Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.