HUMAN STERILIZATION - REVEREND JOHN A. RYAN, D.D. - I.THE MORAL ASPECT

Sep 21, 2026

A formal treatise on the moral implications of compulsory human sterilization, prompted by a Supreme Court decision upholding a Virginia law for sterilizing mental defectives. The text notes the absence of official church pronouncements and surveys the views of moral theologians, arguing that sterilization is condemned as mutilation and a degradation of the human person. It then weighs counterarguments about the community’s well-being versus individual bodily integrity and discusses conditions under which public sterilization might be justified.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryReligion & Spirituality

FormatPDF

Pages12

Reading Time30 min

AccessFree to download

HUMAN STERILIZATION

Gift

FOREWORD

HUMAN STERILIZATION

I.THE MORAL ASPECT

97-84125-7Ryan,John Augustine # Human sterilization Washington,D.C. ## COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIESPRESERVATION DIVISIONBIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED-EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD Roproductions may not be made wilthout permisslon from Columbla Unlverslty Lbraries. ### RESTRICTIONS ON USE: TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA mmREDUCTION RATIO: 10:/MAGE PLACEMENT:IA(IIA DATE FILMED: 6-30-97INITIALS: 98 TRACKING\#: 25431 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES,BETHLEHEM,PA. 100 ## HUMANSTERILIZATION BY3。×922 REV.JOHN A.RYAN,D.D. NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCEI312 MASSACHUSETTS AVE.,N.W.WASHINGTON,D.C.I927 ## Gift FOREWORD "The ambition of the eugenists reaches still further.When thediagnosis of depravity has been fully perfected,they hope bylegal sterilization to eliminate not only idiots and degenerates,but also drunkards,tubercular persons,syphilitics,epileptics,and even the blind,the deaf,hunchbacks,and in a general wayall potential parents of inadequate offspring. In the hands of a people who are conscious of theirsuperiority and are ready to sterilize remorselessly Negroes andAsiatics,or in fact any inferior races,eugenics may eventuallyrelegate the ‘sacred rights of man'to the limbo of forgottenachievements.”("America Comes of Age,"by André Siegfried,pp.116,118.) The foregoing extracts from s remarkably penetrating studyof American life by a French Protestant describe the logicaloutcome of the policy of sterilization.Once men reject the.truth that the human person is intrinsically sacred,that even hisbody should be treated with reverence,they can easily persuadethemselves that any person may be used in any fashion for thebenefit of society.The difference between the social incon-veniences arising from the existence of too many imbeciles andthat resulting from the presence of too many Negroes,Mexicansor other non-Nordics,is a difference only of degree—possiblyin favor of the imbeciles.If sterilization is no degradation ofpersonality,no violation of natural rights,why should it not beapplied to all the inferior classes that bring more inconveniencethan convenience to the politically dominant elite? . ## HUMAN STERILIZATION REVEREND JoHN A.RYAN,D.D. ### I.THE MORAL ASPECT The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United Statessustaining a Virginia law for the compulsory sterilization ofmental defectives makes the moral aspect of such legislation avery practical question.This question was obviously not beforethe Supreme Court.All that the Court does when the constitu-tionality of a statute is challenged is to decide whether thestatute is prohibited by the Constitution.It found that theVirginia law was not thus prohibited. The Church has made no official pronouncement upon themorality of the operation known as human sterilization.Nei-ther the Pope nor a General Council nor a Roman Congregationhas issued any declaration on the subject.It must be remem-bered that laws providing for this process are quite recent.Sofar as I know,they do not exist outside of the United States,and the first American law was enacted by the State of Indiana,March 9,1907.In the absence of official doctrine,the opinionsof moral theologians provide the only teaching that enjoys anyauthority.Probably the opinion of H.Noldin,SJ.,is represen-tative of the majority.In substance it is that this operation isnever morally lawful unless it is performed as a necessary meansof preserving life or health;therefore,it may not be imposedby public authority for the purpose of preventing the existenceof defective persons. The Rev.Francis S.Betten,SJ,has recently written:"Steril-ization is prohibited by the natural law,like race suicide,stealingand murder."Father Betten must have put down this sentencesomewhat hastily,for in a subsequent paragraph he declar

FAQs

Why does the author treat compulsory sterilization as a practical moral question?

Because the Supreme Court decision sustaining the Virginia law makes the moral aspect of such legislation immediate and consequential. The Court focused on constitutional legality rather than the underlying moral question.

Did the Church issue official guidance on the morality of human sterilization?

The text states that the Church made no official pronouncement through the Pope, councils, or Roman congregations. Therefore, the author relies on opinions of moral theologians.

What is the central moral argument against sterilization presented by moral theologians?

Sterilization is condemned as mutilation of the human person: it destroys a bodily function necessary for producing offspring, so its moral character is judged not by pain but by the impossibility of this fundamental function.

Sep 21, 2026

Upload by Clementine