There is only one well-authenticated case of a triple monster, and this happened in Italy in 1831. The monster had a single broad body with three distinct heads and two necks. It was killed in delivery.
In Katadidyma (terata divided from above downward), when we have dicephali, ischiopagi, or pygopagi, there are evidently two individuals present. Is the Diprosopus, however, the two-faced monster, possessed of one or two souls? The cases vary, as we said, from examples with two distinct faces and four ears to cases that have merely two noses. What portion of a human body is required to contain a new soul? That is an interesting question for the psychologist and a very practical one for the moralist, and no moralist has yet attempted to solve it. The presence of a brain is not essential, because acephalous monsters develop without brain, and they are born alive; they have a vital principle which is identical with the soul.
Among the Terata Anadidyma (divided from below upward) the Syncephalus and the Craniopagus are unquestionably two persons. Is the Dipygus (single down to the navel, double below) one or two persons? Mrs. B., the example already given, was as double below the navel as any Dicephalus is above that point. She had features so well ordered in unity that she was a pretty woman, but that unity ceased at her waist. Was her husband unknowingly a bigamist? I think he was. After a consideration of the fission of terata, and the non-essential quality of the brain, why should fission that started at the feet differ from fission that started at the head?
In the Rituale Romanum Pauli V. (tit. ii. cap. i. nn. 18, 19, 20, 21), the following directions for the baptising of terata are given:
18. In monstris vero baptizandis, si casus eveniat, magna cautio adhibenda est, de quo si opus fuerit, Ordinarius loci; vel alii periti consulantur, nisi mortis periculum immineat.
19. Monstrum, quod humanam speciem non praeseferat, baptizari non debet; de quo si dubium fuerit, baptizetur sub hac conditione: Si tu es homo, ego te baptizo, etc.
20. lllud vero, de quo dubium est, una ne, aut plures sint personae, non baptizetur, donec id discernatur: discerni autem potest, si habeat unum vel plura capita, unum vel plura pectora; tunc enim totidem erunt corda et animae, hominesque distincti, et eo casu singuli seorsum sunt baptizandi, unicuique dicendo: Ego te baptizo, etc Si vero periculum mortis immineat, tempusque non suppetat, ut singuli separatim baptizentur, potent minister singulorum capitibus aquam infundens omnes simul baptizari, dicendo: Ego vos baptizo, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. Quam tamen formam in iis solum, et in aliis similibus mortis periculis, ad plures simul baptizandos, et ubi tempus non patitur, ut singuli separatim baptizentur, alias numquam, licet adhibere.
21. Quando vero non est certum in monstro esse duas personas, ut quia duo capita et duo pectora non habet distincta; tunc debet primum unus absolute baptizari, et postea alter sub conditione, hoc modo: Si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti.
AUSTIN ÓMALLEY.
VII
SOCIAL MEDICINE
The influence of the clergyman or the charitable visitor in matters of health and sanitation can scarcely be overestimated. The removal of prejudices with regard to sanitary regulations for the prevention of disease and modern advances in the treatment of disease is an important social duty. There is no doubt that if this influence be properly directed, sanitary measures of various kinds will be much more readily enforced and the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of serious infectious ailments more faithfully observed. As this amelioration of sanitary conditions will affect mainly the poor, lessening their suffering and adding to their possibilities of happiness, its accomplishment becomes a great Christian duty, obligatory on all those who are interested in the uplifting of the poorer classes.