|
Casti Connubii was a papal encyclical
promulgated by Pope Pius XI in 1930. It stressed the sanctity of
marriage, prohibited Roman Catholics from using any form of
artificial birth control, and reaffirmed the prohibition on
abortion. It also explained the authority of Church doctrine on
moral matters, and advocated the cooperation of civil governments
with the Church.
On BIRTH CONTROL:
56. Since,
therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition
some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another
doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has
entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing
erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that
she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by
this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship
and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony
exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its
natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and
of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a
grave sin.
57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who
have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our
solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful
entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much
more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no
way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may
God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or
should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him
be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the
Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to
himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind:
and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]
On STERILIZATION:
68. Finally, that pernicious practice must be condemned which closely
touches upon the natural right of man to enter matrimony but affects
also in a real way the welfare of the offspring. For there are some who
over solicitous for the cause of eugenics, not only give salutary
counsel for more certainly procuring the strength and health of the
future child - which, indeed, is not contrary to right reason - but put
eugenics before aims of a higher order, and by public authority wish to
prevent from marrying all those whom, even though naturally fit for
marriage, they consider, according to the norms and conjectures of their
investigations, would, through hereditary transmission, bring forth
defective offspring. And more, they wish to legislate to deprive these
of that natural faculty by medical action despite their unwillingness;
and this they do not propose as an infliction of grave punishment under
the authority of the state for a crime committed, not to prevent future
crimes by guilty persons, but against every right and good they wish the
civil authority to arrogate to itself a power over a faculty which it
never had and can never legitimately possess.
69. Those who act in this way are at fault in losing sight of the fact
that the family is more sacred than the State and that men are begotten
not for the earth and for time, but for Heaven and eternity. Although
often these individuals are to be dissuaded from entering into
matrimony, certainly it is wrong to brand men with the stigma of crime
because they contract marriage, on the ground that, despite the fact
that they are in every respect capable of matrimony, they will give
birth only to defective children, even though they use all care and
diligence.
70. Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their
subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no
cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or
tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of
eugenics or for any other reason. St. Thomas teaches this when inquiring
whether human judges for the sake of preventing future evils can inflict
punishment, he admits that the power indeed exists as regards certain
other forms of evil, but justly and properly denies it as regards the
maiming of the body. "No one who is guiltless may be punished by a human
tribunal either by flogging to death, or mutilation, or by beating."[54]
71. Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human
reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power
over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their
natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their
members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural
functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of
the whole body.
|