Birth-control

Some Arguments of Neo-Malthusians and Other Advocates of Contraception.—(a) Necessity for the Individual.—“This practice is demanded by comfort (e.g., in order to have a good and easy time, to have more opportunity for pleasures and occupations outside the home, to preserve form and beauty, to escape the troubles of child-bearing and child-rearing), or by utility (e.g., in order that suffering wives be freed from the slavery of excessive child-bearing, in order that children receive more attention and care than is possible in large families).” This argument from comfort is unworthy of any but a pagan or materialist, for the end of existence is something higher than pleasure or escape from all hardship. But even if happiness alone be considered, the childless home is not the most cheerful, and it often happens that parents who have sinfully limited their parenthood will lose an only child and be left sterile and desolate. The argument from utility proves only that sometimes (not often) it is inadvisable for a couple to have any or many children, but it does not prove that family limitation through means forbidden by the laws of God and of nature is permissible. The normal woman is not harmed but helped by child-bearing, whereas onanism and other unnatural vices are fearfully damaging both to mental and physical health. Experience too shows that mothers of five or more children live longer, and that children from large families are very often superior in qualities and achievements and stand a better chance in life. Exceptions only emphasize the rule.

(b) Necessity for the Family.—“Large families are impossible to many persons because the high cost of children today (expenses for clothing, food, medical care, schooling, etc.) is beyond their means.” The inability to support many children is often due to extravagance or to insufficient wages, and the remedy lies in prudent economy or in improvement of the economic condition of workers, not in the abuse of marriage. The weakness of the objection is shown from the fact that race-suicide is more common among the well-to-do than among the poorer classes. However, in a genuine case of inability to maintain a large family, limitation of children is a duty, but not by means of the sin of contraception or onanism.

(c) Necessity for the Community.—“The cause of unemployment, destitution, famine and war is the overpopulation of the world. Moreover, if the poorer classes would practise contraception and the better-to-do classes have larger families, the standard of living of the former would be raised, the culture of the latter would be preserved, and the quality of the whole race be greatly improved.” The resources of the earth are easily adequate to support many times the present population, and the misfortunes referred to are due, not to the number of people who inhabit the earth, but to accident or to human greed or imprudence. The eugenic argument is a vain dream, for the history of nations and modern facts show that the ideal of race improvement makes little appeal when the easier way of indulgence has been learned. As said above, it is the wealthy and educated classes who have the fewest children.

(d) Necessity of a Moral Kind.—“Contraception is a useful control of nature similar to that employed by physicians, surgeons and other scientists; it is not a contradiction of nature, since it preserves the end of the sexual faculty in expressing physical love. The motives of those who use it are not necessarily carnal, but may be of a very Christian kind (e.g., the need of limitation of family in order the better to practise one’s vocation, or in order to spare one’s wife, or to keep her from abortion), and they may sincerely believe it to be lawful.” Contraception does not control, but defeats nature, by voluntarily frustrating the primary end which nature has in view, and, if permitted, it logically leads to every kind of sensual indulgence. The motives or conscience of those who use it cannot change its character, for the end does not justify the means and a wrong conscience does not change the law. Those who have not been spoiled or misled by contraceptive propaganda or advice, instinctively regard artificial birth-control as well as onanism with disgust.

Is Birth-Control Ever Lawful?—(a) If this refers to an end (viz., the limitation of the number of children or the spacing of their arrival), it is not unlawful in itself (see 2617); and it is sometimes a duty, as when the wife is in very poor health or the family is unable to take care of more. But in view of the decline and deterioration in populations today, it seems that couples who are able to bring up children well should consider it a duty to the common welfare to have at least four children, and it should be easy for many to have at least a dozen children. The example of those married persons of means who are unable to have a number of children of their own, but who adopt or raise orphaned little ones, is very commendable.

(b) If birth control refers to a means of family limitation, it is lawful when that means is continence or abstinence from marital relations, not if it is onanism or the use of mechanical or chemical means to prevent conception. The objection that husbands cannot restrain themselves is really an insult to God’s grace and is contradicted by numerous facts. A man of manly character should be ashamed to admit that he is the slave of passion, and the fact that God commands chastity and that millions obey Him both in the wedded and single state is sufficient proof that, even though hard, sexual abstinence is not impossible, if there is a real resolve and the right means are employed, such as rooming apart and concentration on other and higher things.

Continence or abstinence is counselled by the Church should conditions make the conception of children inadvisable. It is counselled, not commanded, since it involves heroic sacrifice which makes it all the more meritorious and praiseworthy: “It is wronging men and women of our times to deem them incapable of continuous heroism. Today, for many reasons—perhaps with the goad of hard necessity and even sometimes in the service of injustice—heroism is exercised to a degree and to an extent which would have been thought impossible in days gone by. Why. then, should this heroism, if the circumstances really demand it, stop at the borders established by the passions and inclinations of nature? The answer is clear. The man who does not want to dominate himself is incapable of so doing. He who believes he can do so, counting merely on his own strength without seeking sincerely and perseveringly help from God, will remain miserably disillusioned” (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives, Oct. 29, 1951).

Another lawful means of family limitation is “periodic continence” or “rhythm,” the deliberate avoidance of conception by restricting intercourse, temporarily or permanently, to the days of natural sterility on the part of the wife. Many of the faithful are under the impression that the system has received the unqualified approval of the Church, that it constitutes a form of “Catholic Birth-Control.” This is not completely true.

All theologians agree that the use of marriage during the sterile period is not per se illicit. The act is performed in the natural way; nothing has been done positively to avoid conception; and the secondary ends of matrimony, mutual love and the quieting of temptation, have been fostered. “If the carrying out of this theory means nothing more than that the couple can make use of their matrimonial rights on the days of natural sterility, too, there is nothing against it, for by so doing they neither hinder nor injure in any way the consummation of the natural act and its further natural consequences” (Pope Pius XII, ibid.).

“If, however, there is further question—that is, of permitting the conjugal act on those days exclusively—then the conduct of the married couple must be examined more closely” (ibid).

The following points summarize papal teaching on this aspect:

1. A premarital agreement to restrict the marital right and not merely the use to sterile periods, implies an essential defect in matrimonial consent and renders the marriage invalid. 2) The practice is not morally justified simply because the nature of the marital act is not violated and the couple are prepared to accept and rear children born despite their precautions. 3) Serious motives, (medical, eugenic, economic and social), must be present to justify this practice. When present, they can exempt for a long time, perhaps even for the duration of the marriage, from the positive obligations of the married state. 4) The married state imposes on those who perform the marital act the positive obligation of helping to conserve the human race. Accordingly, to make use of the marital act continuously and without serious reason to withdraw from its primary obligation would be a sin against the very meaning of conjugal life (ibid.).

Pope Pius explicitly confirmed the common teaching of theologians: 1) Rhythm, by mutual consent, for proportionate reasons, and with due safeguards against dangers would be licit. 2) Without a good reason, the practice would involve some degree of culpability. Not expressly confirmed, but simply an expression of common moral principles is the common agreement: 3) That the sin could be mortal by reason of injustice, grave danger of incontinence, serious family discord, etc.

Since the Allocution, the more common opinion in this country asserts that the Holy Father taught: 1) that married people who use their marital right have a duty to procreate; 2) that this duty is binding under pain of sin; 3) there are, however, reasons that excuse the couples from this obligation and, should they exist for the whole of married life, the obligation does not bind them at all; 4) the sin does not consist in the exercise of marital rights during the sterile periods; but in abstention from intercourse during the fertile periods precisely to avoid conception, when the couple could have and should have made its positive contribution to society. Sin is present when the practice is unjustifiedly undertaken; 5) the formal malice of illicit periodic continence is not against the sixth commandment; i.e., against the procreation of children or the use of the generative faculty, but against the seventh commandment, i.e., against social justice. The couple is not making its contribution to the common good of society; 6) from 4 and 5 above, it follows that the individual acts of intercourse during a period of unjust practice of rhythm do not constitute numerically distinct sins. Rather, granting the continuance of a single will act to practice rhythm, there is one sin for the whole period of illicit abstention during the fertile periods.

Since the Pope abstained from an explicit statement on the gravity of the sin, the controversy of whether the practice intrinsically is a mortal sin or not continued. The opinion in this country which holds the greatest authority states that mortal sin is involved in the case of continued practice with a total exclusion of children and frequent use of marital rights during the sterile period.

Diversity of opinion has arisen as to the means of estimating when a serious sin has been committed. Some have used a temporal norm, e.g., unjustified use of rhythm for five or six years would constitute a serious matter. Undoubtedly most of the proponents of this norm would not accuse a couple of certain mortal sin if they already have one or more children; after that, indefinite use of the practice without excusing causes would not be a mortal sin. (This is admitted by most theologians.) Others have proposed a numerical norm as a basis to determine whether or not a couple has made its contribution to the conservation of the race. Concretely the proponents of this theory regard four or five children as sufficient to satisfy the obligation in such a way;

a) that the use of rhythm to limit the family to this number is licit provided the couple is willing and morally able to practice it;

b) that the limitation through rhythm to less than four requires a serious justifying cause. The intention involved to prevent conception would be seriously sinful in itself, since it causes great harm to the common good and involves in practice subordination of the primary to the secondary end or ends of matrimony. At the present time this opinion seems to be more favored in America than the first which places the gravity of the sin in the unjustified practice of rhythm for five years. (For a survey of recent opinion, see the Conference Bulletin of the Archdiocese of New York, Vol. XXXIV, No. 1, pp. 36 ff.)

On the other hand, some European theologians have denied that the practice constitutes a mortal sin in itself, independently of circumstances such as injustice and danger of incontinence.

The present state of opinion, then, is definitely undecided and calls for caution both in dealing too severely with penitents or too readily recommending the practice. The response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880, affords a safe guide in practice: “Married couples who use their marriage rights in the aforesaid manner are not to be disturbed, and the confessor may suggest the opinion in question, cautiously, however, to those married people whom he has tried in vain to dissuade from the detestable crime of onanism.”

As to the theological censure to be attached to “rhythm,” it is not approved, nor recommended, but seems to be tolerated for sufficiently grave reasons. “Instead of being freely taught and commended, it is rather to be tolerated as an extreme remedy or means of preventing sin” (Official Monitum, Patrick Cardinal Hayes, Sept. 8, 1936, Conference Bulletin of Archdiocese of New York, Volume XIV, No. 2, p. 78).

The Encyclical brands in the first place the base selfishness and the audacious lie of many who dare to call the

child “the disagreeable burden of matrimony”;¹ it brands the “criminal abuse”² of those who avoid children by frustrating the marriage act, whether they wish to gratify their passions without the consequent burden, or whether they excuse themselves on the ground of two concurrent impossibilities: that they cannot on the one hand remain continent, nor on the other have children. This last impossibility is claimed to exist either because of personal difficulties, or the condition of the mother, or family circumstances.

¹ P. 37.

² The same work.

He rejects them all at one sweep by reminding us:¹ No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Conjugal relations debased in this way are nothing more than “a form of debauchery which the world has come to look upon as regular and permissible.”²

¹ P. 38.

² Paul Bureau, L’Indiscipline des moeurs.

He does this in three ways: 1. By a proof from natural reason. It is a violation of nature to deliberately deflect from its natural end an act which belongs to the rational order to which we are subject. Now the marital act belongs to that superior order to which we are all subject. And its natural purpose is procreation. Hence any artifice which deprives the conjugal act of this its destiny is necessarily and always a violation of nature. 2. By Holy Scripture. According to the interpretation which is accepted in the Church, God struck Onan dead because he was guilty of this sin. 3. He proves it from the teaching of the Church, where he states that an uninterrupted traditional Christian teaching reprobates these practices, and where he solemnly confirms this teaching of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.

Before formally answering so grave a question it seems proper to quote the words of the Sovereign Pontiff himself.

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition, some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God had entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of Divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offence against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.¹ Next, let us remember that the Pope, either alone or in union with the College of the Bishops, is the teaching Church, whose infallibility is guaranteed by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church speaks through the Pope, not as through her messenger, but as through her head and teacher. This mission of teaching and of defending the integrity of morals to which the Holy Father appeals here, is in himself. Infallible, in matters of faith and morals, is the traditional and constant doctrine of the Church treasured in the ordinary magisterium of the Bishops united to the See of Peter. Infallible is the solemn proclamation of a doctrine regarding faith or morals which the supreme Pastor, speaking as such to the universal Church, obliges it to hold. To what conclusion do these considerations lead us? We must conclude that the Holy Father, who, in this Encyclical, from the start, declares that he is addressing himself to the entire Church and even to the whole world: (a) States that on this question of conjugal onanism, there exists a Christian doctrine which has been transmitted from the beginning and which has been always faithfully kept, and hence is already infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium; (b) Takes occasion from the departure from this doctrine on the part of some to promulgate it solemnly for all; and since he does this as teacher of the universal Church, conscious of his mission to teach, and as a sign of his Divine mission, he thereby obliges all to hold this doctrine. It is,

as he explicitly states, the Catholic Church which speaks by his mouth. In the presence of such language on the part of the supreme Pastor,² we cannot doubt that we are confronted with one of those cases, which are not infrequent, where the Pope teaches infallibly a truth already defined and believed by the Church. This is the reason why the Sovereign Pontiff can also declare himself an infallible interpreter of the primitive Church.³

¹ P. 38.

² The phrase in which the Holy Father declares that the Catholic Church speaks through his mouth on this subject, “is extremely solemn and impressive.” Dr. John Ryan, Ecclesiastical Review, 1931, p. 265, “The Moral Teaching of the Encyclical.”

³ We admit, however, that there are some very estimable priests who hesitate to recognize this as an infallible declaration ex cathedra distinct from the equally infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium. On the other hand, a professor of theology, after a personal study of the passage, said to us: “If that is not an infallible definition, I do not know what terms the Pope could use in order to make one.” The manner in which the Belgian Bishops in their Pastoral on the Encyclical represent the role assumed by the Vicar of Jesus Christ in this memorable document, serves only to confirm our conviction. See Z. H. Paus, Pius XI, Wereld-brief “Casti Connubii” en het Belgisch Episcopaat (Vastenbrief 1931) over het Christelijk Huwelijk, p. 53.

These three: (a) Every use of marriage in the exercise of which the act is artificially deprived of its natural power of procreating life, is a violation of the law of God; (b) It is a violation of the natural law; (c) It is a grave sin.

That all preventive measures whose purpose is to make future marital intercourse sterile, whether temporarily or permanently, are also intrinsically wrong, and are also grievously sinful. More than once before, the Holy See had expressed itself rather clearly on this subject. On April 19, 1853, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office, without going into details, declared that such an abuse of marriage is intrinsically evil. Then the Sacred Penitentiary, November 13, 1901, approved the action of a priest who refused to follow the direction of a confessor who was otherwise well-qualified and who had been professor of moral theology in a seminary, where the confessor had held that in order to avoid an excessive number of children or excessive fatigue on the part of the wife, a husband might vitiate the conjugal act, provided he had in view only the allaying of concupiscence. The Sacred Penitentiary declared that a penitent who refused to give up such a practice could not be absolved, as it amounted to onanism pure and simple.

They are the prelates of the Anglican Church, who numbering 307 in congress at Lambeth Palace in London, by a majority of 193 to 67, declared, in nebulous terms it is true and not without some signs of shame, that in certain cases where procreation was forbidden, another voice than that of continence might be followed.¹ The count indicates that many refused to vote. Since in its report the Commission of the Conference acknowledged the tradition to which the Pope appeals, but observed that the tradition lacked the confirmation of a conciliar definition, we think it probable that the Holy Father intended by a solemn declaration to fill what might falsely be regarded as a lacuna.

¹ See our article: La Conférence de Lambeth et la Morale du Mariage, Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Dec., 1930.

Far from it. Coming to a very important practical conclusion, he immediately adds:¹ We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions, and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the Faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the Faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit” (St. Matth. xv, 14). This grave warning is in itself an obligatory standard for those to whom it is addressed, that is, confessors and those

who have care of souls. In fact, the Holy Father gives it in virtue of his supreme authority and as universal Pastor. He, therefore, warns those who hear confessions and who have the care of souls: (a) not to leave the Faithful who are entrusted to them in error regarding this grave law of God; (b) to preserve themselves from false opinions in this matter; (c) to connive in no way in false opinions on this subject. Consequently, he threatens with a severe account to be rendered to God: (a) those among them who should lead the Faithful into error; (b) those who might confirm them in their error, either by formal approval or deliberate silence. Former declarations of the Holy See define in a very useful way the attitudes on the part of confessors which are condemned in this passage of the Encyclical, and the duty of all confessors to avoid all connivance and even to undeceive penitents who have fallen into error on a point of such grave moral and social consequence. A priest of the diocese of Angers, in a query to the Sacred Penitentiary, described three classes of confessors. (1) Those of the first class, believing that ignorance even if it be vincible excuses from grave sin, and being persuaded that to call attention to the abuse of marriage would only increase the guilt of the parties and even perhaps keep them away from the Sacraments, conclude that it is licit and even advisable to favor this error on the part of penitents, by not disturbing it, or even by adroitly insinuating it, provided that can be done without lying. Consequently, they not only ask no questions on the subject, but even when the question of the gravity of the guilt of onanism is put to them, they evade it by skillful parrying, or they ask the penitent what he himself thinks of it. And when the latter declares that in view of the rights of marriage or of some other consideration “he can't see so much harm in it,” these confessors are glad to leave him in this good faith. (2) Others, although they hold the same views as those of the still do not conceal the truth if they are asked about it; first class, but when the penitent confines himself to simply confessing the sin of onanism, they take care not to lay an emphasis on this accusation, but, having heard the confession, they content themselves with arousing the penitent to contrition in a general way, and they absolve him on his affirmation that he detests all sin. (3) A third class of confessors are of opinion that it is extremely rare that vincible ignorance can go so far as to render subjectively venial a sin which is objectively grave, and that such error can in any event not last very long—the character of the sin itself as being contrary to nature, the environment in which the question is constantly being discussed, prevent that. Hence, whether the avowal of this sin has been spontaneous, or whether it has been brought out by prudent questioning, these confessors chide the penitent who has

been guilty of this sin, just as they would for any other grave sin, to the extent that his interest seems to require it, and they absolve him only when they have elicited from him sufficient signs of repentance and of a firm purpose of amendment for the future. Following this exposition, three questions were submitted to the Sacred Penitentiary: 1. Is it allowed to favor the good faith spoken of in the first instance? Is it allowed to produce it? 2. Do the confessors of the second class fulfil the duties of their state? 3. Are the confessors of the third class open to the reproach of disturbing themselves and their penitents more than is reasonable; or is their practice rather to be regarded as absolutely right? The Sacred Penitentiary answered the first two questions in the negative. To the third, it replied: “Assuming that, as regards the questions sometimes to be asked of married persons about their use of marriage, these confessors confine themselves within the limits indicated by the Roman Ritual and by approved authorities, their practice is beyond all reproach.” Ten years later, in 1886, a French Bishop addressed himself to the Sacred Penitentiary. After bewailing the spread of the evil which is now committed no longer for fear of having too many children, but for fear of having any, an evil which has depleted the country and the sanctuary, and has alarmed sociologists and moralists alike, the Bishop refers to the disagreement which exists among confessors on the need of questioning penitents, in modest and reserved language, upon this matter. In support of the position of those confessors who think that they are not allowed to remain mute, he cites the words of Benedict XIV in his Bull “Apostolica Constitutio”: “By such silence the penitent is either kept in ignorance of crimes which he ought to know about, or he is confirmed in the evil practice, not without scandal to others who think that anything is lawful for themselves when they see that it is practised with impunity by persons who are frequenting the Sacraments.” Then, proceeding to his questions, the Bishop asks: 1. When a confessor has reason to suspect that the penitent, who says not a word of birth control, is addicted to this criminal practice, may the confessor omit to question him prudently and discreetly because he foresees that by doing so he will disturb the good faith of some persons and cause many to avoid the Sacraments? Is not the confessor rather bound to question the penitent in a prudent and discreet manner? 2. When a confessor knows, either from spontaneous confession or as a result of prudent questioning, that the penitent is given to birth control, is he bound to warn him of the gravity of this sin as of other mortal sins, and (as the Roman Ritual puts it) to chide him with paternal charity, and to give him absolution only when from sufficient indications he shall judge that he repents of the past and has the purpose of never practising onanism any more? “In view of the fact,” thus spoke the Sacred Penitentiary, “that the abominable vice of which there is question in the case proposed, has become widespread, the Sacred Penitentiary has deemed it its

duty to reply to the questions asked as follows: To the first question usually, in the negative to the first part, in the affirmative to the second. To the second question: in the affirmative, according to the teaching of approved authorities.” These replies tell us clearly enough that questions should not be asked without reason, but only when there is ground for suspicion that the crime is being dissimulated or concealed; that the fear of disturbing good faith or of driving away from the Sacraments should not regularly stop a confessor from questioning; that when a penitent is known to be guilty, he must be informed of the gravity of the sin. Certainly, as a professor of theology remarked not long ago, we cannot, by lightly giving absolutions, put the sacramental seal upon immorality. It goes without saying that the questioning must always be done in correct language, rather reserved, but clear and leaving no room for misunderstanding or evasion.²

¹ P. 39.

² On the manner of questioning, a helpful article will be found in L’Ami du Clergé, Le devoir des confesseurs, pp. 185-187 (1931).

The Holy Father makes no pronouncement for particular exceptional cases. The general practice must be to undeceive the Faithful when they are in error on this matter; and one may never positively confirm them in error, even by silence which would be interpreted as approval. But, in the absence of scandal and of any positive confirmation, a genuine good faith may, in our opinion, be left to spouses who are embarrassed by a humanly inextricable situation. See, for example, the excellent Instructio pro confessaris de usu et abusu matrimonii written at Eichstatt Seminary, 1931.

Because there are cases of so-called good faith which are such only in appearance. For example a Catholic who, though he knew the teaching of the Encyclical, preferred to follow his own judgment on the plea that the severity of that teaching was extreme, could not be considered to be in good faith.

On the contrary it evidences a just moderation. (a) It excuses the party who suffers rather than commits sin, when for a perfectly weighty reason he tolerates on the part of his partner a perversion of the right order, which he himself does not intend, and fulfils his duty of charity by striving to induce the other party to return to right conduct.¹ (b) It mentions the other secondary ends of the conjugal union: mutual affection to be fostered, the allaying of concupiscence;—two ends which render the use of marriage lawful under circumstances in which, considering either the persons or the time, sterility seems either certain or very probable, provided always that the act takes place in the regular way.²

¹ P. 39.

² Ibid.

Among well-intentioned Anglicans there are several authorities who are of opinion that the vocation to the married life imposes on the parties the duty to give children to their country and to the Church, if they can.¹ This is, however, a false position. The possession of a right may be conceived without the obligation to use it. No doubt, in the institution of marriage, God wished to provide for the propagation of the human race. But this end is sufficiently attained without every couple being obliged to have children.

¹ This thesis is advanced notably by H. L. Goudge, D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, in his monograph, “The Question of Contraceptives” (London, League of National Life, 1931).

As the Holy Father has no intention of coming down to details of practical morality, we must evidently have recourse to approved authorities and to former declarations of the Holy See. According to this teaching, there is question of cooperation in an act which was begun in the right way, and which the other party alone interrupts in such a way as to violate nature.

We are therefore, for our part, unable to agree with the passage in which Reverend John Ryan of Washington, in his notes on the moral teaching of the Encyclical, insinuates that the Encyclical may extend the field of permissible material cooperation in the face of the common opinion now existing on the subject.¹ The distinctions which the moralists make are founded on a certain principle and are confirmed by the replies of the Sacred Penitentiary of April 3 and June 3, 1916.²

¹ “The Moral Teaching of the Encyclical,” Ecclesiastical Review (1931), p. 266.

² Cf. Vermeersch, De Castitate, n. 253.

The Encyclical says: Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth.² As long as the act takes place normally it remains objectively directed toward its primary end, which is generation; and since, according to the maxim that the purpose of the law is not within the matter of the law (finis legis non cadit sub legem), there is no obligation, while observing the law, to intend the end for which it was promulgated, it follows that the act is not necessarily vitiated by deliberately choosing a certain time with the intention of avoiding conception. Of course, the couple are bound to welcome any children that might come, if, as sometimes happens, their plan fails. The conjugal intercourse in any event serves the other ends of marriage. Besides, let us observe that there is this great difference between the practise of birth control and the restricted use of marriage of which we speak: the abuses of birth control can be practised constantly, they give free rein to passion, they do not demand the exercise of any moral force whatever; whereas this limited use of marriage requires, for the voluntary abstinence on certain

days, a moral force the exercise of which is not without its social value. In itself indifferent or objectively good, this limitation which is not a violation of nature, may, according to the circumstances and the intention, be praiseworthy, less desirable, or even worthy of blame.³ Accordingly the Sacred Penitentiary, in its reply of June 16, 1880, declared that there was no reason to disturb those married people who in their use of marriage restricted themselves to days that are physiologically sterile, and that this practice might be insinuated caute, that is with prudent discretion. With prudent discretion we say; the uncertainty of the result is enough to suggest prudence; besides the confessor should not be a counselor of infecundity. The insinuation of this course of action may be appropriate as a means of preventing formal sins, or as offering a way out of a critical situation where the danger of incontinence makes intercourse imperative, and yet where conception would be perilous for the mother. It goes without saying that this practice normally supposes the agreement of both parties.

¹ The latest researches of Dr. Knaus of Germany and Dr. Ogino of Japan lead to the conclusion that these periods include the last days before and the first days after the monthly period of the woman. Or, more exactly, if we suppose a cycle of 28 days, it would be ten days before and ten days after the beginning of the last menstruation period; if the cycle is not of 28 days, the number ten should be increased by one for every day the cycle is above 28, and diminished by one for every day it is below 28. But no absolute guarantee can be given. The theory itself is only seriously probable — not absolutely certain, and various causes may upset the calculations. Several ecclesiastical magazines have recently dealt with this question, notably the Collationes Brugenses, 1930, p. 360; 443; 1931, p. 178, articles by Rev. M. Coucke; also the Nederlandsche Katholicke Stemmen 1931, p. 41, by Rev. P. Buysse, C.SS.R.

² P. 39.

³ Studien (Malmberg, s’ Hertogenbosch, March, 1931) Periodieke Onthouding by Rev. Heymeyer, S.J.

Because these other ends, subordinated as they are to the principal end, cannot be in opposition to it. Besides, the other ends themselves would be frustrated by wrong relations. Such relations cannot foster true love, which supposes mutual respect; too often they result only in disagreement and separation. Neither does the seeking of satisfaction at all costs allay concupiscence. “It is like a drink which increases thirst.”¹

¹ Fahsel, Ehe, Liebe und Sexualproblem (Herder, 1931).

Some, of which any decent person should be ashamed, the Encyclical disdains to mention; but it could not be indifferent in the presence of the extremely difficult situation in which a poor mother may find herself. Here, it begins by toning down the alarms with the remark, so often

confirmed by experience, that the reasons for alarm are often exaggerated; then, showing an affectionate compassion and at the same time giving encouragement to the mother who is face to face with death through heroic devotion to duty, it expresses admiration for her and assures her of a magnificent reward from God.¹

¹ P. 39.

On this subject also the Holy Father shows a deep feeling of compassion for the parents. However, he immediately lifts up their hearts to the high reality of God's law. However [he adds] these parents should take care lest the calamitous state of their external affairs should be the occasion for a much more calamitous error. No difficulty can arise that justifies the putting aside of the law of God which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strengthened by the grace of God, fulfil faithfully their duties and preserve in wedlock their chastity unspotted.¹

¹ P. 39.

132. - Most men alienated from the faith do not defend honorable morals in the matter of chastity in such a way as to exclude every exception from the rules which in themselves they approve and establish. Wherefore, if at any time conception is prohibited by health, if at any time the wife will be unable to bring forth a living fetus without danger, they will permit, or even advise, artificial sterility, indeed abortion or embryotomy, resting openly or tacitly upon these principles: that necessity is immune from law; that all things are to be weighed not by an absolute but by a relative rationale; and that accordingly, in individual actions, one must consider what prevails and what is to be preferred.

133. - They can be answered thus, in brief but efficacious words. Moral uprightness has either an absolute command or one subordinated to this condition: unless great difficulty excuses transgression. An absolute obligation suffers no exception; but a conditional one will consequently be tempered by exceptions in every kind of uprightness. For no reason can be alleged why it would lose its force only in the subject of chastity and when offspring is at issue. What, therefore, if the physical state of the body, or a prolonged separation, should prohibit even imperfect conjugal intercourse? Will they dispense the healthy spouse from the obligation of fidelity? What, moreover, if the gravest harm threatens unless a theft is committed? Very few indeed will admit this, and rightly and deservedly so, on account of the absolute dictate of conscience. But this dictate is general and ought to prevail in every moral matter. Indeed, do they not celebrate as the fruit of the most atrocious war which raged for more than four years the fact that the rationale of right is acknowledged to be absolutely inviolable and can no longer be passed over on account of an alleged excuse of necessity? Will not all confess that there are duties, for example of devotion to the fatherland, on account of which life itself is to be held of no account? Can they, therefore, without absurdity deny such force and efficacy to moral duties that, in order to observe them, less than life itself - a certain delight and pleasure of life - must sometimes be subordinated?

"What kind of philosophy is this," the pagan writer Cornelius Tacitus was already vigorously exclaiming, "which would not bring about the destruction of moral gravity, but would be content with a mediocrity of vices?" ¹.

¹ Annals, 14, 38.

But they deny that there is anything absolute for man, since he himself is wholly relative.

Yet, if man is constituted by an essential relation to God, and if all the things of this world are contingent and subject to relative considerations, nevertheless God is absolute, and by His authority He confirms and sanctions the absolute precepts of the moral order.

Yet we freely admit this: when faith in God has been lost and the hope of a future life has been cast aside, those accidental contrarieties between the honorable and the pleasurable lack a sufficient explanation, and the commands of absolute uprightness cannot be perceived well. But for us they assume the excellent form of divine worship and obedience by which we humbly acknowledge the dominion of God.

Nevertheless, all sensible men feel that nothing is more worthy of man than that, besides the impediments which he is forced to obey physically, so that he must confess, "I am unable," he should equally revere the moral impediments on account of which, without any exception, in private and public life, he says, "I cannot."

But the more vehement the venereal appetite is accustomed to be, the more the firmness of a purpose of this kind honors a man and renders him strong and capable of accomplishing great things.

What of the fact that difficulties concerning the begetting of offspring most often flow from the imprudent levity with which marriages are entered, while consideration of vocation or aptitude is neglected? Shall we say that it is lawful for a man to redeem his fault at the expense of uprightness? On the contrary, will it not be obtained by moral vigor, as a thing greatly to be desired, that marriages be celebrated more circumspectly, with greater happiness for the spouses and for their stock, between persons who are well suited?

Therefore let this be settled and deliberate for us: pleasure, perfect copulation, and solicitude concerning the offspring, if any is born from it, are so joined by nature that it is never lawful to tear these apart in the mind and to admit one while repudiating the others.

134. - But at the same time, to the best of our abilities, we shall procure that parents deter from matrimony a daughter unequal to the burdens of conjugal life, and that they nourish their offspring physically and morally from tender years in such a way that it may become of itself fully capable of matrimony.

It is also to be desired that young men be less solicitous concerning the dowry of a bride than concerning her physical and moral suitability.

For this is among the desires of nature: that those insufficiently suited abstain from matrimony and aspire by another road toward a holy fecundity of good works.

S. Th., II-II, q. 154, a. 11-12.

954. Excess or abuse in the use of marriage can be:

a) by reason of the end, as if it is done exclusively for delight;

b) by reason of an undue circumstance, for example position, if the act is done in another mode besides that which nature indicates;

c) especially by reason of a mode contrary to nature, if it is done in such a way that generation itself is thereby impeded, for example in a sodomitical mode, in an unnatural vessel and an undue organ, namely, in the posterior vessel or in the mouth.

Now the mode of sinning by excess contrary to nature which in present times is very frequent is Onanism, so called from the deed of Onan narrated in Gen. XXXVIII, 9.

1. That practice is often called Neo-Malthusianism. On account of economic reasons Malthus (1798) had proposed the limitation of conception, but by licit means, namely, by abstaining from the conjugal act. Now, however, Neo-Malthusians promote illicit means.

It is vaginal copula sought in that mode by which generation is positively impeded and cannot follow from the effusion of seed; whether because the man withdraws himself before the sowing of seed and pours forth the seed outside the vagina, or because he himself or the woman employs an instrument or other means by which the seed is impeded from passing to the uterus.

It can be done in various modes:

1° On the part of the man: a) if he begins copula in the vagina but withdraws himself before the sowing of seed and pours forth the seed outside the vagina; b) if he clothes the virile member or only its glans with some thin covering or cloak (condom, capote anglaise) within which the seed is retained.

1. It is so called because it had Doctor Condom as inventor.

2° On the part of the woman: a) if, during copula, she uses an occlusive pessary (sterilet), i.e., a certain thing introduced into the deepest part of the vagina for closing the mouth of the uterus lest the seed pass into it, for example a metal clasp, sponge, cotton, linen threads, etc.; or a pseudo-vagina, i.e., a thin membrane disposed within the whole vagina, into which the seed is emitted; b) if, after copula has been completed, she makes a vaginal washing, by which, with the aid of a syringe or irrigator, the seed is expelled by water or an antiseptic substance; or if, immediately before or after copula, she performs an injection of a chemical substance (for example anticonceptional powder) or of an acid liquid, by which the seed is killed.

2. Nevertheless no mode is altogether certain. For the preservative covering (condom or pseudo-vagina) can be torn; the occlusive pessary can be badly adapted or, during copula, moved from its place; simple withdrawal or vaginal washing does not always prevent some sperm from being ejaculated before withdrawal or from already having passed into the uterus before washing; a chemical substance sprinkled through the whole vagina before copula does not always have perfect efficacy.

955. Principle. Onanism and every other mode of performing copula by which it is deprived of its natural order to generation is intrinsically against nature and therefore essentially and gravely evil. - This is certain from the constant and formal doctrine of Christian tradition and of the Church.

It is a mortal sin, as directly contrary to the primary end of matrimony and matrimonial copula, and opposed to conjugal fidelity, a mere abuse of the genital organs against the order instituted by God and nature, by which they pervert a most noble thing into the most base act of a passion of ignominy: for it lacks the due order to its natural end and to the good of the species. Hence malice is intrinsic to the act, so that it cannot be made honorable by any cause, however urgent.

It is proved:

1° By natural reason: to turn an act deliberately away from the end for which it is naturally destined is to act against nature and is intrinsically evil. But every conjugal act is naturally destined to the procreation of the human race. Therefore to turn it away from this end is against nature and intrinsically evil. And this gravely, because it is against the natural order of human nature itself and directly against the common good itself of the human race.

2° From the doctrine of the Church, which is clear from proposition 49 condemned by Innocent XI and from many and repeated declarations of the Holy Office (May 20, 1851; Apr. 19, 1853; Mar. 26, 1897; Nov. 23, 1922) and of the Sacred Penitentiary (twelve times from Nov. 15, 1816, to June 3, 1916), and most recently from the encyclical Casti Connubii, in which Pius XI did not hesitate to declare that such is the very Christian doctrine handed down from the beginning and always: "Since therefore certain ones, manifestly receding from the Christian doctrine handed down already from the beginning and never interrupted, have recently judged that another doctrine concerning this mode of acting must be solemnly preached, the Catholic Church, to which God himself has committed the teaching and defending of integrity and honesty of morals, placed in the midst of this ruin of morals, that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial covenant immune from this foul stain, in sign of her divine legation, lifts high her voice through our mouth and again promulgates: any use of matrimony whatsoever in the exercise of which, through the design of men, it is deprived of its natural power of procreating life, violates the law of God and of nature; and those who have committed any such thing are stained with the blemish of grave guilt." Here three things are affirmed: the use of matrimony which by design is deprived of its power of generating is 1) against divine law; 2) against the law of nature; and 3) a grave sin.

Hence concerning Onanism the following conclusions are established:

1° An onanistic man cannot be absolved unless he repents and resolves; likewise a woman formally cooperating or consenting, or one who tries to expel the seed by washings. Indeed, one who uses a preservative means is bound to destroy it as an occasion of sin before absolution; and this is per se and regularly to be urged by the confessor.

2° A wife does not sin if, for a moderately grave cause, she renders the debt to an onanistic man withdrawing himself before the sowing of seed, or even seeks it from him. But a grave cause, as is clear from the responses of the Sacred Penitentiary, exists if otherwise she would incur grave evils, for example dissensions in marriage, blows, adultery of the husband, her own incontinence, or prolonged abstinence from the use of marriage, etc. The reason is that the action begins in the due mode, so that of itself it is apt for generation; but if it is unduly terminated, the whole guilt is held to be on the part of the man, and on the part of the woman there is only material and mediate cooperation, which on account of a grave motive can be furnished to the sin of another. For this is, as Pius XI says, to suffer sin rather than to commit it. This is to be understood provided the wife does not consent to that mode of acting against nature, but detests it and bears herself merely passively toward it; otherwise it would be formal cooperation. Nevertheless she could actively cooperate, immediately before copula and during it by exciting herself, and rejoice in the pleasure (even perfect pleasure), as long as the action is done in the due mode; likewise she may rejoice in the good effect of such copula, for example in preservation from the troubles and labors of pregnancy or childbirth, although this is dangerous.

1. Therefore she can seek copula from a man withdrawing himself, and only sometimes, namely once or another time, is she bound to abstain by reason of charity; not more often, because then it would already be a grave inconvenience, while charity does not oblige with grave inconvenience for avoiding merely passive scandal.

2. The same holds theoretically for a man, when before the sowing of seed the woman withdraws herself; but in practice there ordinarily is not a grave sufficient reason on the part of the man, because he can rather easily impede the withdrawal of the woman, even by physical force.

But even then the woman is bound because of charity to warn the man and show her own repugnance, and this not once or another time only, but rather often; yet not inopportunely, but opportunely. Indeed, if she can, she must deter the man from this crime by endearments, prayers, and other testimonies of affection (S. Pen., Nov. 15, 1816), even by denial of the debt if she thus hopes to procure the amendment of the husband.

3° But a wife cannot voluntarily cooperate and render the debt to an onanistic man employing a preservative instrument, whether he himself puts on a covering or imposes an occlusive covering upon the wife, because this is immediate participation in an intrinsically evil action, and therefore truly is to commit sin; for then there is no copula of itself apt for generation. Such congress, namely, admitted on each side, is vitiated from the beginning and intrinsically evil; whence voluntary cooperation, even merely material and passive, is altogether illicit. And therefore the wife is bound to resist positively according to her powers (for example by moving herself or using her hands), and she cannot yield except to prevailing force, after the likeness of an oppressed woman; in which case, from such a most grave cause, as to that which she cannot impede, she can bear herself merely permissively, provided she excludes every consent to delight (S. Pen., Apr. 19, 1853, and June 3, 1916; Prov. Counc. of Mechlin, n. 84).

4° Likewise a wife would sin gravely if she induced the man to onanism, whether directly or indirectly, for example by producing insistent complaints concerning more numerous offspring, concerning the pains of childbirth, concerning the inconveniences of gestation, etc.

5° When a wife uses an occlusive pessary or other means impeding generation, the husband ought by marital authority to prohibit it and remove her from those things; indeed, if it can be done, to take away and destroy the means and instruments. But if nothing is accomplished and grave inconveniences are to be feared, certain authors judge that the husband can even seek the debt and complete copula, provided he bears himself merely materially and passively as regards the impediment of generation. Now:

a) It would certainly be illicit if the wife used a pseudo-vagina, because then the act would be intrinsically evil from the beginning.

b) On the contrary, it is probably licit if, with the man contradicting her, she uses anticonceptional powder or a medicine by which the seed is killed, at least if it is done after the act, or if by vaginal washing she tries to expel it; because then both the act and the genital organ of the woman remain substantially the same: for the act itself is done well and the seed is deposited in the due vessel, but the vice is not from the mode of acting, but exists independently from the act and is posterior to it and is to be attributed to the wife alone.

c) But if the wife uses a sponge or an occlusive pessary, whether the same reason holds, we ourselves would not dare to settle, but let wiser men see to it. The matter is not so clear, whether in the case the copula itself is vitiated from the beginning, although from the beginning and during copula there is present an impediment of conception from the closing of the uterus; because the mouth of the uterus is not an organ which, like the penis, has a part in copula, but the latter is completed in the due mode if the seed is deposited in the natural vagina. This happens in the case, although the action of nature, to be continued after copula, is impeded, but by the woman. Hence in practice, until the Church pronounces, the husband can be absolved, provided he is prepared to stand by the commands of the Holy See.

Nor is it an objection: if it is illicit for the woman to cooperate with a man using a preservative instrument, by equal right it must also be illicit for the man to cooperate with a woman who uses a similar instrument. For it can be doubted whether the instrument, as regards copula, is altogether similar. And although the rights are equal, nevertheless the parts of the man and of the woman in the conjugal act are not the same, but greater parts belong to the man; and therefore the man will be able to cooperate with the sin of the wife more easily than she with the sin of the man.

1. Fr. Vermeersch affirmed this in the first edition of his work De Castitate, but afterward retracted himself (cf. Periodica de re canonica, 1925, fasc. II, and Th. M., vol. IV, 69). The act now seems to him evil from the beginning, because the vagina is already substantially vitiated: for this is essentially a canal leading to the uterus; but since in the case it is closed, it also ceases to be a canal. Hence a woman who has a naturally closed vagina is impotent. - The argument, saving a better judgment, does not seem certain. For natural closing is one thing, merely artificial closing another; an organ closed because of its structure is one thing, an organ suitably constructed but closed on account of an accidental impediment placed from without is another, which leaves the vagina perfectly whole. It is also helpful to note that by this mode only the passage of the seed into the uterus and thus to the ovum is impeded. Now if the uterus has been removed or the oviduct interrupted, and the passage to the ovule has already been made impossible, the conjugal act nevertheless remains licit; likewise, during pregnancy, when passage into the uterus is impeded because it is closed.

956. Corollaries. - 1. From the principles stated, response can be made to the question: whether a wife can cooperate with sodomitical copula? This also is opposed to the natural end of copula and to conjugal fidelity, which requires that spouses not use the body except in a mode apt for generation; for neither has a right over the body of the other against nature. Now, one must answer as for artificial onanism: with such copula, as being intrinsically evil and vitiated from the beginning, it is never licit to cooperate positively or actively, nor even to cooperate merely passively; but the wife must try, by resisting positively as much as she can (for example by movement and with her hands), to impede the sodomitical intercourse of the man; and if unwillingly nevertheless she is compelled to yield to prevailing force, she must never consent to venereal delight perhaps arising from it. For if it is never licit for her to cooperate with artificial onanism, a fortiori this holds concerning the sodomitical mode, which is more perverse (cf. S. Pen., Apr. 3, 1916).

2. From onanism and sodomy improperly so called there must be distinguished the act by which spouses come together after the manner of animals, yet in such a way that copula is done in the vagina; in this case some say that they have come together backwards or from behind. Then the confessor ought to ask whether in this mode generation was possible; if they answer that it was possible, it is inferred that the act was not against nature but only disordered in position, beside nature; and this sin does not exceed venial sin. The confessor should never of his own accord have discourse concerning the position to be had in copula.

3. From onanism there differs altogether the practice of having copula only in the time of agenesis, during which time conception in no way or more rarely occurs; whence by this practice generation becomes little probable. For such a manner of acting is not of itself sinful, since spouses can contain themselves as long as they wish, and besides they do nothing against the end of matrimony at the time when they come together (S. Pen., June 16, 1880), provided this is done from a right intention or a just motive and with the due circumstances observed. Nevertheless the bishops of Belgium deservedly warn: "that the time of agenesis should not, however, be proposed to spouses themselves as if by it generation would certainly be avoided."

1. The time of agenesis formerly was established thus by the physician Capellmann and others: from ten or fourteen days after the menstruation begun up to three or four days before the new menstruation; for they thought that ovulation and therefore fertility coincided with menstruation, so that during the month the woman would be:

But it was discovered that menstruation does not coincide with ovulation, although it is a connected phenomenon; rather it has place between two ovulations. Thus Dr. Siegel established that a woman is fertile from day 5 to 20 after menstruation has occurred, sterile from day 1 to 4, and from 21 to 28. But now, according to the most recent experiments of Dr. Knaus, a woman would be fertile from day 11 to 17 after menstruation has occurred, sterile from day 1 to 10 and from day 18 to 28. According to Dr. Ogino, a woman would be fertile from day 12 to 19 before the following menstruation (exceptionally to day 24), but sterile for 11 days before the following menstruation and for 9 days (exceptionally only for 4) after menstruation has occurred. This can be proposed schematically thus:

Concerning these things it must be noted:

Caia, the wife of Caius and of infirm health, heard from a physician that at her next delivery the next offspring would very probably be death to her. Hence she was placed in distress, for she does not wish to deny the debt to her husband, but if she grants it, she will bring death upon herself. Therefore she goes to a physician of certainly not the best reputation and buys a medicine by which, taken once each month, she will be rendered safe, as the physician says, from the danger of future offspring. An outcome happy from her point of view proves the physician’s knowledge, but nevertheless also casts scruples into Caia as to whether it is lawful to take such a medicine, and she approaches her confessor to resolve them. Hence it is asked:

1. How are the direct and indirect killing of a human being distinguished? And is it lawful to kill an innocent person?

2. In a case in which either the mother or the fetus or both are certainly going to perish, is it ever lawful to procure abortion? Even of an inanimate fetus?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. How is direct distinguished from indirect homicide, and is it ever allowable to kill the innocent? Homicide is direct when it is intended, and it may be intended either explicitly or implicitly. It is intended explicitly when the homicide wishes to cause death; it is intended implicitly when an action is intentionally put which can not but cause death. Thus one would directly cause death who kept another under water for some time, though his primary intention might have been not to kill him, but to prevent him from calling out. On the other hand, homicide is indirect when it is not intended, though it is foreseen that it will follow from some act which is put for another purpose. It is never allowed to kill the innocent directly; it is allowed to do so indirectly, for a great and proportionate cause.

2. In a case where either the mother or the fetus, or both, must necessarily perish, is it allowable to procure abortion at least, if the fetus has as yet no soul?

Following the common opinion, we may put aside, as antiquated, the hypothesis of a living fetus not yet informed by a human soul. The human soul is infused into the fetus at the moment of conception, according to the common opinion. The answer, then, to the question proposed will be that it is never allowed to procure abortion of the immature fetus directly, since it is never allowed to kill the innocent directly. If the fetus, though not quite mature, may probably be saved, as it may be after about the seventh month or even earlier, by artificial means, it will be lawful to bring it to the birth for a reason grave in proportion to the danger incurred. Indirect abortion, like indirect killing of the innocent, is allowable for a sufficiently grave reason.

3. The case. Caia did wrong in taking medicine to prevent having another child. If the medicine acted so as to prevent conception, she sinned mortally; for as St. Alphonsus teaches (III, no. 394): “It is never lawful for a mother, on account of any danger whatsoever, to take a potion to impede conception.” If the medicine acted on the fetus after conception, Caia was guilty of infanticide. Her confessor should tell her that she is justified in refusing her husband, supposing the danger to life to be real, but that she may also allow him marital rights and commit herself to God’s providence. The latter course may be adopted with greater security than the advice of some doctors would lead one to suppose.¹

1 See Génicot, Theol. Mor., vol. ii, nn. 551, 553.

THE recently issued Report of the British National Birth-rate Commission on the declining birth-rate contains much that is of great interest to Catholics, and especially to the clergy. It is very plain-spoken indeed on certain sexual matters which have suffered somewhat in the past from a conspiracy of silence. Just now the pendulum seems to be swinging in the opposite direction, and excess of plain speaking threatens to produce greater evils than ever silence produced. Very difficult and delicate problems connected with sex morality are being openly discussed in the daily and weekly press, and the public are invited to form their own opinions on the questions raised. The writers know well on which side popular sentiment is likely to be found, and naturally they adopt a tone and maintain views which will be acceptable to the majority of their readers. The questions certainly are of the greatest importance, and should be treated somewhere. That is my reason for offering this contribution to the Ecclesiastical Review, which addresses itself to an exclusive circle—that is, to priests, whose influence in matters of this kind is likely to be effective for good.

The above-mentioned Report corroborates what was well known already, that the birth-rate of England and Wales has declined by about one-third during the last forty years. It is still declining, and in all probability we have not touched bottom yet by any means. Some authorities profess to find matter for satisfaction in this fact. Dr. Havelock Ellis has publicly reproved the " panic-stricken fanatics " who preach to the people that the birth-rate is falling and the nation is decaying. The first witness examined by the Commission was Dr. C. V. Drysdale, the Secretary of the Malthusian League. Dr. Drysdale took the opportunity to say something about the Malthusian League, which he represented, and of which he is the Secretary. He told the Commission that the League has carried on a propaganda in favour of family restriction ever since the Bradlaugh and Besant trial in 1876; the time at which the birth-rate began to decline in England and Wales. The central principle of the Neo-Malthusian movement is the doctrine of Malthus, that unrestricted reproduction inevitably leads to pressure upon subsistence, with its consequences — poverty, starvation, prostitution, disease, and war. At first, English Neo-Malthusians confined their operations to expositions of the economic, moral, and eugenic aspects of the population question. Until 1913 they refused to give information concerning preventive devices. In that year, however, says Dr. Drysdale, "following upon recent authoritative medical pronouncements, in favour of such devices, the League has instituted a practical propaganda, with special precautions against abuse." He gives a descriptive definition of Neo-Malthusianism which embodies the principles to which the League has constantly adhered:

" Neo-Malthusianism is an ethical doctrine based on the principle of Malthus, that poverty, disease, and premature death can only be eliminated by control of reproduction, combined with a recognition of the evils inseparable from prolonged abstention from marriage. It, therefore, advocates nearly universal early marriage, together with a selective limitation of offspring to those children to whom the parents can give a satisfactory heredity and environment, so that they may become desirable members of the community. It further maintains that a universal knowledge of hygienic contraceptive devices among adult men and women would in all probability automatically lead to such a selection through enlightened self-interest, and thus to the elimination of destitution and all the more serious social evils, and to the elevation of the race."

Open-air campaigns have been held to disseminate these views in the large towns, and a pamphlet is being distributed gratuitously describing the most hygienic methods of limiting families. The ordinary layman can hardly be expected to form a sound judgment on these important questions when they are proposed to him in that guise. It makes one thank God devoutly for the guidance which the Church gives us, and it makes us realize the necessity of that guidance.

I do not wish to suggest that the Neo-Malthusian League is alone responsible for the decline in the birth-rate. It is clear from the Report that direct procuring of abortion, and venereal diseases, such as gonorrhoea and syphilis, are largely responsible as well. The Neo-Malthusians deplore these causes, as all sensible men must do. Nor are they alone in their advocacy of such preventive devices as they consider harmless. The Report acknowledges that "among conscientious and high-minded laymen and women in the Anglican Church there are many who openly justify the use of preventives," and this attitude has become far more common during the last few years (page 64). The Report further adds:

" We regret that we are unable to present a definite pronouncement as to the physical consequences of the use of these devices. The printed evidence which follows does not enable a dogmatic statement to be made as to these; and in view of the fact that medical investigation on this subject is difficult and in large measure has only recently been made, it is not surprising that no definite medical conclusion can be drawn" (page 57).

Twenty-four of the Commissioners signed an Addition to the Report which, among other things, acknowledges that there are some questions " which deserve more thorough and general consideration than we have been able to give to them." Among these is the following: " Is any mode of restriction except voluntary abstinence from marital relations moral and religious?" There seems to be a general consensus of opinion that there is one other lawful mode of restriction besides voluntary abstinence from marital relations. Married couples may, if they like, limit intercourse to the inter-menstrual periods, when conception is less likely to take place. The Anglican Bishop of Southwark, in his evidence given before the Commission, expressed the opinion that this practice is unlawful. He failed, however, to substantiate his view, and it is opposed to the Memorandum drawn up by a Committee of Anglican Bishops and endorsed by a majority of their number. Medical authorities are not agreed as to whether the practice is likely to be effectual in preventing conception, but there seems to be no valid reason against it from the point of view of moral theology. I do not propose to discuss this question further. Catholic moral theology clearly condemns the use of all anti-conceptional methods by married people who use their marital rights. There is a more heinous malice in the voluntary procuring of abortion after conception than in the use of anti-conceptive devices. Some anti-conceptive devices are more injurious than others. But there are none that are not immoral and wrong, according to the teaching of Catholic moral theology. Can this be shown by reasons that will appeal to the ordinary man or woman of sound common sense? That is what I want to show in this paper.

I have already referred to the article contributed to an English weekly newspaper by Dr. Havelock Ellis. He is of considerable standing in the world of science, and so his views are of interest to us. He maintains that small families and a falling birth-rate are not only not evil, but that they are a positive good. They represent an evolutionary rise in nature and a higher stage in civilization. It is the lower forms of animals that are most prolific and the higher forms that are less so. Vast quantities of lower forms of life are born, but natural selection, by its rough methods, takes care that only the fittest should survive. In the higher forms of animal life quality takes the place of quantity. The elephant has far fewer offspring than the herring, but it more than makes up for the difference by greater parental care. This evolutionary process becomes conscious and deliberate in man without ceasing to be natural. We will here give his own words:

" It is, then, that we have what may properly be termed Birth Control. That is to say, that a process which had before been working steadily through the ages, attaining every new forward step with waste and pain, is henceforth carried out voluntarily in the light of the high human qualities of reason and foresight and self-restraint."

This statement seems to be in direct opposition to fact. The natural process kills off the unfit in the struggle for life, and so only the fittest survive. A couple who use preventive devices use an unnatural process without the means of knowing what the result is to be. Of the possible children that they might have had, the two or three that are born may very possibly be the weakest and the least gifted by nature. At any rate the parents can exert no choice as to the quality. They can indeed limit the quantity by restrictive devices, but if we follow the teaching of experience the two or three children are as likely as not to be spoiled by over-indulgence and by having all the hardships of life removed out of their path. The best and the strongest characters, as a rule, are developed in the bosom of large families, which preclude pampering and necessitate a certain simplicity of life. It is a mere abuse of language to speak of the use of preventives as the employment of reason, foresight, and self-restraint. It is irrational, blind, and the absence of all restraint.

It is difficult to understand how Dr. Havelock Ellis could possibly maintain that a falling birth-rate is not an evil but a positive good. A people living in simple conditions of life without rivals or powerful neighbours to fear might perhaps be satisfied if the birth-rate and death-rate more or less balanced. There would be no great cause for alarm if such a balance of births and deaths were the effect of natural causes. But those are not the conditions of the problem before us. There is a keen rivalry among the great nations of the world, and the declining birth-rate among the chief European nations is largely due to preventive devices. The process has been going on in France for something like two centuries, and France furnishes our great object-lesson of its effect on national welfare. In the seventeenth century France was the acknowledged leader among the nations of Europe. At that time her population was 38 per cent, of the total population of the chief European nations. At the end of the eighteenth century it had fallen to 27 per cent. In 1815 it was 20 per cent.; in 1880 it was 13 per cent., and now it is about 11 per cent. Instead of being the most populous nation of Europe, France now takes the sixth or seventh place. It is patent to everyone what this has meant in the Great War. Man for man, the Frenchman believes himself superior to the German, but the forty millions of France are no match in arms against the sixty-five millions of Germany. Quantity of population undoubtedly is a factor of great influence on national welfare, and a declining birth-rate can only be viewed with alarm by a true and far-sighted patriot.

Moral turpitude cannot be gauged by the physically evil effects which follow from it, and can be verified. An evil desire to commit adultery does not entail the physical and verifiable evils that follow from actual adultery. And yet "Whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.” The moral turpitude of an evil desire is the same in kind as that of the evil act itself. The ancient Romans used emetics after one dinner in order to be able to enjoy the pleasures of a second and third on the same day. The physically evil effects of the practice were perhaps not very serious if it was not indulged in too frequently. There are few that would not allow that such an action is disgusting, unnatural, and inordinate. It is immoral and wrong apart from any physically evil effects that it may have. If it were indulged in very frequently it would lead to a permanent derangement in the action of the stomach. These principles are applicable in a special degree to sexual excesses. In the natural use of marriage a legitimate outlet is provided for the strongest of the instincts and appetites of mankind. A sense of satisfaction follows upon the use of marital rights. There may be intemperance in such use, and intemperance will be the cause of physical evil, more or less serious. But the temperate use is accompanied with satisfaction, and after a time leads to a gradual weakening of the sexual appetite. This is not true of the abuse of the sexual appetite. Let us take a well-known example which has been studied by theologians and by medical men for centuries. A solitary act or two of self-abuse may not have any serious physical evil as its consequence. But if constantly repeated, it destroys health of body and of mind. It is generally accompanied by some physical pleasure, but it does not give complete satisfaction. This leads to a constant temptation to repeat the act, repetition leads to a strengthening of the habit and the craving for indulgence, and the yielding to this leads to a gradual weakening of self-control, and to the ruin of health of mind and body. This is the rational argument by which theologians defend and illustrate their teaching concerning the deadly malice of one sin of self-abuse.

When preventive devices are used in sexual intercourse there is self-abuse and abuse of the other party as well. The act is satisfying for neither of them except for the moment; an appetite is created, not satisfied, and the natural consequences of self-abuse follow for both to a greater or less extent. There are not the same facilities for over-indulgence, and so the evil effects of the practice are not so rapid and conspicuous, but in a measure they are there. This is fully borne out by the first-hand experience of several of the medical witnesses examined by the Commission. Thus Dr. Amand Routh said:

"I have no doubt that prevention of maternity by artificial methods invariably produces physical, mental, and, I think, moral, harm to those who resort to it—to one, or probably to both.... I am sure it does harm to both, if they both agree to it. The act is incomplete; it is not a spontaneous act; and if the act ceases before the proper crisis, as it were, the nervous system suffers enormously if the habit is continued for long. And the result often is that there is a great deal of congestion produced in the woman, at all events. I know nothing about the physical results in the case of the man, but in the woman the result is that the pelvic organs become congested and catarrhal, the womb becomes enlarged, and the result is that later on, when the parents are perhaps better off and want a child, they are not able to have one " (page 247).

The Chairman, the Very Rev. Dean Inge, put a question to the witness on this subject. He asked: " You say in your lecture, ' Every method of artificial prevention of conception is harmful in both its physical and moral effect.' That is, of course, by no means universally admitted, is it? It is a matter of very great importance to this Commission." Dr. Routh answered:

"Well, personally, I believe that every artificial method does do physical harm, with the only exception that supposing the husband uses letters, for instance, I do not think the harm is very much to the wife, except that she misses the stimulating effect of the semen itself. And there is not the least doubt that that has a very powerful effect; it is absorbed to a certain extent, and seems to stimulate and even to nourish the woman in a way which we do not at present understand." " I think," pursued Dr. Inge, " it will be generally admitted, as far as I can make out, that withdrawal is mischievous; but we have been told that the use of these other things which you mention is harmless to both sexes. That is what I want to get at." Dr. Routh replied:

"Well, I am sure that people who use letters suffer from it in time. It is not the same thing. It is difficult to explain how it does act, but I am only speaking of practical experience with one's patients who have adopted these methods. To begin with, supposing that both the man and the woman are very much averse to having a child. It is not a normally conducted physiological act at all; it is an act accompanied more or less by fear the whole time, and the nervous system cannot stand being, thus, in anything rather than the passive attitude of affection which ought to exist."

Asked if that effect was not mental rather than physical, the witness replied: " It is mental, but it has a physical effect. You cannot have the nervous system in this state of dread without a physical effect."

A further question was put: "You would agree, I take it, that there is a difference of opinion among experienced gynecologists on this point, as to the deleterious physical effects of the use of these artificial means?" To which Dr. Routh replied: " I thought everybody considered they were more or less harmful" (page 254). Another witness of experience, Dr. Mary Scharlieb, was asked: " Are you of opinion that injury does result from the use of these preventives?”

To which she replied: " No physical injury. In the majority of cases they cannot do physical harm to anyone. From the use by the wife of a douche or a quinine pessary, or from the use by the husband of a sheath, I do not see that any physical injury results, but I am sure there are recondite effects upon the nervous system."

To the question: " Having regard to hysteria and allied diseases, would you not agree that although physical injury may not be present, yet nevertheless serious injury does arise?" The witness replied, "Certainly" (page 271).

When, therefore, the Commissioners express regret in their Report that they are unable to present a definite pronouncement as to the physical consequences of the use of preventive devices, we may presume that they use the word " physical " in a restricted sense as distinguished from nervous and mental evils. Catholic writers on Pastoral Theology have long insisted on the grievous harm done to body and mind by the use of preventive devices. An increase of fornication, too, is said to take place when the fear of offspring is removed by the use of preventive methods.

Clement of Alexandria lived at a time of great moral depravity, and Alexandria was probably as bad as any other city of the Roman Empire. He was acquainted with all the learning of his time, and especially was he a keen student of human nature. In an interesting passage he tells us that defilement of the marriage bed leads to loss of mutual respect and of conjugal love. I will finish my article by a translation of a few sentences:

" It is not shameful for us to mention for the instruction of our hearers the parts in which the conception of the fœtus takes place and which God was not ashamed to make.... Now, marriage is the desire for the procreation of children, not the inordinate effusion of seed, which is contrary to precept and against right reason. The whole of our life will proceed according to nature if, from the beginning, we curb our appetites and do not destroy by wicked and malicious devices the race of mankind which is born of divine providence. For those women who, to conceal fornication, use destructive drugs, which lead to utter ruin, lose all humanity, together with the fœtus.... If uprightness should be practised, much more should uprightness be shown toward your wife by avoiding intercourse which is not upright; and let there be trustworthy evidence coming from your home that you deal chastely with your neighbours. For nothing can be deemed upright by her with whom uprightness in those vehement pleasures is not proved by irrefragable evidence, as it were. The love which rushes headlong toward intercourse lasts but a short time and grows old with the body; sometimes it grows old even before the body, since lust becomes torpid when whorish lusts have vitiated the temperance of marriage. For the hearts of lovers are winged, and the impulses of love are often extinguished in repentance, and love often turns to hate when satiety has felt reproof."*

* Pædagogus, ii. 10.