Newspaper Page Text
Why the Catholic Church Is Opposed to Sex Instruction in the Schools
By Rev. John Webster Melody,
Catholic University of America.
T HE movement to introduce Instruction in
matters of sex Into the curriculum of
public schools, though strongly advo-
rated as early as the eighteenth century by
the German educationist BaBedow, has only
within very recent years become at ail gen
eral. Such a step marks a long advance from
the simple plan originally devlspd for our
common educational institutions, but is only
another expression of a prevailing purpose to
establish in the school the theatre for the dis
charge of duties and ofTlces that venerable
tradition has heretofore restricted to the se
cluded. precincts of the home.
That the manner and measure of imparting
this instruction present no little difficulty Is
generally recognized But It is not with any
pedagogical problem that we are here directly
concerned. Rather would we address our
selves to the moral aspect of the movement—
an aspect Involving confessedly the most vital
consequences.
Of the havoc wrought by sexual immorality
there can be no question. The statistics that
would give us an approximate estimate of the
physical evils due to the vice enable us to
gather but a faint Idea of its moral devasta
tion. The disease surely cries for a remedy.
And we are told that an effective remedy is at
hand in the instruction which it is proposed
should be introduced Into our schools, regard
ing the nature and functions of certain organs,
their hygiene and the terrible issues following
upon their abuse.
Leaving aside for the time the question re
garding the place for this instruction, we do
not hesitate, however, to affirm that mental
enlightenment, as such, is altogether Inade
quate to afford the moral check sought for by
our hygienists. And we are reminded at «h»
very outset of the insufficiency of instruction
alone to stay indulgence by the results ob
served following ordinarily upon the efforts
made to deter young boys from contracting the
habits of smoking or drinking. A drop of nico
tine,these are. told, will kill a dog. while the
havoc wrought upon the human organs by al
cohol is strikingly set forth in the text books
of physiology. Yet we know what small
measure of restraint is brought about merely
by such representations. And this for the
reason that such instruction, as Cardinal New
man says of faith, while illuminative is not
operative. It bestows light—it does not im
part power. And It is precisely an increase of
moral potency rather than a greater measure
of Intellectual enlightenment that is here es
sentially called for.
I am not unaware that many will adduce as
an excuse for their immorality Ignorance of
its consequences. If they had only known its
bitter issues they will tell us they would not
have yielded to the temptation. And such as
sertions have misled not a few on the question
of the efficacy of mere knowledge as a check
to sexual passion. The error here lies in con
fusing knowledge in the abstract with knowl
edge in the concrete. The first of these is un
enforced by response from the emotional
nature, the second is confirmed and vitalized
by the action of this nature. Thus one may
read of atrocities to which innocent wayfarers
have been subjected among savages and be in
formed from detailed descriptions what must
have been the torments endured; nevertheless
he will be less moved than at sight of an as
sault offered to a pedestrian by a thug upon
the st reet. In this latter instance he not only
knows, he ift made to feel that violence has
been offered.
And so one Infected by certain diseases
realizes as he did not before the condition he
has brought upon himself. Yet It cannot be
said that there was next knowledge of such im
pending consequences. Except In rare cases
there was knowledge, though it was Impotent
to make the victim realize these consequences
until they became actual.
The dramatic production by ilrleux entitled
"Damaged Goods," which of late has created
quite a sensation in New York and Washing
ton, has been hailed as showing in a most elo
quent way the necessity and efficacy of intel
lectual enlightenment to stay the plague of
sexual immorality. Yet the futility of mere
knowledge as a moral deterrent could hardly
be more palpably set forth than it is in this
play. The whole of the first act is taken up
with a dialogue between a physician and his
patient In which the latter is made to under
stand clearly the character of his disease and
the moral obligation resting upon him to ab
stain from marriage for a certain period. But
the injunction to defer wedlock laid down with
all impressiveness Is disregarded.
Again in the second act the grandmother is
made aware of the dread results threatening
the nurse from suckling the infected infant.
Such information, however, Ir impotent to check
the purpose of the grandparent, the nurse being
saved only by the warnings of the physician.
No, the remedy we
would seek is to be
found In the perfecting
of anothqr faculty: It
is to be found in a
strengthening and de
velopment of the will.
Now, like every
other faculty, the will
can gain the qualities
of flrmnesB and vigor
only by pursuit of what
is its distinctive object
and by adherence to
this object once it is
attained. The good be
ing the term of the
will’s action we recog
nize in what must con
sist the general man
ner and measure of
on the whole organism. It is from these sen
suous forms that ordinarily the passion is
aroused. And the stronger and livelier the
imagination and, conversely, the weaker and
more halting the will, the greater and more
menacing become such Impressions.
In the case of the young these conditions
are pronouncedly present, and inevitably
there would ensue upon the discussion of the
sexual life and its processes a stimula
tion that would seduce the will before the evil
effects of passion could be realized. Now, this
is not the outline of a pathological process,
but of an absolutely normal one. "The clean
est boy and jjirl,” says Professor Munsterberg,
"cannot give theoretical attention to the
thoughts concerning sexuality without the
whole mechanism for re-inforcement auto
matically entering into action. We may in
struct with th,e best intention to suppress,
and yet our instruction itself must become a
source of stimulation, which unnecessarily
creates the desire for improper conduct.”
It is argued, however, that right information
is required to counteract the misrepresenta
tions which are so frequently imparted by
vicious associates. But just here we come
upon an effective argument against the intro
duction of the proposed instruction into the
schools. For the subject of the class-room
discussion, though 14 be ever so skilfully and
delicately presented, will be later called up by
the depraved as a theme upon which to exer
cise their scurility and mischievous wit. True,
children of this kind need not to be prompted
to discover their evil thoughts; nevertheless,
they will not fail to avail themselves of th»
opportunity thus presented to give a wider
play to their degrading influence.
But it may be contended that after the sound
instruction of the school the power to mislead
will be taken from these children. Such
would be true if the latter induced the inno
cent to wrong through psychological, physio
logical or pathological error. This, however,
is ordinarily not the case. The evil is accom
plished for the most part, not by misinforming
or deceiving the intellect, but by arousing
passion through representations offered to sus
ceptible imaginations.
We have said that the best natural safe
guard against this immorality was to divert
the attention from the concupiscence of the
flesh. And this suggests the role played by
the sense of shame. Thi instinctive character
of this sense Should be accepted as an a
priori evidence of its high value. It must
have, we should suppose, a function for which
the intellect of itself Is Insufficient. We rec
ognize such purpose in the case of other
deeply rooted Instincts. We know, for /«-
stance, that reason demands that every in
dividual should take all available means to
preserve his life, yet over and above this pre
scription is the impulse of instinct supplying
the deficiency which In many a contingency
would arise from the tardy workings of the
higher faculty.
We perceive, too, that the good of society
requires that brother and sister should not
entertain for each other the kind of sentiment
that would prompt to their Intermarriage.
Reason would point out the evil consequences
that would ensue, could such affection arise
between those growing up together in the In
timate association of the home. But anterior
to the revelations of reason and precluding
the danger that would result from waiting
upon its discursive process, a providential in
stinct repels from these attachments. So in
the instinct of shame we should find a preser
vative of purity—a preservative which reason
unaided would often be too slow to afford.
This in fact is the case. For this instinct
puts a check to that freedom of speech and
action which would incite to passion before
the warnings of reason could be heard.
As indicated at the beginning of this article,
our criticism has been immediately directed
against the plan to introduce instruction in
sex matters into the curriculum of our com
mon schools. We would not, however, be
charged with desiring to shut off from the
young all enlightenment and direction regard
ing their sexual life. But the place for such
information and guidance is the home.
And it is the Church that is to confirm and
perfect the instruction that should know its
beginnings in the home. We would say but a
word in concluding of the particular potency
resident in the confessional. In this tribunal
not only the sin itself, but the causes and oc
casions that have induced and encouraged it
are unreservedly laid bare. It is here that the
conditions modifying moral responsibility are
best discovered. And thus the confessor, at
once spiritual father and physician, address
ing himself to the peculiar weakness, liabili
ties and special temptations of the penitent, is
enabled to afford a remedy which in its spe
cific character is dowered with largest promise
of healing and health.
this faculty’s true edu
cation. In the question
we are considering this
training is secured by
the realization and ac
ceptance of the morally
good. But by moral
good we would signify
something more than
the hygienist ordinarily
understands by the
words. We would take
it in the sense of a
conformity to a norm
of action prescribed by
a personal God This connotes an idea of
obedience an idea to which the Apostle refers
when he writes the Thessalonians: "This is
the Will Of God, your sanctification: that you
should abstain from fornication, that every one
of you should know how to possess his vessel
in sanctification and honyr; not in the passion
of lust, like the Gentiles that know not. God.’’
As correlative with the foregoing concept
there necessarily occurs the thought of sin.
And it is precisely here that we come upon
a notion of which our frail youth stand emi
nently in need. Yes, our boys and girls re
quire to he convinced of the nature, the
enormity, the ravages of sin. In such a con
viction will be found a motive and deterrent
that all tlie considerations drawn from
sociology, psychology, physiology and path
ology are thoroughly incapable of supplying.
These latter have a place of course, but an
terior to them all must be the constraining
thought that "neither fornicators, nor adui-
Dr. John Webster Melody.
terers, nor the effeminate nor liars with man
kind . . . shall possess the Kingdom of
God.”
We have sajd that we are to look for the
remedy against impurity in moral strength
and consequently in the mastery of the will
over the sensuous appetite. This entails, how
ever, a constant and unremitting warfare. For
while the rational faculty would seek what
redounds to the weal of human nature as a
whole, the lower appetites, regardless of this
general welfare, would strive to indulge un
restrained tiie gratification of the senses.
Hence it is that "the flesh lusteth against the
spirit and the spirit against the flesh.”
The voice of the tempter is so alluring thal
only by getting away from its sound can safety
be gained. This is not a principle merely of
ascetic theology—it is a pronouncement of ac
credited psycho-physiology. For inevitably
following upon instruction in matters of sex,
images are formed in the phantasy that react
! How 1
Hi
imane Sociel
ties <
Coi
iid
1Secure I
Pro
oer Reffu
lation of Vivisection <
Cruel
liies
1 - - - -
i o —
By Mr. Frederick P. Bellamy,
Treasurer and Counsel of the Society
for the Prevention of Abuse in
Animal Experimentation.
T HE American people are a humane
people. They have become so some
what slowly. Have they not become
so because some noble souls revolted against
cruelty? Then because the inspired souls
proved to the public gradually, slowly but
surely that, on the whole, cruelty did not pay?
The United States has about 500 humane
societies, suported solely by the generosity of
the humane public. They are in name and to
some extent in fact anti-cruelty societies. Let
us see if these societies are to-day fully repre
senting the real humane sentiment of the age.
Do you remember (lie days when colored ani
mals with black skin, called men and women,
were openly whipped, lashed and sold in the
market place as chattels? Do you rememhei
when in Boston, that cradle of American lib
erty, for any humanitarian to criticize African
slavery was to ruin his reputation and his in
fluence? But when public opinion became so
educated that it would no longer tolerate that
abuse the slaves were driven buck to the cot
ton fields of the South, where it took another
generation and a civil war to prove that
cruelty iu the form of slavery did not pay
there also?
Do you remember horses everywhere drag
giug loads so heavy that they could scarcely
stir them: when there was absolutely no law
to prevent an owner from torturing his ani
mals at will? It took thirty years for Henry
Bergh with his great sympathy, his higher
kindness to lower life to awaken the public to
the inhumanity of these dealings Then the
public recognized that horse flesh was valuable,
that we werp morally and financially poorer for
the abuse of It. Then the law created humane
Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani
mals everywhere. These societies, liberally
supported by public benefactors and strength
ened by legal power, have for years with the
Humane Societies assumed to cover the entire
field of humane endeavor
Now a new crisis confronts the humane as
sociations of America which is likely to threat
en their very existence because many of them
Lave forgotten their platform of consistent
humanitarianistn and we ask your great paper
to give the matter proper publicity.
Humanitarians can be no respectors of per
sons in their battle against cruelty
The practice to-day which both in its use
and in its abuse is acknowledged to involve
greater possibility of brutality and cruelty than
any other is that of animal experimentation,
commonly called vivisection. This practice is.
as a rule, conducted in secret without legal
regulation or restriction of any sort. It is as
open to-day to the unprincipled upstart with a
discredited medical college diploma as it Is
to the acknowledged expert. The danger of
abuse is so gteat that some of the State Medi
cal Associations have been obliged to publish
drastic rules which they say are necessary for
universal enforcement to prevent cruelty even
in reputable laboratories. There no possi
ble way, however, to-day by which ihese rules
can be enforced because there is no law behind
them and they oppose any legal restraint.
Why do so many humanitarians and anti
cruelty societies fall to use their great in
fluence to prevent abuse in this necessarily
dangerous practice or to secure proper legal
regulation of it?
The question now confronting the humanita
rian public is whether it will longer allow
ihe--o societies to maintain their hold on the
public and on its support while they wholly
dt-r-gard any proper consideration of this
post urgent field of humane endeavor. A
f
single illustration will suffice to disclose the
attitude of these societies
The American Humane Association is the
oldest and perhaps the most influential or
ganization of its kind in the country. It Is
composed of representatives of anti-cruelty
organizations In almost every State in the
Union. It appeals for public support upon a
platform which pledges it to a consistent and
insistent opposition to cruelty to children and
to animals in every form. Its recent annual
session, held at Rochester, New York, iu Octo
ber last was widely advertised as an “Open
Forum" for the discussion of ’ all questions re
lating to the protection of children and animals
from cruelty and injurious conditions.”
At the "Open Forum" of this association, so
advertised. I listened to hours of discussion of
such questions as: “What is the proper size
and shape for a horse’s drinking fountain?"
‘What is the proper number of ventilating
holes for a work horse's feeding bag?" and,
finally, a prolonged debate as to the relative
humane value of two methods of slaughtering
animals for food where it was claimed that
there was a difference of ten seconds in the
possible period during which the animal could
suffer pain.
I then asked this “Open Forum” to give a
hair hour’s consideration to the vital humane
question as to the best means of so regulating
animal experimentation as to prevent unneces
sary cruelty without interfering with legitimate
scientific research. 1 asked the privilege of
stating before this “Open Forum” thal ! firmly
believed that the practice of vivisection, duly
safeguarded by laws adequately administered,
to be not cruel but of possible good to human
ity. I pointed out the well known fact that
there was no adequate law on the subject and
(hat the practice was widely extended. I
asked that this great humane association
should assist in securing proper legislation or
at least an investigation. I insisted that at
least It should study the facts. What was the
result?
This great association absolutely declined to
consider this phase of cruelty in any way. We
were told again and again: “There will be op
portunity to speak at this conference upon any
other subject, hut animal experimentation is
absolutely forbidden." Why?
We were told by many members of this as
-ociation that they conceded tiiat there was
greet necessity for dealing with this form of
orueitj but tiiat It was feared that any humane
society which dared to discuss th • object
would be thereby disrupted and mined hr modi-
cal Influence and prejudice. Tne\ dared not
to speak the truth on this subject. Why?
In pleasing contrast to the inconsistent atti
■Ode above referred to of the American Humane
tssociation and some other like-minded organ
izations wo are glad to call attention, to the
active support given by the great American
Vivisection Appliance to Mold a Dog Quiet During the Experiment.
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani
mals In New York City, the Rochester Humane
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Ani
mals, and by many other similar societies in
New York State to the efforts to secure re
strictive legislation on the subject.
These last named societies, although pos
sessing by statute certain exclusive control
over humanitarian work in their respective
counties, have not been afraid to publicly
champion anti-cruelty legislation against
the bitter opposition of the representatives of
the medical profession among their numbers
However, statistics show that there are up
wards of five hundred anti-cruelty societies
more or less active In the United States, and
of these only a small proportion have ever
dared publicly to work for the prevention of
cruelty in the abuse of animal experimentation
What are some of the facts now before the
public?
At this very hour In the neighboring State
of Pennsylvania men are under indictment
charged with hideous cruelty to living animals
In connection with this very practice. They
had experimented upon In t a perhaps
with no intentional cruelty whatever, perhaps
with the utmost kindness and care. They had
operated in the secret sanctuary of the labors
toi of a great university. But they bad
operated with no law to direct or restrain
them; no law for ebsequent care of the an,
tuuls. These men were held by the Grand
Jury because some people who lo ed animals
were able to press at what was considered suf
floiont evidence that the animals experimented
upon were subsequently thrown out, living,
quivering, palpitating, agonizing, upon a mud
heap or otherwise neglected, to be rescued by
a few strong women. Think of It!
But humane societies, anti-cruelty societies.
The Last Days of a Dog That Has
Been Infected with a Fatal Disease
to See How He Would Behave.
reformers, and lovers of all good, met in a
great convention and could not even discuss
such cruelty. Think of a discussion by a great
humane association lm-tiug for hours as to two
methods of slaughtering animals for the mar
ket Involving a difference of ten seconds of
suffering to the bos ts and yet concern'ng this
allegation which, L proved as stated, offers un
thinkable, prolonged, incredible torture—cot:
< eruing this si legation. I say—dead silence,
enforced silence, on the penalty of tHe disrup
tion and ruin of all humane societies which
ventured to advocate it. *
The burning question to-day—and who can
ask it as widely and as well as your great
newspaper—Is "Why?”
Is It claimed that there
is no cruelty in animal ex
perimentation? Why not
find out. Surely the pos
sibility is great everywhere.
Is there in this statement
and others of similar pur
port, publicly made, no call
to societies for the preven
tion of cruelty to children,
with their great power, to
investigate? To know th»
real facts? Are there no
great doctors in any of
these societies whose hor
ror of possible cruelty wiL
permit them to waive
medical etiquette sufficient
ly to condemn the “court,
esy” of such experiments
upon charity children in
public institutions? Is this
a subject for a great hu
mane society to refuse even
to discuss?
Why must such investigation be left to
specialized efforts of societies without ade
quate legal power when our country is full of
rich and well equipped humane societies or
ganized and supported by the public to pre
vent cruelty of all kinds? Are such humane
societies to keep silent while these so-called
“medical wonders” are exploited and the real
“medical blunders” buried in the graves of the
victims?
We are constantly reminded that whatever
the experiments on animals may be, the final
experiment must always be made on human
beings. Not only must that be, but we are
told such experiments must also be made on
normal healthy human beings as well as upon
those who are sick. Published instances are
found frequently in our medical journals which
show- upon medical authority that dangerous
experiments which no sane person would per
mit to be performed on their healthy children
are in fact often performed upon those who are
too ignorant or too helpless to understand or
prevent it. For example, in a number of the
well-known publication known as the “Medical
Brief." published as long ago as April, 1906, a
physician reported he had made experiments
with certain active poisons of diseases upon
seventeen human beings between the ages of
fifteen and thirty years. The physician in
question thus frankly describes liis extraordi
nary experiments in the following manner:
"I sprayed the poisons of diphtheria,
smallpox, scarlet fever or consumption
into the throat or nose or had them breathe
it into their lungs. I repeated the experi
ment in some cases every one or two
weeks for months. * * * Of course 1
could not let the patients know what I was
doing. I was supposed to be treating them
*
2 A.
United States Juidge on Sex Discussion
J UDGE HAND, in the Federal District Court
in New York, the other day. took occa
siou to say from the bench that perhaps
the time had now come when our old ideas
about tie discussion of "sex” problems had
changed—that it was uo luuger "obscene" to
frankly and seriously discuss these matters
in books and magazines. In the case of the
book in question. Judge Hand insisted that a
jury «as the best guide as to what the pres
eul attitude of public opinion really s. Judge
laud said:
"I hope it is not improper tor me to say that
te tie as laid dotvu. consonant though it may
be with mid-Victorian morals, does not seem
to me to answer to the understaiiuiug ana
morality of the present time as conveyed in
the words ‘obscene, lewd or lascivious ’
"1 question whether iu the end men will re
gard tiiat as obscene which is honestly reie
vant to the adequate expression of innocent
ideas, and whether they will not believe tiiat
truth and beauty are too precious to society
at large to be mutilated in the interests of
those most likely to pervert them to base
uses. Indeed, it seems hardly likely that we
are even to-day so lukewarm iu our Interest
in letters or serious discussion to be content
to reduce our treatment ot sex to the stand
ard ol a child’s library in the supposed inter
est of a salacious few, or that shame will for
long prevent us from, adequate portrayal of
some te the most serious aud beautiful side-
0, tiuman nature.
“Tha. such latitude gives opportunity for its
abuse is true enough; there will be, as there
re. plenty who will misuse Lie privilege as
a cover for lewdness and a stalking horse
from which to strike at purity, but that is
true to-day, and only involves us iu the same
question of fact, which we hope that we have
the power to answer.” >
Judge Hand said that If the time had not
come when men thought innocent all that was
germane to a pure subject, however little it
might mince its words, still he scarcely
thought they y nuld forbid all that might cor
rupt the most corruptible, or that society- was
prepared to accept for its own limitations
’ha! which might perhaps be necessary for its
weakest members.
The court suggested that since it seemed
impossible to give an accurate definition of
W hat was implied by the word "obscene” It
might be taken with ru’erence to the com
promise between candor and han: 1 a! which
the community had arrived at the
time.
present
if etters must, like other lines of coni
Judge Hand continued, be subject to the
cial c ense of what is right, it would seem I
a jury should in each case establish
standard, much as they do in cases of nt
gence. Nor is it an objection, I think l
such an interpretation gives to the words
the statute a varying meaning from time
time. Such words as these do not embalm
precise morals of an age or place; while t
presuppose that some things always will
shocking to the public taste; the vague ■
ject matter is left to the standard deve
meat of general notions about what is den
\ jury is especiilly the organ with wit
to fee! the co'tent comprised within s
words at any given time, but to do so t
must be free to follow the colloquial cor
tations which they have drawn up instin-r
ly from life and common speech.
for catarrh of the throat. I want here to call
attention to the fact that I did not make
cultures of these poisons and germs which
Is now considered so scientific, but in
reality Is unscientific and misleading. I
used the genuine stuff directly from the
patients, sometimes carrying quantities of
smallpox and scarlet fever scales in my
pockets for months.”
Are these experiments to be banished even
from public discussion?
Another equally frank statement is entitled
“Poisoning with Preparations of the Thyroid
Gland,” by another physician in another medi
cal journal published and widely circulated.
In the article in question, after describing cer
tain experiments with this poison performed
on eight patients in an insane asylum who
were supposed to be afflicted with dementi : iu
various forms, the physician thus character
izes his own work:
“The above experiments upon eight
human subjects point out conclusively
that the administration of even the very
best and purest and the commercial desic
cated thyroid tablets is not unattended
with dangers to the health and life of the
patient and 'that at times the administra
tion of very limited amounts of the gland
may be followed by symptoms not only
difficult to control but a very marked in
fluence upon the mental power of the sub
ject.”
Not long since it was authentically reported
in another medical journal that in a single night
several hundred inmates of an insane asylum
were inoculated in their sleep with a serqm
for experimental purposes. Instances of this
general character could be multiplied indefi
nitely.
In view of these admitted conditions which
exist on every side of us, certainly involving
the possibilities of great cruelty and danger,
how can the humane and anti-cruelty societies
persistently refuse even to investigate the con
ceded facts and yet hope to retain the confi
dence of the humane public?
Neither can they escape their responsibility
by hiding behind the intense opposition of a
part of the medical profession to any inquiry
into, or any laws even prohibiting the admitted
abuses of animal experimentation by incom
petent persons. Our constant inquiry is: how
can legitimate scientific research by competent
experts be Injured by a law limiting such work
to experts and punishing unnecessary cruelty
iu the abuse? No academic sophistry, no in
dividual interest or influence in medicine or
elsewhere can justify or excuse the failure to
unearth and prevent every form of cruelty
wherever suspected to exist.
The humane societies, one and all, have to
day to reckon with a new point of view and
not with the sentimental and the hysterical
public opinion of a past generation. They can
not escape their share of resoonsibility for
possible cruelty and injurious conditions which
they are chartered and maintained to prevent.
Intelligent men and women must and will have
something to say about that which lies so close
to life itself. Public opinion is demanding to-
Whose building is this, whose servants
are these, whose business is going on inside?"
In humanitariauism as in business and politics
and science "open sesame” is the one command
ing word of the hour.
The man possessed of the devils cried per
petually; ' Let us alone.” Public opinion is
thoroughly convinced that any man, any occu
pation, any institution which puts up the same
p.ea is suffering with the same affliction.
Justly or unjustly the suspicion that something
is wrong with these great humane societies
will possess public opinion as long as they, the
exponents of the growing humane sentiment
of the world, supported by public contributions,
neglect their most important function, that of
Investigation where such abuses are so gen
erally suspected and so often proved.