Letters to the Press from Christian Science Committees on Publication

William D. Kilpatrick

The Boston Herald

William D. Kilpatrick
Manager of Committees on Publication The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Boston, Massachusetts
The Boston Herald, Massachusetts

A colloquy between a judge and an attorney, as reported in an article in a recent issue of The Boston Herald, presents questions which might tend to confusion and misunderstanding in the minds of your readers not sufficiently advised as to the status of Christian Science. May I supply some corrective information?

The question seems to be raised in the discourse between the two gentlemen as to whether a mother who supplies Christian Science treatment for an afflicted child could be held in the same light as the mother who simply refuses any type of treatment and apparently leaves the child in a state of sheer neglect. The implication is made that the mother who supplies Christian Science treatment for her child is as neglectful and liable as the mother who is criminally neglectful. The teachings of Christian Science so separate and differentiate the two diametrically opposed cases brought out in the argument that no analogy between the two and no ground for confusion, misunderstanding, or misrepresentation could possibly exist.

In support of the implication that the two above situations are similar and that the application of prayer as applied in Christian Science in lieu of material medicine would be considered illegal, reference was made by the judge to cases in Nebraska, Minnesota, and Kentucky. In the early history of Christian Science, before its healing efficacy had been widely proved and publicly recognized, this religious teaching and practice was submitted to much opposition. In some instances this opposition included legal proceedings in courts of law. However, these attacks became gradually less frequent, until today the practice of Christian Science is recognized and permitted in nearly every state in the Union, including the three mentioned.

In Massachusetts the law of the Commonwealth regulating the practice of medicine specifically excludes Christian Science from the restrictions laid down therein. (See General Laws of Massachusetts. Chap. 112. Sect. 7.)

Reference was made by the judge to the neglect of a child by an alleged Christian Scientist who was said to be a member of "the sect known as Peculiar People." The sect has no relation to Christian Science.

The fact that it was held by these "Peculiar People" that it was sinful to seek medical aid at times of illness does not classify them in the same category with Christian Scientists. Christian Science does not hold that it is sinful to employ medical aid or any other material means in case of sickness; Christian Science teaches that it is the inherent right of anyone to resort to any means he may desire in times of need. Christian Scientists eschew material remedies because they believe that dependence on spiritual means is preferable and more productive of good than are other agencies. Mary Baker Eddy says in her textbook, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures" (p. 111), "I submitted my metaphysical system of treating disease to the broadest practical tests. Since then this system has gradually gained ground, and has proved itself, whenever scientifically employed, to be the most effective curative agent in medical practice."

Send a comment to the editors

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit