The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-03-21

business and the professions, Cath. olics, as Catholic bloc, exercise little or no effect on our state leg. islation. How, then, could they have written into the state law theii doctrine against Birth Prevention many years ago.. when their influ. ence amounted to nohting in getting laws passed or repealed?
 The undeniable fact is that the law now on our books was passed ir the good old days when Protestant beliefs had a very definite and gen. orally wholesome influence on oui State and its laws. And may I re. mind you that, not so many years ago, our State regarded Congrega. tionalism as the official religion oi the State of Connecticut?
 Briefly, hte law against Birtl Prevention was written at a time when ProtestantS more generally accepted the evident dictates of the } Natural Moral Law, as well as tho strictures of the Scriptures, which they so highly regarded. It is ut. terly childish, then, to assert, as dc the prominent state leaders of the Birth Control groups, that they are opposed by the Catholic Church alone. Had they raised the question of Birth Prevention more than two generations ago, the Birth Proven. ters would have been opposed vigor. ousiy by the entire body of all the Protestants. Even today. many Pro testants and Jews are in oppositior to the Birth Preventers, but their objections are given much less prominence than the pronouncn- ments of their Birth Preventing brethren.
 Dictated By The Natural Moral Law
 Any man, with normal reasoning ability, is able to discover, by hi, own power, the existence of Per- sonal and Infinite God, Master and Owner of all beings. This he can dc simply by observing the evident or. der and harmony in the universe His experience, in life, has always been that order and harmony arise only from intelligent plan and de. sign. He concludes, therefore, to the existence of 6 Supreme Designer.
 Further reflection tells him that God, the Master of all. expects cer- tain activity, or conduct, on the part Of man; and he concludes that God has manifested His requirements of man in the way that man can know in the nature of things. This is the Natural Moral Law. It binds everyone who possesses rational hu- man nature. For example man finds that he has an appetite for food. It Is pleasant to satisfy that appetite. In so doing he preserves and nourishes the life of his body. He concludes that the appetite was given him, and a pleasure attached to 1t, to prompt him to preserve the life of his body.
 Man discovers, too, that he has an appetite for sexual union. To 1t is attached pleasure. He finds that the result of such action Is the production of new life.
 He sees that, in both instances, there is an appetite, the satisfac- ton of which gives pleasure momen- tarily. while the action produces an important effect: in one case, the preservation of life; in the other case. the production of new life. He then concludes that right moral or der, before God, demands that the appetite be not an end in itself, but serve the higher end or purpose: the preservation of life, and the produc. ton of new life. He concludes, ike wise, that the reversal of this ar- rangement--the Illustration of the primary end for the purpose of en- toying the appetite--is a grave up. setting of Natures purpose and, therefore a moral perVerslon.
 Natural Moral Law
 An example clearly shows this principle of Natural Moral Law. In the days of decadent Rome, sensual pleasure was made the end of all living. Along with the most un- speakable sex perversionS went @ disgusting perversion of the appe- tite for food. The "Vomitorium'' was established. The Roman volup- tuary glutted himself for hours on the best of food and drink. When he could pleasurably hold no more, he retired to the "Vomitorium. , There an attendant tickled his pal ate with feather, thus causing him to vomit up all that he had swal- lowed. After cleansing his mouth and resting Q while, he returned to the table to gorge himself again with more food and drink.
 No one, even ore deglee above a pig, has any difficulty seeing that the practice of the "Vomitorium" is loathsome, disgusting, a frustra- ton of nature, and, therefore im- moral.
 Wherein is contraception any dif- ferent or less reprehensible morally? In the "Vomitorium" the pleasure of eating was indulged in for its own sake, while It's natural, normal purpoSe-llutrition-waS deliberate ly frustrated. so that the glutton could gorge himself. some more.
 A contraceptive is sex Monitor. ium". By means of 1t. the sex glut- ton can gorge himself on sex pleas ure, while he illustrates the sex ap- petite's serious, natural, and sacred purpose-the production of human life.
 If contraception is romantic and moral, vomiting in the "Vomitor- ium" is romantic and moral. If the use of the "Vomitorium" is loatllsome and morally rotten-and it most certainly is-the use of contracep- tives is loathsome and morally rot ten. The same principles are involv- ed in each case: capacities and the primary and essential ends that they subserve; first things first. The moral loathsomeness of the "Vomit- ofium" is simply mere disgusting at first glance. A similar. and even greater. moal loathsomeness be-