"Your two correspondents, Dr. Halliday Sutherland and Dr. Binnie

Dunlop, by quoting paragraphs without their full context, appear to

lend support to views which by implication are, to some extent,

detrimental to my own. This method of controversy has never appealed to

me, but in the interests of the society with which I am associated, I

must be allowed to answer the implications. The paragraph quoted by Dr.

Sutherland is not, as would appear from his letter, a simple opinion of

mine on the medical profession, but was written in reply to a rather

scurrilous paragraph so worded as to lead the public to believe that

the medical profession as a whole was against the Society for

Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress. My answer, which

appeared not only in the papers quoted but in others, contained the

following statement: 'We have three of the most distinguished medical

men in Great Britain on our list of Vice-Presidents; four others, also

very distinguished, on our Research Committee.' Reading these words

before the paragraph your correspondent quotes, and taking all in

conjunction with an attack implying that the entire medical profession

was against us, it is obvious that the position is rather different

from what readers of Dr. Sutherland's letter in your issue of November

26 might suppose."

It will be noted that Dr. Stopes does not withdraw but attempts to justify

her scandalous suggestion by stating, firstly, that the full context of her

letter was not quoted by me, and secondly, that her original letter was

written "in reply to a rather scurrilous paragraph."

As I have now quoted in full her original letter, excepting the address

of her society, and the two paragraphs from the _Sussex Daily News_, my

readers may form their own judgment on the following points: Is it possible

to maintain that the whole context of her original letter puts a different

complexion on her remarks concerning the medical profession? Can either

of the paragraphs from the _Sussex Daily News_ be truthfully described

as "rather scurrilous," or are they fair comment on a matter of public

interest? Moreover, even if a daily paper _had_ published a misleading

paragraph about this society, surely that is not a valid reason why its

President should make a malignant attack, not on journalists, but on the

medical profession?

Section 3. A CAUSE OF UNHAPPINESS IN MARRIAGE

Nor does birth control lead to happiness in marriage. On the contrary,

experience shows that the practice is injurious not only to the bodies

but also to the minds of men and women. As no method of contraception is

infallible, the wife who allows or adopts it may find herself in the truly

horrible position of being secretly or openly suspected of infidelity.

Again, when a family has been limited to one or two children and these die,

the parents may find themselves solitary and childless in old age; and

mothers thus bereaved are often the victims of profound and lasting

melancholy. The mother of a large family has her worries, many of them not

due to her children, but to the social evils of our time: and yet she is

less to be pitied than the woman who is losing her beauty after a fevered

life of, vanity and self-indulgence, and who has no one to love her, not

even a child.

Moreover, these practices have an influence on the relation between husband

and wife, on their emotions towards each other and towards the whole sexual

nisus. Mr. Bernard Shaw recently stated [71] that when people adopt methods

of birth control they are engaging, not in sexual intercourse, but in

reciprocal masturbation.

That is the plain truth of the matter. Or, from another point of view, it

may be said that the man who adopts these practices is simply using his

wife as he would use a prostitute, as indeed was said long ago by St.

Thomas Aquinas. [72] The excuse offered for illicit sexual intercourse is

not usually pleasure, but that the sex impulse is irresistible: and the

same argument is used for conjugal union with prevention. In both cases the

natural result of union is not desired, and positive means are taken to

prevent it.

And what of the results on the mutual love, if an old-fashioned word be

not now out of place, and on the self-respect of two people so associated?

Birth control cannot make for happiness, because it means that mutual love

is at the mercy of an animal instinct, neither satisfied nor denied. It is

an old truth that those who seek happiness for itself never find it. And

yet the advocates of birth control have the temerity to claim that these

practices lead to happiness. I presume that of the bliss following marriage

with contraceptives the crowded lists of our divorce courts are an index.

The marriage bond is weakened when a common lasting interest in the care

of children is replaced by transient sexual excitement. Once pregnancy is

abolished there is no natural check on the sexual passions of husband or

wife, for they have learnt how sexual desire may be gratified without the

pain, publicity, and responsibility of having children. In the experience

of the world marriages based merely on passion are seldom happy, and

artificial birth control means passion uncontrolled by nature. These

methods are not practised by nations such as Ireland and Spain, who accept

the moral rule of the natural law expressed in God's commandments and

sanctioned by His judgments; and no man who has ever lived in these

countries could truthfully maintain that the people there, on whom the

burdens of marriage press as elsewhere, are in reality anxious to obtain

facilities for divorce. On the other hand, there are many who allege that

the people of England are shouting out for greater facilities for divorce

than they now possess. At any rate, it is obvious enough that there are

those amongst us who are straining every nerve to force such facilities

upon them.

Section 4. AN INSULT TO TRUE WOMANHOOD

It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel; and

apparently chivalry is the last refuge of a fool. Some of the advocates of

birth control who have never thought the matter out, either passionately or

dispassionately, claim to speak on behalf of women. They protest that "many

women of the educated classes revolt against the drudgery, anxieties,

inconveniences, disease, and disfigurements which attend the yearly

child-bearing advocated by the moralist." [73]

What moralist? Who ever said it? Again, they plead for women who "revolt"

from the "disfigurement" of the gestation period. The great artist

Botticelli did not think this was disfigurement. What true women do? Are

they not those of whom Kipling writes, "as pale and as stale as a bone"?

And, if so, are these unworthy specimens of their sex worth tears? The vast

majority of women bear the discomforts of gestation and the actual perils

and pangs of birth with exemplary fortitude: and it is a gross slander for

anyone to maintain that a few cowardly and degenerate individuals really

represent that devoted sex. But these writers are indeed well out of the

ruck of ordinary humanity, because they tell us that "whatever the means

employed, and whether righteous or not, the propensity to limit the highest

form of life operates silently and steadily amongst the more thoughtful

members of all civilized countries," and yet add that "it is not perhaps

good taste to consider the means employed to this end." While they thus

approve and commend the practice of birth control as natural to "the

more thoughtful members," they nevertheless question the "good taste" of

discussing the very methods of which they approve, even in the columns of a

medical journal! Again, they tell us that "assuredly continence is not, and

never will be, the principal" method. That may be possibly true, so long as

Christianity is more professed than practised; God knows we are all lacking

enough in self-control. And yet throughout the ages moralists have preached

the advantages of self-control, and we ordinary men and women know that we

could do better, and that others who have gone before us have done better;

but it is the self-styled "thoughtful members" who proclaim to the world

that self-control in matters of sex is an impossibility, and therefore not

to be even attempted. They are no common people--these epicureans, selfish

even in their refinement. In addition to losing their morals, they have

certainly lost their wits.

Section 5. A DEGRADATION OF THE FEMALE SEX

In the Neo-Malthusian propaganda there is yet another fact which--should

be seized by every married woman, because it is a clear indication of a

tendency to reduce women to degrading subjection. No recommendations of

limited intercourse or of self-restraint according to the dictates

of reason or of affection are to be found in the writings of birth

controllers. Unrestrained indulgence, without the risk of consequences, is

their motto. To this end they advocate certain contraceptive methods, and

the reader should note that these methods require precautions to be taken

solely by the woman. If she fails to take these precautions, or if the

precautions themselves fail, all responsibility for the occurrence of

conception rests on her alone; because her Malthusian masters have decided

that she alone is to be, made responsible for preventing the natural or

possible consequences of intercourse. Why? That is a very interesting

question, and one to which a leading Neo-Malthusian has given the answer.

In 1854 there was published, _Physical, Sexual and Natural Religion: by a

Graduate of Medicine_. In the third edition the title was altered to _The

Elements of Social Science_, and the author's pseudonym to _A Doctor of

Medicine_. This book, which contains over 600 pages of small type, may be

truthfully described as the Bible of Neo-Malthusians, and includes, under

the curious heading _Sexual Religion_, a popular account of all venereal

and other diseases of sex. In the Preface to the first edition, [74] the

anonymous author states: "Had it not been the fear of causing pain to a

relation, I should have felt it my duty to put my name to this work; in

order that any censure passed upon it should fall upon myself alone." The

relation appears to have had a long life, because anonymity was preserved

for fifty years, presumably out of respect for his, or her, feelings: and

he, or she, must have lived as long as the author, who died in 1904 at the

age of seventy-eight; because the author's name was not revealed until a

posthumous edition, the thirty-fifth, appeared in 1905, from which we learn

that the book was written by the late Dr. George Drysdale, brother of

the first President of the Malthusian League, and uncle of the present

incumbent. The last edition, in recompense for its smudgy type, contains a

most welcome announcement by the publisher:

"PUBLISHER'S NOTE.--... It is due alike to the reader and the publisher

to explain why the present edition is printed (in the main) from

stereotypes that have seen fifty years' service. The cost of resetting

the work would be prohibitive on the basis of present (and probable

future) sales. To some extent the plates have been repaired; but such

an expedient can do no more than remove the worse causes of offence."

But the fact with which I am at present concerned is that in every edition

all contraceptive methods that apply to the male are _condemned_ for the

following reasons:

"The first of these modes [_coitus interruptus_] is physically

injurious, and is apt to produce nervous disorder and sexual

enfeeblement and congestion, from the sudden interruption it gives to

the venereal act, whose _pleasure_ moreover it interferes with. The

second, namely the sheath, _dulls the enjoyment_, and frequently

produces impotence in the man and disgust in both parties; so that it

also is injurious" (p. 349).... "Any preventive means, to be

satisfactory, must be used by the woman, as _it spoils the passion and

the impulsiveness_ of the venereal act _if the man have to think of

them_" (p. 350).

The italics are mine, but the following comments are by a woman, who was

moreover the first woman to qualify in medicine--the late Dr. Elizabeth

Blackwell.

"Here, in this chief teacher of the Neo-Malthusians, the cloven foot is

fully revealed. This popular author, who in many parts of his book

denounces marriage as the enslavement of men and women, who sneers at

continence, and rages at Christianity as a vanishing superstition--all

under a special pretence of benevolence and desire for the advancement

of the human race, here clearly, shows what he is aiming at, and what

his doctrines lead to. Male sexual pleasure must not be interfered

with, male lust may be indulged in to any extent that pleasure demands,

but woman must take the entire responsibility, that male indulgence be

not disturbed by any inconvenient claims from paternity. Whatever

consequences ensue the woman is to blame, and must bear the whole

responsibility.

"A doctrine more diabolical in its theory and more destructive in its

practical consequences has never been invented. This is the doctrine of

Neo-Malthusianism." [75]

Section 6. SPECIALLY HURTFUL TO THE POOR

(a) _Affecting the Young_

There are three special and peculiar evils that attend the teaching of

birth control amongst the poor. Of the first a doctor has written as

follows:

"Morally, the doctrine is indefensible--it follows the line of least

resistance, and sacrifices the spirit to the flesh. Materially, it is

fraught with grave danger to the home and to our national existence. It

is proposed to disseminate a knowledge of contraceptive methods

throughout the overcrowded homes of the ill-fed, ill-clad poor. Now it

is in these homes that the moral sense has already but little chance of

development, where the child of eight or ten already knows far more

than is good for the health of either body or mind, and, though we may

succeed in reducing the size of the family, yet the means we employ

will militate against the raising of the moral tone of the household,

and the children will not be any less precocious than before." [76]

That danger is ignored by the advocates of birth-control. "But he that

shall scandalise one of these little ones that believe in Me, it were

better for, him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he

were drowned in the depth, of the sea." [77]

(b) _Exposing the Poor to Experiment_

Secondly, the ordinary decent instincts of the poor are against these

practices, and indeed they have used them less than any other class. But,

owing to their poverty, lack of learning, and helplessness, the poor are

the natural victims of those who seek to make experiments on their fellows.

In the midst of a London slum a woman, who is a doctor of German philosophy

(Munich), has opened a Birth Control Clinic, where working women are

instructed in a method of contraception described by Professor McIlroy as

"the most harmful method of which I have had experience." [78] When we

remember that millions are being spent by the Ministry of Health and by

Local Authorities--on pure milk for necessitous expectant and nursing

mothers, on Maternity Clinics to guard the health of mothers before and

after childbirth, for the provision of skilled midwives, and on Infant

Welfare Centres--all for the single purpose of bringing healthy children

into our midst, it is truly amazing that this monstrous campaign of birth

control should be tolerated by the Home Secretary. Charles Bradlaugh was

condemned to jail for a less serious crime.

(c) _Tending towards the Servile State_

Thirdly, the policy of birth control opens the way to an extension of the

Servile State, [79] because women as well as men could then be placed under

conditions of economic slavery. Hitherto, the rule has been that during

child-bearing age a woman must be supported by her husband, and the general

feeling of the community has been opposed to any conditions likely to force

married women on to the industrial market. In her own home a woman works

hard, but she is working for the benefit of _her_ family and not directly

for the benefit of a stranger. If, instead of bearing children, women

practise birth control, and if children are to be denied to the poor as a

privilege of the rich, then it would be very easy to exploit the women of

the poorer classes. If women have no young children why should they be

exempt from the economic pressure that is applied to men? And indeed,

where birth control is practised women tend more and more to supplant men,

especially in ill-paid grades of work. One of the birth controllers has

suggested that young couples, who otherwise could not afford to marry,

should marry but have no children, and thus continue to work at their

respective employments during the day. As the girl would have little time

for cooking and other domestic duties, this immoralist is practically

subverting the very idea of a home! The English poor have already lost even

the meaning of the word "property," and if the birth controllers had their

way the meaning of the word "home" would soon follow. The aim of birth

control is generally masked by falsehood, but the urging of this policy

on the poor points unmistakably to the Servile State. When a nation, or

a section of a nation, is oppressed, their birth-rate rises. That is the

immutable law of nature as witnessed in history. Thus, the Israelites

increased under the oppression of the Pharaohs. Thus, the Irish, from the

Union to the Famine, multiplied prodigiously under the oppression of an

iniquitous political and land system. By the operation of this law the

oppressed grow in numbers, and break their chains.

Section 7. A MENACE TO THE NATION

(a) _There is a Limit to lowering the Death-rate_

Birth controllers believe that a high birth-rate is the cause of a high

death-rate, and that over-population is the cause of poverty. Yet, in spite

of their beliefs, they make the following statement: "Neo-Malthusians have

not aimed at reducing population, but only at reducing unnecessary death,

which injures the community without adding to its numbers." [80] In defence

of this statement they argue that if the death-rate falls people will

live longer, and therefore the population will not decrease, although the

birth-rate is lowered. There are two fallacies in their argument. They

overlook the fact that every one of us must die, and that therefore there

is a limit beyond which a death-rate cannot possibly fall, whereas there

is no limit, except zero, to the possible fall in a birth-rate. If a

birth-rate fell to nothing and no children were born, it is obvious that

the population would eventually vanish. The second fallacy is that a low

birth-rate will permanently lower the death-rate. At first a falling

birth-rate increases the proportion of young adults in the population, and,

as the death-rate during early adult life is relatively low, the total

death-rate tends to fall for a time. Sooner or later there is an increase

in the proportion of old people in the population, and, as the death-rate

during old age is high, the total death-rate tends to rise. That is now

happening in England, and these are the _actual facts_ as recorded by the

Registrar-General:

"It may be pointed out that, though the effect of the fall in the

birth-rate has hitherto been an a sense advantageous in that it has

increased the proportions living at the working ages, a tendency to the

reversal of this fact has already set in, and may be expected to

develop as time goes on....

"The general characteristics of the figures indicate very clearly the

effects of the long-continued decline in the birth-rate of this

country, and show, by the example of France, the type of

age-distribution which a further continuance of the decline is likely

to produce. The present age-distribution of the English population is

still favourable to low death-rates, but is becoming less so than it

was in 1901. The movements along the curve of the point of maximum

heaping up population, referred to on page 61 (See [Reference:

Population]), has shifted this from age 20-25 to a period ten years

later, when mortality is appreciably higher."--Census of England and

Wales, 1911. General Report, with Appendices, pp. 62 and 65.

Of these facts the birth controllers, would appear to be ignorant. That

is a charitable assumption; but, in view of the vital importance of this

question their ignorance is culpable.

(b) _Birth Control tends to extinguish the Birth-rate_

Whatever may be the nebulous aim of birth controllers, the actual results

of birth control are quite definite. We have no accurate information

regarding the extent to which, birth control is practised, for, needless to

say, the Malthusians can provide us with no exact figures bearing on this

question; but we do know that birth control, when adopted, is mostly

practised amongst the better paid artisans and wealthier classes. After

full examination of the evidence; the National Birth-rate Commission were

unanimously agreed "That the greater incidence of infant mortality upon the

less prosperous classes does not reduce their effective fertility to the

level of that of the wealthier classes." [81] It is probable that this

Commission overestimated the extent to which birth control has contributed

to the declining birth-rate; but, even so, this does not alter the obvious

fact that artificial birth control, when adopted, reduces fertility to

a lower level than Nature intended. If language has any meaning, birth

control means a falling birth-rate, and a falling birth-rate means

depopulation. Here and there this evil practice may increase the material

prosperity of an individual, but it lowers the prosperity of the nation

by reducing the number of citizens. Moreover, as birth control is not

a prevailing vice amongst semi-civilised peoples, the adoption of this

practice by civilised nations means that the proportion of civilised to

uncivilised inhabitants of the world will be reduced. If birth control had

been extensively practised in the past the colonisation of the British

Empire would have been a physical impossibility; and to-day, in our

vast overseas dominions, are great empty spaces whose untilled soil and

excellent climate await a population. Is that population to be white, or

yellow? A question which to-day fills the Australian with apprehension.

(c) _A Danger to the Empire_

Many people are honestly perplexed by Neo-Malthusian propaganda, and are

honestly ignorant of the truth concerning the population and the food

supply of the British Empire. They think that _if_ the population is

increasing faster than the food supply, there is at least one argument in

favour of artificial birth control from a practical, although possibly not

from an ethical, point of view. They apply to that propaganda the ordinary

test of the world, namely, 'Will it work?' rather than that other test

which asks, 'Is it right?' The question I would put to people who reason in

that way, and they are many, is a very simple one. If it can be proved that

Neo-Malthusian propaganda is based on an absolute falsehood, will it not

follow that the chief argument in favour of artificial birth control has

been destroyed? Let us put this matter to the proof. Neo-Malthusians state

that the population of the Empire is increasing more rapidly than the

food supply. That is a definite statement. It is either true or false.

To discover the truth, it is necessary to refer to the Memorandum of the

Dominions Royal Commission, and it may be noted that publications of that

sort are not usually read by the general public to whom the Neo-Malthusians

appeal. The public are aware that the staff of life is made from wheat, but

they are not aware of the following facts, which prove that in this matter,

at any rate, Neo-Malthusian statements are absolutely false. In foreign

countries the increase of the wheat area is proceeding at practically the

same rate as the increase of population. Within the British Empire _the

wheat area is increasing more rabidly than the population_.

Between 1901 and 1911 the percentage increase of the wheat area _was nearly

seven times greater_ than the increase of population; and the percentage

increase in the actual production of wheat _was nearly twelve times

greater_ than the increase of population. As these facts alone completely

refute the Neo-Malthusian argument, it is advisable to reproduce here the

official statistics. [82]

"The requirements of wheat [83] for the United Kingdom and the extent

to which Home and overseas supplies contributed towards these

requirements during the period under review can be briefly summarised

by the following table, viz.:

Normal Supplies Proportion of supply

Annual requirements

average Home Overseas Home Overseas

Million Million Million Per Per

cwts cwts cwts cent cent

1901-5 138.8 28.7 110.1 20.7 79.3

1906-10 143.2 31.9 111.3 22.3 77.7

1911-13 149.2 32.9 116.3 22.1 77.9

"The main sources of overseas supply are too well known to require

recapitulation here. The imports from the Dominions and India and their

proportionate contribution to the United Kingdom's total imports and

wheat requirements since 1901 have been as follows:

1901-5

Percentage

From Annual Total Total

average imports requirements

Million Per Per

cwts cent cent

Canada 10.3 9.2 7.4

Australia 6.6 5.9 4.8

New Zealand .4 .4 .3

India 15.5 13.9 11.2

32.8 29.4 23.7

1906-10

Percentage

From Annual Total Total

average imports requirements

Million Per Per

cwts cent cent

Canada 17.2 15.1 12.0

Australia 9.4 8.2 6.6

New Zealand .3 .3 .2

India 13.3 11.7 9.3

32.8 29.4 23.7

1911-13

Percentage

From Annual Total Total

average imports requirements

Million Per Per

cwts cent cent

Canada 24.5 20.5 16.4

Australia 12.6 10.6 8.4

New Zealand .4 .3 .3

India 21.5 18.0 14.4

59.0 49.4 39.5

"The large increase in the proportion received from the Dominions is,

of course, mainly due to the great extension of wheat cultivation in

Western Canada since the beginning of the century." [84]

_Future Supplies_

"As the United Kingdom is dependent for so large a proportion of its

wheat supplies on the surplus of oversea countries, it is of material

interest to examine whether this surplus is increasing, or whether the

growth of population is proceeding more rapidly than the extension of

the wheat-growing area.

"The Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in 1912 estimated [85] that the

extension of the wheat area and the growth of population during the

period 1901-1911 was as follows:

Wheat area Percent Population. Percent

Wheat-growing age in age in

countries. 1901. 1911. crease 1901. 1911. crease

British Empire Thousand Thousand Thousands Thousands

(United Kingdom, acres. acres.

Canada,

Australia,

New Zealand,

and India). 34,696 50,490 +45.5 283,385 302,154 + 6.6

European

countries. 98,326 115,105 +17.1 291,685 337,181 +15.6

Others 67,908 81,408 +19.9 139,927 168,818 +20.6

"_It is important to find that, while in foreign countries, both

European and extra-European, the increase of wheat area is proceeding

at practically the same rate as the increase of population, in the

British Empire the wheat area is developing far more rapidly, so that

the Empire as a whole is becoming more self-supporting.

"The total production of wheat within the British Empire, which was

227,500,000 cwts. in 1901, had risen to 399,700,000 cwts. in 1911, an

increase of 75 per cent_.

"The relative yield per acre in 1911 was as follows:"

Yield per acre.

Average for five

years, 1906-10. 1911.

Bushels. Bushels.

United Kingdom 32.88 32.96

Canada 17.56[86] 20.80[87]

Australia 11.74 9.65[88]

New Zealand 28.72 36.73

India

(including Native States) 11.44 12.02

The foregoing facts destroy the chief Neo-Malthusian argument, and, as

birth control tends to extinguish the birth-rate, this Neo-Malthusian

propaganda is a menace to the Empire. In fact, the danger is very great for

the simple reason that the proportion of white people within the Empire is

very small.

"The British Empire's share of the world's people is very large, but it

mainly consists, it should be remembered, of Asiatics and African

natives. The Empire as a whole contains about 450 millions of the

world's 1,800 millions, made up roundly as follows:

United Kingdom 47,000,000

Self-governing Dominions 22,000,000

Rest of the Empire (chiefly India,

319 millions) 378,000,000

Total 447,000,000

"Of the great aggregate Empire population of 447 millions, the white

people account for no more than 65 millions. That is to say, outside

the United Kingdom itself the Empire has only 18 million white people,

or less than four million families. That figure, of course, includes

Boers, French-Canadians, and others of foreign extraction. This fact is

clearly not realized by those present-day Malthusians who assure us

that too many Britons are being born." [89]

It is also well to remember that depopulation in Italy preceded the

disintegration of the Roman Empire. Historians have estimated that, while

under the Republic, Italy could raise an army of 800,000 men, under Titus

that number was halved.

Unfortunately there are some to whom this argument will not appeal, and

wandering about in our midst are a few lost souls, so bemused by the

doctrines of international finance that they see no virtue in patriotism

or, in other words, in the love that a man has for his own home. They are

unmoved by the story of sacrifice, of thrift, and of patient trust in

God that is told for instance in the history of the Protestant manses of

Scotland, where ministers on slender stipends brought up families of ten

and twelve, where the boys won scholarships at the universities, and where

women were the mothers of men.

These days have been recalled by Norman Macleod:

"The minister, like most of his brethren, soon took to himself a wife,

the daughter of a neighbouring 'gentleman tacksman,' and the

grand-daughter of a minister, well born and well bred; and never did

man find a help more meet for him. In that manse they lived for nearly

fifty years, and there were born to them sixteen children; yet neither

father nor mother could ever lay hand on a child and say, 'We wish this

one had not been.' They were all a source of unmingled joy...." [90]

"A 'wise' neighbour once remarked, 'That minister with his large family

will ruin himself, and if he dies they will be beggars.' Yet there has

never been a beggar among then to the fourth generation." [91]

How did they manage to provide for their children? In this pagan, spoon-fed

age, many people will laugh when they read the answer--in a family letter,

written more than a hundred years ago by a man who was poor:

"But the thought--I cannot provide for these! Take care, minister, the

anxiety of your affection does not unhinge that confidence with which

the Christian ought to repose upon the wise and good providence of

God! What though you are to leave your children poor and friendless?

Is the arm of the Lord shortened, that He cannot help? Is His ear

heavy, that He cannot hear? You yourself have been no more than an

instrument in the hand of His goodness; and is His goodness, pray,

bound up in your feeble arm? Do you what you can; leave the rest to

God. Let them be good, and fear the Lord, and keep His commandments,

and He will provide for them in His own way and in His own time. Why,

then, wilt thou be cast down, O my soul; why disquieted within me?

Trust thou in the Lord! Under all the changes and the cares and the

troubles of this life, may the consolations of religion support our

spirits. In the multitude of thoughts within me, Thy comforts O my

God, delight my soul! But no more of this preaching-like harangue, of

which, I doubt not, you wish to be relieved. Let me rather reply to

your letter, and tell you my news." [92]

That letter was written by Norman Macleod, ordained in 1774, and minister

of the Church of Scotland in Morven for some forty years. His stipend was

£40, afterwards raised to £80. He had a family of sixteen. One of his sons

was minister in Campbelltown, and later in Glasgow. He had a family of

eleven. His eldest son was Chaplain to Queen Victoria, and wrote the

_Reminiscences of a Highland Parish_.

The birth controllers ask why we should bring up children at great cost and

trouble to ourselves, and they have been well answered by a non-Catholic

writer, Dr. W.E. Home. [93]

"One of my acquaintances refuses to have a second child because he

could not then play golf. Is there, then, no pleasure in children which

shall compensate for the troubles and expenses they bring upon you? I

notice that the penurious Roman Catholic French Canadian farmers are

spreading out of Quebec and occupying more and more of Ontario. I fancy

these hard-living parents would think their struggles to bring up their

large (ten to twenty) families worth while when they see how their

group is strengthening its position. If a race comes to find no

instinctive pleasure in children it will probably be swept away by

others more virile. One man will live where another will starve;

prudence and selfishness are not identical.

"In her book, _The Strength of a People_, Mrs. Bosanquet, who signed

the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission, tells the story of two

girls in domestic service who became engaged. One was imprudent,

married at once, lived in lodgings, trusted to the Church and the

parish doctor to see her through her first confinement, had no

foresight or management, every succeeding child only added to her

worries, and her marriage was a failure. The other was prudent, did not

marry till, after six months, she and her fiancé had chosen a house and

its furniture. Then she married, and their house was their own careful

choice; every table and chair reminded them of the afternoon they had

had together when it was chosen; they were amusement enough to

themselves, and they saved their money for the expenses of her

confinement. He had not to seek amusement outside his home, did his

work with a high sanction and got promoted, and each child was only an

added pleasure. Idyllic; yes, but sometimes true. One of the happiest

men I have known was a Marine sergeant with ten children, and a bed in

his house for stray boys he thought he should help.

"One of my friends married young and had five children; this required

management. He certainly could not go trips, take courses and extra

qualifications, but he did his work all right, and his sons were there

to help in the war, and one of them has won a position of Imperial

usefulness far above that of his father or me. Is that no compensation

to his parents for old-time difficulties they have by now almost

forgotten? A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit."

Dr. W.E. Home is right, and the Neo-Malthusian golfer is wrong. Moreover,

he is wrong as a golfer. Golf requires skill, a fine co-ordination of sight

and touch, much patience and self-control: and many unfortunate people lack

these qualities of mind and body, and are therefore unable to play this

game with pleasure to themselves or to others. Consequently every golfer,

no matter whether he accepts the hypothesis of Spencer or that of Weismann

concerning the inheritance of acquired characteristics, should rejoice to

see his large family in the links as a good omen for the future of this

game, although there be some other reasons that also justify the existence

of children.

_(d) The Dangers of Small Families_

In a Malthusian leaflet, written for the poor Dr. Binnie Dunlop states:

"You must at least admit that there would be nothing like the usual

poverty if married couples had only one child for every 20s. or so, a

week of wages. Yet the population would continue to increase rapidly,

because very few of the children of small families die or grow up

weakly; and it would become stronger, richer, and of course much

happier." [94]

The false suggestion contained in his first sentence, namely that a high

birth-rate is the cause of poverty, has already been exposed (Chap. II),

and apparently Dr. Binnie Dunlop has never considered _why_ so many of the

English people should be so poor as to enable him to make use of their very

poverty in order to tempt them to adopt an evil method of birth control.

Moreover, his second contention, that a small family produces a higher type

of child, better fed, better trained, and healthier, than is found amongst

the children of large families is contrary to the following facts, as

stated by Professor Meyrick Booth:

"1. A civilisation cannot be maintained with an average of less than

about four children per marriage; a smaller number will lead to actual

extinction.

"2. Much information exists tending to show that heredity strongly

favours the third, fourth, fifth, and subsequent children born to a

given couple, rather than the _first two_, who are peculiarly apt to

inherit some of the commonest physical and mental defects (upon this

important point the records of the University of London Eugenics

Laboratory should be consulted). A population with a low birth-rate

thus naturally tends to degenerate. _It is the normal, and not the

small family, that gives the best children_.

"3. The present differential birth-rate--high amongst the less

intelligent classes and low amongst the most capable families--so far

from leading upwards, is causing the race to breed to a lower type.

"4. The small family encourages the growth of luxury and the

development of what M. Leroy-Beaulieu calls _l'esprit arriviste_.

"5. The popular idea that _childbirth is injurious_ to a woman's health

is probably _quite erroneous_. Where the _birth-rate is high the health

of the woman is apparently better_ than where it is artificially low.

"6. A study of history does not show that nations with low birth-rates

have been able to attain to a higher level of civilisation. Such

nations have been thrust into the background by their hardier

neighbours." [95]

Moreover, M. Leroy-Beaulieu, in _La Question de la Population_ [96] states

that those districts of France which show an exceptionally low birthrate

are distinguished by a peculiar atmosphere of materialism, and that their

inhabitants exhibit, in a high degree, an attitude of mind well named

_l'esprit arriviste_--the desire to concentrate on outward success, to push

on, to be climbers, to advance themselves and their children in fashionable

society. This spirit means the willing sacrifice of all ideals of ethics

or of patriotism to family egoism. To this mental attitude, and to the

corresponding absence of religion, he attributes the decline of population.

In conclusion the following evidence is quoted by Professor Meyrick Booth:

"The _Revue des Deux Mondes_ for July 1911 contains a valuable account,

by a doctor resident in Gascony, of the state of things in that part of

France (where, it will be remembered, the birth-rate is especially

low). He expresses with the utmost emphasis the conviction that the

Gascons are deteriorating, physically and mentally, and points out, at

the same time, that the decline of population has had an injurious

effect upon the economic condition of the country. 'L'hyponatalité est

une cause précise et directe de la dégénérescence de la race,' he

writes. And, dealing with the belief that a low birthrate will result

in the development of a superior type of child, he says: 'C'est une

illusion qui ne résiste pas à la lumière des faits tels que les montre

l'étude démographique de nos villages gascons. Depuis que beaucoup de

bancs restent vides à la petite école, les écoliers ne sont ni mieux

doués, ni plus travailleurs, et ils sont certainement moins vigoureux.'

And again, 'La quantité est en général la condition première et

souveraine de la qualité.'" [97]

Section 8. THE PLOT AGAINST CHRISTENDOM

All purposive actions are ultimately based on philosophy of one sort or

another. If, for example, we find a rich man founding hospitals for the

poor, we may assume that he believes in the principle of Charity. It

is, therefore, of prime importance to determine what kind of philosophy

underlies Neo-Malthusian propaganda. The birth controllers profess to

be actuated solely by feelings of compassion and of benevolence towards

suffering humanity; and it is on these grounds that they are appealing to

the Church of England to bless their work, or at least to lend to

their propaganda a cloak of respectability. Now, the very fact that

Neo-Malthusians are sincere in their mistaken and dangerous convictions

makes it all the more necessary that we should discover the doctrines

on which their propaganda was originally based; because, although their

economic fallacies were borrowed from Malthus, their philosophy came from a

different source.

This philosophy is to be found, naked and unashamed, in a book entitled

_The Elements of Social Science_. I have already referred to this work

as the Bible of Neo-Malthusians, and its teaching has been endorsed as

recently as 1905 by the official journal of the Malthusian League, as

witness the following eulogy, whose last lines recall the happy days of

Bret Harte in the Far West, and the eloquent periods of our old and valued

friend Colonel Starbottle:

"This work should be read by all followers of J.S. Mill, Garnier, and

the Neo-Malthusian school of economists. We could give a long criticism

of the many important chapters in this book; but, as we might be

considered as prejudiced in its favour because of our agreement with

its aims, we prefer to cite the opinion given by the editor of that

widely circulated and most enlightened paper _The Weekly Times and

Echo_, which appears in its issue of October 8." [98]

Before quoting from the book an explanation is due to my readers. I do not

suggest that all of those who are to-day supporting the propaganda for

artificial birth control would agree with its foolish blasphemies and

drivelling imbecilities; but it is nevertheless necessary to quote these

things, because our birth controllers are too wise in their day and

generation to reveal to the public, still less to the Church of England,

_the philosophy on which Neo-Malthusianism was originally based, and from

which it has grown_. Moreover, the Malthusians claim that it was the author

of the _Elements of Social Science_ "who interested Mr. Charles Bradlaugh

and Mrs. Annie Besant in the question." [99] Four quotations from the last

edition of the book will suffice:

"But this is a certain truth, that any human being, any one of us,

no matter how fallen and degraded, is an infinitely more glorious

and adorable being than any God that ever was or will be

conceived" (p. 413).

In justice to the memory of John Stuart Mill, whom Malthusians are ever

quoting, it should be noted that the foregoing blasphemy is nothing more

nor less than a burlesque of Positivism or of Agnosticism. The teaching of

Mill, Bain, and of Herbert Spencer was that the knowledge of God and of

His nature is impossible, because our senses are the _only_ source of

knowledge. Their reasoning was wrong--because a primary condition of all

knowledge is memory, in itself an intuition, because primary mathematical

axioms are intellectual intuitions, and because mind has the power of

abstraction; but, even so, not one of these men was capable of having

written the above-quoted passage. The next quotation refers to marriage.

"Marriage is based upon the idea that constant and unvarying love is

the only one which is pure and honourable, and which should be

recognised as morally good. But there could not be a greater error than

this. Love is, like all other human passions and appetites, subject to

change, deriving a great part of its force and continuance from variety

in its objects; and to attempt to fix it to an invariable channel is to

try to alter the laws of its nature"(p. 353).

That quotation is an example of how evil ideas may arise from muddled

thinking: because if the word "lust" be substituted for the word "love" in

the third sentence, the remaining forty-five words would merely convey a

simple truth, expressed by Kipling in two lines:

"For the more you 'ave known o' the others

The less will you settle to one."

Very few people, I suppose, are so foolish as to believe that man is by

nature either a chaste or a constant animal, and indeed in this respect he

appears to his disadvantage when compared with certain varieties of birds,

which are _by nature_ constant to each other. On the other hand, millions

of people believe that man is able to overcome his animal nature; and for

the past two thousand years the civilised races of the world have held

that this is a goal towards which mankind should strive. In the opinion of

Christendom chastity and marriage are both morally good, but, according to

the philosophy of our Neo-Malthusian author, they are morally evil.

"Chastity, or complete sexual abstinence, so far from being a virtue,

is invariably a great natural sin" (p. 162).

Is it not obvious that to the writers of such passages love is synonymous

with animalism, with lust? It is by no means necessary to go to saints or

to moralists for a refutation of this Neo-Malthusian philosophy. Does any

decent ordinary man or woman agree with it? Ask the man in the street. Turn

the pages of our literature. Refer to Chaucer or Spenser, to Shakespeare or

Milton, refer to Fielding or Burns or Scott or Tennyson. Some of these men

were very imperfect; but they all knew the difference between lust and

love; and it is because they can tell us at least something of that which

is precious, enduring, ethereal, and divine in love that we read their

pages and honour their names. Not one of these men could have written the

following sentence:

"Marriage distracts our attention from the real sexual

duties, and this is one of its worst effects" (p. 366).

Now it is certain that if "the real sexual duties" are represented by

promiscuous fornication, then both marriage and chastity are evil things.

That philosophy is very old. From time immemorial--it has been advocated by

one of the most powerful intelligences in the universe. Such is the soil

on which the Neo-Malthusian fungus has grown--a soil that would rot the

foundations of Europe.

[Footnote 66: _The Lancet_, May 14, 1921, p. 1024]

[Footnote 67: _British Medical Journal_, 1921, vol. ii, p. 93.]

[Footnote 68: _The Small Family System_, 2nd edit., p. 2.]

[Footnote 69: _Supplement to The British Medical Journal_, March 18, 1905,

p. 110.]

[Footnote 70: _Common Sense on the Population Question_, by Teresa

Billington-Greig, p. 4. Published by the Malthusian League.]

[Footnote 71: _Medico-Legal Society_, July 7, 1921.]

[Footnote 72: _Suppl. Qu_. 49, Art. 6: "_Voluptates meretricias vir in

uxore quoerit quando nihil aliud in ea attendit quam quod in meretrice

attenderet_" (A husband seeks from his wife harlot pleasures when he asks

from her only what he might ask from a harlot). Quoted by the Rev. Vincent

McNabb, O.P., _The Catholic Gazette_, September 1921, p. 195.]

[Footnote 73: _British Medical Journal_, 1921, vol. ii, p. 169.]

[Footnote 74: Reproduced in fourth edition, 1861.]

[Footnote 75: _Essays in Medical Sociology_, 1899. Revised and printed

for private circulation, p. 95, (Copy in Library of Royal Society of

Medicine).]

[Footnote 76: _British Medical Journal_, August 20, 1921, p. 302.]

[Footnote 77: St. Matt. xviii. 6.]

[Footnote 78: _Proceedings of the Medico-Legal Society_, July 7, 1921]

[Footnote 79: "That arrangement of society in which so considerable a

number of the families and individuals are constrained by positive law to

labour for the advantage of other families and individuals as to stamp

the whole community with the mark of such labour we call The Servile

State."--Hilaire Belloc, _The Servile State_, 1912, p. 16.]

[Footnote 80: The Secretary of the Malthusian League. Vide _The Declining

Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 89.]

[Footnote 81: _The Declining Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 37.]

[Footnote 82: Dominions Royal Commission, Memorandum and Tables relating to

the Food and Raw Material Requirements of the United Kingdom: prepared by

the Royal Commission on the Natural Resources, Trade, and Legislation of

Certain Portions of His Majesty's Dominions. November, 1915, pp. 1 and 2.

My italics--H.G.S.]

[Footnote 83: i.e. grain, wheatmeal, and flour]

[Footnote 84: For particulars of this increase see Canada Year Book 1913,

p. 144.]

[Footnote 85: See pp. 387-8 of [Cd. 6588].]

[Footnote 86: Average for period 1907-1910 and excluding British Columbia,

where the yield per acre in 1911, the only year for which figures are

available, averaged 29-37 bushels.]

[Footnote 87: Including British Columbia.]

[Footnote 88: Below the average. The yield per acre in 1912 was 12.53

bushels, and in 1913 11.18.]

[Footnote 89: The Observer, Nov. 11, 1921.]

[Footnote 90: _Reminiscences of a Highland Parish_, by Norman Macleod,

D.D., 1876, p. 27.]

[Footnote 91: Ibid., p. 34.]

[Footnote 92: Ibid., p. 91.]

[Footnote 93: British Medical Journal, August 13, 1921, p. 261.]

[Footnote 94: Leaflet of the Malthusian League.]

[Footnote 95: _The Hibbert Journal_, October 1914, p. 153. My

italics.--H.G.S.]

[Footnote 96: Quoted by Professor Meyrick Booth, _The Hibbert Journal_,

October 1914, p. 153.]

[Footnote 97: _The Hibbert Journal_, October 1914.]

[Footnote 98: _The Malthusian_, November 1905, p. 84]

[Footnote 99: C.V. Drysdale, O.B.E., D. Sc., _The Small Family System_,

1918, p. 150.]

CHAPTER VIII

THE RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT AGAINST BIRTH CONTROL

Section 1. AN OFFENCE AGAINST THE LAW OF NATURE

Birth control is against the law of nature, which Christians believe to be

the reflection of the divine law in human affairs, and any violation of

this law was held to be vicious even by the ancient pagan world. To this

argument an advocate of birth control has made answer:

"We interfere with nature at every point--we shave, cut our hair, cook

our food, fill cavities in our teeth (or wear artificial teeth), clothe

ourselves, wear boots, hats, and wash our faces, so why should birth

alone be sacred from the touch and play of human moulding?" [100]

Why? For a very simple reason. Birth control belongs to the moral sphere;

it essentially affects man's progress in good, whereas all the other things

that he mentions have no more moral significance than has the practice of

agriculture. Regarded in the light of the law of nature they are neutral

actions, neither good nor bad in themselves, raising no question of right

or wrong, and having no real bearing on the accomplishment of human

destiny. To make no distinction between the merely physical law of nature

(expressed in the invariable tendency of everything to act according to

its kind) and the natural moral law which governs human conduct, is to

pronounce oneself a materialist. Yet even a materialist ought to denounce

the practice of birth control, as it violates the laws of nature which

regulate physical well-being. "But," says the materialist, "it is not

possible for anyone to act against nature, because all actions take place

_in_ nature, and therefore every act is a natural act." Quite so: in that

sense murder is a natural act; even unnatural vice is a natural act. Will

any one defend them? There is a natural law in the physical world, and

there is a natural law in conscience--a law of right conduct. Certain

actions are under the control of the human will, which is able to rebel

against the moral law of nature, and the pagan poet Aeschylus traces all

human sorrow to "the perverse human will omnipresent."

As birth control means the deliberate frustration of a natural act

which might have issued in a new life, it is an unnatural crime, and is

stigmatised by theologians as a sin akin to murder. To this charge birth

controllers further reply that millions of the elements of procreation are

destroyed by Nature herself, and that "to add one more to these millions

sacrificed by Nature is surely no crime." This attempt at argument is

pathetic. If these people knew even the A.B.C. of biology, they would know

that millions of those elements are allowed to perish by Nature for a

definite purpose--namely, _to make procreation more certain_. It is in

order that the one may achieve the desired end that it is reinforced by

millions of others. Moreover, although millions of deaths in the world

occur every year from natural causes, it would nevertheless, I fear, be a

crime if I were to cause one more death by murdering a birth controller.

Section 2. REFLECTED IN THE NORMAL CONSCIENCE

In common with irrational animals we have instincts, appetites, and

passions; but, unlike the animals, we have the power to reflect whether an

action is right or wrong in itself apart from its consequences. This power

of moral judgment is called conscience; and it is conscience which reflects

the natural law (the Divine Nature expressed in creation). As conscience,

when violated, can and does give rise to an unpleasant feeling of shame in

the mind, we have good reason to believe that it exists for the purpose of

preventing us from doing shameful actions, just as our eyes are intended,

amongst other things, to prevent us from walking over precipices. Moreover,

if the conscience is active, instructed, and unbiassed, it will invariably

give the correct answer to any question of right or wrong.

It is possible to assert, without fear of contradiction, that no ordinary

decent man or woman approaches or begins the practice of artificial birth

control without experiencing at first unpleasant feelings of uneasiness,

hesitation, repugnance, shame, and remorse. Later on these feelings may be

overcome by habit, for the voice of conscience will cease when it has been

frequently ignored. This does not alter the fact that at first the natural

moral instincts of both men and women do revolt against these practices. To

the conscience of mankind birth control is a shameful action.

Section 3. EXPRESSED IN THE SCIENCE OF ETHICS

The dictates of conscience go to form the science of ethics. According to

ethics, the practice of birth control means the doing of an act whilst at

the same time frustrating the object for which the act is intended. It is

like using language to conceal the truth, or using appetite so as to injure

rather than to promote health. During the decline of the Roman Empire men

gorged themselves with food, took an emetic, vomited, and then sat down to

eat again. They satiated their appetite and frustrated the object for which

appetite is intended. The practice of birth control is parallel to this

piggishness. No one can deny that the sexual impulse has for aim the

procreation of children. The birth controllers seek to gratify the impulse,

yet to defeat the aim; and they are so honest in their mistaken convictions

that, when faced with this argument, they boldly adopt an attitude which

spells intellectual and moral anarchy. They say that it is simply a waste

of time to discuss the moral aspect of this practice. Without being able

to dispute the truth that birth control is against nature, conscience, and

ethics, they attempt to prove that at any rate the results of this practice

are beneficial, or in other words that a good end justifies the use of evil

means. This is a doctrine that has been universally repudiated by mankind.

[101] Nevertheless, if birth control, in spite of its being an offence

against moral and natural law, was really beneficial to humanity, then

birth controllers would be able to claim pragmatic justification for the

practices, and to argue that what actually and universally tends to the

good of mankind cannot be bad in itself. Birth control, as I have already

shown, does not conform to these conditions; therefore that argument also

fails.

Section 4. BIRTH CONTROL CONDEMNED BY PROTESTANT CHURCHES

The Protestants, at the time of the Reformation, retained and even

exaggerated certain beliefs of the undivided Catholic Church. None of them

doubted, for instance, that the Bible was the Word of God and therefore

a guide to moral conduct. They knew that artificial birth control is

forbidden by the Bible, and that in the Old Testament the punishment for

that sin was death. [102] In 1876, when Charles Bradlaugh advocated in a

notorious pamphlet the practice of birth control, his views were denounced

from every Protestant pulpit in the land, and were widely repudiated by

the upper and middle classes of England. But it would seem that Protestant

morality is now disappearing with the spread of indifferentism, and the

Protestant Churches have no longer the same influence on the public and

private life of the nation. Protestantism has lasted for 400 years, but

though it has lasted longer than any other form of belief which took rise

in the sixteenth century, it is now also dying.

In 1919 the number of people over seven years of age in England who

professed belief in _any_ church was 10,833,795 (out of 40,000,000), and

the church attendance equalled 7,000,000, or about 1 out of every 5 people.

[103]

Again, a Commission appointed by the Protestant Churches to inquire into

the religious beliefs held in the British armies of the Great War has

endorsed the following statements:

"Everyone must be struck with the appalling ignorance of the simplest

religious truths. Probably 80 per cent, of these men from the Midlands

had never heard of the sacraments.... It is not only that the men do

not know the meaning of 'Church of England'; they are ignorant of the

historical facts of the life of our Lord. Nor must it be assumed that

this ignorance is confined to men who have passed through the

elementary schools. The same verdict is recorded upon those who have

been educated in our public schools.... The men are hopelessly

perplexed by the lack of Christian unity." [104]

In my opinion these statements are exaggerations, but that was not the view

of the Commission. As regards Scotland, it has recently been stated at the

Lothian Synod of the United Free Church that in 1911 at least 37 per cent.

of the men and women of Scotland were without church connection. [105]

In 1870, of every 1,000 marriages, 760 were according to the rites of the

Established Church, but in 1919 the proportion had fallen to 597. During

the same period civil marriages without religious ceremonial increased from

98 to 231 per 1,000. [106] These figures are an index of the religious

complexion of the country. The Protestant Churches are being strangled by

the development of a germ that was inherent in them from the beginning, and

that growth is Rationalism. The majority of the upper, professional, and

artisan class can no longer be claimed as staunch Protestants, but as

vague theists; and amongst these educated people, misled by false ideas of

pleasure and by pernicious nonsense written about self-realisation, the

practice of birth control has spread most alarmingly. This is an evil

against which all religious bodies who retain a belief in the fundamental

facts of Christianity might surely unite in action.

In a Catholic country there would be no need, in the furtherance of public

welfare, to write on the evils of birth control. The teaching of the

Catholic Church would be generally accepted, and a moral law generally

accepted by the inhabitants of a country gives strength to the State. But

Great Britain, no longer Catholic, is now in some danger of ceasing to

be even a Christian country. In 1885 it was asserted, "England alone is

reported to contain some seven hundred sects, each of whom proves a whole

system of theology and morals from the Bible." [107] Each of these that now

survives gives its own particular explanation of the law of God, which it

honestly tries to follow, but at one point or another each and every sect

differs from its neighbours. On account of these differences of opinion

many people say: "The Churches cannot agree amongst themselves as to what

is truth; they cannot all be right; it is, therefore, impossible for me to

know with certainty what to believe; and, to be quite honest, it may save

me a lot of bother just at present to have no very firm belief at all."

This means that in Great Britain _there is no uniform moral law covering

all human conduct and generally accepted by the mass of the people_. As the

practice of artificial birth-rate control is not only contrary to Christian

morality, but is also a menace to the prosperity and well-being of the

nation, the absence of a uniform moral law, common to all the people and

forbidding this practice, is a source of grave weakness in the State.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII

A NEO-MALTHUSIAN ATTACK ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

As was proved in a previous chapter (p. 120) artificial birth control was

originally based on Atheism, and on a philosophy of moral anarchy. Further

proof of this fact is to be found in the course of a most edifying dispute

between two rival Neo-Malthusians. This quarrel is between Dr. Marie C.

Stopes, President of the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial

Progress, who is not a Doctor of Medicine but of Philosophy, and Dr. Binnie

Dunlop, who is a Bachelor of Medicine: and when birth controllers fall

out we may humbly hope that truth will prevail. Dr. Stopes maintains that

artificial birth control was not an atheistic movement, whereas Dr. Binnie

Dunlop contends that the pioneers of the movement were Atheists. The

beginning of the trouble was a letter written by Dr. Stopes to the _British

Medical Journal_, in which she made the following statement:

"Dr. Martindale is reported in your pages to have given an address to

medical women in which she pointed out that the birth control movement

in England dated from the Bradlaugh trial in 1877. Had she attended the

presidential address of the Society for Constructive Birth Control she

would have learned that there was a very flourishing movement, centring

round Dr. Trall in 1866, years before Bradlaugh touched the subject,

and also a considerable movement earlier than that. This point is

important, as 'birth control' has hitherto (erroneously) been much

prejudiced in popular opinion by being supposed to be an atheistical

movement originated by Bradlaugh." [108]

Dr. Stopes, who has been working overtime in the attempt to obtain some

religious sanction for her propaganda, is ready not only to throw the

Atheists overboard, but also to assert that a flourishing movement for

artificial birth control centred round the late Dr. Trall, who was a

Christian. Her letter was answered by Dr. Binnie Dunlop as follows:

"Dr. Marie C. Stopes, whose valuable books I constantly recommend,

protests (page 872) against the statement that the birth control

movement in England dated from the trial of Charles Bradlaugh in

1877--for re-publishing Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet, _The Fruits of

Philosophy_ because the Government had interdicted it. She must admit,

however, that there was no _organised_ movement anywhere until

Bradlaugh and the Doctors Drysdale, immediately after the trial,

founded the Malthusian League, and that the decline of Europe's

birthrate began in that year. It may now seem unfortunate that the

pioneers of the contraceptives idea, from 1818 onwards (James Mill,

Francis Place, Richard Carlile, Robert Dale Owen, John Stuart Mill, Dr.

Knowlton, Dr. George Drysdale, Dr. C.R. Drysdale, and Charles

Bradlaugh), were all Free-thinkers; and Dr. Stopes harps on the

religious and praiseworthy Dr. Trall, an American, who published

_Sexual Physiology_ in 1866. But Dr. Trall was not at all a strong

advocate of contraceptive methods. After a brief but helpful reference

to the idea of placing a mechanical obstruction, such as a sponge,

against the _os uteri_, he said:

"Let it be distinctly understood that I do not approve any method for

preventing pregnancy except that of abstinence, nor any means for

producing abortion, on the ground that it is or can be in any sense

physiological. It is only the least of two evils. When people will live

physiologically there will be no need of preventive measures, nor will

there be any need for works of this kind." [109]

That is a most informative letter. In simple language Dr. Binnie Dunlop

tells the remarkable story of how in 1876 three Atheists, merely by forming

a little Society in London, were able to cause an immediate fall in the

birth-rate of Europe. When you come to think of it, that was a stupendous

thing for any three men to have achieved. I am very glad that Dr. Binnie

Dunlop has defended the Atheists and has painted the late Dr. Trail,

despite that "brief but helpful reference," in his true colours as a

Christian. Nevertheless, Dr. Stopes had the last word:

"As regards Dr. Dunlop, he now shifts the Atheists' position by adding

the word 'organised.' The Atheists never tire of repeating certain

definite misstatements, examples of which are: 'If it were not for the

fact that the despised Atheists, Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant,

faced imprisonment, misrepresentation, insult, and ostracism for this

cause forty-four years ago, she [Dr. Stopes] would not be able to

conduct her campaign to-day' (_Literary Guide_, November, 1921); and

'Before the Knowlton trial, neither rich nor poor knew anything worth

counting about contraceptive devices' (_Malthusian_, November 15,

1921). Variations of these statements have been incessantly made, and I

dealt with their contentions in the presidential address for the C.B.C.

Meanwhile to them I reply that: 'There has never been in this country

any law against the dissemination of properly presented birth control

information, and _before, during, and after_ the Bradlaugh trial

properly presented information on birth control was extending its range

with full liberty.' My address is now in the press, and when published

will make public not only new matter from manuscript letters of very

early date in my possession, but other overlooked historical facts. I

have already told Dr. Dunlop I refuse to be drawn into a discussion on

facts an account of which is still in the press." [110]

The lady, by her dissertation on the Laws of England, makes a clumsy effort

to evade the point at issue, which is quite simple, namely, whether it was

Atheists or Christians who initiated the Neo-Malthusian movement, organised

or unorganised. Dr. Binnie Dunlop has here proved his case. I also do

maintain that in this matter all credit must be given to the Atheists; and

that it would be truly contemptible to deny this fact merely in order to

pander to a popular prejudice against Atheism. Nor am I shaken in this

opinion when Dr. Stopes points out that there was a Neo-Malthusian movement

prior to 1876. Of course there was a movement, but it was always an

atheistic movement. In the past no Christian doctor, and indeed no

Christian man or woman, advocated artificial birth control. Let us give the

Neo-Malthusian his due.

Until recently both the Church of England and the medical profession

presented practically a united front against Neo-Malthusian teaching; and,

as late as 1914, the Malthusian League did not hesitate to make use of the

following calumnies, very mean, very spiteful, very imbecile:

"Take the clergy. They are the officers of a Church that has made

marriage a source of revenue and of social control; they preach from a

sacred book that bids the chosen people of God 'multiply and replenish

the earth'; they know that large families generally tend to preserve

clerical influence and authority; and they claim that every baby is a

new soul presented to God and, therefore, for His honour and glory, the

greatest possible number of souls should be produced." [111]

That feeble attempt to poison the atmosphere was naturally ignored by

intelligent people; and more than once Lambeth has ruled that artificial

birth control is sin. Unfortunately, within the Church of England, in spite

of the Lambeth ruling, there is still discussion as to whether artificial

birth control is or is not sin, the Bishops, as a whole, making a loyal

effort to uphold Christian teaching against a campaign waged by Malthusians

in order to obtain religious sanction for their evil propaganda. Although

many Malthusians are rationalists, they are well aware that without some

religious sanction their policy could never emerge from the dim underworld

of unmentioned and unrespected things, and could never be advocated

openly in the light of day. To this end birth control is camouflaged by

pseudo-poetic and pseudo-religious phraseology, and the Anglican Church is

asked to alter her teaching. Birth controllers realise that it is useless

to ask this of the Catholic Church, a Rock in their path, but "as regards

the Church of England, which makes no claim to infallibility, the case is

different, and discussion is possible." [112]

Let us consider, firstly, the teaching of the Church of England on this

matter. At the Lambeth Conference of 1908 the Bishops affirmed "that

deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to Christian morality."

In 1914 a Committee of Bishops issued a Memorandum [113] in which

artificial birth control is condemned as "dangerous, demoralising, and

sinful." The memorandum was approved by a large majority of the Diocesan

Bishops, although in the opinion of Dean Inge "this is emphatically a

matter in which every man and woman must judge for themselves, and must

refrain from judging others." [114] The Bishops also held that in some

marriages it may be desirable, on grounds of prudence or of health, to

limit the number of children. In these circumstances they advised the

practice of self-restraint; and, as regards a limited use of marriage, they

added the following statement:

"It seems to most of us only a legitimate application of such

self-restraint that in certain cases (which only the parties' own

judgment and conscience can settle) intercourse should be restricted by

consent to certain times at which it is less likely to lead to

conception. This is only to use natural conditions; it is approved by

good medical authority; it means self-denial and not self-indulgence.

And we believe it to be quite legitimate, or at least not to be

condemned."

A _small_ minority of Bishops held that prolonged or even perpetual

abstinence from intercourse is the only legitimate method of limiting a

family. Finally, in Resolution 68 of the Lambeth Conference in 1920, the

Bishops stated that:

"We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for

the avoidance of conception, together with the grave

dangers--physical, moral, and religious--thereby incurred, and against

the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In

opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and

religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of

sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must

always be regarded as the governing consideration of Christian

marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage

exists--namely, the continuation of the race through the gift and

heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married

life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control." [115]

And the Committee on "Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality" felt called

upon "to utter an earnest warning against the use of any unnatural means by

which conception is frustrated." [116]

If Resolution 68 be read in conjunction with the Memorandum of 1914, the

teaching of the Church of England is plain to any sane man or woman; it is

one with the teaching of the Church Catholic. Artificial birth control is

condemned as sin, but, under certain circumstances, the limitation of a

family by continence or by _restricted intercourse_ is permitted. As this

teaching forbids Neo-Malthusian practices, birth controllers have tried to

make the Church alter her teaching to suit their opinions. Although their

methods in controversy against the Church must be condemned by everyone who

values intellectual honesty, the reader, of his charity, should remember

that Malthusians are unable to defend their policy, either on logical or on

moral grounds. Without attempting to prove that the teaching of the

Church is wrong, birth controllers began the attack by _a complete

misrepresentation_ of what that teaching actually is. This unenviable task

was undertaken by Lord Dawson of Penn, at the Birmingham Church Congress of

1921.

After quoting Resolution 68, Lord Dawson said:

"Now the plain meaning of this statement is that sexual union should

take place for the sole purpose of procreation, that sexual union as

_an_ end in itself--not, mind you, _the_ only end--(there we should all

agree), but sexual union as _an_ end in itself is to be condemned.

"That means that sexual intercourse should rightly take place _only_

for the purpose of procreation.

"Quite a large family could easily result from quite a few sexual

unions. For the rest the couple should be celibate. Any intercourse not

having procreation as its intention is 'sexual union as an end in

itself,' and therefore by inference condemned by the Lambeth

Conference.

"Think of the facts of life. Let us recall our own love--our marriage,

our honeymoon. Has not sexual union over and over again been the

physical expression of our love without thought or intention of

procreation? Have we all been wrong? Or is it that the Church lacks

that vital contact with the realities of life which accounts for the

gulf between her and the people?

"The love envisaged by the Lambeth Conference is an invertebrate,

joyless thing--not worth the having. Fortunately it is in contrast to

the real thing as practised by clergy and laity.

"Fancy an ardent lover (and what respect have you for a lover who is

not ardent?)--the type you would like your daughter to marry--virile,

ambitious, chivalrous--a man who means to work hard and love hard.

Fancy putting before these lovers--eager and expectant of the joys

before them--the Lambeth picture of marriage. Do you expect to gain

their confidence?" [117]

That sort of appeal is not very effective, even as rhetoric; but it is very

easy to give an exact parallel. Fancy a fond father (and what respect have

you for a father who is not fond?) being told by his daughter's suitor that

he, his prospective son-in-law, looked forward to the physical joys of

marriage, but intended to insist on his wife using contraceptives. Would

any father regard such a one as the type he would like his daughter to

marry?

There is, unfortunately, another answer to Lord Dawson, and I put it in the

form of a question. Can any intelligent man or woman, Catholic, Protestant,

or rationalist, maintain that Lord Dawson has given a fair, a true, or an

honest statement of the teaching of the Church of England? Moreover, it

is past all understanding how a gross libel on Anglican doctrine has been

overlooked by those most concerned. The address is actually hailed

as "wise, bold, and humane in the highest sense of the word" by _The

Spectator_, [118] and that amazing journal, "expert as ever in making the

worse appear the better cause in a way that appeals to clergymen," goes on

to say: "Lord Dawson fearlessly and plainly opposed the teachings of the

Roman Church and the alleged teachings of the Anglican."

Having by a travesty of truth created a false theological bogey, bearing

little resemblance either to Catholic or to Anglican teaching, Lord Dawson

proceeds to demolish his own creation by a somewhat boisterous eulogy of

sex-love. Now sex-love is an instinct and involves no question of good

or evil apart from the circumstances in which it is either gratified or

denied; but, in view of the freedom with which Lord Dawson discussed this

topic, it is only right to note that it was left to the Rev. R.J. Campbell

to add to the gaiety of nations by his subsequent protest that the

_Marriage Service_ "contains expressions which are offensive to modern

delicacy of feeling."

That protest is also a first-rate example of the anarchical state of the

modern mind. The Rev. R.J. Campbell is a modern mind, so is Mr. George

Bernard Shaw; but the latter refers to "the sober decency, earnestness, and

authority" [119] of those very passages to which the former objects.

Lord Dawson's eulogy of sexual intercourse was but a prelude to his plea

for the use of contraceptives:

"I will next consider Artificial Control. The forces in modern life

which make for birth control are so strong that only convincing reasons

will make people desist from it. It is said to be unnatural and

intrinsically immoral. This word 'unnatural' perplexes me. Why?

Civilisation involves the chaining of natural forces and their

conversion to man's will and uses. Much of medicine and surgery

consists of means to overcome nature."

That paragraph illustrates precisely the confused use of the word

"natural," which I have already criticised (p. 124). Lord Dawson says he

is perplexed, and I agree with him. Civilisation, he says, involves the

conversion of natural forces to man's will. So does every crime. Is that

any defence of crime? Even if physical nature be described as non-moral,

that description cannot be applied to the inward nature of will and

conscience. That I will an act may show it is in accordance with nature

in a certain sense, but the fact of its being in accordance with physical

nature does not justify my act. Does Lord Dawson agree? Or does he think

that any action in accordance with the physical laws of nature, which means

any action whatsoever, is justified; and does he approve therefore of mere

moral anarchy? His confusion of thought concerning the use of the word

"natural" is followed by the inevitable sequence of false analogies:

"When anaesthetics were first used at child-birth there was an outcry

on the part of many worthy and religious people that their use under

such circumstances was unnatural and wicked, because God meant woman to

suffer the struggles and pains of child-birth. Now we all admit it is

right to control the process of child-birth, and to save the mother as

much pain as possible. It is no more unnatural to control conception by

artificial means than to control child-birth by artificial means.

Surely the whole question turns on whether these artificial means are

for the good or harm of the individual and the community.

"Generally speaking, birth control before the first child is

inadvisable. On the other hand, the justifiable use of birth control

would seem to be to limit the number of children when such is

desirable, and to spread out their arrival in such a way as to serve

their true interests and those of their home.

"Once more, careful distinction needs to be made between the use and

the bad effects of the abuse of birth control. That its abuse produces

grave harm I fully agree--harm to parents, to families, and to the

nation. But abuse is not a just condemnation of legitimate use.

Over-eating, over-drinking, over-smoking, over-sleeping, over-work do

not carry condemnation of eating, drinking, smoking, sleeping, work."

These long extracts are here quoted because, as _The Spectator_ has

remarked, "an attempt at a detailed summary might destroy the careful

balance which is essential to Lord Dawson's purpose." It might indeed; and

many a true word is written inadvertently and despite the wisdom of the

serpent. As Lord Dawson believes that Malthusian practice is not of

necessity sinful, and as he is urging the Church to remove a ban on that

practice, it is necessary for him to prove in the first place that his

opinion is right and that the teaching of the Church is wrong. Elsewhere in

these pages I have stated _the reasons why_ Christian morality brands the

_act_ of artificial birth control as intrinsically a sin, a _malum in se_,

and those reasons have never been disproved by Lord Dawson or by anyone.

His comparison between the use of contraceptives and eating or drinking is

a false analogy. Eating is a natural act, not in itself sinful, whereas the

use of contraceptives is an unnatural act, in itself a sin. The extent

to which artificial birth control is practised neither increases nor

diminishes the sinful nature of the act, but merely indicates the number

of times the same sin is committed. Lord Dawson admits the danger of

Neo-Malthusian methods being carried to excess, and counsels that these

practices be used in moderation; but is it likely that those who have

discarded the teaching of a Church and the dictates of the moral law will

be seriously influenced by what he calls "an appeal to patriotism"?

Now there is one appeal to patriotism which Lord Dawson could have made but

did not make. He might have pleaded that for the sake of the nation all

attempts at unnatural birth control amongst the wealthier and more leisured

citizens should be abandoned forthwith, and that the lawful form should be

confined to those few cases where limitation of the family is justified on

genuine medical grounds. But he refrained from making that appeal, and

his plea for the use of contraceptives in moderation is more likely to be

quoted with approval in the boudoirs of Mayfair than in humbler homes.

Lord Dawson's grave error in failing to anticipate the inevitable

consequences of his deplorable speech is becoming more and more apparent.

In the columns of _The Daily Herald_, cheek by jowl with advertisements

concerning "Herbalists," "Safe and Sure Treatment for Anaemia,

Irregularities, etc.," "Knowledge for Young Wives," and "Surgical Goods and

Appliances," there appears the following notice:

"Lord Dawson, the King's Physician, says, 'Birth control has come to

stay.' Following up this honest and daring declaration, the Liberator

League have decided to distribute 10,000 copies of its publications

free to applicants sending stamped addressed envelopes to J.W. Gott,

Secretary ... London, N.W.5."

A stamped addressed envelope brought in return sample copies of two undated

newsprints, entitled _The Rib Tickler_ and _The Liberator_, and, to the

honour of newsvendors, we learn that these papers are "not supplied by

newsagents." The first print is devoted to Blasphemy, and the second to

Birth Control. Both papers are edited by J.W. Gott, "of London, Leeds,

Liverpool, and other prisons," who, when he is not in jail for selling

blasphemous or obscene literature, earns a livelihood by a propaganda of

"Secularism, Socialism, and Neo-Malthusianism," combined with the sale of

contraceptives. At Birmingham in 1921 this individual, according to his own

statement, was charged, on eleven summonses, with having sent "an obscene

book" and "obscene literature" through the post, and with "publishing a

blasphemous libel of and concerning the Holy Scriptures and the Christian

Religion." "The Malthusian League (at their own expense, for which I here

wish to thank them) sent their Hon. Secretary, Dr. Binnie Dunlop, who gave

evidence" ... that the Council of the Malthusian League ... "most strongly

protests against the description of G. Hardy's book, _How to prevent

Pregnancy_, as obscene, for that book gives in a perfectly refined and

scientific way this urgently needed information." This opinion was not

shared by the jury, who brought in a verdict of guilty, and Gott was

sentenced to six months' imprisonment. From the _Liberator_ we learn that

the Treasurer of the Liberator League was fined £20, having been found

guilty on the following summons--"for that you on the eleventh day of

September 1920, at the Parish of Consett, in the County aforesaid,

unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, and scandalously did sell to divers

persons, whose names are unknown, in a public street, there situate, a

certain lewd, wicked, scandalous, and obscene print entitled 'Large or

Small Families,' against the Peace of our Sovereign Lord the King, His

Crown and Dignity."

Lord Dawson's advice was indeed perilous because "the British Empire and

all its traditions will decline and fall if the Motherland is faithless

to motherhood"; [120] and the nation would do better to pay heed to the

following words of His Majesty the King: "The foundations of national glory

are in the homes of the people. They will only remain unshaken while the

family life of our race and nation is strong, simple, and pure."

All Lord Dawson's arguments are hoary fallacies. "Once more, careful

distinction needs to be made between"--anaesthetics and contraceptives.

Anaesthetics assist the birth of a child, whereas contraceptives frustrate

the act of procreation. The old explanation that man's progress has

been achieved by harnessing and not by opposing the forces of nature is

dismissed with ignominy. The age-long teaching of Hippocrates that the

healing art was based on the _Vis Medicatrix Naturae_ is overthrown by

Lord Dawson of Penn, in a single sentence; and in place of the Father of

Medicine as a guide to health of body and mind, there comes the King's

Physician:

"To pestle a poison'd poison behind his crimson lights."

When a great leader announces the birth of a new epoch, it is meet that the

rank and file remain silent; and at this Congress of the Church of

England no jarring interruptions marred the solemnity of the moment. No

old-fashioned doctor was there to utter a futile protest, and there was no

simple-minded clergyman to rise in the name of Christ and give Lord Dawson

the lie. Without dissent, on a public platform of the Established Church,

presided over by a Bishop, and in full view of the nation, "the moth-eaten

mantle of Malthus, the godless robe of Bradlaugh, and the discarded

garments of Mrs. Besant," [121] were donned--by the successor of Lister.

It was a proud moment for the birth controllers, but for that national

institution called "Ecclesia Anglicana" a moment full of shame.

[Footnote 100: _British Medical Journal_, August 6, 1921, p. 219.]

[Footnote 101: There is, or perhaps we should say there was, a legacy of

1,000 Rhenish guilders awaiting anyone who, in the judgment of the faculty

of law in the University of Heidelberg or of Bonn, is able to establish the

fact that any Jesuit ever taught this doctrine or anything equivalent to

it. Vide _The Antidote_, vol. iii, p. 125, C.T.S., London.]

[Footnote 102: Gen. xxxviii. 9-10]

[Footnote 103: Vide _Catholic Times_, August 27, 1921, p. 7.]

[Footnote 104: _The Army and Religion_, 1919, p. 448.]

[Footnote 105: _Universe_, November 4, 1921, p. 3.]

[Footnote 106: _Eighty-second Annual Report of the Registrar-General of

England and Wales_, 1919, p. xiv.]

[Footnote 107: _The Times_, January 13, 1885.]

[Footnote 108: _British Medical Journal_, November 19, 1921, p. 872.]

[Footnote 109: _British Medical Journal_, November 26, 1921, p. 924]

[Footnote 110: _British Medical Journal_, December 10, 1921, p. 1016.]

[Footnote 111: _Common Sense on the Population Question_, p. 4]

[Footnote 112: Dr. C.K. Millard, in _The Modern Churchman_, May 1919.]

[Footnote 113: Reproduced in _The Declining Birth-rate_, 1916, p. 386.]

[Footnote 114: _Outspoken Essays_, 1919, p. 75.]

[Footnote 115: _Report_, p. 44.]

[Footnote 116: Ibid., p. 112.]

[Footnote 117: _Evening Standard_, October 12, 1921.]

[Footnote 118: October 15, 1921.]

[Footnote 119: _Man and Superman_, Act III, p. 125.]

[Footnote 120: _Sunday Express_, October 16, 1921.]

[Footnote 121: On becoming a Theosophist, Mrs. Besant retracted her

approval of Neo-Malthusianism.]

CHAPTER IX

THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON BIRTH CONTROL

Section 1. A FALSE VIEW OF HER DOCTRINE

One of the marks of the Catholic Church, whereby she may be distinguished

from all other Churches, is that her teaching is always clear and above all

logical. Yet this fact has not saved her teaching from misrepresentation

in the hands of Malthusians. For example, Dr. C. Killick Millard writes as

follows:

"The Churches have taught that it was the divine wish that human beings

should multiply and population increase--the more rapidly the better;

the traditional authority for this being the instruction given to Noah

and his family, after the Deluge, to 'be fruitful and multiply and

replenish the earth.' The Churches have continued to teach that the

duty of man was _to obey the divine command_ and still _to increase and

multiply_, and until recently any attempt by married couples to

restrict or regulate the birth-rate was denounced as sinful.

"This is still the orthodox attitude, I believe, of the Roman Catholic

Church, with its celibate priesthood; but, as it is clearly useless to

reason with those who claim infallibility, it is unnecessary to discuss

the question further so far as Roman Catholicism is concerned." [122]

Now, although it may be unnecessary for Dr. Millard to discuss the question

further, he will, I am sure, regret having inadvertently misstated the

truth. The Catholic Church has never denounced as sinful "_any_ attempt by

married couples to restrict or regulate the birth-rate." On the contrary,

the Catholic Church has taught, by her greatest doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas,

"that the essence of marriage is not primarily in the begetting of

offspring, but in the indissoluble union between husband and wife." [123]

Section 2. THE ESSENCE AND PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

There is an obvious distinction between the _essence_ of a thing and the

_ends_ or purposes for which the thing exists. For example, in a business

partnership the _essence_ of the partnership is a legal instrument,

whereas the _purposes_ or _ends_ of the partnership are various commercial

projects. The following is a clear statement, by Father Vincent McNabb,

O.P., [124] of Catholic teaching concerning the nature and end of marriage:

"Marriage is an indissoluble state of life wherein a man and a woman

agree to give each other power over their bodies for the begetting,

birth, and upbringing of offspring. The natural and primary end of

marriage is this duty towards offspring. But, as sin has despoiled the

human will and disturbed human relations, marriage has now the

secondary end of allaying sexual lust.

"But it is a principle of ethics that what is primary cannot be set

aside as if it were secondary, nor can the secondary be sought as if it

were primary. To invert the ethical order is to bring in that disorder

which is called sin. If the human act brings in a slight disorder, it

is venial sin; if the human act brings in a grievous disorder it is a

grievous or mortal sin.

"It is a grievous disorder, and, therefore, a grievous sin, to desire

satisfaction in such sexual intercourse as could not result in the

begetting of offspring.

"As the wedded pair have given each other power over their bodies it

would be a grave sin for one to refuse either altogether or for a

considerable time the fulfilment of the marriage debt. But it is not a

sin if by mutual agreement the wedded pair refrain from the marriage

debt for a time, or for ever. As a rule, and speaking objectively, it

would be heroic virtue for a wedded pair to abstain for a long time,

and still more for ever, from the marriage debt. To counsel such a

practice indiscriminately would be a sinful want of prudence, and, in a

confessor, of professional knowledge.

"It is quite clear that by mutual consent, even without any further

motive, the wedded pair can abstain from marital intercourse. Still

more may they abstain for a time or for ever, for a good motive, e.g.

in order to have time for prayer, for good works, for bringing up such

family as they already have to support."

Section 3. ARTIFICIAL STERILITY WHOLLY CONDEMNED

Artificial birth control is an offence against the law of God, and is

therefore forbidden by the Catholic Church. Any Catholic who wilfully

adopts this practice violates the law of God in a serious matter, and is

therefore guilty of mortal sin, an outrageous and deliberate insult offered

by a human creature to the Infinite Majesty.

The Catholic Church teaches that men and women should control the sex

impulse just as they should control their appetite for food or drink.

The principal end of marriage, as we have seen, is the purpose of its

institution, the procreation and bringing up of children. The secondary end

of marriage is mutual assistance and companionship, and a remedy against

concupiscence. Where it is advisable, owing to the health of the mother or

owing to reasons of prudence as distinct from selfishness, to limit the

number of children, the Catholic Church points out that this should be done

by the exercise of self-control, or by restricted use. As those who deny

the possibility or even the wisdom of self-restraint are not likely to pay

the slightest attention to the teaching of the Church, I will quote the

opinions of two clear-thinking, non-Catholic writers.

Mr. George Bernard Shaw has said:

"I have no prejudices. The superstitious view of the Catholic Church is

that a priest is something entirely different from an ordinary man. I

know a great many Catholic priests, and they are men who have had a

great deal of experience. They have at the back a Church which has had

for many years to consider the giving of domestic advice to people. If

you go to a Catholic priest and tell him that a life of sexual

abstinence means a life of utter misery, he laughs. And obviously for a

very good reason. If you go to Westminster Cathedral you will hear

voices which sound extremely well, and very differently from the voices

of the gentlemen who sing at music-halls, and who would not be able to

sing in that way if they did not lead a life extremely different from

the Catholic priest....

"I may say that I am in favour of birth control. I am in favour of it

for its own sake. I do not like to see any human being absolutely the

slave of what we used to call 'Nature.' Every human action ought to be

controlled, and you make a step in civilisation with something which

has been uncontrollable. I am therefore in favour of control for its

own sake. But when you go from that to the methods of control, that is

a very different thing. As Dr. Routh said, we have to find out methods

which will not induce people to declare that they cannot exist without

sexual intercourse." [125]

Of course the use of contraceptives is the very negation of self-control.

The late Sir William Osier, speaking of venereal disease, says:

"Personal purity is the prophylaxis which we as physicians are

especially bound to advocate. Continence may be a hard condition ...

but it can be borne, and it is our duty to urge this lesson upon young

and old who seek our advice on matters sexual."

Section 4. THE ONLY LAWFUL METHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL

There _are_ methods of control whereby people are enabled to exist, and to

exist happily, without being slaves to the sex impulse. These methods are

those of the Catholic Church. Her people are encouraged to take a higher

and a nobler view of marriage, to overcome their egoism and selfishness,

and to practise moderation and self-restraint in the lawful use of marital

rights. The Church urges her people to strengthen their self-restraint

by observing the penitential seasons, especially Lent; by fasting or by

abstaining from flesh meat at other times, if necessary by abstaining from

alcohol; and by seeking that supernatural help which comes to those who

receive the Sacraments worthily. When all other deterrents fail, it is

lawful, according to the teaching of the Church, for married people to

limit intercourse to the mid-menstrual period, when, although conception

may occur, it is less likely to occur than at other times.

All other methods are absolutely and without exception forbidden. This

limited use of marriage, which, as we have seen, is within the rights of

the married, differs from all methods of artificial birth-control as day

differs from night, because: [Reference: Explanation]

(1) No positive or direct obstacle is used against procreation.

(2) The intercourse is natural, in contradistinction to what is equivalent

to self-abuse.

(3) Self-restraint is practised in that the intercourse is limited to

certain times.

(4) There is no risk to mental or physical health.

(5) There is no evil will to _defeat_ the course of nature; at worst there

is merely an absence of heroism.

Even if the question be considered solely as a matter of physiology

the difference between these methods is apparent. Physiologists and

gynaecologists believe that in natural intercourse there is, apart from

fertilisation, an absorption of certain substances into the system of the

woman. The rôle of this absorption is at present obscure, but it obviously

exists for a purpose; and it is permissible to speculate whether, under

natural conditions of intercourse, there is not a mutual biological

reaction that makes, amongst other things, for physical compatibility.

Whatever be its purpose or explanation in the marvellous mechanism of

nature, this absorption of vital substances is either hindered or is

absolutely prevented by artificial methods of birth control; whereas, in

the method permitted by the teaching of the Catholic Church there is no

interference with a physiological process. Even those who fail, from their

lack of training, to comprehend moral distinctions in this matter should be

able to appreciate the difference between a method that is physiological

and one that is unphysiological.

There are thousands who know little of the Catholic or of any other faith,

and thousands who believe the Catholic Church to be everything except what

it is. These people have no infallible rule of faith and morals, and when

confronted, as they now are, by a dangerous, insidious campaign in favour

of birth control, they do not react consistently or at all. It was

therefore thought advisable to issue this statement in defence of the

position of the Catholic Church; but the reader should remember that the

teaching of the Church on this matter is held by her members to be true,

not merely because it agrees with the notions of all right-thinking men and

women, not because it is in harmony with economic, statistical, social, and

biological truth, but principally because they know this teaching to be

an authoritative declaration of the law of God. The Ten Commandments have

their pragmatic justification; they make for the good of the race; but the

Christian obeys them as expressions of the Divine Will.

Section 5. CONCLUSION

Our declining birth-rate is a fact of the utmost gravity, and a more

serious position has never confronted the British people. Here in the midst

of a great nation, at the end of a victorious war, the law of decline is

working, and by that law the greatest empires in the world have perished.

In comparison with that single fact all other dangers, be they of war, of

politics, or of disease, are of little moment. Attempts have already been

made to avert the consequences by the partial endowment of motherhood

and by a saving of infant life. Physiologists are now seeking among the

endocrinous glands and the vitamines for a substance to assist procreation.

"Where are my children?" was the question shouted yesterday from the

cinemas. "Let us have children, children at any price," will be the cry

of to-morrow. And all these thoughts were once in the mind of Augustus,

Emperor of the world from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, from Mount Atlas

to the Danube and the Rhine.

The Catholic Church has never taught that "an avalanche of children" should

be brought into the world regardless of consequences. God is not mocked; as

men sow, so shall they reap, and against a law of nature both the transient

amelioration wrought by philanthropists and the subtle expediences of

scientific politicians are alike futile. If our civilisation is to survive

we must abandon those ideals that lead to decline. There is only one

civilisation immune from decay, and that civilisation endures on the

practical eugenics once taught by a united Christendom and now expounded

almost solely by the Catholic Church.

[Footnote 122: _The Modern Churchman_, May 1919.]

[Footnote 123: Rev. Vincent McNabb, O.P., _The Catholic Gazette_, September

1921, p. 194]

[Footnote 124: Ibid]

[Footnote 125: Speech at the Medico-Legal Society, July 7, 1921.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.--GENERAL PUBLICATIONS

_Marriage and the Sex Problem_. By Dr. F.W. Foerster. Translated by

Margaret Booth, B. Sc., Ph.D. London, 1912.

_The Menace of the Empty Cradle_. By Bernard Vaughan, S.J. London, 1917.

_Coffins or Cradles_. By Sir James Marchant. 1916.

_Moral Principles and Medical Practice_. By C. Coppens, S.J., and H.

Spalding, S.J.

_The Family and the Nation_. By W.C.D. Whetham and Mrs. Whetham. London,

1909.

_The Law of Births and Deaths_. By Charles Edward Pell. London, 1921.

_The Declining Birth-rate_. Report of the National Birthrate Commission.

London, 1916.

_The Church and Labour (A Compendium of Official Utterances)_. Edited by

John A. Ryan, LL.D., and Joseph Husslein, Ph.D. London, 1921.

B.--CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS

(_Obtainable from 69, Southwark Bridge Road, S.E.1_.)

_The Condition of the Working Classes_. (The Encyclical _Rerum Novarum_.)

By Pope Leo XIII. Edited by Mgr. Canon Parkinson, D.D. 6d.

_Social Questions and the Duty of Catholics_. By C.S. Devas, M.A. 6d.

(_The Following are Twopence each_.)

_Birth-rate, The Declining_. By H. Thurston, S.J.

_Christian Democracy before the Reformation_. By Cardinal Gasquet, O.S.B.

_Christian Democracy: Its Meaning and Aim_. By C.S. Devas.

_Christian Womanhood_.

_Church and Social Reformers, The_. By the Bishop of Northampton.

_Conjugal Life, The Duties of_. By Cardinal Mercier.

_Divorce_. By the Bishop of Northampton.

_English Economics and Catholic Ethics_. By M. Maher.

_Labour, The Church and_. By Abbot Snow, O.S.B.

_Landlords, A Dialogue on_. By R.P. Garrold, S.J.

_The Catholic Church and the Principle of Private Property_. By Hilaire

Belloc.

_Rome and the Social Question_.

_Social Reform, Pope Pius X on_.

_Social Sense, The: Its Decay and its Revival_. By A.P. Mooney, M.D.

_Socialism, The Catholic Church and_. By Hilaire Belloc.

_Socialism, An Examination of_. By the same.

_Socialism, Some Ethical Criticisms of_. By A.P. Mooney, M.D.

_Trade Unionism_. By Henry Somerville.

_Woman in the Catholic Church_. By H.F. Hall.

_The Church and Science_. By Sir Bertram Windle, M.D., F.R.S., K.S.G. 7_s_.

6_d_.

_Twelve Catholic Men of Science_. Edited by Sir Bertram Windle,

M.D., F.R.S. Sir Dominic Corrigan--Thomas Dwight--Galvani--Lapparent

--Laennec--Linacre--Mendel--Johannes Müller--Pasteur--Secchi--Nicolaus

Stenson--Vesalius. 2_s_. 6_d_.

_Facts and Theories_. A Consideration of Some Biological Conceptions of

To-day. By Sir Bertram Windle, M.D., F.R.S., K.S.G. 2_s_.

_The Modernist_. By Joseph Rickaby, S.J. 1_s_.

_The World and Its Maker_. By J. Gerard, S.J. 4_d_.

(_The Following are Twopence each_.)

_Anti-Catholic History: How it is written_. By Hilaire Belloc.

_Darwinism, The Decline of_. By Walter Sweetman.

_Evolution and Exact Thought_. By J. Gerard, S.J.

_Freedom of Thought_. By. J. Vance, M.A., Ph.D.

_Freethought, Modern_. By J. Gerard, S.J., F.L.S.

_Haeckel and his Philosophy_. By J. Gerard, S.J.

_Life, The Origin of_. By J. Gerard, S.J., F.L.S.

_Positivism_. By Joseph Rickaby, S.J.

_Rationalist Propaganda, The, and How it must be met_. By J. Gerard, S.J.

_Rationalist, The (Joseph M'Cabe), as Prophet_. By J. Keating, S.J.

_Science and Its Counterfeit_. By J. Gerard, S.J.

_Science or Romance: The Game of Speculation_. By J. Gerard, S.J.

_Scientific Facts and Scientific Hypotheses_. By Sir Bertram Windle, M.D.,

F.R.S.

_Scientific Opinion, The Ebb and Flow of_. By Sir Bertram Windle, M.D.,

F.R.S.

_Babylonia and Assyria_. By A. Condamin, S.J.

_The Catholic Church_. By Canon Gildea.

_France, Plain Words on Church and State in_.

_France, The Real Authors of the Separation in_. By O. Kellet, S.J.

_"Good Queen Bess," The Days of_. By William Cobbett.

_Kulturkampf, The_. By Humphrey Johnson, B.A.

_Luther, Four Centuries of_. By Canon William Barry, D.D.

_Mediaeval England, Catholic Faith and Practice in_. By H.J. Kilduff.

_Monasteries, The Suppression of the English_. By William Cobbett.

_The Pilgrim Fathers_. By H. Thurston, S.J.

_Reformation, Social Effects of the_. By William Cobbett.

(_Leaflets 3s. per 100_.)

_Do Babies build Slums?_ By Halliday Sutherland, M.D.

C.--CATHOLIC SOCIAL GUILD PUBLICATIONS

(_Obtainable from Catholic Social Guild, Oxford_.)

_A Primer of Social Science_. By Mgr. Parkinson. 3s. 6d.

_Prostitution: The Moral Bearings of the Problem_. By M.F. and J.F.

Foreword by the late Archbishop of Liverpool. 2s. 6d.

_The Church and Eugenics_. (New and revised edition, 1921.) By T. Gerrard.

1s. 6d.

_The Christian Family_. By Margaret Fletcher. 1s. 6d.

_Sweated Labour and the Trade Boards Act_. Edited by T. Wright. 8d.

_Guild Socialism_. A Criticism of the National Guild Theory. By Francis

Goldwell. 6d.

_Elements of Housing_. By C. Tigar, S.J. 6d.

_The Gospel and the Citizen_. By C.C. Martindale, S.J. 4d.

_The Church and the Worker_. By V.M. Crawford. 4d.

_Questions of the Day_. By J. Keating, S.J., and S.A. Parker, O.S.B. 4d.

_Elements of Economics_. By Lewis Watt, S.J. 4d.

_The Nation's Crisis_. By Cardinal Bourne. 3d.

_The Catholic Attitude to the Ministry of Health_. By J.B. McLaughlin,

O.S.B., and A.P. Mooney, M.D. 2d.

D.--FRENCH PUBLICATIONS

_La Dépopulation de la France_. Jacques Bertillon. 1911.

_La Population française_. Levasseur. 1891.

_La Question de la Population_. Leroy-Beaulieu.

_Dépopulation et Civilisation_. 1890. Arsène Dumont.

_Natalie_. Dr. Bertillon Père.