The Church and the Sex Problem


[further contents]
Conscious Birth Restriction
Birth Control: An Open Letter
The "Committee on Birth Control"


The Catholic Mind

SEMI-MONTHLY

Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915

THE AMERICA PRESS
59 East 83rd Street
NEW YORK


THE CATHOLIC MIND
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.

The Church and the Sex Problem

By Richard H. Tierney, S.J.

A Lecture Delivered in Buffalo, August 27, 1913, at a
Meeting of the American Federation for Sex Hygiene.

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
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.

Conscious Birth Restriction

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
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.

Birth Control: An Open Letter

To Clare Gruening Stillman,
Secretary Birth Control League.

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,"
St. Paul.

JOHN A. RYAN, D.D.


THE CATHOLIC MIND
Vol. XIII, No. 12. June 22, 1915.

The "Committee on Birth Control"

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.


Transcriber's Notes

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:


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