Kentucky Irish American. (Louisville, Ky.) 1898-1968, 1913-02-01
Treat Man as An Animal and
IngnOre the SUPER
Natural.
Church Stands On Side of Nat
ural Freedom of the
Individual.
AN INVERSION TO RIGHT ORDER

NOW that several of our State
Legislatures have "Eugenist" mar
riage bills before them for consider
tion, lecture delivered recently in
England by Father Day, S. j.. on
The Catholic Church and Eugenics"
is timely. After defining the eugenic
proposals as aiming at the ennoble-
ment of mankind by the selection of
the worthy for parenthood and the
rejection of the unworthy. Father
Day said that obviously such
movement was not without much TO
commend it. Nor would it-since il
claimed to hold the institution of
marriage in the highest esteem-be
altogether opposed to the Catholic
moral standard, which attached a,
sacred Importance to marriage. and
likewise aimed at the perfect full
fillment of the individual and the
race. But there were undoubted
points of antagonism. The system
advocated by Galton had suggested.
as means TO secure the birth of
people of ''civic WORTH" the issuing
by competent authority of eugenic
certificates attesting the possession
by their holders of average physical.
mental and moral capacity. This side
of the movement had been further
advanced by the emphasizing of the
need of education for parenthood.
But negative eugenics, which was the
latest development of the science.
had not been directly contemplated
by Galton. Like the positive eugenics
OF Galton, 1t was concerned with the
evils which hindered race betterment
and was based on the Mendelian law
OF heredity. But. the special aim of
negative eugenics was to prevent per-
sons afflicted with racial evils from
propagating their kind, and one OIL
lfhaAmethods-a Advocated to- this end
was mutilatiye surgery. To this and
to all kindred suggestions, Eea&ey
Day said Catholic theologypTas un-
doubtedly opposed. Thpwhole uues-
tion had lately been thoroughly dis
cussed from the moral point of view
in several of the theological maga-
zines of Europe and America, and
while one or two of the American
writer's had maintained that such
operations were lawful, all the rest
had denied It. Another method sug-
gested was the refusal of permission
to marry. The teaching of the
church on this point was that, except
for the gravest reasons, the natural
liberty to marry must not be inter-
fered with, and the church herself
had only created such necessary i'm
pediments as the general welfare of
mankind imperatively demanded.
Compulsory segregation and per-
manent medical supervision of de-
fectives. primarily in their own inter-
est, was also advocated. Such
segregation was not absolutely con-
demned by the church. Lepers had
at one time been similarly treated in
accordance with canon law, and good
cause being shown, the same system
might be again applied. But here
again the case of the eugenist was
not proven. Therefore the church,
without uttering any direct condem-
nation, stood on the side of the
natural freedom of the individual.
Voluntary segregation was not only
approved in recent years, but part of
her practical policy.
The Catholic criticism of the
movement. as a whole, Father Day
Sdlu, was lndJ IL ldckeu spiritual ann
and purpose and ignored the super
natural. The production of physical
fitness as an end in itself was un-
doubtedly the prevalent idea under
lying the movement. DR.. c. w.
Saleeby had slightly raised II, but
II had never attained a spiritual
level, and popular writers had done
much to degrade 1t. The tendency
of eugenics was to subordinate the
moral and spiritual to the purely
physical, and this was an inversion
to right order which was calculated
to lead TO dangerous results. II was
capable of inflicting irreparable
harm on individuals and society.
This was one OF the principal causes
OF divergence Of view between
Catholic moralists and modern
ougenists. But with eugenists,
amongst the Survival values" or
the qualities which enabled indi-
viduals to struggle and to live, no
place was given to the supernatural
life impaired by grace and the sacra-
ments. From the viewpoint OF
Christian social science this could
not but be regarded as a fatal omis-
sion. and eugenics must yet be
Judged inadequate and Intufficiently
ultimate.