“It’s a case of double standard to keep photos and statues of relatives, friends and national heroes while rejecting those of the very friends of God in Heaven. Only the enemies of God reject His friends.”

Read and share the article here: Do Catholics worship Mary?

In this tract as in all his other gospel tracts, Jack Chick begins his anti-Catholic propaganda with, “How could I gain control of all these people without an army?” He continues with, “Make them believe that their immortal souls are in your hands.” Let’s see what the Bible has to say about this:

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17 KJV emphasis mine)

The Pope never claims that the immortal soul of any Catholic is in his hands. The Pope follows what the Bible says, knowing that as a shepherd, he has to watch over the souls of his flock. That is what the Word of God says clearly in Hebrews 13:17.

Mr. Chick continues, “If you can make a man believe that you have the power to put him into Hell… He’ll do anything you ask to save his skin.” When has the Pope claimed that he as a human being has power to put others into Hell? Can Chick cite a source?

Jack Chick writes, “Man is religious by nature and so you must appear to be very holy.” Indeed man is religious by nature but the issue is what true religion is. Let’s see what the Bible says:

“If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:26-27 KJV emphasis mine)

He continues, “Oh, yes, but you must also be very mysterious and different. Speak things that no one understands and burn a lot of candles.” This is another falsehood presented by Jack Chick. Are Popes really mysterious and different? No! Do Popes speak things that no one understands? No. Popes usually speak in Latin which is the official language of the Latin/Roman Church. They even speak in familiar languages like English, Spanish, German and French. As for the “burn a lot of candles,” it is true that the Catholic Church burn candles during worship but it is not only candles that are burned. The Church also burn incense. I guess Jack Chick intentionally left the incense aspect because he knows even at the birth of Christ frankincense was presented as one of the gifts to the child Jesus. Burning candles is not unchristian just as burning incense isn’t.

Mr. Chick continues, “It is vital that the people believe that only you and your Holy Helpers know God.” It is ironic how Chick refers to Catholic priests and clergies as Holy Helpers. He also makes the Pope seem power and money hungry. These are all false. What he is presenting is at best fictional and nothing Catholic.

Now the real case that Jack Chick attempts to make begins. We shall see from the Bible that Jack Chick is wrong and the Catholic Church is right.

Jack Chick in his fictional view of the Catholic Church believes that the Pope and priests are some magicians. This is highly insane of him.

What the Egyptians did is different from what the Catholic Church does. The Egyptians were pagan worshippers and unbelievers by Christian standards. Catholics on the other hand are believers of the God of the Bible and His Son Jesus Christ.

We shall be seeing from the Bible that the Eucharist/Holy Communion is the Bread of Life and not the fictional death cookie Mr. Chick thinks it is.

No Pope ever claims of performing miracles using cookies. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim to possess magical powers. These are all false allegations by Jack Chick.

Jack Chick claims these words are said, “Hocus pocus Domi Nocus.” That is not correct. This is another falsehood presented by him. He continues to say, “See… it happened! Now you can eat your God… We call it Jesus!” This is another fictional lie to carry his anti-Catholic propaganda.

The Catholic Church was never called “Holy Work.” This is a lie from the pit of Hell. And the Church is not referred to as “Mama Church,” but Mother Church. It is called Mother Church because the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth as the Bible says:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15 KJV emphasis mine)

Jack Chick boldly writes, “Holy Papa… if the people ever read what’s in the sacred writings… Then they will find out that we’ve tricked them.” That is a lie. Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. That is how I know what is in the “sacred writings” and can confidently say Jack Chick got it all wrong.

Mr. Chick continues, “Here’s what we must do. Convince the people that the sacred writings are dangerous…” The Catholic Church never holds to that position. The Bible is not dangerous, it is the misinterpretation of the Bible that the Church considers as dangerous. Even the Bible affirms this. Let’s read what the Bible has to say about this matter.

“And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16 KJV emphasis mine)

Chick also adds “and if the people ever read the scriptures… they would go crazy!” He must be joking. What an absurd thing to say Jack Chick? Continue here: The Death Cookie

Know Mary Know Jesus

Act of Contrition

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 14,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 3 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.

Many people are wondering why Catholics hold those beads called the Rosary in their hands and what’s the real inspiration behind them. In this little booklet I’ll attempt to give quick answers to some of the questions and doubts often raised by people.

>>> Click to Download Your Copy Now (PDF 326.9 KB). Thank you. Spread the word about this booklet.

The first author to deal systematically with the problem was Gianmaria Ortes, a Venetian friar, in a work entitled, “Reflessioni sulla populazione per rapporto all’ economia nazionale.” It appeared in 1790, eight years before the first edition of Malthus’s famous work. According to Nitti: “Some pages of Ortes seem quite similar to those of Malthus; he comprehended the entire question, the geometrical progression of the population, the arithmetical progression of the means of subsistence, the preventive action of man, and the repressive action of nature” (Population and the Social System, p. 8). However, his book lacked the confident tone and the statistical arguments of Malthus; consequently it was soon overshadowed by the latter’s production, and the Anglican divine instead of the Venetian friar became the sponsor of the world’s best-known and most pessimistic theory of population.

THE THEORY OF MALTHUS

In the twenty-two years that had intervened between the appearance of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” and the “Essay on the Principle of Population” (London, 1798) of the Rev. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834), the French Revolution had caused the downfall of the old social system, without improving the condition of the French people; a succession of bad harvests had impoverished the agricultural districts of England, while her credit had become so impaired by the recent wars as to render very difficult the importation of supplies from abroad. On the other hand, the rapid development of the textile and other industries through the recent mechanical inventions had called new towns into existence, and greatly stimulated the increase of population; the system of public allowances of money to all pauper children encouraged improvident marriages among the poorer classes. Although there had been a considerable increase in the national wealth as a whole, the working classes had received none of the benefit. Increased production seemed to mean a disproportionate increase in population, and a decrease in the subsistence of the poor. The obvious objection, that this condition was attributable to bad distribution rather than to insufficient production, had indeed come to the attention of Malthus. In some degree his book was an answer to that very objection. William Godwin, a disciple of the French revolutionary philosophers, chiefly in his work “Political Justice”, had been defending the theory that all the evils of society arose from defective social institutions, and that there was more than enough wealth for all, if it were only distributed equally. Malthus replied to this position with his “Essay on the Principle of Population”. His thesis was that population constantly tends to outrun subsistence, but that it is held in check by vice—-abortion, infanticide, prostitution, and by misery in the form of war, plague, famine, and unnecessary disease. If all persons were provided with sufficient sustenance, and these checks removed, the relief would be only temporary; for the increase of marriages and births would soon produce a population far in excess of the food supply.

The first edition of Malthus’s work had, therefore, a definite polemical purpose, the refutation of a communistic scheme of society. Its arguments were general and popular rather than systematic or scientific. They were based upon facts easily observed, and upon what the average man would expect to happen if vice and misery ceased to operate as checks to population. As a popular refutation of the theories of Godwin, the book was a success, but its author soon began a deeper inquiry into the facts from which he had drawn his conclusions. The result of his labours was the appearance in 1803 of a second edition of the “Essay”, which differed so much in size and content from the first as to constitute, in the words of Malthus himself, “a new work”. In the first chapter of the new edition he declared that “the constant tendency of all animated life to increase beyond the nourishment prepared for it” (p. 2) had not hitherto received sufficient attention. Before attempting to prove the existence of this tendency, he inquired what would be “the natural increase of population if left to exert itself in perfect freedom…under the most favourable circumstances of human industry” (p. 4). On the basis of the history of North America during the century and a half preceding 1800, and from the opinions of some economists, he concluded that “population when unchecked goes on doubling itself every 25 years, or increases in a geometrical ratio” (p. 6). A brief examination of the possibilities of food increase convinced him that this could never be “faster than in an arithmetical ratio” (p. 10). Applying these conclusions to England with its 11,000,000 inhabitants in 1800, he found that the natural result at the end of the nineteenth century would be a population of 176,000,000, and subsistence for only 55,000,000 (ibid.). The remainder of the first volume is occupied with an account of the positive checks, that is, vice and misery, which had hitherto concealed this disastrous discrepancy between population and subsistence in the various countries of the world. In the second volume he discusses the means which have been proposed to prevent an undue increase of population, and, therefore, to render unnecessary the action of the positive checks. Some of the means that he recommended were abstention from public provision for the encouragement of population increase and for the relief of the poor, and abolition of existing laws of this kind, especially the Poor Law of England. But his chief recommendation was the practice of what he called “moral restraint”. That is, persons who were unable to maintain a family properly should live in chaste celibacy until such time as they had overcome this economic disability (bk. IV, passim). In the new edition of his work, consequently, Malthus not merely pointed out a new check to population, but advocated it, in order to prevent and forestall the operation of the cruel and immoral checks automatically set in motion by vice and misery.

Criticism of the Malthusian Theory

The theory may be briefly characterized thus: In its most extreme and abstract form it is false; in its more moderate form it never has been and never can be demonstrated; even if true, it is so hypothetical, and subject to so many disturbing factors, that it is of no practical value or importance. It is, of course, abstractly or theoretically possible that population may exceed subsistence, either temporarily and locally, or permanently and universally. This possibility has been frequently realized among savage peoples, and occasionally among civilized peoples, as in the case of famine. But the theory of Malthus implies something more than an abstract possibility or a temporary and local actuality. It asserts that population shows a constant tendency to outrun the food supply, a tendency, therefore, that is always about to pass into a reality if it is not counteracted. In all the six editions of his work that appeared during Malthus’s lifetime, this tendency is described in the formula that population tends to increase in geometrical progression, as, 2, 4, 8, etc., while the utmost increase in subsistence that can be expected is according to an arithmetical ratio, as, 2, 3, 4, etc. So far as we know, population has never increased in geometrical ratio through any considerable period; but we cannot show that such an increase, by natural means, is physiologically impossible. All that it implies is that every married couple should have on the average four children, who would themselves marry and have the same number of children to each couple, and that this ratio should be kept up indefinitely. It is not, however, true that the means of living can be increased only in an arithmetical ratio. During the nineteenth century this ratio was considerably exceeded in many countries (cf. Wells, “Recent Economic Changes”). Malthus’s view on this point was based upon a rather limited knowledge of what had been happening before his time. He did not foresee the great improvements in production and transportation which, a few years later, so greatly augmented the means of subsistence in every civilized country. In other words he compared the potential fecundity of man, the limits of which were fairly well known, with the potential fertility of the earth and the potential achievements of human invention, neither of which was known even approximately. This was a bad method, and its outcome in the hands of Malthus was a false theory.

Even if we discard the mathematical formulation of the theory, and examine it in its more moderate form, as merely asserting that population tends to outrun subsistence, we find that the theory cannot be proved. The facts adduced by Malthus in support of his contention related to the insufficiency of the food supply in many countries at many different times. Now it is true that barbarous peoples and peoples dependent upon fishing and hunting for a living have frequently lacked subsistence, especially when they were unable or unwilling to emigrate; but such has not often been the case for any considerable time among civilized nations. Want of food among the latter has usually been due to a bad industrial organization and a bad distribution, rather than to the poverty of nature, or the unproductiveness of man. Even today a large proportion of the inhabitants of every country is insufficiently nourished, but no intelligent person attributes this condition to an absolute excess of population over subsistence or productiveness. Since Malthus did not give sufficient attention to the evils of distribution, he failed to prove that his theory was generally true, even of the time before he wrote; since he did not suspect the great improvements in production that were soon to take place, he was still less able to show that it would be universally valid. While admitting the weakness of his argument, some of his later followers insist that the theory is true in a general way. Population, if unchecked by a prudential regulation of marriages and births, can and in all probability often will outrun subsistence, owing to the law of diminishing returns (cf. Hadley, “Economics”).

Although Malthus seems to have had some knowledge of this law, he did not use it as the basis of his conclusions. Now the “law of diminishing returns” is simply the phrase by which economists describe the well-known fact that a man cannot go on indefinitely increasing the amount of capital and labour that he expends upon a piece of land, and continue to get profitable returns. Sooner or later a point is reached where the product of the latest increment of expenditure is less than the expenditure itself. This point has already been reached in many regions, whence a part of the population is compelled to move to other land. When it has been reached everywhere, population will universally exceed subsistence. Stated in this form, Malthusianism seems to be irrefutable. Nevertheless the law of diminishing returns, like all economic laws, is true only in certain conditions. Change the conditions, in this case, the methods of production, and the law is no longer operative. With new productive processes, further expenditures of labour and capital become profitable, and the point of diminishing returns is moved farther away. This fact has received frequent illustration in the history of agriculture and mining. While it is true that new methods are not always discovered as soon as they are needed, and that men often find it more profitable to expend their additional resources upon new lands than upon the old, it is also true that we can set no definite limits to the inventive power of man, nor to the potential fertility of nature. Absolutely speaking, no one is warranted in asserting that these two forces will not be able to modify indefinitely the conditions in which the law of diminishing returns operates, so that subsistence will keep pace with population as long as men have standing room upon the earth. On the other hand, we cannot prove that if population were to increase up to the full limit of its physiological possibilities, it would always be sufficiently provided for by the fertility of nature and the inventiveness of man. We are dealing here with three unknown quantities. Upon such a basis it is impossible either to establish a social law, or conclusively to refute any particular generalization that may be set up. In the third place, the Malthusian theory, even if true, is of no practical use. The assurance that population, if unchecked, will inevitably press upon subsistence does not terrify us, when we realize that it always has been checked, by celibacy, late marriages, war, natural calamities, and other forces which are not due to scarcity of subsistence. The practical question for any people is whether these non-scarcity checks are likely to keep population within the limits of that people’s productive resources. So far as the nations of the Western world are concerned, this question may be answered in the affirmative.

The use of preventive checks, such as postponement of marriage, abortion, and artificial sterility have become so common that the birth-rate has almost everywhere decreased within the last half-century, and there is no indication of a reaction in the near future. During the same period the rate of food production has considerably increased. Moreover, the decline in the birth-rate has been most pronounced among those classes whose subsistence is most ample, thus suggesting the probability that it will become equally prevalent among the poorer classes as soon as their plane of living is raised. The contingency that men may some day become so careless of the higher standards of comfort as to give up the present methods of restriction is too remote to justify anxiety on the part of this generation. Let us assume, however, that, under the influence of religion and moral teaching, all the immoral preventives of population were discarded. Even so, we have no reason to doubt that the lawful checks, such as virtuous celibacy both temporary and permanent, and the decrease of fecundity that seems to be a necessary incident of modern life, particularly in cities, would be sufficient to keep the world’s inhabitants well within the bounds of its productive powers. So far as we can see at present, the Malthusian theory, even if true in the abstract and hypothetically, is so hypothetical, assumes the absence of so many factors which are always likely to be present, that it is not deserving of serious attention, except as a means of intellectual exercise. As a law of population, it is about as valuable as many of the other laws handed down by the classical economists. It is about as remote from reality as the “economic man”.

And yet, this theory met with immediate and almost universal acceptance. The book in which it was expounded went through six editions while Malthus was living, and exerted a remarkable influence upon economics, sociology, and legislation during the first half of the nineteenth century. Aside from a section of the Socialists, the most important group of writers rejecting the Malthusian theory have been Catholic economists, such as Liberatore, Devas, Pesch, Antoine (cf. Pesch, “Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie”, II, 598). Being pessimistic and individualistic, the teaching of Malthus agreed thoroughly with the temper and ideas of his time. Distress was deep and general, and the political and economic theories of the day favoured the policy of laissez faire. To him perhaps more than to any other writer is due the evil repute of the orthodox economists, as opponents of legislation in the interests of the poorer classes. In the words of Devas, “Malthusianism in practice has been a grave discouragement to all works of social reform and humane legislation, which appeared as foolish sentiment defeating its kind aims by encouraging population” (Political Economy, 2nd ed., p. 198). Malthus declared that the poor created their own poverty by marrying improvidently, and that any general system of poor relief only increased and prolonged the root evil, overpopulation, from which they suffered (Essay bk. IV, passim). Although he had a genuine sympathy for the poor, and believed that the practice of “moral restraint” in postponing or foregoing marriage was the one means of bettering their condition permanently, his teaching received the cordial approbation of the wealthier classes, because it tended to relieve them of “responsibility for the condition of the working classes, by showing that the latter had chiefly themselves to blame, and not either the negligence of their superiors or the institutions of the country” (Ingram, “History of Political Economy”, p. 121). His more recent followers among the economists realize that an improvement in the condition of the masses is apt to encourage a lower birth-rate, consequently they are not opposed to all measures for improvement by legislation. Many of them, however, have exaggerated the social and moral benefits of a low birth-rate, and have implicitly approved the immoral and destructive practices upon which it depends. The irony of the situation is that preventive checks, moral and immoral, have been adopted for the most part by the rich and comfortable classes, who, in the opinion of Malthus, were not called upon to make any personal contribution to the limitation of population.

The most notable results of the work and teaching of Malthus may be summed up as follows: he contributed absolutely nothing of value to human knowledge or welfare. The facts which he described and the remedies which he proposed had long been sufficiently obvious and sufficiently known. While he emphasized and in a striking way drew attention to the possibility of general overpopulation he greatly exaggerated it, and thus misled and misdirected public opinion. Had he been better informed, and seen the facts of population in their true relations, he would have realized that the proper remedies were to be sought in better social and industrial arrangements, a better distribution of wealth, and improved moral and religious education. As things have happened, his teaching has directly or indirectly led to a vast amount of social error, negligence, suffering, and immorality.

Neo-Malthusianism

In a sense this system is the extreme logical outcome of Malthusianism proper. While Malthus would have turned in horror from the practices of the newer theory, his own recommendations were much less effective as a means to the common end of both systems. The Neo-Malthusians realize better than he did, that if population is to be deliberately restricted to the desired extent, other methods than chaste abstention from or postponement of marriage are necessary. Hence they urge married couples to use artificial and immoral devices for preventing conception. Some of the most prominent leaders of this movement were Robert Dale Owen, John Stuart Mill, Charles Bradlaugh, and Annie Besant. With them deserve to be associated many economists and sociologists who implicitly advocate the same practices, inasmuch as they glorify an indefinitely expanding standard of comfort, and urge limitation of offspring as the one certain means whereby the labour of the poorest paid workers may be made scarce and dear. Some of the Neo-Malthusian leaders in England maintained that they were merely recommending to the poor what the rich denounced but secretly practiced.

In common with the older theory from which it derives its name, Neo-Malthusianism assumes that population if unchecked will exceed subsistence, but by subsistence it means a liberal, or even a progressively rising, standard of comfort. In all probability this contention is correct, at least, in the latter form; for all the indications are against the supposition that the earth can furnish an indefinitely rising standard of comfort for a population that continues to increase up to the full measure of its physiological capacity. On the other hand, the practices and the consequences of the system are far more futile, deceptive, and disastrous than those of Malthusianism. The practices are intrinsically immoral, implying as they do either foeticide, or the perversion of natural faculties and functions, to say nothing of their injurious effect upon physical health. The condition aimed at, namely, the small family or no children at all, fosters a degree of egotism and enervating self-indulgence which lessens very considerably the capacity for social service, altruism, and every form of industrial and intellectual achievement. Hence the economists, sociologists, and physicians of France condemn the low birth-rate and the small family as a grave national and social evil. On the industrial side, Neo-Malthusianism soon defeats its own end; for increased selfishness and decreased stimulus to labour are naturally followed by a smaller output of product. If the restriction of offspring were confined to the poorer classes, their labour would indeed become scarce relatively to the higher kinds of labour, and their wages would rise, provided that their productivity were not diminished through deterioration of character. As a fact, however, the comfortable classes adopt the method much more generally than do the poor, with the result that the excessive supply of unskilled labour is increased rather than diminished. Where all classes are addicted to the practice, the oversupply of unskilled labour remains relatively unchanged. The wages of all classes in France are lower than in Germany, England, or the United States (cf. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Labour). Finally, a constantly rising standard of comfort secured by the practices and in the moral atmosphere of Neo-Malthusianism means not a higher but a lower plane of life; not more genuine culture or loftier morals, but more abundant physical enjoyments and a more refined materialism.

OTHER THEORIES OF POPULATION

Rodbertus, Marx, Engels, Bebel, and possibly a majority of the Socialists who have considered the problem, either deny a general tendency to excessive population, or maintain that it is realized only in capitalistic society. Under Socialism there would be ample sustenance for the greatest possible increase in population, or, at any rate, for whatever increase that form of society would decide to have. Now it is quite unlikely that a Socialistic organization of production, with its lessened incentives to inventive and productive energy, would be able to provide means of living adequate to the full capacity of human fecundity; and a universally and continuously rising standard of comfort would be subject to all the physical, moral, and intellectual hindrances and consequences which beset the suicidal system of Neo-Malthusianism.

A respectable minority of economists (in this connection frequently known as “optimists”) have rejected the Malthusian theory from the beginning. Among the most prominent are, Bastiat in France, List (1789-1846) in Germany, and Henry C. Carey in America. In a general way they all maintained that in proper social and industrial arrangements population will never exceed subsistence. This was likewise the position of Henry George, whose attack upon the theory of Malthus is probably more familiar to Americans than that of any other writer (cf. Progress and Poverty). Carey, whose father, Matthew Carey, the Philadelphia publisher, was a Catholic, based his view partly upon his belief in Providence, and partly upon the assumption that in every country the richest lands and land powers remain undeveloped longest; List pointed out that thickly-populated lands are frequently more prosperous than those with relatively few inhabitants, and that we have no good reason to set limits to the capacity of the earth, which could undoubtedly support many times its present population; and Bastiat, who had already observed the artificial restriction of the birth-rate in his own country, seems to have concluded that the same thing would happen in other countries whenever subsistence tended to fall below the existing standards of living. Although there is some exaggeration and uncertainty in all these positions, they are undoubtedly nearer the truth than the assumptions of Malthus.

What may be called the evolutionist theory of population was originated and incompletely stated by Charles Darwin, and developed by Herbert Spencer. In the latter form it has been adopted substantially by many biologists and sociologists. Although it was a chance reading of Malthus’s work that suggested to Darwin the idea of the struggle for existence, the Spencerian theory of population is on the whole opposed to the Malthusian. According to Spencer, the process of natural selection, which involves the destruction of a large proportion of the lower organisms, increases individuality and decreases fecundity in the more developed species, especially in man. At length, population becomes automatically adjusted to subsistence at that level which is consonant with the highest progress. With regard to the future, this theory is extremely optimistic, but it is not more probable or any more capable of proof than his prophecy concerning the future identification of egoism and altruism.

On the basis of painstaking research and abundant statistics, M. Arsène Dumont concluded that Malthusianism is theoretically false and practically worthless, and that the only valuable generalizations about the relation of population to subsistence are those which concern a particular country, epoch, civilization, or form of society (cf. Nitti, op. cit.). In a democratic society, he says, the real danger is excessive limitation of the birth-rate by all classes, even the lowest. When privileged classes and social stratifications have disappeared, the members of every class strive to raise themselves above their present condition by restricting the number of their offspring. So far as it goes, this theory is a correct explanation of certain existing tendencies, but, as Father Pesch observes in reply to P. Leroy-Beaulieu, the true remedy for the French conditions is not monarchy but the Christian religion and moral teaching (op. cit., II, 639).

The theory of Nitti has a considerable similarity to that of Spencer, but the Italian sociologist expects the deliberate action of man, rather than any decrease in human fecundity, to conform population to subsistence in any society in which wealth is justly distributed, individuality strongly developed, and individual activity maintained at a high level of efficiency (op. cit.). He repudiates, however, the egotistic and socially demoralizing “prudence” which is so generally practised today for the limitation of the size of families. Nevertheless, it is utterly unlikely that the sane regulation which he desires will be obtained without the active and universal influence of religion. With this condition added, his theory seems to be the most reasonable of all those considered in this article, and does not greatly differ from that of the Catholic economists.

The latter, as we have already noted, reject the Malthusian theory and the interpretation of social facts upon which it is founded. Taking as typical the views of Devas in England, Antoine in France, Perin in Belgium, Liberatore in Italy, and Pesch in Germany (see works cited below) we may describe their views in the following terms. Where production is effectively organized, and wealth justly distributed; where the morals of the people render them industrious, frugal, averse to debilitating comforts, and willing to refrain from all immoral practices in the conjugal relation; where a considerable proportion of the people embrace the condition of religious celibacy, others live chastely and yet defer marriage for a longer or shorter period, and many emigrate whenever the population of any region becomes congested—-undue pressure of population upon subsistence will never occur except locally and temporarily. Probably this is as comprehensive, and at the same time as correct a generalization as can be formulated. It may be reduced to the summary statement of Father Pesch: “Where the quality of a people is safeguarded, there need be no fear for its quantity” (op. cit., II, 624). Take care of the quality, says the learned Jesuit, and the quantity will take care of itself. Be anxious about the quantity, say the Malthusians and all the advocates of the small family, lest the quality deteriorate. It is less than eighty years since Malthus died, and a considerably shorter time has elapsed since the restriction of births became in any sense general; yet the number is rapidly increasing everywhere of thoughtful men who see that the Western world is confronted by “a problem not of excessive fecundity, but of race suicide” (Seligman, “Principles of Economics”, 65).

MALTHUS, An Essay on the Principle of Population (London, 1826); NITTI, Population and the Social System (tr. London, 1894); INGRAM, A History of Political Economy (New York, 1894); DEVAS, Political Economy (London, 1901); HADLEY, Economics (New York, 1898); SELIGMAN, Principles of Economics (New York, 1905); LIBERATORE, Principles of Political Economy (tr. London, 1891); ANTOINE, Cours d’économie sociale (Paris, 1899); PERIN, Premiers principes d’économie politique (Paris, 1896); PESCH, Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie (Freiburg, 1909); FAHLBECK, Neomalthusianismus in Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft, VI (1903).

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
Theories of Population
by John A. Ryan

In modern times even in Christian countries two causes have led to post-natal infanticide: one, the disgrace attendant upon illegitimacy; the other, an economic reason. Illegitimate children were sacrificed partly for the concealment of shame, but often to escape the burden of the child’s support. The crime occurs most frequently where illegitimacy is most frequent and, according to statistics, is least common in Ireland. In countries where children are readily received without question into institutions, infanticide is rare. In France the law forbids inquiry into paternity, and arrangements are made for the state care of the children. In Russia even more liberal provision is made for the state care of any child whose parents cannot or will not care for it. The question of child-murder by mothers has always been a difficult legal problem. Under a statute of James I of England, the mother had to account for the death of her infant or be held responsible for it. In 1803 trials for infanticide were placed under the ordinary rules of evidence. The presumption now is that every new-born child found dead was born dead unless the contrary is proved. This rule of English law holds in the United States. Infanticide has been quite common in European countries during the nineteenth century for two sordid reasons: one was the neglect of infants in the process of what was known as baby-farming, the other was the desire to obtain insurance money. This abuse has been regulated in various ways, but baby-farming and child-insurance still seriously increase the death-rate among infants.

PRE-NATAL INFANTICIDE

The murder of an infant before birth. This is more properly called foeticide. Among the ancient philosophers and medieval theologians there was considerable discussion as to when the human embryo could be said to possess human life. This is no longer a question among modern biologists. At the very moment of conception a human being comes into existence. At any time after this the deprivation of life in this living matter, if done deliberately, is murder. The laws of most States in the Union are so framed that conditions may not be deliberately created which would put the life of the foetus in danger, or which would bring about an abortion before the foetus is viable, unless it has been decided in a consultation of physicians that the lives of both mother and child are in danger and only one of them can be saved. The comparative safety of the Cæsarean section has also worked in the direction of safeguarding the life of the unborn child. The killing of a viable child because it is impossible to deliver it by the natural birth passages is now condemned by physicians all over the world. Craniotomy, that is, the crushing of the skull of a living child in order to facilitate its delivery, where great difficulty was encountered, was a common teaching in medical schools a generation ago, but the stand taken by the Church has had its effect in gradually bringing about a change of teaching and a recognition of the right of the child to life. Craniotomy on the living child is now never considered justifiable. When it is definitely known that the foetus is dead, crushing methods may be employed to extract it piecemeal, but this procedure is much more dangerous for the mother than Cæsarean section.

Many drugs are purchased by women with the idea that they will produce abortion without endangering the mother’s life. No such drugs are known to modern medical science. There are drugs in the pharmacop ia which produce abortions, but only by affecting the mother very seriously. Abortion sometimes occurs after the taking of certain drugs supposed to produce it; but the premature birth is not due to the drug, it is caused by other influences. Twenty percent of all pregnancies end in premature births. The unfortunate woman who has had recourse to the drug then imagines that she has committed infanticide, and in intention she has; but the actual event has not been the result of the drug, unless that drug was one of the poisonous kind known as “abortifacients” and abortion took place in the convulsion which followed. It is absolutely certain that no known drug will produce abortion without producing very serious effects upon the mother, and even gravely endangering her life.

(For the teaching of the Church on pre-natal infanticide, see ABORTION.)

BROUARDEL, L’Infanticide (Paris, 1907); TARDIEU, L’Infanticide (Paris, 1868); RYAN, Infanticide, its Prevalence, Prevention and History (Fothergill Gold Medal S. A.), (London, 1862); BOURDON, L’Infanticide dans les législations anciennes et modernes (Douai, 1896). — All the standard works on medical jurisprudence have chapters on this subject.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
Infanticide
James J. Walsh

Causes of abortion. To understand the physical effects of abortion we must know something of the causes, which are in the main the same as the causes of miscarriage and premature delivery. Abortion may be due to pathological changes in the ovum, the uterus, or its adnexa one or both — to the physical or nervous condition of the woman, to diseases either inherited or acquired (syphilis, tuberculosis, rheumatism); to any infectious, contagious, or inflammatory disease; to shock, injury, or accident. It may be induced knowingly, willingly, and criminally by the pregnant person herself, or by someone else, with the aid of drugs, or instruments, or both.

Physical effects of abortion. Naturally, therefore, the physical effects of abortion will depend in direct ratio on the causation thereof, and the comparative malignity or benignity of such causation. In any case, abortion is fraught with serious consequences, direct and indirect — and is a sad miscarriage of nature’s plan, greatly to be deplored, and earnestly, strenuously, and conscientiously to be avoided. Of course, when brought about with criminal intent, abortion is nothing less than murder in the first degree; and if the law of the land does not discover and punish the criminal, the higher law of the God of Nature and of Nature’s inexorable reprisals for interference with, or destruction of her beneficent designs, will sooner or later most certainly do so.

When abortion is due to pathological causes it is usually preceded by the death of the fetus; so that the causes of abortion are really the causes producing the death of the fetus. The abortion may be complete or partial. If complete, the danger is principally from shock and haemorrhage; if incomplete and any debris remains, there is danger of septicaemia, uraemia, endometritis, perimetritis, diseases of the tubes, ovaries, bladder, cervix uteri, vaginal canal, and rectum; together with catarrhal discharges from one or more of these parts, displacements, impoverished blood supply, various neuroses, and usually a long and expensive convalescence.

The retention of the dead fetus is not always so dangerous. Even if decomposition or putrefaction occur, Nature frequently — possibly more often than we are willing to give her credit for — eliminates the offending foreign mass without the aid of the obstetrician. But it is not wise to advocate the waiting for such happy and spontaneous events. However while it is true that with proper medical care and attention most cases of abortion (excluding criminal cases and those complicated with other morbid conditions) present a modicum of danger, yet we must not forget that reports and statistics on this subject are very unreliable. First, there may be a false diagnosis; and secondly, concealment on the part of the patient, attendants, and all concerned is exceedingly common today.

Obstetrical science has made many and important advances; but abortions from one cause or another (especially criminal abortion) continue in abundance; and their results have been and are still crowding the medical offices. To tear out the living products of conception by the roots is, in most cases, to give the pregnant woman gratuitous transportation for eternity. Even in spontaneous cases, as we have seen, death may occur from various causes. How much greater the danger, then, when the vandal hand of the professional abortionist adds wounds and injuries to complete his diabolical work.

Conclusion. Since so many people today have ceased to look on abortion as a calamity at all times, and as a moral monstrosity in its criminal aspect, they should be deterred from committing it by the fear of physical consequences, if they are not moved by the love of morality and righteousness.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
The Physical Effects of Abortion
by James Nicholas Butler

In it the fetus dies while yet within the generative organs of the mother, or it is ejected or extracted from them before it is viable; that is, before it is sufficiently developed to continue its life by itself. The term abortion is also applied, though less properly, to cases in which the child is become viable, but does not survive the delivery. In this article we shall take the word in its widest meaning, and treat of abortion as occurring at any time between conception and safe delivery. The word miscarriage is taken in the same wide sense. Yet medical writers often use these words in special meanings, restricting abortion to the time when the embryo has not yet assumed specific features, that is, in the human embryo, before the third month of gestation; miscarriage occurs later, but before viability; while the birth of a viable child before the completed term of nine months is styled premature birth. Viability may exist in the seventh month of gestation, but it cannot safely be presumed before the eighth month. If the child survives its premature birth, there is no abortion — for this word always denotes the loss of fetal life.

It was long debated among the learned at what period of gestation the human embryo begins to be animated by the rational, spiritual soul, which elevates man above all other species of the animal creation and survives the body to live forever. The keenest mind among the ancient philosophers, Aristotle, had conjectured that the future child was endowed at conception with a principle of only vegetative life, which was exchanged after a few days for an animal soul, and was not succeeded by a rational soul till later; his followers said on the fortieth day for a male, and the eightieth for a female, child. The authority of his great name and the want of definite knowledge to the contrary caused this theory to be generally accepted up to recent times. Yet, as early as the fourth century of the Christian era, St. Gregory of Nyssa had advocated the view which modern science has confirmed almost to a certainty, namely, that the same life principle quickens the organism from the first moment of its individual existence until its death (Eschbach, Disp. Phys., Disp., iii). Now it is at the very time of conception, or fecundation, that the embryo begins to live a distinct individual life. For life does not result from an organism when it has been built up, but the vital principle builds up the organism of its own body. In virtue of the one eternal act of the Will of the Creator, Who is of course ever present at every portion of His creation, the soul of every new human being begins to exist when the cell which generation has provided is ready to receive it as its principle of life. In the normal course of nature the living embryo carries on its work of, self-evolution within the maternal womb, deriving its nourishment from the placenta through the vital cord, till, on reaching maturity, it is by the contraction of the uterus issued to lead its separate life. Abortion is a fatal termination of this process. It may result from various causes, which may be classed under two heads, accidental and intentional.

Accidental causes may be of many different kinds. Sometimes the embryo, instead of developing in the uterus, remains in one of the ovaries, or gets lodged in one of the Fallopian tubes, or is precipitated into the abdomen, resulting, in any of these cases, in an ectopic, or extra-uterine gestation. This almost invariably brings on the death of the fetus, and is besides often fraught with serious danger to the mother. Even if an ectopic child should live to maturity, it cannot be born by the natural channel — but, once it has become viable, it may be saved by a surgical operation. Most commonly the embryo develops in the uterus; but there, too, it is exposed to a great variety of dangers, especially during the first months of its existence. There may be remote predispositions in the mother to contract diseases fatal to her offspring. Heredity, malformation, syphilis, advanced age, excessive weakness, effects of former sicknesses, etc. may be causes of danger; even the climate may exercise an unfavorable influence. More immediate causes of abortion may be found in cruel treatment of the mother by her husband or in starvation, or any kind of hardship. Her own indiscretion is often to blame; as when she undertakes excessive labours or uses intoxicating drinks too freely. Anything in fact that causes a severe shock to the bodily frame or the nervous system of the mother may be fatal to the child in her womb. On the part of the father, syphilis, alcoholism, old age, and physical weakness may act unfavourably on the offspring at any time of its existence. The frequency of accidental abortions is no doubt very great; it must differ considerably according to the circumstances, so that the proportion between successful and unsuccessful conceptions is beyond the calculation of the learned.

Intentional abortions are distinguished by medical writers into two classes.

• When they are brought about for social reasons, they are called criminal abortions; and they are rightly condemned under any circumstances whatsoever. “Often, very often,” said Dr. Hodge, of the University of Pennsylvania, “must all the eloquence and all the authority of the practitioner be employed; often he must, as it were, grasp the conscience of his weak and erring patient, and let her know, in language not to be misunderstood, that she is responsible to the Creator for the life of the being within her” (Wharton and Stille’s Med. Jurispr., Vol. on Abortion, 11).

• The name of obstetrical abortion is given by physicians to such as is performed to save the life of the mother. Whether this practice is ever morally lawful we shall consider below.

It is evident that the determination of what is right or wrong in human conduct belongs to the science of ethics and the teaching of religious authority. Both of these declare the Divine law, “Thou shalt not kill”. The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that “evil is never to be done that good may come of it”; or, which is the same thing, that “a good end cannot justify a bad means”. Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life.

The teachings of the Catholic Church admit of no doubt on the subject. Such moral questions, when they are submitted, are decided by the Tribunal of the Holy Office. Now this authority decreed, 28 May, 1884, and again, 18 August, 1889, that “it cannot be safely taught in Catholic schools that it is lawful to perform . . . any surgical operation which is directly destructive of the life of the fetus or the mother.” Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”. Ethics, then, and the Church agree in teaching that no action is lawful which directly destroys fetal life. It is also clear that extracting the living fetus before it is viable, is destroying its life as directly as it would be killing a grown man directly to plunge him into a medium in which he cannot live, and hold him there till he expires.

However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked. Moralists agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions are verified, namely:

• That we do not wish the evil effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;

• That the immediate effect be good in itself;

• That the evil is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil that Good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;

• That the good effect be as important at least as the evil effect.

All four conditions may be verified in treating or operating on a woman with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life; the immediate effect intended, the mother’s life, is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother’s life is in itself as good as the saving of the child’s life. Of course provision must be made for the child’s spiritual as well as for its physical life, and if by the treatment or operation in question the child were to be deprived of Baptism, which it could receive if the operation were not performed, then the evil would be greater than the good consequences of the operation. In this case the operation could not lawfully be performed. Whenever it is possible to baptize an embryonic child before it expires, Christian charity requires that it be done, either before or after delivery; and it may be done by any one, even though he be not a Christian. History contains no mention of criminal abortions antecedent to the period of decadent morality in classic Greece. The crime seems not to have prevailed in the time of Moses, either among the Jews or among the surrounding nations; else that great legislator would certainly have spoken in condemnation of it. No mention of it occurs in the long enumeration of sins laid to the charge of the Canaanites. The first reference to it is found in the books attributed to Hippocrates, who required physicians to bind themselves by oath not to give to women drinks fatal to the child in the womb. At that period voluptuousness had corrupted the morals of the Greeks, and Aspasia was teaching ways of procuring abortion. In later times the Romans became still more depraved, and bolder in such practices; for Ovid wrote concerning the upper classes of his countrymen:

Nunc uterum vitiat quae vult formosa videri, Raraque, in hoc aevo, est quae velit esse parens.

Three centuries later we meet with the first record of laws enacted by the State to check this crime. Exile was decreed against mothers guilty of it; while those who administered the potion to procure it were if nobles, sent to certain islands, if plebeians, condemned to work in the metal mines. Still the Romans in their legislation appear to have aimed at punishing the wrong done by abortion to the father or the mother, rather than the wrong done to the unborn child. The early Christians are the first on record as having pronounced abortion to be the murder of human beings, for their public apologists, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minutius Felix (Eschbach, “Disp. Phys.”, Disp. iii), to refute the slander that a child was slain, and its flesh eaten, by the guests at the Agapae, appealed to their laws as forbidding all manner of murder, even that of children in the womb. The Fathers of the Church unanimously maintained the same doctrine. In the fourth century the Council of Eliberis decreed that Holy Communion should be refused all the rest of her life, even on her deathbed, to an adulteress who had procured the abortion of her child. The Sixth Ecumenical Council determined for the whole Church that anyone who procured abortion should bear all the punishments inflicted on murderers. In all these teachings and enactments no distinction is made between the earlier and the later stages of gestation. For, though the opinion of Aristotle, or similar speculations, regarding the time when the rational soul is infused into the embryo, were practically accepted for many centuries still it was always held by the Church that he who destroyed what was to be a man was guilty of destroying a human life. The great prevalence of criminal abortion ceased wherever Christianity became established. It was a crime of comparatively rare occurrence in the Middle Ages. Like its companion crime, divorce, it did not again become a danger to society till of late years. Except at times and in places influenced by Catholic principles, what medical writers call “obstetric” abortion, as distinct from “criminal” (though both are indefensible on moral grounds), has always been a common practice. It was usually performed by means of craniotomy, or the crushing of the child’s head to save the mother’s life. Hippocrates, Celsus, Avicenna, and the Arabian school generally invented a number of vulnerating instruments to enter and crush the child’s cranium. In more recent times, with the advance of the obsteric science, more conservative measures have gradually prevailed. By use of the forceps, by skill acquired in version, by procuring premature labour, and especially by asepticism in the Caesarean section and other equivalent operations, medical science has found much improved means of saving both the child and its mother. Of late years such progress has been made in this matter, that craniotomy on the living child has passed out of reputable practice. But abortion proper, before the fetus is viable, is still often employed, especially in ectopic gestation; and there are many men and women who may be called professional abortionists.

In former times civil laws against all kinds of abortion were very severe among Christian nations. Among the Visigoths, the penalty was death, or privation of sight, for the mother who allowed it and for the father who consented to it, and death for the abortionist. In Spain, the woman guilty of it was buried alive. An edict of the French King Henry II in 1555, renewed by Louis XIV in 1708, inflicted capital punishment for adultery and abortion combined. Later French law (i.e., early twentieth century) punished the abortionist with imprisonment, and physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists, who prescribe or furnish the means, with the penalty of forced labour. For England, Blackstone stated the law as follows:

Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins, in contemplation of law, as soon as an infant is able to stir in its mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb, or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But the modern law does not look upon this offence in so atrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanour.

In the United States, legislation in this matter is neither strict nor uniform, nor are convictions of frequent occurrence. In some of the States any medical practitioner is allowed to procure abortion whenever he judges it necessary to save the mother’s life.

The Catholic Church has not relaxed her strict prohibition of all abortion; but, as we have seen above, she has made it more definite. As to the penalties she inflicts upon the guilty parties, her present legislation was fixed by the Bull of Pius IX “Apostolicae Sedis”. It decrees excommunication — that is, deprivation of the Sacraments and of the Prayers of the Church in the case of any of her members, and other privations besides in the case of clergymen — against all who seek to procure abortion, if their action produces the effect. Penalties must always be strictly interpreted. Therefore, while anyone who voluntarily aids in procuring abortion, in any way whatever, does morally wrong, only those incur the excommunication who themselves actually and efficaciously procure the abortion. And the abortion here meant is that which is strictly so called, namely, that performed before the child is viable. For no one but the lawgiver has the right to extend the law beyond the terms in which it is expressed. On the other hand, no one can restrict its meaning by private authority, so as to make it less than the received terms of Church language really signify. Now Gregory XIV had enacted the penalty of excommunication for abortion of a “quickened” child but the present law makes no such distinction, and therefore it must be differently understood.

That distinction, however, applies to another effect which may result from the procuring of abortion; namely, he who does so for a child after quickening incurs an irregularity, or hindrance to his receiving or exercising Orders in the Church. But he would not incur such irregularity if the embryo were not yet quickened. The terms “quickened” and “animation” in present usage are applied to the child after the mother can percieve its motion, which usually happens about the one hundred and sixteenth day after conception. But in the old canon law, which established the irregularity here referred to the “animation” of the embryo was supposed to occur on the fortieth day for a male child, and on the eightieth day for a female child. In such matters of canon law, just as in civil law, many technicalities and intricacies occur, which it often takes the professional student to understand fully. In regard to the decisions of the Roman tribunal quoted above it is proper to remark that while they claim the respect and loyal adhesion of Catholics, they are not irreformable, since they are not definitive judgments, nor do they proceed directly from the Supreme Pontiff, who alone has the prerogative of infallibility. If ever reasons should arise, which is most improbable, to change these pronouncements those reasons would receive due consideration.

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)
Abortion
by Charles Coppens