Duties of Man Towards His Body

a) Life

With regard to bodily life man has a twofold duty, viz., the duty of conserving it in integrity, and the duty of avoiding death, mutilation, and needless danger. These two duties are really only two views—one positive and the other negative—of the same duty. Man does not own his body. God owns it. God alone has the right to dispose of it and of its life and health. Life and health have been given to man as great blessings, as goods to be conserved and used. Like all true goods that man may possess, life and health, and all that pertains directly to these goods, are to be used for the achievement of man’s last end. Therefore, absolutely speaking, man is bound to exercise ordinary care for the conservation of life and health. Thus he is obliged to maintain the integrity and perfection of his members, to take such nourishment as is required for the proper development or maintenance of bodily life, to observe the requirements of reason in matters of cleanliness and proper dress, to keep the senses strictly under control of reason, and to cultivate the virtues —particularly temperance and fortitude—which give one readiness in keeping the appetites of the flesh under due and proper control. These are man’s positive duties with regard to his body. Man’s negative duties with regard to bodily life and health oblige him to avoid suicide, the needless mutilation of his members, intemperance, and all unreasonable use of objects or practices that could be harmful to life or limb or bodily health. A special word must be said on the subject of suicide. Suicide^ is self-murder. It is the direct taking of one’s own life upon one’s own authority. And suicide can never, under any circumstances, be permitted.

Of course, a soldier going to certain death in a desperate charge is not a suicide; for he does not directly take his own life, but permits it to be sacrificed while his direct aim and effort is to perform a good work for the defence of his country. But suicide, clearly regarded as simple and direct self-murder, is absolutely contrary to the natural law, and is never permitted. The reasons for this truth are not far to seek: suicide is an injury done to God, to society, and to the person committing it. It is an injury to God, for it usurps the right of God, who alone is “Master of life and death.” It is an injury to society, for man is an integral part of society and is bound to promote its welfare; and the suicide, by removing himself from society, destroys its integrity, and, moreover, sets a horrible example to others, an example which would mean the extinction of society, were all to follow it. Finally, suicide is an injury to the person who commits it, for such a person acts against the plain dictates of nature, and halts the achievement of perfection that might have been his. It is interesting to note here the vast distinction between the suicide and the martyr. In Mr. G. K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” (p. 133) we find the following remarks upon the point: “About the same time I read a solemn flippancy by some free thinker: he said that a suicide was only the same as a martyr. The open fallacy of this helped to clear the question. Obviously the suicide is the opposite of a martyr. A martyr is a man who cares so much for something outside him, that he forgets his own personal life. A suicide is a man who cares so little for anything outside him, that he wants to see the last of everything. One wants something to begin; the other wants everything to end. In other words, the martyr is noble exactly because (however he renounces the World and execrates all humanity) he confesses this ultimate link with life; he sets his heart outside himself; he dies that something may live. The suicide is ignoble because he has not this link with being: he is a mere destroyer; spiritually, he destroys the universe.” There have been philosophers who called suicide a noble, bold, and courageous act. But rashness is not boldness; a veritable coward may summon up enough blind rashness for a moment’s thrust or the pressing of a trigger. Besides, the suicide is a soldier of life who fears the battle; he is a coward who runs from his post. He chooses self-destruction, not as a courageous thing, but as a mean method of slinking away from what he regards as a state of affairs more intolerable than death. Seen in true light, the act of suicide is the act of a sneak and a poltroon. But may not suicide be permitted for virtue’s sake ? May not a man who is confirmed in habits of unnatural sin do better to cut off life than to continue it in such offences ? This is not a case of better or worse; it is a case of plain right and wrong. We may never do evil that good may come of it. We may never do directly that which is evil in itself, and suicide is evil in itself. Besides, a sinner can cure himself of a sinful habit; he is free in this matter. But he is not free to dispose of his life. St. Paul desired “to be dissolved and to be with Christ.” May not such a desire justify the killing of oneself so that God and eternal happiness may be possessed the sooner ? No, for God would not be possessed by a bad act, an act that would turn man positively away from the achievement of his last end. Nor can one desire God who is willing to offend Him so gravely by usurping His right over the lives of His children. May a man be his own executioner ? Some man must serve in this ugly capacity, and, since the condemned must die in any case, why not spare living men the stigma that attaches to the office of executioner; why not let the office die with the condemned? No civil power can oblige a condemned man to be his own executioner. But if he be willing, may he be permitted to destroy himself? There is some discussion among moralists on this point, but the more probable opinion seems to be that no man may execute himself. It is unnatural for a man to destroy his life, even if that life be forfeit. We have stated that man is bound to exercise ordinary care in the conservation of life and health. Thus, a sick man is bound to use proper available medicines, to avoid foolhardiness and risks, etc. But no one is obliged to undergo an operation, at least an operation of major character, even to save his life; for such an operation is regarded as an extraordinary means to preserve life or restore health, and no one is bound to take extraordinary care of his body. Again, proper food, cleanliness, clothing, sleep, etc., are required in the ordinary care of life and health. What of the extreme fasts, the long vigils, the disregard of mere bodily cleanliness, the poor and insufficient clothing of many of the great Saints? Here we have the lesser goods of the body given up for the greater good of the soul, viz., the increased knowledge, love, and service of God; and in this there is nothing inordinate. Far from being opposed to reason, this is a thing that reason approves. Would it be right, then, for all Christians to go unwashed and clad in rags, to fast and abstain excessively, to spend long sleepless hours of prayer? The answer to this difficulty is quite obvious. It would be quite right if it were possible, and if such practices were for the good of the soul. But for the rank and , file of Christians such practices are “food of giants” which they would quickly find themselves unable to digest. To attempt to go far in such acts of penance would be—without spiritual counsel—a presumptuous effort. Let the ordinary man try to reach the eminence gradually, let him practice the penances required by God’s Church, let him add other practices recommended and approved by his spiritual guide, let him ceaselessly advance, and meanwhile ask no idle questions about his fitness to take on, all at once, the heroic works of the great Saints. True, the Saints are to be imitated, not merely admired. But imitation must begin with the interior disposition and the high enduring resolve to live for God alone: the external practices of penance will then come naturally into being, each in its own way and at its own time. In passing, it may be well to mention that the modern mood of the world with regard to excessive personal daintiness and bodily cleanliness is a pagan fad. It is the cult of mere externals. We hear that “cleanliness is next to godliness,” but that is not true; nor is it true that mere cleanliness in itself leads to godliness. There is a vast difference between soap and sanctity. Mr. G. K. Chesterton has some strong remarks upon this subject in “What’s Wrong With the World” (p. 297 f.) : “There are distinguished public-school men, bishops, dons, headmasters, and high politicians, who, in the course of the eulogies which from time to time they pass upon themselves, have actually identified physical cleanliness with moral purity. They say - (if I remember rightly) that a public-school man is clean inside and out. As if everyone did not know that while saints can afford to be dirty, seducers have to be clean. As if everyone did not know that the harlot must be clean, because it is her business to captivate, while the good wife may be dirty, because it is her business to clean. As if we did not all know that whenever God’s thunder cracks above us, it is very likely indeed to find the simplest man in a muck cart and the most complex blackguard in a bath.”

b) Other Goods

Besides the goods of soul and body there are others, such as prosperity, good name, honor, external liberty, etc. These are usually required, in greater or less measure, for the full perfection of bodily life. They are also required by the man who has dependents. Hence, a man must have employment or some means of livelihood. He must take care of those dependent upon him and provide for their future. He must earn a good name and achieve an honest place in the estimation of his fellows. Thus, ordinarily, a man must exert himself to obtain a sufficiency of the goods of this world. But, apart from the necessity imposed by the duties of one’s state of life, man is quite free to neglect the matter of worldly prosperity, nay, he may find it much to his advantage to do so. For the absence of care about worldly possessions ordinarily favors one’s progress in virtue, and removes many obstacles from the path in which one must walk to attain one’s last end. Of course, it does not follow that the pursuit of honest prosperity, good name, etc., is wrong. As long as both the matter and the manner of such a quest is kept within the moral law, it is quite licit. Goods of fortune, fame, honor, liberty, etc., are gifts of God, though they are not gifts of the first rank. As long as they are used according to reason, and not abused, they can be made to serve man’s purpose in attaining his last end, notwithstanding the fact that they are likely to be abused and to be a hindrance to man’s true work rather than a help.

Summary of the Article

We have learned in this Article that man has positive and negative duties in the matter of preserving life, health, and bodily integrity. We have studied some of these duties, and have given special attention to the subject of self-destruction or suicide. We have explained the difference between the suicide and the martyr. We have met and solved some difficulties pertinent to the absolute prohibition of suicide. Further, we have considered some matters that touch the question of the proper conservation of health, and we have discussed the subject of mere external cleanliness. Finally, we have studied the question of man’s duty to acquire a sufficiency of worldly goods.

HIS NEIGHBOR