CjHE ETHICAL ;<1SPECTS or THE 
. PLANNED PARENTHOOD jvfoVEMENT 



\' 

.' 



SHALL WE HAVE CHILDREN? 

The Ethical Aspects of the Planned 

Parenthood Movement 

f 

A PANEL DISCUSSION AND OPEN FORUM 

CONDUCTED AT BALTIMORE, MD. 

under the patronage of 

THE MOST REVEREND MICHAEL J. CURLEY, D.D. 
Archbishop of Baltimore and Washington 

THE PAULIST PRESS 

401 WEST 59TH STREET 

NEW YORK, N. Y. 



.N ihi/ Obstat: 

Imprimatur: 
E . A. CERNEY, 5.5., D.D. 

ffi JOHN M. McNAMARA, D.D., 
Administrator, the Archdioceses 

of Baltimore and Washington. 

Baltimore, September 19, 1947. 

Program and Publication Arranged for and Directed by 

THE REVEREND WM. KAILER DUNN, M.A., 

St. Charle; Church, Pikesville, Baltimore, Md. 

Edited by THE REVEREND HENRY R. BURKE, 5.5., PH.D. 

Saint Mary 's Seminary, Baltimore, Maryland. 

COPYRIGHT, 1947, BY 

THE MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF ST. PAUL THE ApOSTLE 

IN THE STATE O~ NEW YORK 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED IN THE U. S. A. 

BY THE PAULIST PRESS, NEW YORK 19, N. Y. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1 

PAGE 

OPENING PRAYER, by the Right Rev. Msgr. Joseph M. 

Nelligan, Chancellor of the Archdioceses of Baltimore 

and Washington ... ... ...... ... .... .... ...... ........ ............ .. ... ... ... .. .. 5 

INTRODUCTION, by Brig. General Henry C. Evans, 

Chairman, Past Commander, Maryland Department, 

Catholic War Veterans ....... ... .... ... ... .... ...... .... ... ............. .... 7 

STATEMENT of the Most Rev. Michael J . Curley, D.D., 

Archbishop of Baltimore and Washington... ..... .. ... ...... ..... 9 

CHRISTIAN MOTHERHOOD, by Mrs. William Berry, 

American Mother of the Y ear-194 2... ..... ......... .... .. ... .. .. 11 

MEDICAL EVIDENCE, by Thomas K. Galvin, M.D., 

Clinical Professor of Gynecology, the University of 

Maryland ... ......... .... ... . ...... ....... ........ ..... .... ...... .. .... .... .. ....... . 15 

ETHICAL ASPECTS, by the Rev. Francis Connell, C.SS.R., 

S.T.D., Associate Professor of Moral Theology, The 

Catholic University of America .......... .. ............................ 21 

DISCUSSION CLUB QUESTIONS .... .. .... ... .. .. ...... ... .... ........ 29 

OPEN FORUM of Questions and Answers..... ..... ............. ..... .. 31 

READING LIST ......................................... .. ......................... 48 

-3-





PRAYER 

1 

A LMIGHTY and Eternal God, we humbly pray that You 
will look down with favor upon us all. Our purpose is 

to emphasize the vital importance of observing the obliga-

tions of the married state. Earnestly we pray that You 

will help all people in Your infinite mercy to understand 

that only by being faithful to divine and natural law can 

they expect to achieve real happiness in their lives, to con-

tribute to the good of society, to maintain Christian civil-

ization, and ultimately to procure the salvation of their 

immortal souls. We beg You to grant that all fathers take 

inspiration from the Foster-Father of Your Divine Son, 

St. Joseph, that all mothers model their lives on that of the 

Blessed Mother of Christ~practicing no other form of 
planned parenthood save that which is accomplished by self-

control and continence. Enlighten and strengthen all par-

ents that they may understand and know it to be a positive 

fact, that with the assistance of Your grace the practice of 

self-control is not only possible but on occasion is of ob-

ligation. All this we ask through Christ our Lord. Amen. 

THE RIGHT REV. MSGR. JOSEPH M. NELLIGAN, 

Chancellor, Archdioceses of Baltimore and Washington. 

-5-





INTRODUCTION 

By BRIGADIER GENERAL H ENRY C. EVANS 

Past Commander, Maryland Department, Catholic War Veterans 

A
s WE TURN the pages of history, we find that time and time again 

Christianity has been threatened and civilization has been in 

danger. One of the most insidious dangers facing Christianity today 
is the "Planned Parenthood" movement, "Planned Parenthood" being 

no more than a euphemism for "Birth Control," or "Contraception." 

The movement is insidious because its authors are generally re-

spected citizens, leaders in their communities in civic affairs, and 

prominent in Protestant and Jewish religious circles. It is a danger 
because it advocates breaking the Natural Law and Moral Law. 

Whenever in history a people have broken such law, their civilization 

has perished. 

It is hard to convince the advocates of this modern form of race 
suicide of the error of their ways. Logic does not touch them. Statis-

tics make no impression. These persons give little thought to history 

or experience. Warnings not to tamper with nature are wasted. They 

turn a deaf ear to the appeals of religious or moral or spiritual motives. 

They call themselves patriotic. Yet they see nothing wrong with 

a cause that eventually will decimate our beloved country. 

Our returning soldiers, who risked their lives on foreign soil, have 

a right to object to the suicide of our race, the inevitable result of any 

further headway made by the Planned Parenthood Movement. 

I recently read that General Von Moltke, of the German Imperial 

Staff, many years ago said to Bismarck, "We needn't kill the French. 

They are killing themselves." He came so close to being right, for 

France through "birth control" almost obli terated herself as a nation. 

France's birth rate dropped from an average of about 4 children per 

family in 1835 to about 2 per family 100 years later. 

-7-



Russia started on a Birth Control program project shortly after 

World War I , but soon abandoned it, not because of moral principles, 

but because Russian leaders saw that it would weaken their country 

physically. They must now be chuckling to themselves, for Russians 

have only to wait for Planned Parenthood to make a little more prog-

ress, and they with a rising birth rate, can inherit the Western World, 

without the Bomb. 

I have talked to a number of people who advocate Planned Par-

enthood. They, of course , think they are right, but they have failed 

to consider the moral and ethical aspects . of Planned Parenthood. They 

do not realize whither their cause is leading. Most of them use as 

their principal argument the economic difficulties faced by poor fam-

ilies. Yet they do not tell us why their main converts are among the 

well-to-do, among those who could well afford to support and educate 

larger families. 

Recently an investigation was made of one of the classes that 

graduated from Yale about the time of World War I. The average 
Yale graduate is hardly from the lower socio-economic strata of so-

ciety. At the time of the investigation most of the class were in their 

late forties. This was the resul t: 

Out of 333 who graduated, 83 did not marry; 

250 married, but 42 of those married had no children ; 

64 had only one child; 

81 had only two children. 

The 250 that married and their 250 wives had 502 children , of 

which 16 had died. This means that they averaged less than two 

children per married couple. In other words those who married did not 

fully reproduce their own number, much less make up for the 25% 

of the class that did not marry at all. 

What is to become of our country if our most able citizens selfishly 

fail to reproduce themselves? 

-8-



HISTORICAL NOTE 

ON FEBRUARY 11, 1947, there appeared in the Baltimore Evening Sun the report of a 5peech made in New York Ci ty at a Planned 
Parenthood Association meeting. In this address Dr. Alan G. Gutt-

macher of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, gave the 

results of a questionnaire he had sent to 15 ,000 American doctors on 

the subject of birth control. 

The news story was brought to the attention of His Excellency, the 

Most Reverend Michael J . Curley, D .D., Archbishop of Baltimore and 

Washington. The Archbishop laid plans for the Panel Discussion and 

Open Forum which this booklet records, and, February 12 , gave to the 

press the following statement, which proved to be his last public 

utterance: 

ARCHBISHOP CURLEY'S STATEMENT 

A statement concerning the endorsement of birth control by a high 

percentage of doctors, coming from Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher of the 

Johns Hopkins, appeared in the press just recently. 

Let me say unqualifiedly that if artificial birth control, that is the 

use of contraceptive devices, is meant, the endorsement of all the 

doctors in the world would not change by one iota the moral law of 

God regarding it. That law, as set forth by the common Father of 

Christendom, has concisely been stated in these words: 

Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way 

that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to 

generate life is an offense against the law of God and of 

nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the 

guilt of grave sin . (Pope Pius XI. ) 

There is , however, that birth control, accomplished without the 

use of contraceptives, effected by self-restraint, which is properly ex-

pected of self-controlled human beings, who bear the image and likeness 

of God. If this is meant, then it may be that the figures quoted by 

Dr. Guttmacher are correct. As a matter of fact , it is inconceivable 

that there is any doctor who does not believe in such self-control on 

the part of a rational human being-and even believe that it is de-

manded at times. 
I do not intend here to discuss in any detail either Dr. Guttmacher 's 

statement or the deplorable subject of artificial birth control. But I 

-9-



wish to warn well-meaning people against the recent feigned interest 

of the organization for artificial birth control in the health and gen-
eral well-being of children. It is difficult to interpret that in any way 

than as a means of getting an entrance into your homes, your hearts, 
and your pocketbooks. It is this organized group that has popularized 

in our American civilization the inhuman term, "the unwanted child." 

It is this organized group that has brought about in our midst the 

incredible situation in which approximately half the married woman 
in the salaried and wage-earning groups of our cities have not a single 

child, and many of the others have only one. That spells a nation 

definitely on the road to rapid decline. And that, I say, is what the 
past quarter century and more of birth-control propaganda has brought 

upon us. 

Let me just make one more brief point-but a truly shocking one. 
Organized birth control has done unbelievable harm to the morals of 

our young people-the fathers and mothers, presumably, of tomorrow. 

The present drive for funds being conducted everywhere is making that 

situation still worse. And the funds received, you may be certain, will 
be used in turn to add further to the dreadful harm that has already 

been done. 
It seems high time that a public opinion is aroused against the 

dreadful moral and social damage that is inherent in this movement. 

-10-



By Ewing Galloway. N. Y . 

American Mother 

for the Year 1942 

As I am myself the mother of a large family, I presume I may speak with some authority on the general topic of Motherhood. 
My children are mostly grown now. The youngest of my thirteen 

children is already in boarding high school. Thus I am able to give 

what little time and talents I possess in trying to promote Christian 

Home and Family Life. 

When I was selected the American Mother of the Year in 1942, 

I looked upon it, as I do everything else that has ever happened to 

me , as coming from God. I am frank to say that I took advantage 

of the publicity it gave me to speak to audiences all over the country. 

I saw an opportunity to exalt the ideals of Christian Motherhood, and 

at the same time, to point out the false notions of the misguided 

members of what is euphoniously called the "Planned Parenthood 

Organization." I tried to impress upon the women of America that 

motherhood is an intimate co-operation with God in sustaining human 

life on earth, and anything that interferes with that co-operation 

is essentially evil. 
Years ago , when a Christian man and woman were united in holy 

bonds of matrimony, they did not ask themselves the question, "Shall 

we or shall we not have children?" They accepted with loving arms 

each little one as it came along. They did not worry too much about 

what they should eat or what they should drink or how they should 

clothe these children. They put themselves entirely in the hands of 

God. I would like to speak especially of dependence upon God as the 

central point in the life of Christian Motherhood. 

The Christian mothers of my generation lived daring rather than 

cautious lives. We were not afraid of life. We lived from day to day, 

-11-



even from moment to moment, considering that tht larger design of 

our lives was in the care of Someone other than ourselves, Someone 

infinitely superior to ourselves in both wisdom and strength. Life was 

a gift granted by God, not a gift from ourselves to ourselves. Know-

ing this, we considered it unreasonable to seek exclusive control over 

our own lives. Why should we wish to be independent of the Power 

which created us ? Why not emphasize our dependence on God rather 

than our independence? 

Independence of God is the beginning of an infinite series of 

worries and fears and disasters in the life of any mother. On the other 

hand, the more a mother realizes her dependence on God , the more 

peace she will experience in life, the less fears she will have, the bolder 

she will be in times of difficulty. She will live freer from care and 

with greater abandon. The more this dependence is emphasized , the 

more sacred a thing her motherhood becomes, the more precious are 

the children confided to her care. In our days, motherhood has not 

been without its difficulties, but we have believed that those difficul-

ties were allowed by God, and that He would supply the means of 

overcoming them. 

Our task as mothers is to live according to God's laws. After that, 

all the difficulties belong to God. We must live our lives according to 

God's guidance. The plan of our lives is of God's making, not our 

own. A mother can do only the little that is within her power to do. 

The rest belongs to God-a fact for which Christian mothers have 

ever been supremely grateful. God was very good in not delivering 

our lives completely into our own hands. Our minds would have 

broken to pieces trying to plan the infinite details of our lives. Where 

would we have found the strength to overcome the terrifyino diffi-
culties in rearing a large family of children? 

I would like to emphasize dependence on God as the source of a 

mother's freedom from worry. It is the explanation of that sponta-

neity with which Christian mothers have always lived. Because of 

this sense of dependence, and a corresponding lack of concern for our 

human frailty, we can claim very little credit for whatever success 

there has been in our lives. We mothers have done very little. God 

has done very much. 
What we have done is this. We have trusted God. We have trusted 

the Catholic view of life that we learned as children. We have trusted 

the sound instincts of our own natures. We have t rusted the clear 

judgments of our own consciences. Neither God nor our Christian 

Faith nor the sound instincts of nature, nor the clear judgment of 

conscience could possibly fail us or prove insufficient for our work. 

- 12-



Having their belief in Divine Providence, the mothers of yesterday 

did not have to rely on human planning, inventions of science or human 

skill. Even where scientific and medical skill had their place, we still 

preferred to emphasize our confidence in powers which transcend the 

human skills, especially in those things most intimately connected 

with our lives as mothers. 

We did not consider whether or not it was dangerous to become a 

mother and to raise a large family of children. We recognized the 

duty of our state in life, a duty we would no more think of avoiding 

than we would think of pulling down the stars from out of the heavens. 

This is the manner in which Christian mothers in my generation 
have lived. It is the tradition. It is no mere ideal. It is the manner 
in which life has been handed down from the beginning. It is the 
manner of living taught by nature and our Christian Faith. You may 
test this tradition any way you choose, by the splendor of its ideals, 

or by the manner in which it has worked out in practice. I have no 
fears that it will fail under any challenge. 

So, in the name of the Christian mothers of yesterday, I suggest 

confinence in Divine Providence to the Christian mothers of today 
as the first guiding principle of their lives. If anyone would have you 

violate the laws of your own nature in the name of some human 
providence or some human planning, or in the name of medical science, 
be forewarned that an evil and a perverted thing is being offered you. 

Its greatest evil is the substitution of a flimsy human providence for 
the infinite wisdom and power of God. What proportion can there 

possibly be between the providence of man and the providence of 
God? The true glory of Christian motherhood rests in a mother's 
fidelity to the sacred task confided to her by God. How could God's 

providence fail her if He has confided to her such a glorious mission 
as that of giving birth to children of His own creation? 

The rewards even in this life of motherhood and fatherhood are 
very great. Think of parents' pleasure when they see their children 

make their first Holy Communion, of the joy they experience when 
they see one of their sons for the first time offer the Holy Sacrifice of 

the Mass, the joy yet sadness they feel when they see one of their 
beautiful daughters leave home forever to become a bride of Christ; 

then the weddings in the family , the flutter and excitement of bridal 

veils and long white dresses! 
What about the pride they feel when they see four and five , yes 

and even six of their stalwart sons march off to war to defend their 

country! And tell me, pray, you, who plan the future citizenship of 
America, what this country would have done if there had not been a 

-13-



few old fashioned fathers and mothers who were not afraid to rear a 

family of children? The strength of this nation does not lie in the 
mighty ships that ply the ocean, or in the powerful planes that fly the 
air, no-not even in the atom bomb. The strength of this nation lies 
in its manhood and womanhood. 

This being true, it seems to me that it is almost treason for anyone 
to suggest just how many children the fathers and mothers of Amer-
ica should bring into the world. 

Does it not seem strange, then , that in spite of all this , there are 
countless women in this country who deliberately deny themselves 
the privileges of Motherhood ? If it were within my power, I would 

stand at the entrance of every Birth Control Clinic in this country 
and shout, "Do not enter here, for you not only offend God, but you 

deprive yourselves of the greatest happiness a woman can possess." 
How do I know? Well , I know from experience. I am convinced that 
Divine Providence never failed the mothers of yesterday. Neither 

will it fail the mothers of today. 

-14-



By THOMAS K. GALVIN, M.D. 
Clinical Professor of Gynecology 

University of Maryland 

As physicians and as Catholics we endeavor here honestly to state convictions, experiences , and views in regard to the advocacy 
by the "Planned Parenthood Movement" of the limitation of off-

spring by the use of po,sitive contraceptive methods. 
To such a practice, because of our adherence to the natural law 

and to the teaching of our Church, we are categorically opposed. And 

we have always maintained this position in years of obstetrical prac-

tice in Baltimore. 

True , neither the Church, nor ourselves in adhering to the Church's 

teachings , are opposed to the avoidance of pregnancy, nor to the lim-

itation of offspring by the natural methods of periodic or total absti-

nence, where there are urgent reasons of health. We do not deny that 

there are circumstances which at times make child-bearing undesirable. 

Nor, as Catholic physicians, contrary to widely publicized statements, 

do we advocate that a married couple must beget as many children 

as is biologically possible. But in avoiding pregnancy or in limiting 

offspring, we feel that the moral law must be observed, and natural 

not artificial means must be employed. 

So much for convictions. What has been our experience in adher-

ing to our principles? Have we encountered undue difficulties in our 

medical practice? Have our patients or the public suffered or been 

damaged as a consequence of our principles ? If they have, the rec-

ords of hospitals and doctors who have been guided by these principles 

should reflect this damage in maternal mortality statistics. I present 

a brief resume of the records and our experience. 

For the purpose of this paper, we selected three Catholic hospitals 

in different sections of the city of Baltimore, and for comparison, we 

chose three non-sectarian hospitals of a similar character. The six 

hospitals chosen all have ward as well as private service, and the 

-15-



record of all will convince anyone that they have cared for the aver-

age number of pathological cases encountered in supervised hospital 

practice. The time chosen was a three year period: 1941, 1942, and 

1943. Here are the figures obtained from a study of the records of 

these two comparable groups of hospitals: 

During three years, there were delivered in the three Catholic 

hospitals 11 ,548 patients, with 11 ,233 live births and 13 maternal 

deaths. The three non-sectarian hospitals during this same period 
had 7,802 deliveries, 7,643 live births and 10 maternal deaths. Apply-

ing the standard formula (i.e. , dividing maternal deaths, including 
those from abortion and ectopic pregnancy by the number of live 
births), we arrive at a maternal death rate of 1.15 per 1,000 live 

births at the Catholic hospitals, and a maternal death rate of 1.3 for 
the non -sectarian hospitals. 

This means that, statistically, out of every 100,000 mothers with 

live babies in the three Catholic hospitals, we would have 115 deaths. 

In the non-sectarian hospitals, out of 100,000 mothers with live babies , 
statistically, we would have 130 deaths. 

It is clear from these maternal mortality statistics that obstetrical 
patients delivered in Catholic hospitals run on Catholic principles do 

not seem to have fared any worse than patients in other hospitals. 

It might be of interest for a moment to look at the combined 
records of the practice of three reasonably active specialists in obstet-

rics who are at the same time Catholics. As accurate an estimate as 
possible of the total number of deliveries was obtained, and in order 

to avoid overstatement, the combined estimate was discounted 5%. 
The total number of deliveries for the three, thus computed, was 
11,200. A painstaking search for the number of deaths among this 

total number of deliveries showed a total of 10, or an average ma-
ternal mortality of .89 per 1,000 deliveries . This is a pretty good 

record . None of these three had ever given positive contraceptive 

advice, done a therapeutic abortion, or referred a patient to another 

doctor for a therapeutic abortion. Do the figures indicate that the 
patients of these Catholic doctors have suffered as a result of their 

principles? 
Consideration of figures and statistics would seem to indicate that 

Catholic institutions and Catholic doctors who adhere to the prin-
ciples of the natural law, have had at least as good a record as others 

in the treatment of obstetrical patients and obstetrical difficulties. 
We are quite sure it will be implied that extra-hazardous maternity 

patients avoid Catholic institutions. This does not seem to us true. 

As a matter of fact , anyone acquainted with the difficulty of hospital-

-16 -



lzmg patients in Baltimore during the past seven years knows it has 

been difficult enough to get a bed in any hospital , let alone in a partic-

ular hospital. 

One of the assumptions upon which the "Planned Parenthood 

Movement" is based, is that child spacing is a necessity from a medical 

standpoint. Let us glance at what the latest and most authoritative 

medical work has to say on this subject. 

Dr. Nicholson J. Eastman , from the Department of Obstetrics , 

Johns Hopkins University and Hospital. writing in the A'merican 

JournaJ of Obstetrics and Gynecology in April , 1944, tells us that the 

entire rationale from the medical viewpoint of so-called child spacing 
is based upon an article by Woodberry in 1925. In his article, Wood-

berry, after a meticulous and exhaustive analysis of the more impor-
tant causal agents in infant mortality, concluded that infants born 
after short intervals between pregnancies had a markedly high mor-

tality rate from all causes. Eastman further states that those inter-
ested in the furtherance of birth control were quick to argue that if 

conception could be prevented in women during the first year or two 
after child-birth, the high mortality associated with a short interval 

between pre:snancies would be prevented. Forthwith , the Woodberry 
study became one of the cornerstones of the Birth Control Move-

ment and has remained so ever since. 
Dr. Eastman, however, as a result of his own exhaustive and 

scholarly study of over 38,000 obstetrical cases, contradicts the 1925 
findings of Woodberry with the conclusion that infants born from 

12 to 24 months after previous delivery have at least as Iowa mor-

tality as do infants born after a longer intervaP 

As to the mother, Dr. Eastman concludes in the same study : first , 

that the longer the interval between births, the more likely the mother 
is to suffer with some form of hypertensive toxemia of pregnancy; and 

second, that in patients who have had a previous hypertensive toxemia 

of pregnancy, the likelihood of repetition of this complication becomes 

progressively greater as the interval becomes longer. 
In a final sentence Dr. Eastman states, "For the best maternal and 

fetal out! ok we are inclined to belie\!'e that youth is a better ally than 

child spacing." 
Danforth in discussing this article of Eastman in the same issue 

of the Journal , among other things, states in relation to the Wood-

berry work: 

It is remarkable how an error once published is quoted and re-
peated indefinitely .... In carefully analyzing his figures , and in 

-17-



drawing the proper conclusions from them, Doctor Eastman has 
done us a service and it is to be hoped that his results attain their 
desired publicity. 

Need we say more to combat the fallacy that child spacing is a neces-

sity from a medical point of view? 

Among other oft-quoted medical contra-indications to pregnancy 

are high blood pressure, neurological and mental disease, heart disease, 

tuberculosis, diabetes. A review of the medical literature reveals that 

the arguments for the use of contraception during these diseases are 

no stronger than the arguments against the use of contraception. 

In considering the effect of pregnancy on patients with high blood 

pressure, Isenhour, in The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 
1942, states that although the belief that toxemias of pregnancy play 

a part in the production of permanent high blood pressure has become 
firmly entrenched in medical thought and literature, several reports 

have expressed the belief that these toxemias occur in patients who 

otherwise would have developed high blood pressure.2 

To investigate the matter, Isenhour studied the blood pressure 

curves of 900 women who had borne children, as well as those of 
900 who had never been pregnant. After a thorough study of the two 

groups, Isenhour concluded that there was no difference to be noted 

in the incidence of high blood pressure in the women who had children 
and in those who had not borne children. To him it seemed likely that 

the high blood pressure which occurs following a large portion of the 
toxemias of pregnancy are not a result of this contemplation, but rather 

that this complication occurs for the most part, if not exclusively, in 

patients who have no inherent tendency toward high bbod pressure. 
In a word, Isenhour believes that high blood pressure occurs in a cer-

tain number of women whether or not they bear children. 
Concerning mental and nervous diseases, we certainly agree that 

these in their severe form present an obstetrical problem. However, 

with De Lee, we feel that these mental diseases are simply contempo-
raneous with the pregnancy, and pregnancy need not be considered a 

direct cause of the mental disease; it is the mental disea", and not 

the pregnancy that should be treated. Cheney, in The Journal of the 
American Medical Association, 1934, writes that experience shows that 

some women with advanced neurological disorders and severe mental 
diseases may pass through a normal pregnancy and childbirth; and 

interruption of the pregnancy does not necessarily prevent a recurrence 

of the mental disease or bring about recovery from it.3 

Regarding tuberculosis in relation to pregnancy, Marriette et al. in 

-18-



The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 1942 , concludes after 
reviewing his twenty years of experience in the management of preg-
nant tuberculous women, that 

Treatment of the pregnant woman with tuberculosis by the most 
modern methods of combating the disease, together with equally 
modern pre-natal care apparently offers her as good a chance for 
recovery from her tuberculosis as though pregnancy did not exist.4 

Further, Raymond Cohen, after observing 100 cases of pregnancy 
associated with tuberculosis, concludes, in the British Medical J oumal, 

1943, that pregnancy and labor, per se, rarely exerted harmful effects; 

that therapeutic abortion is unnecessary, and that active disease is sel-

dom accelerated, and under proper conditions pregnancy is but an inci-
dent in the disease.5 It seems that the prognosis of tuberculosis com-
plicated by pregnancy is more dependent upon the control of the tuber-
culosis than upon the associated pregnancy. 

As to cardiac disease, of which about 90% of the cases seen in 
pregnant women is of the rheumatic type, we are reminded of the 
work of Gorenberg and McGeary. In the American Journal oj Ob-

stetrics and Gynecology, January, 1941 , these men report on the study 

of 345 cases of pregnancy complicated by rheumatic heart disease. 
They conclude that patients with a severe grade of the disease, older 

patients, and those patients with a history of previous heart failure 
should be willing, if they wish to become pregnant, to submit to fre-

quent observations and to spend a great part of their time in absolute 
bed rest, if necessary. With these precautions, they conclude that the 
instance of cardiac failure in pregnancy can be reduced markedly.6 

In a later publication appearing in the American Journal of Ob-

stetrics and Gynecology, May, 1943, Gorenberg, reporting on 223 otht r 

cases of pregnancy with rheumatic heart disease occurring at the 
Margaret Hague Hospital in Jersey City, concluded ·that it was prob-

able that every pregnancy complicated by heart disease could be 

brought to a successful termination if adequate care were instituted 
and complete rest were enforced where indicated.7 

Concerning diabetes, Schumann, writing in Human Fertility, March, 

1945, states that the health of the properly treated mother is not 
appreciably impaired, and that although the percentage of fetal lo~s is 

high , great strides are being made in the salvage of children of dia-

betic mothers.8 Dr. T. Nelson Carey of Baltimore stated to me per-
sonally that in his experience, control of diabetes during pregnancy 

was relatively easy; that in a reliable patient who was willing to report 

- 19-



for frequent urinalyses, there was no appreciable danger from the dia-

betic state, although the insulin dose and food intake often had to be 

increased, that delivery could be done by the method of choice, and 

that anesthesia was optional. 

A considerably larger number of studies could be quoted. How-

ever, I trust that I have mentioned enough to emphasize my convic-

tion that the medical indications for contraception are decidedly fewer 

than the advocates of Planned Parenthood would have us believe. For 

the irreducible minimum, the Church and its adherents have a remedy 

within the bounds of sound moral conduct: for the average case, 

"Rhythm," and for the extreme case, abstinence. 

As a 'matter of fact, to date, no 100% method of birth control 

other than complete abstinence or surgical removal of the child bear-

ing organs has been devised. 

It has not been my purpose in this paper to imply that those 
authorities who have been quoted are necessarily opposed to the 

"Planned Parenthood Movement." But they do represent the more 

conservative element in obstetrical practice who are constantly striving 

for fact , and have not hesitated to express it , regardless of its impli-

cations. 

REFERENCES 

1. Eastman, N.].: AM. f . OBST. & GYNEC., 47 :445 , 1944. 

2. Isenhour, C. E. et at.: AM. f . M. SC., 203 :333, 1942. 

3. Cheney, C. 0.: f. A. M. A., 103:1914, 1934. 

4. Mariette, E. S. et at.: AM. f. M. SC. , 203:866, 1942. 

5. Cohen, R. c.: BRIT. M . f., 2:775,1943. 
6. Gorenberg, H ., and McGeary, ].: AM. f . OBST. & 

GYNEC:, 41 :44, 1941. 

7. Gorenberg, H . : AM. f. OBST. & GYNEC ., 45:835 , 1943. 

8. Schumann, E . A.: HUMAN FERTILITY, 10 : 1, 1945. 

-20-



By the REV. FRANCIS CONNEll, C.SS.R., S.T.D. 

Associate Professor of Moral Theology 

The Catholic University of America 

IN recent years we have heard much about what is called "planned 
parenthood." There is a society known as the Planned Parenthood 

Federation of America, which recently launched a nation-wide cam-
paign, including a drive for $2 ,000,000, in order to promote and to 

propagate the objectives to which it is committed. 

Since the subject of planned parenthood has a vital bearing on the 
future welfare of America, and in fact on the very survival of our 

nation, it is supremely important that all Americans-particularly 
married couples-should understand the significance of this move-

ment, and above all, its ethical or moral aspects. It is my purpose to 
discuss the morality of planned parenthood. 

I am speaking, not only as a Catholic priest, but also as an Ameri-
can citizen, deeply concerned with the future of my country. There 

seems to be a very general impression that the only persons nowadays 
who oppose planned parenthood are Catholics. This is not true. There 

are many other American citizens of various religious denominations 
who vigorously denounce this movement. 

But, even if it were proved that the great majori ty of Americans 

favor planned parenthood , in the sense in which it is ordinarily under-

stood, it would not follow that they are right. Every intelligent per-
son knows full well that it is possible for the majority to be wrong. 

Five hundred years ago the vast majority of mankind thought that 

the sun moves around the earth-but they were mistaken. Now, it 

is the contention of Catholics, and of many others, that what is gen-
erally designed as planned parenthood is opposed to ethical principles, 

is something immoral, and that the approbation of many people does 

not prove it to be moral. 
In the firs t place , we should have a clear notion of what is meant 

by planned parenthood. If the expression be taken literally, it merely 

signifies that married people have children only when they plan to do 

so. However, as the phrase "planned parenthood" is generally used 

at the present day, it means more than this. It means that a married 

-21-



couple avoid having children, or space their children by contraception 

-by some positive method whereby the normal effect of their con-

jugal relations is frustrated. In other words , it means that while they 

enjoy the privileges of married life, they deliberately escape its obli-

gations and burdens. It is to planned parenthood in this sense that a 

number of Americans, particularly Catholics, are opposed. 

When a married couple bring a child into the world and care for 

it with love and solicitude and guidance until it is able to care for 

itself, they perform a most exalted deed. They co-operate with the 

Almighty in His wondrous act of creating an immortal human soul. 

They enrich their own lives; they make their home an abode of inno-

cence and happiness. They confer a great benefit on the human race, 

by doing their part toward preserving and propagating it from gen-

eration to generation. 

They perform a patriotic service toward the nation, by providing 

it with citizens to maintain its progress in times of peace and to defend 

its freedom and its ideals in time of war. If all the married couples 

of this country had practiced contraception according to their con-

venience in the course of the past forty or fifty years, we should very 

likely be under the domination of Nazi Germany today, for the num-

ber of our fighting men would have been millions less than it actually 

was. 

Above all, when a husband and wife not only give life to a child 

but also guide their little one from his earliest years in the way of 

truth and goodness, teaching him to know and to love his Heavenly 

Father, and instilling into him noble ideals, they are fulfilling the 

glorious task of leading a soul along the pathway of life to the goal 

of eternal happiness in the life beyond the grave. 

Just because the function of parenthood is so sublime, the abuse 

of marriage relations is most degrading. Our reason tells us that the 

special privileges of married life have as their principal purpose the 

begetting of children. This is not indeed the only purpose of conjugal 

relations; they also tend to foster love and generosity between hus-

band and wife, help them to render each other mutual assistance, and 

to bear patiently the hardships and trials of life. But, the primary 

purpose of conjugal relations is the production of new life; and con-

sequently, the practice of contraception is a positive frustration or 

prevention of the primary purpose of the sexual function. 

Now, it must be evident to every reasonable person that it is 

morally wrong to frustrate the principal purpose of a natural power 

or faculty-to distort its use for one's own personal advantage or 

pleasure so that the power is prevented from achieving the purpose 

-22 -



intended for it by nature, and by the God of nature. A few simple , 

clear examples will demonstrate this point. 

The power of speech has been given to man to enable him to 

communicate his ideas to his fellowmen, and thus to spread truth and 

knowledge. Now, when a man uses his power of speech to utter false-

hood instead of truth, to deceive his fellowmen instead of enlightening 

them, he is guilty of moral wrong. He has abused the power of speech, 
he has prevented the primary purpose of this marvelous faculty from 

being achieved, in order to obtain some selfish purpose of his own. 
Again, the Creator has endowed man with a digestive faculty, the 

power to assimilate food and drink. Evidently the primary purpose of 

this power is to nourish and preserve the body. But, when a person 
employs this power only for his own gratification by eating excessively, 

so that he is sick, or by drinking excessively, so that he is intoxicated, 
he is surely doing wrong, for he is frustrating the chief purpose of the 

digestive faculty; he is using it in a manner that is harmful rather 
than beneficial to his body. 

In a similar fashion , when a husband and wife practice contra-

ception, they are misusing the wondrous faculty with which God en-
dowed them for the benefit of the human race. They are employing 

the power to generate life merely for their own gratification, while 

at the same time they are deliberately preventing the primary pur-
pose for which it is intended. They put themselves in the same class 

as the liar and the drunkard, for they use solely for their own pleasure 

a faculty that God gave them, and use it in such wise that the chief 
purpose for which God gave it, is frustrated. Their sin is worse than 

that of the liar and the drunkard , for they injure, not themselves, but 
the human race and their own nation. 

Such is the teaching of the Cathplic Church regarding contracep-
tion-and it matters not whether contraception be called birth control 

or planned parenthood or conception control. Whatever one may call 

it , the fact remains that it is an attempt to defeat the designs of nature 

and God, by frustrating the chief purpose of an important faculty con-
ferred by Him on human beings. 

Pope Pius XI expressed the Catholic position on this matter : "Any 
use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act 

is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an 
offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge 

in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin." (Encyclical on 
Christian Marriage.) It should be emphasized in this connection that 

the prohibition to practice contraception is not regarded by the Cath-

olic Church as one of its own laws, binding only Catholics. The Church 

-23-



proclaims this prohibition as a law of God, which binds all huma.n 

beings, whether they be members of the Catholic Church or not. 

Whatever religion a person may profess , ij he descends to contra-

ceptive practices, he degrades the dignity oj his human 1UJture. 

Some people believe that the Catholic Church teaches that a mar-

ried couple are obliged to have as many children as is physically pos-

sible; but this is not true. The Catholic Church recognizes that at 

times a husband and wife may have good reasons for not having any 

more children, at least for the time being-such reasons as economic i 
stress, weak health, or crowded living quarters; but in such circum- 1 
stances the only lawful way in which they can avoid having offspring I 
or can space the births of their children is abstinence from the use of 

their conjugal privileges , either total or periodic. 

Many and varied are the objections brought up by those who at-

tempt to overthrow the Catholic Church's stand on contraception. 

One of the favorite objections is an appeal to sentiment. The objector 

describes a married couple who already have a large family of chil-

dren. The mother is unwell , the father is out of work, the family is 

oppressed by dire poverty. After painting this picture, the objector 

asks dramatically: "Would you say that these people should have 

another child that would probably cause the death of the mother, and 

would deprive them of enough food or proper shelter?" 

The answer to this question is that it is better for such a couple 

not to have another child if they are actually in grave want of the 

necessities of life. But that does not mean that they would be per-

mitted to violate the law of God by practicing contraception. It means 

that self-restraint should be practiced by the husband and wife. 

The fact that self-restraint may be difficult does not justify hus-

band and wife in committting a crime against nature. In the words of 

Pope Pius XI: "No difficulty cim arise that justifies the putting aside 

of the law of God , which forbids all acts intrinsically evil. There is 

no possible circumstance in which husband and wife cannot, strength-

ened by the grace of God, fulfill faithfully their duties and preserve 

in wedlock their chastity unspotted." ( Encyclical on Christian M ar-

riage.) 

To hold that a person is allowed to do something wrong just be-

cause it is difficult to do what is right is utterly destructive of all 

moral principles. If we argued in the same way regarding other prob-

lems of life, we should conclude that all manner of evil deeds are 

perfectly permissible when people find it hard to be good. 

Now, every intelligent person knows that it is absolutely false to 

say that a man is allowed to get drunk when he finds it hard to stay 

-24-



, 
l 

sober, or that a bank clerk is allowed to steal money when he finds 

it difficult to live on his salary, or that a soldier is allowed to desert 

his post when he finds it dangerous and irksome. How then, can an 

intelligent person consistently claim that a married couple are allowed 

to transgress the law of God by abusing their marriage privileges, just 

because they find it difficult to practice the self-restraint that is the 

only lawful method of avoiding conception? 

Sometimes we hear the charge that the Catholic Church is incon-
sistent , insofar as it condemns contraception, and yet permits its 

members to avoid conception by continence or periodic abstinence, 
when they have a good reason for not having more children . Those 

who bring up this objection ask: "What's the difference between the 
methods, if the same effect is procured?" Evidently, this objection 

is based on the notion that when a person is striving for a lawful goal, 

it makes no difference what means he employs to attain it. That is 
certainly a very false notion. 

A brief illustration will make this clear. Two young men start 

out with the laudable ambition of procuring a gift for their respective 
mothers-a watch or a ring or a fur coat. One of the two earns the 

money by getting a job and working hard and saving his salary; the 

other gets the money by holding up a bank messenger. They both 
achieve the same objective; but the means employed by one was 

perfectly good , the means employed by the other was a grave viola-

tion of God's law. Nobody would say that it makes no difference 

which of these two methods is used to get money. How, then, can 
anyone say that it makes no difference whether a husband and wife 

avoid offspring by chaste self-control, or by gratifying their passions 
and at the same time deliberately cheating nature, frustrating by a 

degrading act the chief purpose of a sublime power that God has 

given them. There is certainly a vast difference between the non-use 

and the abuse of a faculty. 

In recent times much emphasis has been given to the claim that 
the great majority of the physicians in the United States are in favor 

of contraception. It is not my intention to discuss the survey on which 

this claim is based. Its validity and reliability can be challenged even 

granting that a large ·number of doctors favor contraception. Granting 

even that most American doctors favor it, what argument does that 
fact give us for the moral goodness of contraception? The ethical 

aspect of the problem of contraception is not to be sought in a survey 

of doctors, any more than the medical aspect is to be found in a survey 

of lawyers . In fact , the members of the Planned Parenthood Federa-

tion apparently have little or no concern for the moral aspect of con-

-25-



traception. They either believe that it is not of any importance, or 

they take for granted that it is perfectly legitimate for people to distort 

the laws of God for their own gratification, and to make their own 

morality. 

However, even from the medical standpoint, the fact of approval 

of contraception by many of our doctors is not a very strong argu-

ment. A brief study of the history of medicine will show that it has 

frequently happened in the past that medical methods advocated by 

one generation of physicians were rejected as harmful by the next 

generation. It is quite possible that thirty or forty years from now 

all the doctors of our land will be opposed to contraception, even on 

purely medical grounds. At any rate, the moral aspect of this matter 

must be regarded as its most important phase, unless one regards 

human beings as mere animals, with no moral possibilities or obliga-

tions to God or to society or to their own human dignity. 

Sometimes the advocates of planned parenthood protest that their 

objective is more and better babies for married couples who are physi-

cally and mentally capable of having them. They claim that they 

wish to stress the advantage of having children while the husband and 

wife are still young, and of educating people to appreciate the joy and 

happiness of having a large family. 

In themselves, such objectives are indeed commendable, and if 
the Planned Parenthood Federation confined itself to this type of cam-

paign, it would be doing a great service to our country. But, it must 

be remembered that in conjunction with the recommendation to what 

is called the " right type" of parents to have more children, the Planned 

Parenthood Federation also tells married couples that contraception 

is something perfectly lawful in itself, and even advises that it be prac-

ticed at least for the spacing of births. 

That fact vitiates any positive program the Planned Parenthood 

Federation may advocate. For, the majority of married couples, once 

they are persuaded that contraception is a perfectly good and normal 

way of using their conjugal privileges, even though they are urged 

to have a large family , will use contraceptive practices for their own 

pleasure-which means that they will restrict their family to two or 

.at most three children , even though they possess the health and the 

material resources to have more. 

The Planned Parenthood Federation is destroying its own alleged 

·purpose by :efusing to admit the immorality of contraception. Its 

.doctrine that under certain conditions a married couple may defy the 

law of God is simply an opening wedge that will undermine any plan 

for increasing the population. 

- 26-



We have a parallel in the matter of divorce. When the divorce laws 

for the various states of the Union were drawn up, the purpose was to 

allow the severing of the marriage bond only in rare and exceptional 

cases. The laws were worded in such wise that it appeared that only 

in extraordinary circumstances would a husband and wife be allowed 

to separate and contract another union. For a time, divorces were 

rare; but legal permission, however carefully worded , was there, and 
as time went on, the divorce rate increased, until today one marriage in 
every three in the United States ends in the divorce court. The open-

ing wedge was the admission by our law that in certain circu.mstances 

divorce is pennissible; and nowadays, every married couple that want 
a divorce can put their case in those certain circumstances by some 

manner of trickery or subterfuge. 
The same is true of contraception. Once a married couple are 

persuaded that contraception is permissible in certain circumstances, 

they will argue that their case comes under these circumstances, as 
soon as they find it irksome to bring children into the world and to 

bring them up. And just as it is now very evident that our divorce 
laws have brought about the destruction of home life in America, so 

it will be evident in a few years, if the Planned Parenthood Federa-

tion obtains its objectives, that propaganda for contraception will 
bring about the destruction of the American nation. Very appropriately 

did President Theodore Roosevelt call contraception "race suicide." 

Even now, intelligent people can read the handwriting on the wall. 
In 1941, our Census Bureau stated that if the present birth and death 

rates continue, the population of the United States will fail to main-
tain its numbers by approximately 4 per cent per generation. In the 

large cities of our country today only seven persons are being born 

to replace ten now in existence. In the face of such appalling condi-

tions, loyal Americans will do all in their power to check the disas-
trous movement which is being sponsored by the Planned Parenthood 

Federation, and which has already worked such great havoc in our 

nation. 

Certain social reforms are surely called for which would make it 
easier for married people to have children. The housing situation 

should be improved so that young married couples will be able to have 

a suitable home for raising a family. A decent family wage should be 
provided for all workingmen. Legal measures should be taken against 

householders who exclude prospective tenants just because they have 

children in the family. These social reforms would doubtless help 

considerably. 
But the basic means of protecting the American home and the 

-27-



American nation must come from married people themselves. They 

must realize that the state of matrimony is something holy , and that 

God has accorded to them the privileges of marriage that they may be 
His representatives in the exalted task of preserving the human race. 

They must be convinced of the selfishness and the baseness of seeking 
their own gratification while at the same time they reject the burden 

that God would have them bear. 

Of course, all this supposes a practical belief in God and in the 
eternal destiny of the human soul. If a person believes that there is 

no Supreme Being Who has laid down laws for His creatures, and that 
there is no life beyond the grave, but that men , like animals, perish 

with death, he has no adequate reason for practicing morality. But 
fortunately the majority of Americans still believe in God. 

Parenthood often involves difficulties and hardships; it often re-

quires the sacrifice of pleasures and luxuries. Yet , when it is accepted 
and fulfilled according to God's designs, it is something very noble , 

very sacred. For it means that a man and woman, bound to each other 

by the ties of love, are so upright and honest that they will not degrade 
themselves by trying to cheat nature, but will cheerfully accept the 

children whom God may will to send them, will strive to bring them 

up properly and make them loyal , devoted citizens, and above all will 
.guide their minds and hearts to the true goal of earthly life-happiness 

with God in the possession of eternal life. 

-28 -



DISCUSSION CLUB QUESTIONS 

Christian Motherhood (Pages 11 to 14) 

Why is Mrs. Berry particularly qualified to speak about Christian 

Motherhood ? How does she regard it ? 

What does she regard as centrally important in a Christian mother's 

life ? 

What .is the consequence of a Christian mother's realizing her de-

pendence on God? 

Can you contrast instances of human planning and God 's plans in 

regard to motherhood? 

How is "Planned Parenthood" to be regarded as a substitute for 

Providence? 

What rewards of parenthood may be enumerated? 

How do those who patronize Birth Control Clinics do themselves 

injury? 

Medical Evidence (Pages 15 to 20) 

Why is Dr. Galvin particularly qualified to speak about the Medical 

Evidence in regard to the means and the necessity of postponing 

parenthood ? 

For what reasons is Dr. Galvin opposed to the limitation of off-

spring by the use of positive contraceptive methods ? 

How many children does Dr. Galvin as a Catholic hold that par-

ents must have? As many as is biologically possible ? 

How does Dr. Galvin believe pregnancies are to be avoided? 

How have the obstet rical patients of Catholic gynecologists and 

Catholic hospitals suffered from the adherence of those physicians and 

institutions to Catholic principles of sex morality ? 

What is the basis in medical literature for the Planned Parenthood 

contention that child spacing is essential for low infant mortality? 

What is the latest and most authoritative evidence for the neces-

sity of child spacing to guarantee low infant mortality, and maternal 

health? 
Is there evidence that high blood pressure, mental disease, tuber-

culosis, cardiac disease and diabetes make pregnancies unsafe for 

patients? 
What is the 100% perfect method of preventing pregnancy ? 

Are all gynecologists of the same ethical or moral opinion as Dr. 

Galvin? Can a truly Catholic physician hold the opposite moral or 

ethical opinion ? 

-29-



Ethical Aspects (Pages 21 to 28) 

Why is the Planned Parenthood Federation important? 

Are Catholics alone opposed to the activities of this group? 

What really in practice is meant by planned parenthood? 

In what way is bringing a child into the world and caring for it, 

personally advantageous to parents, patriotic, socially useful? 

What the the purposes of conjugal relations ? Why is it morally 

wrong to practice contraception? What does the Catholic Church 

teach about contraception? Is contraception wrong only for Catholics? 

When there are good reasons for not having children for the time 

being, how many married couples avoid having them? 

Because self-restraint is difficult, need married couples therefore 

not practice it? What are the moral and the immoral means of avoid-

ing conception? Does the end here justify the means? 

Why do many physicians not hold that contraception is immoral ? 

What is the psychological and social effect of teaching that contra-

ception is sometimes permissible ? What is the effect on a nation of 

the practice of contraception? 

What social reforms should Catholics promote to combat the evils 

of contraception? 

Is it necessary to realize and accept the fact that parenthood in-

volves hardships? 

-30-



OPEN FORUM QUESTIONS 

QUESTION: Has any speaker read Dr. Alan Guttmacher's report 
on his own work on artificial insemination ? 

ANSWER: (Dr. Galvin) Yes, I have read it, but I don't see that 
it is pertinent to this discussion at all . 

QUESTION : (On artificial insemination) - as to whether any 
speaker would discuss it. Would a Roman Catholic doctor or priest 
allow it, on the part of a man or on the part of a woman? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) What is meant by artificial insemi-

nation? It means that the woman becomes a mother through the 
semen of a man who is not her husband. That is forbidden by God's 

law, and consequently no Catholic priest and no Catholic doctor could 

recommend or approve of such a method. It is actually, in the case 
of a married person, a sin of adultery. It does not present the gross 
form of what is called adultery, but actually it is; and consequently 

it must be condemned according to Catholic ethical principles. It is 
a strange travesty of morality when many people are breaking God's 
law in order to avoid children and others are breaking God's law in 

order to have children. Artificial insemination is wrong, immoral. 

QUESTION : What was Mrs. Berry's economic status when mar-
ried and when the first child was born? Did that have anything to do 

with her convictions that birth control is evil? 

AN'SWER: (Mrs. Berry) My economic status when I was first 

married-my husband made $75 a month. We thought it was a lot of 
money, but we soon found out that it would not support a child born 

every 18 months ; so we kept plugging along and trusted in Divine 

Providence. Finally when each child came along, we worked a little 

harder and advanced along until we were able to educate our children. 
I think that everybody who has that problem can really do it ; you 

have to do your part, but in the case of poor people who do not have 

the opportunities, I think it is up to the State and the economic struc-

ture of our country to try to take care of them. In other words, the 

poor should not be denied the privileges of motherhood and father-
hood. They are entitled to be fathNs and mothers just the same as 

people who can afford to be. 

QUESTION: What should be done by the people of the nation 

where the population has grown too large? 
ANSWER : (Father Connell) That is a very practical question. 

It is a question, in fact, which certainly should be considered at the 
present time. Some larger nations , not our own, are increasing rapidly 

because they are not practicing cont.raception. The answer is this : 

- 31-



when a nation increases to the extent of overpopulation, it has a right 

to have its people taken care of in other parts of the world, where there 

is no congestion. There is plenty of room for colonization, and every 

nation which has land facilities should be willing to accommodate the 

people of another nation. Every person born into this world has a 

right to a livelihood from the earth and from the world in which we 
live. A person has a right to go to another country if his own is too 

congested, and if that were done, the world would be a much happier 

and much more prosperous place. 
QUESTION: Chairman Evans attributes the decline and fall of 

France to the practice of birth control. France was and is Catholic. 

Why was the Catholic Church not better able to enlighten and con-
trol its members during the past fifty years? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) France has been stated to be 72 % 
Catholic. Actually, in the past two or three generations a large portion 

of the people of France were not practicing Catholicism. They either 

were not Catholics or they did not go to church. We are willing to 

admit that many people who call themselves Catholics practice birth 

control. The fact is that too many people of France, while calling 

themselves Catholics, are not actually living as Catholics, and the 
consequence of that is that they have been practicing birth control. 

QUESTION: It is dangerous to have a child during menopause , 

is it not? Will there be danger of the child being abnormal? 
ANSWER: (Dr. Galvin) I don't think one would be particularly 

likely to have a child during menopause. It is true a certain percentage 

of women have a child very late in their time of life, but it has not 

been proven that this of itself has an effect on the mentality, or any-

thing else, of the child. 
QUESTION: Does the use of contraceptives cause cancer? 

ANSWER: (Dr. Galvin) I think that is rather farfetched . Cer-

tainly, I presume an improperly fitted device might cause irritation, 

but I am not at all sure that it causes cancer. Nobody else knows 

what causes cancer. 
QUESTION: You speak of race suicide and danger to America. 

Who are Americans? Are they not persons from every country in the 

world? Do we not have to let down the immigration bars and we will 

assimilate them? Do you disagree? 
ANSWER: (Chairman Evans) Well, it appears that if the Planned 

Parenthood Movement keeps going, immigration will be the only way 

we can keep this country going; yet I would like to see some of our 

own Americans contribute, at least to keep up some of the population. 

QUESTION: Does the Catholic Church teach that the use of 

-32-



"rhythm" or periodic abstinence is always permitted to a married 

couple? 

ANSWER : (Father Connell) No, the Catholic Church does 

not teach that. Some people think that the use of " rhythm" 

or periodic obstinence is permissible under any and all circum-

stances. That is not true. According to Catholic theological prin-

ciples, married couples are allowed the practice of "rhythm" only 
when there is a very good reason, a very grave reason, for not having 

more children. If people would practice "rhythm" without any suf-

ficient reason , by not having children they would not be guilty of the 
sin of contraception , but they would be guilty of the sin of selfishness. 

If it were kept up for several years, for example, it might be even a 

mortal sin . Of course , we must remember that the " rhythm" is the 

non-use of the faculty at certain times, and contraception is the abuse 
of it; and the two are different; but to say that the Catholic Church 

favors "rhythm" without any qualifications is an incorrect statement. 

QUESTION: Is it true that the use of contraceptives is apt to 
result in mental or physical disorders? Is birth control a recent inno-

vation, or is it true that it was practiced by the early Greeks and 

Romans? 

ANSWER: (Dr. Galvin) No, I don't think it would be a fair an-

swer to say that the use of contraceptives necessarily is surely going to 
result in a mental or physical disorder. One needs also to know some-

thing about the psychiatric effect upon a couple who want to practice 

complete abstinence. Well, it is a natural fact that people can, if they 

want to. 
"Is birth control a recent innovation or is it true that it was prac-

tice-d by the early Greeks and Romans?" Yes, the little I have read 

about it, I am of the impression it was practiced in ancient times to 

some extent, but largely by way of infanticide. 
QUESTION : Mrs. Berry, are the married children of your family 

following your example of having large families? 

ANSWER : (Mrs. Berry) I have one married daughter who has 

been married about seven years ; she has four children, and this fall 

another one will come along. All my sons who are married have chil-

dren except one, and this couple just haven't had time. 

QUESTION : When was the Planned Parenthood Federation 

started and by whom ? Is it being promoted in the hospitals, and what 
progress is being made ? 

ANSWER : (Dr. Galvin ) As far as I know, the recent popular 

Birth Control, or Conception Prevention movement, now known as 

the Planned Parenthood Federation, which as I understand represents 

- 33-



two or three different organizations, owes its recent or more modem 

origin to Margaret Sanger. About whether it is being permitted in the 

hospitals, I am not aware that any of the hospitals are actually having 

contraceptive clinics. I think there are, of course, contraceptive clin-

ics in the city, but I don't know about the progress. 

QUESTION: Is not the Catholic Church inconsistent when it 

denounces birth control and yet commands its priests to lead celibate 
lives ? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) You must remember that the Cath-

olic Church denounces birth control because of the method that is 
used. The Church is not primarily concerned with the question of an 
increase in the population. The Church is concerned primarily with 

the question of God's law. The denunciation by the Church of birth 

control is because of the methods used ; they are a violation of God's 
law. 

The Church at the same time advocates the state of virginity as 

a more perfect state, and the Church imposes that upon a priest. The 

reason is as follows: the priest can do much more effective work for 
the common good, for his fellowmen , when he leads a celibate life. 

For example, he is able to go out among people who may have some 

very dangerous disease with the realization that if he does catch the 
disease, no one will suffer except himself. He has no family to whom 

he can communicate it. He is ready to go to different parts of the 

diocese and throughout the country, at the command of his lawful 

superiors; and a priest's love of God can be more wholehearted, more 
complete, more pure when leading a celibate life . There is nothing 

inconsistent in that at all. 

QUESTION: Mrs. Berry used the term "Christian" synonomously 

with Roman Catholic. Does she not admit that there are other "Chris-
tians" who might differ with her on the subject of birth control? 

ANSWER: (Mrs. Berry) When I used the word "Christian," I 

certainly meant everybody who believes in Christ. There are many 

Christians in the world , not of our faith , and I , of course, realize that. 
I have some good Protestant friends in North Carolina who are good 

Christians; so when I used the word Christian Motherhood, I did not 

mean there are not many mothers who do not belong to the Catholic 
Church, and who are perhaps just as good Christian mothers as any-

one else . The word "Christian" means a follower of Christ. 

QUESTION: Is it possible that at some future time the Church 

will change its stand on birth control? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) It requires very little study to an-
swer that question. The Catholic Church has constantly preached 

-34-



from the very beginning that it was wrong. The Catholic Church does 

not change its moral principles. The Catholic Church will never, under 

any circumstances, change its teaching. 

QUESTION: The Planned Parenthood Federation states that they 

help sterile couples have a family . I s this true? 

ANSWER : (Dr. Galvin) I think I have heard it-I am quite 

sure of it-that that is one of their activities, and it has been added 

rather recently ; it is sort of a rider. 
QUESTION : When a young couple are planning to marry, but 

for financial reasons cannot have any children for a couple of years. 

would it be better for them to marry and practice periodic abstinence 
for a time, or to postpone marriage until they can have children? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) It is very difficult to give a general 

answer to a problem of this nature, but I would say, generally speak-
ing, that when people feel they cannot have children in the immediate 

future , it would be better for them to postpone their marriage until 

such time as they can begin to have a family. That would be the better 

thing. I would not say it would be absolutely wrong to do the opposite, 
but I think their married life would be happier if they would not do 

that. 
But I might say that young folks who believe they cannot have 

a child for a year or two for economic reasons should be very honest 
about the matter. Perhaps their standards of economic comfort are 

too high. This was brought out very beautifully this evening by Mrs . 

Berry. People should be prudent, but if they insist on having luxuries, 
I think t hey are following very false standards. I think the message 

Mrs. Berry gave this evening is very practical. If young folks feel a 

call to the married state, then let them marry and then abide by God's 

law without fear. It works out very well in the long run. 

QUESTION : The average married couple has a hard time, due 

to expenses in birth and education of children . Particularly when they 

desire to foster and maintain a Catholic home and education for the 
children. How can the cost of child bearing be adequately reduced? 

Why cannot some concessions be made for couples by hospitals and 

doctors so that those who find it difficult financially may be helped? 
ANSWER : (Dr. Galvin) I don't remember that I ever got any 

particularly large fee. But to answer the question, hospitals are cer-

tainly making a sincere effort to do that. And I can speak of four or 

five Catholic hospitals which do. They have ward services, and they 

have a fixed rate. The deliveries are done by the staff, the house men ; 

they are supervised. But one of the difficulties is that often people 

just don 't want to be satisfied with that. They want to get a certain, 

-35 -



perhaps a well-known doctor, because someone else has done it. And 

after all , one person can't deliver all the babies. 

QUESTION: Why should we try to increase the population of 

this country when there are so many people starving in Europe and 

Asia whom we could admit if we had a static or falling population? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) Many times statements have been 

made that the world is overpopulated, but actually our country could 

comfortably support several times as many people as it has at present. 

We have land in abundance; we have natural resources; we have 
everything necessary for a great increase of population. Let us leave 
the future in God's hands. If people observe God's law properly and 

if nations are willing to share their lands , wealth and property with 
one another, you may be sure that God will provide. Everybody knows 

that the birth rate is decreasing. Contraception is not the only reason 

why the birth rate is less than it was a century ago. There are other, 
natural reasons for that, and in that we can see God's providence. 

When and if the time comes when the earth will be greatly populated, 

God will see to it that the needs of the human race will be provided 
for. 

QUESTION: Do you think there is an increase in immorality 

among the young unmarried people due to contraceptives? 

ANSWER: (Dr. Galvin) I really don't think so. I used to; I did 
sometime back-, but it certainly has not been borne out in my experi-

ence in the office and around the hospital. I do not mean to say there 

is not some, but I could not say that it has increased. 

QUESTION: Mrs. Berry, I understand your financial background 

was fairly free from worry. How about the many poor families of the 
Carolinas for whom each new mouth is a highly difficult task to fill, and 

for whom the constant fear of pregnancy obliterates marital joy? 

ANSWER: (Mrs. Berry) I did not know we had any more poor 

people in North Carolina than we had in Baltimore. God said, "The 
poor you will always have with you." And we always will. That is 

why I stated that the State, for the good of the family, should provide 

free maternal care for the poor. 
QUESTION: Do you really think a woman is capable men tally 

to supervise a new child oftener than every two years? 
ANSWER: (Dr. Galvin) I hope so; my mother did. 

MRS. BERRY: My children were from 18 to 20 months apart. 

The longest space between my children, the last two, was four years. 
D R. GALVIN: To give a fairly serious answer, I did not mean to 

be facetious. But it is not so terribly often that women have children 

closer than every two years or so. I thi~lk Eastman brought that out 

-36-



very nicely in his work. As a matter of plain arithmetic I am not 

denying that you do see a baby after 11 months or 12 , but that happens 

very seldom. I think a woman can do right well with a large family if 

she wants to; I think a great many have. 

QUESTION: What is the psychiatric effect upon a couple who 

must practice complete abstinence? How long could they abstain with-

out harming their physical and mental health? 

ANSWER: (Dr. Galvin) Well, I cannot adequately answer that, 

of course, because I am not much of a psychiatrist. But I can say in 

absolute sin cerity that I know of at least eight or ten couples who for 

one reason or another have practiced complete abstinence. I do not 

know at all that there is any positive evidence that continence is so 

destructive of mental health. I think all the discussion comes about 

largely because of the fact that so many people who do have mental 

disease are so apt to be mixed up also on sex matters. People are 

very prone to rationalize about the effects of continency, celibacy, and 

.so forth. 

QUESTION: When a person uses contraceptive measures, is he not 

actually performing an action similar to what he does when he trims 

his fingernails or has his hair cut ? Would you Eay it is wrong to check 

the power of nature by these latter actions? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) That is an objection that has often 

been given. The answer is this: we . must emphasize the difference 

between frustrating the purpose of a natural power and controlling it. 

The two are very different. There are times when we control natural 

powers, the forces of nature , and we thus help them to produce their 

effect better. One example, a person has his hair cut; that is in order 

to keep his appearance in proper shape. The hair is more effective if 

it is trimmed properly. It is very different with a contraceptive, for 

that frustrates nature. 

I repeated several times in the course of my talk the reason why 

contraception is wrong-because it frustrates the very purpose of a 
divinely given power. If a man did anything in regard to the organs of 

his body, to frustrate their purposes, he would be doing wrong. A man , 

for example , who would injure his heart in some way, who would get . 

drunk and in that manner injure his heart, would be doing wrong. If 

he mutilated his body, say a man during the war-time mutilated his 

hand to escape military service, that again would be wrong because it 

would permanently prevent proper functioning. There is a difference 

between controlling a function and abusing or misusing it. 

QUESTION: Don't you think Catholics could do something con-

structive about combating the spread of the Planned Parenthood Move-

-37-



ment? What I had in mind was promoting laws creating an annual 

wage. I believe one of the basic reasons for the use of contraceptives 

is economic. 

ANSWER : (Chairman Evans) I will answer that myself. I agree 

that that is one of the major reasons. I think that what anyone can 

do to better the average economic status of the people in the country 

will help. The sooner the people of this country return to a firm 

belief in God and to obeying His laws, particularly each doing unto 

others as he would have others do unto him, the sooner we will arrive 

at a solution of our economic problems. 

QUESTION : Would it not be t rue also that the legalized selling 

of contraceptives may have increased immorality among single people , 

because by using contraceptives they are thus able to gratify their 

passions, and yet be almost sure of avoiding the consequences of inter-

course-causing the birth of an illegitimate child? Do you think it 

would be well for the Government to prohibit the sale of contra-

ceptives? 

ANSWER : (Father Connell ) I do think that if our nation is really 

anxious to support its manpower and its strength , it would be a very 

fine thing if legal measures were taken against the sale of all kinds of 

contraceptives. I believe that would be very effective. As a matter 

of fact , of course, in some states there are still prohibitions, but even 

in those states I believe they still sell contraceptives. I think it was 

a very destructive thing during thi s last war when contraceptives were 

available to our soldiers in such great number. The Government was 

certainly doing much to destroy itself. It was spreading race suicide. 

QUESTION: I sn't it a greater sin to bring children into the world 

in a condition of severe poverty than to use contraceptives? Do you 

hold that in circumstances of poverty, poor health , and over-crowded 

living quarters, that a man and a wife should deny themselves the 

consolation of conjugal love if they cannot afford more offspring? 

ANSWER: (Father Connell) I thought I answered that question. 

Is it a greater sin to bring children into poverty than to forego contra-

ceptives? The real question is not which is a greater sin, but whether 

or not a person should commit any sin. There is a third possibility 

in this case, and that is chaste abstinence. It is like a man for example 

who says, is it a greater sin to get drunk or to steal? Well , it is hard 

to say which is greater; they are both sins. The solution is to avoid 

both. If people think it is a sin to bring children into the world, then 

why should they commit another sin ? The method is to abide by 

God's laws and practice chaste abstinence. 

-38-



CHAIRMAN: I would like to call on the Right Reverend Mon-

signor Nelligan to close the Open Forum Discussion for this evening. 
MONSIGNOR NELLIGAN: The real difficulty about this Planned 

Parenthood Movement is not one of reason, is not one of logic. Planned 
Parenthood is simply a subterfuge. The real difficulty is that the 
majority of the people in this country today are persuaded that conti-

nence and control is impossible. Now that is their fundamental and 
basic mistake. If we try to correct their thinking in that matter, we 

have done something definitely worthwhile that will contribute not 
only to our spiritual life but to our national life and to our Christian 

civilization. 

QUESTION: * If the marital relationship is for the prime purpose 
of begetting children, why does the Church approve rhythm when its 

purpose is to prevent pregnancy? 
ANSWER: The prime purpose of the marital relationship is the 

procreation of children. Its secondary purpose, however, is to afford 
a mutually satisfactory means of expressing conjugal love. We may 

say that the marital relationship may be sought for its secondary 
purpose, provided that the primary purpose is not artificially and un-

naturally excluded. Marital relations, as a mutually satisfactory means 

of expressing conjugal love, during a wife's sterile periods, do not 
artificially and unnaturally prevent pregnancy. 

QUESTION: Do you think rhythm is really conducive to the ex-

pression of marital love? 
ANSWER: Rhythm is a last recourse to be resorted to only in 

case of a reasonable cause for avoiding pregnancy. The restraint it 

involves is obviously a handicap to the spontaneous expression of mar-
ital love. Would anyone maintain either that the gross practices of 

using equipment : devices, creams or douches are "conducive to the 

expression of marital love"? 

QUESTION: Since the purpose is the same, by what fine line does 
the Catholic Church differentiate between rhythm and mechanical 
contraception? 

ANSWER : The Catholic Church differentiates between rhythm and 
mechanical contraception by the same kind of fine line it uses to 

differentiate between borrowing $50 and stealing it. The purpo,se of 
using rhythm is the same as the purpose of using mechanical contra-
ception, just as the purpose of borrowing is the same as the purpose 

* Questions up to this point were submitted in writing and answered 
viva voce in the Open Forum Discussion. The following questions were also 
submitted at the Open Forum, but the answers were supplied by the Editor 
because the late hour required that the Open Forum adjourn. 

-39-



of stealing. They are, however, obviously means of a different sort, 
though they aim at the same purpose. The Catholic Church is still 

able to distinguish between means, even when those who have accused 
her of saying that the end justifies the means, are now acting upon 

the very same false principle of the means being justified by the end. 

QUESTION: Is periodic abstinence morally wrong if there is no 
question of health or material need involved? Please cite the specific 

authority which defines the "lawful" use of periodic rhythm? 

ANSWER : The whole question of the morality of the use of the 
rhythm has been reviewed in a recent study: O. N. Griese, Rhythm in 
Marriage or Christian Morality (Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1946). 

In general one may say that the practice of periodic abstinence is 

morally wrong if there is no real and serious need for its use. 

QUESTION: You say that a married couple in dire circumstances 

of poverty and ill-health should practice birth control by natural 

methods. That is fine. But the point is that they are precisely the 
people who have not been properly educated in matters of birth 

control either artificial or natural. Do you think they should be edu-
cated in natural methods? 

ANSWER: In individual cases of need , individual couples should 
be instructed by a competent physician in the possibilities of rhythm. 

A competent physician's instruction is always necessary. The social 
consequences should be seen to be obviously too grave for anyone to 

recommend wholesale and public instruction of all married couples, 

such as that available from certain sources. Moreover, it should be 

kept in mind there are many wives by whom rhythm may not suc-

cessfully be used. 

QUESTION: Is abortion legalized by Controlled Parenthood? 

ANSWER: I do not see how it can be said that abortion is "legal-
ized by Controlled Parenthood." Possibly by breaking down reverence 

and respect for new life, Planned Parenthood makes many no longer 

hesitate much about the murderous abortion of unwanted babies. 

QUESTION: In the case of natural abortion, what about baptism? 

Is the soul created simultaneously with conception? Has the baby 

a soul at the time of conception, at the time the mother feels life, or 

when it takes its first breath? 

ANSWER: In general, every aborted fetus , or premature child 

should be immediately baptized by any competent person. The 

Church's practice proceeds in accord with the view that the soul exists, 

is created, from the moment of conception. Doctors and nurses may 

find the following pamphlet instructive in regard to necessary emer-

-40-



gency baptisms : J. B. McAllister, Emerge,ncy Baptism; Especially for 
Nurses, Physicians, and Clerics. (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1945.) 

QUESTION: By what authority does Father Connell state that 

conception is a violation of God's law? There is no such teaching in 

the Bible. 

ANSWER : Father Connell states that contraception for us is a 

violation of God 's law because it is certainly against God's law to 

abuse the powers He has given us for the benefit of the human race. 

Our own reason tells us this, just as it tells us that it is against God's law 

to get drunk. Father Connell is also able to state that contraception 

is a violation of God 's law on the authority of the Catholic Church 

which we know teaches without possibility of error in God's name 

and in God's place about how man is to live morally and about what 

he is to believe in order -to please God. As for the Bible, cf. Gen. 

xxxviii. 10. 

QUESTION: When did mankind first learn to practice cont inence 

or abstinence in conjugal relations? 

ANSWER: Who knows? What does it matter, if now mankind is 

sometimes morally obliged to this practice? 

QUESTION : How many children should married couples have? 

Is it wrong not to have a child the first year of marriage ? How long 

will the Church permit a marriage without children? 

ANSWER: The Church does not specify how many children mar-

ried couples should have. Probably they should have as many as they 

can reasonably hope to raise to be religious and patriotic citizens. To 

have fewer by means of rhythm may be more or less seriously selfish. 

To have fewer or none by artificial or unnatural means is grossly im-

moral and wrong. Those who are selfish will not and do not raise a 

large family, because they would have to give up many personal com-

forts and conveniences. 

If one deliberately avoids having a child in the first year of mar-

riage by unnatural or artificial means, or by rhythm without need , it 

is wrong. 

The Church sees no wrong even in a lifelong marriage without 

children, provided that artificial or unnatural means are not taken to 

avoid children, or that rhythm is not practiced witho.ut need or good 

reason. The Church would question the validity of a marriage into 

which either or both parties entered with the determ.ination to have no 

children at all. 

QUESTION: Are a newly married couple justified in practicing 

contraception until they are in a financial position to support and 

educate their first offspring ? In the case of a young married couple , 

-41-



it the husba,nd is going to college, do you think it is wisest for them 

not to have children until he finishes his studies? Why are contra-

ceptives forbidden when we have a four months old baby, and don't 

want another right away, as the first cannot be properly taken care of? 

ANSWER: The general question, already answered in two papers, 

and of which we have here specific instances, is : Are there economic 

reasons which would make the avoidance of pregnancy wise and 
morally right ? There are. Whether they exist in a particular case 

needs be determined in the particular case, by the individuals with 
the aid of their confessor. The chief point at issue is, however: is any 
means other than complete or periodic abstinence from the marriage 

act legitimate as a means of avoiding pregnancy. The answer is: no 
other means is moral. Artificial and unnatural means of avoiding 

pregnancy are seriously wrong. The end will not justify the use of 
any bad means. 

QUESTION: Does the Catholic Church sanction contraception if 

ill health prohibits a woman from having children? What is your 
opinion as to the morality of birth control when practiced by a girl 

who has been told by doctors that she must never have a child ? How 

can a mother of several children rest in order to overcome some med-
ical defect which without rest will result in miscarriage? When a 
woman is in ill health, how can she help having a child as long as 

she is with her husband ? What shall she do that won't be a sin? 
ANSWER: The general question-already answered in the pages 

of Father Connell and D'r. Galvin, and of which we have here now 

specific instances is: are there medical reasons which would make the 

avoidance of pregnancy wise and morally right. There are. Whether 

they exist in a particular case needs to be determined in that case. 
More conservative medical opinion is inclining toward the view that 

the contra-indications for becoming pregnant are neither so great nor 
so many as the Planned Parenthood people would have us believe. 

Catholics must consult a doctor who is not an advocate of the Planned 

Parenthood movement. 
Again, if a wife is medically advised against pregnancy, she may 

not use artificial or unnatural means of avoiding pregnancy, nor ac-

quiesce in her partner's use of such means. The only means available 
-moral means-is complete, or temporary , or periodic abstinence 

from the marriage act. 
QUESTION: If one partner practices birth control though the 

other one objects , is there sin for both parties or for just one ? 
ANSWER: If one partner practices birth control , the other is 

obliged to object. However, supposing a protest has been made, the 

- 42-



innocent partner may submit in certain circumstances. Catholics 

placed in these difficulties should seek counsel in the confessional. 

QUESTION: If positive methods of birth control are considered 

immoral and contrary to the laws of nature, why are not strides in 

medicine such as those whereby human life is extended by artificial 

means, equally contrary to the laws of nature and therefore immoral? 

ANSWER: Progress in medicine whereby human life is extended 

by artificial means may not justly be compared with the use of arti-

ficial or unnatural means of preventing conception whereby human life 
is prevented from coming to be, because in the former case man's 

natural powers are aided , in the latter they are frustrated . 

Moreover, the ideals and aims of those who contribute to the 

progress of medicine are noble and altruistic; the purposes and aims 

of those who use artificial and unnatural means of preventing concep-

tion, in most cases, amount to gross selfishness, the avoidance of 

personal inconvenience or hardship and of social responsibility. 

Nazi doctors employing revolting and immoral means to further 

the progress of medicine, made no real contribution to medical science, 

but effected only their own moral and intellectual degeneracy. It is 

also a lesson of history that nations and races which engage in the use 

of gross and immoral , artificial and unnatural means of avoiding child 

bearing, effect their own moral and intellectual degeneracy, and engage 

in a program of national race suicide. We do not want to learn from 

history when the lesson limits our selfishness. 

QUESTION: If there is no restriction in birthrate, will the world 

not be overpopulated, and wars and slaughter necessary ? Since the 

aggressor nations are all overpopulated, does it not appear that over-

population Is a factor in the cause of war? Is it more moral to prevent 

the birth of children than to raise them to be killed in war? 

ANSWER: Here again is that old bogey raised by Malthus: that 

the world will be overpopulated. No serious student of the facts any 

longer accepts the assertion that the world is liable to be overpopulated, 
at least in the near future. Wars are always initiated by such evil 

persons as Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin. And , it is generally found wars 

are begun for various oth~r reasons than population pressures. Not 

all historians accept the Marxist opinion that the course of history is 

determined by population or economic pressures which make war 

necessary. Moreover, it cannot be shown that "aggressor nations are 

all overpopulated." 
It is psychopathologically morbid and sheer specious excuse-mak-

ing to argue that by preventing the birth of children, one avoids rais-

ing them to be killed in war. It is obviously absurd to imply that all 

-43-



children whose conceptIon was not prevented were raised to be killed 

in war, or were actually killed in war, or will be killed in war. One 

might argue it is more moral to prevent the birth of all children than 

to raise them when they may be killed in automobile accidents! 

QUESTION: What about children who are born of mentally de-

ficient or degenerate parents? If a moron marries, is it right for the 

couple to bring a child into the world? What do you advocate in the 

case of morons, the feeble-minded and the mentally diseased? Should 

they have children? 

ANSWER: Not all mentally deficient persons are degenerate; nor 

is degeneracy much more frequent among the mentally deficient than 

among those not mentally deficient. Moreover there are various 

grades of mental deficiency or feeblemindedness . Morons are the 

most intelligent and socially adequate of the feebleminded. 

The first question is whether feeblemindedness is hereditary. We 

should point out that normal parents can and do have feebleminded 

children. Conservative opinion is now inclined to doubt that any more 

than one-third of the cases of feeblemindedness are of hereditary origin. 

Another question is whether mental illness is hereditary. Mental ill-

ness can and does arise in families with no past history of mental 

illness. Conservative opinion is inclined to minimize the clear heredi-

tary origin of most mental illness. 

The second question is whether the feebleminded or mentally ill 

should have children. There is 110 evidence that would require us to 

dissuade from marriage individuals of borderline intelligence, and per-

haps high grade morons , when there is a reasonable hope they can get 

along in a simple social structure. (One has to be pretty · sure of the 

diagnosis of feeblemindedness. It is so easy to make an underestimate. 
Recent Nazi history has shown it can be made for political reasons.) 

Certainly low grade morons, imbeciles and idiots should be kept from 

marriage by custodial institutional care. Those clearly psychotic should 
likewise be kept, if necessary, from marriage, by custodial institutional 

care. (Again the difficulties and dangers in diagnosis should not be 

taken lightly.) Persons contemplating marriage should seek a mar-

riage partner from a family with no immediate history of serious 

mental disease, especially if such a history exists in their own family. 

The Catholic Church opposes as immoral the sterilization of the 

mentally deficient or mentally ill. The horrors of a sterilization pro-

gram in uDiicrupulous hands have just been witnessed in azi Germany. 

And finally , not even morons may morally use artificial or un-

natural means of preventing conception. 

-44-



QUESTION: Should epilepsy be considered a bar to Catholic 

marriage? 

ANSWER: Epilepsy is not an impediment that would invalidate 

a marriage. Each couple will have to decide if they can live happily 

together if one partner is subject to seizures. The reader is referred 

to Public Affairs Pamphlet No. 98, Epilepsy-The Ghost Is Out of the 

Closet: "Mayan epileptic have children? A generation ago almost all 

doctors would have said no; today the men who have studied the 

question most thoroughly say yes." (P . 23.) 

QUESTION: You state that the greatest OpposItIOn to Planned 

Parenthood comes from Catholics. Isn't it more correct to specify 

Catholic "Church" inasmuch as its members are opposed primarily 

because of-sin, fear of hell , etc.-rather than from a moral or emo-

nomic point? 

ANSWER: Members of the Catholic Church should oppose the 

artificial and unnatural prevention of conception: (1) because the 

Catholic Church teaches with God's authority and in His Name that 

it is wrong, a sin . (2) because the methods of preventing conception 

proposed by Planned Parenthood can be shown by reason to be con-

trary to the natural law. Catholics know that sin and its punishment, 

hell , are both something to be avoided and feared. Catholics arc at 

least as capable of non-emotional thinking as advocates of Planned 

Parenthood. A Catholic who is truly a Catholic must accept the 

teaching authority of the Catholic Church in the matter of the pre· 

vention of conception whether he finds the arguments from reason 

convincing or not. 

QUESTION: Could a large number of "Planned Paren thooders" 

be prompted by a spirit of sincere helpfulness? 

ANSWER : It is Christian charity not to question the sincerity of 
others until they have demonstrated their insincerity. 

QUESTION: You spoke of certain social reforms, including a 

living wage, that would enable a young couple to have 'children with-

out planning. Don't you think that the Catholic institutions should 

be the first to pay a living wage? 

ANSWER: There can be no question but that Catholic institu-

tions are gravely obliged to pay a living wage. 

QUESTION: Why haven't Maternity Guilds been started in 

Baltimore? 
ANSWER : I do not know whether or not they have been. And 

if they have not , I do not know why not. They are the one means 

that many Catholic parishes have initiated to alleviate the e~onomic 
pressure that lead people to practice contraception. 

- 45 --



QUESTION: Why don't obstetricians have night office hours to 

accommodate mothers with other small children? 

ANSWER: Some do. Others do not, possibly because not even a 

doctor can work day and night all the time. 

QUESTION: Medically speaking, you suggest that practically any 

mental or physical condition be considered secondary to pregnancy. 

Isn't the primary duty of a human being, the preservation of his own 

life and that of already existing life ? 

ANSWER: To speak of a physical condition as "secondary to 
pregnancy" is not to deny that one has a duty to preserve one's life. 

The preservation of one's own life, incidentally, is not the primary 
purpose of living. To speak of a physical condition as secondary to 

pregnancy is to mean: (1) that II. doctor should strive to bring the 
pregnancy to successful term; and (2) that the physical condition is 

not to be presumed to be so grave that pregnancy should be ipso facto 
be avoided. 

QUESTION: I gather from Father Connell's talk that the Catholic 
Church considers marital intercourse a sin unless children are con-

ceived. Is this so? 

ANSWER: No. It is not so. Father Connell said that people may 
not have marital relations in a way to prevent the conception of chil-

dren. Married people do no wrong if they have relations in the proper 
way, even though children are not conceived. 

QUESTION: If offpring really be "the will of God," could they be 

prevented by human intervention whether called "rhythm" or "con-

traception" ? 
ANSWER: It seems that the inquirer does not understand what 

is meant by "the will of God." Here, we can only say briefly that God 

wills what is right, but He has endowed man with his own free will, 

a power of self-determination, by which a man has the power to will 
or choose to practice such wrong or evil as the artificial and unnatural 

prevention of conception. But he has not the right to choose wrong. 
QUESTION: What effort is the Catholic Church making to al-

leviate the economic stress among the lower classes , which encourages 

them to practice birth control? 
ANSWER: The Catholic Church has always taught and preached 

and practiced the necessity of justice. In our own times Pope Leo 
XIII , issued his famous Encyclical R erum Novarum on the Condition 

of Labor, and Pius XI, his Quadragesimo Anno. Leo XIII said, "Every 

minister of holy religion must throw into the conflict all the energy of 
his min,d, and all the strength of his endurance." Many priests have 

worked heroically in our own country for social justice, some with a 

-46-



national reputation, V.g., Msgr. John A. Ryan, Bishop Francis Haas, 

and Father John F. Cronin. Many others have labored with heroism 

but with less renown. There is not room here for a review of what 
practically the Church has done to alleviate economic stress. No un-
prejudiced person will find it inconsiderable. 

QUESTION: Why is not "continence" as much a violation of the 
"law of God" as "contraception"-both being equally contrary to 
nature 's intent? 

ANSWER? One doubts if this question can be answered ade-

quately in a few lines. Contraception is a positive thwarting of the 
natural purposes and result of a function-the abuse of a function. 

Continence is the non-use of a fun ction for a definite period by some 
or perpetually by a select group. There is a distinction between non-

use and abuse, v.g. , of money, or candy , or even atomic fission. Con-
tinence practiced for a definite period by some, or perpetually by a 

very small group for religious or ideal motives will not seriously 

a.ffect the propagation of the species. The practice of contraception 
can be shown to result in the failure of even particular social or eco-

nomic classes to propagate just their own class or social group. 

QUESTION: Is it not true that people who use contraceptives 
are victims of nervous disorders? I have heard it said that about one-

third of the patients in psychopathic clinics are there as a result of 

contraception and perversion ; also that a similar ratio of the patients 
in tuberculosis clinics are there for the same reason. 

ANSWER : It is not unreasonable to suppose or to infer that con-

traceptives when one feels guilty about their use, or contraceptives 
when they take all the natural normal spontaneity of affection out 0'£ 
the marriage relationship, may cause neuroses and psychoses. Some 
think they do . Others deny it. It is doubtful if any persons are in 
tuberculosis clinics merely due to the use of contraceptives. 

QUESTIO : Why not hold a similar panel discussion with leaders 
of the so-called "Planned Parenthood" movement in a larger hall? 

ANSWER : What is to be gained by it? 

-47-



READING LIST 

Francis J . Connell, Marrnzge: Human or Divine? (New York: The 
Paulist Press, 1940). 

John M. Cooper, Birth Control (Washington, D. C.: N. C. W. c. , 
1923.) 

Raoul de Guchteneere, Judgment on Birth Control (New York: The 
Macmillan Co., 1931). 

Wingfield Hope, Life Together (New York : Sheed and Ward , 1944). 

Gerald Kelly, Modem Youth and Chastity (St. Louis, Mo.: Queen's 

Work Press, 1941). 

Jacques Leclercq, Marriage and the Family (Transl. by T . R . Hanley) 

(New York: F. Pustet Co., 1941). 

Pius XI, "Encyclical Letter . . . On Christian Marriage," in Five 
Great Encyclicals. Pp. 71-123. (New York: The Paulist Press, 

1939). 

Edgar Schmiedeler, Christian M arrnzge : An Analysis and Commentary 

On the M arrnzge Encyclical (Washington, D. C. : N. C. W. C., 
1938) . 

Arthur Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? (New York: America Press, 

1932) . 

T. G. Wayne, Morals and Marrnzge (New York: Longmans, Green 

& Co. , 1936). 

---, Correspondence Course in Preparation for Marriage (Ottawa, 

Canada: The Catholic Center, 1947). 

-48- 111 .... 






	848575-001
	848575-002
	848575-003
	848575-004
	848575-005
	848575-006
	848575-007
	848575-008
	848575-009
	848575-010
	848575-011
	848575-012
	848575-013
	848575-014
	848575-015
	848575-016
	848575-017
	848575-018
	848575-019
	848575-020
	848575-021
	848575-022
	848575-023
	848575-024
	848575-025
	848575-026
	848575-027
	848575-028
	848575-029
	848575-030
	848575-031
	848575-032
	848575-033
	848575-034
	848575-035
	848575-036
	848575-037
	848575-038
	848575-039
	848575-040
	848575-041
	848575-042
	848575-043
	848575-044
	848575-045
	848575-046
	848575-047
	848575-048
	848575-049
	848575-050
	848575-051
	848575-052