Evening star., 1962-09-20
LETTERS TO THE STAR
Moral and Other Aspects of Sterilization

Letters which you pub
lished September IS contend
that 1t Is no business Of the
Roman Catholic Archbishop
Of Washington to speak out
against sterilization practices
in Fauquier County. Virginia.
Some take the position that
Archbishop O'Boyle has q
right to speak to Catholics
about morals but to no one
else. One writer takes the
curious position that what Is
immoral for Catholics may
well be moral for Protestants
or other. Americans. What is
not understood is that moral
principles are of universal
application. They apply to
Catholics and Hottentots
: alike. A moral principle does
not depend upon race, reli-
gion or geographic location.
sterilization is morally
wrong, whether compulsory
or voluntary because 1t is
q form Of mutilation Of the
human body, The principle
would be better understood
II it we're considered in an
other aspect. No one, I am
sure-not even editorial writ
ers-would hold to the posi-
ton that good morals would
permit q man to undergo
voluntarily an operation for
the removal Of his hands in
order to avoid manual labor.
! am sure we could agree
that such a purpose would
condemn the proposed oper-
alton as immoral. You would
condemn it, however, only
because you find the purpose
to be not socially laudable,
while ! would condemn it
because 1t 'offends the nature
of man. A man must keep the
faculties which have been
given him by his very nature
and use them In q responsible
way, irrespective of whether
such use is pleasurable to
him.
II q religious leader, one
trained by schooling and ex-
perience in moral philosophy
and theology, cannot express
himself to the general popu-
lation on q moral question,
who is left to speak? Our
religious leaders are and
should be teachers Of morals.
They should instruct their
fellow citizens. Otherwise
their fellow citizens will be
ignorant Of the principles
that should motivate their
private and public conduct.
Today this, regrettably, Is q
rather common state Of af-
fairs.
The Archbishop has as
much right to concern him
self with offenses to good
morals in Fauquier County,
Virginia. as a New York NOR
alist has in condemning seq
regation practices in Missis-
sippi. After all, man. wher-
ever found and In whatever
circumstances. Is q proper
subject for the comment Of
moral philosophers.
Paul r. Connolly.
In its editorial, "Fauquier's
Clinic" The Star doubts the
availability Of evidence" to
substantiate Arc h bish o D
OBoyle's contention that the
Virginia sterilization law and
the clinics program are in
tended to reduce welfare ex-
penditures and. thereby, the
tax rate. It. therefore, terms
his excellency's criticism
"gratuito US" and "unde-
served.7
Now. apart from the fact
that this, in effect. accuses
the Archbishop Of irresponsi-
bility and q lack Of charity,
it raises the question as to
whether a truly enterprising
newspaper should not seek to
remove its doubt by search
ing out, evaluating and re-
porting such evidence as may
exist, one way or another.
Such research would have
readily revealed that legisla- :
tive sponsors Of the original
bills for compulsory sterili-
zation Of relief-supported un-
wed mothers--for which the
present law was substituted
frankly stated their aim to
be Ito save taxpayers some
money" Might not one rea-
sonably conclude this to be
an object also Of the existing
law, q law repeatedly drafted
with the aid of the Fauquier
Hospital staff?
Hospital personnel contend
that to date the impact Of
its sterilization program on
public medical and welfare
expenditures is negligible be-
cause virtually none Of the
county's 300 relief recipients
have patronized the clinic,