Showing posts with label society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label society. Show all posts

Thursday, September 16, 2021

Sr. Mary Ruth, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College in Relation to the Problems of Modern Life" (1916)

 [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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Education for the Home:

"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]

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.

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.

"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 The Education of Our Girls.[3] 

 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?

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, The Human Machine, 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.

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.

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 êlite [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 rapprochement 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.

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.

DISCUSSION

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.

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?

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?

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.

It is the ultimate business of the Catholic college to educate women out of their restlessness back again into the home.

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.

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?

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, can they, but ought they? 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 raison d'etre ceases then and there.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 ---

Footnotes:

1. U. S. Bureau of Education, Bulletin 1914, No. 36, p. 20

2. Educational Writings, edited by J. A. Green, Views and Experiences, p. 162

3. P. 280.

4. Report of the Com. of Education 1916, p. 447

5. Op. cit. p. 7

6. "The Future Education of Women," The Youth's Companion, May 31, 1917

7. Democracy and Social Ethics, p. 83

8. School and Society, "On Radicalism in Education," May 5, 1917, p. 524

9. Cf. Syllabus of Home Economics, 1913

10. The Education of Our Girls, p. 210-21

---

Source: Sister Mary Ruth, OSD, "The Curriculum of the Catholic Woman's College in Relation to the Problems of Modern Life," Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 14, no. 1 (Nov. 1917): 106–127.

Thursday, November 7, 2019

A Reply Regarding the Vatican Standard of Modesty of September 24, 1928

There was a well-intentioned reply to my re-posting of a 1958 article that criticizes and calls into question the existence of the so-called Vatican Standard of modesty, published in a letter from the Sacred Congregation of Religious, dated September 24, 1928. This reply, hoping to prove the existence of the Vatican Standard by referring to reliable sources, unfortunately further demonstrated the problem that exists among Traditional Catholics when it comes to the Vatican Standard, namely, they don't actually provide a credible, on-hand source. They simply quote each other or books that they themselves have published, which quote each other. This ends up being a giant circle that goes no where.

So, do we have reason to despair that the Vatican Standard actually ever existed? No, because we have a reliable source that suggests the existence and provides the substantial content of that Vatican Standard. It is found in a Q&A of the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, volume 30, nos. 1-6, pp. 171-173, entitled "Immodest Women's Dress," which article I have republished in its full text here: https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-immodest-womens-dress.html

In my reply, I note that the fool-proof way to discover the existence of the Vatican Standard is if someone can find and provide either of the following:
1. Its Latin or Italian original has to be found. 
2. The October 1928 issue of Osservatore Romano must be found where the statement is quoted in Italian.
Since I don't have the time to hunt either down, I invite anyone with the means to please do so for the benefit of all Catholics of good will.

Anyway, below is the comment on my post as well as my reply.

---

Comment (http://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-modesty-in-dress-june-1958.html?showComment=1536709580628#c8522873001587796019)

"Of those girls committed to a policy of modesty in dress, how many perhaps have been won to the cause precisely through the effectiveness of mathematical criteria?"

> Precisely this "mathematical criteria" won me to the cause of dressing with modesty (which is a necessary help to promote that other aspect of modesty, modesty in behavior).

Without specific standards (or mathematical criteria per say), nothing can be followed or enforced. Parish priests in attempting to address immodesty have no way of showing a woman the error of her mode of dress. Parents experience the same issue when they try to teach their children to dress modestly. For example, how can the letter you referenced from the, “Congregation of Religious (Aug. 23, 1928) to teaching sisters in Rome," be enforced without any guideline to define "immodest dress"?

This 1928 letter is referenced in a second letter on the same topic titled: Letter of the Congregation of the Council, Vigilance: To Treat of Modesty in Women's Dress. This 1930 letter can be found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1930, Vol. 22, pp. 26-28 (see links below). (1)

Next I would like to clarify a misunderstanding regarding this statement:
"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 materials are improper..."
You are correct; this was not issued by Donato, Cardinal Sbaretti, Pref. of the Congregation of the Council. (The document Cardinal Sbaretti issued was the 1930 letter.) This does not mean though, that the statement is fabricated. It is, in fact, an authentic statement issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pompilj, on 24 September 1928. I have provided links below to support its authenticity. (2)

Two of these links also mention that the authenticity of the statement is further supported by Rufino J. Cardinal Santos, Archbishop of Manila (a),(c). Cardinal Santos quoted these standards as, “‘The Church’s stand concerning modesty in dress’ in his Pastoral of December 6, 1959. He attributes them to Pope Pius XI Himself, and gives the exact date of issuance, September 24, 1928.” (c)

(1) Find the Letter of the Congregation of the Council, Vigilance: To Treat of Modesty in Women's Dress in Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1930, Vol. 22, pp. 26-28 at:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-22-1930-ocr.pdf
Translation: https://saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity%20-%20Letter%20of%20the%20Congregation%20of%20the%20Council.html

(2) Links supporting the authenticity of statement issued by the Cardinal-Vicar of Pope Pius XI, Cardinal Pompilj, on 24 September 1928:
(a)https://catholic-modesty.com/the-modesty-guidelines-of-the-catholic-church/
(b)http://cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html
(c)https://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html
(d)http://sicutincaelo.org/downloads/TWSG_Read.pdf (pp. 13)

---

My reply:

Part 1 (http://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-modesty-in-dress-june-1958.html?showComment=1536774720394#c7619766449871230137)

1. God bless you for dressing modestly and with dignity in this darkening age!

2. The article you were responding to were not my own words but a reprint of an article (see the citation at the bottom of the original post).

3. There are a number of unresolved problems with the August 23, 1928 letter.

a) The only English translation available online is attributed to the late Fr. John Rubba, OP, and seems to trace back to a certain issue of the Marylike Crusader publication, which does not seem to be available online.

b) Fr. Rubba claimed that his translation came from the Commentarium pro Religiosis (vol. 9, 1928, pp. 414-415). This volume has not been scanned online, and I don't currently have access to it, and hence no one actually knows what the original Latin says.

c) Assuming that the reporting and translation of the Aug. 23 letter is accurate, this letter mentions nothing of the Vatican Standards that Pius XI supposedly issued on Sept. 24, 1928, because the letter obviously predates September. There is nothing in this August 23 letter of what later theologians would call "mathematical standards of modesty" but simply general directives.

d) The reference to the August 23 letter in the January 1930 directive simply indicates the existence of such a letter but does not reveal its contents. Hence referring to the Jan. 1930 letter is no help for finding the August 23 letter.

4. The other links you provided supporting the authenticity of the September 24, 1928 statement do no such thing unfortunately.

All references to Cdl. Santos of Manila claim he cites the Vatican Standard in his pastoral letter of December 6, 1959, yet the original text of this letter is nowhere to be found, and even if we could find it, we don't know what source document Cdl. Santos was quoting from, if any. It would be worth pursuing the original document, but currently I don't have the time to.

Other references to the bishops of Quebec, specifically Cardinal Raymond-Marie Rouleau, are likewise problematic. For example, this website (https://pour-reflechir.blogspot.com/2017/03/limmodestie-des-toilettes-feminines-mgr.html) seems to have Cdl. Rouleau quoting the Vatican Standard, yet the citation given by the blog owner is an Italian quotation from a self-published text from 2016! So we have no idea 1) whether Cdl. Rouleau actually quoted the standard, and 2) what his source was.

A similar reference to the bishops of Quebec issuing a pastoral letter entitled "Purity Crusade" ("Croisade de Purete" in the original French) claims that this letter includes the Vatican Standard. One of your own sources claims this (https://catholic-modesty.com/the-modesty-guidelines-of-the-catholic-church/). Yet when one looks at the original French document (pp. 239-240, https://ia800308.us.archive.org/19/items/mandementslettre17glis/mandementslettre17glis.pdf), these standards are nowhere to be found. Further, a so-called "Decree 102" of the Synod of Bishops from 1940 is also not in this letter, nor does this letter quote Cdl. Rouleau's pastoral of December 8, 1930.

In fact, this website you linked to (https://catholic-modesty.com/the-modesty-guidelines-of-the-catholic-church/) does not make any sense in its references to the Quebec bishops. It seems to say the joint pastoral letter "Purity Crusade" (1946) quotes the decree of 1940, which the website gives as its source Cdl. Rouleau's 1930 pastoral letter! Is it possible that everyone has missed the time travel necessary for this to work?

---

Part 2 (http://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/08/repost-modesty-in-dress-june-1958.html?showComment=1536774743628#c3749831196629159323)

5. Your second source (http://cora.dashjr.org/trad/modesty.html) is likewise unhelpful because it is a reprinting of the Marylike Modesty Handbook. Fr. Kunkel claims there that his source was the October 1928 issue of Osservatore Romano, sent to him by a Father Jesus M. Cavanna, CM. This October issue cannot be found online; hence we don't have the original citation. It would validate Fr. Kunkel's source however!

This second source of yours also repeats the copy-and-pasted claims about Cdl. Santos, but again, if the original pastoral of Cdl. Santos is not available, we have no means of actually seeing the original contents. And as we have seen numerous times, these various pastoral letters have been very inaccurately reported by well-intended traditional Catholics.

6. The third source you give (https://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html) is further unhelpful. It simply copies what is found elsewhere about Fr. Rubba, Cdl. Santos, etc. These are all dead ends without the original letters and original sources.

7. Your last source (http://sicutincaelo.org/downloads/TWSG_Read.pdf) quotes a book "Immodest Dress: The Mind of the Church," by Louise Martin (found here http://www.catholictradition.org/Children/immodest-dress.htm). Once again, this book simply repeats all the same claims about Cdl. Santos, the bishops of Quebec (Martin's book adds a further claim that Bishop Douville of Quebec quotes the standards in his pastoral letter of July 22, 1944, yet gives no source citation for this claim).

Martin's book simply quotes from Fr. Kunkel's Marylike Handbook.

8. Hence we get to the crux of the problem: all of these websites and books are quoting from each other the same so-called proof of the authenticity of this elusive September 24 statement. They all exist in a giant echo chamber, and none provide the original source documents to back their claims.

As far as I can tell, there are basically two ways to prove absolutely the existence and content of this letter:

1. Its Latin or Italian original has to be found.

2. The October 1928 issue of Osservatore Romano must be found where the statement is quoted in Italian.

All of these other claims of authenticity referring to bishops living back in the 1930s and '40s are dead ends because none of their pastoral letters are available to us, and those that are available say nothing close to what the promoters of the Vatican Standard say they do, which only further harms their credibility.

9. To close, however, I have found another source, not mentioned by any of these other websites and booklets, that I believe gives us a reasonable certitude of the authenticity of the September 24, 1928 statement. It is found in an article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review, vol. 30, no. 1-6, November 1930, pp. 171-173, in which a question is submitted quoting the exact Vatican Standards and attributing them to the statement of Sept. 24. The responder in the HPR journal in no way disputes the authenticity of the quotation and even affirms its existence, writing, "The words of the Sacred Congregation of Religious quoted by our correspondent are very helpful to the priests and Catholic educators inasmuch as they express the mind of the Holy See on the subject of immodesty in women's dress." (source: https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-immodest-womens-dress.html)

I believe, aside from direct proof of the Sept. 24 statement itself, this is the best evidence we have of the existence and authenticity of the Vatican Standards. Since all the other references to Cdl. Santos, Fr. Rubba, the Canadian bishops, Cdl. Mundelein, are so far removed from our access and all seem to simply copy and paste each other, I do not refer to them at all as reliable. However, an article posted in a reputable theological journal only two years after the original statement was issued is very good for establishing its credibility!

I hope this helps. God bless you.

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Speaking Out Against the Little Things

There is a valid point to the following:

---

When I hear SSPX parishioners say such statements [...] as "The SSPX will be the salvation of the Church", "The SSPX will restore the Church", etc. I say to them "No it will not, because if the SSPX Priests are afraid to tell a 16 year old girl that she should not come to Mass wearing that short skirt and tight top, then what makes you think they will be brave enough to condemn heretical and homosexual bishops to their face?" Or, in other words "If the SSPX cannot convert their own "Traditional Catholic" parishioners and students from living a worldly and lukewarm life, then how will they convert those in the Novus Ordo?"

Source: https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/sspx-trad-culture-is-near-dead/msg670573/#msg670573

Saturday, July 6, 2019

John Ruskin on Taste and Morality

The following is a wonderful application of the Aristotelian-Thomistic notion of virtue to culture and taste: a truly virtuous man takes delight in doing the good. A sign of his lingering viciousness is if he still finds it distasteful to do the good. And St. Thomas further suggests that art disposes us either to good or evil by how it affects us.

---

Now, pardon me for telling you frankly, you cannot have good architecture merely by asking people’s advice on occasion. All good architecture is the expression of national life and character; and it is produced by a prevalent and eager national taste, or desire for beauty. And I want you to think a little of the deep significance of this word ‘taste;’ for no statement of mine has been more earnestly or oftener controverted than that good taste is essentially a moral quality. ‘No,’ say many of my antagonists, ‘taste is one thing, morality is another. Tell us what is pretty; we shall be glad to know that; but preach no sermons to us.’

Permit me, therefore, to fortify this old dogma of mine somewhat. Taste is not only a part and an index of morality — it is the only morality. The first, and last, and closest trial question to any living creature is, ‘What do you like?’ Tell me what you like, and I’ll tell you what you are. Go out into the street, and ask the first man or woman you meet, what their ‘taste’ is, and if they answer candidly, you know them, body and soul. ‘You, my friend in the rags, with the unsteady gait, what do you like?’ ‘A pipe and a quartern of gin.’ I know you. ‘You, good woman, with the quick step and tidy bonnet, what do you like?’ ‘A swept hearth and a clean tea-table, and my husband opposite me, and a baby at my breast.’ Good, I know you also. ‘You, little girl with the golden hair and the soft eyes, what do you like?’ ‘My canary, and a run among the wood hyacinths.’ ‘You, little boy with the dirty hands and the low forehead, what do you like?’ ‘A shy at the sparrows, and a game at pitch-farthing.’ Good; we know them all now. What more need we ask?

‘Nay,’ perhaps you answer: ‘we need rather to ask what these people and children do, than what they like. If they do right, it is no matter that they like what is wrong; and if they do wrong, it is no matter that they like what is right. Doing is the great thing; and it does not matter that the man likes drinking, so that he does not drink; nor that the little girl likes to be kind to her canary, if she will not learn her lessons; nor that the little boy likes throwing stones at the sparrows, if he goes to the Sunday school.’ Indeed, for a short time, and in a provisional sense, this is true. For if, resolutely, people do what is right, in time they come to like doing it. But they only are in a right moral state when they have come to like doing it; and as long as they don’t like it, they are still in a vicious state. The man is not in health of body who is always thirsting for the bottle in the cupboard, though he bravely bears his thirst; but the man who heartily enjoys water in the morning and wine in the evening, each in its proper quantity and time. And the entire object of true education is to make people not merely do the right things, but enjoy the right things — not merely industrious, but to love industry — not merely learned, but to love knowledge — not merely pure, but to love purity — not merely just, but to hunger and thirst after justice.

But you may answer or think, ‘Is the liking for outside ornaments, — for pictures, or statues, or furniture, or architecture, — a moral quality?’ Yes, most surely, if a rightly set liking. Taste for any pictures or statues is not a moral quality, but taste for good ones is. Only here again we have to define the word ‘good.’ I don’t mean by ‘good,’ clever — or learned — or difficult in the doing. Take a picture by Teniers, of sots quarrelling over their dice: it is an entirely clever picture; so clever that nothing in its kind has ever been done equal to it; but it is also an entirely base and evil picture. It is an expression of delight in the prolonged contemplation of a vile thing, and delight in that is an ‘unmannered,’ or ‘immoral’ quality. It is ‘bad taste’ in the profoundest sense — it is the taste of the devils. On the other hand, a picture of Titian’s, or a Greek statue, or a Greek coin, or a Turner landscape, expresses delight in the perpetual contemplation of a good and perfect thing. That is an entirely moral quality — it is the taste of the angels. And all delight in art, and all love of it, resolve themselves into simple love of that which deserves love. That deserving is the quality which we call ‘loveliness’ — (we ought to have an opposite word, hateliness, to be said of the things which deserve to be hated); and it is not an indifferent nor optional thing whether we love this or that; but it is just the vital function of all our being. What we like determines what we are, and is the sign of what we are; and to teach taste is inevitably to form character. As I was thinking over this, in walking up Fleet Street the other day, my eye caught the title of a book standing open in a bookseller’s window. It was — ‘On the necessity of the diffusion of taste among all classes.’ ‘Ah,’ I thought to myself, ‘my classifying friend, when you have diffused your taste, where will your classes be? The man who likes what you like, belongs to the same class with you, I think. Inevitably so. You may put him to other work if you choose; but, by the condition you have brought him into, he will dislike the other work as much as you would yourself. You get hold of a scavenger, or a costermonger, who enjoyed the Newgate Calendar for literature, and “Pop goes the Weasel” for music. You think you can make him like Dante and Beethoven? I wish you joy of your lessons; but if you do, you have made a gentleman of him:— he won’t like to go back to his costermongering.’

And so completely and unexceptionally is this so, that, if I had time to-night, I could show you that a nation cannot be affected by any vice, or weakness, without expressing it, legibly, and for ever, either in bad art, or by want of art; and that there is no national virtue, small or great, which is not manifestly expressed in all the art which circumstances enable the people possessing that virtue to produce.

---

Source: John Ruskin, "Traffic," in The Crown of Wild Olive. Found at https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/r/ruskin/john/crown/lecture2.html

---

James Spates's comment on the above passage when he was a professor:

On the not too distant past, I often read the Ruskin passage below to my students; after which, I passed out copies of it. I told them they could easily test out what he had in mind. They could go back to their dorm rooms and take a careful look at the posters, art, or pictures they had put on their walls and make a list of them. That done, they could make a second list: Of the music--titles of albums, songs, names of artists--they listened to regularly. Then they could make a third list: Of all the things they had posted on Facebook and Twitter during the past week. After that--always trying to get them to do a little sociology!--I suggested they might go and do the same sort of gazing at their friends' dorm room walls, asking those familiars to create similar lists of their own music favorites and social media "interactions," an request which, surely, these friends, being such, would be more than happy to oblige. (As it turned out, some of these folks weren't so eager to be friendly regarding such requests.) The last step was obvious: After thinking carefully about what was on their own walls and in their lists and comparing these with whatever friends' versions they had collected, they'd have a fairly accurate sense of what their, and these others', tastes were. I can honestly say that not a few of my young reporters reported being fairly appalled at what their taste appeared to be, appalled by what they found, or did not find, on the lists! (It might be useful to generate such lists ourselves.)

Source: http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/ruskin/spates5.html

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Warning of Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) at Notre Dame de Paris (1937)

Be vigilant! Yes, there are many who, like the apostles in Gethsemane the moment their Master was about to be arrested, seem to fall asleep in their blind unconsciousness, convinced that the threat hanging upon the world does not affect them, that they bear no responsibility and run no risk in the crisis in which the universe struggles in anguish. … How many remain deaf and inert to Christ’s warning to his own Apostles: Vigilate et orate ut non intretis in tentationem! … Be vigilant!

---

Source: Luiz Sérgio Solimeo, "ISIS and a Jesuit Priest Rejoice as Notre Dame Burns," The American TFP, April 23, 2019, https://www.tfp.org/isis-and-a-jesuit-priest-rejoice-as-notre-dame-burns/.

Leo XIII on When Christendom Existed

There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies.

---

Source: Leo XII, Encyclical Immortale Dei, Nov. 1, 1885, no. 21, http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_01111885_immortale-dei.html.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

Repost: Censorship of the "Movies" (1919)

[557] To the Editor, The Ecclesiastical Review.

The article "Pastors and Censorship of the Movies" by the Rev. Edward F. Garesché, S.J., appearing in the March issue of the Review is in my opinion very timely and deserves the undivided attention of all pastors of souls. It is true beyond any controversy, that many moving pictures are indecent and [558] atrocious and have a bad effect upon the morals of our Catholic people. I happen to be intimately connected with moving pictures, as I show them at least once a week in the parish hall. I also witness the weekly pre-release showing of pictures for the purpose of selecting films which I deem fit to be shown in my church hall and I assure you that it is often very difficult to select even one picture a week, from the company I am dealing with, that may be called wholesome and excellent entertainment for the general public. However, those that I consider good enough to be shown are not always relished. Indeed I have often heard it said, even by people of my own congregation, that they prefer stories that show the human side of life, that have more "pep" to them. It goes to show how depraved even now is the mind of the "movie fan". They can tell you all the stars in the pictures, and their expression of their predilection for Pauline Frederick, or Theda Bara, or of so many others who star in pictures that never get beyond the "Pink Permit" class of the censor, shows conclusively the state of their mind.

Here in Chicago any one who wishes to study moving pictures can readily observe that those theatres [sic] which have the sign "For adults only" over the ticket office, are best patronized.

It is true that boards of censorship exist in some states and in some cities, but those boards are very often lax in the performance of their duties. We have for instance at the present time "Mickey," a "movie" play advertised for nearly two years. We find in it a place where Mabel Normand appears entirely nude. Then, toward the end of the same film, during the attack that is made upon her, we see flashed upon the background of the room a picture suggestive of the act the villain wishes to perform. Still the Chicago censor has passed this film.

No matter how good and excellent a picture may be as a whole, one passage that arouses the sensual nature of man as above described, one flash that leaves an indelible mark for evil upon the mind of the onlooker, is sufficient to rob the whole picture of the right to be called good and wholesome. It will do untold harm to the souls of Catholic people and especially to the souls of our children.

[559] It is a sacred duty of pastors of souls to call the attention of their flock to the pernicious effect which 75 per cent of the pictures produced during the last year exercise upon the minds of the "movie fans". I admit with Fr. Garesché that it is very difficult for the priest to learn the true condition of the moving pictures. They have neither the time nor the inclination to do so for more than one reason. However it is their sacred duty as pastors of souls to raise their voices in solemn warning of the very grave dangers to which those are exposed who habitually attend these places.

Another proof that it is the intention of the producers to appeal to the sensual nature of man may be found in the titles given to newly produced pictures.[1] For example, "For Husbands only," "Old Wives for New," "Wild Youth," "The Eternal Temptress," "The White Man's Law," "The Make-Believe Wife," "The Mortgaged Wife," "The Marriage Price," "Modern Love."

The sole aim of the producer in giving to pictures these names is to attract the public, to make them believe that they will see something that is interesting and that appeals to their sensual nature.

I happen to read this morning in one of our daily papers that certain film companies had a meeting in New York to protest against state censorship, and had engaged a Mr. Hess as their lawyer to fight the attempt of any censor to make cuts in pictures they had produced. This same Mr. Hess immediately wrote to the governors of some states, Oklahoma, Kansas, and some others, that if censorship was not abolished or if the movement now on foot to introduce censorship was not stopped, his clients, the picture producers, would refuse to ship films into these states, and warned them that any suits that might be started by "movie" houses on account of not receiving service, would be brought against them as representing their respective states.

The film producer is using his immense wealth and his great power to defeat censorship. He has been fighting censorship ever since it was organized. Especially the trade papers contain [560] articles, letters, etc., to bring to the attention of the managers of theatres their duty to stand behind the producer in their attempt to abolish censorship.

As a sample of the film producer's idea on film censorship I quote a few passages of an article on this matter just now appearing in the March issue of a trade paper.
An official censor, empowered to say what the people shall see on the screen and what they shall not see, is an obstacle in the way of moral and intellectual progress, as well as a czar whose existence is a denial of democracy. Official censorship is bad in theory and worse in practice. 
The very idea upon which it is based denies the fundamental truth that real growth and development must be free, and experience gives abundant testimony to the fact that censorship is almost invariably characterized by stupidity, ignorance, and bigotry, and sometimes selfish interest.
Another trade paper for February has the following to say, regarding a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Associated Motion Picture Exhibitors of Brooklyn and Long Island, who met to protest against a bill introduced by Assemblyman William F. Brush of Orange County, New York, designed to create a State Motion Picture Censorship.
A resolution was unanimously adopted against the enactment of this bill into law and a committee of five was appointed for the purpose of opposing the proposed legislation. 
It was the consensus of opinion among the speakers present that this bill is the most iniquitous piece of legislation ever aimed at the motion picture industry since its inception.
The unscrupulous means which the film industry employs and the enormous amount of money spent by them to accomplish their task of defeating censorship are proof sufficient that censorship is necessary.

Another and more potent reason why censorship is absolutely necessary is found in the influence for evil which the moving pictures exercise upon children. Bad and immoral pictures imprint an indelible mark upon the minds of children, pervert their reasoning power, and serve them as guides in their own actions. Only last week a very interesting article appeared in one of Chicago's daily papers, which explains this statement fully. It proves at the same time without a shadow of [561] doubt how pernicious most of the moving pictures are, if they produce the effects mentioned in the statement I am going to quote. This article appeared under the heading: "Movies replace church as guide to children," and reads as follows:
The church has taken a back seat for the movies. Instead of it being the secondary influence on the welfare of children it has been relegated to the fourth class. The three important influences to-day are the home, the school, and the movies. 
This is the opinion of Professor Ernest W. Burgess, teacher of sociology at the University of Chicago, who yesterday reported to the Council Censorship Commission the results of observation made by 237 teachers of the fourth, sixth, eighth, and high-school grades of the effect movies have on children. 
He said of the 100,000 children tested, over 50 per cent were vitally affected by the motion picture. 
"Parents of to-day are confronted with a different child-welfare problem from that faced by our forefathers," said Professor Burgess. 
"The average child is more influenced by the movie than by the church and it is the parents' duty to see that children are kept from seeing harmful pictures." 
Twenty-three teachers reported that movies create irresponsible and selfish views among children. Other teachers found these effects: 
Belief that life is for excitement . . . . . . 14
False and distorted views . . . . . . 82
Unfits child for future duties . . . . . . 38
Adult and blasé views . . . . . . 13
Non-acquired views . . . . . . 11
Broadened views . . . . . . 10
Assists judgment . . . . . . 8
Belief in luck . . . . . . 8
Dissatisfaction . . . . . . 5
Prepares for future duties . . . . . . 2
Other bad effects . . . . . . 5
No reports . . . . . . 51
On the question of whether the movies cause a lack of respect for authority:
Yes . . . . . . 84
No . . . . . . 62
Yes, with reservation . . . . . . 55
Non-committal . . . . . . 14
No reports . . . . . . 18
Do the movies make the child precocious about sex life?
Yes . . . . . . 112
No . . . . . . 27
Yes, with reservation . . . . . . 39
Non-committal . . . . . . 35
No reports . . . . . . 20
[562]
Dr. Fred Z. Zapffee, reputed neurologist, advised that children be permitted to go to movies only once a week and that the show be not longer than one hour and a half. He said modern pictures cause children to become irritable, nervous, excitable, and that of the 500,000 who visit the movies weekly over 40 per cent visit the theatres at least three times a week. 
Chairman Timothy D. Hurley and the other members of the commission expressed surprise at the revelation. The commission is conducting an investigation into the censorship situation.
How can censorship be made strong, effective, and at the same time universal? One used to see an official stamp at the end of all pictures, saying, "Approved by the National Board of Censorship". If this organization could be composed of men who were imbued with a true sense of their great responsibility, with the knowledge of the seriousness of this all-important position, and with moral courage to exercise the power entrusted to them, then and only then could it bring results that are demanded for the sound morality of the general public. In the past this national censorship has apparently had neither the courage nor the vision to realize their great responsibility to eliminate passages, pictures, and subtitles that are destructive of the morality of men. "By their works you shall know them."

In my opinion an effective national board of censorship is the only means of successfully counteracting the evil of bad and immoral pictures, and of cutting out those passages that are apt to rouse the movie fan unto sin. It seems to me that no priest as an individual could make any successful effort to combat this great evil.

Only by the concerted action of persons in authority, only by the full and hearty coöperation [sic] of Archbishops and Bishops who would sign their names to a resolution empowering a committee of three or four to approach the right tribunal to demand safeguards for the morality of men, women, and children, can adequate censorship be obtained, a censorship that would be universal and vested with authority extending over all the pictures produced.

A national censorship of from six to twelve persons, representatives of all denominations and classes who have the moral welfare of the community at heart, and who would be clothed [563] with absolute power to reject any objectionable film, or objectionable features in a film, would in my mind be the happy solution of this vexed problem.

Priests, ministers, and professional men working together on this board to eliminate or at least to minimize the danger of corruption of morals of old and young, would be the ideal way. There would then be no necessity for a state or city censorship.

I admit with Father Garesché that the subject is an extremely disagreeable one. But I am also convinced that silence is no longer golden, and that something must be done soon to check the evil influences of the film industries. Surely someone could start the ball rolling.

I have made a suggestion. Someone else may probably make a better one, until we come to the modus agendi that would seem certain of success.

Chicagiensis.

Footnotes:

1. These titles are taken at random from pictures produced during the last three months.

---

Source: Chicagiensis, "Censorship of the 'Movies'," The Ecclesiastical Review 60 (May 1919): 557–563.

Repost: Pastors and the Censorship of the "Movies" (1919)

[256] Not long ago, in one of our large cities, the Secretary of one of the Boards of Censors of Moving Pictures gave an address on the atrocious evils of this business and the great need of censorship to keep the movies from corrupting the public, and especially ruining the imaginations and the minds of children. There were present a number of the clergy, and when the lecturer illustrated his remarks by sections taken from some of the condemned films, one of the witnesses avers that divers of the clergy were heard to groan audibly in their [257] horror at the realization of the lengths to which unscrupulous manufacturers of moving pictures were going in presenting the vulgar and the impure. Those groans, one thinks, are very significant. They show how little some of our zealous pastors realize the wholesale corruption which is going on in their very parishes, and they witness too that the appreciation of the evil would move our zealous pastors to try more energetically to remedy it.

So very atrocious and indecent are some of the moving pictures of to-day that one can scarcely write frankly of them for general publication. Even to describe vaguely the excesses of the screen would make unfit reading for the general public. Indeed it is a subject on which one had rather be silent altogether. But fancy what the reality must be if the account itself is so distressing. And these vile pictures are being offered for the daily delectation of that public, including our own people and the innocent children, day after day on 17,000 screens.

The subject is a particularly urgent one just at this present time, and requires all the vigilance and zeal of the clergy to prevent permanent injury to the souls intrusted [sic] to our care. The only secure remedy for the abuses of the moving pictures is censorship. A movement is on foot to establish this censorship. It is important that pastors' intimately concerned to know the gravity of the situation, be prepared, when the time comes in their locality, either themselves to initiate agitation for censorship, or to support such a movement when it is set afoot by others.

Effective boards of censorship exist at the present time in Pennsylvania, Ohio, the city of Chicago, and perhaps in a few other places. Altogether, about eleven per cent of the population of the United States is protected in this way. All the rest of the country depends for its protection either upon the activities of local organizations or on the sometimes precarious diligence of the police.

Where competent boards of censors exist, their activities seem both successful and satisfactory. So far as they go, they are really an answer to the problem of repressing the more obviously objectionable excesses of the movies. Their standards are sensible and competent, and their decisions given with [258] a great deal of moral courage when one considers the potent interests arrayed against them. The better element among the manufacturers of moving pictures are themselves in favor of the control of moving pictures, since they realize that the production and exhibition of bad films react unfavorably on their legitimate profits, and they are only anxious that the movement for censorship may take a turn that will give them as little trouble as possible, while at the same time it suppresses the unscrupulous. So that if public opinion can be generally aroused to the need, there seems to be no good reason why censorship may not be made so universal and so effective that the public may be protected from the more glaring abuses of the movies. As for the constructive side, the building-up of a movement for the use of the movies in all their varied possibilities of instruction, inspiration, and the propaganda of sound principles and sentiments, this is a problem by itself and one even more important than the subject of this present paper.

Censorship has then been sufficiently tried for one to be able to assert that it is a success and offers a solution of the negative part of the problem of the movies, the suppression of the worst films. As to the need of censorship, the reports and experiences of the censors themselves afford a wealth of authentic evidence. To begin with, let us quote briefly from the remarks of the Secretary of the Board of Censors of Pennsylvania, as given in a recent issue of The Queen's Work. This official, whose experience with the drama was very extensive before he was appointed to the Board of Censors of the State of Pennsylvania, declares that he was amazed when he began to censor the moving pictures. The flood of crude vulgarity depicted on the screen astonished even more than it disgusted him. He was appalled to see that the influence of the movies is actually toward the destruction of popular taste, the killing of the legitimate stage, and the implanting in the minds of the people a craving for sensationalism, cheapness, and degradation. He sums up in this way the result of three years' careful observation:

Seventy-five per cent of all the films which are now being made and shown have to deal with some topic connected with crime, violence, or villainy of one sort or another. Twenty [259] per cent of the films are what is called slapstick comedy, rough and vulgar burlesque, without any elevating note, and sometimes with very little reasonable entertainment. And five per cent of all the films that have come under observation are educational. Of course, not all the seventy-five per cent which deal with crime and violence are objectionable, because such themes, though sensational in themselves, may be turned to instructive or at least entertaining ends. But a great part of them are absolutely degrading in their influence on the spectators, especially on the immature and children.
The worst of the crime pictures [says the Doctor] is the serial. It is merely the old-time dime novel translated into pictures. It goes on from incident to episode for weeks and months, each installment trying to outdo the last in excitement and sensationalism, and every boy in the neighborhood howls with delight when he sees the announcement that the next episode will be exhibited in the local theatre [sic].
All the objections which were urged against the dime novel, intensified by the vividness of the screen, hold against the serial picture. The ordinary five-reel feature, on the other hand, is the old-time slushy, sentimental novel reduced to pictures, and it does its own harm, giving unreal views of life, fostering cheap sentiment and false ideals, and open to pretty much the same objections that were urged of old against the mushy novel which is its prototype.
But perhaps most deplorable of all is the moral teaching of the movies. Those who have observed the output of the films during the last few years can scarcely find words strong enough to condemn the atrocious license taken by irresponsible directors of moving pictures to portray the most harmful and unspeakable themes. A glance at the weekly report of the Pennsylvania Board, for example, will suffice to convince anyone of the dreadful need for supervision in this regard. This deplorable evil cries for a remedy and it is on the consciences of our pastors, mothers and fathers and of all decent people to see to it that the situation is radically remedied. 
All these details, however, will prove less convincing, in setting before our pastors the true state of the moving picture business, than some literal quotations from the documents of the boards of censors themselves. One must overcome a disgusted reluctance to speak of the vile details of indecency, vulgarity, and crime which enter into this business. But nothing else will give so convincing an object-lesson of the real condition of an amusement which is filling every night of the [260] year 17,000 moving-picture theatres in the United States, entertaining every day some twelve million people, and has got itself into the position of the greatest beyond measure of all organized forms of entertainment, the fifth largest of all commercial enterprises in the country, and in which is invested some five to six hundred million dollars. Quite a lot of material has come our way bearing on this unsavory subject, and we feel it a sort of duty to make it known in this way to priests in general.

To begin with, let us look over the standards which the Pennsylvania Board of Censors have formulated after their experience of four years, after examining perhaps seventy or eighty million feet of film which has come before their censors during the four years ending with April 1918. In 1918 the Board issued the following set of rules, entitled "Standards of the Board." They indicate the principles on which eliminations are made in films that are given permission to be shown in the State, or the standards according to which entire films will be refused such permission. The point to be made in this connexion [sic] is that these standards formulate pretty completely the chief objectionable features actually observed by the censors during their inspection of the current run of films, since if the abuses noted were not common they would not have come up for inclusion in the prohibitions issued by the Board.

Standards of the Board.
1. The Board will condemn pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with "white slavery". The procuration and prostitution in all forms, of girls, and their confinement for immoral purposes may not be shown upon the screen, and will be disapproved. Views of prostitutes and houses of ill-fame will be disapproved. 
2. Pictures, and parts of pictures, which deal with the seduction of women, particularly the betrayal of young girls, and assaults upon women, with immoral intent, will be disapproved. 
3. Pre-natal and childbed scenes, and subtitles describing them, will be disapproved. 
4. Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with the drug habit; e. g., the use of opium, morphine, cocaine, etc., will be disapproved. The traffic in habit-forming drugs is forbidden and visualized scenes of their use will be disapproved. 
[261] 5. Scenes showing the modus operandi of criminals which are suggestive and incite to evil action, such as murder, poisoning, house-breaking, safe-robbery, pocket-picking, the lighting and throwing of bombs, the use of ether, chloroform, etc., to render men and women unconscious, binding and gagging, will be disapproved. 
6. Gruesome and unduly distressing scenes will be disapproved. These include shooting, stabbing, profuse bleeding, prolonged views of men dying and of corpses, lashing and whipping, and other torture scenes, hangings, lynchings, electrocutions, surgical operations, and views of persons in delirium or insane. 
7. Studio and other scenes, in which the human form is shown in the nude, or the body is unduly exposed, will be disapproved. 
8. Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with abortion and malpractice, will be disapproved. These will include themes and incidents having to do with eugenics, "birth control", "race suicide" and similar subjects. 
9. Stories, or scenes holding up to ridicule and reproach races, classes, or other social groups, as well as the irreverent and sacrilegious treatment of religious bodies or other things held to be sacred, will be disapproved. The materialization of the figure of Christ may be disapproved. 
10. Pictures which deal with counterfeiting will be disapproved. 
11. Scenes showing men and women living together without marriage, and in adultery, will be disapproved. Discussion of the question of the consummation of marriage, in pictures, will be disapproved. 
12. The brutal treatment of children and of animals may lead to the disapproval of the theme, or of incidents in film stories. 
13. The use of profane and objectionable language in subtitles will be disapproved. 
14. Objectionable titles, as well as subtitles of pictures, will be disapproved. 
15. Views of incendiarism [sic], burning, wrecking and the destruction of property, which may put like action into the minds of those of evil instincts, or may degrade the morals of the young, will be disapproved. 
16. Gross and offensive drunkenness, especially if women have a part in the scenes, will be disapproved. 
17. Pictures which deal at length with gun play, and the use of knives, and are set in the underworld, will be disapproved. When the whole theme is crime, unrelieved by other scenes, the film will be disapproved. Prolonged fighting scenes will be shortened, and brutal fights will be wholly disapproved. 
[262] 18. Vulgarities of a gross kind, such as often appear in slapstick and other screen comedies, will be disapproved. Comedy which burlesques morgues, funerals, hospitals, insane asylums, the lying-in of women and houses of ill-fame, will be disapproved. 
19. Sensual kissing and love-making scenes, men and women in bed together and indelicate sexual situations, whether in comedies or pictures of other classes, will be disapproved. Bathing scenes which pass the limits of propriety, lewd and immodest dancing, the needless exhibition of women in their night dresses or underclothing, will be disapproved. 
20. Views of women smoking will not be disapproved as such, but when women are shown in suggestive positions or their manner of smoking is suggestive or degrading, such scenes will be disapproved. 
21. Pictures or parts of pictures which deal with venereal disease, of any kind, will be disapproved. 
22. That the theme or story of a picture is adapted from a publication, whether classical or not; or that portions of a picture follow paintings or other illustrations, is not a sufficient reason for the approval of a picture or portions of a picture. 
23. Themes or incidents in picture stories, which are designed to inflame the mind to improper adventures, or to establish false standards of conduct, coming under the foregoing classes, or of other kinds, will be disapproved. Pictures will be judged as a whole, with a view to their final total effect; those portraying evil in any form which may be easily remembered or emulated, will be disapproved. 
24. Banners, posters or other advertising matter, concerning motion pictures, must follow the rules laid down for the pictures themselves. That which may not be used upon the screen, must not be used to announce and direct public attention to the picture, in the lobby, on the street, or in any other form.
These standards present a résumé of the more common and flagrant indecencies and vulgarities of the screen. But it is from the weekly reports of the Board that one obtains the details of the sort of vileness, violence, and crime that is being poured into the imaginations of children and the impressionable at their nightly visits to the movies. Let me take some instances at random from recent reports. The Board of Censors issues every week a report giving the titles of films condemned entirely during the week and of the parts ordered cut out of films that were allowed to be shown after these eliminations had been made. A number of these recent reports lie before me, and from them I shall give some typical instances.

[263] It is very difficult for the priest to learn the true condition of the moving pictures. They have neither the time nor the inclination to go to the moving-picture theatres, and besides it would be imprudent to do so for more than one reason. On the other hand, the general remarks about the dangers and abuses of moving pictures that one hears are not convincing enough to stir one to action. But in the reports of the authorized censors one finds convincing details. The reliability of these reports may be judged from two considerations. One is that their findings, as given below, have been complied with by the manufacturers of the films and the exhibitors, who would have legal recourse if they were not accurate, and who have eliminated the objectionable features or have acquiesced with the order forbidden the exhibition of whole films anywhere in the State of Pennsylvania. The second is that this board maintains itself and enforces its findings in spite of the natural resistance and opposition that it meets from interested persons and corporations. Here then is material that is authentic and definite.[1]

Now for some of the detailed cut-outs ordered by the Board. I clip them at haphazard from the weekly sheets. The board takes cognizance of posters and sheets as well as of films. Here is a case in point:

"The Kaiser's Finish." A. Warner.

Sheet:—Condemned.
2—six sheet of the Crown Prince and other German officers and partly nude women in very vulgar attitudes of seduction. One of these women is lying upside down across a man's lap with her foot and bare limb extended high in air, while man drinks from her slipper. Caption underneath reads, "Underground Kultur—Professional Women from Berlin entertain German officers, whilst men die in the Trenches".
1—8x10 reproduction of condemned six sheets.
1—28x22 colored photographic reproduction of condemned six sheet.
[264]

Here are some of the eliminations ordered in this film—among many others.
R 6 A Elim. subtitle, "I train the women to amuse my officers by mixing them with the professionals. While the revelry is progressing I do my work. It is inspiring."
B Elim. subtitle reading in part, "For the women of Belgium we have a special purpose."
C Elim. subtitle reading in part, "We don't kill Belgium women. We keep them to entertain the officers", etc. 
R 7 A Elim. subtitle, "The first step to barbarity and degeneracy. The Dungeon of Lust", etc.
B Elim. all lewd and lustful scenes in dugout, including vulgar dancing and contortion and sensual kissing.
N Elim. all views and subtitles connected with the visit of the monarch to the home of the peasant woman, his assaulting her, arranging his dress, the incident of her father striking him and being killed. The idea is to remove all incidents connected with physician's story explaining Richard's birth.
Yet this film is marked (Reconstructed), which means that it was worse before, but has now been made over.

I merely cite the following as specimens of the reports of last year:

Inspiration. Mutual.
A. Throughout each and every eel eliminate each scene where models pose in the nude. This includes views of the models in the nude, whether posing or not, either full figure or only a portion of person exposed.
B. Elim. all subtitles relating to models posing in the nude.
C. The view of model posing for the caste is allowed, etc.
The Donkey Did It. L-Ko. State No. 31810.
R I A. Elim. view of woman pulling trousers off a preacher, while he is caught in the fork of tree.
B. Elim. view of woman holding up preacher's trousers.
C. Elim. all views of preacher running about without trousers.
D. Elim. . . . .
E. Elim. views of girls dancing around preacher in undergarments.
F. Elim. subtitle, "Where is your pants?"
[265]

The Struggle Everlasting. State No. 32765.
High Arts prod.—6 reels.
Condemned in accordance with Section 6 of act and nos. 1, 6, and 19 of the Rules and Standards. This picture deals with immorality, in that it portrays, etc.
Lost and Found. A-Kay Co.—1 reel. State No. 32811.
Condemned in accordance with section 6 of the Act. This story is irreverent, sacrilegious, and holds up to ridicule things that are sacred.
The Girl of To-day. Vitagraph.
R. I. A. Elim. memory of vision of girl after being ravished.
The list of censored films that is given in detail presents the most vulgar, indecent and sacrilegious collection of pictures that can be imagined.

It is to be remembered that all this disgusting vileness occurs as interludes in films, the remainder of which was allowed to be exhibited.

This is the sort of thing that is being shown without hindrance, save from local and occasional protests, throughout nearly nine-tenths of the land. It is exceedingly distasteful to read such degrading vileness. But the pastors of souls, reflecting that their own people and particularly the children of their congregations, are exposed to see such episodes vividly presented to their impressionable eyes and imaginations in the intense and absorbing interest of the moving-picture theatres almost any night that they go to the movies, will wish and work for the day when a sensible and universal censorship may keep at least these flagrant abuses from being inflicted on the general public.

All the indecencies and vilenesses [sic] here described were at least eliminated from the 1500 moving-picture houses of Pennsylvania by the effective vigilance of the Board of Censors there. The same result may be brought about in other places through similar laws similarly enforced. True, the subject is an extremely disagreeable one and it would be much pleasanter to remain silent concerning things so repulsive and disgraceful. But this evil closely concerns the souls of the people and especially of children. It is necessary for our pastors to be informed, and such an object-lesson as the above, disagreeable [266] though it e both to give and to take, is the most direct and efficacious means of bringing home to us all the acuteness of the situation. Once informed, one cannot doubt that the priests of the entire country will prepare to take effective action.

Edward F. Garesché, S.J.
St. Louis, Missouri.

Footnotes:

1. The editor should be moved to apologize for presenting any of these details in a respectable magazine, if it were not for the fact that they indicate what sort of scenes, with all their horrid vulgarities, are attracting young people everywhere—and children whose parents exercise no supervision.

---

Source: Edward F. Garesché, SJ, "Pastors and the Censorship of the 'Movies'," The Ecclesiastical Review 60 (March 1919): 256–266.