Newspaper Page Text
TWELVE
THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN’S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA
MARCH 2, 1957.
1 never be effected by means which
i are immoral. The end never justi-
j lies the means. It has been proven
] times without number that “good
| morality is good medicine;” con-
| versely “bad morality is bad med-
! icine.” Only last week figures
j were published which show that
| hospitals which do not permit
i what is called therapeutic abor
tion have a much lower maternity
| death rate than hospitals which
j allow this immoral practice.
Human life with all its mar-
j velous faculties, senses and fun-
I ctions is a gift of God. We do not
j have dominion over our own lives.
! This dominion belongs to God.
| We have a positive obligation to
; preserve our health and bodily
j integrity. This means that, we
: must make use at least of the or-
j dinary medical remedies which
i are available for this purpose. We
| are forbidden by the Fifth Com
mandment of God, correctly un-
| derstood, to mutilate our bodies or
to destroy within them a vital
] human function; and it is equally
immoral to permit anyone else,
I including physicians, to do the
j same. Only when an organ or a
function of the human body is
i diseased may the organ be law-
i fully removed or the function
| lawfully ceased. This is funda-
| mental Christian morality.
I The Catholic Church is second
| to none in its sympathy and con-
! cern for the afflicted and in the
care which it strives to bestow
upon them. The map of the Unit
ed States is heavily dotted with
Catholic institutions of all kind
which minister to the sick and the
suffering. Even in the State of
Georgia where the Catholic peo
ple number less than 2% of the
total population, the Catholic
Church operates five general hos
pitals, a home for the cancerous
poor, a clinic which annually
services about 6000 poor Negro
people and our institutions for de
pendent children. Like our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ, the
Catholic Church has “compassion
on the multitude” and seeks
whenever possible to alleviate the
sufferings and afflictions of God’s
human creatures. At the same
time the Church has an obligation
to uphold Christian principles and
to speak out whenever they are
violated or are about to be violat
ed. I have stated the fundamental
Christian moral principles
against which this Bill offends. It
would authorize the destruction
of a. healthy vital human func
tion or it would destroy the pur
pose of that function, which is
the same thing. No one has this
authority. And above all the State
does not have this authority.' One
of the purposes of the State is to
protect and safeguard the in
herent rights of her citizens. Aside
from the question of morality that
is involved, it is a dangerous
thing for the State even to con
sider a bill of this kind. It is get
ting mighty close to the death-
chambers of the Hitler regime. It
smacks strongly of the commu
nistic disregard of human rights.
If today the State can pass a law
to prevent the birth of what it
might call undesirable citizens,
may not the State tomorrow pass
a law to exterminate what might
call undesirable citizens? Do not
think I exaggerate about the au
thority which a State may arro
gate to itself. Fifty years ago there
was no State in the Union which
had a sterilization law. Only with
in the past five decades have
these laws been passed, in some
States, over bitter opposition. It
is significant I think that the pass
age of these laws coincides with
the breakdown of Christian prin
ciples and morality in our beloved,
country. I dare say that fifty years
House Unit Kills Sterilization
Bill Upon Hearing Bishop Hyland
: (Continued from Page 1)
all know that a person who is
not very healthy may become the
parent of a perfectly normal child,
whereas perfectly healthy couples
can and frequently do become the
parents of a child who is physical
ly or mentally defective. There is
an element of mystery about hu
man birth which transcends the
human and with this mysterious
element no one, be he legislator
or physician, may tamper. We
cannot and we must not attempt
to breed children as we breed
cattle. Aside from the enormous
indignity of such an attempt, we
would be arrogating to ourselves
rights which belong exclusively
to God. A human being is a crea
ture composed of body and soul
and made to'the image and like
ness of God. The body of a human
being is formed by a truly mar
velous power which God has
bestowed upon human nature; the
soul of each individual human be
ing is created immediately and di
rectly by Qod and infused into
the body at the moment of con
ception. This is the belief of the
Christian world. Bill No. 117
would authorize the destruction
of a healthy human function
bestowed by the Creator; it would
be a!i invasion of His rights. It
would constitute interference
with the plans of God, who in
His provident government of the
universe, in the words of the Holy
Bible, “ordereth all things sweet
ly.” (Wisdom 8, 1).
The very fact that a bill of this
nature should have been introduc
ed into the Assembly indicates
that there may be something
wrong with the operation which
this Bill intends to authorize. To
ray knowledge, there are no laws
in the State of Georgia which au
thorize a physician, for example,
to remove a diseased appendix or
gall bladder or. to amputate a
gangrenous arm or limb. No such
laws, of course, are . required.
These, and similar operations are
physically and morally good.
Why. therefore, is it necessary to
authorize sterilization, unless
there is a suspicion on the part of
some and a firm conviction on the
part of others that this operation
is intrinsically evil? The safe
guards which the Bill establishes
in Section 6 to protect the operat
ing physician from legal actions
would likewise indicate that there
is something fundamentally wrong
about the operation in question.
Can a surgeon be prosecuted if,
with the consent of his patient,
he skillfully removes a. diseased
bodily organ and thus improves
the health and perhaps even
saves the life of his patient? Why
is the protection cf law necessary
for a physician who would steri
lize a patient, even with the pa
tient’s consent? The answer is
quite clear. For a physician to
destroy a healthy vital human
function would be to act contrary
to his own sworn duty. That;
sworn duty is to preserve life, not
to destroy or to prevent it. A
physician who would perform
this operation would be ..interfer
ing with inherent human rights,
over which neither the quasi
patient himself nor the physician,
much less the State, has any au
thority whatsoever. Every human
being who is capable of true ma
trimonial consent has an inherent
right to have children and to
rear a family. Indeed, by the in
stitution of God. the primary pur
pose of marriage is the procreat
ion and education of children.
This Bill, therefore, would in
terfere with the very purpose for
which Almighty. God instituted
the state of marriage. Even if
the ends which this Bill seeks
to obtain were good and praise
worthy in themselves, they could
ago all Christian peoples and
churches considered the operation
which this Bill would authorize
as immoral: I would remind you
that the moral law does not
change. Like God Himself, it is
the “same yesterday, today and
forever.”
Bill No. 117 takes a purely ma
terialistic view of life. The gentle
man who introduced this Bill in j
the Senate cited, according to the !
newspapers, some figures from the
relief rolls of Richmond County.
If I am not mistaken, he men
tioned that three women gave
birth to 13 children who are
mental defectives, and who are
now in public institutions. I won
der which of these two facts
prompted Bill No. 117, the fact
that the 13 children are mental
defective or the fact that these
children are being supported by
public funds. Surely no Christian
is unaware of the. fact that these
children, however unfortunate and
pitiable their condition may be in
this life, have an excellent op
portunity to attain the very pur
pose of their existence, which is
eternal happiness with God in
heaven.
The program of eugenic steri
lization which Bill No. 117 would
authorize ignores completely the .
supreme dominion of God over
His creatures and the inherent
dignity of a human being. Motive
ated by a materialistic philosophy,
it endeavors to transfer selective
breeding from the animal to the
human level. Its interests are
completely centered around ma
terial and temporal objectives,
such as a physically better race
and a society with fewer prob
lems. It sees no value in a de
fective person; it has no apprecia
tion of the fact that such a person
has an excellent chance of attain
ing eternal happiness, which is
the all-important objective of hu
man existence. It does not realize
that the strong are spiritually bet
ter by virtue of having cared for
the weak. It does not know how
many healthy persons, witnessing j
the physical and mental handi
caps of the less fortunate, have
been made to turn to God in gra
titude for their own blessings.
There is a spiritualizing influence
in life created by the presence
of suffering among us, but it can
never be perceived through the
eyes of materialism.
There is a great deal more I
could say in opposition to this
Bill. The Bill will breed immorali
ty. It will cause selfish people to
become more selfish. It will
enable (people to enjoy the privi
leges of marriage without its re
sponsibilities. It will bring about
an increased number of divorces
and multiple marriages among us,
because, surely it is not unknown:
to the members of the Assembly
that a large percentage of people
who get divorces are people with-;
out children. It is a bad Bill mo
rally. This should be enough to
condemq, it. It is a bad Bill from
the viewpoint of government, be^
cause no State has the authority
over its citizens which Bill. No.
117 presupposes. It is a dangerous ;
thing for a State to arrogate au
thority to itself, especially when
that authority belongs exclusively
to God. It is the duty of the States
and its public servants to safe
guard and uphold morality, not to
destroy it or to take any action
that would undermine it.
Savannah Services
For Mrs. Mary Conners
SAVANNAH, Ga. — Funeral |
services for Mrs. Mary O’Hara
Conners were held February 11th
in the Chapel of the Little Sis
ters of the Poor.
Survivors are a son, William P.
Conners, Northeast Maryland; a
granddaughter and a niece, Mrs.
Montford Wilburn, Savannah.
WILLIAM GOODWIN EDDIE GASPERINI
General Chairman General Chairman
Annual Shrine Bazaar Annual Shrine Bazaar
Immaculate Conception
Plans Annual Bazaar
ATLANTA, — The Diocesan
Shrine of the Immaculate Con
ception in Atlanta will stage its
annual Bazaar on March 4 and 5
from 3:00 to 11:00 p. m. Friends
of the mother church are invited
to attend.
Supper will . be served each
evening for those who may wish
the night off from cooking—or
attend direct from work. The
menu for the supper will be ham,
parsley potatoes, English peas,
sliced tomatoes, rolls, coffee and j
dessert, at an attractive price.
The supper will be half price for
children.
As is the custom each year at
the Shrine, the event takes on
the air and color of an old-fash
ioned bazaar—with booth after
booth of attractive prizes. One of
the most famous of these is the
doll booth run by Mrs. Margaret
Garner, who makes the clothes
for the’ dolls herself.
Major prize for the affair will
be a giant size color TV by RCA.
The general chairmen of this
year’s event are Eddie Gasperim
and William Goodwin. Other
chairmen include:.
Ticket sales, Rev. Harold J.
Rainey and G. T. Cole; .booth ar
rangements, Eddie Troy; major
prizes, Mrs. Flora. Graham, and
Carl Baumgartner; supper and
snack arrangements, Mrs. Robert
Copeland and Mrs, J. L. Young;
publicity, Damon J. Swann, Van
Buren Colley and Robert Lyle.
Individual booth chairmen in
clude: Mrs. Margaret Garner, Mrs.
Jean Jentzen, Miss Irene Fennell,
Mrs. Flora Graham, Mrs. Mary
Eberlein, Jack Kinltela, Terrence
O’Brien, and Louis Young.
Heading the hosts, or welcom
ing committee will be the Rt.
Rev. P. J. O’Connor. He will be
assisted by members of the parish
Ushers’ Club.
Abbot Boniface Seng
Marks Diamond Jubilee
CULLMAN, Ala.,—Abbot Bon
iface Seng, President Emeritus of
St. Bernard College in Cullman,
Ala., and Abbot of the adjacent
Benedictine abbey celebrated his
diamond jubilee in the priesthood
Feb. 26th. The 89-year-old pre
late, a native of Chicago, 111., re
ceived his early training at St.
Joseph’s parochial school in that
city. Between 1880 and 188,5 he
took a liberal arts course at St.
Vincents College in Latyobe, Pa.
It was after an interval of several
years during which he began
medical training, that he decid
ed to enter the religious life.
Following the ancient Bene
dictine custom of receiving a new
name upon entering the cloister,
John Q. Seng—so named at birth
—became Prater Boniface when
he took the garb of novice at
Belmont Abbey, N. C., in 1892.
He took his first vows as a Ben
edictine at St. Bernard Abbey,
Cullman, in 1893, and on Feb.
26, 1897, he ,was ordained a priest.
For 30 years Father Boniface;
was Director of St. Bernard col
lege until he was appointed prior
in 1933. Upon the death of the
late Abbot Ambrose, the monks
elected Father Boniface their
fourth abbot in 1939.
During his administration plans;
were drawn for the abbey church
that is now under construction,
the present $400,000. library -
classroom building was begun,
ABBOT BONIFACE, O.S.B.
and a large mortuary chapel was
erected in the abbey cemetery.
Envisioning the future develop
ment of the school, he sent more
and more faculty members to
Universities for graduate degrees
and so contributed to St. Ber
nard’s recent qualification as an
accredited four-year college.
Honors Abbot Boniface has re
ceived from the Holy See include
a decoration with the cappa mag-
na in 1946 and the privilege grant
ed the following year of wearing
the ceremonial skullcap (the zu-
chetto) and birettum in the pur
ple, color of the Papal household.
In 1947 St. Vincent’s college
awarded Abbot Boniface an hon
orary degree or Doctor of Laws.