Case. — Ximenes
was born twenty-one years ago, outside of wedlock. His parents
gave up all claim to him the day they left him, a
helpless babe, with a foundling asylum in charge of Sisters. He was reared in a
charitable institution, and is now a sober, steady worker at his trade, ably supporting himself. He is anxious to know
who are his parents, and how he ever came to be
under the care of the good
Sisters. To give him the requested information
would be to make known to him the facts of his illegitimate birth and the evil
life of his parents.
Question.—Am I
justified in refusing his request?
Solution.—In the abstract it would seem to us that the young man in search of his
identity has a right to the information
necessary to establish that identity. The natural
relations existing between parents and child put forth a claim, as evidenced in
the activity of Ximenes, which calls for
satisfaction. We would not deny that he is following an instinct
natural to the race, and that he could lay claim
therefore to an instinctive right.
But the question on
the whole must be considered from another
viewpoint, and must be decided by the influence of
other conditions. Granting that fundamentally he has a certain right to the knowledge he persists in obtaining, would it
invariably follow that he should be put in possession of the
facts concerning his origin? We do not think
so.
We can conceive of cases, we know of some,
where success in gathering such knowledge was not only of no benefit, but was eventually exceedingly harmful. A case in
point was that of a young lady who had been adopted by an excellent Catholic, though
childless widow. The child
was brought up a strict Catholic and lived an exemplary life for twenty years. An
accident led to the discovery of facts, and this so overwhelmed her with a sense of
shame that she cursed her real mother, and despite the
efforts of the widow, who had a real affection for her she grew lax, rejected the admonitions of her confessor,
and ultimately abandoned herself to the allurements of the forbidden path.
This may be considered an isolated
case, but such is not our view. At all events, it has to be reckoned with. So,
in the case before us one would have to reflect
upon the harm that would probably come to the child of such parents, and would likewise have to
consider the present condition and circumstances of
the parents, not forgetting to reckon with the rights of society itself. In almost every case, the child receives a severe shock, is broken in spirit by
the appreciation of the “taint,”
and cannot shake off the feeling of being an outcast. Continuous brooding, then, leads to
pernicious results.
Again, the parents
may be dead, and charity would ask that they be allowed to rest in peace. Or,
if not dead, they have wantonly abandoned their child, and it could hardly be
expected that they could exercise the wise control,
the uplifting influence, of a good parent on their
offspring. Nor can the unhappy child be expected to
love and reverence the parent who conceived and
abandoned it in sin. It will more likely hate its progenitors and repay
disgrace by disgrace. Of course, some may act otherwise, but exceptions are
rarities. Society does not gain by the knowledge
supplied to illegitimates. Experience proves that in ignorance of their natal
conditions, such children acquire better moral control
over themselves, and lead more useful and more contented lives.
Why, then, should they be told the concrete facts? We think that whatever right they may
have it must yield to the greater good that is apt
to follow ignorance of their illegitimacy.
