Doyle, Joseph Bernard

English

epublications@Marquette

The Linacre QuarterlyVolume 20 | Number 1 Article 42-1-1953The Bomb, The Baby and the PopeJoseph Bernard DoyleFollow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/lnqPart of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Medicine and Health SciencesCommonsRecommended CitationDoyle, Joseph Bernard (1953) "The Bomb, The Baby and the Pope," The Linacre Quarterly: Vol. 20 : No. 1 , Article 4.Available at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/lnq/vol20/iss1/410 THE LINACRE QUARTERLY =· The Bomb, The Baby and The PopeJOSEPH BERN ARD DOYLE, l\I.D. Guild of St. Luke, Boston"Without God," T. S. Eliot writes in "The Rock," all our physics, II our science are nothing but . . . .... "Endless i11\·c11tions, endless experimentsBringing know ledge of motion but not of stillness;Knowledge of speech but not of sileni;e; Knowledge ·of words and ignorance of the "' ord.All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance, All our ignorance brings us nearer to deathBut nearness to death no nearer to God. T RULY we liv: in an a�e which is at _ once the most enlightened a1 :Ithe most confused. It is an age winch acknowledges that the ii ·­. mediate goal of science is the pel'petuation of human life and tl "! creation of a material endromnent in which life can be enjoyed mo·,.abundantly. Yet, it is a fact that the outstanding achieYement of th.,century has been the creation by nuclear fission of the greatest means ,<mass destruction of human life ever conceived by man. \Ve have made tk·atom bomb and. now the hydrogen bomb. VVe ha\·e the "know-how." Vi'it 1 increasing frequency men are asking "Do we ha\·e the 'know-why'?" SinL"we ha\·e made these monstrous things, we now ask ourselves, "Should \\ ,·make more?" The answer lies in the sacredness of human life. The emine1,tbiologist LeCompte DuNouy ("Human Destiny ") states "Too many loo�:upon our inventions as symbols of true civilization. Not human comfort arnlconrenience but human dignity must be our ideal. Inte_lligence unle1,·,go\·erned by ·�onscience will generally influence man adversely in the choie,· between good and evil. That is why intelligence alone is dangerous. Alone.it made· the ·atom ·bomb. Suddenly people realized that a: tritimph of sciencebrutally challenged their security, the conflict beb'.'een pure intelligenci'and moral values has become a matter of life ·and death." The right to lifrand the moral ralue of the human life ha,·e suddenly become intenseh·significant not only to the scientist but to the philosopher as well.. It is the dubious distinction of the second half of this century that \n·now await the perfection of an oral coutraceptive to offer to mankind acheap universal means of pre\·enting or destroying the o-reatest sino-le o·iflo o o . of God-human life itself. For let there be nQ mistake, it is human lifeTHE LINACRE QUARTERLY 11 I b tl ti · of the atom or the which is the target whether t 1c means e 1e ss10n''' · I t lJ · · Eliot in hisprevention of the fusion of the gametes. c m1g I we JOmcry:-"Where is the life we have lnst in lid11g? Where is the wisdom we ha\·e lost in knowledge? The cydcs of Heaven in twenty centuriesBrin<> us farther from God and nearer to the dust."l:) It is a paradoxically perplexing age. While Catholic philosophy 11ucrhas been more liighly esteemed, Catholic theological dogma has ne\·er beenmore vio-orouslY misunderstood and denounced. F. S. C. Northrop, Professorof Phil:sophy • at Yale ("The :\Ieeting of East and West" ... page 25k_)has commented upon this recent revi\·al of interest in Roman Catholicphilosophy on the part of some of the acute of modern non-Catholic _ phi_loso­phers and thinkers. "In the United States, there has beeu a qmte mde­pendent return to the Thomistic and Aristotelian philosophr as a measureof legal theory and educational policy under the leadership of PresidentStringfellow Barr and Dean Scott Buchanan of St. John's College! and of Professor :\Iortimer Adler and former President Robert \I. Hutchms at the Uni\·ersity of Chicago. · This indigenous American deYelopment is themore imprcssil·e because all of its leaders are exceptionally inforn_ie�'. in­fluential and original thinkers; and also because none of them wa_s 1111tiallya Roman Catholic."Although Gilson and \Iaritain unh·ersally recognized outstandi'.1g phi­losophers both hold that human reason must be quickened and guided by Christian faith, Paul Blanshard sneers at the priests for daring to expressdoamatic moral opinions on what are obviously moral problems. He states:("American Democracy and Catholic Power" ... p. 108) "Catholic priests tell Catholic physicialls when the life of a soul begins in the womb, whatthe suro-eon Cl!n and cmwot (sic) do concerning the ending of the life ofthe fett7s, and what must be done to the new-born child immediately after birth. In the field of sexual co11duct the priests not only lay down \·erydefinite and detailed instructions concerning courtship, marriage and divorce; but also proclaim rules concerning contraception, abortion, masturbation,artificial insemination, sterilization, sodomy and the manners of the mar­riage bed. They belie\·e that celibacy does not disqualify the� from giv'.n�advice 011 such matters." vVhat anyone should or should not do 111 any actin­ty of life has always been the acknowledged sphere of moralistic thinking.One need not be an expe1·ienced murderer to know that murder is intrin­sically wrong.G. · K. Chesterton pointed out there are only two kinds of people; thosewho accept dogmas and know it, and those who accept dogmas and do not 12 . THE LIN ACRE QUARTERLY know it. Many who do not believe in revealed truth accept as ultim te truth what is supposed to be the last teaching of science. But science is constantly changing. Hence, for these men science will be constantly cha11:.­ing and constantly dogmatic. One of the greatest instances of misunderstanding of Catholic dogI L 1 was that of Norman Thomas (The Nation - May 14, 1949, p. 551) revie·, ·· ing Blanshard's book "that if a choice be made the life of the unborn chil< . even the smallest embryo, should be preferred to that of the mother." If th fetus is not a human being, then of course the Catholic position rests on a1 erroneous premise. It would seem, however, that the burden of provin that the fetus is not a human being rests upon those who deny it, and tha .. they should assume this burden before proceeding to disembowel the fetu& or to crush its skull. Pope Pius XII has given this formal answer to this misunderstood prob­lem (An address to the Catholic Physicians in Rome, 1951.) "Innocenf human life, in whatever condition it is. found, is withdrawn, from the ver: first moment of its existence, from any direct deliberate attack. This is :· fundamental right of human person, which is of general value in th, Christian conception of life; hence as valid for the life still hidden withir. the womb of the mother, as for the life already born and developing out-­side of her; as much opposed to direct abortion as to the direct killing of the child before, during or after its birth. This principle holds good both for the life of the child as well as for that of the mother. Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alterna­tive; either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother, nor the life of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case, as in the other, there can be but one obliga­tion; to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and of the child. On purpose, we have always used the expression 'direct attempt on the life of an innocent person; 'direct killing.' Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother independently of her pregnancy should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as a necessary consequence in no way desired nor intended but inevitable the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these col).ditions, the operation can be licit like other similar medical interventions granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child nor t o  have recourse to other efficacious remedies. On the other hand, the church knows how to consider with sympathy and understanding the real difficulties of the THE LJNACRE QUARTERLY 13 married state in our day. Therefore, in', our last allocution on conjugalmorality we affirmed the legitimacy and. at the same time the limits, intruth very wide, of a regulation of offspring which unlike so-called . 'birt.hcontrol' is compatible with the law of God. One may even hope (but m thismatter the church naturally leaves the judgment to medical science) thatscience will succeed in providing this licit method with a sufficiently securebasis and the most recent information seems to confirm such a hope.", Paul Blanshard should not be surprised with the simple logic that in matters concerning the destruction or prevention of human life scientists and physicians who share the Christian faith turn to such a noble source of inspiration for guidance. The greatest contribution of the modern marriage counselors is the great plan against parenthood. We may be proud t o  turn to such an astute defender of the privilege of parenthood. During a recent lecture tour of seven medical cente.rs in Europe, I observed a sterilization operation by an eminent British gynecologist. He was fair enough to say, "I know that you would not do this operation; I am not sure that I am completely right, but I'm going ahead anyhow." All too frequently this honest groping for direction is manifest among men of good will in science in every land. On another occasion an eminent Amel"ican specialist in the field of human reproduction inquired seriously, "\¥hy does the Pope condemn me when I perform artificial donor insemination- and help a wife whose husband is hopelessly sterile to have her own baby? The husband can then semi­adopt it since it is truly his wife's baby:" The question was asked in . good faith. I answered, "How would you like to be that test tube baby? How would you feel if one day you were told you were mother's bright idea, and that your father had reluctantly acquiesced?" My friend agreed that he had not given sufficient thought to that aspect of the problem and he also agreed that there certainly was an inalienable right for each one of us to know whence we came. Yet one of the cardinal principles of  artifi­cial insemination is that secrecy as to t�e donor of this semen must be maintained. In effect, this means that the; scientifically conceived test tube bastard is of undetermined and indeterm1,nable paternity. Nor can legal semi-adoption ever change the fact that he' will forever be a stranger in his father's house. The Catholic physician need offer no apology for his re­fusal to initiate by any deliberate act the tragedy of a human being whose soul begins its earthy passage handicapped at the outset by such an enormous source of melancholia. Dr. Myer Friedman warns: "One of the main causes of present insecuri­ty is the loss of a sense of one's own past. Today, so many human beings are concerned about the future that they never take stock of the fact that -·-14 THE LINACRE QUARTERLY ��=========,:,:::::::=========,:_ they exist in the present. Thus, they ne,·er tag today, and consequent 1· when it becomes yesterday it escapes beyond the pale of conscious reca : . . -\.n indiddual who lacks a past, who ne,·er thinks of his past, but is alwa_1 s tip-toeing on the present to peer with anxiety of the future, becomes i1 · secure because he no longer exists in the dimensions of past, present ai1 I future." Insecurity itself arises in many ways and it seems to we that one of th · most important sources in the present day person is loss of the feeling < · a personal Diety. He began to get lost after the thirteenth century whe science attacked the concepts of the faith, eternity and infinity and substi tuted for thclll cynicism, time and place and interactiou of time and placl I belieYe that man becallle lonel_1r just as soon as he suspected that he wa· part ;)f a random process without hope of inten·ention on his behalf b_1 some Deity. It ·is probable that man becomes insecure when he canno adore, or cannot lose himself in something greater than himself. It is Yer.1 difficult for a man to lose hiniself in the random processes described b_1 modern-day science. The obsessi,·e material instinct of the childless wife in no wa_1· j ustifie,, a random sireless son. Such a bizarre human being finding himself a mean­ingless wanderer on the wasteland of. time-ne,·er able to know his true father nor to find his pride of lineage-might decide to terminate his artificially initiated life by suicide. \Vho can sa,v that the physician who performed the act of donor insemination was free from moral guilt in plant­ing this psychological time-bomb? Sadly the Talmud says, "The barren are like the dead." There is within each one of us an intense desire to belong to the continuing stream of human life. From this great yearning of the human heart haye sprung filial deYo­tion, racial pride and patriotism itself. The pagan Chinese raised re,·erence for their ancestors to the status of a religion. The ancient Jews adored the father Jehornh. The central mystery of the Christian religion re,·oh-es around the Madonna and her eternal Child. The Hol,v Father, defining the thought of the church on artificial donor insemination (Pius XII: International Congress of Catholic Physicians­Octobe1· l, 19.J.9) spoke with the wisdom of the ages when he reaffirmed the Christian belief that "to spouses alone is reserved the right of human procreation." New ihings may be the scientist's rule But only God can make a soul. An address to the Catholic Club of Harvard University - Nov. 4, 195112 THE LINACRE QUARTERLY 15 Medico-Moral Notes by GERALD KELLY, S. J. FEE-SPLITTING: SOME QUESTIONS I N the last nulllber of Li11acre Quarterly (NoYember, 1952, pp. l08-I09) in answer to many requests, I included a �rie_f statement on the �oralaspects of fee-splitting; and as a result of this a doctor has submitted certain questions. I belie,:e th.at his questions, with a brief explanatory comment, should be published now. ::\Iy former remarks were simply a synopsis of what is said on this subject by Payen in his Deontologie medicate. Payen takes fee-splitting to mean a secret diyision of honoraria; and he says that this practice is sometimes unjust, always dangerous, and always beneath the dignity of the medical profession. As examples of the injustices that are sometimes oc­casioned b_1' the practice of fee-splitting, Pa yen cites these four cases: (I) the attending physician refers the patient to a specialist and demandsa part of the specialist's honorarium; (2) the specialist charges more thanhis ordinary fee so that he can give a part to the referring physician; (3)the physician refers the patient to a less-capable specialist because this mangi,·es him a larger split; and ( 4) the physician connives with a surgeon forthe performance of an operation that is either unnecessary or contra­indicated.My doctor correspondent raises questions about each of the f�m: in­justices which Payen cites as examples. The pel"tinent parts of his letter are as follows: ;'[Example I] The injustice is to the specialist who rnluntarily giYeS part of his fee to the referring physician. In fact, they usually ha,·e an unde�standing before an operation is performed. How can this be unjust? "[Example 2] It is always morally wrong to oYercharge a patient, whether the fee is to be split or not. Therefore, this should not enter into_ the morality of fee-splitting. "[Example 3} · Over a period of years the standard of percentage of fee to be split has adjusted itself to 507'0 in most cases. The referring physician has a choice of many specialists, and I am sure he would pick the one of greatest capabilitie , fo1· after all, his reputation is also at stake. 

The Bomb, The Baby and the Pope

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4438&amp;context=lnq

The Bomb, The Baby and the Pope

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette