Care of the Body and of Health

1. THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE BODY.—The Catholic Church in her ethical teaching avoids two false extremes: she neither undervalues the body, nor does she overestimate it. a) Against what we may term false Spiritualism the Church upholds the value and importance of the material element in man. She teaches that the human body is superior to the bodies of all other creatures because it was directly created by God and is (not so much the prison as) the organ of an immortal soul.¹ Through the body the soul exerts its activity and comes into contact with the material universe. In and through the body man exercises control over the lower creatures² and communicates with his fellowmen. There could be no social intercourse if men had no material bodies.

¹ Cfr. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., IV, c. 23 (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 484). —Saint Bernard, De Diligendo Deo, XI, n. 30 sq. "The flesh is plainly a good and faithful companion to a good spirit: if it burdens him, it helps him; if it does not help him, it relieves him of his burden; or surely it helps him and does not burden him at all. The first state is laborious but fruitful; the second is at rest but by no means wearisome; the third is also glorious." (Migne, P. L., CLXXXVII, 993).

² Gen. I, 25.

The human body was raised to its true dignity when the Son of God was made flesh and suffered and died to redeem men from sin and its consequences. With the same body that endured the death agony on the cross, Christ rose from the grave, ascended into Heaven, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

Through the instrumentality of the Sacraments the body, having been redeemed by Christ, participates in the graces of the atonement and thereby becomes a temple of the Holy Ghost,³ destined to rise again after death and to be forever transfigured in Heaven. Hence every Christian is in duty bound not to "yield his members as instruments of iniquity unto sin," but to present them "as instruments of justice unto God."⁴ b) The Catholic view of the body differs also from that of the Materialists, who unduly exalt, nay fairly worship, the flesh. The Church values the body only in connection with, and as ennobled by, the spirit, and commands it to be mortified. "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscence."⁵ "Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols."⁶

³ 1 Cor. III, 16.

⁴ Rom. VI, 13; cfr. 19; 1 Cor. VI, 13, 20.

⁵ Rom. XIII, 14.

⁶ Col. III, 5 sqq.

To mortify the body does not, of course, mean to kill or maim it, but merely to subdue its sensual inclinations, so that it may become a fit companion for the spiritual and immortal soul —"bonus plane fidusque comes spiritui bono" as St. Bernard calls it,⁷ —and that it may be gradually prepared for its final transfiguration in Heaven.

⁷ See note 1, supra, p. 9.

2. LIFE. —Of even greater value than the body is life. a) Life ranks first among the blessings of the natural order because it is the foundation and an indispensable condition of all the rest. According to revelation, man's life on earth is intended as a preparation for the life eternal in Heaven. It is the period of sowing for the great harvest;⁸ the day assigned for laboring in the vineyard of the Master;⁹ the time appointed for trading with the God-given talents,¹⁰ for running the race and competing for the grand prize.¹¹ Again and again Holy Scripture tells us, "What things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap,”¹² and, "We have not here a lasting city," but should "seek one that is to come."¹³ If this terrestrial journey forms but a moment, as it were, of our total existence, which is for the most part to be spent in the world beyond, then that moment is extremely precious, and every fraction thereof possesses incalculable value for the welfare of the soul. What Christ said of Himself applies in a measure to every man: "I must work the works of Him that sent me, whilst it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work."¹⁴ b) Life being a gift of such immense value, we are in duty bound to cherish it; or, as St. Paul says, we must "redeem the time."¹⁵

⁸ Luke XII, 23.—Cfr. V. Cathrein, S. J., Moralphilosophie, Vol. I, Freiburg 1911, 5th ed., pp. 119 sqq.

⁹ Matt. XX, 1-16.

¹⁰ Matt. XXV, 14-30.

¹¹ 1 Cor. IX, 24 sq.

¹² 2 Cor. IX, 6; Gal. VI, 8 sq.

¹³ Heb. XIII, 14.

¹⁴ John IX, 4. —Cfr. St. Jerome, Comment, in Evang. S. Matth., l. IV, c. 25: "After the day of judgment no opportunity for good works and justice remains." (P. L., XXVI, 185).—St. Augustine, Serm., 93 (al. De Verbis Domini, 23), c. 10, n. 16: "It has been said, it is true, it has not been said deceitfully: ‘Knock, and it shall be opened to you’ (Matt. VII, 7), but now, when it is the time of mercy, not when it is the time of judgment. For those times cannot be confused, since the Church sings mercy and judgment to her Lord (Ps. C, 1). It is the time of mercy: do penance. Do you wish to do it at the time of judgment? You will be among those virgins against whom the door was shut." (P. L., XXXVIII, 579).

¹⁵ Eph. V, 16; Rom. XIII, 13 sq.; Col. IV, 5. —Cfr. St. Augustine, Serm., 16 (al. I inter Homil., 50), n. 2; Serm., 17 (al. 28 inter Horn., 50), n. 7; Serm., 167 (al. 24 De Verbis Apost.), n. 3 (Migne, P. L., XXXVIII, 122, 138, 910).

a) Hence no man is allowed to destroy or curtail his life, even though it may have become a burden and is seemingly of no further value. By the aid of divine grace all temporal adversities and sufferings can be borne, nay made productive of supernatural glory. A life of suffering is not necessarily useless, but may be rendered highly meritorious by prayer, patience, and a good example, and thus become beneficial to the afflicted individual as well as to the entire human race. He who has to suffer much should frequently recommend himself to God, practice the virtue of resignation, cultivate good cheer, and never lose hope.¹⁶ Like St. Paul, he should offer the tribulations which he suffers "in the flesh" for the purpose of "filling up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ."¹⁷ Illness and suffering are by no means always a punishment for personal sins.¹⁸ Oftentimes they are graces in disguise, given by a merciful God to enable man to train his soul for Heaven. "Sufferings are lessons," runs an old saw,¹⁹ but they are also, in the words of a modern poet, favors from on high.²⁰ When borne for the love of God, "tribulation worketh patience, and patience trial, and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us."²¹

¹⁶ Matth. XVI, 24; XXVI, 39; St. Augustine, Confess., l. II, c. 42; 1 Pet. IV, 22 sqq. —Cfr. Horace, Carmina, II, 3, 1: "Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem." —Seneca, Ep., 78, 20: "What then? Do you think that you are doing nothing if you are temperate while ill? You will show that sickness can be overcome, or at least endured. Believe me, there is room for virtue even on a sickbed."

¹⁷ Col. I, 24.

¹⁸ Matt. IX, 2; Mark II, 5; Luke XIII, 1-5; John IX, 1-3.

¹⁹ Παθήματα μαθήματα.

²⁰ Luise Hensel: "Leiden sind Gnaden."—Cfr. Ecclus. II, 3 sqq.; Phil. I, 29; 1 Pet. I, 17; Heb. XII, 7-11. —St. Ambrose, Expositio in Evang. sec. Lucam, l. IV, c. 41 (v. Koch-Preuss, A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, p. 38, n. 11).—Cfr. St. Augustine, Confess., l. II, c. 2, n. 4: “Lord, who formest suffering into a precept (Ps. XCIII, 20), and strikest in order to heal, and puttest us to death lest we die apart from Thee.” (P. L., XXXII, 677). —IDEM, Enarrat. in Psalmos, LXVIII, s. 2, n. 1: "And when the Lord permits or causes us to be in some tribulation, even then He is merciful." (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 854).—Seneca, De Provid., II, 2: "Omnia adversa [bonus vir] exercitationes putat."—IDEM, ibid., V, 9: "Ignis aurum probat, miseria fortes viros." —Ovid, Trist., V, 3, 75: “Hectora quis nosset, si felix Troia fuisset?"—P. W. v. Keppler, Das Problem des Leidens, 2nd ed., pp. 12 sqq.

²¹ Rom. V, 3 sqq.

"We suffer with Christ, that we may be also glorified with him. For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us."²²

²² Rom. VIII, 17.

Thus, suffering may be made a source of joy. "In much experience of tribulation," says the Apostle, "they have abundance of joy."²³

²³ 2 Cor. VIII, 2; cfr. Jas. I, 2-4; 1 Pet. I, 6-9; IV, 12 sq.

"The cross with its stern lines," writes Bishop Keppler, "a cold, bare, branchless tree with rough-hewn stumps for arms, is indeed at first sight a sad and joyless thing to look at, so true an image is it of harsh contradiction, so good a symbol of bitter pain. Yet men find that the cross possesses a certain beauty. In its sturdy, clear-cut, well-proportioned form they see a picture of steadfastness, of aspiring effort, of opposition conquered and contradictories reconciled. The sight of a man hanging in agony upon the cross arouses, at first, no sense of joy, it is true. Yet there is a wellspring of joy in the sure faith that the Divine Hero bleeding on the cross is dying in the battle against the fiercest foe of joy and of salvation, and conquering as He dies. The cross becomes the symbol of victory and thereby the symbol of joy. Darkness and gloom are dispelled and everywhere is shed the glory of the Resurrection. In its light, the tree of the cross becomes the tree of life, of resistless power; the dried trunk is clothed with blossoms and fruit; and out of the crown of thorns spring forth roses. Thus also is it with the cross and the crucifixion in the life of each individual Christian. That a man should take up his cross daily; that he should not only bear his cross, but crucify the flesh, the old man —these are not forced figures of speech, but stern demands which certainly do seem likely to lead far away from joy. Yet the battle to which they summon is waged not against joy, but against joy's worst enemies. The cross obliges us to renounce the apples of Sodom, the wild cherries of sin, which are really no joys at all, but it does not demand a total renunciation of legitimate natural joys; it only insists that they be used in moderation and with a good intention. Excessive enjoyment always begets disgust. Unrestricted activity and gratification of the sensual instincts does not add to the sum of joy, but ruins both joy and the man; it sins not only against morality but against hygiene, which is to-day sometimes regarded as the supreme standard. A life 'beyond good and evil,' —to use Nietzsche's phrase —unscrupulous poaching, complete loosing of the wild, natural instincts, whose advocate, protector, and prophet Nietzsche was unwillingly degraded into becoming by his less worthy disciples, the feeling of 'the beast of prey within man, the fair, ravenous, blond beast, lusting for prey and conquest,' —all this does not enrich, gladden, deepen, nor sweeten life. It delivers life over to the most wretched languor, to the hospital, the madhouse, to suicide, —'those graves of lust,'²⁴ so numerous in the world to-day.²⁵

²⁴ Numb. XI, 34.

²⁵ P. W. von Keppler, More Joy, (tr. by Jos. McSorley, C.S.P.), pp. 76 sqq., St. Louis 1914.

Even Goethe realized that the spirit of austerity and self-sacrifice alone can provide the proper basis for a healthy, happy, cheerful life:

If thou hast not part In death as well as birth, A sorry guest thou art Upon the gloomy earth.

"Man must die in order to grow. He must renounce selfishness, for it makes him poorer, not richer, and especially poorer in joy."²⁶

²⁶ Ibid., pp. 79–84.

"Nothing," says a contemporary Protestant writer, "shuts in a life and shuts out satisfaction and joy like the self-considering temper and the self-centered aim. Such a life, though it may seem to itself self-developing, is in fact self-deceived. Instead of growing richer in its resources, it finds itself growing poorer. The more it cultivates itself, the more sterile it grows; the more it accumulates, the less it has; the more it saves, the more it is lost."²⁷

²⁷ Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Christian Character, p. 206.

b) To long inordinately for death is contrary to the Christian concept of life, its value and purpose. The "desire to be dissolved and be with Christ," which St. Paul extols as "by far the better thing,"²⁸ must spring from an absolutely pure motive and be accompanied by complete resignation to the will of God. To wish for death in order to escape the dangers, vicissitudes, and tribulations of this earthly "vale of tears," is opposed to the teaching of Christ.²⁹ Life is a precious gift which should be conscientiously employed.³⁰ Though time is short, it is of sufficient duration to enable us to gain eternity by making good use of the fleeting moments given to us.

²⁸ Phil. I, 23.

²⁹ Cfr. F. W. Faber, Growth in Holiness, Ch. IV.

³⁰ Phil. I, 24 sqq.; cfr. Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. II, 2nd

"Nothing," says the Ven. Don Bosco, "torments the reprobates in hell more than the thought that they have idled away the time which they received for working out their eternal salvation; nothing so consoles the elect in Heaven as the reflection that they have employed their days for the honor and glory of God." c) By commanding us to sanctify our bodies and to employ time for the purpose of gaining eternity, the Church does not, as some assert, "preach gloom and sorrow and demand of her followers that they forego all joy, thus making hypocrites of them." Both the Old and the New Testament bid man to be joyous. "Be glad in the Lord and rejoice, ye just, and glory, all ye right of heart."³¹ "Let the just feast and rejoice before the Lord, and be delighted with gladness."³² Christ Himself says: " Ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full."³³ And again: "These things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy filled in themselves."³⁴ Even the "Preacher," who so frequently insists on the vanity of earthly things, counsels the "young man" to enjoy life,³⁵ though always, of course, in the fear of God and with due regard to His commandments.³⁶ Thomas a Kempis says: "There is no true liberty nor perfect joy but in the fear of God with a good conscience.”³⁷ The religion of Christ is by no means gloomy.

³¹ Ps. XXXI, 11.

³² Ps. LXVII, 4; cfr. Luke X, 20.

³³ John XVI, 24.

³⁴ John XVII, 13.

³⁵ Eccles. XI, 9.

³⁶ Eccles. XII, 13; cfr. Ps. XCVI, 12; Rom. XIV, 17.

³⁷ De Imit. Christi, I, 21 (ed. Pohl., Vol. II, p. 39): "There is no true liberty and no good joy except in the fear of God with a good conscience." —Cfr. Seneca, Ep., XXIII, 3: "Do this before all else, my Lucilius: learn to rejoice." —IDEM, ibid., 4: "True joy is a serious thing."

"Gloom is an alien and an enemy in Christian hearts," writes Charles Stanton Devas. "If Christianity is the religion of sorrow, it is also, and pre-eminently, the religion of joy; the solution of this antinomy being that Christianity is the religion of love, and that in this world love and sorrow are linked by a mysterious partnership. Now Christian asceticism is no superstitious pain-worship, no offering to some pain-loving deity, some evil principle opposed to the good, as though life and health were not God's good gifts; nor again has it ought in common, except sometimes the outward show, with the proud self-righteousness of the Hindu ascetic or Moslem dervish. Much rather Christian asceticism is a form of love; and love being the root of joy, it follows that Christian joyfulness is not in spite of asceticism, but its consequence. We are taught as an elementary truth that man is on earth for the one end of perfecting himself in the love of God. This is his purpose and probation. But only through labor, pain and suffering is love perfected. Christianity, then, has no mission to eliminate labor, pain, and suffering from this world (pati et perpeti humanum est, wrote Leo XIII), but to transmute them. They can be the means whereby we can obtain the subjection of the lower selfish life and of greedy individualism; the suppression of false self-assertion and of blind nature before the law of reason and of God. Christianity is frankly 'the religion of suffering, of mortification, of self-sacrifice, of consuming love, of self-forgetting zeal, of self-crucifying union,... the religion of the cross and the Crucified.' ³⁸ Joyous abandonment, generous self-sacrifice, these are the watchwords, and to become living images of the Divine Model of whom it is written that He pleased not himself."³⁹

³⁸ Cfr. St. Augustine, Contra Duas Epistolas Pelag., l. III, c. 8, n. 24: "These are the clouds [of the Pelagians] concerning praise of creation, praise of marriage, praise of free choice, and praise of the saints—as though any one of us disparaged these things and did not rather proclaim them all with the praises due to the honor of the Creator and Savior. But creation does not wish to be praised in such a way that it does not wish to be healed. And the more marriage is to be praised, the less the shameful concupiscence of the flesh, which is not from the Father but is from the world (1 John II, 16), is to be imputed to it. Marriage certainly found this concupiscence in human beings; it did not cause it, since concupiscence exists in very many without marriage, and marriage, if no one had sinned, could have existed without concupiscence." (Migne, P. L., XLIV, 606). —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 28, art. 1-4; Contra Gent., l. III, c. 112, n. 6. —J. Mausbach, Catholic Moral Teaching and its Antagonists Viewed in the Light of Principle and of Contemporaneous History, (tr. by A. M. Buchanan), New York, 1914, pp. 131 sqq.

³⁹ C. S. Devas, The Key to the World's Progress, pp. 121 sq., London, 1906.

"It is not true," says the Ven. Don Bosco, "that men are made sad by serving God. Who was more genial than St. Aloysius, or more joyful than St. Philip Neri or St. Vincent de Paul? And yet these holy men devoted their entire lives to the practice of virtue."

"The Catholic attitude towards modern intellectual life," says Father Joseph Laurentius, S. J., "requires no other weapon for its defence than an unbiased knowledge of Catholic principles. The Syllabus [of Pius IX] does not condemn progress, liberality, or culture as such; it merely rejects that which the enemies of the Christian religion have falsely decked out under these terms. A progress without God, without faith, without religion, —these are essential requisites of all true advance, —is no progress at all, but retrogression. A Liberalism detached from the principles of Christian freedom and justice, based upon State omnipotence and the tenets of an atheistic pseudo-philosophy, is a false Liberalism. A culture that excludes the true religion from education and science, and pursues materialistic aims, is a misnomer. Such tendencies are not only unacceptable to the papacy, but must be rejected by every believing Christian, be he Catholic or Protestant. True Liberalism and progress, —the kind that ennobles man, emancipates him from the slavery of passion and sin, and elevates him to the ideal atmosphere of faith, knowledge and virtue, and strengthens and fosters the family, community, State, both in a material and in a spiritual way, —such the Church is ever ready, nay eager, to enlist in her service."⁴⁰

⁴⁰ Jos. Laurentius, S.J., in the Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, Vol. LXXI (1906), pp. 241 sqq., especially 250 sq.—Cfr. Hettinger-Stepka, Timothy; or Letters to a Young Theologian, St. Louis, 1902, pp. 343 sqq.; G. Grupp, Kulturgeschichte der romischen Kaiserzeit, Vol. II, Munich, 1904, pp. 477 sqq.; Philip Kneib, Die "Jenseitsmoral" im Kampfe um ihre Grundlagen, Freiburg, 1906, pp. 133 sqq.; the Syllabus Errorum of Pius IX, n. 57, with the commentary of F. Heiner, Der Syllabus, Mayence, 1905, pp. 267 sqq.

READINGS. —P. W. von Keppler, More Joy (tr. by Jos. McSorley, C.S.P.), St. Louis 1914.—C. S. Devas, The Key to the World's Progress, London 1906. —Jos. Mausbach, Catholic Moral Teaching and Its Antagonists Viewed in the Light of Principle and of Contemporaneous History (tr. by A. M. Buchanan), pp. 215 sqq., New York 1914. —W. Schneider-H. Thurston, S. J., The Other Life, pp. 74 sqq., New York 1920. —H. T. Henry, Catholic Customs and Symbols, N. Y. 1925, pp. 3 sqq.

1. THE CARE OF THE BODY IN GENERAL.—If the corporeal life of man is of such great importance for his eternal destiny, it follows that he must take good care of his body.

The desire to live (instinct of self-preservation) and to enjoy perfect health of mind and body is implanted by nature in every human being. "No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it," says St. Paul.¹ Hence it is a natural duty to preserve life and health and to acquire and employ the means by which they may be prolonged and fostered.

¹ Eph. V, 29.

Since, however, in consequence of the fall of our first parents, the sensual delight which men take in life and its pleasures easily degenerates into sinful enjoyment, the care of the body must be regulated by the precepts of Christian morality.

"By eating and drinking," says St. Augustine, addressing God, "we repair the daily ruins of the body until Thou destroy both the food and the belly (I Cor. VI, 13).... This Thou hast taught me, that I should come to take nourishment as I take medicine. But while I am passing from the uneasiness of hunger to the satisfaction of satiety, the snare of concupiscence lieth in wait for me; for the very passage itself is a pleasure, and there is no other way to pass but this, to which necessity obliges me. And thus, whereas health is the cause of eating and drinking, a dangerous delight comes in as an attendant, and for the most part endeavors to go before, that for its sake I should do what I pretend and desire to do only for the sake of health. Nor are both of these content with the same allowance: for what is sufficient for health is too little for delight, and many times it becomes uncertain whether it be the necessary care of the body that requires a further supply, or the voluptuous deceit of concupiscence that calls for this allowance. And the unhappy soul grows glad of this uncertainty, and prepares therein the protection of an excuse, being pleased that it does not appear what is exactly proportioned for the maintenance of health, that under the cloak of health she may indulge her pleasure. These temptations I daily strive to resist, and I invoke Thy right hand to my assistance, and refer my anxieties to Thee, for I have yet to seek for counsel in this matter."²

² Cfr. St. Augustine, Confess., l. X, c. 31, n. 34–44: "We repair the daily decay of the body by eating and drinking, until Thou destroyest both food and the belly (1 Cor. VI, 13).... This Thou hast taught me: that I should approach the taking of food as I do the taking of medicine. But while I pass from the discomfort of want to the repose of satiety, in the very passage the snare of concupiscence lies in wait for me. For that passage itself is pleasure, and there is no other way through which necessity compels me to pass. And although health is the cause of eating and drinking, a dangerous delight joins itself as a handmaid and generally tries to go before, so that what I say or will that I do for the sake of health may be done for its sake. Nor is the measure of each the same, for what is enough for health is too little for pleasure. And it is often uncertain whether the necessary care of the body is still asking support or the deceit of pleasure is supplying its service. The unhappy soul rejoices in this uncertainty and in it prepares the defense of an excuse, glad that what is enough for the moderation of health is not apparent, so that under the pretext of health it may obscure the business of pleasure. I strive daily to resist these temptations, and I invoke Thy right hand for my salvation, and refer my agitations to Thee, because my counsel on this matter is not yet settled." (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 797).

Whatever God has created is good, and, broadly speaking, there are no material objects which man is per se obliged to renounce. St. Paul's assurance, "All things are yours," ³ is addressed to the faithful. Nevertheless the proposition is true only in a general way. The right of the individual to enjoy the good things of nature is limited in various ways.

³ 1 Cor. III, 22; cfr. 1 Tim. IV, 3–5.

1. It is limited, above all, by the particular needs of each. These needs are manifold and far exceed the essential requirements of life and health. They are measured by the personal necessities, bodily and spiritual, of each individual, by the degree of culture he has attained, by his position in society, the nature of his vocational duties, the climate, social environment, and many other factors.

2. The right of the individual to enjoy the good things of life is limited further by the social demands of the community in which he lives. Every member of society has a right to enjoy the things God has provided for the race as a whole. To waste or destroy them is against the law of nature, and to do so wantonly, without a just and sufficient cause, would betray a brutal disposition and be a crime against nature. To waste the means of subsistence, on the proper distribution of which the welfare of entire classes depends, involves an injustice against God and men.⁴

⁴ Is. LXV, 8; Luke XVI, 19 sqq.; John VI, 13.

3. A third limitation arises from the purpose for which the good things of nature were created. The body must be nourished and fostered, not for its own sake, but that it may efficiently serve as the organ and companion of the soul. "We live not to eat, but we eat to live," says the wise Socrates. Only in so far as the good things of nature serve this higher purpose, is their use permitted. "I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat, and the body more than the raiment?"⁵ "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences."⁶ "Let not then our good be evil spoken of, for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."⁷

⁵ Matt. VI, 25; cfr. Matt. X, 39.

⁶ Rom. XIII, 14.

⁷ Rom. XIV, 16 sqq. —Cfr. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., IV, c. 26 (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 490); Juvenal, Sat., X, 356: "One must pray that there be a sound mind in a sound body; ask for a courageous spirit."

Good health is a necessary condition for the development of talent. Those who are sickly depend on others, whereas robust men have courage to dare and do. Therefore suitable provision for the preservation of health is an essential part of character training.⁸

⁸ W. L. Pyle, Personal Hygiene, Philadelphia, 1917.

2. VARIOUS MEANS OF CARING FOR THE BODY.—The ordinary means of keeping the body efficient may be grouped together in two classes: those by which health is preserved and fostered, and those by which harmful and disturbing influences are warded off.

1. FOOD AND DRINK. —The chief means of preserving health are food and drink. a) Mankind as such has unlimited control of the resources of nature. The Old Testament distinction between clean and unclean foods was purely disciplinary and ceremonial, and is no longer enforced under the New Law.⁹ "I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus," says St. Paul, "that nothing is unclean of itself."¹⁰ This includes animal as well as vegetable foods, for Christ Himself teaches that not what enters into the mouth, i. e., food and drink as such, but the inordinate use thereof defiles man.¹¹

⁹ Gen. VII, 8; Lev. XI, 8; Matt. XV, 11; Mark VII, 15; Acts X, 15.

¹⁰ Rom. XIV, 14; cfr. Col. II, 16.

¹¹ Cfr. Matt. XV, 17-20; Mark VII, 15–23; Tit. I, 15.

There is no moral objection to the common practice of making food more palatable by artificial means, because to enjoy one's meals is not to indulge in sensuality or sybaritism. Man is in duty bound to take wholesome food and to be moderate in its use, i. e., to eat neither too little nor too much for his physical well-being. b) The use of food is limited by the needs of each individual, which differ according to age, climate, constitution, occupation, etc. Every man is allowed to take as much food as he requires to maintain himself mentally and physically efficient, and all are in duty bound to avoid excess because it disturbs the equilibrium of soul and body and makes the former the servant of the latter, whereas it ought to be its master.¹² Following the example of Christ and the Apostles, therefore, we should take our daily nourishment temperately and with gratitude to God, begin each meal with a blessing (benedictio mensae) and never forget to give thanks after eating.¹³

¹² Cfr. Rom. XIII, 14; XIV, 17; cfr. Eccles. X, 17.

¹³ Matt. XIV, 19; XV, 36; XXVI, 27; Mark XIV, 23; Luke XXII, 17; John VI, 11; Acts XXVII, 35; Rom. XIV, 6; 1 Cor. X, 31; 1 Tim. IV, 3–5.

To eat or drink to satiety for mere pleasure (ob solam voluptatem) is morally illicit, even though it may not result in direct injury to the health.¹⁴ In the long run intemperance invariably revenges itself upon its victims.

¹⁴ Prop. Damnat. sub Innocentio XI, prop. 8: "To eat and drink even to satiety for pleasure alone is not a sin, provided it does not harm health, because (some) natural appetite may lawfully enjoy its own acts." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1158).

On the sin of drunkenness in particular see Vol. II of this Handbook, pp. 79 sq. On the duty of self-denial, infra, pp. 72 sq.

Some believe that men were originally vegetarians and received permission to eat flesh meat only after the Flood. This opinion may be true or false, but we believe it has no basis in Holy Writ.

2. CLOTHING. —Another important means of preserving the health and warding off disease and other harmful influences is clothing. a) Clothes are worn for a fivefold purpose: to protect the body against the inclemencies of the weather or climate, to adorn it, to cover nakedness and preserve modesty, to distinguish the sexes, and to mark differences in office, occupation, or social rank.¹⁵ b) In the choice of his garments the individual is to a considerable extent limited by season, climate, temperature, custom, fashion, and other factors.

¹⁵ Gen. III, 7–11, 21; 1 Cor. VII, 34; XII, 23 sq. —Chas. S. Devas, Political Economy, pp. 153 sqq.

Custom should not be disregarded entirely, and even erratic Dame Fashion may be followed to a certain reasonable extent.¹⁶ A person may dress well without being on that account guilty of vanity. For a man to dress like a woman, or vice versa, may be sinful or not, according to motives and circumstances. If done as a matter of necessity, or for any other good and sufficient cause, it is permissible; if the intention be venially sinful, it is a venial, if grievously sinful, a mortal sin.¹⁷

¹⁶ W. T. Kane, S.J., "The Psychology of Fashion", in America, N. Y., 7 July, 1923, Vol. XXIX, No. 12, pp. 269 sq.

¹⁷ C. 6, D. 30 (Concil. Gangr. a. 355, can. 18): “If any woman, judging it useful by deliberate choice that she use male clothing, for this reason imitates the dress of a man, let her be anathema.” (Decretum Gratiani, ed. Friedberg, Leipsic, 1879, p. 107). —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 169, art. 2, ad 3; 1a 2ae, qu. 102, art. 6, ad 6. —H. Busembaum, S. J., Medulla Theol. Mor., Tournai, 1876, l. II, tr. 3, c. 2, dub. 5, a. 2: "If a woman uses male clothing, or conversely, merely from levity without a depraved intention or danger of scandal and lust, it will be venial only; otherwise mortal; but no sin if from necessity."

The Church condemns vanity, wastefulness, carelessness, uncleanness as well as indecency in regard to clothing.¹⁸

¹⁸ Cfr. St. Jerome, Epist., LII, n. 9: "Adornment and squalor are to be avoided in equal measure, because the one savors of luxury and the other of vainglory." (Migne, P. L., XXII, 535).—St. Augustine, De Serm. Dom. in Monte, l. II, c. 12, n. 41: "It must especially be observed that ostentation can exist not only in the splendor and display of material things, but even in mournful squalor itself, and is the more dangerous insofar as it deceives under the name of service to God. Therefore, one who shines forth in immoderate care of body and clothing or in the splendor of other things is easily convicted by those very things of being a follower of the pomps of the world and deceives no one by a false appearance of holiness; but one who, in the profession of Christianity, directs men’s attentive eyes upon himself by unusual squalor and filth, when he does this voluntarily and does not suffer it from necessity, can be judged from his other works whether he does this from contempt of superfluous refinement or from some ambition." (P. L., XXXIV, 1287).— On wastefulness in the matter of dress and adornments, which is so conspicuous a fault of western nations, especially since the Industrial Revolution, Charles S. Devas (Political Economy, p. 154) says from the standpoint of the economist, that it is a source of "frequent ruin." The following remark of the author deserves reproduction also in a handbook of Moral Theology: "In many modern countries, by the disorganization of family life, notably by the absence of the housewife from home and by the want of training in household work, the proper care or repair of clothes has been neglected (as well as of the house-linen and household utensils): such neglect being no trifle; for since clothing will last twice as long if properly mended and cared for, the neglect of such care will compel a man, if he is to be clad as well as before, to spend on clothing nearly twice as much." The scarcity and high price of clothing consequent upon the Great War have checked this "depraved consumption" of clothing and household utensils, and it is to be hoped that the lesson will not soon be forgotten.

For women to employ the arts of the toilet (cultus muliebris) out of vanity is not a mortal sin, but to do so in order to tempt men is grievously sinful.¹⁹

¹⁹ Cfr. Prov. VII, 10; 1 Cor. VII, 34; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 169, art. 2; Ovid, Remed. Amor., 342 sq.

It should never be forgotten that the highest purpose for which clothes are worn is the preservation of modesty.^* The moralist has no right to inveigh against the vagaries of fashion unless they endanger modesty or health or unless people spend more money on clothes than they can reasonably afford.

^* Cfr. A. Vermeersch, S.J., De Castitate, Bruges, 1919, pp. 19 sq.

In some countries custom prescribes a definite attire for people according to profession, occupation, or social rank. Where such a custom exists, it should be respected. The clergy, in particular, have a prescribed dress (habitus clericalis), which is regulated partly by the general laws of the Church and partly by diocesan ordinances, which should be conscientiously observed.²⁰

²⁰ Conc. Trid., Sess. XIV, c. 6, de Ref.; Sess. XXIII, c. 6, de Ref.; Codex Iuris Can., can. 136; Chas. Augustine [Bachofen], O. S. B., Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. II, pp. 84 sq.; Irish Eccles. Record, 5th Series, Vol. XI (1918), No. 606, pp. 475 sqq.

41. By the various teachings which, prudently collected chiefly but not exclusively with respect to health, we report in this place, we intend in the first place to cut away or refute several errors harmful to morals, and to provide for the moral order by observing it. We hope besides that we shall furnish more than one priest with an abundance of useful counsel.

The conjugal act, when not too frequent and practiced by healthy persons, benefits health more than it harms it. Those, however, whose nerves are badly affected either by illness or by intemperance can suffer harm from it, sometimes grave harm ¹. For love, that is, sexual ardor, has been called a brief epilepsy.

¹ Ellis, in Moll, p. 181. Compare especially Féré, p. 319.

Anthropologists say that it matters greatly for the happiness of life together that the husband begin to approach his wife not fiercely but rather gently, as befits a man, and thereafter use his right discreetly ².

² Moll, pp. 446-447.

The wife, in turn, so that she may please her husband, should be rather yielding and ready in rendering the debt.

But how often, after the fervor of the first weeks, is it expedient for spouses to exercise the conjugal act? Luther established the celebrated rule for men of more vigorous age that intercourse should regularly be had twice or three times in a week. Vigorous age, moreover, is said to flourish between 25 and 40 years. Many physicians still approve Luther's norm.

Others, however, more prudently deny that a general rule can be handed down, and say that one's own experience and one's varying strength must be consulted. Artificial excitations are to be avoided; rather, spontaneous desire is to be obeyed ("to drink according to one's thirst"). But he who from the use of marriage has for a sufficiently long time felt himself weaker and of disturbed health is by that very fact invited to greater moderation ³.

³ Compare Féré, chapter 10.

Physicians and anthropologists are to be read cautiously on these matters. Often ignorant of and unconcerned with principles, deceived by incomplete experience or induction, they sometimes give enormously depraved precepts or counsels with serene countenance, which more accurate observation is later compelled to refute even under a merely scientific aspect. But let us trust more in provident God, so that we may be persuaded that infinite wisdom lies hidden in the natural order, in such a manner that the holy observance of this order must be held of itself most salutary not only for the souls of individuals but also for their bodies, and besides for the family and society.

Thus, while there are some who say it is desirable that a man abstain from his wife when she is pregnant and even when she is nursing ⁴, others think that a moderate use of marriage during the same time is in no way harmful, and indeed is commendable, for healthy persons. "A gentle embrace, from time to time (during pregnancy), will restore calm and gaiety to her (the wife), by proving to her that she is not disdained. It is good to add that gestation, because of the state of irritation in which the genital apparatus finds itself, is not without sometimes provoking erotic desires which it is very legitimate to satisfy.... A man has no greater reason to distance himself from his wife during lactation. Nature so little commands it that she gives a new radiance, a fullness of form, and an increase of freshness to the woman intelligent enough to have the coquetry to nurse.... It is wrongly believed that the excitement produced by sexual union is sufficient to give milk qualities harmful to the child. On the contrary, it is the complete prohibition of venereal pleasure which often has the effect of diminishing the quantity of milk ⁵."

⁴ Indeed, Gemelli, Non moechaberis, p. 65, appears to demand this. Yet that position affords little support to the right use of marriage and to monogamy itself.

⁵ Dr. Bourgas, Le droit à l'amour pour la femme, Paris, n.d.

Finally, this is to be observed: just as the affection of love itself impels one toward the intimate union of copulation, so in turn the use of marriage strengthens and increases the affection of love. Copulation therefore fulfills a threefold office: multiplying human beings, remedying incontinence, and fostering the mutual love of the spouses.

42. That a chaste and continent life of itself harms health in no way is attested by so many who have the greatest name among physicians and physiologists that the few who think otherwise can be disregarded; those, however, who condemn continence in the name of bodily health or give immoral counsel, as happens far too often, must be reproved from true science itself.

It is enough for us to cite two most expert writers whom no religious scruple could have led to less sincerity. They not only state what they think but also report the opinions of learned men: Féré, L'Instinct sexuel, p. 25 ff. and especially p. 315 ff.; and Moll, Handbuch der Sexualwissenschaften, p. 887 ff.

The latter, even in the rarer cases in which, because of the nervous condition of persons, he judges continence to be accidentally harmful, cannot approve a physician who therefore advises an illicit use of venery. For besides the moral consideration, which he admits cannot be neglected in this matter, he affirms that greater harms are to be feared from illicit intercourse. "It can indeed happen that a physician does not too hastily dissuade one from seeking forbidden pleasure and refrains from an untimely admonition; yet such cases are so rare that they cannot establish a rule."

The former, moreover, writes: "In the discussion which took place at the Medical Society of Lyon concerning the book of Dufieux, which made the defense of religious celibacy, his opponents found nothing to object to the denial of the maladies attributed to continence.

"Mantegazza, who is not distinguished among the apostles of continence, nevertheless recognizes no inconvenience in it. Physiologists, on the contrary, have found advantages in it.... Continence realizes a reserve of forces.... It is generally favorable to psychic activity as well as to physical activity.

"Somatic continence can be harmful only if it coincides with psychic excitation. Impotence is not the product of abstinence, but very often of abuse.... It is not necessary to rely upon religions in order to bring to light the moral merits of chastity in general, and, in particular, of chastity outside marriage. It is enough for us to take utilitarian morality exclusively into consideration.... From this point of view one can affirm without hesitation that the lack of chastity is immoral" (p. 116 ff.).

Forel himself (p. 251) has this: "The man who, for one reason or another, cannot procure normal coitus for himself ought to content himself with nocturnal pollutions, and the woman with voluptuous dreams, both abstaining from active and voluntary excitations." Dr. Löwenfeld ⁶ concludes the argument thus: "A normal man who has not diminished his power of resisting libido by sexual abuse, and who leads a sufficiently active and hygienic life, can persevere in abstinence without notable distress; moreover, the more consistently he cultivates it in all circumstances, the more easily he will preserve continence of itself." Finally, he altogether rebukes physicians who, when the opportunity for a useful marriage is lacking, advise fornication with a prostitute in order to prevent or avert the harms of continence. "This cannot suffice for a young man: it will excite libido, far from being able to calm it."

⁶ Sexualleben und Nervenleiden, p. 54.

At another International Conference for the Prophylaxis of Syphilis and Venereal Diseases, Brussels, 1902, physicians of great name approved this conclusion by unanimous vote: "Above all, the male youth must be taught that not only are chastity and continence not harmful, but also that these virtues are among the most commendable from a medical point of view."

Nor is the reason obscure. Spontaneous emissions during sleep sufficiently prevent a chaste man from having organs excessively filled with semen; and experience in turn testifies that it is, as it were, proper to the sexual organs that they preserve their power without use. "From puberty to old age, the testicles continue to secrete sperm without stimulation and no more lose their function than does the ovary, from puberty to menopause, or the uterus, or the breasts, which can remain at rest for long years without losing the faculty of responding to the call. Those who are capable of psychic chastity can preserve continence without having anything to fear for their testicles and their fecundity; and neither do they have anything to fear for their health, which does not depend upon the satisfaction of the sexual instinct. And feeling runs no more risk than do the organs; love never dies of need, it often dies of indigestion.... Beale, professor at the Royal College of London, says that it cannot be repeated too often that abstinence and the most absolute purity are perfectly compatible with physiological and moral laws ⁷."

⁷ Féré, p. 25 ff.

In the female sex alone, concerning which this question is much less accustomed to be raised, a prolonged rest of the uterus can bring this inconvenience, that internal tumors, fibromyomas, are produced more frequently.

Although an honorable life is to be commended to all, the counsel of perfect continence nevertheless is not positively to be given to all. In this matter it must be well noted that, in order to advise marriage to some, psychological or moral powers and tendencies must be considered more than strictly physical ones. Nor is marriage itself to be rashly counseled to the vicious.

43. - 1. In marriages of blood relatives there is this force, that peculiar traits (les caractères propres, "proper characteristics") are confirmed more and more in the offspring. Accordingly, insofar as an entirely healthy family or a family infected with certain defects is in question, such marriages, under this aspect, will have to be held harmless or harmful.

Certainly, if for several generations marriages were celebrated only among blood relatives, the danger of degenerate offspring could not be denied; but foreign elements are assumed sufficiently and more than sufficiently that this inconvenience need not be feared (Bushan, in Moll, pp. 908-915; Forel, pp. 179-180).

2. They say it is desirable that spouses not be separated by an excessive difference. Hence marriages between persons of the same skin and color are physiologically preferable to mixed marriages.

3. By marriages between persons of the same race, the national type will be strengthened; by marriages between various races, defects or faults proper to a certain race can be corrected.

44. Masturbation, or solitary onanism, which is a very frequent defect common to both sexes, can be procured by exterior touch or contact, friction, compression of the legs, suspect flagellations, for example upon excitable parts by means of nettles, and finally by obscene phantasms themselves. Manual masturbation, therefore, which is obtained by an exterior action, can be distinguished from spiritual or mental masturbation, which is obtained by the power of the imagination.

Not so rarely, those who indulge in this vice, especially women, introduce into the body various things suited to assisting their intention; likewise, some masturbators injure the penis with a needle or knife.

This vice is often practiced to supply the pleasure of the normal act; sometimes it also discloses or induces an inverted sexual appetite; and not so rarely it can be of doubtful signification. In estimating the intimate character of the vice, we can be assisted by the fantastic image which is accustomed to accompany the act.

Although far lesser harms are customarily imputed to that vice today than formerly, it can nevertheless never be despised as a thing of small importance.

For since the moral satisfaction of mutual love is lacking, the solitary use of venery, taken in itself, exhausts the powers of the body more than normal copulation ⁸. Furthermore, from acts which are very easily repeated there arises a habit and an ever-growing propensity, which prepares excesses harmful to the nerves. These harms can be immense in a subject whose nerves are badly affected; and they sometimes so disturb the sexual appetite that physical arousal is separated from the affection of love, and one has a man who is easily aroused and at the same time impotent for normal copulation.

⁸ Forel himself admits this, p. 250. On the harms of incontinence compare also Gemelli, Non moechaberis, pp. 85-91.

In some habitual practitioners, mental debilitation is also observed, especially in memory.

Mental or psychological masturbation is especially harmful as being exhaustive.

Moreover, these psychological effects more frequently accompany or follow this vice: arrogance, melancholy, affectation of solitude, and finally and especially neurasthenia.

To the production of these effects there contribute not a little: consciousness of the injury inflicted upon the will; the mark of turpitude with which the habitual practitioner is branded in the common estimation ⁹; remorse of conscience; religious anxieties; and the subjective persuasion or fear of a life diminished and exhausted before its time.

⁹ Gemelli, Non moechaberis, p. 93, thus beautifully describes the moral diminution of an adolescent after his first sin: "He thinks his guilt known to everyone; he imagines that his father and mother, while kissing and embracing him in their accustomed manner, perceive something new and read the truth, as it were, upon his forehead."

In sum, the pathological harms are more of the psychic than of the strictly bodily order.

Moreover, the causes of the harms are: native infirmity of body, excessive frequency of the excess, humiliation of the will after a fruitless struggle, human respect, religious consciousness of sin, and subjective fear of injuries.

45. The Neo-Malthusian arts ¹⁰ are the various manners by which spouses endeavor to procure for themselves a sterile conjugal act.

¹⁰ The theory is treated below, in the treatise itself.

The principal arts are:

1. Interrupted intercourse.

2. Mechanical arts of preventing the male semen from being able to penetrate the uterus.

The instrument which a man employs for this end is called a condom, by which either the whole male member or only the glans is covered. It is made from elastic gum (caoutchouc), from a fish bladder, or from the intestine of an animal, for example a sheep (peau de baudruche, "goldbeater's skin"). Since, however, people complain that pleasure itself is diminished because of the interposed covering, human ingenuity endeavors so to perfect the instruments that they permit the sense of pleasure to be almost full.

352. Thesis II. Indirect killing of oneself is illicit, unless there accedes a just and proportionate cause, that is, a greater good which follows immediately from the action itself and not by means of the killing.

It is proved. For it is illicit by one's action or omission to cause an evil effect, unless four conditions are verified: a) that the action or omission in itself is not evil; b) that equally immediately from it there follows also a good effect, and that this is not obtained by means of the evil; c) that the good effect is proportionate to the evil; d) that only the good effect, not the evil, is intended. Therefore indirect killing of oneself will not be licit unless 1) the action or omission from which it follows is not evil in itself; 2) another effect, a good one, follows equally immediately, and this is not procured by means of the killing; 3) the good effect is greater than or equal to the danger of life and thus compensates it; whence it must be greater in proportion as that danger is greater, more certain, nearer; 4) death is not intended, but only the good effect.

The proportionate compensating good is threefold:

1. A public good, for the common good is preferable to a private good.

Thus even with proximate danger of death priests, physicians, and others upon whom it is incumbent can take care for the salvation, life, or security of others; soldiers can refuse to desert the assigned place, or burn a ship or blow up a citadel for submerging or destroying enemies, or lest the enemy obtain it with grave detriment of the republic; but not for avoiding captivity, since the public good does not require this.

2. The spiritual good of virtue, or of science and art, or the progress of culture.

Thus aviators or navigators with danger of life seeking new routes or exploring unknown regions. Likewise for the sake of faith, missionaries, even with danger of life, can preach the Gospel, if utility is hoped therefrom; and the faithful can not only bear death bravely, but even not flee, indeed present themselves before judges, if this is judged useful for confirming others in the faith, unless, however, greater evils are feared. Likewise from charity someone can expose himself to danger of death or offer himself to the blow of an assailant, or not take care for his own safety (for example, yield a plank in shipwreck), or not defend himself, in order to preserve, if it is hoped, the life of parents, spouse, friend, neighbor, a fortiori for their eternal salvation (indeed this can be a precept); but not cast himself into the sea or a river even for baptizing an infant, because evils are not to be done so that goods may come. Likewise from love of justice malefactors can offer themselves to be condemned and killed: for death is not from the omission of flight but from the sentence of the judge. And for protecting chastity a virgin, upon whom violence is actually being inflicted, can by fleeing throw herself down from a high rock or from a window with only danger of death, while there is some hope of escape; but not with certain death, because then it would be direct killing, which would be chosen as a means for avoiding another evil. But she can permit herself to be killed rather than violated, although she is not bound to this.

3. A bodily good resulting from the fact that a more certain danger of death or a more cruel kind is avoided.

Thus it is licit to cast oneself down from a tower for fleeing, not indeed captivity, but a certain capital sentence or a more atrocious death which malefactors are actually about to inflict; or to leap from a window for fleeing flames actually burning: provided, however, that there is hope of escape; otherwise it would be direct killing which would be chosen as a means for avoiding a greater evil, in the same way as the taking of poison. Namely, one thing is to expose oneself to certain danger of death, even proximate, another to incur certain death.

353. Corollaries. - From the doctrine set forth it is concluded:

1. for incurring a danger of death not certain, but probable or remote, a lesser cause suffices, yet always a grave one, especially if necessity is present; for example, it is licit to serve those laboring under a contagious disease, indeed from charity to visit them, even with great danger of contracting the plague, likewise to exercise a dangerous art (for example, to climb roofs) for the support of oneself and one's own or the utility of others;

2. for incurring a danger of indirectly shortening life even by several years, a less grave reason suffices: thus for the sake of exercising virtue it is licit to do moderate penances by fasts, vigils, mortifications; for the restraint of concupiscence presents compensation; likewise for one's own support or for the progress of an industrial or mechanical thing, it is licit for workers to blow glass, gild metals, handle fire daily, and exercise other arts shortening life, although as far as possible one must try that works committed to craftsmen be rendered less dangerous;

3. nevertheless, for incurring a danger of death a futile reason does not suffice, for example, to fight because of vain glory, bear extraordinary burdens, let oneself down, or prolong a very long fast for the sake of a wager alone;

4. a fortiori it is not licit to procure the utility of others or one's own gain from a sought-out danger of death, but only to expose oneself to danger, by doing an act useful otherwise and of itself.

Hence they sin gravely a) who for light causes throw themselves into danger of death, as any rash tightrope walkers, gladiators, body-tumblers, bullfighters, showmen who tame wild beasts or take poisons, unless by long experience or suitable preparation they are certain concerning their dexterity or the efficacy of the remedies;

b) who gravely harm health or notably hasten death for themselves by gluttony, drunkenness, immoderate passion of lust, by abuse of morphine, cocaine, opium, or by immoderate penances;

c) who refuse to take ordinary means for recovering health or preserving life safe; but not those who are unwilling to employ extraordinary, refined, unusual, more costly, very difficult means, as to leave one's country and seek a healthier region, to undergo a very laborious or dangerous operation, or a notable amputation: for the law of prolonging life does not obligate with so great an inconvenience. Today, however, several operations which formerly were considered difficult and dangerous are accomplished very easily and safely, and thus have already become ordinary means;

d) a fortiori those who abstain from taking necessary foods, even for an excellent end, for example, the liberation of the fatherland. For this is direct killing, for, as St. Thomas says, q. 69, a. 4, ad 2: "not to take food... would be to kill oneself." And the good is hoped for from an evil means; but evils are not to be done so that goods may come.

354. Observations. - 1) The principles are clear and there is no difficulty in them; but in fact, in the application of principles, namely, whether in a case such killing is direct or indirect, there can be room for doubt or even subtle consideration, because a priori it is not always easy to determine this. But the various modes indicated among authors (cf. Tanquerey, n. 304 sq.; Billuart, diss. X, a. 3) can be held as only indirect killing, or at least are not certainly proved to be direct killing; and consequently in practice they can be considered as licit, because probably and from the common apprehension of men they are only indirect killing. But if to someone they evidently seem to be direct killing, from this he could not extend the principles and say that direct killing is licit also in other similar cases; but he could only conclude that the application of principles is not being made rightly, and in the case the killing action is also direct and therefore illicit.

2. The desire of one's own death is not necessarily unjust toward God, because he who wishes death for himself can await it as to be inflicted on him by God. Indeed such a desire can be ordered and in conformity with reason, if it arises from a motive of obtaining a good which is better than life, or of escaping an evil which is worse than death. Hence the desire:

a) is licit if it arises from the motive of a better good, for example, of desiring conjunction with God, of loving God more perfectly, of sinning no more, etc., as in the Apostle, Phil. I, 23;

b) is illicit if it arises from a wicked motive, for example, because with rebellion against the divine will someone wishes death or from impatience does not wish to tolerate the ordinary troubles of the present life. This of itself is gravely evil if it is done from perfect deliberation; often, however, it is not sufficiently deliberate because of disturbance or anger, or is not seriously willed;

c) of itself it is not sinful if someone so abhors a grave earthly evil, for example, grave disease, hard imprisonment, a very hard state of life, troublesome vexations and snares, that he would prefer death, because, as Scripture says (Ecclus. XXX, 17), death is better than bitter life; nevertheless it is imperfect, because man, by patiently tolerating most grave evils, will obtain a precious reward which by premature death he loses.

Question. How is the use of morphine, or the morphine habit, to be considered from the moral standpoint?

^* By A. Lehmkuhl, S.J.

Answer. i. The use of morphine can not be absolutely prohibited as contrary to morals, when it is merely a question of allaying nervous excitement, or of alleviating pain. But in view of the imminent danger of its misuse and the bad effects it is apt to produce, morphine preparations should be used only by direction of a conscientious physician.

2. The excessive habitual use of morphine is without doubt sinful. Its excessive use will become grievously sinful, even a mortal sin, in cases where it works serious injury to bodily health, or where, on account of the pleasure and comfort it affords, a complete intoxication, temporary deprivation of the use of reason is thus produced. The latter excess would render the solitary case a mortal sin; in the habitual excessive use the mortal guilt is found in the consciousness of the injury which the continuous consumption of the drug will work, so that in the case of a determined breaking off of the habit, an occasional temporary relapse into the use may be dealt with leniently.

3. If the use of the drug does not reach the degrees mentioned under No. 2, then the excessive use, although sinful, is not exactly a mortal sin.

4. With those dangerously sick, when death is approaching, the use of morphine for the purpose of stupefaction, even if done to alleviate pain, can not be morally justified, unless it is intended to produce refreshing sleep or as an anesthetic in a surgical operation. Otherwise, to deprive the patient of consciousness so shortly before death must be looked upon as an ordinary shortening of life, which I am not obliged to oppose, if some one undertakes to do it in good faith in order to prevent greater evils, but in which I should not be allowed to consent or assist.

A certain woman comes to a confessor and, among other things, confesses that she permitted something dishonorable—namely, intercourse—to a young man for whom this remedy had been prescribed by a physician to cure an illness. What must be said?

It is immediately apparent that such a remedy is entirely unlawful and can neither be prescribed by a physician nor employed by anyone. Therefore, if a physician had enjoined it during illness upon that young man, for whom it was impossible to enter marriage, the young man ought to follow the example of blessed Casimir, Confessor, of whom it is related in the Breviary on March 4: “At the very end of life he courageously maintained his virginity, while, oppressed by grave illness, he steadfastly resolved to die rather than, on the advice of physicians, undergo the loss of chastity.”

Moreover, this advice of the physician seems deserving of rejection, since physicians at the present time generally do not concede that such a remedy can be necessary. In the Middle Ages, indeed, such an opinion prevailed, as writers report, but it had flowed into the schools of physicians from the books of ancient pagan and Arab physicians; now a sounder doctrine has succeeded it, as is sufficiently apparent from the matters discussed by the distinguished Stöhr (Pastoral-Medicine, IV, page 262 and following), who says among other things: “ If I add that the very physicians, who were so little concerned with Christian ethics that they believed themselves able to quench the fire of passion by means of the trivial drugs at their disposal, did not hesitate to recommend sexual intercourse as a remedy for various diseases, this fact alone is enough to reveal the true character of the cynicism that dominated medieval medicine.”

Case.—Father John has a penitent, David, the son of a widowed mother and a man in ordinary circumstances of life, who has developed consumption. David is in very poor health at present, and has been told by many reputable physicians, who have carefully examined him, that he cannot live more than one year unless he remove himself from this climate and betake himself to the Rocky Mountains, where, if his health improves, he would have to stay for four or five years. There is no certainty, however, that even there he will recover his shattered health. Now David is not inclined to follow the advice of the doctors. He feels that it would be imposing too great a hardship on himself and upon his mother. He dreads the life he will be compelled to lead in the mountains, and declares that he prefers to remain, and die, if must be, at home, where he can receive some consolation from his parent, and where he can be of help to her.

Question.—Is there any obligation on his part to go to the mountains? Does he commit sin by not going?

Solution.—The solution of this case must depend upon circumstances. Of course, it goes without saying that we are obliged to preserve the life that God has given us. We are not free to do anything that will shorten our lives directly. But this is only a general principle which arises from the binding force of the Fifth Commandment. In practice it may be modified by many conditions. When we claim that we are obliged in conscience to use the means necessary to the preservation of life, we must be held to be referring only to the ordinary means the use of which are required for the maintenance of God-given life. To exemplify this, we assert that a man is bound in conscience to take food, to take medicines, to take fresh air, exercise, etc., because these are the ordinary means which enable him to conserve his life. It follows that a man who would when sick refuse all medical aid, and who from prejudice or obstinacy would allow himself to pass out of this world rather than consult or follow the advice of clinical experts, would be guilty of sin. But we are not obliged by any law of God to use extraordinary means. Such means would be those that entail very great expense, very great pain, or very great hardship. Should one’s life be necessary for the good of society or of the community, then extraordinary means become ordinary, and such a one is bound to use all means at his disposal to preserve his life. Do not forget then that what is extraordinary for one man is ordinary for another, and that what is ordinary under one set of circumstances may be extraordinary under another. It is our view that the conditions under which David labors, and which beget in him a repugnance to a change of climate and a long residence in the mountains, with consequent separation from home and his mother, may rightly be looked upon as out of the ordinary. Therefore we hold that he is not obliged to submit himself to them, and consequently he does not sin by refusing to accept the dictum of his physician. He may be counselled to go, but he cannot be compelled to do so under pain of sin. The hardship, the expense, the mental pain, the loneliness and the fact that after all he may not ultimately recover, all these conspire to make the remedy an extraordinary one,

Case.—Rufus, in love with Leonore, and finding his affection reciprocated, proposes marriage to the young lady. She freely admits that she would accept his offer were it not for one seemingly insuperable difficulty. Rufus is deformed by the presence of a tumor which she considers not only unsightly but even dangerous. The distressed lover pleads his cause and finally wins consent under condition of the removal of the deformity. Rufus then hastens to a surgeon, who assures him that the offending excrescence can be removed by the knife, but not without fear of danger to life. He consents to the operation. In preparation for the ordeal he approaches the Sacrament of Penance and there his confessor forbids the operation on the ground that it would be a violation of God’s Law prohibiting the endangering of one’s life. He persists and is sent away without absolution.

Question.—Did the confessor have the right view of the case?

Solution.—While it is never lawful to do anything that is equivalently suicide, it is lawful to do that which is indifferent in se though it involves the possibility of death, provided (a) we seek some immediate good effect, (b) our intention is not to cause death, and (c) there exists a sufficient reason to allow the evil that may possibly follow from the doing of such an action. Where no grave cause sanctions the doing of the action in question, the act is highly unlawful, it is grievously sinful. Now a legitimate cause includes an action involving the production of good not only for the community, but may even extend to the good of the individual. Where then a substantially weighty benefit accrues to the members of society from the jeopardizing of human life, the seeking of that good is entirely licit. Where, too, the aforesaid benefit comes to a single member of the community, that good may be sought even at the risk of life to the individual in question. This holds with the proviso that the risk involved be not too great, and hence that there be some reasonable proportion between the good to be accomplished and the risk to be assumed. Where on the other hand there is no adequate reason for the risk, no sufficient good to the individual or to the community, then no one would be allowed to place himself in the proximate danger of death, or in the probable danger of such an evil.

Applying the principles just stated to the proposed case, we must determine whether there exists sufficient reason for the induction of the peril that is feared on the part of the deformed Rufus. In the determination of this question we must find out how great the risk is that he is willing to run. Is it great or negligible? Is it merely a possible danger, or is it gravely probable? Rufus is not concerned about the improvement to his personal appearance except in as far as it will help him to obtain Leonore as his wife. This he considers a great good for his life and no doubt we can admit the force of his reasoning in the matter, provided the risk he runs is not out of proportion to that universally accepted good. The surgeon whom he consulted has informed him that there is some danger. However we must bear in mind that modern methods of surgery, combined with the great skill of modern surgeons, have certainly and materially reduced the danger at one time attendant upon surgical operations. So that it is safe to conclude that operations formerly full of danger are now permissible, because of the lack of that danger. The death-rate to-day following operations is hardly more than two per cent. This is so small that it can safely be neglected. This would be our view of the case before us. The danger to the patient would bear no undue proportion to the good that he hopes for from marriage with Leonore. Hence we would admit that he has sufficient reason to permit of his undergoing the operation to remove the impediment to his desired marriage. It would be a serious hardship to the community to prohibit such operations, particularly in cases where, as in the present, the good to be effected far outweighs the concomitant danger, especially in cases where the danger is more possible than probable, more imaginary than real. The confessor did not-give a proper decision in the case. He should have absolved and encouraged, not discouraged his already distressed penitent.