Do you expect to gain
their confidence?
their confidence?
Sutherland - Birth Control- A Statement of Christian Doctrine against the Neo-Malthusians
]
[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.
[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.
