Right attitude 
Broken vow 
Sterilization 
So many do 
Advice of non-Catholic doctor 
The Bible says 
Stand of the Church 
Attitude of the Church 
Books favoring contraception 
Catholic doctor 
A priest's advice 
Wife cooperates 
False conscience 
Mortal sin? 
Confession 
Buying the contraptions 
RH factor 
Slums 
Malthus 





What They Ask About 

BIRTH 
CONTROL 

By Monsignor J. D. Conway 

(Author of: What They Ask About Marriage) 

AVE MARIA PRESS 
Notre Dame, Indiana 



AUG O 31384 
LI OH. cJâ u T b i . ^ lo Kiju,/yo 

AÜÜO ö V384 > 





NIHIL OBSTAT: 

John L. Reedy, C.S.C. 
Censor Deputatus 

IMPRIMATUR: 

l̂ t Most Rev. Leo A. Pursley, D.D. 
Apostolic Administrator of the 
Diocese of Ft. Wayne, Indiana 

March 28, 1956 

This pamphlet is reprinted from 
W H A T T H E Y ASK A B O U T M A R R I A G E , 
By Monsignor J . D . Conway. 
Fides Publishers: Chicago 19, 111. 
Copyright, 1955. 
Printed with permission. 

Cover Photograph: By Harold M. Lambert 

All rights reserved. This pamphlet may not be reproduced 
by any means in whole or in part without prior permission. 

Do@Òfd!ff9(f 



BIRTH CONTROL 

Right attitude—Broken vow 
— Sterilization — So m a n y 
do — Advice of non-Catho-
lic. doctor—The Bible s a y s 
— Stand of the Church — 
Attitude of the Church — 
Books favoring contracep-
tion.— Catholic doctor — A 
priest's advice — Wife co-
operates — False con-
science—Mortal sin?—Con-
fession — Buying the con-
traptions — RH factor — 
—Slums—Malthus 

Q. Please solve my problem. When I was married, our pastor 
told me to use my marriage privilege in a natural way. He said 
that to do otherwise would frustrate God's plan and be a mortal 
sin. We have been blessed with six lovely children and are very 
happy, but our financial status prevents us from "keeping up 
with the Jones'." Lately I have been hearing: "What, another 
one? You ought to be ashamed. How can you cheat the ones 

3 



you have by taking from them to give to others?" Am I cheat-
ing them, and just what should I do under such circumstances? 

A. Maybe you should follow t h a t tendency—which you m u s t 
have h a d a t times—to tell your critics t o go t o t h e devil, 
whose cause t h e y a r e representing to you. But it is surely 
more c h a r i t a b l e and patient to simply remind t h e m t h a t 
a n o t h e r new soul which can be happy with God f o r all eternity 
seems more i m p o r t a n t in your eyes t h a n a f e w additional 
m a t e r i a l benefits f o r yourselves and your children. Your 
letter leads me t o suspect t h a t your f a m i l y Is much m o r e 
happy t h a n those of your critics. 

Q. Many years ago a mother made a vow to the Blessed Virgin 
that she would never do anything to prevent the birth of chil-
dren. She has a large family, but recently she advised and 
assisted her daughter to produce an abortion. She is now afraid 
to go to confession because she has broken her vow. She can 
not even pray to the Blessed Virgin now, and she always had 
great devotion to her. Is the breaking of her vow a sacrilege 
which can not be forgiven? 

A. This mother h a s been guilty of m a n y grievous sins, but 
they can all be forgiven if she is sincerely and honestly sorry, 
as she apparently is. There a r e m o r e i m p o r t a n t things t h a n 
h e r vow to w o r r y about In this case. Taking t h e life of a 
human being, depriving it of t h e chance of baptism and 
heaven, t h e scandal of leading h e r own daughter into serious 
sins, and the excommunication f r o m t h e Church which she 
has incurred by having p a r t in an abortion. 

I wonder if it was a real vow which she took. Vows a r e 
not made to t h e Blessed Virgin, but to God alone. Solemn 
promises might be made to t h e Blessed Virgin; b u t these 
would not h a v e force of law, or bind under pain of sin. 

Sometimes when a person says she made a vow t o t h e 

4 



Blessed Virgin she means t h a t s h e m a d e a vow t o God in 
honor of Mary. But b e f o r e it can be a real vow t h e person 
m a k i n g it m u s t f u l l y realize t h a t she is binding herself under 
pain of sin—that she is m a k i n g a special law f o r herself. And 
she m u s t f u l l y intend t o accept t h a t obligation a n d bind her-
self under sin. 

The breaking of a p r i v a t e vow is not called a sacrilege, in 
t h e strict sense. But even if it w e r e it would b e quickly 
forgiven if repentance w e r e sincere. It is a sin against reli-
gion, and it is serious, but it should not keep a person f r o m 
confession a single day. 

Catholics should not m a k e vows without t h e advice of 
their confessor. 

The excommunication m a y cause m o r e trouble. The priest 
m a y have t o obtain faculties f r o m t h e bishop to absolve f r o m 
it. But t h e seal of confession will be strictly observed. If 
the mother did not know about t h i s excommunication, she did 
not incur it, and t h e priest can absolve h e r without delay. 

The Blessed Virgin will not f o r g e t a quarter-century of 
f a i t h f u l n e s s to this vow, or promise, because of one violation, 
serious as it is. P r a y to h e r with confidence and love—and 
go to confession at once. 

O. Is it possible for a young couple who have had eight chil-
dren and are expecting the ninth, who have tried to use the 
rhythm system and find it impossible on account of physical 
disturbance of the young mother, to get permission to have an 
operation so that there will be no more children? 

A. I t is not possible f o r anyone in t h e Church to give you 
permission to h a v e this operation. T h e immediate purpose 
of t h e operation is sterilization. T h a t is c o n t r a r y to t h e law 
of God. No one can give you permission t o b r e a k t h e law 
of God; no one can give you permission to steal, or lie, or 
commit adultery. 

5 



I t h i n k everyone sympathizes thoroughly w i t h you in your 
problem. You w r i t e t h a t you a r e still v e r y young and t h a t 
you h a v e m a n y complicating difficulties i n t h e family. Ap-
parently Our Lord expects you t o be heroic. H e does demand 
unusual sacrifices f r o m some people, and usually f r o m those 
whom H e loves most. 

Q. Is not the fact that so many good Catholics practice birth 
control proof that the Church is divided on the matter? 

A. Good Catholics don't. Even if an equal n u m b e r of other-
wise good Catholics began robbing banks, it would not prove 
t h e Church had changed h e r teaching on t h e seventh com-
mandment. 

Q. To what extent can a Catholic rely on the advice of her 
non-Catholic doctor, who tells her she should have no more 
children? There is no Catholic doctor in her community. 

A. She might ask him w h a t he would h a v e h e r do about it. 
She might explain t o him t h a t artificial b i r t h control is out 
of -the question f o r her, t h a t it is morally wrong, a m o r t a l 
sin. Does he merely think it inadvisable f o r h e r t o h a v e 
a n o t h e r child? Would h e advise periodic abstinence—the 
r h y t h m ? Or does he t h i n k it gravely dangerous t o h e r h e a l t h 
or l i f e to h a v e a n o t h e r child—so dangerous t h a t h e would not 
t r u s t t h e r h y t h m , but would recommend complete abstinence 
f r o m m a r i t a l relations? 

If s h e pins h i m down this way, she m a y get some practical 
advice. I t is quite easy f o r a non-Catholic doctor to simply 
tell a patient t h a t she should h a v e no m o r e children. To him 
iit seems t h e s a f e r procedure. W h y t a k e a chance? It might 
be dangerous. I t will be difficult, a t least. H e intends 
artificial b i r t h control, of course. H e m a y be inclined to ridi-
cule scruples against this practice; b u t if a Catholic patient 
is firm and makes it clear t o h i m t h a t she does n o t solve 

6 



problems b y b r e a k i n g t h e moral law, she m a y m a k e him 
realize t h e problem h e poses f o r her. Once h e understands 
his advice should be t h e same a s t h a t which a Catholic doctor 
would give. 

I would not be guilty of advising a woman t o go c o n t r a r y 
to h e r doctor's w a r n i n g in a serious medical m a t t e r But I 
do advice h e r to b e w a r e of his encouragement t h a t she com-
mit sin. In m a t t e r s of health and medicine h e is presumed 
competent. I n questions of morality h e m a y be immorally 
wrong. . J 

Q. What are the words and where do you find it in the Bible 
that birth control should not be practiced? 

A Genesis 38:8-10 relates t h a t Onan practiced b i r t h control-
And t h e r e f o r e t h e Lord slew him, because h e did a detest-

able t h i n g . " 
Good t h i n g t h e Lord doesn't keep up his sudden punish-

ment to Onan's successors. B i r t h control would be not only 
sinful but an extremely dangerous praotice. And r a c e suicide 
would be quickly accomplished. 

Q. Do you think the Catholic Church will ever change its stand 
on birth control? 

A. I ' m certain she will not. I t ' s a law of God, not a law 
of t h e Church. 

Q. I am a convert and have five children. A Catholic told me 
that the Church does not encourage large families but forbids 
birth control. Is that statement correct? 

A. Almighty God forbids prevention of conception by artificial 
means. The Church finds it necessary these days to insist 

7 



t h a t such action is immoral. The Church h a s m a d e no law 
in t h e m a t t e r . God's law is perfectly clear. 

If n o t h i n g s i n f u l is done to prevent conception, t h e size 
of t h e f a m i l y does not directly concern t h e Church. God, 
t h r o u g h h i s n a t u r a l laws, will probably t a k e c a r e of t h a t . 
Catholic w r i t e r s and teachers constantly point out t h e ad-
vantages of l a r g e families over small ones: more i m m o r t a l 
souls f o r e t e r n a l happiness and God's glory; m o r e generosity, 
happier f a m i l y life, and g r e a t e r social a d a p t a b i l i t y ; less 
selfishness, less f r u s t r a t i o n , and much m o r e genuine love. 

Of course, practical, hard-headed (and h a r d - h e a r t e d ) 
moderns will a r g u e in f a v o r of t h e small family, t h a t it is 
better t o h a v e a f e w and raise t h e m well, etc. F o r answer, 
m a k e your own s u r v e y : a p a r t f r o m certain under-privileged 
large families—made t h a t w a y by social injustice, or personal 
defects-—is it y o u r own observance t h a t t h e p a m p e r e d b r a t s 
of eugenically proper families a r e 'better raised t h a n t h e 
wholesome, h e a r t y brood of holy, happy, h e a l t h y homes? 

Q. I am reading books favoring contraceptives, because I feel I 
would be dishonest if I did not see both sides of the question. 
My sister says this ts wrong. "Which of us is right? 

A. Your sister is a s m a r t girl. Your zeal f o r honesty is mis-
leading you. The label on t h e bottle says poison, b u t you 
feel you would b e dishonest if you did n o t t r y it and see f o r 
yourself. I t would not be r i g h t f o r you t o t a k e t h e chemist's 
word t h a t it is poison. 

If you w e r e a m o r a l theologian I would advise you to read 
those books. You would b e able t o pick out t h e i r errors. 
But in your case, y o u r f e r v e n t zeal f o r seeing both sides of 
t h e question convinces m e you a r e gullible enough t o simply 
devour those errors. 

Q. My non-Catholic sister-in-law says that her doctor (a Cath-
olic) says that it is all right for her to use a diaphragm to pre-

8 



vent her having any more children for a while. She already 
has four, and the doctor says she should not have another one 
right away because of her health. 

I told h er this doctor must not be living up to his religion 
if he inserts a diaphragm or advises the use of one. 

My question is this, may a person, under any circumstances, 
use a diaphragm as a means of birth control? 

A. The use of a diaphragm t o prevent conception is wrong 
and sinful. I t is contrary to the law of God. There a r e no 
exceptions to this law. There a r e no circumstances which 
permit t h e use of any type of instrument, medicine, or other 
material as a means of birth control. 

If a Catholic doctor really encouraged your sister-in-law 
to use a diaphragm, fitted h e r w i t h one, or directed h e r else-
where to be so fitted, h e .did wrong. He is either (1) ignorant 
of the true meaning of God's law and the Church's teaching 
regarding it, or (2) he is deliberately breaking this law in a 
serious way. 

He might t r y to a r g u e t h a t your sister-in-law is not obliged 
to observe this law, because she is not a Catholic. He is 
wrong. The law comes f r o m God, and all His people a r e 
bound by it, whether they be Catholic or heretic, Christian 
or pagan. 

He m a y argue t h a t she does not believe t h a t birth control 
is wrong, and hence commits no sin by it. So he is not 
co-operating in sin o r encouraging her to commit sin. He is 
simply leaving h e r in good f a i t h and giving her some good 
amoral medical advice or assistance. Again he is wrong. He 
may not make use of his patient's ignorance to accomplish 
a purpose c o n t r a r y to the moral law. I t is like putting a gun 
m 'the hands of a child and telling t h a t child to shoot some-
one. The child is not guilty of sin. 

He m a y a r g u e : well, if I don't fit t h a t diaphragm, she will 
simply go to another doctor who will, and I will lose a 

9 



patient. The a n s w e r : and if you do fit it, you will lose a 
soul, and it will be y o u r own. 

Q. Can a priest ever advise a woman penitent to have herself 
fitted with a diaphragm to prevent conception? Sounds in-
credible, but a friend of my wife solemnly told her that a mar-
ried friend of hers was so advised by a confessor because they 
"already have five children and any more would be a severe 
economic burden." I have heard similar allegations made four 
times in the last four years by four different married women. 
One of them swore that her confessor told her: "Go ahead and 
practice (artificial) birth control but be sure to confess it every 
time." My question: Do YOU think any priests could be guilty 
of such grave errors? 

A. I do not—definitely and absolutely. I think t h e r e might 
h a v e been misunderstanding of w h a t t h e priest did tell t h e m , 
or a process of rationalization in an effort to find excuse. I 
t h i n k t h a t t h e stories might h a v e been distorted, too, a s t h e y 
passed t h r o u g h the ears and m o u t h s of t h r e e women before 
t h e y c a m e t o you (and I p a y m y deep respects t o your w i f e ) . 
Priests c a n m a k e big mistakes a t t i m e s ; b u t I c a n ' t imagine 
one being t h a t f a r wrong. 

If a confessor ever did give such advice, in m a t t e r s of this 
kind, t h e law of t h e Church requires t h a t it b e reported to 
t h e Bishop—by t h e p a r t y g e t t i n g t h e advice. 

Q. Is it a mortal sin on the part of a wife if her husband in-
terrupts intercourse against her wishes, or is it only a mortal sin 
on his soul? His purpose is birth control. 

A. The problem you present is a v e r y complicated one, and 
it is very difficult t o give a general answer. Certainly no one 

10 



is guilty of sin unless they consent to it. A w i f e is not guilty 
of sin because of something h e r husband does against h e r 
will. However, in m a t t e r s of this kind, t h e co-operation 
between husband and wife is most intimate. If t h e w i f e f u l l y 
knows t h a t h e r husband intends to commit sin in t h e course 
of t h e act in which she is co-operating with him, can she give 
her co-operation? She does not w a n t to commit sin She 
gives no direct consent to the sin. But she h a s a n immediate 
p a r t in t h e act by which sin is committed. The sin would 
not be possible without her. 

Questions so complicated should usually be t a k e n up in the 
confessional, and presented on an individual basis, w i t h all 

o b s e ^ t e ^ 0 6 5 - W e m a y m a k e t h e s e f o l i o w i n S general 

1. Is the w i f e really desirous of having children? Is she 
whole-heartedly opposed to birth control herself? Or would 
she h k e to avoid conception and a t t h e same time avoid s i n ' 

ft?"? a n X i O U S to a v o i d P h o n a l responsibility and 
s h i f t t h e burden to h e r husband? The wife's attitude in this 
regard can have a great influence upon the husband's action. 
If she is entirely honest in her own attitude and intentions 
xn a g r e a t m a j o r i t y of the cases she can probably induce her 
nusband to agree with her. 

2. Presuming t h a t She is honest, h a s she really and sincerely 
tried to get h e r husband to conduct -his relations properly? 
H l i t u 3 1 1 t h a t s h e c a n t o a v o i<J even t h e material p a r t 
which she, has l n h i s s i n " A n d ""less she honestly tries to 
keep him f r o m t h e sin, she will also have a formal p a r t in it. 

• M i h o n f s t 3 sincere in her attitude, and has 
really tried to get h e r husband to p e r f o r m the act properly! 
then she is probably not guilty of sin. She directly co-operates 
with h i m in a relationship which i s entirely right and proper 
She knows t h a t t h e relationship win not be completed r i g M y 
ffl m m mm

part in
 m

 She is
 5W bhe h a s done all she can to prevent it. 

11 



Again, I say i t Is a m a t t e r which should b e t a k e n up in 
confession w h e r e all t h e p a r t i c u l a r circumstances can be 
discussed a n d understood. 

Q. Your answers in the Question Box on birth control have 
caused me some serious thought. My parents believed in birth 
control; I followed their way. Two was enough for me. I en-
couraged my children to do likewise. Now, I am wondering: 
Have I done wrong in encouraging this practice? I have'never 
mentioned this in confession. Now my eyes are opened. Should 
I make a general confession? 

A. Wrong things done in sincere good f a i t h a r e not sins. 
When we honestly believe t h a t a bad act is good, w e h a v e no 
moral guilt in doing it. We do not need t o confess it when 
w e l a t e r find out t h a t it was bad. 

Your sins a r e things which you do c o n t r a r y to your own 
personal conscience. As long as you follow y o u r conscience 
when i t tells you an act is good and should be done, you a r e 
guilty of no sin. They m i g h t p u t you in jail f o r it, b u t you 
will never go t o hell f o r it. 

Sometimes our consciences a r e wrong, as in y o u r case. 
You w e r e wrongly t a u g h t . B u t you followed y o u r conscience. 
The things you did w e r e wrong, but you committed no sin. 
If you w e r e t o do t h e same things now t h a t you know better, 
it would be a sin. 

We m u s t never judge p a s t acts by knowledge w e acquire 
later. J u d g e t h e m by t h e knowledge you had a t t h e t i m e 
you did them. 

We need confess only actual sins. The w r o n g things you 
did w e r e not sins, because you did not know t h e y w e r e 
wrong. They do not now become sins when you learn t h a t 
they w e r e wrong. You h a v e no obligation to confess them. 
I would advise against confessing them. B u t if you t h i n k it 

12 



would m a k e y o u r conscience m o r e a t ease, t h e n you m i g h t 
explain t h e m a t t e r t o t h e priest in confession j u s t a s you h a v e 
explained it t o me. T h a t should be enough; and you should 
then give it no more thought—except to undo, a s f a r a s you 
can, t h e w r o n g teaching you h a v e given y o u r children. 

Q. Is it a mortal sin to practice birth control? If you confess it, 
and your intentions are to continue this practice, can you receive 
Holy Communion in the state of grace, or would you be guilty 
of mortal sin? 

A. B i r t h control i s a m o r t a l sin. I t is directly opposed t o t h e 
purpose of t h e m a r r i a g e act. I t is c o n t r a r y t o t h e v i r t u e of 
chastity, because i t seeks sexual pleasure f o r its own sake 
while deliberately f r u s t r a t i n g t h e purpose f o r which God 
intended t h e pleasure. 

When w e go t o confession w e m u s t realize t h e serious wrong 
in our sins and be honestly s o r r y f o r t h e m because they offend 
God who loves us, because t h e y repudiate t h e love of o u r 
Lord Jesus Christ dying on t h e Cross f o r us, o r a t least 
because t h e y deprive us of t h e happiness of heaven and con-
demn us t o t h e unending sufferings of hell. 

We cannot be honestly s o r r y f o r o u r sins if w e intend t o 
r e p e a t them. Suppose you h a d h i t y o u r f r i e n d in t h e face, and 
you told him, "Oh, I a m a w f u l l y s o r r y f o r t h a t ; I realize how 
w r o n g it was and how i t h u r t you: I hope you will forgive me. 
But, of course, you know t h a t as soon a s you do forgive me, 
I intend to h i t you again. I t gives m e so m u c h pleasure." 

Can you imagine your f r i e n d forgiving you while you 
a r e so disposed? 

B i r t h control presents a problem in confession, because 
often t h e person w h o confesses i t h a s no honest practical 
intention of discontinuing t h e sin. They simply "feel b a d " 
about sinning and h a v e an uncomfortable wish t h a t the 
practice were not "necessary," or t h e y m a k e a vague h a l f -

13 



hearted promise t o " t r y " w i t h a secret intention of failing in 
their " t r y . " But even t h i s insincerity is p r e f e r a b l e t o the 
a t t i t u d e of those who h a v e "rationalized" t h e i r sin and f o u n d 
excuse f o r i t i n t h e i r own blinded conscience—who question 
t h e Church's teaching, and ask, "Did GOD really forbid i t ? " 
These h a v e lived too m u c h w i t h t h e modern pagan e r r o r s 
adopted toy t h e i r secular neighbors. Their sin is eating a w a y 
t h e foundation of t h e i r f a i t h . 

Unless we a r e honest in confession o u r sins a r e not forgiven. 
We do not regain t h e s t a t e of grace. If w e w e r e t o go to 
Holy Communion in t h a t s t a t e w e would commit a m o r t a l sin 
of sacrilege. Do you t h i n k our Eucharistic L o r d is pleased 
to be t h e guest of one w h o plans t o slap Him in t h e f a c e b y 
m o r t a l sin as soon as t h e opportunity offers? 

Q. I have a friend who was always forgiven at confession in her 
own parish for preventing conception, and she went to confes-
sion in another parish and was not forgiven. Can she now go 
back to confession in her own parish and get forgiven? Why 
aren't all our priests the same? I do feel that there is a lot of 
partiality. 

A. I t is not a question of p a r t i a l i t y b u t of insincerity, a n d i t ' 
is your f r i e n d w h o i s insincere. A p p a r e n t l y s h e h a s been able 
to fool h e r own priest into t h i n k i n g .that s h e is sincere. H e 
h a s been t r u s t i n g her, giving h e r t h e benefit of doubt, and 
hoping t h a t she really intends t o mend h e r ways. But 
evidently she makes no changes. She goes r i g h t out f r o m 
confession and r e t u r n s to h e r old l i f e of sin. Now t h i s o t h e r 
priest has caught h e r up, questioned her, and detected h e r dis-
honesty. She doesn't like it. None of us like t o be caught 
telling lies; and she h a s been telling lies to Almighty God, to 
h e r pastor, and t o herself, f o r a long time. 

W h a t does she think confession is? A n absolution machine? 
Certainly i t is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ to give 

14 



u s His grace and t o forgive us our sins. But i t cannot pour 
grace into a soul which has closed itself against grace. It 
cannot f o r g i v e t h e sins of a person w h o likes sin b e t t e r t h a n 
God, and intends to remain in sin. 

W h a t good would it do y o u r f r i e n d t o go back t o h e r own 
p a s t o r and fool him all over again? She m i g h t get h i m t o 
pronounce t h e words of absolution. B u t w h a t good would 
those words do h e r ? They would only add one m o r e sin of 
sacrilege to h e r soul. 

The. basic essential f o r t h e forgiveness of sins is honest 
contrition. With t h a t w e can o f t e n h a v e our sins forgiven 
even before we go to confession. Without t h a t t h e Pope him-
self cannot give you effective absolution. You can sometimes 
receive absolution without confessing your sins a t all, b u t you 
can never receive effective absolution w i t h o u t contrition. 

The priest in confession acts as a judge. H e m u s t judge 
t h e disposition of the penitent. If h e judges t h a t t h e penitent 
is honestly s o r r y f o r his sins and really intends to r e f o r m , 
he m u s t give him absolution. If h e judges t h a t t h e "peni-
t e n t " is not really sorry, b u t intends to go right on sinning, 
h e is forbidden to give him absolution. I t would be a m o r t a l 
sin of sacrilege f o r him to do so. 

Usually t h e priest h a s to accept t h e word of t h e penitent. 
If h e says h e is s o r r y t h e priest will usually believe him. The 
v e r y f a c t t h a t h e goes t o t h e trouble and humiliation of con-
fession indicates some good purpose. But often t h e f r e q u e n c y 
and circumstances of sin m u s t m a k e t h e priest suspicious. 
Then on inquiry h e m a y find t h a t t h i s person is living in an 
immediate occasion of sin—or loves his sin so much h e will 
not give it up. The priest will t r y to persuade him, b u t unless 
h e really w a n t s to give u p his sin, and is willing t o separate 
himself f r o m its occasion, t h e r e is nothing more t h e priest 
can do. Absolution would do t h e penitent no good anyway. 

The contrition which is needed f o r confession comes f r o m 
a common-sense recognition of t h e Goodness of God and the 
evil of sin, a n d t h e offense it gives to God; a clear recollection 
of t h e love of God f o r us and our lack of love f o r Him, 

15 



of His g i f t s to us and t h e r e t u r n w e m a k e t o Him, of His d e a t h 
as Jesus Christ on t h e Cross f o r us and of our sins which 
caused His d e a t h ; a brief glance into t h e happiness of heaven 
and t h e h o r r o r s of hell. A s m e n of reason w e m u s t t h e n be 
really s o r r y f o r t h e w r o n g w e h a v e done, and if t h a t sorrow 
makes a n y sense w e will be determined t o avoid similar w r o n g 
f o r t h e f u t u r e . I t is most insincere to weep w i t h sorrow f o r 
p a s t sins while planning f u t u r e ones w i t h glee. T h a t is to 
have t w o minds without m a k i n g up e i t h e r of them, t o h a v e 
two faces, t h e t e a r f u l one looking b a c k — f o r t h e confessor to 
see—the anxious one looking f o r w a r d t o t h e devil's charms. 

Honesty is t h e secret of a good confession. The person w h o 
is thoroughly honest w i t h himself, his God, and his confessor, 
cannot possibly m a k e a bad confession. T h e person who tries 
to deceive himself o r h i s confessor can h a r d l y m a k e a good 
one. 

Q. If a person bought some of those contraptions which are 
on the market to be used for birth control, would they have com-
mitted a sin when they bought them, as they had the intention 
to use them? Would they be guilty of this sin even if they later 
decided not to use them, and actually never did? 

A. The m e r e buying of those things was a sin, b u t not nearly 
as serious as t h e intention of using them. 

When w e definitely decide to sin, w e a r e guilty of sin. We 
a r e guilty internally of t h i s sin which w e decide to commit. 
Sin is primarily a product of t h e will. When our will decides 
upon sin, we a r e guilty of sin. Sometimes w e c a r r y it o u t ; 
then it becomes an external sin. Sometimes w e do not c a r r y 
it o u t ; t h e n it r e m a i n s an internal sin. Sometimes w e a r e 
simply prevented f r o m c a r r y i n g it o u t ; sometimes w e change 
our minds. 

F r o m t h e rest of y o u r letter I would j u d g e t h a t you a r e 

16 



inclined t o be just a little b i t scrupulous. Scrupulous people 
Should not w o r r y about internal sins. They a r e a p t to become 
contused and to be f e a r f u l t h a t they h a v e committed sin when 
t h e y actually h a v e not. 

People w h o a r e not scrupulous should know t h a t t h e r e is 
a g r e a t difference between temptation and internal sin. We 
m a y be v e r y much inclined to commit sin; w e m a y dally with 
t h e idea; we m a y give some consideration t o t h e attractiveness 
of t h e proposition; w e m a y be on t h e fence; a n d all of this 
m a y remain only a t e m p t a t i o n a n d p u t t i n g ourselves in danger 
of sin. 

B u t it is not until w e definitely decide t o commit t h e sin 
t h a t w e a r e guilty of t h e internal sin itself. Then, if w e l a t e r 
change our mind, w e a r e still guilty of t h e i n t e r n a l sin which 
w e committed, even though w e never p u t it into practice. 

I t might be possible f o r a person to commit a n u m b e r of 
internal m o r t a l sins about one and t h e same action. F o r 
instance, you m i g h t w a k e up on Sunday morning, look a t your 
clock, and t h e n decide t h a t you a r e not going to b o t h e r getting 
up and going to Mass. You roll over and go to sleep. You 
h a v e committed internally t h e sin of missing Mass. Then 
l a t e r on you w a k e up and realize t h a t you a r e seriously 
obliged to go to Mass; so you m a k e up your mind to fulfill 
your obligation. You j u m p up and s t a r t to dress. Then you 
realize how tired and sleepy you a r e ; so you decide t h a t it is 
simply too much trouble. You go back to bed again with a 
definite intention t h a t you a r e not going to go to Mass this 
Sunday. Then again before t h e time of t h e last Mass, you 
decide t h a t you m u s t fulfill your obligation. You s t a r t t h e 
process all over again, b u t then you s t a r t t h i n k i n g of a t r i p 
you would like to take, a n d you decide t h a t you won't go t o 
Mass 'after all; you will go on this trip. You might change 
your mind again and actually go t o Mass, b u t you would be 
guilty of t h r e e serious sins of deciding t o miss Mass. 

This is quite different f r o m t h e situation you would find 
yourself in if you woke up in t h e morning, and you w e r e 
simply a w f u l l y tired, v e r y much tempted not to get ou/t 

17 



of bed, and you started dallying w i t h t h e idea of missing Mass, 
without ever reaching a definite decision. You would 'be fool-
ing with temptation, b u t you would not be guilty of t h e 
internal sin of missing Mass. You m i g h t dally w i t h t h e 
temptation most of t h e morning, and then get up and go to 
Mass and be guilty of no serious sin. 

Q. What about the problem of the Rh factor in pregnancy and 
birth? I know a case in which three babies have died. The 
doctor recommends sterilization. 

A. Your question is a difficult one, and t h e r e is no easy 
solution. We hope t h e doctors m a y find a solution soon; b u t 
meanwhile we m u s t keep in mind moral principles of r i g h t 
and wrong. We m a y not solve a problem by committing sin. 

Sterilization is w r o n g when it is done to prevent conception 
I t is not a solution to this problem. 

Artificial b i r t h control is wrong. I t can not be presented 
as a solution t o t h e problem. 

I n extreme cases continence seems t o b e t h e only solution. 
I t demands heroic sacrifice, but is t h e only choice between 
sin and death. 

If t h e mother's h e a l t h is not too critically endangered, 
normal or periodic m a r i t a l relations a r e recommended, w i t h 
t r u s t in God and submission t o His holy will. 

I t is recommended t h a t all young people know t h e i r blood 
types, a n d w h e t h e r t h e y a r e R h positive or R h negative. If 
a young woman knows t h a t she is R h negative she will be 
very s m a r t not t o let herself f a l l in love with a m a n w h o is R h 
positive. Likewise t h e R h positive m a n m a y avoid trouble, 
tragedy, temptation, and tribulations if h e avoids all amorous 
contact with R h negative girls. Once they h a v e fallen in love 
they will h a r d l y be deterred f r o m m a r r i a g e by distant t h r e a t s 
of dangerous abortions and miscarriages or of children born 

18 



with erythroblastosis, to undergo critical transfusions, with 
death or debility as the probable outcome. 

Q. In the slum districts, where it is a fight to keep alive, it usu-
ally happens that families are unusually large, and very often 
must accept relief, which is a burden on the taxpayers. Why 
wouldn't birth control be the answer, and if not what would 
you suggest? 

A. Birth control is not the answer because it is c o n t r a r y to 
the law of God. I t is mortal sin, and we don't solve any 
problems by mortal sin. The end does not j u s t i f y t h e means. 
Birth control is no more the right solution t h a n rat-poison 
f o r t h e kids, or sterilization f o r t h e parents, or a lighted match 
touched to t h e shacks. 

How does God w a n t us to solve t h e problem? That is the 
question we must keep asking ourselves; and much time and 
effort is wasted by social planners who ignore t h a t question. 
They find handy rat-poison solutions which destroy the souls 
of men and weaken the moral fiber of society, while raising 
the standard of living. 

There is probably no single, simple solution. But there are 
many things we can do to help: (1) eliminate slum conditions 
by community effort, (2) provide employment, (3) pay just 
wages, (4) iron out the various inequities in our industrial 
and social system, (5) provide capable social workers who 
can help with family and personal problems, (6) provide 
schools and churches for education and spiritual training, 
(7) work out the present thorny problem of adequate medical 
and hospital care. 

We would not be so blind and hard-hearted as to fail in 
sympathy f o r the poor taxpayer. He certainly is not the 
forgotten m a n ; he is r a t h e r the gotten man—they get him 
coming and going. But relief to the poor is not one of his 
great burdens. I am sure he is supporting more government 

19 



workers on fine salaries t h a n h e is slum families on relief 
rolls. T h e poor m a y be a burden, but helping t h e m will never 
cause ruinous inflation which comes f r o m riotous deficit 
spending and fiscal incompetency. In other words, slum relief 
h a s usually been a minor problem of t h e t a x p a y e r ; it h a r d l y 
r a t e s t h e n a m e of head-ache amid the racking pains which 
afflict his oft-gouged f r a m e . 

Then t h e r e is t h e question of long-term costs. E a s y solu-
tions like birth-control a r e cheap now. But t h e y t e a r u p God's 
laws and undermine social morality. W h a t m a y l a t e r be t h e 
costs of all t h a t ? There will be the devil t o pay, of course 
—and his charges come high. Whence come t h e f r i g h t e n i n g 
costs of Communism to t h e world? T h e costs in f e a r s a n d 
f r u s t r a t i o n s and a r m a m e n t prices and disrupted i n d u s t r y ? 
Do t h e y not come ultimately f r o m distortion of t r u t h a n d 
perversion of m o r a l i t y ? 

If we all believed God's teachings and obeyed His laws the 
world would be peaceful, happy, prosperous 'and confident. 
There would be no war, or t h r e a t of w a r , n o enemies or in-
justices, no w a n t or poverty or f e a r . These t h i n g s result f r o m 
breaking God's laiws—trying t o solve problems cheaply and 
simply and immorally. L e t ' s do it according t o His rules, if 
we w a n t p e r m a n e n t results h e r e and eternal results h e r e a f t e r . 

Q. A Jesuit priest recently stated that the world does face the 
"danger of over-population." Is not this Malthusianism? Are 
we not to believe that when God ordered man to "increase and 
multiply," He would give man enough resources to sustain 
human life in a decent manner? 

A. The Rev. Thomas Malthus was an English clergyman of 
t h e l a t e 18th century. H e was v e r y gloomy about man's pros-
pects, predicting t h a t h u m a n beings would soon all be starv-
ing to death because population was increasing much f a s t e r 
t h a n t h e food supply. H e m a d e it m a t h e m a t i c a l ; t h e increase 

20 



of 'humans is geometric, 2 - 4 - 16 - 256 - 65536; t h e best food 
increase to be hoped f o r is arithmetic, 2 - 4 - 8 - 1 6 - 3 2 . So in 
f i f t y y e a r s — b y mid-nineteenth century — disaster would be 
upon us. 

T h e mid-nineteenth century saw a n industrial boom and 
more food per m o u t h t h a n Malthus h a d known. While events 
made his dire predictions ridiculous, he h a s not lacked disciples 
who found much t r u t h in his general theories. They a r e 
called neo-Malthusians. Their f a v o r i t e proof is India where 
the s t a r v i n g population increases five million a y e a r a n d t h e 
food supply increases h a r d l y a t all. And usually t h e i r f a v o r i t e 
facile remedy is birth-control. 

The subject is much too vast and complicated f o r m e t o 
have even a n opinion on t h e f a c t s . T h e world's population is 
certainly increasing rapidly, and yet w e a r e constantly finding 
new sources of energy, supplies, and food. I n t h e industrial 
a r e a s of t h e world t h e s t a n d a r d of living increases w i t h t h e 
population. There a r e tremendous opportunities f o r t h e im-
provement of f a r m i n g methods, increasing soil fertility, and 
utilizing new areas, t o say nothing of t h e food supply which 
might come f r o m t h e sea. If t h e s e advances w e r e made t h e 
world might f e e d many, times i t s present population. But 
prophets of doom w a r n u s t h a t t h e population growth, led by 
India and China, will overwhelm us and s t a r v e us before w e 
can m a k e these advances. 

My f a i t h in God gives me assurance t h a t H e knows all t h e 
answers and h a s it all planned out, and is constantly on t h e 
job looking a f t e r t h e world, noting each s p a r r o w which falls, 
and constant in His love f o r t h e m a n H e created in His own 
image, redeemed w i t h His own blood, and adopted a s His 
own son. God h a s never promised m a n t h a t H e will be f r e e 
of want, suffering, or catastrophe. B u t H e h a s promised 
him eternal happiness if h e keeps His laws. H e never claimed 
t h a t His universe was perfect. I t couldn't be; it is created. 
But H e h a s demonstrated considerable ingenuity in solving 
its problems as they arise. Among living things on e a r t h 
t h e r e seems to be a system of balance and compensation. L e t 
one increase out of proportion and a p a r a s i t e comes along to 

21 



reduce it to its place, and t h e n something else handles t h e 
parasite. When m a n disturbs t h e balance h e usually r u n s into 
problems. God w a n t s him t o use his ingenuity a n d t o work, 
but if he s t a r t s t r y i n g to solve his own population balance 
c o n t r a r y to God's law, his problems will be eternal. 

T h a t thermonuclear bomb recently dropped in t h e Pacific 
might be t h e instantaneous solution t o t h e problem. 

22