereafter, and seek for grace" (5.1.294-295).
gomerils silly persons
Mutatis mutandis Latin: (1) with the necessary changes having been made, (2) with the respective differences having been considered.
Niobe Daughter of Tantalus and Queen of Thebes in Greek Mythology. She was punished by Apollo and Artemis for being too boastful of
of her 14 children. All her children were killed because of her pride and jealousy of Leto.
Woman Rebel The first issue of this radical feminist monthly
was published by Margaret Sanger in March 1914. She was born
Margaret Louise Higgins in 1879 and married William Sanger in 1902.
They moved from suburban Hastings, NY to New York City in 1910.
Margaret separated from her husband in 1914 and engaged in affairs
with several men, including H.G. Wells. In 1922 she married oil
magnate James Noah H. Slee. In 1966 she died in a nursing home in
Tucson, AZ.
Also of interest:
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.
The Church and the Sex Problem
Meeting of the American Federation for Sex Hygiene.
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.
Conscious Birth Restriction
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.
Birth Control: An Open Letter
Secretary Birth Control League.
St. Paul.
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.
The "Committee on Birth Control"
Transcriber's Notes
This article was originally printed in The Catholic Mind, June 22,
1915, and is reprinted with permission of America Press, Inc.
Copyright ©1915. All Rights Reserved. www.americapress.org.
Posted by The Augustine Club at Columbia University, 2002 with
permission of Thomas J. Reese, S.J. President, America Press,
Inc. (2 May 2001) Thanks to Bob Olson.
www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/
augustine@columbia.edu
Last update: March 1, 2002