tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76247589895114046852024-03-05T03:04:24.618-08:00RugwigCantabo Domino in vita mea. Alacritate et magnanimitate Eum sequar. I shall sing to the Lord in my life. I shall follow Him eagerly and generously.Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.comBlogger761125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-9000862765741114472023-02-19T02:07:00.001-08:002023-02-19T02:07:33.814-08:00Summary of Moralists on Organ Playing Non-Catholic Services and Communicatio in Sacris<p>[3] Some authors do not give formal communication so wide an extent; they do not consider every active participation in a non-Catholic religious service as a formal communication. Vermeersch, for example, looks upon playing the organ as a form of proximate material co-operation [sic].[16] <b>Since the majority of the moralists,[17] however, consider that action as a formal communication in non-Catholic worship, and since the Holy See has said it is never allowed,[18] there seems to be justification for including it under the general heading of formal communication.</b> By reason of its part in the function, playing the organ at a religious service is to be classed as a specifically religious action.</p><p>This attitude of Vermeersch follows from a difference he notes between communication and participation. Both consist in taking part in the action of another, whether merely internally by intention [4] and desire, or externally, too. To his mind external communication is considered as formal, while external participation is reduced rather to co-operation, which in some matters can be formal or merely material, according to the intention.[19] There seems, however, to be no practical reason for this distinction in regard to our matter. To participate actively, even only externally, in a non-Catholic religious ceremony is a formal communication. Therefore, communication and participation are used interchangeably in this study. [...]</p><p>[36] <i>Per accidens</i> intention and moral circumstances can become the primary sources of the morality of an human act.[3] When an act is indifferent morally from both its object and its circumstances, the only source of the morality of that act will be the intention for which it is done. For a person in every human act must act with some intention, which must be either morally good or morally bad. An act, which is morally indifferent by reason of its object, can also become good or bad by reason of one or more of the moral circumstances. In that case the circumstances assume the character of moral objects, and become accidentally the primary sources of the goodness or badness of the individual act. <b>Thus, although the playing of an organ is morally indifferent in itself, when it is done as a part of a non-Catholic religious service, it becomes bad by reason of the circumstances making it an active participation in the non-Catholic religious service. </b>[...]</p><p>[51] There is clearly a formal co-operation when there is question of a participation in what is essential in the service, as to receive the eucharist of heretics. <b>An active participation in what is accidental in such worship, as singing, even though the hymns be orthodox in their content, or playing the organ in a religious service, is also a formal co-operation.</b>[54] <b>Such activity implies an approval of the cult, for it is intended to add beauty, attractiveness, and appeal to the service; this implication is inseparable from any subjective attitude of the one actively participating in accidentals.</b> In other words, all accidental activity of a religious nature is as wrong, by reason of the circumstances, as that which is essentially a part of the service. Whatever activity in a non-Catholic service has a specifically religious character, whether by its nature, or by reason of the circumstances, is intrinsically wrong, as a profession of the belief of a false sect.[55] Since such activity in the exercise of idolatrous or false worship is intrinsically wrong, it cannot be reduced to merely material co-operation.[56] An objection cannot be made on the score that the sin of irreligion on the part of the non-Catholic is only material. Even if that is true, co-operation in it in a formal way is not licit. For one is never allowed to co-operate formally in something which is intrinsically wrong objectively. Although the other person may not be subjectively guilty of sin, the formal co-operator incurs the guilt of the virtues violated, for he does something he knows to be intrinsically wrong. [...]</p><p>[72] <i>B. Singing or Playing Musical Instruments</i></p><p>Singing or playing musical instruments in non-Catholic religious services is an active participation, and, therefore, a formal communication. Concerning this point La Croix says that it is not licit to sing psalms together with non-Catholics in their churches or meetings, nor is it licit to play the organ or other musical instruments in their temples, because such things seem to be a public approbation of, or a scandalous communication in, sacred things.[53] The author of the Appendix to the article <i>Fides</i> in the <i>Bibliotheca</i> of Ferraris says that they ratify a false rite and cult, who play the organ or exercise the musical art in another way in churches of schismatics and heretics.[54] Kenrick holds that in this country those who sing hymns or play the organ in the churches of heretics become participants in the cult, and, therefore, betray their faith in some way.[55] [73] Konings states that to perform the office of organist, even only one or the other time, in the churches of heretics in their religious gatherings would be illicit, for it involves a communication in their religious rites or a formal co-operation.[56] Noldin-Schmitt,[57] Marc-Gestermann,[58] Prümmer,[59] Merkelbach,[60] and Aertnys-Damen[61] agree that singing or playing the organ in religious services is wrong, because each involves a participation in the cult. Noldin-Schmitt expressly call these actions formal communications in the worship.[62] Wouters makes the same judgment about playing the organ, but does not mention singing.[63] Lehmkuhl[64] and Augustine[65] call singing and playing the organ formal co-operations. Sabetti-Barrett consider singing in a non-Catholic religious service as an active part in the cult, and, therefore, intrinsically wrong.[66] In 1889 the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith stated, with the approbation of Pope Leo XIII, that it is illicit to play the organ in the churches of heretics when they are exercising false cult there;<b> the seriousness of this matter is made clear when it is remembered that this was a reply to a petition for permission to play the organ in Protestant churches on feast days so that the organist could provide for himself.</b>[67]</p><p>Davis allows a Catholic organist to continue in his position in a non-Catholic church so long as he is in grave necessity, provided there is no serious scandal.[68] This opinion indicates that he looks upon this action as a form of proximate material co-operation. Vermeersch expressly states that he considers organ playing as a proximate [p. 74] material co-operation.[69] These opinions are too mild.<b> In licit material co-operation there is required an action which is at least indifferent. Playing the organ in a non-Catholic service adds beauty, solemnity, and appeal to the worship, and as such is inseparable from the religious rite. </b>Therefore in that circumstance it is intrinsically bad, and is a formal co-operation. <b>Because of the strength of the intrinsic arguments for this opinion, and of the great weight of extrinsic authority favoring it, the view of Davis and Vermeersch is somewhat singular and exceptional, to say the least.</b></p><p>Sabetti-Barrett cite, without approval, an opinion that a Catholic may sing in non-Catholic services in a very rare case, when the following conditions are verified: (1) there is nothing contrary to the faith in the hymns; (2) there is no scandal or danger of perversion; (3) there is a most grave necessity. The reason given is that in these circumstances the malice seems to be, not on the part of the action, but on the part of other persons, and hence the co-operation is only material, and can be permitted for a just cause. On the other hand, Sabetti-Barrett believe that singing must be considered as an active part in non-Catholic worship, and intrinsically wrong. Hence it involves a formal co-operation, and the intention, or the grave necessity, of the singer cannot change the nature of the act placed in such circumstances.[70] It is difficult to see how singing in the religious services of non-Catholics can be viewed in any other way.</p><p>Regarding the singing in non-Catholic services, it makes no difference whether the hymns are orthodox or not.[71] Even if they are orthodox, they are used as a part of non-Catholic worship. Non-Catholic worship, even when it contains nothing false, is conducted in defiance of the Catholic Church, the only organization authorized by God to establish public worship. Vermeersch says that for Catholics to sing the <i>Te Deum</i> together with non-Catholics in a non-Catholic church as an expression of common joy, even when it has a religious signification, is not intrinsically wrong, although Catholics should not do it.[72]</p><p>[p. 75] It seems, however, that an action of this kind always has a religious signification, and hence it implies an approval of non-Catholic worship, and is an expression of religious indifference. It seems, therefore, to be wrong. The Holy See has allowed Catholic civil officials to assist only passively at non-Catholic religious celebrations commanded by the state at which the doxology was sung.[73] The mind of the Church is that Catholics have their religious celebrations separately in their own churches.[74]</p><p>Playing the organ, or other musical instruments in the course of a non-Catholic religious service, but not as a part, or as an ornament of it, will not constitute a religious participation, for example, to do so in honor of a non-Catholic king who is present.[75] Similarly, it contains no religious communication to play the organ or other musical instruments, or to sing hymns which are orthodox, for profane purposes in non-Catholic churches outside all occasion of cult.[76] The use of the church, however, brings in some co-operation, and there must be a proportionate reason present to justify such activity. For a Catholic to sing hymns containing errors in faith, even outside the occasion of a religious function, is a formal religious communication, as an external expression of wrong doctrine. This could apply to some negro spirituals. On the part of a Catholic organist accompanying such hymns there is a formal co-operation, because in the circumstance the music makes the external expression of wrong doctrine more appealing.</p><p>---</p><p>Footnotes:</p><p>16. <i>Op. cit.,</i> [Vermeersch, <i>Theologiae Moralis Principia, Responsa, Concilia</i>] Tom. II, n. 50, p. 41; n. 8, p. 124. Cf. Davis, <i>Moral and Pastoral Theology</i>, Vol. I, p. 286.</p><p>17. Noldin-Schmitt, <i>op. cit.,</i> [<i>Summa Theologiae Moralis</i>] Tom. II, n. 39, 4, c, p. 40; Aertnys-Damen, <i>Theologia Moralis</i>, Tom. I, n. 314, II, Qu. 4, p. 236; Prümmer, <i>Manuale Theologiae Moralis</i>, Tom. I, n. 526, d), p. 372; DeMeester, <i>op. cit., </i>n. 1253, note 4, p. 154; Kenrick, <i>Theologia Moralis</i>, Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 37, p. 48; Konings, <i>Theologia Moralis S. Alphonsi in Compendium Redacta</i>, Vol. I, n. 313, 1, p. 142.</p><p>18. <i>Col. S.C.P.F.</i>, Vol. II, n. 1713, p. 240.</p><p>19. <i>Loc. cit</i>., p. 41.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. Aertnys-Damen, <i>op. cit</i>., Tom. I, n. 54, p. 50. Cf. I-II, q. 18, a. 9 and a. 11.</p><p><br /></p><p>54. Cf. Augustine, <i>A Commentary on Canon Law</i>, Vol. VI, p. 197.</p><p>55. De Meester, <i>op. cit.,</i> [<i>Iuris Canonici et Iuris Canonica-civilis Compendium</i>] Lib. III, Pars I, n. 1252, 2, pp. 153–154.</p><p>56. Konings, <i>op. cit.,</i> Vol. I, n. 313, 1), p. 142. Cf. Genicot-Salsmans, <i>Institutiones Theologiae Moralis</i>, Tom. I, n. 198, p. 149.</p><p><br /></p><p>53. <i>Theologia Moralis</i>, Tom. I, Lib. II, Tract. I, Cap. III, n. 68, p. 170.</p><p>54. <i>Prompta Bibliotheca</i>, art. <i>Fides</i>, <i>Appendix</i>, n. 57, Tom. III, col. 1137.</p><p>55. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Tom. II, Tract. XIII, n. 37, p. 48.</p><p>56. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Vol. I, n. 313, (1), p. 142.</p><p>57. <i>Op. cit., </i>Tom. II, n. 39, 4, c, p. 40.</p><p>58. <i>Op. cit., </i>Tom. I, n. 449, 6, p. 288.</p><p>59. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Tom. I, n. 526, d, p. 372.</p><p>60. <i>Op. cit., </i>Tom. I, n. 758, (3), p. 586.</p><p>61. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Tom. I, n. 314, I, Quaer. 4, p. 236.</p><p>62. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Tom. II, n. 38, 2, p. 38.</p><p>63. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Tom. I, n. 557, 5, p. 391.</p><p>64. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Vol. I, n. 813, p. 450.</p><p>65. <i>Op. cit., </i>Vol. VI, p. 197.</p><p>66. <i>Op. cit.,</i> n. 154, 10, pp. 159–160.</p><p>67. <i>Epistola S. C. de Prop. Fide</i>, July 8, 1889, <i>Coll. S.C.P.F.</i>, Vol. II, n. 1713, p. 240.</p><p>68. <i>Op. cit., </i>Vol. I, p. 286.</p><p>69. <i>Op. cit.,</i> Tom. II, n. 147, 8, p. 124.</p><p>70. <i>Op. cit.,</i> n. 154, 10, pp. 159–160.</p><p>71. Prümmer, <i>loc. cit.</i></p><p>72. <i>Loc. cit</i>., n. 147, 9, pp. 124–125.</p><p>73. <i>Instructio S. C. S. Officii</i>, May 12, 1841, <i>Coll. S.C.P.F.</i>, Vol. I, n. 921, p. 519.</p><p>74. Cf. <i>Littera Encyclica S. C. de Prop. Fide</i>, April 25, 1902, <i>Coll. S.C.P.F.,</i> Vol. II, n. 2136, p. 425.</p><p>75. Lehmkuhl, <i>op. cit</i>., Vol. I, n. 813, p. 450; Merkelbach, <i>op. cit</i>., Tom. I, n. 758, (3), note 2, p. 586.</p><p>76. Konings, <i>op. cit</i>., Vol. I, n. 313, (1), p. 142.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: John R. Bancroft, "Communication in Religious Worship with Non-Catholics," PhD diss., (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1943), 3–4, 36, 51, 72–75.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-32866722762149112422023-02-19T01:25:00.003-08:002023-02-19T01:25:48.915-08:00Dom Augustine on Playing Organ in Non-Catholic Services (1921)<p> [197] Difficulties may arise concerning coöperation [sic] in the divine services of Catholics who are employed by non-Catholics as <i>singers or organists</i>. Although we could find no specific decision with regard to Catholic singers at non-Catholic services, it is evident that the Church cannot tolerate such a formal coöperation, for to that it would certainly amount. <b>Besides, if it is forbidden for a Catholic to play the organ at non-Catholic services—which has been formally decided[34]—it naturally follows that Catholics may not sing at such functions.</b> The Church has been more lenient lately with regard to admitting non-Catholics as singers and organists at Catholic services. Thus, in 1889, the Holy Office wished the abuse to be eliminated as soon as possible, in 1906 it made a concession for Bulgaria, in favor of sisterhoods whose non-Catholic pupils were admitted to sing in their chapels.[35]</p><p>The present canon [c. 1258] only forbids active assistance at, or participation in, the religious services of non-Catholics. </p><p>---</p><p>Footnotes:</p><p>34. S. C. P. F., July 8, 1889 (n. 1713): "<i>Cum ibi falsum cultum exercent</i>." Exception might be made for school exercises or purely civil celebrations held in non-Catholic churches, provided they have no religious feature attached; for in that case there would be no "exercise of false worship."</p><p>35. S. O., May 1, 1889; Jan. 24, 1906 (<i>Coll. P. F.</i>, n. 1703, 2227).</p><p>---</p><p>Source: P. Charles Augustine, <i>A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law</i> (St. Louis, MO: B. Herder Book Co., 1921), 6:197.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-46451134611555466502023-02-19T01:01:00.003-08:002023-02-19T01:02:12.944-08:00Henry Davis on Organ Playing in Non-Catholic Services (1943)<p> [286] <b>Organ Playing</b></p><p>It is wrong to play the organ in a non-Catholic church as a help to the religious service (S.O., Jan. 19, 1889), or to be a member of the choir during services, but it is not wrong, scandal apart, to take part in musical festivals in such places. A Catholic organist might continue in his post so long as he was in grave necessity, apart from serious scandal.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: Henry Davis, <i>Moral and Pastoral Theology </i>(New York: Sheed and Ward, 1943), 1:286.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-65606748667967502132023-02-19T00:41:00.005-08:002023-02-19T00:44:33.722-08:00Francis J. Connell on Communication with Non-Catholics in Sacred Rites (excerpt) (1944)<p> [183] The application of these principles to problems which arise frequently in our land should be familiar to Catholics, particularly to the clergy. In the first place, there is the case of the Catholic who has the chance to earn a few sorely needed dollars by playing the organ or singing in the Protestant church. He is sufficiently grounded in the faith to be safe from the danger of perversion; he will attend Mass faithfully every Sunday before fulfilling his function at the non-Catholic service. Nevertheless, the answer must be an absolute: <i>Non Licet.</i> <b>To sing or to play the organ for a non-Catholic service must be regarded as an active participation in the act of worship, which can never be justified. Such is the practically unanimous teaching of Catholic theologians,[16] corroborated by a decision of the Holy See</b> to the effect that a Catholic might not play the organ at non-Catholic services, even though he needed the money as a means of livelihood.[17] The same principle applies to singing in the choir of a non-Catholic church.</p><p>---</p><p>Footnotes:</p><p>16. Cf., for example, Noldin-Schmitt, S.J., <i>Summa Theologiae Moralis</i> (Innsbruck, 1939), II, n. 39; Pruemmer, D., O.P., <i>Manuale Theologia Moralis</i>, (Freiburg Brisg., 1935), I, n. 526; Aertnys-Damen, C.SS.R., <i>Theologia Moralis</i> (Turin, 1939), I, n. 314.</p><p>17. S.C. de Prop. Fid., July 8, 1889; <i>Coll</i>. <i>S.C.P.F.</i>, n. 1713.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: Francis J. Connell, "Communication with Non-Catholics in Sacred Rites," <i>The American Ecclesiastical Review</i> 140, no. 3 (Sept. 1944): 183.</p><p>Communicatio in sacris</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-41409196576261736952023-02-19T00:29:00.003-08:002023-02-19T00:43:28.186-08:00Francis J. Connell on Co-Operation of Catholics in Non-Catholic Religious Activities (excerpt) (1956)<p>[2] However, the chief problems connected with the association of Catholics with persons of other religions center about <i>religious </i>communication and co-operation. These two terms are not synonymous, [3] as used in theology. Communication <i>in sacris</i> signifies participation in public (official) non-Catholic religious rites. <b>This is <i>active </i>when it involves a real participation in the functions, such as the reception of the sacraments, singing or organ-playing, joining in the prayers, etc. </b>[emphasis mine] It is <i>passive </i>when it consists of one's mere presence at the service without any active participation. The rules for religious communication are thus expressed in the Code of Canon Law:</p><p>1. It is never lawful for the faithful to assist actively in any way or to take part in the religious rites of non-Catholics.</p><p>2. Passive, or merely material presence can be tolerated, by reason of civil duty or honor, for a grave reason, to be approved by the Bishop in case of doubt, at the funerals, marriages and similar solemnities of non-Catholics, provided there is no danger of perversion and scandal.[6]</p><p>However, the purpose of the series of articles now beginning is to consider problems of <i>co-operation</i>, rather than <i>communication</i>, on the part of Catholics in the religious activities of non-Catholics. Co-operation has a wider scope than communication. There are many ways of co-operation in religious matters without being present at religious functions. Decisions of the Holy See have given directions regarding many of the problems of co-operation in non-Catholic religious activities; but many others are left to the judgment of theologians and canonists. In the United States such problems are numerous at the present day; hence, it is my purpose to discuss a number of such problems, in the hope that this discussion may be helpful to our priests, so often confronted with questions of this nature. I shall be grateful if my brother-priests who read these articles and have encountered some unusual cases pertinent to this type of co-operation will send them to me for inclusion in this series.</p><p>---</p><p>Footnotes:</p><p>6. Can. 1258.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: Francis J. Connell, <i>Co-Operation of Catholics in Non-Catholic Religious Activities </i>(Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1956), 2–3.</p><p>This booklet is reprinted from <i>The American Ecclesiastical Review</i> 134 (1956).</p><p>Communicatio in sacris</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-34233731050511138462022-11-15T14:51:00.004-08:002022-11-15T14:52:02.126-08:00Fr. Adrian Fortescue on St. Pius X (1910)<p>You know, we have stuck out for our position all our lives ... unity, authority. etc., Peter the Rock and so on. I have, too, and believe it. I am always preaching that sort of thing, and yet is it now getting to a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>? Centralisation grows and goes madder every century. Even at Trent they hardly foresaw this kind of thing. Does it really mean that one cannot be a member of the Church of Christ without being, as we are, absolutely at the mercy of an Italian lunatic? ...</p><p>We must pull through even this beastliness somehow. After all, it is still the Church of the Fathers that we stand by and spend our lives defending. However bad as things are, nothing else is possible. I think that when I look at Rome, I see powerful arguments against us, but when I look at the Church of England ... I see still more powerful arguments for us. But of course, saving a total collapse, things are as bad as they can be. Give us back the tenth century Johns and Stephens, or a Borgia!</p><p>They were less disastrous than this deplorable person...</p><p>---</p><p>Source: Letter to Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J., Nov. 5, 1910.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-10122029283443794742022-09-13T16:41:00.006-07:002022-09-13T16:41:46.118-07:00Francis P. Donnelly, The Science of Theology and the Art of Sacred Eloquence (1911)<p>[11] The antithesis of science and art has been so often formulated that it would be idle and wearisome to rehearse the details. The title of this article will in itself clarify some ideas and point the way to practical corollaries. Without entering, then, upon the larger question of the contrasts of art and science, it might be well to single out some difficulties the preacher may be expected to meet with in transmuting the substance of his theological science into the material of his sacred eloquence, in translating a thesis into a sermon, in making Aquinas a Lacordaire or Suarez a Bourdaloue. It would seem paradoxical at first sight to affirm any difficulty whatsoever. Truth is one and the same whether couched in a syllogism or resonant in a period. Falsehood may assume a thousand disguises; but truth has but one expression upon its immobile features, one look in its sleepless eyes; eternally fixed upon eternal foundations, with unswerving gaze—the ideal of sphinxes, moored with shiftless fixedness upon the shifting sands of falsehood.</p><p>[12] But the difficulty in question does not come from truth. You have the same proportions of hydrogen and oxygen in the glacier as you have in the river, but in some cases it took geological ages, in all cases it involves the expenditure of immense energy, to strip ice of its accidental rigidity and frigidity and run it molten down the valleys of the world, conforming itself to every varying width and every varying depth of its proper channel. There is no substantial change in the truth, but its accidental form must put off the inflexible austerity of science and assume the flexibility and warmth of eloquence. In the famous statement of St. Augustine, which embodies the world-old tradition of oratory, theology puts a full stop after the first member; eloquence, leaving the commas, goes on to the end of the three clauses. "Ut veritas pateat, ut veritas placeat, ut veritas moveat." [i.e. "That the truth be clear, that it please, that it move."]</p><p>ELOQUENCE IS UNTECHNICAL.</p><p>The technical term is something that must be left in the lecture-room. Science could scarcely exist without the technical term. Such terms constitute the shorthand of science. One phrase in theology is sometimes an index to volumes, condenses ages of church history, expedites scientific discussion and is the gravestone of a thousand heresies. Pelegianism, transubstantiation, hypostasis, circum-insesssion, and all the <i>terminative's</i> and <i>formaliter's</i> of the theological disputation are absolutely essential to science, very nearly fatal to eloquence. The reason is not, because shallow thinkers or careless students make the technical term a substitute for knowledge and think they have theology because they have mastered its language, as though the mere murmuring of x, y, z, entitled one to a degree in algebra. A terminology is the scaffolding needed to erect the temple of truth. A certain amount of acrobatic skill will enable one to scale its bare boards or tread securely its precarious rafters, but while irresponsible youths are playing hide-and-seek on the scaffolding, the builders, resting on that necessary structure, lay the stones of the temple in solidity.</p><p>It is not, therefore, because of its abuse that terminology is unserviceable to eloquence; it is precisely because of its [13] scientific utility. Technical terms constitute a language, and a very difficult language. It is a language which saves valuable time for the teachers. It is comprehensive, precise, severely intellectual, but it is a foreign language to people who listen to sermons and scarcely serviceable for even a congregation of theologians. Its very condensation makes it indigestible within the brief time given to the spoken word, and even the Bread of the Lord must be leavened, though not with the leaven of the Pharisees. Sometimes the very terms of ascetical theology likewise need leavening before being dispensed to the multitude. Mortification and the spiritual life and the interior spirit and supernatural motives, these and many another term that has come to us from the good books we read, are stereotyped formulas of asceticism and may be idle words for many hearers.</p><p>The sacred orator must melt down the stereotyped and run his language into new molds for his audience. He must leave the glacial period of science where "froze the genial currents of his soul" and thaw out in the pulpit. Estimate, if you will, the energy of heat required to convert a world of ice into a sea of fire, and you will have some idea of the labor required to change a small quantity of theology into the palpitating flexibility of a sermon. Modern inventions have been able by high-pressure machines to force air bubbles into baking dough and so shorten the leavening process by dispensing with the slower release and permeation of yeasty vapors. The work calls for time and energy. If you shorten the time, you must increase the energy. Sometimes it is only after years of thought and familiarity with the solid truth of theology that it has become light and wholesome for public consumption in the pulpit; sometimes the intense application of special study will force at once technicality and density into freedom and grace; but always either by expenditure of more time or more energy in the mastery of thought, must the prime matter of truth be made to doff the form of science and assume the form of art.</p><p>Suppose you should try to bring home to the audience the personality of God. You would have visions from theology of pantheism and agnosticism. You would recall shattered fragments of discussion about hypostasis and the individual. [14] Perhaps half-forgotten heresies would struggle into consciousness with other flotsam and jetsam. All that would be quite unleavened for the audience you have in mind, and you might say to yourself, "I will talk to my good people about going to Mass and confession." But perhaps with longer meditation you would feel that the personality of God might give a meaning to religious life, might comfort a lonely soul, might take prayer out of the region of the clouds, making it, instead of what would be deemed as senseless talking to the air, rather the loving converse with one who knows and loves, whose ear is ever at our lips, as Fr. Farrell puts it somewhere; and moved by these many advantages your thoughts of God's personality would shed its technicalities. Fr. Pardow, who died but recently, was a preacher who had in his life a vivid realization of the personality of God and made many attempts to formulate his knowledge for the pulpit. He often tried to make his hearers realize what he felt. One illustration had some success. "A government," he would quote or say, "is impersonal. 'I cannot shake hands with the United States', was the cry of the soldier. My Colonel is my government for me." But Fr. Pardow's most successful attempt at making his audience realize God's personality was closely allied to one which Christ Himself used for a similar purpose. Not far from where Fr. Pardow lived at Poughkeepsie he saw on one of his walks an incubator whose source of heat was an oil-lamp. His mind was ever alive to spiritual analogies, and one suggested itself at once. The lamp would represent the impersonal idea of God as a force in the universe and would be contrasted with the mother-hen the embodiment of the personal idea. The illustration is crude as here presented, but it was not so in his development of it, and his fine sense of humor was able in a delicate way to make much of the absurdity of an oil-lamp masquerading as a mother-hen. whatever may be the thought of it, it certainly was, with other explanations, effective in securing a realization of God's personality. One good, shrewd Irishman was full of the idea after the sermon, and prayer became for him a new thing. Another person wrote to Fr. Pardow in English which is rude but in enthusiasm which is unmistakable: "Dear Father on Good Friday night Will you please give us the Leture [sic] you gave [15] down at the 16st Collige [sic]. About the Chicken who had a Mother. And the Chicken who had the Incubator for a Mother. Father I am trying to get some of the Boys who do not know what the inside of our church look [sic] like and I know if they was to hear about the Chicken it would set them to think of God in this holy season of Lent." The note is unsigned. </p><p>Assuredly it would seem to be a far cry from the personality of God to an incubator, yet it made the writer of that note think of God and with the zeal of an apostle he wanted the boys to think the same way. Similar but greater enthusiasm was aroused, we may feel sure, by the supreme eloquence of, "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets, and stonest them that are sent to thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?" We feel the Great Theologian and Sacred orator would not have disdained the incubator with its homely oil-lamp. There are few technical terms in the eloquence of the Gospels.</p><p>ELOQUENCE IS IMAGINATIVE.</p><p>Scientific truth differs from artistic truth in its presentation. The truths of science are general. Science works from the particular and concrete back to the general and abstract. The truths of art are embodied in the concrete. Contrary to science, art begins with the ideal and works toward a concrete presentation. Geometry will reduce a flower-garden to a blueprint; landscape gardening will turn lines into borders and blank spaces into mosaics of flowers. The architect must have his blueprint to keep him from going wrong, but art finds its realization in the cathedral. Science gives an anatomical chart; art produces a statue. Principles, deductions, conclusions, classification, systems, these are processes of science and valuable they all are for art, but all these operations are facing the abstract and general. Art faces the concrete and particular, and after its survey of heaven and earth it is not content until it gives "airy nothings a local habitation and a name." Science is ever climbing up the tree of Porphyry; art is ever climbing down it.</p><p>[16] Apply all this now to theology and preaching. Anyone can see the two opposite processes exemplified in such works as Corluy's <i>Spicilegium Dogmaticum</i>, and in most commentators who are looking to the essential truths of Scripture. The sermon on the Mount is reduced to a series of general propositions where everything local, particular, and concrete is set aside to arrive at the essence, to classify the product and codify a system. Take again the sermon on prayer (Luke 11). "Lord, teach us to pray", said one of His disciples. The first part of the sermon advises the recitation of the Our Father; then follows a famous parable, a picture with all its details, local, actual, and contemporary; the perfection of the concrete. In the crucible of science these details are all swept away. "Friend, lend me three loaves," is generalized into "prayer". "If he shall continue knocking," is the artistic expression for the scientific "persevering". So with the rest: the midnight hour, the shut door, the children in bed, the continual knocking, the reluctant rising, the triumph of the visitor, all disappear, and this piece of eloquence becomes a theological conclusion asserting "the efficacy of persevering prayer; for if selfishness and indolence yield to importunity among creatures, how much more is this true of God?" </p><p>Think a moment of all the great truths of our faith which have been embodied in exact terms and defined and made perspicuous by reason and authority; and set them aside by side with the gospel which is sacred eloquence and from which these great truths arose; and you will understand the marked difference between the scientific and artistic form of the same truth. The providence of God and the lilies of the field, the papal supremacy and the keys, the infallibility and the rock and the sheep, unity and the one fold, grace and the wedding garment, charity and the Good Samaritan, humility and the little child, perfect contrition and the prodigal, torments of hell and unquenchable fire without a single drop on a parched tongue—there is no need of prolonging the catalog. The parable, the example, the story, the similitude, the epigram, the brief description, these are rarely employed in the textbooks of science, where clearness of truth is looked for: "ut veritas pateat". These, however, always enshrine the truths of eloquence where the charm of truth is sought for: "ut veritas placeat".</p><p>[17] ELOQUENCE IS EMOTIONAL.</p><p>Finally, scientific truth is unemotional. Earnestness may galvanize a chapter of Suarez into momentary life, but that life is only galvanic and extrinsic. It comes from flashing eye and thrilling tone and vigorous gesture, but the truth itself is unemotional. Science wants it so. It excludes emotion as distracting and out of place. Imagine a professor of geometry tearfully and exultantly announcing in tremulous tones his Q. E. D. Science does not amplify, does not enforce its truths with emotional vehemence, does not perorate. If you do not understand, it gives another proof, or another exposition. When you catch the fact or principle, the work of science is done. The mind is equated with objective realities; it is vested with the truth. You have a perfect mental fit. It is no part of science to comment on the beauty of the vesture or its goodness. It has already passed on to fit your mind with another truth. Ah, but art does not pass on. In its mental vestures, art dwells upon their beauty and is attracted or repelled by their goodness or evil. The truth of art is transfigured by the imagination into a thing of beauty and is shown to be stained with evil or flowing with goodness, because in eloquence the truth must pass from the mind through the imagination to the heart: "ut veritas pateat, ut veritas placeat, ut veritas moveat".</p><p>One glance of the opened eye sees the flash of truth; the gaze must be riveted to behold its beauty; the looks must be fascinated to thrill with truth's emotion. "Veritas stat in indivisibili", our philosophers tell us, but "pulchritudo non stat in indivisibili nec malitia nec bonitas." So the orator amplifies and is diffuse. He deepens the dark shadows of the picture that you may hate it more and more; he emphasizes the light areas that you may like the picture more and more. He will never be content with your merely seeing it. In a sense, therefore, the sacred orator must know theology better than the theologian. He will not be content with a surface knowledge but will feel the pulse of truth and listen to its heart-beat. He will get down below terms to realities. Before his imagination general truths will marshall [sic] the multitudes of their individuals, and disclose the significant individual which will best represent the class. His knowledge [18] of theological truths will widen out into the myriad relations and analogies in history, art, and nature wherein the profoundest theology may be presented and illustrated in the simplest object-lesson familiar to every audience. Part of Chesterton's success consists in his power of bringing his philosophy, as much as he has, down to the lowest common denominator. He sees philosophy in the veriest [sic] trifles of life. I know, too, a chemist who has so mastered his science that I really believe he could give a complete course in chemistry with experiments and illustrations from the stains and paints and what not of his room. So must the preacher have mastered his theology for the pulpit. He must be able to see sermons in everything, discern the great round orb of God's truth reflected in countless shades and tints from all the creatures in God's universe.</p><p>His truth will be apostolic, will become all things to all men to save all, will avoid the scientific language which appeals to the expert and the trite language which appeals to no one, will keep its language from degenerating into mere symbols, and so will be ever on the lookout in realms of the imagination for new forms in which to body forth the old thoughts. The truth of the orator must be apostolic; it must win its way by beauty and charm and ensure its progress to its destination, the human heart, by filling itself with emotion, by manifesting its goodness or evil. "Ut veritas pateat, ut veritas placeat, ut veritas moveat".</p><p>Francis P. Donnelly, S.J.</p><p><i>St. Andrew-on-Hudson, N. Y.</i></p><p>---</p><p>Source: Francis P. Donnelly, "The Science of Theology and the Art of Sacred Eloquence," <i>Ecclesiastical Review</i> 45, no. 1 (July 1911): 11–18.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-51007749450981842052022-08-08T17:59:00.000-07:002022-08-08T17:59:04.530-07:00Dances at Parties for Benefit of Churches (1934)<p>[537] <i>Qu.</i> 1. Sometimes at a garden party held for the benefit of the parish a dance is given by a parish society in the parish hall and the proceeds are donated to the parish. Is this practice in conflict with the prohibition of dances under church auspices?</p><p>2. Are only public dances held for that purpose forbidden, or are also dances held in <i>private</i> houses, but promoted in order to obtain funds for the church? Can you indicate the canons of the Code to substantiate your answer?</p><p><i>Resp.</i> In both the decree of 31 March, 1916,[1] and the [538] declaration to this decree, 10 December, 1917,[2] the Sacred Consistorial Congregation forbids priests "to promote and foster" (<i>promoveant et foveant</i>) dances. It is difficult to see how such dances may be held in parish property unless the pastor gives his approval. One must therefore conclude that the practice described above is forbidden. It is true, by questionable casuistry, some priest may cleverly (?) direct the society to proceed "without his knowledge and consent" to hold the dances; and thus pretend that he is not at fault. Actually, however, this ruse deceives no one, not even himself.</p><p>2. The two documents referred to above make no distinction as to the place where the proscribed dances for the benefit of a church are to be held. Without distinction they forbid all priests to promote them and even to be present at them, if the dances are arranged for by lay persons.</p><p>There is no explicit mention of this prohibition in the Code. At most (if the words "Ad decimarum et primitiarum solutionem" may be taken in a wide sense), it would come under canon 1502, since the condemned practice is anything but a "laudable" custom. Directly, however, this prohibition derives from the above decree of the Consistorial Congregation. Although it antedates the Code, it nevertheless remains in force as a particular rule not contrary to the canons. It is moreover not a mere disciplinary regulation, but rather a condemnation and proscription of a practice that is an abuse.</p><p>The decree and the declaration in regard to it were issued only for the United States and Canada. As such they do not oblige other countries.</p><p>---</p><p>Footnotes:</p><p>1. <i>Acta. Ap. Sedis</i>, VIII (1916), 147-148; Ecclesiastical Review, LXV (1916), 69-70.</p><p>2. <i>Acta. Ap. Sedis</i>, X (1918), 17; Ecclesiastical Review, (1918), 537.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: "Dances at Parties for Benefit of Churches," <i>Ecclesiastical Review</i> 90, no. 5 (May 1934): 537–538.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-8779499430811329322022-08-08T17:49:00.004-07:002022-08-08T17:49:32.472-07:00"Dancing Priests" and the Council of Baltimore (1919)<p>[445] A zealous pastor who frowns upon dancing among Catholics because the practice, much like card-playing and brandy, has a bad name, comments adversely upon the answer given in the August number of the REVIEW under the heading "Priests and Dancing Parties". He holds that dancing parties, even for good objects promoting religion or piety, are an abuse, and that the proceeds of such entertainments is "tainted" money, which a priest may not accept for religious purposes. In support of this view a canon from the Council of Baltimore is cited: "Mandamus quoque ut sacerdotes illum abusum, quo convivia parantur cum choreis [<i>balls</i>] ad opera pia promovenda, omnino tollendum current."</p><p>We have in the many instances when discussing the question directed attention to the distinction between dances that are a danger to morals, and dancing as a popular amusement indulged in for recreation. The latter is not illicit, though it has its dangers for the individual. Certain methods and functions connected with balls violate decency and modesty and are therefore forbidden by the moral law. In some cases dancing, like wine and card-playing, becomes a direct occasion of sin, against which Christians are to be warned. On the principal that "Qui amat periculum in illo peribit," the Church as the guardian of morals formulates definite precautions against the peril of sin, and this is the object of the Council of Baltimore when it forbids <i>convivia cum choreis</i>. [446] What the Bishops of the Plenary Council forbid is not dancing, but a certain class of dancing parties protracted into the night after banqueting, when the bodies and the imaginations of the participants are heated to the danger point of passion. "Convivia cum choreis", when they constitute an abuse, are very different things from dancing as a mere amusement. Glycerine has a soothing and healing virtue, though in connexion [sic] with certain chemicals it becomes an explosive calculated to destroy health and life. So here. <i>In medio virtus</i>.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: "'Dancing Parties' and the Council of Baltimore," <i>Ecclesiastical Review </i>61, no. 4 (Oct. 1919): 445–446.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-79183558742094138132022-08-08T17:43:00.002-07:002022-08-08T17:43:32.206-07:00Priests and Dancing Parties (1919)<p> [200] <i>Qu.</i> Will you kindly answer the following questions:</p><p>1. Does the prohibition regarding dances extend to institutions under the supervision of religious, such as orphanages, hospitals, etc., when these institutions arrange entertainments, bazaars, lawn parties, etc., for the benefit of their upkeep?</p><p>[201] 2. May the different committees or societies or sodalities which have booths for these institutions or for a church benefit at such entertainment, permit dances in connexion [sic] with the event in order to swell the proceeds?</p><p>3. May a pastor receive for church uses, funds which he knows to be the result of dances under the auspices of said societies, especially when he knows of the arrangement in advance, though he is not directly connected with such amusements?</p><p><i>Resp.</i> Dancing in itself is not an illicit amusement, though it has its dangers for the individual. Certain dances, or methods connected with them, which plainly violate decency and modesty, are forbidden by the moral law, and whatever tends to these practices is to be prevented like all other moral wrong in the flock, by the prudent foresight of the pastor charged with the care of souls.</p><p>Since it is not always possible for the priest personally to determine the actual line at which decorum is overstepped, or to anticipate possible acts calculated to scandalize sensitive consciences, his presence at such amusements may easily start criticism and scandal without his being responsible for or even capable of censuring it in the individual. For this reason the ecclesiastical authorities forbid priests to <i>promote </i>or <i>be present</i> at such diversions. (S. C. Consist., 10 Dec. 1917.) To refuse, however, to permit these dances or to regard the proceeds of dancing parties organized for charitable purposes as "tainted money" which a priest may not accept, would be to pronounce the dancing under the circumstances as immoral, which is not true. Those who, as Catholics, promote the parties are obliged to safeguard their enterprise as far as possible from becoming a source of sin or scandal. And priests as well as other religious instructors are bound to present this obligation to their charges.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: "Priests and Dancing Parties," <i>Ecclesiastical Review</i> 61, no. 2 (Aug. 1919): 200–201.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-7624851645562540922022-08-08T17:33:00.003-07:002022-08-08T17:33:58.772-07:00Dancing at a Concert for Benefit of Church (1918)<p> [323] <i>Qu</i>. Would you kindly answer the following question in the next issue of your REVIEW? May I give permission to the Catholics of my parish to give a concert for the benefit of our new church, knowing that the concert includes a dnace?</p><p><i>Resp</i>. As this query comes from a far-off clime we presume that the inquirer has not seen the question of dancing at Church celebrations discussed in the pages of the REVIEW. Briefly, then, for his benefit, and that of others to whom a reminder may not be untimely, the decree of 31 March, 1916, renewing the provisions of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, forbids two things: first, that priests should organize or "get up" ("promovere vel fovere") dances, even when such dances are for the benefit of the Church or for some other pious purpose; second, when such dances are organized by others, the priest is forbidden to be present. To give permission for a concert at which the pastor knows that there will be dancing will or will not fall under the first of these prohibitions according to circumstances. In most cases, we think it would.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: "Dancing at a Concert for Benefit of Church," <i>Ecclesiastical Review </i>58, no. 3 (March 1918): 323.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-19238317891058726982022-08-08T17:27:00.005-07:002022-08-08T17:28:00.021-07:00Promulgation of New Decrees (1916)<p> [192] <i>Qu.</i> Does the new decree in regard to dancing bind pastors as soon as it is made known through the Catholic press, even if the Ordinary has not promulgated it in the diocese?</p><p><i>Resp</i>. Since 1909, to make a Roman law or decree binding <i>in foro externo</i> it is sufficient that it be published in the <i>Acta Apostolicae Sedis</i>. The publication of a document in that periodical takes the place of the dispatch of an official copy to the bishops, as was the custom before 1909. The presumption is that a decree enacted and promulgated by the Holy See will be put into execution by the Ordinary. If, in exceptional cases, for reasons which he must make known to the Holy See, he suspends the application of a Roman decree, he [193] must expressly notify his diocese. A clergyman therefore who reads a decree in the <i>Acta</i>, or who, through the Catholic press, knows that it is published in the <i>Acta</i>, is bound, without further notification, by the provisions which it enacts.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: "Promulgation of New Decrees," <i>Ecclesiastical Review </i>55, no. 2 (August 1916): 192–193.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-57365163297147963602022-08-08T17:24:00.004-07:002022-08-08T17:27:48.174-07:00The Decree On Dancing (1916)<p> [193] <i>Qu.</i> In the small country parish in which I am stationed, the people have been accustomed to dance at our church picnics. The dances in vogue, however, were the old-fashioned country, or square, dances. Recently, after I had prohibited dancing at the annual picnic, a delegation of young men asked me to give them permission to hold a free dance in the parish hall, for the use of which they would pay a small fee. In the event of not getting permission, they would, they told me, hold the dance in the town hall, some distance from the church. After giving the matter some thought, and for the reason that it is better to have the dance under some kind of parochial control, I decided to let them have the hall. Now I would like to have your answer to the following questions:</p><p>1. Does the phrase "certain dances" apply to all dances whatsoever, or only to some?</p><p>2. Is a pastor permitted to visit the hall during the dancing, to see that it is orderly and that the dances are conformable to Christian modesty?</p><p>3. Is a pastor justified in permitting the dances in the parish hall in order to keep a certain control over them, it being understood that there is no thought of thereby raising funds for religious purposes?</p><p><i>Resp</i>. 1. The answer to the first query is that all kinds of dances, no matter how old-fashioned or "harmless", are meant. The phrase "certain dances" occurs in the title of the decree, "Decretum circa quasdam choreas"; but it is evident from the use of the word "choreas" in the text of the decree that we must translate: "Decree concerning certain dancing-parties". The decree makes no distinction between new dances and old, between square dances and round; it does, however, distinguish between dancing-parties that are given under church auspices and those organized by laymen. The former kind are forbidden, no matter the program of dances may be.</p><p>2. In regard to the second question, we think that the text of the decree clearly prohibits the pastor's presence at dancing[194]-parties organized by lay people. The motive, namely, "to see that the party is orderly, etc.", does not justify his presence. Of course, if grave disorder should occur in a dance-hall and the pastor were summoned thither in the performance of his duty, the present decree need not deter him from entering the hall.</p><p>3. There may be room for discussion of the third question. The decree positively forbids the promotion and encouragement of such entertainments on the part of members of the clergy, religious or diocesan: "quonimus memoratas choreas promoveant et foveant"; at the same time, when it comes to the case of such entertainments being organized by lay people, the decree does not say that the pastor should interpose his authority, and forbid them, but enacts that he should not be present. Does the renting of the parish hall amount to a mere tolerance or is it promoting and encouraging? In a thoroughly Catholic community, where there is no danger of the priest's attitude being misunderstood, especially if the entertainment be not associated with a church picnic, excursion, or any other church affair organized by the priest, it seems that, since there is no authoritative interpretation of the decree on this point, the priest may rent the church hall for an entertainment organized by lay people, even when he knows that dancing is part of the program.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: "The Decree on Dancing," <i>Ecclesiastical Review</i> 55, no. 2 (August 1916): 193–194.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-53053724709066928632022-08-08T17:09:00.006-07:002022-08-08T17:09:57.299-07:00What is Considered Indecent Dress of Women by the Supreme Authority of the Church? (1930)<p>[1328] <i>Question:</i> I there any authoritative statement of the Holy See as to what constitutes indecent dress of women? It is evident that effective action against unchristian fashions for women can be had only if one can point out with precision things that are judged indecent by the Church. —VERITAS</p><p><i>Answer:</i> Yes, there is such an authoritative statement. Recently one of our correspondents has kindly sent us a copy of a leaflet published by the Central Bureau of the Catholic Central Verein, with the Imprimatur of the Most Rev. John J. Glennon, Archbishop of St. Louis. In this leaflet there are translated from the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 12, 1930 (cfr. THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW, April, 1930, pp. 757-759), those points which the Holy See wants the bishops to attend to in an effort to stop the spread of indecent fashions for women. So earnest is the Holy See about this matter that it requires the bishops to state in their quinquennial report on the state of their dioceses what they have done to counteract this evil. Furthermore, the above-mentioned leaflet draws attention to the fact that the aforesaid Instruction incorporates by reference a letter of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, August 23, 1928, to the religious communities of women in the City of Rome conducting girls' schools. In that letter specific directions are given as to what the Holy See considers unbecoming dress for Catholic women and girls. We quote from the leaflet: "In order that uniformity of understanding prevail in all institutions of religious women regarding the cases in which the aforecited [sic] prescriptions of the Congregation of Religious apply, we recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers' breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent material are improper, as also flesh-colored stockings, which suggest the legs being bare."</p><p>The reader can judge for himself how many of the Catholic ladies, young and old, contradict the teaching of the Supreme Authority of the Church in their manner of dressing, not only in the streets, but even in our churches and when approaching Holy [1329] Communion. The spirit of liberty in its exaggerated form, and the lack of delicacy of Christian modesty lost through contact with life in the midst of an overwhelmingly large neo-pagan population that is mostly Christian in name only, have made even ordinarily good Catholic women and young ladies unconscious of the indecency of modern dress and its offense against public Christian morality. It will require a country-wide concerted effort of the Catholic Church in the United States to bring back to them the Christian sense of modesty, not by impatient scolding and severe condemnation and penalties, but by persistent and uniform teaching of the high sense of morality evidenced in the lives of the Saints and the vast majority of our Catholic ancestors.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: Stanislaus Woywod, OFM, LLB, "What is Considered Indecent Dress of Women by the Supreme Authority of the Church?" <i>The Homiletic and Pastoral Review</i> 30, no. 12 (Sept. 1930): 1328–1329.</p><p> https://archive.org/details/sim_homiletic-pastoral-review_1930-09_30_12/page/1328/mode/2up</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-14534527300389719602022-08-08T16:58:00.004-07:002022-08-08T17:23:58.829-07:00Dancing Parties Under "Catholic" Auspices (1916)<p>[84] <b>Dancing Parties Under "Catholic" Auspices.</b></p><p>The current "Analecta" contains a document of special importance from the S. Congregation of Consistory. Its purpose is to enforce the decree of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore which prohibits "entertainments" with balls for the purpose of promoting pious projects—"convivia cum choreis". The "provida mens" of the Bishops in Council assembled not only forbade such entertainments but enjoined the pastors to do what they could to prevent them. "Mandamus quoque ut sacerdotes illum abusum, quo convivia parantur cum choreis (<i>balls</i>) ad opera pia promovenda, omnino tollendum current" (Conc. Plen. Balt. III. cap. V, n. 290).</p><p>How far ecclesiastical superiors may be responsible for the neglect of the decree is not easy to determine; but the fact that Catholic papers in various parts openly advertise such entertainments would indicate that no particular censorship has been exercised in the matter. A primary qualification of fitness of a Catholic editor is or should be the ability to exercise intelligent responsibility in safeguarding, besides knowing, the diocesan laws. Catholic editors may have been guided in such matters by priests who overlooked these laws. Some of them have been foreigners, and diocesan statutes, much less the Baltimore Councils, were not their normal guides. So the matter went on until we had a "custom" against which an individual voice and even the local Ordinaries found it difficult to raise a successful protest. Now the protest has come, apparently from Canada, whose border parishes have been invaded by the usage tolerated in the United States. It will be difficult to abandon it, at least without creating the discontent that turns hundreds who are bound by the chains of social [85] obligations away from the sacraments or the Church and religion. But the Holy See has made it clear that our tolerance has been amiss.</p><p>Once more we may be allowed to call attention to the conduct of the Catholic press. There has been a good deal of discussion recently about the duties of Catholic editors and about the support our people owe to Catholic periodicals. Some years ago the REVIEW published a paper on this subject. We reprint it in part here because it may be suggestive. The excuse of editors that "the priests should advise us in such matters" is puerile. A journalist has no right to assume the editorship of a Catholic paper unless he knows and is prepared to defend the laws of the Church, if need be even independently or against the practice of the priests. Says the writer referred to in the ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW:</p><p></p><blockquote><p>When a brother custodian of "Religion's sacred fires" guards his trust according to his own conscience, even though is methods differ from mine, I may have no right to find fault. But if the smoke of those "fires" blows in my direction, to the detriment of my discipline and the confusion of my flock, surely my giving some account of the faith that is in me, cannot be construed into any assumption on my part of superior wisdom or piety, or as meddlesome impertinence.</p><p>Now I wonder how Catholic papers can consistently and conscientiously make a practice of publishing emblazoned accounts of dances and balls given by Catholic societies and under Catholic auspices. Catholic papers, persistently and rightly, I think, insist on the importance of the apostolate of the Catholic press. While the readers of Catholic papers may not accept as doctrine every salutary statement they see in a Catholic paper, most of them will, probably, accept as "gospel truth" from which there is no appeal, any declaration or suggestion favoring greater amplitude in a matter of coveted liberties.</p><p>Some time ago one of my Reverend neighbors was reported as having declared that his parishioners might dance all they wished. Knowing by experience that this man weighs the moral bearing of his words, I felt entirely safe in absolutely denying the report as it stood, and I soon found that he had said nothing of the kind. Such a declaration from a pastor would, it seems to me, unnecessarily encourage a practice which, given the reins, soon runs to the devil, and would considerably embarrass parents who conscientiously keep their sons and daughters away from such places of amusement.</p><p>[86] But if such a declaration from a pastor were imprudent, is not the publication of such amusements in a Catholic paper likewise imprudent? Let a pastor see fit publicly to denounce dancing in his parish, while his hearers read reports in Catholic papers, of balls and dances under Catholic auspices, and they will probably conclude that their pastor is rather old-fashioned or fanatical, too young or too old to know better.</p><p>Of course, there is no dearth of authority, sacred and profane, ancient as well as modern, in support of the pastor's position. Several Councils of the Church have anathematized dances, and the Council of Laodicea forbade them even at weddings. The Council of Trent (sess. XXII. c. 1. De ref.) forbids clerics under pain of ecclesiastical censure to be even present at any. The good and learned St. Charles Borromeo called dances "a circle of which the devil is the centre [sic] and his slaves the circumference". St. John Chrysostom denounced them as "a school for impure passions". Many more similar texts might be adduced. Nor are these at variance with Holy Scripture, which says anent this subject, among other uncomplimentary things: "Use not much the company of her that is a dancer, lest thou perish ["] (Ecclus. 9: 4).</p><p>Should it be suspected that the saints are not competent judges in a matter of this kind, profane and heathen authors may be found galore to testify to the same effect. Sallust, for instance, himself a dancer, and anything but a saint, declared of a certain Roman lady, that "she danced too well for an honest woman". Even applied in our day these words are not without some truth, at least.</p><p>Certainly, there is no disputing the theory that dancing under favorable circumstances may be tolerated, and that even waltzing may be done decently. Yet may we not say, in the words of Dr. Cook, author of <i>Satan in Society</i>, that waltzes at their best are, to put it mildly, "subversive of that modest reserve and shyness, which in all ages has proved the true aegis of virtue"? Whence one might ask, has Terpsichore the right, under the palliating title of "fashionable grip", to sanction liberties and poses that would be accounted rude indecencies, to say the least, under any other auspices?</p><p>Of course so long as theory says that some dances may be innocent, on goes the dance—the St. Vitus's dance, the Tam O'Shanter dance, and the innocent dance. But it is one thing, quietly and restrictedly to tolerate dancing, and quite another thing to herald and trumpet such toleration to a public only too apt and eager to accept the liberty and ignore the restriction. (C. P. B.)</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Such toleration, however, cannot be identified with the sanction given to public and fashionable dancing in connexion [sic] with Catholic charities or educational enterprises, in which [87] while we offer to Catholics aid and instruction with one hand, we press them down with the other to the low level in which they breathe sensual amusement. The advertisement of such amusements is not mere toleration.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: J.F.S., "Dancing Parties under 'Catholic' Auspices," <i>Ecclesiastical Review</i> 55, no. 1 (July 1916): 84–87.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-74524237382549242252022-06-16T16:32:00.003-07:002022-06-16T16:32:18.302-07:00St. Thomas Aquinas on Changing the Traditions<p> "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."</p><p>St. Thomas Aquinas, <i>Summa Theologiae</i>, 1a2ae.97.2 sed contra; </p><p>From Gratian, <i>Decreta</i>,<i> </i>Distinction 12, ch. 5, quoting from a letter of Pope St. Nicholas I to Abp. Hincmar:</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"It is a ridiculous and abominable disgrace that in our times we permit the holy Church of God to be slandered and that we suffer the traditions we have received from the fathers of ancient times to be infringed at will by those wandering from the truth."</p></blockquote><p>Source: Gratian, <i>The Treatise on Laws</i>, trans. Augustine Thompson, With the Ordinary Gloss, trans. James Gordley (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 1993), 44.</p><p>h/t Fr. Thomas Crean, OP. https://twitter.com/crean_fr/status/1530922903054733315</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-46790716390713471492021-11-12T01:45:00.003-08:002021-12-12T16:13:37.509-08:00Ironic Reviews of Two Magna Opera in Spiritual Theology<p>Fr. Jordan Aumann and Fr. Antonio Royo Marin were the successors to Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange in systematic spiritual theology. While they were well-respected masters in the field, their works clearly betray a more theologically conservative bent that was almost completely rejected during the feverish explosion of wild theological fads in the aftermath of Vatican II. Both theologians incorporated Vatican II into their works (or later editions), but they sometimes received the accusation that this incorporation was more like paying lip service to the Council rather than using its spirit as a springboard into more radical and revolutionary thought. Aumann and Royo Marin were seen as theologically boring fuddy-duddies. An exception to this may be seen in Aumann's work on the lay apostolate and lay spirituality, <i>On the Front Lines</i>, making great use of the Vatican II document <i>Apostolicam Actuositatem</i> and other post-conciliar documents. One former seminary rector and diocesan vicar general I know who studied under Aumann at the Angelicum exclaimed to me, "He was the most boring professor I've ever had!!!" Nevertheless, they continued steadfastly and produced works that have stood the test of time and continue to be used at the Angelicum.</p><p>I meant to post these reviews a long time ago and have finally gotten around to them. Fr. Dubay is well known for his collection of books on the spiritual life, mostly published through Ignatius Press. His magnum opus is <i>Fire Within </i>(published 1989), which summarizes the teachings of Sts. Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross on the spiritual life. His reputation as a master of the spiritual life is rightfully held among conservative Catholics who are interested in these sorts of books. What is lesser known of Fr. Dubay is his quite harsh review in<i> Theological Studies </i>of Fr. Aumann's classic text <i>Spiritual Theology</i>, published in 1980, that betrays Fr. Dubay's high esteem for "contemporary theology," which Aumann seems to make a point of ignoring in much of his work. Or if Aumann quotes from contemporary authors, it is only to confirm the point he is already offering.</p><p>Yet in a twist of irony, only nine years later, Fr. Dubay's great work makes mention of only a few contemporary theologians, and the review of Dubay's work notes that it adheres to older interpretive frameworks and ignores certain trends in contemporary theology—in the very same theological journal in which Dubay had formerly critiqued Aumann! To be fair to Dubay, his work doesn't claim to be a synthesis of spiritual theology but only of the thought of the two great Carmelite mystic saints. Nevertheless its overall framework fits well into the traditional works on spiritual theology. It was nice to see that Dubay moved away from these fads somewhat as time went on and settled into a more balanced and holistic approach. I will note Dubay's criticism that Aumann's work would likely not be retained "as a ready reference" among his intended audience fortunately turned out to be false. </p><p>So, I present below, with my snarky commentary interspersed, the two reviews, first of Fr. Aumann's <i>Spiritual Theology</i>, reviewed by Fr. Dubay, and second of Fr. Dubay's <i>Fire Within</i>, reviewed by Fr. Steven Payne, OCD.</p><p>---</p><p>[163] SPIRITUAL THEOLOGY. By Jordan Aumann, O.P. Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 1980. Pp. 456. $18.95.</p><p>This volume may be viewed as a case study of one of the central problems facing contemporary theology if it is to regain the position it once held in the mind of the general public: the fragmentation-polarization problem. On the one hand, A. [i.e. Aumann] considers his book to be a "response to numerous requests for a complete and definitive work on Christian spirituality" (11). On the other hand, it is safe to say that many of its intended audience will not retain it as a ready reference. Those who view this work as definitive can point to its being based mainly on the teaching of St. Thomas, St. John of the Cross, and St. Teresa of Avila. It therefore avoids pop theories such as psychologized horizontalism or creation-centered "spirituality." It is orderly and clear. As long as systematic theology remains heavily theoretical and moral theology continues to avoid the totality themes of Scripture, there will remain a need for what we call spiritual theology. The title of this book is well chosen, for it is what it says it is. Part 1 deals with doctrinal foundations: the nature and scope of spiritual theology, the goal of the Christian life, its Christic and Marian character, the "supernatural organism," perfection and mystical experience. Part 2 is concerned with growth in holiness: conversion, purification, sacraments, the virtues, prayer and its development, extraordinary mystical phenomena, and aids to growth such as spiritual reading and direction.</p><p>Why, then, is it unlikely that many others will not retain <i>Spiritual Theology </i>as a ready reference? The main problem is not that the volume [164] is only partially new. That much of it is a republication is indicated by the preface itself when it notes that "some sections are taken substantially" from Royo-Aumann's <i>The Theology of Christian Perfection </i>published in 1962. The main difficulty is that while Vatican II does get some attention, contemporary thinkers are quite completely left aside. The renewal of biblical studies in the last thirty years has yielded an immense enrichment to our understanding of the spiritual life. Specialized studies on prayer, community, discernment, virginity, poverty, freedom, and authority would have added a great deal to the Dominican and Carmelite synthesis offered by A. [One wonders if only the religious orders had also been aware of these specialized studies, then perhaps they would not have suffered so much attrition following the council! Sarcasm.] Reluctant though I be to record it, I found no hint in this stout volume that anything significant in spiritual theology has happened since the Council. While some recent contributions are flimsy and fanciful, others are rich, even brilliant. A contemporary synthesis must be tangibly influenced by the fresh insights of men like Balthasar, Congar, Galot, Rahner, Daniélou, Sheets, Legrand, Merton, Van Kaam, and Knight.</p><p>Some people will be put off, rightly or wrongly, by minor irritants. A. occasionally uses terms that sound foreign to our times: "the various faculties of the soul.. .exercises of piety.. .philosophically repugnant... the passive purgations.. .the efficient cause.. .the formal cause..." [How minorly irritating indeed.] He sometimes writes of what theologians hold and do not hold when actually his statement is true only in the past tense. For example, noting that St. Thomas responded affirmatively to the question as to whether the gifts of the Holy Spirit are habits or not, A. remarks that "theologians of all schools hold for the same response, with few exceptions" (91). I fear it would be closer to the truth to say that the exceptions today are those who even discuss the question at all. This fact may be lamentable, but it seems to be the case. On the next page we read that "it is commonly taught by theologians that the gifts are the perfection of the infused virtues." This may be true in the past tense, but what is common today is nondiscussion [sic] of the subject.</p><p>A. rightly insists that deep prayer, infused contemplation, is meant for all men and women, and he cites Vatican II to this effect. He does not notice, however, the most telling and explicit conciliar texts, texts that are incompatible with the two-way theory of reaching sanctity. This most recent of the councils has made it clear that mystical prayer is a normal development of our grace life, that it is not reserved to an elite, that it is not "extraordinary." [Here Dubay clearly misunderstands Aumann, who, like Garrigou-Lagrange, was staunch in arguing against the two-way theory.]</p><p>In the judgment of this reviewer, a definitive work must not only be solid, deep, clear, and orthodox. It must likewise reflect the best in contemporary approaches and insight, for we live in our age, not another. It seems to me that we still await the definitive work in spiritual theology. [This is obviously a contradiction in concepts; a work cannot be simultaneously definitive and contemporary since the latter is always evolving. Such a work can only mention the contemporary trends, but anything truly definitive, by definition, must stand the test of time and above all passing fads by adhering to unchanging principles applicable to all times and circumstances.]</p><p><i>Marist Center, Washington, D.C.</i> THOMAS DUBAY, S.M.</p><p>Source: Thomas Dubay, "AUMANN, J., O.P.: Spiritual Theology," <i>Theological Studies</i> 42, no. 1 (Mar. 1981): 163–164.</p><p>---</p><p>[539] FIRE WITHIN: ST. TERESA OF AVILA, ST. JOHN OF THE CROSS, AND THE GOSPEL—ON PRAYER. By Thomas Dubay, S.M. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989. Pp. vii + 358. $17.95.</p><p>With the growing popularity of Teresa of Avila and John of the Cross, this overview of their spiritual doctrine fills an urgent need. Nothing of comparable scope and quality has been available in English since E. W. Trueman Dicken's 1963 classic <i>The Crucible of Love</i>.</p><p>Dubay's approach is thematic and practical, intended "for all men and women in every way of life" (4). In an initial programmatic chapter he bases the contemporary relevance of John and Teresa on the universal call to holiness and contemplative prayer stressed by Vatican II, arguing that "the teachings of Teresa and John are nothing more or less than the integral Gospel," a claim he supports throughout by identifying corresponding NT passages for every crucial element in their doctrine. This scriptural component is a welcome feature, though D.'s [i.e. Dubay's] treatment of NT spirituality is developed in relation to Teresa and John rather than on its own terms, so that some themes (e.g., the communal dimensions of holiness) tend to be underrepresented. Still, the biblical citations are handled well, without manipulative "proof-texting."</p><p>Chapter 2 offers a brief introduction to the lives, writings, and personalities of the two Carmelite saints, while subsequent chapters provide a synthesis of their teaching on the major phases and elements of the spiritual life; here D. retraces the traditional journey from discursive meditation, through initial contemplation and both active and passive purifications, to transforming union. The final chapters deal with a variety of related topics, including distractions in prayer, discernment, extraordinary experiences, friendships, spiritual direction, wholeness, and freedom.</p><p>Since this is a popular rather than academic work, D. avoids technical questions and disputed points in Teresian and Sanjuanist scholarship. He makes virtually no mention of research from the past two decades, preferring (perhaps wisely) to remain in the older interpretive mainstream. [Remaining in the "older interpretive mainstream" is always bad.] Readers will have to look elsewhere for recent discoveries regarding the social, cultural, and economic implications of the Teresian program. [Thankfully. Does anyone really want to see contemporary theologians' analyses on the economic implications of the Teresian program?] Still, it would be hard to find a more lucid general introduction to the basic Teresian and Sanjuanist themes. D. does a masterful job of explaining the essential agreement and occasional differences between John and Teresa, in an engaging style that any sympathetic reader should easily follow.</p><p>Apparently some of this material originated in retreat conferences to contemplative religious communities, which may partly explain why D.'s most frequent examples of impediments to spiritual growth include idle [540] gossip and overexposure to TV and other media rather than, say, a lack of active concern for the poor. [Because religious orders in the past 50 years have shown much too much interest in TV and not enough concern for the poor? When was the last time you heard a religious order <i>not</i> emphasizing social justice?] D. likewise sees little value in prayer journals, "creation-centered" spirituality, and, especially, Oriental methods of meditation, which he repeatedly claims offer little more in themselves than "a brief, impersonal insight produced entirely by human technique" (54). [This is consistent with Dubay's views when he was critiquing Aumann.] Not until relatively late does he discuss the far more widespread Catholic temptation (which so preoccupied John of the Cross) toward vain credulity in private revelations, though he does lament, eloquently, that "most people would not even cross the street to witness an unobtrusive act of patience ..., but they will cross an ocean to visit the locale of an alleged apparition" (247) </p><p>[While I understand the sentiment of being too attached to private revelation, the comparison is frankly awkward, and Dubay's discussion in this section is somewhat confused; the point of making an act of virtue unobtrusive is precisely to hide it. Further, the reviewer somewhat exaggerates Fr. Dubay's point here, who wrote, "Private divine communications are relatively unimportant." Dubay didn't accuse anyone of vain credulity or say that private revelations are always unimportant. He's placing them in their proper context in relation to personal spiritual growth, namely, people can easily become attached to the revelation, and this attachment to the sensible will hinder their purification on the path to union with God, who is above the sensible. On the other hand, Dubay by his comparison undervalues the sense of the faithful who "cross an ocean to visit the locale" of an apparition. The faithful go for many reasons, often stemming from their faith: the hope of healing for a serious or terminal illness, the desire to grow in devotion, to find some personal renewal, to receive light and graces, etc. Many experience stronger faith after the pilgrimage, and such pilgrimages have a long tradition in Catholic history. Such apparitions are often the sign of God's special intervention, and they almost demand public veneration by the affected community, e.g. Our Lady of Guadalupe. Dubay could have made a better nuanced discussion on apparitions versus extraordinary mystical experiences occurring in an isolated individual's spiritual life that is never meant to become public. But in conclusion, the exaggerated aspects of this discussion actually reflect a trend in theology, developing as early as the 1950s, that held a condescending view of private devotions among the "ignorant" laity in general.]</p><p>Curiously, D. criticizes "minimalism" in moral theology, its divorce from systematic and mystical theology, and the "latecomer" theory of two paths (ordinary and extraordinary) to Christian perfection as if these were recent inventions by contemporary theologians of dubious loyalty. Indeed, he often warns against "the pitiable self-assurance of a dissenting mind" (253), stressing obedience to the magisterium and one's superiors as a crucial sign of authentic spirituality, sometimes (though certainly not always) seeming to rank it even before charity in the list of essential virtues (108 f.). One wishes D. were equally adamant against the evils sometimes wrought in the name of religious observance, to which the Gospels and the Carmelite tradition also clearly testify. It is worth remembering, further, that both John and Teresa were sometimes considered "disobedient" by their superiors; while we now recognize the error of such accusations, this should perhaps give us pause before judging too quickly which of <i>our </i>contemporaries are, or are not, truly faithful to the gospel. [Careful, both of you, your biases are showing. Notice how the reviewer must take the time to imply the goodness of the radical and probing work of contemporary theologians vis-à-vis an exaggerated conservative obedience that supposedly closes the mind. After all, points out the reviewer, look at the example of Sts. Teresa and John, two disobedient revolutionaries within whose trailblazing lineage people like Hans Küng and James Martin proudly stand! No, we mustn't ever suggest some contemporary theologians are "of dubious loyalty," Fr. Payne, lest we potentially prompt some slight feelings of personal guilt, perhaps?]</p><p>Such observations, however, have more to do with emphasis than substance; this reviewer would have preferred a more balanced admission that not all spiritual dangers today come from the theological left. [Lest we mistakenly think Fr. Dubay was a far-right conspiracy theorist.] Still, D. offers an excellent resource for spiritual reading and group study, highly recommended.</p><p><i>De Sales School of Theology, D.C. </i> STEVEN PAYNE, O.C.D.</p><p>Source: Steven Payne, "DUBAY T. Fire Within (<i>S. Payne</i>)," <i>Theological Studies </i>51, no. 3 (Dec. 1990): 539–540.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-63626806435175476392021-09-22T15:25:00.005-07:002021-09-22T15:25:47.626-07:00Augustine Hickey, "To Train for the Formation of Good Habits" (1916)<p>[277] The subject assigned for this discussion promises nothing new nor anything hitherto undiscovered in the field of educational endeavor. Nevertheless, a brief consideration of habit formation is opportune and helpful. It should lead to reflection and should stimulate to conscientious effort toward the attainment of the natural and necessary consequence of effective teaching. Children well taught have formed good habits. Their energies and activities have been intelligently directed; their ability to do things well is the pride of the teachers and the glory of the system responsible for this admirable condition. All successful teachers have realized the crowning satisfaction of their work. They have seen graduates go forth from school trained to earnest industry and application, devoted to study, accurate in their acquired knowledge, and eager to approach those ideals of virtue which the teacher held out before them. these graduates have passed from the school's influence bearing splendid proof of the excellent quality of its educational aims and methods.</p><p>Because habit formation stands in direct and intimate relationship to good teaching, the evident lack of necessary habits in the individual is a serious reflection on the character of his early training. Unfortunately indeed, the school's chief purposes are not always attained. Success does not follow on every effort. The acknowledgment of failure is the first step in the study of its more obvious causes.</p><p>[278] Two boys graduate from the same school, having advanced together through the entire course of instruction and discipline. After twenty years one has become a captain of industry, the other is enrolled among disciples of ease. Ability and opportunity alone do not explain this success and this failure. Their associates have discovered more subtle differences. The man who has prospered is thoroughly honest, reliable, industrious, accurate, a clear thinker, strong and purposeful in his methods. The other, with the same preliminary training, possesses few of these desirable qualities and accomplishes little or nothing.</p><p>Why this strange but marked contrast? It is clear at first sight that one man is strong and masterful in the use of his natural ability, while the other is a waster of his gifts of mind and will. Can we attempt to fix responsibility? It is but fair to divide it. The individual must carry his own share. Yet honesty, industry, power of observation, mental accuracy and determination, are the normal results of careful and intelligent training of mind and will. And it is precisely the function and the duty of the teacher and the school to increase the power and capacity of the individual by developing in the faculties those qualities which make for strength and efficiency.</p><p>Call education what you will, it is infinitely more than the bare imparting of knowledge and the crowding and cramming of a receptive memory. Education aims to develop and strengthen all the faculties. This development and strength is secured only by the well-directed use and exercise, which in the very nature of man leads to the formation of good intellectual and moral habits.</p><p>Habit can be described as an aptitude and facility for doing certain things in a certain way. This aptitude is acquired and becomes a controlling factor in life through the exercise of the natural human tendency to repeat acts of body, mind, and will. Each individual feels this inclination in varying degrees and is forced to recognize in it the source of his permanent qualities and characteristics. Each human act leaves its impression on the mind and will. Each movement made carries with it a disposition to repeat that movement. Physiologists say "the organism tends to the mode in which it is exercised." Psychologists affirm "that the mind in the presence of an object tends to recall [279] other objects associated at one time or another with the object in view. This association of ideas tends to recur in the original manner and order of presentation."</p><p>Personal experience offers ample proof of the truth of these principles and urges the necessity of attention and study of this most significant fact. For what comes of this tendency? The process is simple and evident. Each repeated act strengthens the inclination to reproduce that act and continued repetition inevitably results in an established and definite course of action. This is habit—the quality which increases the power of the faculties, for it lessens materially the need of conscious effort in action. What is said and done frequently is said and done easily in a spontaneous and automatic manner. The capacity of bringing actions under the influence of habit is a great blessing of Divine Providence. It is for this precise reason that the commonplace activities of life require the expenditure of little energy because they are simplified and well ordered through frequent recurrence. Without the assistance of habit, man could make but little progress, for his entire interest and attention would be absorbed in the trivial duties of the hour, and he would have neither time nor strength for further achievement. The habit capacity is a great source of power to the individual. It is to the mind and will what muscle is to the human body. It develops readily and rapidly by use and exercise until it becomes a dominating force manifesting itself in every phase of human activity.</p><p>The proper development of the habit capacity in the child should become the center of interest of the successful tteacher [sic]. Since no task is ever intelligently undertaken without some compelling motive, the teacher in the classroom must realize clearly the necessity and importance of this special work. The children seated before her are there to be trained. The results of this required training are best measured in the number and kind of desirable aptitudes and capacities developed in the mind and will. Good aptitudes are good habits. They constitute abiding standards by which to gauge the effectiveness of the teaching and training in one particular school or in a great educational system.</p><p>In the formation of habit, attentive repetition is the one substantial [280] means to the desired end. Repetition unenlivened by interest and attention is of absolutely no value in the process. Much of the drill work in the grades is a step backward for this reason. The children are neither interested in the task nor attentive to the details, and carelessness and indifference inevitably result. During the attentive repetition of the act, the teacher is quick to note exceptions and to correct them at once. No mistake is allowed to escape unnoticed. By this means accurate repetition is secured and the single acts are being organized in the proper manner. Interest and attention are constantly sustained by worthy incentives and clever teaching devices. The need and value of skill, the duty of the child to cooperate, the brilliant prospect of success, are general motives to be constantly applied. Position in class, marks and prizes, are school inducements always available and helpful to keeping pupils interested and attentive.</p><p>The teacher must remember that while kindness and sympathy are most attractive qualities, she must be strong and insistent in forming habits. Too often weeks and weeks of repetition and practice are wasted when a little additional perseverance would have accomplished wonders. Habits are not acquired in a day. In fact, no general rule can be established as to the amount of time and repetition required. The nature of the action, the temperament of the individual, are helps or hindrances in the work. Yet with the great majority of pupils, unswerving fidelity to attentive repetition will develop the capacity to do a certain thing with the maximum of correctness and the minimum of effort.</p><p>Many subjects of the elementary school curriculum offer abundant material for habit formation. In writing, spelling, arithmetic, reading, there are numerous unchanging elements over which the child must acquire that skill which comes only from habit. In presenting these lessons, the teacher need only apply with spirit and perseverance the rules and methods laid down for habit formation. But the responsibility of the school and the teacher cannot end here. Skill in writing, spelling, and arithmetic, does not represent the highest purpose of educational work. There are certain general qualities of mind and heart which the elementary school should develop and strengthen. [281] Educators differ and dispute over questions of curriculum, method and problems of administration, but all agree that true education should lead to the development of certain definite and permanent intellectual and moral habits. Can these desirable habits be easily enumerated? The list is indeed long, for it should include all the qualities required in the making of a perfect man. Nevertheless, it is not difficult to select and emphasize one habit or another which the school as a unit should set itself to form in all the pupils. If each member of the teaching staff realized a particular need common to all the children of the school, and used every opportunity and lesson to insist on the development of this special quality, the results after seven or eight years would be truly astonishing. Cooperation in purpose and action is the secret of success. When the school selects a definite aim and purpose and every teacher works diligently in that direction, then some results must surely be achieved. How shall the school make a selection? The choice rests on a very positive basis. What habits do our children really need? Where are they weak? Where must they be made strong? In reply to these queries, let it be clearly stated that the Catholic school is advancing nearer to its highest purposes in proportion as it develops in children a love of knowledge, the power to think clearly and accurately, and an abiding devotion to the interests of God and His holy Church.</p><p>The sum total of knowledge retained is not the surest standard by which to measure educational results. This statement may seem strange in view of present-day tendencies to increase indefinitely the number of subjects taught in elementary schools. Every year, additional requirements are added to the curriculum with apparently little attention to the retentive capacity of the young mind. Yet thinking men lament the fact that our typical American is neither student, book lover, or seeker after knowledge. He is satisfied with a most superficial acquaintance with things and can arrive at a conclusion from very meager premises. Does not this fact sadly reflect the quality of training given in the school? Does it not seem that teachers are presenting mere facts of knowledge rather than developing a love of knowledge for its own sake? In some respects this condition is hard [282] to explain. The book is the storehouse of knowledge, and children are surrounded by a multitude of books. But there seems to be a positive defect in the way these books are used. Children are not trained to realize the value of a good book, and to enjoy the study of the inspiring and beautiful truths it contains. Too often perhaps, the book is in some measure to blame. The school must carefully select interesting and helpful material and supply it in abundance. The reading lesson should never become a mere mechanical exercise, but a delightful period spent in the pleasant and gratifying work of learning of people, places, and things. Children should be encouraged to read at home and to describe what they have read. Industry in this particular should always be rewarded in a special manner. If a love of good reading were carefully cultivated in every classroom, then surely a most necessary and much needed habit would be formed in the children who enjoy the priceless advantage of united efforts to that purpose. One teacher for one year may succeed to a certain extent, but enduring results will be obtained only by the active cooperation of all the teachers who have, at any time, a part in the training of the child. To form the habit of reading, to instill a love of knowledge, is to develop a capacity which will be a strong safeguard in difficulty and a source of supreme pleasure and satisfaction in after years. </p><p>To make the love of knowledge effective, children must be trained to think clearly. Hazy, indefinite ideas are a positive hindrance in every enterprise. In teaching even the youngest children, no word should pass unexplained, no rule half understood. The pupils should be encouraged to look for the reasons behind the process and never to be content until they have grasped them. Rote recitation and memory lessons of rules and definitions not comprehended, make the pupil imagine that the has ideas, when as a matter of fact, he knows only words. A sure proof of clear thinking is clear expression. Teachers can apply this test frequently and by it measure correctly their progress in developing the power to think clearly.</p><p>Accuracy in word and action is intimately associated with the power to think clearly. If a man is never satisfied until the idea in his mind is distinct and plain, then he is easily accurate in his [283] speech and his manner of action. Yet on all sides carelessness and slovenliness in pronunciation and articulation, spelling, and mathematical calculation are causing daily annoyances and often-time, serious consequences. In the commercial life it is the man who is noted for accuracy who wins respect and advancement. It is not easy task to make all children accurate. Since they need the habit, let the school spare no effort to develop it. If a graduate goes forth from a Catholic school a clear and accurate thinker, anxious to learn, he has received a splendid preparation for the duties, responsibilities and problems of life.</p><p>The Catholic school has far more solemn and serious obligations than these. The purpose of the religious school is to develop habits of thought and action which will make the practice of religion a second nature to man. Our schools are expected to train pupils to an ardent love of religion and to a whole-hearted service to God. Each prayer in school, each lesson in religion, each hymn, each visit to the church, must become a well-forged link in the golden chain which is to keep creature and Creator in closest union all through life. In this connection, let it be remembered that mere repetition does not suffice. Interest and attention in daily religious practices is the element needed to weld them into habit. Surely Catholic education has done this service, for the flourishing condition of religion in places where schools exist is convincing proof of abundant success in this particular. May Catholic schools continue to train to these essential religious habits of mind, heart, and will, and may the crowning glory of the cause always be the ever-increasing number of loyal graduates eager and ready to think and act in strict accordance with teachings of the Church of Christ on earth.</p><p>The great general advantage of all training in habit formation is the personal advantage to the individual child. In forming good habits, he is developing himself. For habits of all varieties are acquired by a countless number of acts of the free will. Each voluntary effort of the will increases the power of the mainspring of human action. The making of good habits is the making of the strong determined will. It is the will that makes character and character makes the man. The making of men is the task of the Catholic educator. The more he studies his [284] opportunities and problems, the heavier does responsibility weigh down upon him. But this very responsibility brings its own consolations. In every effort to form a good habit, to strengthen the will, and to build character, the Catholic teacher receives all possible inspiration from the wonderful promise of Holy Writ, "Train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it."</p><p>DISCUSSION</p><p>Brother E. Felix, F. S. C., Rock Hill College, Maryland: To the mind of the thoughtful teacher, the problem of habit must ever be one of great importance and one demanding much attention and serious study. Whether it be considered from a standpoint of physiology or one of pure psychology, we cannot fail to recognize that habit is a vital factor of great moment in developing and shaping the character of the growing child. Indeed, some authors go so far as to say that education is merely a bundle of habits. We may not be willing to endorse this statement on its face value, but we cannot deny that there is much truth in the assertion.</p><p>This morning we have listened with much attention to the discourse prepared by Father Hickey on this topic, in which he has given us some general notions on habit formation, together with practical consequences which flow therefrom. On an occasion like this we do not expect to hear a complete scientific exposition of all the elements that enter into the intricacies of habit-building, nor a long array of statistics and other details which have been prepared by specialists in experimental psychology. These are very useful, and will be studied with much profit by teachers in their research work. But for our present purpose it will be sufficient to confine our attention to one or two salient features of Father Hickey's paper which have an immediate bearing on our work as educators.</p><p>The first, and most obvious fact in connection with habit formation, and really its one underlying principle is, that habits are formed and retained only by countless repetitions of the acts to which we wish to become habituated. This is a matter of daily experience. Notice the wonderful dexterity, precision, and almost mechanical accuracy with which your graduate at the piano executes very difficult compositions. What is all this, if not the expression of a well-formed, complex habit? Making all due allowances for talent and natural aptitude, must we not ascribe this remarkable coordination of movements, this correlation of the faculties of mind and body to careful, painstaking, constant, remorseless practice,—day after day, week after week, for months and years? It is said that great masters, such as Liszt, Spohr, Paderewski, [285] practised [sic] as long as ten hours a day. Accept whatever theories you will, to explain the mental and physical phenomena involved in the process,—theories biological, neurological, psychological,—for us this fact remains evident: keeping everlastingly at it brings about the desired result. If this maxim be accepted as the keynote of all habit formation, the following laws are deduced as a natural sequence:</p><p>(a) An action, or series of actions, to become habitual, must be practiced faithfully and unremittingly, at regular intervals, until it becomes almost automatic. As Father Hickey observes, the time required for the acquisition of a useful habit depends largely upon the temperament and natural dispositions of the subject. But as far as their pupils are concerned, teachers must insist on continuous practice up to the very last day of the child's school term. An observation made by the Reverend writer of the paper calls for special notice here. He reminds us that, as in all other educational work, cooperation among the teachers of a school on a determinate course of action and the number and quality of habits to be inculcated, is essential. This is quite true. It would be of little use for a child to be habituated by one teacher to walk and stand erect, to keep his desk neat and in order, to dress himself with care and attention, if the next teacher would allow the child to fall into careless and slovenly ways. The same may be said of punctuality, personal cleanliness, sincerity, and all other habits that constitute the training of a well-bred Christian child.</p><p>The second law of habit formation follows as a necessary corollary to the first: (b) We must allow no opportunity of cultivating a desirable habit to pass by without profiting by it. To insure this, all the tact, prudence and skill of a resourceful teacher must be brought into action; advantage must be taken of every occasion of practicing a useful habit, and every step that would hinder its progress must be checked. An example: You wish to cultivate the habit of correction English expression in your pupils; a very desirable habit, indeed. To be logical, systematic and, incidentally, to be successful, you should correct every ungrammatical expression that comes to your notice; not only in the recitations of your scholars, but in their conversation and written work as well; in short, whenever and wherever correction can suitably and profitably be given. I do not wish to anticipate the author of the paper which is to follow, but let me state, in passing, that we have here a clear illustration of the advantages of habitual practice, when compared with merely theoretical instruction. You may strain every effort to explain the principles of English composition, and have the children able to recite <i>verbatim</i> the rules of syntax with their numerous following of exceptions; but what boots it all if their actual use (or abuse) of the mother-tongue, in their daily intercourse, is at variance with the lessons they memorized so faithfully? Not until the use of good English is a <i>habit</i>, not until it becomes part and parcel of their ordinary language can they truly be [286] said to have learned it well. Teachers of the primary grades may think it futile to correct a child's grammatical mistakes on the ground that he is not yet able to understand the reasons for the correction. This would be a grave error. The faulty habits which the child would thus acquire would grow with him, and it would be all the more difficult to eradicate them in later years. All this demands attention and persevering effort, but it is the <i>sine qua non</i> of success.</p><p>But where shall we find the incentive, where the necessary motive power to sustain the continuous effort which is so essential to habit formation? Of what use will it be to me merely to <i>know</i> that I must practice, in season and out of season, in order to learn penmanship, arithmetic, phonography, typewriting, or any other useful art to any degree of proficiency, unless I can bring myself to put this knowledge into a practical form? To do this requires a strong, energetic, determined will; not a half-hearted, impulsive, vacillating will, that attempts to do wonders by fits and starts, but one that is based on a clear conviction of the necessity or utility of the end to be attained, and fortified by an ambition to accomplish that end. This is all the more true in the case of <i>good </i>habits, with which we are chiefly concerned this morning. Habits of ease, of indulgence, of listlessness, will make their appearance as spontaneously as do weeds in a garden; but he who would uproot these noxious growths and replace them by the hardier plants of virtue, must apply himself to the task with a diligence that is proof against difficulties, and an energy that cannot be thwarted by temporary reverses.</p><p>But should we expect to find such a well-developed will power in a child? This is the critical point of the whole subject under discussion; and, in carefully considering it, the teacher will find how closely the question of habit formation is bound up with the professional duties of his state. Among the many children under his care he will find wills of various degrees of development. It is one of his principal obligations to perfect these wills as far as this lies in his power. It is in the cultivation of the will that the Catholic teacher differentiates himself from the mere instructor and pedagogue. it is his special mission, and at the same time, his privilege and his glory, to train not only the intellect to see the beauty and attractiveness of virtue, but also the heart and the will to love and to practice it. For virtue, be it remembered, is not constituted of an occasional good act, but it is essentially the <i>habit</i> of doing good. Now, if oft repeated acts lead to habits, good habits, in turn, make for character. And this, in substance, is the object of the lifework of the Catholic educator: to broaden the mind, to mould [sic] the heart and to cultivate the will of his disciples, and thereby lay deep and broad and strong the foundations of the sterling character of truly Christian ladies and gentlemen.</p><p>Rev. P. J. McCormick, Ph. D., Catholic University, Washington, D. C.: I think that the various habits which we desire the school to form in [287] children have been very well enumerated by Father Hickey and Brother Felix. Both speakers have also indicated the importance of the subject of habit-formation from the viewpoint of training—educative training. They have shown that it is the chief work of the school, and no doubt we agree with them. Another phase of the subject might be here suggested for the purposes of discussion, and this refers more particularly to the manner or method of habit-formation.</p><p>For purposes of convenience we may divide habits into intellectual, moral and physical. The school purposes to form the child in all; little, however, is done for his physical formation. Unfortunately, the program does not provide for that very important division of habits. We are chiefly engaged, as a matter of fact, with intellectual and moral. We may further say that the intellectual habits are comprehended quite well by the term "habits of study," and the moral habits by the term "habits of conduct."</p><p>Assuming that this is the duty of every teacher to form such habits in their children, my point is that special care should be taken to form them early. It devolves upon the primary teachers as a peculiar task to form correct habits of study and conduct in the child from the beginning of his school career. Formation is better, more economical of energy, and safer as a process than reformation. The right habit should go before and if possible prevent the wrong taking root or becoming secure. Early formation, then, and correct formation should be the effort in a special sense of the first teachers of the children.</p><p>The school should attempt to form habits of study from the time the child takes up his first tasks. The teacher's office is to see that the right conditions are present for this formation. He should see, for example, that interest is present. No child can study without it, or without the problem or the question it assumes to be present. The center of interest, we know, is always a problem of some kind. The child must be looking for something, must have a difficulty or a question to concern him, and it is the teacher's work to see that he has. Merely assigning a lesson to study is not enough. The teacher must make the proper introduction for it, arouse the child's curiosity, stimulate his imagination, or in some way prepare his apperceiving powers for the new matter. This means that study has to be supervised, directed, and controlled by the teacher, if the act is to be correct, and if eventually the right habit is to be acquired.</p><p>Similarly is the process pursued on the moral side. In our Catholic schools we have the best moral doctrine and the best moral practices to use in our work of habit-formation. In moral matters it is the motive that counts, and I think that the peculiar work of the teacher here is to see that the child acts from the right motives. He should know why, for example, he is obedient, or faithful in his duties, why he is charitable or unselfish, in order that his motives will be built up, so to speak, into those principles of conduct which are at the base of character-formation and conduce to right living.</p><p>I would then repeat that in my belief the all-important task of the teacher is to see that habits are formed early on the intellectual and moral side, and that these habits are correct.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: Rev. Augustine F. Hickey, "To Train for the Formation of Good Habits—A Real Problem in School Management," <i>Catholic Educational Association Bulletin</i> 13, no. 1 (Nov. 1916): 277–288.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-83666469198108689402021-09-16T16:47:00.000-07:002021-09-16T16:47:00.594-07:00John Wise, SJ, "Liberal Education: Three Facts of History Concerning the Liberal Arts" (1948)<p>[8] There are three facts which stand out from history, when one investigates the nature of the liberal arts. The first striking fact is that science is an historical and essential component, and a basic part of the liberal arts. To speak about a college of arts and sciences is the same thing as to speak about a college of the liberal arts. To speak about a liberal education is the same as to speak about education in the arts and sciences. Thus the humanities, humane studies, are only part of a liberal arts education; the other part consists in the quantitative studies, mathematics and the natural sciences.</p><p>That this contention is historically true is easily seen from the time of the Greeks when Aristotle wrote not only on poetry and rhetoric, and spoke definitively on laws of grammar and logic, but was also the father in many lines of nature study and of the study of the human body, nature's wonder. He pondered the physical world and universe, the soul and its thought and will, human society and ethical conduct, and the Supreme Being. Even Plato, more literary and idealistic than Aristotle, was not only a humanist but also a mathematician, as were many of his followers. The balance of the trivium and quadrivium, exemplifying moderation in all things, was often remarkable in Greece. In Rome, however, the balance fell off, and if <i>Romanitas</i> had science, it might not have perished; but with a Greek genius for the real observation of nature, cataloguing of fact, and venture on hypothesis, it would have ceased to be <i>Romanitas</i>. Its own genius was rule and law. This is bequeathed to the newborn Church.</p><p>The lack of science, therefore, in the early Middle Ages and before the Renaissance of the twelfth century, was not Christian but Roman. Christian vitality was as ready to assimilate Greek science fed to it by the Arabs as it was to make its own the Roman sense of order. This Renaissance of the twelfth century, its inherited and even creative science has been revealed with sufficient fullness by the work of Charles Homer Haskins, Lynn Thorndike, and Christopher Dawson. The sources of modern science are medieval as well as Greek, St. Thomas in particular contributing to empirical method by the place he assigns in knowledge to sense observation and material being. The more immediate genesis of modern science, which is not dealt with here, receives nevertheless the best commentary of its value and rapidity from the actual stage of scientific progress dazzling the eyes of the living.</p><p>Modern science is the modern subject of the quadrivium. Scientific knowledge depends less on history than does literature and philosophy. Boyle's law, that the volume of gas varies inversely with the pressure, does not need the personalized expression of Shakespeare's "coil of mortal care" to make it a law or to make it intelligible. </p><p>Contrary to the "Great Books" system at St. John's, mathematics and science need not emphasize historical genesis, but can specialize in modern syntheses and experiment with to-day's apparatus. Laboratory work and mathematical problems make for accurate observation, orderly procedure, careful classification, and justified conclusion. These are benefits from the study of the sciences besides the knowledge of nature and vocational and professional preparation. Without the quadrivium, the liberal arts abandon their historical inclusion of both the arts and sciences; they become less qualitative when they cease to be quantitative, because they know less about God and man when they forget nature.</p><p>If it is understood that the quadrivium as well as the trivium is historically essential to the liberal arts, and that therefore the modern scientist can advocate a liberal education, and that a liberally educated man can and should advance the natural sciences, a second historical fact concerning the liberal arts can be noted. This fact concerns the difficult point of the relationship of mental training and character training. It can be said without hesitation that mental training is the immediate end of a liberal education. A liberal education aims primarily, as Cardinal Newman would teach us, at mental training, which means the ready ability of a vigorous mind as well as a balanced fund of knowledge. In other words, mental training does not merely mean a keen intellect but also </p><p>[Contained in a box at the bottom of the page are the following words:]</p><p><i>There must be something rottenly wrong with education itself. So many people have wonderful children and all the grown-up people are such duds. Chesterton</i></p><p>[9] [Contained in a box at the top of page 9 are the following words:]</p><p><i>The only dominating influence in the school and the college must be that of truth. Maritain</i></p><p>a content of truth, with a good grasp of essential reality, God, man and nature. The liberal arts include, therefore, science and nature study, and also the study of man in the humanities, literature and philosophy. That basic and liberal theology must underlie education in the trivium and the quadrivium goes without saying, for God is the creator of both man and nature, and the ultimate causality and finality of man and nature must be investigated. Now such an investigation is essentially theology.</p><p>But even with such an understanding of mental training as including both content, and the ability to use such content, the relationship to will training and character training is not yet fully clear. Seneca tells us that the liberal arts do not give virtue, but prepare the mind to receive virtue. They give good ideals and broad experience, as is evidenced in history and literature. But besides these good ideals, which the will is still free to resist, character training, the formation of good moral habits and the aid of divine grace must be considered.</p><p>The question of the relationship of a liberal education to character training, to the good of the whole man, his final destiny, is most profoundly treated in Cardinal Newman's essay on <i>The Idea of a University</i>. "Knowledge is an end in itself," but it is not man's end. Knowledge must be an instrument of virtue. The higher education goes, the closer must be the Church, because the benefits of a liberal education are the most excellent in the line of human achievement and yet are the most capable of perversion. To a liberal education must be added a moral education. That is why the Church founded universities. The great mother universities of the West are Christian and the idea of a university is Christian.</p><p>When once it is realized that the high attainment of liberal culture is the greatest in the line of human endeavor, it can readily be seen that it is important to realize the relationship of such mental culture to sanctity. Mental culture can exist with or without sanctity, as in St. Basil or in Julian the Apostate, who went to the same school, or in the many litterateurs and savants, whom Newman notes are more inclined to indifference in religion than to the practice of religion. This is because they make knowledge not only an immediate end in itself as fulfilling the needs of the intellect, but also an ultimate end in itself as fulfilling the needs of the whole man; whereas the whole man must not only know God but love Him. The relationship of liberal culture to sanctity is the most important point discussed by Newman in his <i>Idea of a University</i> and he most clearly shows that knowledge must be intended for the good of the whole man and that faith fulfills knowledge and does not frustrate it, and that sanctity must make knowledge real, and turn it into wisdom.</p><p>A third fact of history concerning the liberal arts is that the basically human idea of self activity is thoroughly Christian and is not a new discovery, as we might be led by some writers to believe. In confirmation of this statement, it will be helpful, perhaps, just to quote three passages from representatives of Christianity, bridging centuries of time. As for St. Augustine:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">We are led to learning in two ways: by reason and by authority. Authority is first in time, reason is first in importance. For it is one thing to proceed in doing, and another to esteem in desire. And thus, though authority seems more healthful for the unlearned many, reason excels in the cultured . . . And those who are content with authority alone, and expend their efforts on good morals and holy desires, condemning the liberal arts or not being up to them, I do not see how they can be really happy among mortal men, though I believe with unshakable faith that they will be free and happy to the greatest extent in the next life, who have lived best here.</p></blockquote><p>St. Augustine develops to almost embarassing [sic] length his explanation of what he means by the exercise of the mental abilities, "to exercise the soul and for the student to sharpen the keenness of his mental vision" by the self-activity of his own reason.</p><p>St. Thomas Aquinas compares the teaching and learning process to the work of a physician:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">Just as a person may be cured in a twofold manner through the operation of nature alone or through nature with the aid of medicine, so there is a twofold manner of acquiring knowledge, the one when the natural reason of itself comes to a knowledge of the unknown, which is called <i>discovery</i>, the other when someone extrinsically gives aid to the natural reason, which is called <i>instruction</i>.</p><p></p></blockquote><p> Discovery is the higher process, since it requires more native genius, but instruction excels in that the teacher has the knowledge as a whole and explicitly, and "can lead to knowledge more quickly and easily than anyone can be led by himself," whereas the pupil "knows the principles of knowledge only in generality." The verbal and oral symbols of books and of teaching are, moreover, closer to the mind, as having already come from thought and reasoning, whereas the student's own labor would be endless without the work of other men. </p><p>Knowledge is therefore inductive, psychological and maieutic, as well as deductive, logical and authoritative. In either case it must be applied and digested. The benefits of both types of knowledge would be endangered by over-emphasis on either. What the student discovers for himself will last longer because of a greater association of phantasms and experience. Even when the teacher has to take the lead, since the student cannot do all, the presentation should be clear, vivid and associated with the student's own work.</p><p>[A box at the bottom of the page contains the following words:]</p><p><i>A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral. I shall not fret about the loam if somewhere in it a seed lies buried. The seed will drain the loam and the wheat will blaze. [Antoine de] St. Exupery</i></p><p>[10] [A box at the top of page 10 contains the following words:]</p><p><i>It must never be forgotten that the subject of Christian education is man whole and entire, soul united to body in unity of nature, with all his faculties natural and supernatural . . . man, therefore, fallen from his original estate, but redeemed by Christ and restored to the supernatural condition of adopted son of God. Pius XI</i></p><p>In the Jesuit <i>Ratio Studiorum</i>, self-activity, as stated by a late Father General, is essential to the spirit and method of Jesuit teaching. This statement of Father Martin in 1893 only repeats the "exercise one's self," daily practice of speaking and writing, and the development of the talents, so often mentioned in the <i>Ratio</i>. This self-activity applies not only to knowledge, but also to virtue, for one must "learn along with letters the habits worthy of Christians."</p><p>It is interesting to approach the study of the liberal arts from a historical angle. The collective thinking of great men can be wrong, but it is not often wrong. When they tell us that the study of God, man and nature must be used for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, they speak true. They lead us to the most notably human activities, namely, those exercised and manifested in liberal culture.</p><p>Science is part of liberal culture, and grows with it. Character can be aided by liberal culture, when such culture is acquired by men of good will. But liberal culture is such a valuable weapon that one needs to be closer to God to use it right. Then his mental power exercises itself for the good of the human race, and the atomic age can dawn for human good.</p><p>---</p><p>Source: John E. Wise, SJ, "Liberal Education: Three Facts of History Concerning the Liberal Arts," <i>Georgetown University Alumni Magazine</i> 1, no. 3 (Spring 1948): 8–10.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-31310443818069605012021-09-16T13:29:00.002-07:002021-09-17T12:55:29.432-07:00Sr. Mary Ruth, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College in Relation to the Problems of Modern Life" (1916)<p> [106] The first step in defining what the woman's college ought to do is to state its primary aims, because they should direct us in the choice of the various subjects of study. The nature of the means, which in the present educational problem is the curriculum, is largely determined by the nature of the purpose to be attained. Social and industrial changes are making great demands upon the college for suitable preparation for life. The striking lack of educational standards by which the effectiveness of college training is judged, urges a consideration of what is the fundamental task of the woman's college.</p><p>Christianity has lost much of its vitality in the world since it has been taught through books. In the olden time when knowledge of Our Lord, of His Heavenly Father, and of His Blessed Mother, were taught by word of mouth and by mystery plays, God and His saints were very real to their followers who willingly, even gladly, suffered all things to prove their love of [107] Him. Again, in the olden time when morals were taught by word of mouth, by example, and by morality plays, all intimately related to God the Creator and Saviour [sic] and sanctifier of men, the priests and other teachers, whether in the missionary field, or at home among their own people, even though according to modern standards quite unlearned in science and art, were able to lift themselves and their followers to higher and higher planes of Christian life and civilization. Since we have undertaken to make the knowledge of God an academic subject, however, knowledge of Him has become in great measure memorized statements that have little or no influence upon our daily lives. To a large proportion of civilized men, Christ is a myth like William Tell. To-day [sic] because the love of God no longer dominates men's lives, we have a world war, nations battling against nations, and the spectacle of the powerful ruler of a so-called Christian nation decorating a man for writing a hideous "Chant of Hate."</p><p>The first aim, then , of the woman's college is to make its students real Christians; lovers and followers of a real Christ. Both consciously and unconsciously we imitate those whom we love; we do what we think will please them, and we develop along the lines of their development, and grow to become like them. Christ's life on earth was a life of love and service of man. If our students love Christ, they, consciously or unconsciously imitating Him, will also love and be eager to serve those with whom they associate in their daily lives, not only their families, but their communities, and thus their country. While the woman's college is inspiring its students with a love of Our Lord and of His Blessed Mother and the saints, it will make sure in their minds and hearts the relation between that love and the love of His children and the desire to serve Him through serving them.</p><p>The second aim of a Catholic woman's college, therefore, is to fit its students to serve God through serving the community in which they live. This directs our attention to the vocational aspect of education which at the present time is the dominant feature of all educational discussion. In the Catholic woman's college this is a vocational problem correlated in no way with [108] the training for a money-making occupation; rather it is the problem of giving preparation for the life that the student will lead after she leaves college, and making that lifework the basis of her preparation. The real vocational motive is to be construed as one which stimulates and enables the student to acquire not only the knowledge for, but the art of living the purposeful life which she thinks she is fitted by capacity and taste to lead after her college course is finished, thereby making her a contributing member of society and giving her a positive value in the social equation. the power of a worthy purpose to create and maintain interest and to stimulate study, is of supreme importance in college as in high school and, indeed, in all education. The desire for preparedness to meet one's life-task is the best stimulus to seek the requisite training for it.</p><p>The term, problems of modern life, stamps the subject of our discussion as a sociological question, and requires an understanding and an appreciation of present conditions of society. Upon a surface view we are immediately confronted with a multitude of problems of modern living, each of which has its claims. But back of them all, because it lies at the basis of all, and towering above them all, is the vitally important problem of the home. It needs no argument to establish this thesis. What everyone agrees to needs no discussion. Upon the home, its spirit and training, depend those fundamental attitudes of a man or woman that control all the relations of life.</p><p>In order that this Section of the Catholic Educational Association may be a constructive force in the educational betterment of our Catholic women's colleges, the vital topic, the relation of the curriculum of the Catholic woman's colleges to the problems of modern life, has been proposed for our discussion. We can do little more in the first meeting than to bring the subject before the consideration of our college teachers for an analysis of conditions, with the hope of making it a matter of continuous study, observation, experiment and discussion, to be checked by follow-up work which should judge of the value of the education by its functioning in later life; that is, by the degree of success attained by our students, measured by their own standards of ethics. Finally, in order to make the study widely profitable, [109] we should make reports of our findings, giving to all the benefit of the experience of each. Then shall we awaken inquiry into the relative values of subjects of the curriculum to equip the college young woman for the efficient home, and stimulate experiment to discover these values. Then also shall we realize the potentiality of this Section of the Association as an agency in constructing an educational plan to conserve the ideals of the home, to raise those ideals to a higher level and to furnish training in household management, thus to safeguard the home by laying under contribution to that end the intellectual and ethical instruments of the curriculum.</p><p>The far-reaching industrial and social changes of the nineteenth century brought in their train momentous changes which have affected no institution so profoundly as the home. In less than thirty years new machinery has virtually revolutionized industrial methods, removing one industry after another to the factory, until at the present time nearly all the clothing is made in the factory, the tailor shop, or the modiste-studio; much of the food is prepared in the packing house, the canning-factory, the bakery, and the delicatessen store. Instead of knitting the stockings and making the dresses and aprons at the family fireside, the woman of the house places the order, and lo! the ready-made garment is at the door. Instead of making the bread, she, or her maid telephones and the bread is delivered fresh for dinner. Instead of moulding [sic] candles, she touches a button and the carbon filaments radiate light. There is no escaping the fact that physical conditions affect and greatly modify human relations and the sense of spiritual obligations. When food and clothing were prepared in the home, the members of the family were identified with the various processes and were associated in the work. This identity of aim and cooperation of service was the basis of organization upon which the solidarity of the home depended. The home was the industrial unit. Stern necessity was the creator and the custodian of the home spirit. Its compelling force in keeping the members of the common tasks, working in common and sharing in common, was effective in building deep relationships of the home and developing the [110] altruistic ideals, leading selfish human nature to exercise itself in unselfishness, thereby preparing itself for social obligations.</p><p>The principle of solidarity is fundamental to society. There can be no national spirit, no world spirit, without the loyalty which depends for its vitality upon the tap-root of solidarity. This root, because those primary relationship which are its essence can be formed only during the plastic years of childhood, must have its beginning in the home.</p><p>It cannot be expected that there will be any reversion to the old industrial system. The old-time home with its numerous industries will never return. More of its already nearly depleted activities will be taken over by the factories. A change and readjustment to the new conditions is inevitable. The relationships of the family must be strengthened by some other means than work. We must find some substitute for work to conserve the home as the center where may be formed those ties of affection which are the sources of the deepest joys of life. Dr. Andrews says in <i>Education for the Home:</i></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"Strength and satisfaction in the home relationships form a prime problem. The breaking down of the family bond is to be overcome by strengthening that bond, by enriching the home experience of the individual, child and adult alike. . . . Our education for the home will be a sorry thing indeed if it concerns simply the household arts of cooking, sewing, and household care unless it teaches us the art of 'family building', of home-making, of living in families in such ways as to bring increasing personal satisfaction as the years go."[1]</p></blockquote><p>The "enrichment of home experience" in the sense of cementing family bonds was furnished by the mutual service required in providing the comforts of life. There is a deep truth in Pestalozzi's statement, "It is the social side of parental solicitude that makes environmental influences themselves of spiritual value, contributing thereby to the higher intellectual and emotional life. The stocking which the mother knits before her son's eyes has a deeper significance in his education than the one he buys at the shop or puts on without knowing where it came from."[2] [111] This concrete expression of the value of work in moulding the child's deepest sentiments is an argument for some other agency in the absence of work as a substitute to develop unselfish family relationships.</p><p>The present crisis in the decadence of the home tests our capacity to adapt the curriculum and training to the new conditions. The new factor to reckon with is the leisure of the members of the family. Practically, for both men and women, the hours of leisure have been doubled. This has been done for women by the transfer of industries and by fixing the maximum number of hours which women may work in stores and factories. The hours of men have been proportionally shortened. The sixteen-hour day has been shortened to an eight-hour day. The office hours from nine o'clock until five leave long stretches of leisure. Whether we like it or not, the solution of the problem lies in enriching the home experience, by organizing the leisure of the home and making it by its very attractiveness a compelling force to accomplish the solidarity of the home. It may not have the same unifying effectiveness as work. It is a less tangible, less insistent influence, and therefore will require finer art and more careful preparation on the part of the home-makers to make it an integrating force. There is a daily challenge to the woman of the home to make it an enriching experience.</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"The home of the future must be cultured. . . . The companionship in the work of their hands that husband and wife have lost, they must find again in the cultivation of their minds and hearts. The home of the future must breathe a charm so potent that it will gather to its bosom each evening the dispersed and weary toilers of the day. The home of the future must be the sanctuary of life and the dwelling-place of love; the mind must find in it room to grow in all the realities of truth and beauty; its atmosphere must be that of refinement and culture; beauty must cover it with her mantle and courage must protect it with his shield. . . . Woman must preserve the home of the future. She must preserve in it the sacred fires of religion and culture. Through it she must save man from materialism and from the worship of the golden calf. She must build a home in which he will find rest from his toil, consolation in his sorrow, strength to battle with temptations, courage in the midst of disaster, and companionship in the highest aspirations [112] of his soul," says Dr. T. E. Shields, in <i>The Education of Our Girls</i>.[3] </p></blockquote><p> These words written in 1907 have application to-day not less than a decade ago. This consideration invests leisure with extraordinary importance as a constructive force of society. "The girl problem or the boy problem is inherently a leisure-time problem," says Montague Gammon.[4] What inference must we make as to our duty in this vitally important matter?</p><p>Our home-makers must catch the purpose and appreciate the value of leisure in saving the home. To develop in young women a consciousness of their duty toward the home, to see and to use the golden opportunity that leisure offers them to make the home a center of happiness, to help them to accomplish in some measure the vital union of theory and practice in the fine art of living, this is our basis of orientation. Dr. Andrews says, "A new vocational emphasis is in the older education as well as in the education called vocational, and the home is to be one of the beneficiaries of this changed point of view."[5] Home must be such a pleasant place that it will lay hold upon the affection and loyalty of every member of the family. It should compete successfully with the club house, the dance hall, the billiard room, the vaudeville theatre [sic], and the amusement park. The home should be so attractive that when the man of the house leaves his office or place of business, he will take the most direct way to reach it, and the adolescent boy and girl will from pure choice spend their evenings in the family circle. The attitude of the members of the family toward their home is a reasonable basis for the evaluation of its potency as a constructive force in their lives. To strengthen home-mindedness then, is the vital task that lies before us. It is the problem that the Catholic woman's college should address itself to, and readjust the curriculum so that the various subjects with their resources and interests may develop in the students with appropriate attitude and ideals. The present group system which obtains generally in the college and regulates the course of a student [113] makes easy the conditions of such an achievement. Indeed Dr. A. W. Harris, ex-president of Northwestern University, says, "Of a hundred girls more than eighty will become home-makers; they constitute so large a group with a common life business that special studies and methods adapted to their needs may fairly be required of all."[6] The selection of studies to attain this aim should hold high place in our purposes and be the object of our best thinking and investigation. Would that an educational prophet might arise and name the subjects which would contribute most effectively to this end! The movement for scientific measurement of educational results is slowly gaining ground and it is challenging the methods of education; but even though we had reliable standards of measurement, anything like a scientific rating in the measurement of training for home-making could be made only after the lapse of years.</p><p>The results of the present education as given in the woman's college shows that woman has been educated away from the home. Miss Addams says, "Modern education recognizes woman quite apart from family or society claims, and gives her the training which for many years has been successful for highly developing a man's individuality and forcing his powers for independent action."[7] The woman's college has not emphasized the conservation and enrichment of home life. Instead of stressing the fine values of home companionship, it has emphasized the possibilities of community service, woman's opportunities of club membership, and the obligations of a wide social nature, with the result that many women have acquired a false perspective of their duties. The woman's college has pointed with pride to the fact that its entrance requirements were the same as those of men's colleges. The Report of the Commissioner of Education for 1916 shows that there are eighty-four colleges with an attendance of 19,179 undergraduates to which men are not admitted. This does not exhaust the number of such colleges, as there are some not rated in this report. They have all modeled their curriculum closely upon that of men's colleges.</p><p>Inasmuch as women perform different functions from men, [114] it is logical that some preparation be made for the tasks that fall to their lot. So far we have given very little attention to working out lines of distinct instruction especially adapted to woman and her God-given work in the home. The Association of Inter-Collegiate Alumnae have felt the need of such adjustment, and at their convention in New York in 1911, the principal subject of discussion was the possibility of adding to the curriculum subjects of special value to women. Hygiene, biology, and sociology were the subjects in greatest favor. It requires no extended study to see that we must do more than merely train the intellect. Our aim is not to educate the students to find delight in reading Browning in solitude. The study of higher mathematics and an analytic study of the Greek dramatists are not best adapted to develop that quality of character which is most needed in home-making. For the woman in the home, culture is not to be valued as a personal acquisition as such, but merely as a development of her personality to make her effective in the service of others.</p><p>Socialization of education is a new term injected into the educational vocabulary. The changes in the curriculum of schools indicate a shifting of emphasis from knowledge in itself to its purpose in terms of group interest and group development, and mutual interrelations of the group. Nowhere has this principle greater application than in preparing our students for future homes. A measurement of the success of her college education, therefore, is not the measure of her capacity for happiness; rather it is the measure of how far she actualizes the fine, rare ideals of womanhood in the home. Dr. Andrews says, "The home as a conservative institution has been slow to receive educational attention, but its vital interests make education for the home second to none in importance." To formulate a curriculum with such an objective must from the nature of the case be a long task. It is very difficult to evaluate subjects. We know that the finest values elude all measurement. We cannot conclude that each subject of the curriculum has a specific service as a "life value." Such an inference Mr. Van Piper says would be like saying that, "If a course in mathematics is a prerequisite for a given course in physics, then [115] each chapter in mathematics is a prerequisite for some corresponding chapter in physics. Everybody knows there is never any such correlation of part to part. . . . There would be much essential matter in the mathematics which could not be sanely omitted, yet which would find no specific application in the physics proper. In a precisely parallel way there may easily be phases in a preparatory training school which still are not, as such, anticipatory of any corresponding demands in adult life."[8]</p><p>There is no way of arriving at a determination of the "life values" of different studies. It is difficult to determine the value of those studies which have been tried out in the curriculum for ages; new subjects will have to be tried out and their effects noted in the efficiency of the real home-maker. Moreover, all the other subjects, however well planned, are inadequate without vital religion which should be both the root and the flower of the curriculum. Faith in God the Creator, and trust in His providence whereby He feeds and clothes and shelters His children and "opens His hand to supply the wants of every living creature," and a personal love of our Divine Saviour Who is our model of loving service, will inspire the spirit of loving service and self-devotion. True religion begets character. Let pulsating, practical religion permeate the daily life of the students and it will inspire them to serve others. The subjects of the curriculum will equip them to execute that which religion prompts them to do.</p><p>One important principle which is fast gaining ground is that there should be correlation between the curriculum and the normal experience of the student. Education must be brought into intimate relation with life in the twofold aspect of work and leisure, both of which should be put on an educational basis. Economy and efficiency of effort which is the objective of training in household management, contributes to the leisure which we have seen is to be used purposefully to enrich the home. The woman of the future must appreciate the value of leisure and employ it systematically for moral ends. Broadly [116] speaking, the equipment of the home-maker has a twofold aspect, practical and cultural, or according to Dr. Andrews' distinction, household management and home-making. The ends are efficiency and cultured personality. The home-maker should know how to organize household activities. Mrs. Willard, who discovered domestic economy as a subject of instruction, said, "It is believed that housewifery might be greatly improved by being taught, not only in practice, but in theory. There are right ways of performing its various operations, and there are reasons why those ways are right." Both the facts and the principles of household management the home-maker should know. This scientific knowledge will furnish economy and efficiency of effort, thereby increasing the leisure time. Denatured drudgery is a significant term which connotes both the lessening of the work and the glorifying it with the home-making motive.</p><p>Home economics, therefore, should occupy a large place in the differential curriculum planned for the home-maker. This is a complex, comprehensive subject including a wide range of material and its courses of instruction should be both technical and cultural. It is defined by the American Home Economics Association, Baltimore, Md., [sic] as the study of the economic, sanitary, and aesthetic aspects of food, clothing, and shelter as connected with their selection, preparation, and use by the family in the home, or by other groups of people. It lays under contribution the subjects of art, history, anthropology, sociology, aesthetics, economics, physiology, hygiene, mathematics, physics, and biology.[9] This subject should be placed on an equality with any science, political or social, and given a dignity and an importance accorded to any of the sciences. It should give the student an acquaintance with the rational ways of conducting the household; cultivate good taste and judgment of clothing values, artistic and economic; it should give such training as would guarantee freedom from such a dismal domestic failure as "Mrs. Hamlyn, who, with an A. M. from the State University, was always in trouble with her servants; the meals were irregular [117]; the table not appetizing; her house in disorder and her children absolutely undisciplined," according to Dr. Shields.[10]</p><p>We should stress with emphasis the social sciences, and stress equally the importance of their philosophical principles being in accord with the principles of faith. According to Dr. Andrews's judgment, sociology should be studied from a threefold view-point [sic]: (a) General sociology, giving the origin and development of civilization and the structure and function of present institutions; (b) Domestic sociology, dealing specifically with the origin, development, structure and functions of the family and the home as a human institution; (c) A study of the practical movement for general social betterment. A study of sociology, however, will not create or nourish the spirit which appreciates those finer, rarer interests of the home, but it will make the student understand the significance of the courses in home economics in their relation to modern problems, and the young woman who understands the home in relation to the larger life of which it is a part, will approach all problems of home economics with a deeper appreciation of their connection with the realities of life. Home economics must get its point of view from sociology. The center of interest of sociology is the relation of individuals to each other. This adjustment of personal relation depends chiefly upon spiritual conditions. Habits, purposes, and ideals of life affect profoundly these relations. This fact makes apparent the value of psychology in the curriculum. If we could make home economics a branch of applied psychology with the creation of an ideal home and family as its great purpose, the study would give not only academic instruction and expansion of mental outlook, but it would furnish an insight into experience to see the interrelations of physical problems with the spiritual aspects of human life.</p><p>A basis of Catholic philosophy is essential in the curriculum of the Catholic woman's college. We look to religion for the Christian ideal, and the inspiration and grace to advance toward it. Moreover, philosophical principles may be appreciated with [118] precision and yet be ineffective as a practical guide to conduct. Morality depends upon good will rather than upon knowledge, yet the moral nature is rational and requires a rational account of duty. Especially is a grasp of the underlying principles of true philosophy necessary to point out the fallacies in the theories proposed by some secular philanthropists and modern sociologists, between which and the principles of Catholicism there is "an essential and irreconcilable antagonism." From the field of philosophy it is practicable to derive a great deal of material vitally helpful to the Catholic woman's college alumna, yet it is important to keep insistently in consciousness the fact that we are preparing her to safeguard the home, not to take the chair of philosophy in college. A study of logic will help her to think correctly. A course in Introduction to Philosophy is recommended to give an acquaintance with the principles of scholastic philosophy, and as far as may be accomplished to cultivate the power of philosophical criticism. This is especially important in view of the widespread materialistic philosophy which interprets all human living in economic terms, the logical outcome of which we are reaping in the present world war [NB: WWI]. The aim here should not be to give the student complete knowledge of the evolution of idealism from Descartes to Hegel, nor of empiricism from Bacon to Mill, nor of pragmatism, as purely a matter of philosophical knowledge, but to give her an insight into the essential philosophical truths that she may be able to discover the principles underlying the method of a social movement and judge of its truth or falsity.</p><p>The study of ethics is of paramount importance. Especially is this true at the present time when the prevalent ethical standard is the humanitarian standard, and altruism and social efficiency are regarded as ends in themselves, and social welfare, as the end of conduct from which all moral values are derived. It is evident that to discover the principles of humanitarianism in its methods of social service, which are popular and appealing and to a great degree praiseworthy, a knowledge and an appreciation of the grounds of moral obligation and of the essential importance of right motives are necessary. But the Catholic woman must discriminate between the system of morality based [119] on the ideal of the service of humanity and the system that recognizes that the universal order is the expression of the divine will to which the individual is obliged to conform his conduct, and that one essential factor of his conduct is the service he owes his neighbor. Moreover, with the increasing worldliness and unrestrained love of pleasure, the trend of the time toward the standard of utilitarianism as the determinant of moral values, and toward hedonism which ignores all moral values, it is important to know the true criterion of conduct; to see that although morality has its independent root in the rational nature, yet ultimately it has the same source as religion; namely, the Infinite Good; that both are connected with the end of man and that the sphere of each is penetrated by the principles of the other.</p><p>At the present time when our country should be aglow with patriotic fervor, the study of Christian ethics will give the scientific basis of patriotism and show that it is a virtue and a sacred duty. Here we shall find the principle calling upon the Catholic woman to make the sacrifices which the present crisis requires; to simplify her way of life; to do without luxuries, even to deprive herself of daily comforts, and to accept all the privations that she may have to endure, and thus become a sharer of the soldier's sacrifice. To be specific: To encourage the young woman to economize in the preparation of food and to prevent all household waste (here we note the close correlation between ethics and household economics); to be willing to stifle the instinct to conform to fashion even to wearing a gown of last year's style; to substitute simple social functions for the elaborate receptions and theatre parties; in a word, to forego every superfluity, imbued as she should be with the feeling that it is the duty of every woman to do all in her power to help her brother called to the front.</p><p>In the forefront of subjects that furnish mental culture are the foreign languages. The tendency of the current educational scheme away from Greek is manifested widely. Within the last few years there has been a shift of emphasis also from the study of Latin. Meanwhile, the discussion regarding the theory of general discipline continues. Besides the value of whatever [120] "transfer" of general powers which does take place, the study of Latin is valuable as a means of preparation for the acquisition of a Romance language, as well as for its direct bearing upon the study of English. Prof. A. F. Lange, dean of the School of Education, University of California, says, "Just because it is so radical in the specific disciplines it can be made to furnish (the results of which are transferable, at least to things that are human), Latin as an educational means has virtues that other subjects have not." In addition to this two-fold reason of "general" and "specific disciplines" is the value of the content of the Latin masterpieces studied. Archbishop Spalding says, "The educational value of classics does not lie so much in the Greek and Latin languages as in the type of mind, the sense of proportion and beauty, the heroic temper, the philosophic mood, the keen relish for high enterprise, and the joyful love of life which they make known to us." Granted that in this factor the Latin classics are greatly surpassed by the Greek, yet the possibilities in this regard inherent in the study of the language form an additional reason why we would retain the Latin in the curriculum of the woman's college. The modern languages enjoy an increasing popularity as subjects which will function in the daily life. Either French or German should be a part of the education of every college alumna; she should have not only a reading knowledge, but a certain conversational facility in the language.</p><p>For the development of the intellectual and aesthetic quality of mind, we would emphasize the liberalizing value of literature with the caution to avoid academic-mindedness. The tendency has been to intellectualize everything taught in order that the student might know for the sake of knowing. Perhaps there has been too little conscious attempt to teach this subject in a manner that emphasizes and fixes in the student's mind right attitudes towards life and to develop fine appreciation and high ideals of womanhood. This will require the study of literary embodiments of their ideals.</p><p>History which we have been wont to rank next to literature as a culture study, is being displaced in a measure by the social sciences on the plea that according to present standards it is [121] overloaded with material which is not of substantial worth in realizing the present aim of education. The Catholic woman's college, however, cannot afford to lessen the emphasis upon the history of the Christian centuries.</p><p>Music should be included in the curriculum, not so much to enable the home-maker to furnish beautiful music as means of entertainment; the victrola [NB: brand of wind-up phonograph; also generally refers to any wind-up phonograph] of to-day enables us to hear the pianist's conception executed perfectly; to hear Godowski, not as Godowski really plays, but better,—as Godowski would wish to play, by enabling him to become his own best critic and to correct his own execution. The study of music is most valuable for its cultural effect. For the same reason art should be studied. The culture value of both music and art in developing appreciation of the fine arts and in cultivating the emotional side of one's nature is preeminently high. In adding to the power of the rational enjoyment of leisure they are significant studies.</p><p>Emphasis should be given especially to the cultivation of the speaking voice, both for its effect upon others and for its reaction upon one's own state of mind. A querulous voice is a powerful excitant of domestic scenes. On the other hand, a cultivated voice under control has a value that would be difficult to exaggerate. It acts effectively upon others and reacts upon one's self. Mr. Arnold Bennett says in his volume, <i>The Human Machine</i>, that ninety-nine per cent of all daily friction is caused by mere tone of voice. "It is a curious thing that an agreeable tone artificially and deliberately adopted will influence the mental attitude almost as much as the mental attitude will influence the tone. If you honestly feel resentful against some one, but having understood the foolishness of fury, intentionally mask your fury under a persuasive tone, your fury will at once begin to abate." It is of supreme importance that the curriculum should offer an opportunity for this element of cultural equipment.</p><p>For a large number of our students, the greatest value of their college education should come from both increased knowledge and deepened sympathy and insight. The aim is not to make literati, but to encourage the students to combine with [122] school activities and social experience the art of home-making and an appreciation of womanly ideals. Socialization of the student is the educational watchword of to-day; that is, to give the student the view that right conduct rather than knowledge is the ultimate aim of education.</p><p>The policy of the Catholic woman's college in the solution of this radically vital problem of modern life, the safeguarding of the home, reflects the spirit and judgment of the Catholic Church. It should stress the cultivation of that phase of college life both in curricular studies and in extra curricular activities which is best fitted to develop and strengthen the personal life which Dr. Andrews says "education for the home is ultimately to furnish." Our students should be of the intellectual-moral <i>êlite</i> [sic]. Historically, culture has meant that body of knowledge which individuals use in their leisure. We would not reconstruct the concept, but we would effect a <i>rapprochement</i> between the college curriculum and the normal experience so that the studies will function in the daily lives of the students from the standpoint of our present social organization, the basis of which is the home. Adapting the Catholic woman's college to the needs of its students and readjusting it to present conditions, will be the sign and the expression of our appreciation of, and our response to, the needs of present environment.</p><p>To summarize: The great problem of modern life is the saving of the home. As a real home, it is going and partly gone. The "downfall of the home" is a current theme of discussion. In the past, the home was preserved by the solidarity that work creates, but work has been greatly eliminated, and even the hours of men's labors are shortened by half. Therefore, the solidarity of the home as created and preserved by work is gone. Solidarity of another kind is the solution of the problem. What solidarity? There is only one—the solidarity of an organized leisure. If woman is to be a home-maker, the enrichment of the home by the systematic use of leisure becomes her real life-career. How to organize leisure is the heart of our problem. Woman must be educated, not to find her delight as a solitary with her books as her best companions, but in the center of the home where she must make herself and her home [123] so attractive as to charm the home folk; so that her husband will hasten from his place of business and her sons and daughters will hasten from school, all to join the home-circle. Are we educating our students for that at present? Will Greek and higher mathematics train the woman for this? We are educating woman away from the home. Culture has for its aim, or rather the school has for its aim in giving culture, to fit woman to shine in public, to lead in club work, and to take part in platform speaking. We, of the Catholic woman's college, know our aim. We must educate woman for organized leisure. How? It will take a long time to work out the system. The method is as yet only tentative, but we must keep the aim steadily in view; work and try out plans, and as far as they succeed, adopt them, mindful all the time that the inspiration of the best initiative and the dynamic of that self-sacrifice and devotion without which home would be but a hostelry, is the spirit of religion which invests ordinary duties with an extraordinary dignity and which is the rootage [sic] and the fruitage of home life and of all worthy social life.</p><p>DISCUSSION</p><p>Mary A. Moloy, A. M., Ph. D., College of Saint Teresa, Winona, Minnesota: In appreciation of Sister Ruth's beautiful paper I will say that I sincerely trust that she outlines what may be possible in our women's colleges in the not too distant future.</p><p>In general, as far as graduates of schools go, undoubtedly eighty out of one hundred girls find their places in the home. With college graduates, however, it is different. From statistics gathered some years since from colleges granting degrees to women, we find that only thirty-three per cent of college women graduates find their place in the home. Can we at the present ignore the claims of the sixty-seven per cent who may wish to pursue work other than that bearing directly on the home?</p><p>We are not saying that this attitude of women pointing away from the home is as it should be. We merely see it as a condition with which we have to reckon. Women are restless in this generation. They are taking their places side by side with men in political, economic, sociological and pedagogical fields. We do not say that this is as it should be but the fact is not to be overlooked. If a young woman wishes to become a specialist in higher mathematics, in the classics or in history or sociology, is her ambition legitimate? Shall we let her go from our keeping [124] to seek the training she desires where the boldest and the saddest doctrines advanced in philosophy since the organization of the faculty of liberal arts are made part of her course?</p><p>Let us give her mathematics, the classics, history, even the professional courses in law and medicine, in the safe and holy atmosphere of the Catholic college. Let the mathematics, the classics, the science, be so full, so thorough, so advanced, that for the mere secular branches alone she can nowhere find them more thoroughly and carefully presented. Let us give her what she wishes of secular learning that is legitimate, and thus save her to the Catholic faith through the philosophy that she will learn from us to interpret correctly and in terms of eternal truth, her theory of science, her practice in sociology or her interpretation of history. This is quite in accord with the practice of the Church in all times. There has never been a legitimate demand on the part of men or women that she has not magnificently provided for.</p><p>It is the ultimate business of the Catholic college to educate women out of their restlessness back again into the home.</p><p>It has been said that the home is a vanishing institution, but we must change all this. The home has been turned out into the street and the paved road has invaded the cloister. But souls are to be saved by the hundreds and it is not a matter of supererogation but a sacred imperative duty to rescue the flower of our Catholic young womanhood from the education that will prove to be their undoing. We must bend every available energy to enable our young women to take their places side by side with the women of the times in every line of legitimate endeavor in which women are engaged. Let us not forget that in the first centuries of our era there were Christians in the very palaces of the Caesars and we know to what glorious purpose.</p><p>The Catholic college for women in America has a magnificent opportunity to regenerate the times. Can we afford to side-step the issue, be blind to its appeal and fail in the supreme work that as Catholic educators we are called upon to do?</p><p>Rev. J. H. Ryan, D. D., St. Mary-of-the-Woods College, Ind.: It would be difficult, indeed, to exaggerate the value of the learned and timely paper, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College and the Problems of Modern Life." The author not only appreciates the conditions existing in our colleges for women, but what is more important, possesses a vision of the future status of women in American society and of the means of preparing them for their work. She emphasizes two points which to my mind are of fundamental import. First, the Catholic woman's college is for the education of women—rather an obvious statement, yet one constantly lost sight of by educators. No one denies that women can follow, and very successfully, the courses outlined for men in college and university, but the question is not, <i>can they, but ought they?</i> It was a foolish pride which prompted educational authorities to lay [125] down identical courses for men and women, ignoring all the physiological and psychological differences between the sexes. Let us go back to what the ideal of the woman's college ought to be—a womanly woman. Secondly, the Catholic woman's college is Catholic; that is, its ideals, its methods, its spirit, are imbued with Catholic truth and tend to the production of ideal Catholic women. If the college is false to either of these ideals, its <i>raison d'etre</i> ceases then and there.</p><p>Before discussing in particular the curriculum of our women's colleges and its bearing on the problems which concern Catholic women to-day, a word of suggestion may not be out of place. There is altogether too much formality in our teaching; too much book work, note-taking, memorizing, and that especially in the cultural subjects. There is too little correlation of thought and action. Education must not be divorced from life; they are in reality one and the same thing, viewed from different angles. If there is one place where we would look for and expect dynamism in education it is in the colleges for women. Men readily throw off the evil effects of a formalistic training by contact with a vital, strenuous world, but the lives of women are more sheltered and guarded, and they have not the opportunities of so readily correcting false impressions absorbed during college days.</p><p>The author of the paper under discussion realizes the new orientation in woman's education. She demands, and for excellent reasons, that it be socialized more and more in order to meet the conditions and requirements of modern life. The industrialism of the last century has indeed wrought great changes in the home, and therefore in the lives of women with respect to the home. And not only have the old conceptions of the home been changed; the very outlook of women on life itself has been marvelously transformed. Women, and especially college women, do not look upon marriage to-day as the end-all of their existence. Statistics from secular colleges will bear out this statement. Unfortunately there are no statistics available for our Catholic women's colleges, though I see no reason why the same conclusion should not be true of them as well. Then, women to-day are becoming more and more independent economically. Over seventy-five per cent of the graduates of Catholic women's colleges go either into the professions or into business. In the majority of cases, it is true, this is merely temporary occupation. Industry, therefore, has not only changed the home; it has worked a revolution in women themselves and in their attitude toward life.</p><p>Woman's education ought to be socialized, but can that be done by the mere addition of "social studies" to the present curriculum? Will the super-imposition of sociology, political economy, domestic science, on cultural subjects, develop a woman capable of appreciating the needs of the times and of doing her part in meeting its demands on her? To my mind an altogether different emphasis is necessary. The home-making studies must not be dragged along as so many step-children; [126] they are real children, the heirs of the future. They must be stressed and emphasized. They must be given the place of honor in the curriculum. A new curriculum is so necessary as a change in emphasis, a reorganization of the old curriculum and a new correlation of its parts, with insistence placed on those subjects which will prepare our women not only "to make a living" as someone has said, "but also to make a life." This change would be vital, it is true, but not so radical as it might seem at first thought. An ideal curriculum would be one in which, during the freshman and sophomore years, social, scientific, and home-making studies would be in the ascendancy, not neglecting, however, the study of the languages. For example, a young woman, in addition to religion, English, and a language, might elect from the courses in logic, psychology, child-psychology, physiology, chemistry, biology, or domestic science, and care of children and the sick, during two years. This plan would also allow for the continued study during the whole college course of any subject, vocational or cultural, in which the student was interested. The freshman and sophomore years, therefore, would prepare a woman for her position in after-life, would teach her the subjects every woman ought to know, together with one or two courses which meet the demands of her individual talent or taste. The last two years ought to be divided between subjects which bear directly or indirectly on her future work, or which represent a secondary taste in the individual. In these latter years emphasis should be placed upon ethics, history, civics, and sociology. But someone may ask, "What about the cultural, what about the development of personality?" I answer that there is a culture of the sciences as well as a culture of art, or of history, or of literature. Culture is not a thing apart, is not a thing fastened on the mind; it is rather the flowering of qualities inherent in one's personality, which can be obtained by scientific courses as well as through the medium of language study.</p><p>Again, and this is a point not touched upon in the paper under discussion, in the process of socializing woman's education, great insistence must be placed upon the health of our students. It is manifestly and statistically false, that college life injures the health of women students. Four years of college have built up many a youthful body. In this matter of physical education, the college has a clear and distinct duty toward not only its students, but towards the State and the race as well. Army examining boards have been loud in their complaints of the physical deficiencies found in the mass of American men. Is the physical condition of our women any better? I think not. Gymnasium work should be made a curricular study in our colleges, and credit given for the same. Two hours of physical training weekly is little enough,—but this minimum ought to be exacted of every woman student. Whether physical training is to be more and more individualized, (and this is the present-day tendency), according to the special weaknesses and defects of each girl, or whether it is to take other directions, is a question that [127] may fairly be left to the faculty of each institution to solve. The necessity, however, of putting every convenience in the way of our women to make their bodies strong, healthy, and robust, is a duty which cannot be overlooked, and should not be shirked. For the woman of the future, a healthy body is as necessary as a sound mind.</p><p>Religion must hold first place in a Catholic college for women. A four years' course in Christian Doctrine, (this subject is vitally necessary, as so many of our young women matriculate from public high schools), Church history, Bible study, and ethics, taught in the manner and after the spirit noted by the author, cannot fail to produce lasting results. The atmosphere of our colleges, the lives of the instructors, are such that the translation of religion from theory to fact is constantly kept before the eyes and the minds of the student body in a manner not possible anywhere else. Let me bear my humble testimony to this fact, namely, that there is one thing in which our Catholic woman's college will never fail—in turning out strong, pure, upright, Catholic women.</p><p>The author mentions art and music as curricular helps in aiding women to meet the problems of modern life. Both art and music, it is true, have a professional value, but where their place is and should be in the socializing of female education, is difficult for me to perceive. I wish to voice a vigorous and emphatic protest against, not the retention of music and art in the curriculum of a woman's college, but against the undue prominence sometimes given to them, and especially to music. The following reasons prompt this assertion: First, they are of little or no practical value in after-life; secondly, the author mentions that mechanical inventions do better than any individual can ever hope to do; thirdly, they take up time, to the detriment both of the individual and of the college itself, which ought to be devoted to real college work. Were a college woman to attempt to carry "double music," voice culture, and one instrument,—entailing ten or twelve hours a week for instruction and practice, the result would be unfortunate and spell inefficiency. The curriculum of the present-day college is so full, as it stands, that one cannot afford to lose so many hours every week for music or art. To the difficulty, that our woman's colleges are not endowed, and therefore depend financially on music and art to meet the expenses of the institution as a whole, I have and know no reply. My sole contention is that neither the college curriculum nor the problems of modern life demand so much time as is now given to music and art.</p><p>In conclusion, may I thank the author for her illuminating paper, and publicly express my conviction that as long as we have such learned and devoted Sisters as she, teaching in our institutions, little or no fear need be had that our colleges are failing in their duty, either towards the present or coming generation of women.</p><p> ---</p><p>Footnotes:</p><p>1. U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 1914, No. 36, p. 20</p><p>2. <i>Educational Writings</i>, edited by J. A. Green, Views and Experiences, p. 162</p><p>3. P. 280.</p><p>4. Report of the Com. of Education 1916, p. 447</p><p>5. <i>Op. cit</i>. p. 7</p><p>6. "The Future Education of Women," <i>The Youth's Companion</i>, May 31, 1917</p><p>7. <i>Democracy and Social Ethics</i>, p. 83</p><p>8. <i>School and Society</i>, "On Radicalism in Education," May 5, 1917, p. 524</p><p>9. Cf. Syllabus of Home Economics, 1913</p><p>10. <i>The Education of Our Girls</i>, p. 210-21</p><p>---</p><p>Source: Sister Mary Ruth, OSD, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College in Relation to the Problems of Modern Life," <i>Catholic Educational Association Bulletin</i> 14, no. 1 (Nov. 1917): 106–127.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-90546207789618168112021-09-01T16:34:00.001-07:002021-09-01T16:34:07.242-07:00Joseph Wehrle, "Education for Character Formation" (1921)<p>[198] In addressing myself to a consideration of the question proposed for discussion, character formation, which at the present day is exciting so much interest, eliciting so much discussion and on which in these meetings so many and such excellent papers have been read, it may not be amiss to preface that this paper makes no pretensions to a thorough and exhaustive treatment of the subject; it is as limited by time allotment as the subject is broad in phases of treatment. A general view of character formation in Catholic schools in contradistinction to the procedure of the secular system of education was suggested and adopted.</p><p>Education connotes efficiency. Character formation is the acid test of efficiency. At the present day there seems to be on the market a surplus of educational methods of forming character which collapse when subjected to the pressure of life's stern realities. Too often the child proudly marches forth from the school with a neatly beribboned certificate tucked under his arm. His talents augur success in life; his certificate guarantees it. The rugged air of outside life, however, soon refutes the one and disproves the other. The claim in attempted explanation is immediately advanced that the training in school was not at fault; it was admirably adapted, it is argued, to the formation of a sterling character. But the failure to measure up to the test of real efficiency belies such claim. The fact remains that there was no real character there.</p><p>Character in general is personality viewed in the light of conduct. In a more restricted sense it stands for the assemblage of man's acquired moral qualities grafted into his natural temperament. Both nature and experience cooperate in its production. Nature endows newly created rational life with intellectual and moral qualities, dispositions and tendencies that vary with the [199] individual. This fund of endowments includes susceptibilities for responding to external influences and potentialities for developing in various ways. On the other hand, the part of character that is acquired by experience or nurture is by no means inconsequent. Concomitantly with the advent of reason, personal will and the force of motives enter a contest for mastery and the contention continues without truce until death appears on the hotly contested field and drops the truncheon. "Each solicitation conquered, each impulse to immediate gratification resisted by building habits of self-control, goes to form a strong will and the stronger a man's will grows, the greater the facility with which he can repress transitory impulses, and the more firmly can he adhere to a course once selected in spite of obstacles." The natural qualities, dispositions and tendencies, therefore, disciplined by a strong will, have as a resultant a character that is admirable, worthy of imitation and in general a testimonial to the soundness of the system of training involved in its production. Mere conformance to external observances and conventions of the day, or merit and worth as our present none too good world estimates them, are frequently but erroneously taken for character. Real character as often makes its habitat in those unapproved by the world as it is found wanting in those whom the world apotheosizes. It finds expression in simple conformity to the laws of God and man, in an approach, namely, the nearer the better, to the ideal and perfect character, the God-Man.</p><p>The process of formation of a sterling character as far as time and effort are concerned comes under the same rules as the attainment of proficiency in any of the arts and sciences. "Art is long and life is short", the sage of old declared; so also character is the crown of long and tedious application to the formation of habits that become a second nature. In various lines of human endeavor, mastery is obtained only by dint of practice — by going over the subject-matter again and again. No amount of study, however great, is of any avail. Practice and practice alone confers the palm of victory. In history, for instance, study and study alone is the open sesame to its storehouse of facts. The process of formation of a sterling character is a synthesis of [200] both; in its production, the inclusion and importance of study and practice, of storing the mind with an abundance of good, sound principles of action and actually expressing them in conduct, are very marked. The reason lies in the interdependence existing between the will and the intellect. The intellect gives light to see what we are doing and the will strength to do it. The operations of both are essential for the performance of any work; the intellect in its capacity of seeing, knowing and understanding and the will in its capacity of putting forth effort, striving and achieving. "Without will, the intellect would be a vain and useless power of seeing visions and dreams; without intellect, the will would be a blind force struggling in darkness, beating the air." The intellect points out the course of action or duty and the will can brace itself to the task of fulfilling it or it can follow a course of action the very opposite in end and merit or, again it can remain in a dormant or lethargic state, refusing to act at all. Both will and intellect are necessary but the will is the more necessary of the two, for the direction of life's course, shaping of destiny and fashion and mould [sic] of conduct are determined by it. The basic element, therefore, of character is strength of will; while the soundness and practical nature of the principles stored in the intellect and the assistance and inspiration of God's grace are highly important factors in its formation.</p><p>Formation of character, in so far as the intellect is concerned, demands that the guiding principles of life, learned at school and at the mother's knee, be sound and good. A non-Catholic writer says:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"Many parents act upon the principle that it is of no importance what may be the morals or sentiments entertained by a teacher, providing there is no immorality exhibited before the pupils and no attempt to inculcate principles deemed erroneous. But no opinion could be more untrue and practically dangerous. His teachings and his examples will be insensibly influenced by the doctrines he holds, and there will occur a thousand ways in which the pupil will comprehend the view and feelings of the preceptor; and these views will not have the less influence, from the fact that he makes no direct effort to impress them upon the pupils' mind. A direct effort of this kind would put the learner on his guard; but the other plan allays all fear and the poison silently and imperceptibly works."</p></blockquote><p>[201] In many cases parents must answer the indictment of inculcating in their children's minds false principles or of failure to inculcate any at all. The conviction seems to have generally crept in that all responsibility for the mental, moral and even physical development of the child devolves on the school. Education of offspring is the essential, primary object of matrimony and indeed those parents are sadly recusant of their God-imposed duty who sit supinely by and exercise no supervision over their children's training or who, which is still worse, inculcate false principles by the laxity of their lives. If either of these two sources of supply is contaminated or runs dry, all attempts on the part of others at formation of character are in grave danger of proving abortive. Fortunately, the system of training in Catholic schools precludes the possibility of arraignment on the former charge. The principles for which the system stands are the eternal principles of Catholic truth and the teachers are God's own servants. The default of parents in their duty presents an obstacle often insurmountable; regular contact of teachers and parents, however, in many cases proves a very efficacious remedy.</p><p>Religion must be the feature of the program. Preparation for life, that is, the formation of a strong sterling character, in view of the existence of God and all it entails, that provides for the temporal prosperity alone of man, that relegates to other spheres the consideration of eternity, that divorces religion from secular advancement, fails by a half, if not entirely. It writes no prescription for the ills consequent on the defection of our first parents; it may have an abhorrence for excesses and enormities of evil but at the most is able to engender in the mind a natural tendency toward rectitude of life, which, however, proves altogether inadequate when the issues involves an eternal supremacy of good or evil; it, in fine, takes no cognizance of God or the laws of God which are interwoven through every branch of knowledge and human endeavor. Preparation worthy of the name occupies itself with the things of time and eternity; it qualifies the individual for the full attainment of the ends of those two perfect societies, Church and State; it provides for all lines of human endeavor but never independently of ethical principles; it prevents the perversion of knowledge to unhallowed [202] and vicious ends by toning it down and permeating it with the love of God and neighbor; it, while bringing out innate virtue and latent powers and moulding them into a form that makes for success in secular pursuits, stamps on the whole the impress of an accountability to be rendered beyond the grave for the proper or improper use of the Master's talents. It, in short, lays down the foundation, provides those good and sound principles of life, which are a <i>conditio sine qua non</i> for the formation of a sterling Christian character.</p><p>Quotations from profane authors are helpful but too much importance should not be attached to them. Passages from God's own book, <i>The Imitation of Christ</i>, lives of the saints, etc., have a prior claim to consideration. Nothing can supply their place. St. Ignatius, an adept in the art and science of the spiritual life, strongly recommended the <i>Imitation</i> to his confreres, while his manners, words and actions were fairly a dramatization of it. These books or some of theme were the treasury from which the saints drew their inspiration, and surely their value is none the less great to-day. Also, where in the files of history can we find more admirable and sterling characters than the saints who modeled themselves after Him who was like them in all things, sin excepted? How surprisingly few of the great names of history stand for real character! Many names, synonymous with phenomenal intellectual capacity and achievement or surpassing genius, are inscribed on history's rosters but how many are besmirched by excesses and vices that are as deplorable as foreign to the make-up of real character! The records of models, such as the saints, quicken and perpetuate in youth a spirit of emulation and to-day, more than ever before, the principles that actuated them and adorned their exemplary lives are of great importance in the education of youth. Youth must have ideals; it must have an image in its mind of noble character. Acts and conduct should conform to that image in the same way in which our forefathers in the faith strove to reflect in their lives the life of Christ and thus render themselves worthy of the appellation, Christian, which is <i>Alter Christus</i>.</p><p>It is well here to mention that the youthful mind may set up for imitation a model of screen celebrity or notoriety, the fanciful [203] creation of some questionable writer or some other hero by popular vote of the day. The baneful influence of the screen and cheap novel will always be with us and must be counteracted. A love for the reading and studying of good books must be fostered; Catholic books, especially lives of great and good men, must receive their due quota of attention. Finally, the school must enlist the cooperation of the home.</p><p>Of primal importance in the formation of character is the practice or art of right living, the art of giving expression to the good and sound principles stored in the intellect. These principles are not imparted merely for themselves; they are not their own reward. The motivating principle of their impartation is conduct. The natural order of things is reversed if such knowledge elicits no practical expression, if it has no bearing on right conduct. The mind may be a veritable thesaurus of sacred and profane lore, but unless this same lore radiates on human actions a positive influence for good, its very existence cannot be justified. Better by far no erudition than that which fails of expression in the all-important drama of life. The desideratum or objective, then, is not merely the impartation of principles, sound and good and with a potentiality for influencing conduct in the right line, but rather their conversion into an actuating force for good. They are not to be restricted to the influence they exert upon the will. The reason of their existence is to superinduce by long uninterrupted practice of virtue upon the soul, habits that characterize the friend of God and heir of heaven.</p><p>That such habits might be formed the will must submit to judicious and methodical exercise for nature gives but the disposition for the formation of habits. They are acquired by the repetition of similar acts. Each act placed leaves a determination or inclination for like acts, many of which are required for the formation of a habit. By resisting the passions the powers of the will against the passions are gradually increased and a certain disposition for eliciting similar actions against their allurements is induced. If on the contrary the passions are indulged the powers of the will for resisting them are weakened and the inclination toward the object of the passions waxes stronger. The [204] oftener similar acts are repeated the greater becomes the inclination and facility for placing such acts.</p><p>Important in the formation of habits is the constant discipline of school life. The rules and laws laid down for observance, regular and punctual attendance, performance of tasks at home, etc., have a value beyond that of the ends immediately intended. They are excellent disciplinary measures for the will and important steps toward its acquiring power of control over itself. Truly, the pupils might chafe under the restraint they occasion and put forth with reluctance the effort their observance demands, but this is the best proof of their efficacy. Exercises of the will, like all species of training, exact a real effort, and the sooner the realization comes home to the child that life is serious and that all the valuable things of life lie buried in difficulties and are unearthed only by dint of hard, determined, persistent effort, the more rapidly will the development of a strong will advance. It would be a profound mistake to follow the present-day tendency of exacting the least possible effort or application on the part of the pupil. The discard of the difficult and unpleasant in favor of the easy and pleasant is a risky departure from the time-honored procedure of the past and a course that is more of an obstacle than a help toward the development of a strong will. Later life will be fraught with many trials, severe tests of even a sterling character; onerous duties, demanding more than a modicum of strength and perseverance will have to be performed; impediments will be encountered and will have to be removed by unflagging effort. The necessity of a strong, resolute will successfully to cope with life's future problems is patent to all, but transferring the burden of work from the pupil to the teacher is certainly not a means to that end.</p><p>The duties, sacrifices and penances that our religion imposes upon us are exercises of paramount importance. The frequentation of the sacraments of penance and Holy Eucharist is the chief and most fruitful exercise. Through it a wholesome, moral atmosphere is created; a high standard of living is maintained and the mighty truths of our holy religion are kept alive in the intellect and find expression in the will. God's grace, won through [205] them, inspires and strengthens the will and aids it to do its work well. Hence it follows that training of the will should be a natural process for Catholics. But the self-restraints involved in and consequent on religious practices are not in accord with the natural inclinations of man; hence, his metamorphosis into a creature of deeply rooted religious practices must begin with the awakening of reason and be the principal object of education. Reiterated efforts are in constant demand in religious practices and in this consists its special value in will training. Isolated acts amount to little. Our religion calls for yearly, weekly and daily duties, often hard and severe, it is true, but, nevertheless to be performed. The will submits to the rule and order demanded by religion and in doing so absorbs something of order and regularity in operating. In the school, therefore, too much importance cannot be attached to the task of seeing that the pupils are practical Catholics and of encouraging the backward and stimulating those prone to relax to renewed effort. This, in conjunction with the exemplification of religion's transforming power in the lives of the teachers, the consecrated servants of God, is a potent factor in the training of the will.</p><p>It is imperative that there be a reasonable supervision and constant encouragement if results are to be forthcoming. Children seem to be of the sanguine temperament or of a combination of several types of temperament of which the sanguine is a component. Great enthusiasm is manifested in the beginning but it soon cools and unless stimulated is in danger of going out. Parish societies, sodalities or confraternities are often found of value in bracing up drooping spirits. Again, the home conditions may offset all that the school attempts. I would suggest as a remedy parent-teacher associations. The minor evils of school life can to a large extent be corrected through them and in different cases even the major evils respond to the treatment. A large part of the lack of cooperation of the home with the school is due, in my opinion, to ignorance of the real value of school work.</p><p>In summing up this delineation of the subject, for the time allotment restricts it to a delineation, the Catholic system, putting faith before prosperity, virtue before riches, occupies the position of vantage in the formation of real, sterling character. The [206] natural and supernatural motives it proposes are an antidote to every possible form of human frailty; moreover, centuries have tried the system and failed to find it wanting because its procedure is drawn entirely from the life and teachings of the greatest possible real character, the God-Man.</p><p>Discussion</p><p>Rev. P. M. Stief: We have here a very pertinent problem, and I desire to emphasize particularly the practical aspects of it, for Dr. Wehrle has dealt very capably with the theory but had little opportunity, necessarily, to expand the practical features.</p><p>It seems to me—and I believe you will agree—that our Catholic system of education, with all its conscientious and self-sacrificing teachers, with all its aims centering in the education of the whole man, body and soul, for this life and the next, is missing a cog somewhere. I don't want to seem over-critical, but I cannot see that we are turning out young men and women of sterling religious character in as great numbers as we should expect. I don't mean to say that we are not doing better in this matter than other, non-religious, schools; but, in my experience at least, I have noticed that while a large proportion of the boys and girls who leave our schools yearly are of solid character, yet there are all too many who are not a credit to us. These latter seem to fall largely into two opposite classes: those who are too timid, too docile, too weak-kneed, almost too cowardly, I would say; and those who, on leaving us, soon throw to the winds all respect for law and decency, who have little regard for God or His Church and are a living disgrace to the school that reared them.</p><p>Wherein then lies our failure? Religion, we are all convinced, is a most powerful agency in character-building. The fault must be with us and our methods. Is it possible that we are not making the proper use of religion in our teaching the young? Is it possible that religion is too much wrapped up with the rules and routine of school life? Or is it that we are regarding it as a separate study, tacked on to the secular branches, when it should really permeate, illumine and ennoble all other studies by means of skillful correlation? Is it possible that our teachers, in their own lives, are so absorbed with the cultivation of supernatural virtues, to the exclusion of the natural virtues and motives? For these latter, because they seem more tangible to people destined to live in the world and not in the cloister, can often be very helpful. I say this, of course, with all due respect for things supernatural, which I am sure we will not neglect. But do we strive, by all good pedagogic means, to instill in the children a knowledge of such natural virtues as reverence, pity, self-respect, sincerity, square-dealing, sympathy, candor, etc.? And [207] do we help them and urge them to practice these even now in their lives? They may show deep respect to the priest and Sisters, or even to Sister X who depends on her personality or the religious garb for her discipline, but do they show a like reverence for their parents or for others in authority outside the classroom? They may apologize to us for a wrong done, but will they be honorable enough to "make up" with a schoolmate whom they may have injured? In character training, as in other branches of education, knowledge plus practice make for success. And we will do well to seek out situations—even invent some—that will give our students practice in the virtues we wish to inculcate.</p><p>Law, as Father Wehrle points out, is of course basic in character formation. Our pupiles should comprehend well the meaning and significance of divine law and that all human laws, ecclesiastical, civil, social, derive their force and power from the divine law; that, therefore, duty regardless of consequences must be our standard of conduct, as well in the early grades as in later life. But what attitude toward the "reign of law" do we inspire in our pupils? Do they not look on it as a bugaboo, an external hardship, something to be evaded if possible? Do we show them, in season and out, that laws are for our good, that the Commandments given to Moses on Sinai were a blessing from God, leading the human race, which had wandered far afield, back to Him and to real happiness even in this world?</p><p>As regards the will, which is also a basic factor here, the theory of which Father Wehrle has shown, I will make one observation which not all of you may agree with, and I shall be glad to hear your opinions. I think we depend too much on the external acts of religion, for instance, bows, genuflections, set-times for prayers, compulsory attendance at daily Mass, the group practice for children's confessions, etc. Whilst all these practices are invaluable in that they develop habits which make the performance of religious duties somewhat easier in later life, yet they may, and doubtless often do, become meaningless and automatic, unless they are made to strengthen the will and thereby to develop real will-habits that are so necessary if our men and women are to do the right things at all times and under all circumstances.</p><p>This desideratum is not reached by mere repetition of acts, mere routine. When our boys went into the war camps and, under military discipline, were forced to adopt regular habits—rising and retiring early, wearing sensible army shoes—many people said, "When they are mustered out we will have boys trained to take proper care of their health and strength." But somehow it didn't happen. They now keep later hours, if anything, and the pointed toe is still the most popular mode in footwear. </p><p>The real volitional habits are developed by the "free performance of duty as understood under the law of right and wrong." It must be a free performance; and right here I think we probably make a mistake in our school practice. Perhaps we hedge in our children on all sides with too [208] many rules and too much routine. We are safeguarding the children certainly—for the present and while they are with us; we may be encouraging good habits; but we must make sure to strengthen the will and to lay the foundation for character. We need to give our pupils more scope for free choice and the exercise of self-control. Full supervision and control by the teacher are probably necessary in the first grade. But from then on there should be an ever increasing freedom in our classes until, at the end of the eighth grade, we can turn out our boys and girls into the world—if necessary—and feel confident that they already know what liberty is and have the power to use it rightly.</p><p>One thing more and I have done. It is not enough that we gradually lesson our restraint and routine. We must stimulate desire—desire to do one's duty regardless of consequences, and a real desire (born of love for, and understanding of, our holy religion) to stand forth before the world as sound, practical, fearless Catholics, a glory to God, a credit to their Church and to our schools. What finer type of character could we desire?</p><p></p><p>---</p><p>Source: Rev. Joseph J. Wehrle, "Education for Character Formation," Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 18, no. 1 (Nov. 1921): 198–208.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-54641162782091466882021-08-26T15:37:00.004-07:002021-08-26T15:37:36.669-07:00John A. O'Brien, "Causes of Catholic Leakage" (1932)<p>[Much of this essay could have been written very recently.]</p><p>[412] To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review.</p><p>The discussion of Catholic leakage in the December issue of the Review has occasioned widespread interest and stimulated a discussion from which certain conclusions would now seem to emerge. (1) The statistics of <i>The Official Catholic Directory</i>, not only in regard to population but also in regard to baptisms and deaths, are apparently so "unbelievably untrustworthy" as to afford no reliable basis for the determination of the gain or loss of the Catholic population for the year 1930. (2) It follows, therefore, that the basis for the estimated loss of half a million for the year 1930, is undermined. While Dr. Ross writing in <i>The Commonweal</i>, 17 February, 1932, seems to contend that the essential framework of his statistical computations still stands, the evidence presented by both Dr. Shaughnessy and Fr. Bernarding is sufficient to shake the confidence of the writer in the reliability of any conclusion based on the figures of the <i>Directory</i>.</p><p>It is probably a matter of astonishment to most priests, as it is to the writer, to discover as a result of the excellent studies of Fr. Bernarding and Fr. Shaughnessy just how freakish, untrustworthy, and deceptive these figures really are. Fr. Bernarding puts the case in a nutshell when he reaches the following conclusion concerning the reliability of the <i>Directory</i> figures: "That they are faulty, most priests realize; just how faulty they are, probably very few know. It is only by tables of the returns extending over a number of years, such as the writer has kept for the past decade, that this comes to light. These tables show that out of 108 dioceses and vicariates recorded in the <i>Directory</i>, only thirty-eight, or about one-third, have never sent in the same population figures two years in succession. All the rest have duplicated figures repeatedly, <i>most of them as often as five or six times</i>, and in this some of the large dioceses are the worst offenders."</p><p>The gratitude of all the readers is due to both of these writers for the abundant evidence they have presented showing that the figures in the <i>Directory</i> are "unbelievably untrustworthy," and for all practical purposes either utterly meaningless or positively deceptive. Their studies raise in more acute [413] form than ever the question, "Can not some uniform system or method be worked out for the gathering of these vitally important statistics, so that they will be at least substantially reliable?" This appears to be urgently needed if we are to secure any dependable measurement of the annual gain or loss of Catholic population. As Bishop Noll points out, we can not at present determine "whether the Catholic population is growing or declining".</p><p>Before taking up the discussion of the sources of leakage, may I refer briefly and impersonally to two criticisms? Dr. Shaughnessy characterizes my presentation of the statistical groundwork published by Dr. Ross in <i>The Commonweal</i> as "slavish copying," and because I presented one of these computations twice, I am convicted of "absurd logic". Careful reading of my article will disclose my express acknowledgment of Dr. Ross's study as the source of the data presented, coupled with reference by name to Dr. Ross <i>not less than six times</i>. This shows that I made no pretense of originality and was content to play the humble role of reporter. Furthermore, I secured a more detailed statement of the statistical method used by Dr. Ross than appeared in <i>The Commonweal</i>, and presented it in a footnote so that it might be subjected to the most searching scrutiny. While presenting his thesis as cogently as I could, I invited refutation of the statistical groundwork by the presentation of factual evidence. Both Fr. Bernarding and Dr. Shaughnessy have presented abundant evidence and have the gratitude of the readers and of myself for so doing. In stating the above I do not wish to shift any onus to Dr. Ross. For carrying the discussion of the Review, where it would receive due attention and scrutiny, I assume sole responsibility.</p><p>It will be remembered that earlier in the year a story had appeared not only in every Catholic paper but in practically every secular newspaper in the country, stating that according to figures released by the <i>Directory</i>, the Catholic population of the U. S. for the year ending Dec. 31, 1930, was 20,091,593. This, the news story stated, represented a gain of but 13,391 over the preceding year in spite of the addition of 39,528 converts. On the very face of the story, there was apparently a loss in the number of born Catholics, which became disturbingly [414] large when one realized that the natural increase by excess of births over deaths, would alone mount into the hundreds of thousands. A few months later appeared Dr. Ross's article. What better place to have this disturbing problem solved than in the Review, a magazine for the discussion of problems affecting the priestly ministry? Like every other priest in the country, I am glad to learn that any story based on the <i>Directory</i> figures is, as Mark Twain observed of the report of his death, "slightly exaggerated".</p><p>Secondly, Fr. Shaughnessy pictures the writer as charging that the Church in America is "decadent, corrupt, and corroded to the heart," and as attacking "the good faith of bishops, priests, and people". Why? Because of the view I expressed that "we have unwittingly and unwillingly contributed vast annual quotas of born Catholics to swell the ever-growing army of the churchless around us." But this is a complete <i>non sequitur</i>. Even if the loss were so great as one out of every forty, it would not be a direct reflexion [sic] upon our bishops, priests, and people. The unfairness and the illogicality of such a charge can be clearly shown by a simple <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>. One out of twelve left Christ. Shall we say, therefore, that Judas's defection is a direct attack upon the character of Jesus Chrsit? <i>Qui nimis probat, nihil probat.</i></p><p>Causes of Leakage</p><p>Let us come now to the causes of leakage. There is probably no priest in America who will question the fact that there are defections from the Church here, as there are in every country in the world. Not only now, but in every age since Judas sold his Master for thirty pieces of silver. What is the size of the annual leakage? There are apparently no reliable statistics by which this can at present be determined. But that it is too large to be ignored, is also the conviction of every priest out on the firing-line. There is probably scarcely a parish in America but has its quota of sheep "lost, strayed, or stolen". That few from our ranks are to be found in the constantly increasing army of over sixty-five millions of people, surrounding us on every side, who are unaffiliated in any active way with any church, is an illusion held by none of the bishops or priests with whom the writer has convassed [sic] the subject.</p><p>[415] In a recent address, Cardinal Mundelein pointed out that, with the streams of immigration stopped, the growth of the Church will be effected [sic] by gaining converts and stopping defections. But in order to stop defections it is necessary first to discover their causes. In order that the study might reflect something like a cross-section of the observations and experience of the bishops and priests of the country, about forty personal letters were sent in December and January to prelates, pastors, and priests engaged in education and acting as editors in various parts of the United States. In addition, about ten laymen who are distinguished for their services to the Church, and who have unusually wide contacts, were consulted. The response manifested a degree of interest on the part of bishops, prelates, members of the secular and regular clergy, as well as of laymen, that was little short of a revelation to the writer. All but about three responded. Many went out of their way to say that the investigation was most timely and that nothing but good could result from a frank and courageous facing of the causes of leakage.</p><p>1. Lack of Priests and Churches.</p><p>One of the fundamental causes for leakage has been the lack of an adequate number of priests to provide ministrations of religion for a population which in a little more than a century and a half has spread over a vast wilderness of forest and prairie stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. In this incessant trek of vast migrations to the West, it was inevitable that great numbers of people would find themselves in settlements where there was neither priest nor church, and where a priest would not be seen for years. Despite the heroism of those pioneer priests and missionaries, the vast expanse of territory made it simply impossible for them to reach the myriad settlements which sprang up everywhere in the marvelous epic of the making of America.</p><p>The carving of a vast empire out of a virgin wilderness covering an expanse of over three thousand miles in a little over a century and a half, has had as its inevitable concomitant the dispersion of uncounted numbers into settlements where the ministrations of religion could not possibly be secured. The result has been that great numbers—whose magnitude we can [416] only conjecture—deprived of contact with priest, sister, or teaching brother, have been lost to the faith.</p><p>The conditions described are still to be found in some degree in the missionary diocese of the South and West. A bishop in the Southwest informs the writer of parishes in his dioceses which cover over a hundred miles before the nearest parish is reached. There are families in remote parts of these parishes, comprising a territory larger than some whole dioceses in Europe, which can be reached only a few times a year. Priests who have labored in missionary dioceses in the West and South have reported visiting out-of-the-way settlements and encountering families who had not had the ministrations of a priest either to baptize their children or bury their dead for over a decade.</p><p>It was because of the conditions such as this that Bishop Kelley established the Extension Chapel Car, to bring the comforts of religion at least periodically to thousands of scattered settlements in remote districts of our country. The erection of hundreds of little mission churches by the Extension Society and the sending of priests to minister to them occasionally have undoubtedly served to rescue many thousands who otherwise would have lapsed, due to circumstances over which they had little or no control.</p><p>The evidence of lapses due to this factor are not, however, confined to the South or West. There are scars to be found in probably the great majority of counties in our land. Take, for instance, the heart of Illinois, where the Church is vigorous and well-organized. From the church in which the writer ministers you can travel in one direction over an arterial highway thirty-five miles before you come to another Catholic church. Yet along that highway you pass through eight towns, villages, and settlements in which there is not even an out-mission. For fifteen years the writer has read in the local newspapers of marriages and burials of scores of people with distinctively Irish Catholic names—the services taking place in Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Disciples' churches.</p><p>According to pioneer priests they are the descendants of families which settled there in the early days when priests were very few and they have been for over half a century without [417] the ministrations of priest or church. The result is that there is scarcely a vestige of Catholicity left in the families throughout this particular territory. Priests have informed the writer of many such territories where a similar story could be told. Indeed the question might well be raised as to whether there are many counties in the country in which evidence of the ruthless operation of this factor could not be found.</p><p>Dr. Charles P. Neill, who has brought honor to the Church by the distinguished record he has achieved in the friendly settlement of disputes between capital and labor, from the administration of President Roosevelt to the present time, lays great stress upon this factor. Incidentally Dr. Neill reports that Archbishop Ireland, strongly convinced, as a result of his long ministry and his wide observations, of a tremendous leakage, urged Dr. Neill to make a thorough investigation of its extent and causes. It is a real misfortune that the pressure of many duties prevented so able a scholar in the social and economic fields from undertaking such a systematic investigation many years ago. "I think there is no doubt," says Dr. Neill, "that there has been a tremendous leakage, and some valuable studies might be made in this field. A very thorough investigation should be made." Perhaps it might still be possible to secure Dr. Neill to direct such an investigation on a nation-wide scale, if it could be properly financed. The writer knows of no one more competent. The results would be invaluable.</p><p>Stressing especially the lack of priests, Dr. Neill relates how this was driven home to him at Johns Hopkins. "At an earlier period," he writes, "I think there was a tremendous falling off due to an environment in which there was lack of opportunities for the practice of the Catholic faith. This was brought forcibly to my mind a good many years ago when I was a student at Johns Hopkins. Another Catholic student and myself who were in the graduate department decided to attempt the organization of a Catholic society from among the graduate students in the Department of Economics. We went over the list of names and found such names as Riley, Callahan, Moran, and similar names which gave us reason for believing that they might be Catholics. We approached these students, to find that none of them were Catholics. Going into [418] the matter with them we found in practically all cases, that the families had originally been Catholic a few generations back. Some of them were from southern states where in the early generations the Church was very poorly organized and where probably they did not see a priest as often as once a year. One particular case impressed me very strongly where the student's name was M . . . , from Michigan. He told me that his family had moved to Michigan in the early days and were Catholics, but that there was no church organization in the section to which his grandfather had gone and that gradually they had drifted away from the Church entirely, although the descendants of his father's brother, who had remained in the east, were all still members of our Church."</p><p>2. Lack of Religious Instruction.</p><p>In the judgment of Bishop O'Hara and of a considerable number of the contributors to this investigation, lack of religious instruction is the largest single cause of leakage at the present time. Bishop O'Hara gives the following succinct statement of the case: "We have 18,000 churches and only 8,000 schools. Consequently, there are 10,000 groups of children who, under our futile system of Sunday schools, have very little chance to know what their religion is about. Our 2,500,000 children not in Catholic schools need to be better cared for. Real religious instruction, on the intellectual plane, is of course, by necessity, a matter of adolescents and adults. A mastery of the abstract principles of religion is only possible to minds somewhat developed. Here is a great weakness. The vast majority of young folks in America get secular training in high schools and large numbers in colleges, but comparatively few Catholics have religious education beyond the eighth grade. Adult religious education must keep pace with adult secular education—or religion must suffer a loss. The large number who cannot be brought to Catholics schools, have been very largely neglected."</p><p>The importance of this factor is likewise stressed by Monsignor Joseph H. McMahon, who ranks it as one of the two most prolific causes of defection. "In regard to this factor," Monsignor McMahon writes, "we find it almost impossible to get the children attending the public schools to come for religious instruction, or even to Sunday school. Once they [419] have been graduated from the elementary grades they are lost to us as a rule unless the home be thoroughly Catholic. This is unlikely, as, if it were so, the children would not be attending public schools. Of course parishes are to blame where there are not Catholic schools. In some cases the higher authorities have all the blame . . . Unless our children go from our elementary schools to Catholic high schools, (1) they never get more than an elementary education in their religion; (2) their association in public high schools dulls their faith, weakens their hold on the religious knowledge they possessed when leaving the elementary schools; (3) kills all devotional practices; (4) destroys any idea of making sacrifices for their faith; (5) gradually eliminates the supernatural from their lives and leaves them with the secular standard of worldly success as the one object worthy of achievement."</p><p>Similar stress is placed upon lack of religious instruction as second among the causes why so many Catholics are falling away to-day, by Fr. Joseph McSorley, C.S.P., who says: "there is too little education of the sort which will fit the soul of the individual for the trials—moral and religious—of life." Our people do not know their religion. We do not equip them with a personal apologetic with which they can meet the onset of hostile criticism, or even their own difficulties arising from modern unbelief and indifferentism."</p><p>That the problem of devising more effective means of reaching with careful systematic religious instruction the 2,500,000 children not in our parish schools, is one of the most urgent facing us to-day, is becoming increasingly apparent to pastors everywhere. Until this gap is plugged, it seems inevitable that a continued leakage of large proportions will occur. Readers are probably aware of the two means which Bishop O'Hara has devised of meeting this problem, at least in part—the religious vacation school and the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Dr. Matthew Smith of <i>The Denver Register</i> calls attention to another practice instituted by Bishop O'Hara for reaching with a religious message people who would otherwise go untouched.</p><p>"It has always been my opinion," says Dr. Smith, "that our rural churches were used too little. If a priest goes only once a month, that is no reason why the church should remain locked [420] at other times. Bishop O'Hara has the people gathered together in every mission each Sunday morning for the recitation of the Rosary, reading of the Epistle and Gospel by one of the men, and then a catechism lesson for the youngsters and a study-club session for the adults. The results have been startling. The idea is very old—it is merely an adaptation of the catechist method to our rural missions. If it had been followed a generation ago, thousands who are now Methodists, Baptists, or nothing, would be Catholics. May the movement started in Great Falls spread!"</p><p>3. Lack of Home Training</p><p>It would seem difficult to overstress the basic importance of proper home training. Church and school will labor in vain, unless the home supports and reenforces [sic] the ministry of the other two agencies. It has been the experience of priests, sisters, and teaching brothers that a bad home environment will often speedily nullify the teaching imparted in church and school. A zealous priest who has spent about a quarter of a century in the ministry states the case well. "My experience has brought me into contact with thousands of young Catholics, and I am convinced that the kind of home they come from is much more important than whether they went to a Catholic school or not. Generally speaking, neither the church nor the school can make up for home deficiencies. The home remains the most important agency for religious training and the formation of character. One reason, of course, for the failure of so many homes to give proper Catholic training is the general break-down of the home. But another reason is the emphasis placed on Catholic schools. In September our people hear sermons that seem to say they fulfill their responsibilities as parents if they send their children to a Catholic school. For every such sermon, there should be a second one to emphasize the duties of parents at home for the religious education of their children. In line with this, our schools—at least high schools and colleges—should be doing more than they are to train our young people to fulfill their parental duties later on. And our parishes should strive to develop some machinery for adult education looking in the same direction."</p><p>Proper home training is of supreme importance. It must be made focal in our thinking. There has been apparently [421] too much reliance upon other agencies, too great a tendency to shift the unescapable duties of parents to the shoulders of sisters and priests. There is need of driving home to parents the stern realization that upon the fidelity with which they discharge their divinely appointed duties of training their children in the knowledge, love, and practice of their holy religion, the continued growth of God's Church in America will largely hinge.</p><p>While the above is only the scratching of the surface of the causes of leakage, and only a fragmentary reflexion of the convictions expressed in over a hundred pages of letters on the writer's desk, it may suffice as the first study of the causes of leakage and of methods of stemming them. Loyalty to Christ and His holy Church does not require that we ignore defections, but that we search for them with eager and open eyes, and upon finding them that we strive by might and main to lessen and eliminate them.</p><p>Seated at Jacob's well, the Master pointed toward the Samaritans thronging toward Him, and addressed to His apostles the message that comes to us to-day with peculiar urgency: "Behold! I say to you, lift up your eyes and see the countries: for they are <i>white already to harvest</i>." Until the last sheaf of human souls is gathered unto the eternal hills, and placed at the feet of the Divine Master, the priests of America will struggle and labor and pray, conscious that the stars in their courses are fighting for us. No matter how the tide of victory ebbs and flows, we know that God, and everlasting truth and the "victory which overcometh the world, our faith" are on our side.</p><p>John A. O'Brien.</p><p><i>Champaign, Illinois.</i></p><p>---</p><p>Source: John A. O'Brien, "Causes of Catholic Leakage," <i>Ecclesiastical Review</i> 86 (April 1932): 412–421.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-24525904701388411622021-08-26T12:41:00.003-07:002021-08-26T12:41:45.232-07:00John Featherstone, "The Development of Character in the Catholic Atmosphere" (1929)<p>[500] No matter from what source it arises, no matter how theories of education may vary, all rise up before us and before our minds, and tell us that character, no matter how education may help to mould [sic] it, has its birth, its continuance, and its permanence in something without which education is as nothing, and that something, the everything, is religion. Thus, with our foundation laid in God, we may proceed to consider the other important requisites in the formation of the character of our children, that it may reflect credit upon its sources and obtain for its possessor the reward. And these requisites I would name as the following: the environment of a good home, with its ennobling influences; the education of the school which embraces religion; a prescribed course of studies, and a limitation of the number of students to give a teacher. Given faith, a good home, religious instruction, education in the fine arts prescribed by men of mature years, not selected by children of immature years, a class not so large that the personal and individual attentions so necessary to education will be deprived and a teacher well chosen, and a character will be the fellow and concomitant of this kind of education.</p><p>And this is the education which the Catholic Church fosters, the character education. Its first exercise is one of devotion to the living God. Its adherence to a prescribed course of studies brings more converts every day from the ranks of men who have seen the abuses of elective systems, the latter admirable for men of maturity, but too tempting for gay-hearted, thoughtless youth.</p><p>All education is a preparation for complete living and no life is complete, no education worthwhile that has not God for its [501] first source and its last end. What Archbishop Spaulding says on this point might be introduced here as very pertinent:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"If education is a training for completeness of life, its primary element is the religious, for complete life is life in God. Hence, we may not assume an attitude towards the child, whether in the home, in the church, or in the school, which might imply that life apart from God could be anything else than broken and fragmentary. A complete man is not one whose mind only is active and intelligent and enlightened; but he is a complete man who is alive in all his faculties. The truly human is found not in knowledge alone, but also in faith, in hope, in love, in pure-mindedness, in reverence, in the sense of beauty, in devoutness, in the thrill of awe, which Goethe says is the highest thing in man. If the teacher is forbidden to touch upon religion, the source of these noble virtues and ideal mood is sealed. His work and influence become mechanical and he will form but commonplace and vulgar men. And if any educational system is established on this narrow and material basis, the result will be deterioration of the national type, and the loss of the finer qualities which make men many-sided and interesting, which are the safeguards of personal purity and of unselfish conduct."</p></blockquote><p>What society expects and what the Church demands from its teachers are the following: Character, teaching ability, scholarship and culture, and of these, character stands first. James E. Russell, Dean of the Teachers' College, Columbia University, tells us that as a result of many years, his experience in preparing teachers for the proper discharge of their office, is the following:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">"The first qualification for professional service, therefore, is a good character, the conscious striving for high ideals. The professional worker looks to the future and is pledged by his vocation to make the future better than the present. Such an aim implies in these days the possession of two other qualifications, each potent and indispensable. One of these is specialized knowledge and technical skill. These three—an ethical aim, specialized knowledge and technical skill—are the trinity upon which professional knowledge rests."</p><p></p></blockquote><p>What the child expects and has a right to demand to meet life's purposes and fit him for complete living are as Nicholas Murray [502] Butler points out, the following: Religion, literature, art, science and institutions; these are often spoken of as "man's fivefold spiritual inheritances". What society particularly asks of both teacher and pupil, what it demands as a result of the educative process, is social efficiency. This has been defined as "the ability to enter into a progressive social process and to do one's part towards advancing the interests of the whole, while at the same time attaining the highest realization of the self". And so it comes to pass that the Catholic teacher must nourish his soul and give soul; because in the measure in which he gives out his life, must he renew his vigor.</p><p>What culture should the teacher acquire? All that may be for him, a principle of life and a principle of action; his faith, his virtue, his knowledge. "As the heart makes the home, the teacher makes the school". . [sic] In brief, the soul of every teacher should be a model for the imitation of others, only in this way can character be influenced and eventually be formed. For soul can act upon soul and only in the development of the character of the teacher can we look for development in the character of the pupil. </p><p>In phrasing the title of this paper I have used the term, a contributing factor in the development of character in relation to the school in a qualified sense and advisedly. For, after all, right conduct is the result of many factors, many trials, and experiences. But of these experiences, the school plays a very important part, but only a part.</p><p>To meet life's purposes the student must be able to meet every situation in which he finds himself. Now the school may prepare him but it is only a preparation; the home, his everyday environment, the playground, his associates, his very indifferent actions all tend to the building of character, whether that building up in the nature of development of will depends upon the nature of the influences, and this is what I have insisted upon from the very beginning.</p><p>Of the various influences that have a tendency to develop character, I might cite the following with relation to the school: Discipline, a recognition and fulfillment of duty; it is more than [503] instruction, drill or order. I tis more than the teacher's influence over the children; it embodies rules of government, and claims subjection to those rules. "The most perfect are those who have their passions in the best discipline." It means more than chastisement or correction, though it is often used in the sense. Its chief characteristic is that it is a force for moral training. The next is acquisition, that is the possession of fundamental facts that approximates truth. The next is assimilation, the realization of these truths in their relation to right conduct, for after all, conduct is three-fourths of life. </p><p>Appreciation follows, for here implies an approach to the good, the beautiful and the true. The next is aspiration, or the motivation for nobler purposes, and worthy ideals. The last is expression, or the human will in operation from the kindergarten to the university. The aim of elementary education is to govern instinct into habit; that of the secondary school to direct habit into character; that of the college and the normal school is to guide character into destiny or life's purposes.</p><p>But what is the purpose of life? No word has been more variously defined than the word "life". Let us take from the book of life three instances of life as recorded there. When our Divine Lord spoke of life He stated the term in this fashion, "I am come that you may have life and life more abundantly"; now there are three significant instances in the Bible that illustrate its meaning in a rather definite way. The first, that of the Prodigal Son, who spent his substance in riotous living and in the end found nothing; the next, that of the Rich Young Man, who wished for Eternal Life, but would not part with his riches; of his ultimate fate, the Scripture does not tell us; and the last, that of St. Paul, who tells us, "I live, no, not I, but <i>Christ</i> who liveth in me". This is life as the Church teaches and this is the meaning and end of all true Catholic Education and the only motive the Church has for its children to meet life's purposes. "Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added on to you."</p><p>Can this life be taught as a matter of habit and eventually have an influence as development of character? Can religion be [504] taught? Let me quote here a passage from an eminent educator who spent all his life in the classroom when not at his religious exercises, the lamented Brother Azarias:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"Not that religion can be imparted as knowledge of history or grammar is taught. The repetition of the Catechism or the reading of the Gospel is not religion. Religion is something more subtle, more intimate, more all-pervading. It speaks to head and heart. It is an ever-living presence in the classroom. It is nourished by the prayers with which one's daily exercises are opened and closed. It is reflected from the pages of one's reading books. It controls the affections; it keeps watch over the imagination; it permits the mind only useful and holy and innocent thoughts; in enables the soul to resist temptations; it guides the conscience; it inspires a horror for sin and a love for virtue;—it should be and should form an essential portion of our life. It should be the very atmosphere of our breathing. it should be the soul of every action. We should live under its influence, act out its precepts, think and speak according to its laws as unconsciously as we breathe. It should be so intimate a portion of ourselves that we could not, even if we would, ever get rid of. this is religion as the Church understands religion. Therefore does the Church foster the religious spirit in every soul confided to her at all times, under all circumstances, without rest, without break, from the cradle to the grave."</p></blockquote><p>We may safely make this assertion, that it is only in the religious atmosphere that character can be developed. Years ago, the famous Munsterberg laid it down as a principle in education that the child, not the subject of study, is the guide to the teacher's efforts; what the child was and would become is the real test. Not what he knows. It is true that we want our children to cope with life's material interests and in the struggle for existence we want them to receive the better things in life; but the chief concern is first that they be real, sincere Catholics. In America to-day where the chief concern is for social preeminence, wealth, power, this striving for higher ideals should be more stressed in our schools and your Catholic men and women of character should show these qualities that reflect the Catholic spirit and tradition. Character rightly developed will bring about all this, [505]</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">"The term character has been variously defined. It is the great word introduced into the theory of the aim of education by Herbart, who himself received it from his predecessor, the Sage of Konigsberg, Immanuel Kant.</p><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"It is Kant who says that the only absolutely good thing in the world is a good will. The great German idealists, Fichte and Hegel, take up the strain that the end of education is the formation of character, of moral character. The great common sense of mankind always held that the head must not be educated at the expense of the heart. The feelings of worth attaching to the life devoted to goodness demand that character form a permanent constituent of the educational ideal."</p></blockquote><p>Character, says an eminent Catholic writer, is the human will in operation in which life is dominated by principle. In other words, it is the established will. We all know the meaning of conduct, human conduct, but how variously that term can be defined. After all, conduct is the result of our habits and might be defined as the moral average of that total. The essential ingredient in character is, as Sully observes, the fixity of disposition in the right directions. In its earliest form, character is but little more than the sum of all the hereditary instincts of the child; as the intellect and will develop, the meaning attached to character becomes more specialized and it is made to refer to those acquisitions like independence and finesse, which are the product of voluntary exertion. </p><p>What we mean by character is a good or virtuous disposition of the feelings and the will; hence the reason for stating that it is established; established in the truth, the realization of which enters into our lives, and shows in our conduct. Now character is known by conduct and conduct is the result of habit. But character in fact, is less the sum of our habits and tastes than the possession of a will that is strong, enlightened, just, good, capable of coping with events; and a character thus constituted is the ideal of moral education. And what is the will? By many writers it has often been confounded with desire and this is wrong. Desire is blind and fatal. The will is reasonable and controllable. It concerns itself with that which seems can be attained, for this reason the will is not always in proportion to [506] our desires. In several in incompatible alternates, only one can be willed.</p><p>Many of the impulses of young children and moral weaklings never get beyond the stage of desire. Action is often arrested from fear of consequences. A number of impulses arise and maintain a state of conflict, which paralyzes action. To overcome this a painful effort is necessary. And we all know that it is only the grace of God that can cope with a situation like this. Hence it is, that the only atmosphere conducive for a complete and real development of character is the religious atmosphere.</p><p>A very close relation exists between motive and intention. The motive of an act is that which induces us to perform it. It denotes the impulse that precedes volition; in short, it is the final cause which moves the will, and here again, we repeat, no matter how education may help to mould character, it has its birth, its continuance and its permanence in something without which education is as nothing and that something, the everything, is religion.</p><p>In conclusion let me add, never in the history of the United States have we more need for men of character, Catholic men, than we have to-day. Michael Williams in his recent work, <i>Catholicism and the Modern Mind</i>, has brought out this fact with special emphasis. If as we have stated, character is less the sum of our habits and tastes than the possession of a will that is strong, enlightened, just and good—capable of coping with events and these events and situations are arising every day, so that we have need of men of character, Catholic trained men to cope with these events and it is only the man of character that can emerge from battle without being tainted. Governor Smith's answer to Mr. Marshall is a case in point, and the final utterance of Marshal Foch illustrates the matter in a manner truly sublime.</p><p>The deep realization of the truths of Catholic faith translated into terms of conduct leads to the full and complete development of character, for if it be true that character is life dominated by principles, such a life will react on those with whom we come in contact; man's self, apart from his mere physical body, consists in his peculiar organization of instincts and habits, in common [507] language this constitutes his personality. We can infer from it what he will, as we say, characteristically do in any given situation. And a particular organization of instincts and habits is depended very largely on the individual's social experience, on the types and varieties of contact with other people that he has established. Give such a man a training in a religious atmosphere, in terms as I have quoted from Brother Azarias, and he cannot, will not go wrong. That some have done wrong and gone the way of all flesh only proves the rule. And where one falls, a hundred are daily in the market place, waiting, because no one has hired them.</p><p>The following authors and their works were freely consulted in the preparation of this paper:</p><p><i>Educational Psychology</i> . . . Thorndike</p><p><i>Human Traits</i> . . . Erdman</p><p><i>Introduction to Philosophy</i> . . . Dubray</p><p><i>Psychology for Teachers</i> . . . Benson, Lough, West</p><p><i>Psychology in Education</i> . . . Roark</p><p><i>Means and Ends of Education</i> . . . Spaulding</p><p><i>Development of Personality</i> . . . Bro. Chrysostom</p><p><i>Character Building</i> . . . C. S. Coles</p><p><i>Essays Miscellaneous</i> . . . Bro. Azarias</p><p><i>Educational Psychology</i> . . . Titchenor</p><p><i>Psychology and the Teacher</i> . . . Munsterberg</p><p><i>Psychology Without a Soul </i> . . . Gruender</p><p><i>C. E. A. Bulletin (1914)</i> . . . <i>Development of Character</i></p><p><i>C. E. A. Bulletin (1919) </i>. . . <i>Development of Character</i></p><p><i>C. E. A. Bulletin (1921)</i><i> </i>. . . <i>Development of Character</i></p><p><i>Educational Psychology</i> . . . Starch</p><p><i>Readings in the History of Education</i> . . . Cubberly</p><p><i>The Formation of Character</i> . . . Hull, S. J.</p><p><i>Psychology in the Class Room</i> . . . Horne</p><p><i>Character Education</i> . . . N. E. A. Bulletin (1926)</p><p><i>Character and Conduct</i> . . . School Publication, Los Angeles School District, No. 80</p><p><i>Foundation of Personality</i> . . . A. Meyerson</p><p><i>Human Conduct</i> . . . C. C. Peters</p><p><i>Formative Factors in Character</i> . . . Herbert</p><p><i>Character in the Making</i> . . . H. P. Schauffler</p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"> </p><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> </p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"> </p><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><p style="text-align: left;"> </p><p></p></blockquote><p>---</p><p>Source: Rev. John J. Featherstone, "The Development of Character in the Catholic Atmosphere," <i>National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin </i>26, no. 1 (Nov. 1929): 500–507.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-56291164073735931762021-08-25T15:24:00.005-07:002021-08-25T15:24:40.405-07:00Francis Bredestege, "Relative Position of the School and the Other Agencies Affecting Character Development" (1929)<p>[455] We proceed in this chapter from the hypothesis that though the school is the first instrument that occurs to the mind when education is mentioned, it is not the first, neither in time nor in the sum of its effects nor effectiveness.</p><p>Historically, as well as to-day, the family is anterior to the school, and education in the general sense, begins in the home. The relation between parents and children is the most primitive form of learning, and also the first in which there is a union of intellectual and moral education. The first gift of the grown generation to the new, viz., the mother tongue, is named after the mother, and the next two vital intellectual gifts and most intelligible units of life, viz., the father's house and the fatherland, are named after the father.</p><p>Even now, however, we are not at the beginning of the chain. If science, and specifically psychology and biology are correct, we are far from the beginning in taking only the immediate family of the educand [sic; i.e. one to be educated] as the beginning point of the process of education. We must go far back beyond the formation of each individual unit of our social fabric. Even Emerson was only partially correct by claiming that we must begin with the child's grandfather. For a complete list of the complex array of the material we are to deal with antedates the bride and groom by several centuries. We need only point to the large amount of matter recently written on the relative importance of heredity and environment to stress the point, for this angle of the question will be brought out <i>in extenso</i>, before we separate after this meeting. Suffice it to say then, actually man begins his education centuries before as an individual [456] he begins his existence and his training in moral and social life. The psychological factors, the bodily conditions he will inherit, and the environment into which he will be born, these really make up agency number one.</p><p>Already conditioned then, the child meets his mother and his father, who then constitute agency number two. He steps into family life, and in the ordinary course of events, he will not be free from it, in one form or another, till he closes his eyes in his last long sleep. During at least the most malleable first six years his education is directed almost entirely either for good or for evil by this agency. Family life, then, in its widest sense, though in point of time not the first, is admittedly the most important and lasting educational instrument because as soon as life begins, and before the child has even the barest conceptions of responsibility, or an inkling of morality, there come into play the assimilations on which moral training is based, those subconscious factors of thought, desire, interest, suggestion and imitation, that arise from the intimate contacts established by the common life of the family group.</p><p>This is no place to enter into a rhapsody extolling what we carry into life from home. Sentiment has invested the home with a sanctity which under normal conditions amply justifies the verdict. Mother love and fatherly sacrifice are the miraculous commonplaces not only of all literature but equally of the savage too mentally poor to have a literature. The ties of family life are reckoned too sacred to bear rupture, "to love like a brother" is a banality in every language under the sun. In the family circles are planted and nurtured the seeds of those homely virtues that make up the warp and woof of every ordered life, reverence, love, sacrifice, faith. No matter what may be the final definition here of character, we are safe in saying that it will not depart far from this paraphrase of Bishop Ullathorne's: "Character is the natural temperament completely fashioned by the home; God makes our nature, our own home makes our character".</p><p>And still, like all things human, home can fail of its destiny. The school itself is but an extension, a corrective of the home; as such it has won its unchallenged place in our social economy. It [457] is possibly significant that equally universal with the failure of the home proclaimed by every sociological amateur and professional, is the cry regarding the failure of the school. That the home has failed must possibly be admitted. Just consider in addition to the school, the day nursery and kindergarten, the public playground and juvenile court placement, industrial home and reformatory, big brother and big sister leagues, vocational guidance movement and amusement park, the whole long list of twentieth century substitutes for the home that has failed. And the verdict of failure is supported by the attitude of the Church. In spite of the fact that she had schools of high efficiency long before the present-day omnipresent state began its career, and before the sociological meddler was abroad in the land, the Church is now the one middle-of-the-road organization, that is protesting against the continual spoliation of the home, of its sanctity, of its authority and of its place as the sun of our social solar system.</p><p>The spoliation does exist. Much of it may be due to causes with which no one can quarrel. The complexity of modern life and the scientific age in which we live have made necessary a division of labor, even in our relaxations. We presuppose that the average child spends a large part of his life in the home and we are probably correct. Still, it seems an anomaly that the modifications of family life in our complex modern civilization are such that he is not entirely a pessimist who declares that when the child is ready for school, he is already too spoiled to have the school do its best work with him. For as he begins to approach school age the child makes contacts with the corner butcher and grocer, with the movies; he has possibly been taken to see or rather endure, the local counterparts of adult interests like the Lindbergh reception, floods, possibly even murder trials; he has cultivated the acquaintance of his relatives and his parents' friends, and has even been in church on occasion; his play time with his toys and neighbor children or kindergarten group really making up the routine of his waking hours. According to Bird T. Baldwin, roughly fifty per cent of his time is taken up with sleep and about ten per cent goes for meals and other bodily necessities. From twenty-seven per cent the first year to about [458] eight per cent the sixth year, or an average of twenty per cent of his time is spent alone in physical or imaginative play. Of the balance, about fifteen per cent more goes into family and non-family play and mental contacts, and about four is taken up with the rudimentary business and social contacts that introduce him to the outside world. Supposing then, that one-half or three-fourths of the time spent alone or in personal contacts is contact with the home and the family group, and is given to mental absorptions and exercise of his growing faculties, his instincts, habits and will, we still can recognize that foreign interests, so to speak, have used up from twelve to twenty per cent of his life, or one-fourth of his waking hours. What he got from these domestic and foreign influences we shall see later. For the present it is enough to recall that they are all attributed to the home. He knows love and quarreling, selfishness and sacrifice, sickness and health, he has his code of ethics and his standards of values; in spite of his simplicity and candor, he is a calculating worldling, in spite of his baptismal innocence an adept in all the capital sins but lust and sloth. So stands the home indicted.</p><p>After school life begins, the child's use of time does not change much. Allowing ten to eleven hours of sleep at the age of seven, and eight hours at the age of sixteen, we find that thirty-eight per cent of his time is given over to sleep, and approximately ten per cent to meals and other necessities.</p><p>Of the remainder of his day, we imagine school to be the big interest. But as a matter of fact, the statistics say that between the ages of seven and sixteen, the average child spends only 186 days of the year in school and the average number of hours per day is only four and a fraction, or approximately sixteen per cent. In the case of our Catholic schools, this fraction may, perhaps, be raised to the next higher integer, in view of the close connection between church and school, through daily and Sunday Mass, first Holy Communion and Confirmation preparation, confessions, serving Mass, and in the other activities where the church character of our schools manifests itself. Supposing then that the formal aspects of his character training by the school last till sixteen years of age, it still remains that the "ten years of schooling" [459] become a small fraction of all his interests and activities from birth till the day he goes out into the world. To be exact, the school has him for sixteen per cent of ten years out of the total, and allowing another hour a day for "home study", we find that he is in school only nineteen per cent of his school life, and only twenty-two per cent of all his waking hours from infancy till his seventeenth birthday. In fairness, we may raise these figures a trifle by adding the growing office of the vacation school, the gymnasium class, the children's hour in the public library, and the reading of books from the school's circulating library. But even then, the percentage is still startlingly small.</p><p>The relative disposal of his time when he has reached the age of sixteen can be seen from the following article from the press (<i>Cincinnati Times-Star</i>, Mar. 19, 1929), and shows how his habits have "set" by then:</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"The Industrial Education Bureau of the New York State Department of Education has been trying to find out (how boys spend their evenings), and to this end has questionnaired [sic] 75,000 boys attending the continuation schools. Of this number 12 per cent must have concluded that it was nobody's affair but their own, for they sent in no reply. Sixteen per cent said they were never at home in the evening, nine per cent said they were always at home, and 40 per cent said they remained at home for two, three or four evenings a week; night classes accounted for ten per cent.</p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p></p><p style="text-align: left;">"While Cincinnati boys have not been official quizzed, one can get a pretty fair picture of their nocturnal activities. After dinner every night the average lad leaves home for a space to foregather with other lads. At least twice a week he sees a picture in what is called the 'naborhood' movie house. Once a week he goes down town. One evening a week is spent with some group or club. When he returns late, he may turn on the radio for an interval, and then study, or at least, go through the motions thereof for a little while. He reads much more than you might think, glancing over the morning paper before he breakfasts, scanning the evening paper before the nocturnal exit, and somehow contriving to get through a novel or so a week. He is not much of a hand at cards.</p><p></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"Obviously the modern lad is accumulating a far greater store of experiences, observations and social contacts than the lad of [460] a generation ago. Whether he ever mulls over this mass of raw material we shall not attempt to say."</p></blockquote><p>But what we can say is that the home represents a small fraction of the average youth's guidance and character formation. Arbitrarily assuming that one-half of his play, non-theatrical recreation and other interests are in the home or its immediate environment, we have only an average of three and three-fourths hours of his waking day under home influence ,including newspaper reading, parental conversation, social and business visits, etc. We have already seen that the school gives very little more.</p><p>Greater than home and school, then, are the forces that make up agency number three, the greater group life. We have already seen that the growing child has thrust upon him fringes of social contacts, parts neither of home nor school, and ranging form his neighborhood playmate to the distant cities he visits with his vacationing parents. As he grows, there increase in number and power the common associations and forces of our institutional life, educational, religious, legal, political and economic, such as divorce, selfish individualism of public characters, the <i>zeit-geist</i>, organized philanthropy, organized sport, big business, etc.</p><p>Now there is still to be brought into the picture educational agency number four. We might call this group the non-professional educating agencies, to denote their indirect but formal participation in the school's function of giving information, health habits, economic training and a moral outlook on life. Specifically it is only necessary to mention as examples, the press with its variations, the lending and public library as avowedly educational, and the still more informally educational organizations like the boy scouts and girl scouts, and the large variety of well-intentioned and often well-endowed adult activities and leagues for the young, such as civic leagues, park and playground associations, civic theatres, etc. Besides them, potent for good or evil, stands the theatre, and its illegitimate half-brother, the movie.</p><p>In last place we shall mention the Church, not because its influence, at least with us is smallest, but because unfortunately its [461] influence is last with perhaps eighty-five per cent of our total population, and with a proportionate percentage of the school boys and girls of the land. With the total school population of our country (1926) in excess of 26,900,000, and with only 2,300,000 of them in private schools, we see the comparative place of the Church in its contacts on the growing mind of America. To the Church must then be added the growing influence of the weekday religious school, and of summer and vacation catechism classes. The temptation to disparage their importance as an adjunct of the Church is worth pointing out, as possibly half of our Catholic children are in public schools.</p><p>Thus then, do we group the character-building forces that surround the child: home, school, economic society, sociological agencies, and the Church. Now the chief fundamental in character-building is impression. Constancy and intensity of impression become the dominant factors in the formation of habits and ideals. Consider the stresses, the pushing and the pulling, the attractions and repulsions of this assembly of agencies all working for good or for evil in the development of the child's character. What a storm of impressions, what a crowd of examples, what a hurricane of correct and distorted attitudes, of genuine and sorry ideals rain down into the unanalyzing mind from these sources. We hear so much of the socially unfit, of the wave of youthful crime, of the bleak outlook for the future, and of the hopeless helplessness of the home, and the impotence of school and Church.</p><p>Are we justified in adopting pessimism? As Churchmen, we cannot consent to the proposition that the family, founded by nature and sanctified by God, has failed, much as individual families may fail. When we see the large number of young people passing into an efficiently and even heroically moral manhood and womanhood, we can see a new meaning in the trite proverb: There's a special Providence that watches over children.</p><p>And as school men we repudiate the statement that the school has failed. We must perhaps revise our estimate of the degree of influence the school may exercise in fact, but we must keep in mind, in the case of the school as well as of the home, that the [462] time element is not indicative of the relative weight of that influence. Home and school are still the first agencies that receive the child, and first impressions still are deepest. Much though encroachments on the past monopoly of these two educational agencies may be true, it should also be true that the power for good represented by home and school is first in possession of the child's soul, and should be able, with honest exertion, to hold it to its first conscious allegiance. Knowledge is power, and both these agencies must use their power with the knowledge that perhaps a majority of the educational instruments we enumerated above, are all but unfavorable to the work of character building and its conservation in the individual.</p><p>Another point that must be remembered is the fact, that even granted the handicap of relatively less time, the school is but the extension of the home, and that the alliance between the two is productive of a strength that is not the sum, but the product of the two. But an effective "union between the two is the first requisite for enduring success. There should be a continuous friendly understanding and cooperation, sanctified by the spirit of Christian faith and charity, and the earnest conviction of a common responsibility to God", says Monsignor Oechtering. However, when we come to analyze this union concretely, we find that there has in general not been an understanding of these reciprocal possibilities. We need only mention the Parent-Teacher movement as a belated recognition of the fact that teamwork could be improved. But in this alliance nothing will be gained by the pot calling the kettle black. The home admittedly has its faults to answer for. We have already seen the general nature of the indictment against it, namely, a surrender of its functions and prerogatives in general, and an inclination to "pass the buck" to the school in particular. And as education becomes more technical, the parent feels justified in a continuation of this policy on the score of inability to assist intelligently. Any one of our Sisters, to keep the question within our own system, can tell how much contact she has with parents in the course of the year, and how much of this precious little is due to parental wrath only. And on the other hand we know, too, how little [463] the average Sister knows the economic problems and domestic worries that result from our indoor sport of keeping up with the Joneses.</p><p>The school then, may in justice excuse itself from a great deal of the responsibility for the imperfect character building of the past, since it was handicapped by receiving no help from the home in trying to educate the already spoiled child deposited with a sigh of relief at its door. But the school, also, in its shortsightedness made a tactical error so to speak, and to this extent it cannot excuse itself. the error lay in the fact, that when the school saw that the home was not accomplishing its task in the dual work of character building, and perhaps was often not even appearing to attempt it, the school forgot its own limitations and volunteered to take over the major portion of the work, even that which was formerly the fully recognized work of the home. The nursery, the kindergarten, and the other infant interests that supplement the home, are in reality an independent unit, an ally if you will, but certainly not a legitimate part of the educational machinery as we knew it from tradition. But the school tried to make them an integral part of itself. The same thing is occurring at the other end of the elementary ladder even now. The matter of vocational guidance, and even vocational training is also an usurpation on the part of the school. These are really a successor of the apprentice system, also a character forming agency if you will, but even then a rather limited one, and an oblique one. With it the school ought to live in peace, of course, but not to make a part of the school system. Apprenticeship was originally in the home, and the advent of the factory system took it out of the home to give it to the factory master and the foreman. Nor does the fact that its original home form gave it some opportunity for character training become a reason for the school to annex it as soon as it leaves the home environment.</p><p>Now it is has only been in the very recent past that a cautious word of warning has been taken up here and there, that the school was attempting too much. Nor was the school very anxious to listen to that word, because of the implication that its over-ambition was foreordaining it to failure in its narrower and more [464] legitimate sphere, collective educational activity in the nobler sense. In that narrower sphere the school has a special opportunity of aiding the home by inculcating the domestic virtues. "It should ever strive to foster reverence, love and obedience by religious instruction and respectful deference to parental authority." But how can it inculcate for the home it has despoiled? As long as the skeleton of the home even remained, the whole process is but lost motion, if the inculcation is not based on a mutual understanding with the home as to complementary duties of inculcation and practice. So it would seem that perhaps the school as well as the home, did not understand its task in the alliance. Its ambitions outran its abilities, and in its vanity it saw not that the failures of its ally were being imputed to itself.</p><p>Another point that must be kept in mind is that it took the work of character building with woefully unfit tools. Historically, character building is not the first connotation of school life as we know it. The pedagogue of ancient Greece, and the educator of pagan Rome were but slaves who accompanied the pupil to a place where he was expected to acquire nothing more than literacy. And to-day to the man in the street, school means an intellectual relationship between a teacher and an ignorant person for the imparting of knowledge and skills. The relation between an educator and his pupil is a much later derivative, and is founded on the realization of a power for good in the educator that comes only by implication and in virtue of his personal contacts. Originally children were sent to school to learn arbitrary but necessary skills, the three R's, and it was not till the advent of Christianity, and in proportion to its vigor that the fourth R, religion, gave proof that the school also was baptized, and learned its higher destiny from the Church. Hear the average educational theorist outside of the fold to-day, and his theme will still be the same as the old pagan idea, social efficiency, not for the sake of the individual but for society, and if he mentions character at all, it is only the lubricant in the social friction. From this it follows then, that education, as a quantity production job, is possible only in so far as it is an intellectual job; as soon as you attack the moral angle you must descend to the individual. It is the scholastic [465] parallel to the pulpit supplemented by the confessional, and the blackboard supplemented by drill pad.</p><p>Parallel to this is the point that as the character training idea has been added to the function of the school, extra curricular activity has risen in the estimation of those responsible for educational practice. The inference is easy that the imparting of information, as an educational function was not able to enlist the individual as an individual, so the school has ben forced to take the educand out of the classroom into the football field, the office of the school paper, or the school traffic squad to give him the opportunity for moral training, because there he could really act as an individual and develop his character. Of a piece with this fact is also the increased emphasis on individual attention and needs in the classroom exercises themselves; as their training value was better perceived, these subjects were more and more given over to the pupil and taken away from the teacher.</p><p>What we need then is a restatement of the real place of the school in this work of character building, and a more humble recognition of its limitations. The limitation is first due to the fact that the school is primarily intellectual. And this must be borne in mind in spite of the fact that the school, just as any other agency that gives men the opportunity of thought and conduct, gives opportunity for the exercise and development of character, but it does so incidentally. Even the parochial school is only a tool in the hands of the teaching Church, and must not try to claim credit for what grace and the Church are accomplishing.</p><p>As an arbitrary institution with intellectual ends it follows that Dewey's famous statement that the school is society is only partially true, and to add to the difficulty the child coming to school is only a limited social being, both his objectives and his vision being still very narrow. Consequently the school can fulfill only partially Charter's demand to "require practice with satisfaction", because as an arbitrary and specialized agency it stops short of "generalized practice". It can go part of the way with the pupil, but the time comes when it must stop and allow the youngster to go farther in the company of the other agencies [466] we have listed above. It can instruct and warn what is to be awaited of them, but it cannot be there when the crisis of actual conduct occurs. In fact, even in school the teacher is limited by its narrow arc; as Lommen says, it can "secure an inventory of the positive conduct qualities", but only a fraction of them will be given sustained and healthy exercise in the school atmosphere; it an "build up a positive program of activities", but can oversee their realization only in a small fraction of the total opportunities; it can fall back on "an intensive reading program", "but already we are trespassing on the vicarious", and are actually calling a non-school agency to take our charge in hand. This vicarious nature of the school is then the central weakness of the school's position in the entire process of character building. </p><p>On the other hand, the very formal character of school work is one of the factors for its power in the task. As an instructor, it gives man his moral vocabulary; it gives him an exact appreciation of moral worth and its gradations; it holds up to his gaze the great successes in moral development in the heroes of religion and history; it defines the canons of good conduct and sharpens his conscience for their better evaluation and supplies the motives for their prompt appearance in action at the fitting moment. It furnishes in this way the fundamental attitudes towards "such acts as spring from habits of diligence, frugality, economy, simplicity, contentment, punctuality, order, cleanliness and loyalty to the family circle". (Msgr. Oechtering, 1919) To these it adds very clear ideals as part of the mental equipment that will insure such action.</p><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;">"The ideals fostered by Catholic Education", says the Hon. Pierce Butler in St. Paul in 1915, "elevate the importance of the individual, develop consciousness of the duty and the power of choice between right and wrong. Character, that is, morality based on religion, must be maintained and strengthened from generation to generation, respect for authority of government and for the teachings of religion, subordination of self in the interests of fellow men and loyalty to the laws, traditions and ideals of our country must continue to be inculcated as to become part of the life of every rising generation".</p></blockquote><p>In second place, we must fashion a clearer idea of just what the school must put together as the constituents of the ideal character. [467] This has so far not been done, neither for nor by the school, nor has the next step, the careful grading of what is possible and desirable of the child both in his age relations, in his classroom relations and the out-of-school contacts. We can see the hodge-podge of alleged virtues and socially desirable qualities from a random selection of almost any standard volume. Witmer, for instance, (<i>Psychological Clinic</i>, Oct. 1922, p. 129) speaks glibly of the "six universal categories of behavior", and names "attendance and promptness, general attitude, initiative, cooperation, self-improvement, esthetic appreciation and rating in other moral qualities". Note this last pair in particular, and then try to follow the mental process by which the entire list is lumped as "citizenship qualities" under deportment, and required as a school mark on his ideal report card. Touton and Struthers, in <i>Junior High School Procedure</i> list as objectives of the guidance program a list which defies rational unity, namely, common sense, imagination, information, initiative, planning, reasoning, thoroughness, ambition, cheerfulness, helpfulness, honesty, industry, perseverance, self-control, self-reliance, loyalty, reliability, etc. Charters himself took a fling at the game (<i>Journal of Education</i>, May 29, 1924, p. 607) with a small list of cleanliness, leadership, democracy, honor, and independence.</p><p>But why continue? The one characteristic is vagueness of definition, and the lack of a reference back to a central controlling factor, what we theologians would term a cardinal or principal virtue. As a consequence, the parochial school, leaning on the infallible authority of the Church, ought to be able to blaze a clear trail here, and I understand that a beginning has already been made.</p><p>There is however still another angle to this question. After the list is made, it must be rearranged to meet the mental development of the child and his opportunities for practice as well as of appreciation. Patriotism, for instance, for him can be little more than a laying of foundations for his later life, and a building out of indefinite ideals, which can come to definiteness and fruition only as circumstances dictate, as when he has assumed the responsibilities of cheerful tax-paying, of choosing between two [468] dubious candidates for office, and of giving equal attention to the Volstead Act and the traffic laws, and of the other homely virtues that are being disguised as patriotism in our civic texts. A beginning has also been made in this. Parker, for instance (<i>Types of Elementary Teaching and Learning</i>, p [sic] 502) to mention only one, clearly indicates that some civic-moral training may be through actual behavior, and some that can be only through discussion. Coupled with a frank religious tie-up, such as is possible in our parochial schools, results based on an understanding of the limitations of school procedure ought to be genuine, granted a real teacher. Outside our own system, the real difficulty has always been, to make religious instruction an integral part of the subject-matter, a blessing we do not always advert to. The lack of a dogmatic foundation and an adamant sanction can have no substitutes, for "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". (Ps. 112)</p><p>In conclusion then, it would seem that with home and school separated there is not hope for final success, between them they ought to dominate the field, if not in time at least in effectiveness. But they must be a unit, in their outlook, in their cooperation, and in a candid acknowledgment of the forces that are allied against them, because the mathematical factors make them a minority. The exact mathematical proportions cannot be given in decimals, of course, probably never will be, for it is in another guise the old problem of heredity and environment. The final results between home and school on the one side and the non-school agencies on the other, are a problem of the sum result of concomitant factors. Suffice it to say then, that ,granted the best possible contribution by the school, the number of exponents of the highest type of character must increase, because the average is affected by the individual items, and the school as the <i>ex professo</i> determiner of the knowledge element of character composition and development can give us the truth regarding virtue, and the "truth shall make you free" to exemplify it and realize it in life and in action.</p><p>[469] Bibliography</p><p><i>School and Society</i>, May 9, '25, p. 543: School not the cause of the Present Immorality.</p><p><i>School and Society</i>, June 13, '25, p. 695: Importance of Attention to Character Development in Pre-School Children.</p><p><i>Educational Review</i>, Nov. '26, p. 180: Faults of Children are Due to their parents.</p><p><i>Mental Hygiene</i>, Oct. '26, p. 735: Effect of Home Environment on Children's Conduct.</p><p><i>School Review</i>, Oct. '26, p. 594: Data on Extent to which Vocational Schools Prepare for Vocations.</p><p><i>Religious Education</i>, Feb. '27, p. 148: Correlating Church and Home.</p><p><i>Religious Education</i>, p. 176: Defects of Character Education in the Public Schools.</p><p><i>Religious Education</i>, May. '27, p. 477: Religious Education and Catholic Schools.</p><p><i>Journal of Educational Method</i>, Mar. '27, p. 291: Educating for Desirable Attitudes in Conduct (Lommen).</p><p>Bird T. Baldwin: <i>The Pre-School Child</i>. Riverside Press.</p><p>Baldwin and Wallace: <i>The Nursery School</i>. Ibid.</p><p><i>Elementary School Journal</i>, Dec. '24, p. 264; [sic] Two Factors in the Teaching of Ideals. (W. W. Charters)</p><p>W. W. Charters: <i>The Teaching of Ideals.</i></p><p></p><p>---</p><p>Source: Francis J. Bredestege, "Relative Position of the School and the Other Agencies Affecting Character Development," <i>National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin </i>26, no. 1 (Nov. 1929): 455–469.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7624758989511404685.post-60314731994191147932021-08-25T12:06:00.002-07:002021-08-25T12:06:32.892-07:00William Lawlor, "The School in Society" (1929)<p>[450] The services of financial experts need not be requisitioned to have us realize that society has spent fabulous sums in an honest effort to educate her citizens. In her endeavors to provide suitably for the physical, mental, aesthetic and moral wants of youth she erects and maintains at tremendous expense, schools not only for normal children but for the sub-normal and the abnormal ones—the physically handicapped: the blind, the deaf, the under-nourished, the mal-nourished, the crippled and the speech defectives. It is interesting to recall that many hundreds of years ago Plato, in his famous work, <i>The Republic</i>, wrote: "It is by education that ideal society once established is to be maintained"—a sentiment practically re-echoed by H. G. Wells' recent declaration that, "Education is the one instrument by which civilization can forestall catastrophe". Modern society feels strongly that her preservation and advancement will be effectively accomplished if the schools will but succeed in inculcating in their human charges not only a vivid appreciation of society's needs but also the definite realization of the obligation which rests upon adolescents of appropriately equipping themselves to the end that these needs may be adequately fulfilled. There is nothing new in this philosophy. Man has ever tried to adapt himself to the problems arising out [451] of the peculiar circumstances of his environment. The difficulty, however, is and always has been to determine precisely what it is that constitutes society's <i>greatest needs</i>. The varied conclusions which have been arrived at on this point by the peoples of all nations and through all ages have been the direct resultants of the diversified ideas and ideals which peoples have entertained concerning life's values. Primitive man acutely feeling the need of self-preservation concerned himself primarily with securing food and personal protection. His training was simple and individualistic. To the Spartan military prowess was supreme—hence Spartan boys were trained solely for the state. The Athenian held that culture and beauty were the great <i>desiderata</i> of life; and he educated his progeny accordingly. The epicurean with his hedonic [sic] notions of things and the stoic clinging to an entirely different philosophy sought, each in his own way, to accomplish his pet objectives. Were you to-day to ask a mechanic, a merchant, a professional man and a scholar to indicate present society's greatest needs, each being dominated by his personal appreciation of life's real meaning would undoubtedly proffer an answer quite at variance with those submitted by other members of the group. Secular educators to-day, however, appear to be in perfect agreement that man's greatest need is "social adaptation". In up-to-the-minute educational books and periodicals, the much used expressions: "Trained for social efficiency", "Educate children for social service", "Education seeks the harmonious adjustment between the individual and society", "Socialize the individual", plainly show that present-day school leaders believe that the chief objective in the educative process is the felicitous adjustment of man to his social environment. Irving E. Miller in his book, <i>Education for the Needs of Life</i>, very categorically states that: "It is the function of education to assist pupils in the attainment of right judgment, appreciation and control of social values".</p><p>As Catholics we cannot but disagree with the dictum that social functioning is the chief purpose of the educative process. Though in no sense underestimating the important part which social values play in the scheme of things human, nevertheless, [452] we know that man's greatest need in life is that which vitally concerns his immortal soul, namely, the attainment of eternal salvation. For this was man created; for this was he redeemed. Now it is the duty of the Church, and especially through the instrumentality of her Catholic school to assist the human soul, in every way possible, to realize its destiny. It is well to note, however, that this soul-saving educative scheme of ours very specifically embraces other objectives—social, cultural and vocational. In training a child to love God and his neighbor, to be honest, chaste, and obedient to lawfully constituted authority, we feel that we are contributing to society a service than which there is no greater. Realizing that "Knowledge is power", we aim to impart solid intellectuality, not by attempting to stock youthful minds with a host of cold and unrelated facts, but by presenting to children a well-organized curriculum of fundamental subjects on which alone it is possible to erect the superstructure of genuine culture. Our educational intent, vocationally, is not to fit pupils for specific trades or professions, but rather to awaken an appreciation for vocational activities and to train children so that they may be prepared to make speedy and efficacious adjustment to whatever occupation they may choose to make their lifework. Our general method of approach to the maintaining of pupil discipline in the classroom is along traditionally rigid and straight-laced lines.</p><p>But a world preponderatingly [sic] non-Catholic cares little about our educational philosophy and still less about our pedagogical methods of exemplifying it. Being in no way constrained to concern themselves with professedly moral or spiritual considerations in their teaching work, secular educators distinctly visualize the existence of an ever-increasing materially-minded civilization and simply do what they can to meet its urgent demands. Nor is it an easy task which besets them. We live in a country as plastic as it is mobile. New factors are constantly arising and functioning, while old ones recede, disintegrate or disappear. Nothing has contributed so much to the growing complexities of our social order as has industrialism. The home, at one time, was the industrial center. When machine power was introduced, however, the industrial center shifted from the home to small mills. Nor [453] has power machinery confined itself to the factory—it has found its way into practically every avenue of business, and is accomplishing with marvelous accuracy the work of brawn and brain alike. Increased land, sea and air facilities of transportation became necessary to handle the ever expanding volume of machine products, and almost over night, have these agencies sprung into being. By reason of these available means of quick communication peoples from all quarters of the globe have been brought into close relationship with one another; and a higher standard of living has made what was considered a luxury yesterday a necessity to-day. To keep abreast with such dynamic conditions, Kilpatrick, in his <i>Education for a Changing Civilization</i> makes a strong plea for such an educational policy as will correct what he terms "The intellectual-moral lag behind material advance". And the school, he maintains, must grapple with the problem alone; because the home and the community have ceased to be contributing elements. In other words we are told that the only possible solution of this vexing problem is to work on the principle that "the school <i>is</i> life and not a <i>preparation</i> for it. And as such it is our solemn duty to have children live actual life experiences in the process of which there will be formed habits, attitudes and skills which are essential to adult life in a forward looking nation." To this end there is recommended a rather flexible curriculum; and it is almost needless to say, that ardent advocates of some phase or other of the "life experience" idea have succeeded in somewhat crowding, if not confusing the scholastic program. Subjects formerly regarded as ideal for sharpening the intellect and the memory are often taboo now—the argument being that mere faculty training gained in one subject too frequently is incapable of being carried over into other fields or experiences. The watchword of the moment, therefore, is "nothing in the curriculum that holds forth no actual life value". Pupil passivity, as it is commonly referred to, is no longer in good form. Seething activity on the part of school children is the thing that is now called for. The newer notions of things educational demand that pupils walk about, talk, whisper, etc.—the inference being that [454] when children are noisy they are profitably busy, and that when they are huddled together in whispered conversation they are <i>de facto</i> discussing vital subjects. Perhaps they are. The teacher, on the other hand, is supposed to play a far less conspicuous part in classroom affairs than was her wont in times gone by. The children are not expected to take her "say so", nor for that matter, any one else's; they are to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions. The suggestion sounds well enough but the plan is not without its difficulties especially when we consider that adolescent minds are involved. Kilpatrick says that authoritarianism or the practice of yielding submission to traditional authority, has been steadily on the wane, and that consequently, educational changes are positively demanded. It is recommended that pupils govern themselves without the aid of magisterial direction. But is there not danger that this business of self-activity and self-efficiency may produce self-centered creatures—children feeling that they are a law unto themselves—and thus defeat the purpose of our experiment to socialize the individual? To sum up then, let it be stated that there is and always will be honest differences of opinion as to the best manner in which schools may discharge their obligations to society. That there is room for improvement in present policies and management of schools nobody with even a slight acquaintanceship with the matter will attempt to deny. Of course, we Catholics, if for no other reasons than financial ones, are absolutely constrained from adopting educational practices which the State may deem expedient to put into use. But what about other things which, to many, may appear to be merely matters more or less fantastic? How far can we or should we go with them? Perhaps a middle course would be best to follow.</p><p><br /></p><p>---</p><p>Source: William F. Lawlor, "The School in Society," <i>National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin</i> 26, no. 1 (Nov. 1929): 450–454.</p>Frankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09096337840671446735noreply@blogger.com0