The
CATHOLIC
DOCTOR
By

FRANCIS J. CONNELL, C.SS.R.

The Newman Bookshop
Westminster, Metylend

1945

AL0B45I

THE CATHOLIC DOCTOR

Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.

The Newman Bookshop. Westminster, Mtl.
1915

Reprinted from The American Ecclesiastical Review
Vol. CXI, No. 6, December, 1944
Made in United States of America

First printing June. 1945
Second printing October, 1945

THE CATHOLIC DOCTOR

The medical profession in many respects
resembles the priestly vocation. The doctor,
like the priest, has embraced a career directed
to the welfare of his fellow-men. The doctor
is interested primarily in their physical health,
the priest in their spiritual well-being; but
since there is an intimate relation between
body and soul, the functions of doctor and
priest, properly fulfilled, are mutually benefi­
cial. The conscientious doctor, like the de­
voted priest, is prepared to sacrifice his com­
fort, his recreation, his health, and in cases
of extreme necessity even his life, whenever
duty demands such sacrifices.
A doctor should ever bear in mind the dig­
nity and the importance of the task of caring
for the human body. A certain measure of
respect and admiration for the body, as a
marvellously fashioned and beautifully func­
tioning specimen of animal life, is possible
even on the part of an atheistic physician.
But only the doctor firm in the conviction
that the body whose ills he is treating is the
5

(i

Im Cauioi.u Doctor

dwelling-place of an immortal soul imaging
God Himself can be deeply impressed with
the exalted nature of his profession. And the
highest appreciation of the sacred dignity at­
tached to the medical calling is found in the
doctor possessing a strong Catholic faith, who
regards the human body as the temple of the
Holy Spirit, sanctified by the sacraments, des­
tined to a glorious resurrection on the last
day and to immortal bliss in heaven.

An attitude of this kind toward (he medi­
cal profession is to be expected of those doc­
tors who have made their studies in a Cath­
olic medical school. But unfortunately the
great majority of the Catholic doctors in the
United States have received their professional
training in secular institutions. This means
that the lectures to which they listened were
impregnated with crass materialism. Prac­
tices opposed to the natural law, such as con­
traception and “ therapeutic abortion ” were
presented to them as normal procedures,
which any sensible physician will recommend
in certain circumstances. Perhaps even the

I

hi

('.λτιιοι

i<: Doctor

7

teaching of the Catholic Church on these
matters was the object of ridicule in the class­
room, as a relic of medieval ignorance. At
any rate, these doctors were never urged to
devote themselves assiduously to their pro­
fessional practice by motives drawn from the
sublime destiny of the human body or from
the doctrine that every human being is an
actual or a potential member of the Mystical
Body of Christ.
It is therefore of vital importance that our
Catholic doctors be thoroughly instructed in
the principles of their religion bearing on
méditai practice. It is an undeniable fact
that some Catholic physicians and surgeons,
in perfect good faith, resort to measures that
are gravely sinful according to Catholic moral
teathing. 1 have heard of cases of Catholic
doctors who, on the occasion of an operation,
tieil up a woman's perfectly healthy fallopian
tubes in order to save her the inconvenience
of future pregnacies, anil apparently never
doubted about the lawfulness of this pro­
cedure.

H

The Catholic Doctor

Priests who have doctors among the faith­
fid committed to their pastoral care should
be mindful of their obligation in conscience
to provide these men (or women) with ade­
quate instruction on their professional duties.
If a considerable number of doctors reside in
a parish a special study club for them is in
order, and open discussion of the problems
they encounter in their field should be en­
couraged. If, for some reason or other, this
method is not feasible, the pastor should pro­
vide his parishioners of the medical profes­
sion with individual instruction, at least by
presenting them with useful books, such as
The. Catholic Doctor, by Bonnar, O.F.M., or
The Handbook of Medical Ethics, by La Ro­
chelle, O.M.I., and Fink, C.M. The confes­
sor of a doctor has a grave duty to see to it
that his penitent is sufficiently familiar with
the ethical principles pertinent to his prac­
tice. It could hardly ever happen that a con­
fessor could allow a doctor to remain in good
faith, when this latter is habitually employ­
ing some unlawful method of treatment, with­

Tin Catholic Doctor

9

out realizing that it is wrong. For, since
such a practice would usually be detrimental
to the common good and would be the occa­
sion of scandal, it would constitute one of
the cases in which a penitent may not be left
in good faith, even though it is very doubtful
that I he admonition will be heeded.1

The first problem that presents itself in
the matter of medical ethics is the lawfulness
of operating on a pregnant woman before the
child she is carrying is viable. The principles
bearing on the case are quite clear and sim­
ple: it is never licit to perform an operation
which has for its only immediate effect the
removal or the killing of the fetus; but for a
sufficient reason (the preservation of the
woman’s life) an operation may be performed
to cure an acute diseased condition, even
though the death of the child follows as an
indirect effect. However, the application of
these principles is sometimes quite difficult
because of the complicated factors involved.
1 Cf. Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, 13th ed.
(Turin, 1939), Vol. II, n. .138.

ΙΟ

The Catholic Doctor

Thus, some theologians believe that in the
event of tubal pregnancy, the removal of the
tube (entailing the death of the fetus) is not
permitted unless it is certain that in this par­
ticular case a pathological condition is pres­
ent which puts the woman in imminent dan­
ger of death.2 Others hold that whenever a
tubal pregnancy exists, an operation to re­
move the tube is allowed, even though the
danger to the woman is not yet imminent, be­
cause a pathological condition is certainly
present here and now which constitutes a
grave danger to life.3 The recent findings of
medical science would seem to favor this
second view, and there are good Catholic
doctors who accept it.
There are some doctors—and perhaps
among them are some Catholics—who attempt
to palliate the ejection of a fetus in the early
stage of its existence by asserting that during
the first few weeks of pregnancy the fetus does
2 Cf. O'Brien, “Ectopic
Ecclesiastical Review, CV,
3 Cf. Davis, Moral and
(New York, 1938), Π, 174

Gestation,” The American
2 (Aug. 1941), 95 f.
Pastoral Theology, 3rd ed.
f.

The Catholic Doctor

not possess a rational soul. Indeed, a con­
siderable number of Catholic theologians
have favored the view that the infusion of
the spiritual soul takes place only six weeks
or longer after impregnation. Nevertheless,
whatever may be thought of the scientific
value of this opinion, it cannot be regarded
as tenable with respect to the sinfulness of
abortion. Every direct abortion is regarded
by the Catholic Church as murder, however
immature the fetus may be, and is penalized
by the Church with the censure of excom­
munication.* A practical application of this
principle is the case of a girl who has been
raped. Although it is a soundly probable
opinion that measures may be taken to re­
move the semen of the attacker from her
body, it would be gravely sinful to give her
any form of treatment which even probably
would eject an impregnated ovum.

When a Catholic doctor is asked by a
woman who fears that she is pregnant to give
her a medicine that will terminate the pos4 Canon 2350, 1.

12

The Catholic Doctor

sible pregnancy, may he give her a harmless
drug, leaving her under the impression that
he is satisfying her wishes? Some Catholic
doctors have this custom, alleging that in this
wise they prevent her from going to a doctor
who would take actually abortive measures.
However, I am inclined to believe that the
scandal of even an apparent co-operation in
so grave a sin would be so serious that a Cath­
olic doctor, approached in this manner, must
state explicitly that he will do nothing to
bring about even a probable abortion.

The moral principles relative to abortion
and to operations entailing the death of a
fetus arc known to most Catholic doctors, but
there are other principles with which many
are not so familiar. For example, there is an
obligation by the divine law of charity to
baptize any child in imminent danger of
death, irrespective of the wishes of the par­
ents. However, since there is also a sound
principle that charity does not bind when a
graver evil might follow, a doctor would not
have to confer baptism when it is foreseen

The Catholic Doctor

13

that by so doing he might arouse public hos­
tility against the Catholic Church or Catholic
institutions. The doctor should be familiar
with every detail of the baptismal ceremony
and should observe meticulous care in con­
ferring this sacrament. He must see to it that
the words are said while the water is being
poured, that they are audible (at least to
himself), and that he has no condition re­
garding a future contingency, such as: “ I in­
tend to baptize only if the child is going to
die ” or “ I intend to baptize only if the
priest will not arrive in time to give the sac­
rament.” In the case of intra-uterine bap­
tism, the water must be poured, if at all pos­
sible, on the head. And, no matter how cer­
tain it may seem that this has been success­
fully accomplished, the sacrament must be
repeated conditionally after birth, as long as
the child’s head had not emerged at the time
of the former baptism.6
In the matter of baptism there are two
cases which even a well-instructed doctor is
5 Canon 746.

14

The Catholic Doctor

likely to overlook. The first is the case of a
miscarriage or the ejection of a fetus as an
indirect effect of an operation. If there is any
probability that the fetus is alive, it should
be baptized, no matter how immature it may
be. The most practical method, in the case
of a very small fetus, is total immersion,
while the baptismal formula is recited. The
membranes or the tube enclosing the fetus
should be broken sufficiently to allow the
water to flow on the skin.®

!'he other case arises after the death of a
pregnant woman. Of course, if the child is
viable, all doctors would agree, apart from
religious considerations, that a caesarean
operation should be performed so that the
little one may have a chance for a normal
life-span. But even when the fetus is quite
immature, Catholic principles call for a
caesarean section on the dead mother, so that
the sacrament of baptism may be adminis­
tered to the child. Since this is an obligation
• Cf. La Rochelle-Fink, Handbook of Medical Ethics
(Montreal. 1943), pp. 218 f.

The Catholic Doctor

j*

•5

of charity only, not of justice, and since there
is almost always grave reason to fear that the
fetus is already dead, a doctor would not be
obliged to incur grave inconveniences in con­
sequence of this procedure, such as the risk
of a civil suit from the relatives of the dead
woman, which might result in his exclusion
from professional practice. When a doctor
foresees the approaching death of a patient
who is with child, he should try to secure the
permission of her husband, or of some other
responsible member of her family, to perform
the caesarean operation as soon as she passes
away.
A fetus that has been baptized should be
buried in consecrated ground. When the
mother also has died, the little one is most
appropriately buried with her, whether it has
been baptized or not. Even an unbaptized
fetus should be buried, not cremated; and the
same is true of amputated members of the
body.’ The indiscriminate use of cremation
in hospitals today is an insult to Christian
7 Ibid, pp. 221 f.

16

The Catholic Doctor

decency, and doctors attached to a hospital
staff should try to remedy this abuse.

The doctor is bound by the law of God, as
well as by his Hippocratic oath, to preserve
the life of a patient as long as is reasonably
possible. This means that ordinary measures
must be employed even in the case of one
who will continue to be, naturally speaking,
merely an unprofitable burden on society.
If the child whose physical constitution is so
defective that he will grow up to be a drivell­
ing idiot is seriously ill with pneumonia, the
physician must employ the most effective
remedies he knows in order to cure him, pro­
vided they can be reckoned as ordinary
means. There is no obligation to use extra­
ordinary remedies to preserve a life so ham­
pered. Thus, if the child needed a very diffi­
cult and delicate operation, which only a
specialist could perform, in order to prolong
its life, there would be no obligation on the
parents or on the doctor to provide such an
operation. Similarly, there is no obligation
to have recourse to some very unusual and

Tue Catholic Doctor

17

expensive treatment or to a very painful op­
eration (such as the amputation of a limb)
to gain a brief prolongation of life for an
elderly person.

On the other hand, no doctor may ever
deliberately and directly accelerate death in
the case of a dying person. However painful
may be the patient’s condition, however bur­
densome he may be to his family, it would
simply be murder to give him a drug with
the direct intention of hastening his passage
from this world. At most he could be given
an analgesic, if his condition calls for it,
which, while directly intended to relieve the
pain, might have, as an indirect effect, the
lowering of resistance and consequently an
acceleration of death. But even in the use
of a pain-killing drug an important point
must not be neglected. The sick person should
not be rendered unconscious in the hours
immediately preceding death, unless the pain
is unbearable—and even then, it would be
wrong to deprive him of consciousness before
he has had an opportunity of preparing his

18

The Catholic Doctor

soul for eternity. For the final hours are a
time of great merit, when the dying person
should have the full use of his faculties, as
far as possible, that he may make himself
ready to meet God. It is in these hours that
the departing Catholic is encouraged and
consoled by the beautiful prayers that the
Church has appointed for that solemn occa­
sion.

A deplorable pagan custom is in vogue
among many doctors today—the custom of
deceiving their patients about their condi­
tion so effectively that they slip out of life
before they realize that they are dying. Some
doctors regard it as a proof of their profes­
sional skill to be able to keep up a false hope
in a dying patient to the very end. Unfortu­
nately, some Catholic doctors have adopted
this practice, at least to the extent of deceiv­
ing the sick person and the members of the
family so long that the priest is not called
until the last agony has begun. No con­
demnation is too severe for a Catholic doctor
who would be so neglectful of the salvation

The Catholic Doctor

‘9

of an immortal soul. As soon as there is
danger of death the Catholic doctor attend­
ing a Catholic patient is bound to inform the
members of the family, so that the spiritual
needs of the sick person may be provided for;
and if the admonition is unheeded, the doc­
tor has an obligation to summon the priest
himself. In the case of a non-Catholic, too,
the doctor is bound in charity to see that in
some way the suggestion is made to the dying
person that he prepare his soul for the su­
preme moment on which his lot will depend
for all eternity.

Problems relative to sex are frequently pre­
sented to doctors nowadays. As is very evi­
dent, a doctor is never allowed to recommend
any form of contraception, nor to furnish
chemical preparations or instruments for this
vile practice. This applies to non-Catholic
as well as to Catholic patients, for the prohi­
bition of contraception is a law of God bind­
ing all human beings, not a mere act of ec­
clesiastical legislation for Catholics only. If
a doctor sincerely believes that a woman can-

20

The Catholic Doctor

not safely have more children, either per­
manently or for a time, he can inform her
that pregnancy would be dangerous, leaving
it to her conscience to choose the lawful
course of abstinence in preference to sinful
means. If, however, he has reason to believe
that a married couple in such circumstances
can be persuaded to employ periodic conti­
nence (the “ Rhythm ”) in place of contra­
ception, he should explain this method and
its application to their particular condition.
For this purpose, the Catholic doctor should
familiarize himself with the most recent data
on this system which originated with Doctors
Ogino and Knaus. At the same time, the
physician should realize that this system
should not be regarded as a “ Catholic birth
control method.” And even the “ Rhythm,”
though it involves no positive physical abuse
of marriage, can nevertheless constitute a sin
of selfishness and a violation of legal justice,
if practised for a considerable time without
a sufficient reason.8
8 Cf. Griese, The Morality of Periodic Continence
(Washington, 1942).

i

4

The Catholic Doctor

21

The question of artificial fertilization is
sometimes brought to the doctor by a hus­
band and wife who desire children. If the
difficulty consists merely in the fact that in
their relations it is found to be impossible
to deposit the semen far enough within the
vagina to effect pregnancy, it is perfectly
lawful for the physician to aid nature by the
use of a syringe, after the couple have had
relations. But if artificial fertilization is
taken to signify that the husband commits
pollution and then the semen is injected, it
must be condemned as sinful. It is a matter
of discussion among theologians whether it
is permitted to a doctor with the aid of a
needle to extract semen directly from the
testicles of the husband and then inject it."
However, the term “ artificial fertilization ”
as used nowadays usually refers to the case of
impregnation with semen provided by a
donor, a man who is not the woman’s hus­
band. It is said that there are thousands of
’ Cf. Noldin-Schmitt, De Sexto Praecepto, 30th ed.
(Innsbruck, 1938), n. 77.

22

The Catholic Doctor

children in our country today who owe their
existence to this manner of insemination, and
yet are commonly believed to be the sons or
daughters of the man who is the husband of
their mother. The donor procures the semen
by masturbation, and the transfer is effected
in such wise that the woman and the donor
never see each other.

No Catholic doctor can co-operate in ef­
fecting artificial insemination of this type if
he wishes to be consistent with the teachings
of his Church. For this process involves the
grave sins of masturbation and adultery. At
least, the specific guilt of adultery, the trans­
fer of semen by a man to a woman who is
another man’s wife, is present in this revolt­
ing procedure, even though there is no direct
physical union. Our Catholic doctors should
realize that a practice such as this is a mani­
festation of the paganism that permeates
present-day society in the United States, tend­
ing to degrade human beings to the status of
cattle.
Sometimes a doctor is requested to examine

The Catholic Doctor

23

the semen of a man to discover if he is sterile
or not, and in the event that he does suffer
from some form of sterility to find if it can
be remedied. The question naturally arises:
How may a specimen of the semen be ob­
tained without violation of the law of God?
It is unquestionably immoral for the man to
masturbate for this purpose, although the
average non-Catholic doctor today would not
hesitate to prescribe this procedure. Accord­
ing to the Catholic interpretation of the
natural law, a deliberate act of pollution is
intrinsically wrong, and an intrinsically evil
act may never be performed, no matter how
praiseworthy the purpose to which it is di­
rected. This doctrine is corroborated by an
explicit declaration of the Holy Office, given
August 2, 1929.’°

Catholic moralists are hesitant in suggest­
ing a method for procuring semen for exam­
ination. Bonnar says, after rejecting mas­
turbation and condomistic intercourse: “ I
am sure it is not beyond the ingenuity of a
10 .4.4S, XXI (1929), 490.

?4

The Catholic Doctor

gynaecologist to think of other means. I am
not disposed to discuss them here.”11 La Ro­
chelle-Fink say, in relation to the examina­
tion in question: “ It is forbidden if it calls
for immoral means, allowed if the means
used are not immoral in themselves.”12 Some
suggest rectal massage, which procures a small
quantity of semen without any venereal
pleasure, but it is difficult to see why this
method is not essentially the same as mastur­
bation. Others recommend the use of a per­
forated condom by the man in having rela­
tions with his wife, which will result in a
small portion of the semen remaining in the
condom for the purpose of examination. But
the objection to this method is that it in­
volves a direct purpose of ejecting some of
the semen into a place not intended by na­
ture—and the morality of the action is not
changed by the fact that it is only a small
amount. The direct removal of a few drops
11 Bonnar, The Catholic Doctor, and cd. (New York,
1939)· P· 83·
12 La Rochelle-Fink, Handbook of Medical Ethics
(Montreal, 1943), p. 90.

The Catholic Doctor

25

of semen from the vagina immediately after
intercourse seems open to a similar objection,
for the direct ejection of semen recently de­
posited (that is, within an hour, at least) is
a violation of the integrity of conjugal rela­
tions. It would seem that the only certainly
lawful methods of obtaining a specimen
woidd be to wait until that period of time
has passed after which a woman may lawfully
use a douche (that is, at least an hour) and
then to take a specimen from what remains,
or to utilize what may have been accidentally
(that is, not of direct purpose) deposited out­
side the vagina at the time of relations.”
What should be the procedure of a physi­
cian who, in the course of his professional
practice, discovers that a young man, prepar­
ing for marriage, is suffering from a con­
tagious form of venereal disease? Evidently
there is a conflict between the obligation of
preserving professional secrecy and the duty
of protecting the prospective bride from a
13 Cf. Clifford, “Sterility Tests and Their Morality,”
The American Ecclesiastical Review, CVII, 5 (Nov.
•912). 358 f.

26

The Catholic Doctor

loathsome ailment. Of course, if the patient
can be persuaded to abstain from marriage,
or at least to inform his fiancee of his condi­
tion, (he doctor’s responsibility in the matter
ceases. There has been some disagreement
among the theologians as to the procedure
the doctor should follow in the event that
the young man intends to go ahead with the
marriage, leaving the girl in ignorance of the
danger to health in which she is going to be
placed. However, the better theological
opinion seems to be that in such circum­
stances the doctor may (and perhaps even
must) warn the girl, even though it involves
the violation of the professional secret.’*
Sometimes a doctor who has made studies
in a special field believes that he may have
discovered a new remedy for a certain dis­
ease, more effective than any hitherto em­
ployed. He is anxious to experiment with
this remedy, yet he realizes that the element
of chance must be considered. There is some
14 Cf. Regan. Professional Secrecy in the Light of
Moral Principles (Washington, 1943). p. 145·

The Catholic Doctor

■>

27

probability that the experiment may prove a
failure, that his discovery in reality kills
rather than cures. He is called to attend a
person suffering from the disease in question.
Should he employ the standard remedies
which have been proved to possess some effi­
cacy, or may he experiment with his own
discovery, in the hope that it will be more
effective, yet with some fear that it may do
grave harm? He might be tempted to argue
that the knowledge he will derive from a test­
case will be so valuable to mankind that it
will compensate for the risk to the individ­
ual patient’s life, but such a mode of argu­
mentation is a fallacy, according to Catholic
principles. His immediate duty to the pa­
tient demands that he use the remedy which
offers greater probability of success, even
though there is some probability that the
other measure will actually prove more efficacious. Only in the supposition that he can
honestly say that his discovery has at least as
much probability in its favor as the recog­
nized methods of treatment is he allowed to

28

The Catholic Doctor

make the experiment.
The use of hypnotism to benefit the physi­
cal or nervous condition of a patient is per­
mitted at times, provided that due precau­
tions are employed so that greater harm may
not be done. Perverse inclinations to alco­
holism or impurity are sometimes lessened by
this form of psychological treatment, prac­
ticed by a skilled hypnotist. But the doctor
must be on his guard against any abuse of
this procedure, particularly in dealing with
women patients.
It is not easy in the materialistic world of
today for a Catholic doctor to be staunchly
consistent in following the principles of his
religion. But he will find aid from on high
if he leads a practical Catholic life, and par­
ticularly if he receives the sacraments fre­
quently. And he should strive to vivify his
professional activities with a supernatural
spirit. When he enters the sick-room, he will
try to have in his soul the sympathy and the
affection which the Divine Physician be­
stowed on the suffering men and women who

The Catholic Doctor

29

thronged about Him twenty centuries ago.
In the spirit of Christ, the Catholic doctor
will be solicitous for the souls of his patients
as well as for their bodies. He will readily
endure hardships, sacrifices, danger for those
to whose assistance he is summoned, confi­
dent that he is thus rendering himself worthy
of the consoling assurance: “ As long as you
did it for one of these, the least of my breth­
ren, you did it for me.”15
15 Matt. 25:40.