Showing posts with label Catholic culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic culture. 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.

Monday, December 7, 2020

The Disconnect Between Catholic Academics and Daily Living

One of my personal complaints against Catholic philosophy and theology for the past 100 years or so has been its increasingly academic, specialized nature and consequently its lack of immediate application to daily Catholic living. Of course, there are many counterexamples to this sentiment, but even in many of those counterexamples, one will find the same specialized, technical handling hindering its consumption by a wider, literate lay audience.

For example, take the notion of the universal call to holiness, promoted officially in Lumen Gentium, ch. 5. Bishop Sheen famously said we have entered the age of the laity. Paul VI and John Paul II promoted the same notion when they advocated repeatedly for evangelization efforts to be taken up by the lay faithful, which is tied up with the universal call to holiness since the soul of the apostolate is sanctity and the end point of evangelization is sanctity. In this ongoing academic discussion, what have we instead witnessed? Decades and decades (if not over a century) of theological disagreements over the exact nature of the development of the spiritual life and its application to apostolic work, all under the heading of spiritual theology. These are necessary debates, to be sure, but what certain, concrete conclusions may be drawn from them and given to the layman for use? Instead, many will find it much easier and more practical to read one of the classic works of spirituality, such as the Introduction to the Devout Life or the Spiritual Combat or a book of meditations by St. Alphonsus. In other words, the theological battles of the 20th century that led to the promotion of this idea that we are in the age of the laity and that the laity have a newfound responsibility to promote the causes of Our Lord through the sanctification of the world have no palpable application for actual laypeople living in the world. They must return to older works by the Saints and Doctors who had no such theological concerns in order to begin to live in a manner that the 20th century theologians have called for. Hence the disconnect between academic, specialized life and concrete lay life. 

Or take another example, the case of aesthetics. Especially in the past few decades, we have heard touted the famous line, "Beauty will save the world." Bishop Barron has been an ardent proponent of this approach to evangelization--we draw people in by beauty. Peter Kreeft has mentioned that he was partly converted by the beauty of older Catholic Churches (never mind that he was also converted by a serious reading of the Church Fathers). Yet when one skims through the academic literature conducted by Catholic philosophers and theologians on aesthetics, one is left scratching his head whether we stand on firm ground by upholding such an approach or what such a pithy phrase even means metaphysically, let alone in its concrete application to a methodology for evangelization. In the conversation between Bp. Barron and the Protestant philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig, Craig almost scoffed at the idea that we can merely evangelize through beauty. Craig's experience (and his reference to sociological data to support his experience) is that people leave the faith or question the faith because they perceive it to be intellectually bankrupt. The moral bankruptcy of ecclesiastical figures then "seals the deal" on their leaving the practice of religion. In Craig's estimation (and many of his colleagues who have spent decades in Christian philosophy and evangelization work), people need the assurance and proof that the Christian faith has deep, intellectual anchors, and that these anchors have real application to daily living. While beauty might appeal and draw a person in, that intuitive attraction needs to be fleshed out conceptually if the person is to stay since intuitions, like emotions, are fleeting, but convictions rest on habits of thinking.

Hence in Barron's approach, one can see that a "Catholic" commentary on culture and the arts is interesting and provides much food for thought, it doesn't actually explain why the Catholic faith is true or how the Catholic conception of religious life applies to daily living. A commentary on a movie or a song may serve a springboard for an interesting conversation and may open one's aesthetic appreciations, it is hard to perceive that such an approach would have anything close to the corrective effects that Craig's and other apologists' approach has been, which directly addresses the errors of thinking in modern society and how these errors in turn trickle down into wider culture.

To be fair, the approaches of Barron and Craig are not mutually exclusive, and these two men are approaching their goals based on their very different experiences. It is conceivable that some complementary, third way or tiered method of evangelization that makes use of both approaches may be conceived and developed, but this very need to do so, and the technical precision with which it must be done for philosophical and theological accuracy, affirm my initial contention: the theology of evangelization is fundamentally disconnected from the practice of it.

The Church in fact had encountered this difficulty with Catholic Action. Fervent Catholic men and women leading political causes on behalf of Christ the King ended up being more political than Catholic, and the Church was often pressed into the difficult decision of how to support these movements in the midst of very difficult political maneuvering from the 19th century and on. Reflecting on the role of Catholic Action, perhaps one may say that the multifaceted causes that feed political and social movements are almost impossible to fully analyze especially in the moment, and an apostolic effort to steer or influence those movements, to avoid getting lost in the uncertainty of the present, must remain firmly grounded on the supernatural foundation of prayer, trust in God, and sacrifices. And the fruits of one's efforts may not be seen in one's lifetime since these movements were centuries in the making.

And for a third example, it has often been remarked that Catholic morality has nothing to do with daily life. What this sentiment typically means is something twofold: 1) the Church has nothing to do with how I conduct my private or public life; and 2) the convoluted, casuistic reasoning of theological writings has little application for my daily living since there is no one to translate that reasoning into concrete norms suitable for a lay audience.

Of course, the first half of the sentiment is completely wrong and predicated on the success of post-Enlightenment liberalism + the way of life made possible by industrial, technical, medical advances (=modernity), but the second half is often reflecting a truth. The moral reasoning that upheld Catholic living increasingly not only disagreed with modern moral sentiments, but it also increasingly had nothing to do with how modern moral frameworks conceived and articulated themselves and hence nothing to do with how people went about their daily moral decision-making once those frameworks trickled down into popular culture. These are points far better articulated and discussed by Alasdair MacIntyre in his works for the past 40 years. 

In other words, the arguments of Humanae Vitae literally have nothing to say to the "modern man" (whatever that means). It is inconceivable to a modern person how metaphysical and theological arguments around the nature of the marital act could have conclusions against acts like contraception since the marital act is not even conceived as reserved to marriage, and certainly not with any outdated metaphysical or theological accoutrements.

Pro-life arguments often take a mostly secular line of reasoning and not even from natural law considerations but arguments from the science/biology of conception, the application of a liberal society's conception of human rights and dignity, etc. One can retroactively or anachronistically apply natural law "tailoring" to those argumentative approaches, but for the pro-life movement to have such widespread support, it must fundamentally appeal to modern sentiments: liberalism, science, dignity, rights, etc. These all make the most sense within a Catholic metaphysics, but they cannot be articulated as such by the widespread; otherwise we would lose the support of the Evangelicals and pro-life secularists, and the movement would most likely fall apart. Hence one even has the paradox that abortion is conceivable as a "right" only within a liberal paradigm and yet one argues against that right using the same paradigm that makes it possible. Within a Catholic milieu, there would be no possible way of thinking that one had a "right" to abortion and hence no need to argue against it using the same conceptual framework.

But regardless, moral arguments from the Catholic tradition are stereotypically caricaturized as debates on "how many angels dance on the head of a pin." To summarize: they are useless, impractical, academic, convoluted, etc.

This all of course being a long-winded preface to my next consideration, the morality surrounding the Covid vaccine. To be continued...

Monday, September 28, 2020

Thomas Merton on Latin and Gregorian Chant (1964)

 [234] To Dom Ignace Gillet

September 11, 1964

[236] Much is said here about Latin and Gregorian chant: things to be "suppressed" because we do not "understand" them. Well, this is a very serious point. I believe that, as you say, many young people more easily admit that they are dissatisfied with the Gregorian chant and the Latin, because they are made to believe this. I know very well that in our monasteries in America there is a real movement, an agitation, for this and for still other things. People are pushed into thinking that they are dissatisfied with the Latin, the Gregorian chant, the status of laybrother, the liturgy as we have it, when in reality that is not the case at all. For a long time it was said here that "the brothers" in general wanted to change habit, come to choir, change their status, etc. But it was only a few brothers who, moreover, were not always the best ones but who got more agitated and had more to say, and who tried to persuade the others to go with them, etc. You know these stories quite well by now.

But this is what I think about the Latin and the chant: They are masterpieces, which offer us an irreplaceable monastic and Christian experience. They have a force, an energy, a depth without equal. All the proposed English offices are very much impoverished in comparison—besides, it is not at all impossible to make such things understood and appreciated. Generally I succeeded quite well in this, in the novitiate, with some exceptions, naturally, who did not understand well. But I must add something more serious. As you know, I have many friends in the world who are artists, poets, authors, editors, etc. Now they are well able to appreciate our chant and even our Latin. But they are all, without exception, scandalized and grieved when I tell them that probably this Office, this Mass will no longer be here in ten years. And that is the worst. The monks cannot understand this treasure they possess, and they throw it out to look for something else, when seculars, who for the most part are not even Christians, are able to love this incomparable art.

---

Source: Thomas Merton, The School of Charity: The Letters of Thomas Merton on Religious Renewal and Spiritual Direction, ed. Patrick Hart (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1990), 234, 236.

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Authenticity of the Vatican Standard of Modesty with Documentation

I want to thank this anonymous comment left on "Repost: Modesty in Dress (June 1958)" which provides a thorough history of the documentation surrounding the Vatican Standard of Modesty and also definitively locates its original Italian publication in the Bollettino del Clero Romano 8 no. 10 (Oct. 1928), 134. This is a major step forward in clarifying the confusing history of this publication. For example, it corrects Fr. Kunkel's original, but mistaken, statement that he found the standard in L'Osservatore Romano, when in fact it was published in the above-mentioned Bollettino.

As I noted in my reply to the comment, "Even if Pius XI may not have seen and/or explicitly promoted these particular directives, nevertheless clearly bishops and theologians took the directives as expressing the authentic mind of the Holy See, despite all the subsequent and inexplicable confusions surrounding its origins and related documentation from the various Curial offices." This is verified for example in this quotation from the Homiletic and Pastoral Review: 

"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" (emphasis mine).

I've reposted this comment below (with accompanying footnotes) unedited for everyone's edification:

---

Hello,

In case you are still interested in establishing the authenticity of the Vatican Standards, here is some new information.

These standards were issued by Cardinal-Vicar Basilio Pompili [2]. They were then translated into French [3], and this translation was successively quoted by Bishop Rouleau [6 p. 20], Bishop Decelles [7 p. 538] and Bishop Douville [8 p. 359].

Unfortunately, the translation [3] has a number of flaws:

(1) "che non scenda un poco più giù del ginocchio" (which does not fall a bit below the knee) has been translated into "qui descend à peine au-dessous des genoux". This sounds to me like the knees have to be covered by a large margin, which is an overstatement of what the original standard asks for. Note that this problem is also present in the English translation.

(2) "quante frequentano l'Istituto da Lei diretto" (all those who attend the institution over which you preside) has been translated into "toutes les personnes qui dirigent votre institution" (all those who preside over your institution).

(3) The words "che pur professano di appartenere al gregge di Gesù Cristo e alla sua Chiesa", the whole paragraph "Sarà Nostra cura [...] i deplorati abusi" and the words "della S. C. dei Religiosi" have been omitted without notice.

(4) The words "auxquelles nous vous prions de vous conformer dans la direction de votre établissement" are not present in the original text.

The two last omissions are particularly unfortunate, because they can mislead one into thinking that the guidelines were included in the directions issued by the Congregation of Religious [1] and later referred to by the Congregation of the Council [5], which are quoted just before. This kind of confusion has indeed been observed repeatedly; for an extreme instance, see [11-12], whose account is completely at variance with the historical facts.

I have no similar explanation, however, as to why such confusion is widespread in the English speaking world as well (and it has been since an early date, as your post [4] shows).

By the way, while it seems plausible that Pope Pius XI at least read and approved Cardinal Pompili's standards, as far as I know even that is not yet conclusively established. Therefore, it is probably best to refrain from claiming that these standards were written by order of the Pope, as some people do [10 p. 13].


References:

[1] Commentarium pro Religiosis 9 (1928), 414-415. Quoted in [2]. An English translation is given in [9].


[2] Cardinal B. Pompili, "Circolare alle Superiore degli Istituti religiosi femminili", Bollettino del Clero Romano 8 no. 10 (Oct. 1928), 134.

https://archive.org/details/circolare-alle-superiore-degli-istituti-religiosi-femminili


[3] "Les modes inconvenantes", La Documentation Catholique no. 491 (Oct. 1929), 655-656.

https://archive.org/details/les-modes-inconvenantes


[4] Immodest Women's Dress, The Homiletic and Pastoral Review 30 no. 1-6 (Oct. 1929 to March 1930), 171-173.

https://rugwig.blogspot.com/2018/07/repost-immodest-womens-dress.html


[5] Sacra Congregatio Concilii, "Instructio ad ordinarios diœcesanos: De inhonesto feminarum vestiendi more", Acta Apostolicæ Sedis 22 (1930), 26-28.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-22-1930-ocr.pdf


[6] Bishop R.-M. Rouleau, "Circulaire au clergé", 6 April 1930, part I, in Mandements, lettres pastorales et circulaires des Évêques de Québec 13, suppl. 33, 15-20.

https://archive.org/details/mandementslettre13glis/page/n638


[7] Bishop F.-Z. Decelles, "Circulaire au clergé", 15 Sept. 1933, part III, in Mandements des Évêques de Saint-Hyacinthe 18, 537-540.

https://archive.org/details/circulaire-au-clerge/page/n5


[8] Bishop A. Douville, "Lettre pastorale et mandement", 22 July 1944, in Mandements des Évêques de Saint-Hyacinthe 21, 353-361.

https://archive.org/details/lettre-pastorale-et-mandement


[9] "Rome’s Decrees on Modesty in Dress", Marylike Crusader, Nov.-Dec. 1963.

https://ladyofperpetualhelp.weebly.com/

https://www.national-coalition.org/modesty/moddecre.html


[10] R. T. Hart, Those Who Serve God Should Not Follow the Fashions, 6th edition, 2017 (1st edition 2003).

http://sicutincaelo.org/downloads/TWSG_Read.pdf


[11] "Règles de l'Église sur la modestie", Vers Demain, Aug.-Sept. 2007, 15.

https://docplayer.fr/85502325-En-preparation-du-congres-eucharistique-2008-a-quebec-ravivons-notre-devotion-a-la-messe-du-dimanche-et-a-la-sainte-eucharistie.html


[12] "Règles de l'Église sur la modestie", Vers Demain, March-April 2009, 7.

https://docplayer.fr/79586446-L-eglise-reaffirme-les-valeurs-du-mariage-et-de-la-famille.html

Sunday, November 10, 2019

The Catholic Family

[11] The Christian father, as a matter of course, uncomplainingly devotes his energies to provide for the family over which he rules with a firm, yet gentle, hand. The Christian mother is the heart of the family. Her influence pervades the home like a continuous benediction. Christian children recognize in their parents the true representatives of the God of authority, counsel and love.

IN the Christian home, God and the things that are God, are always spoken of with respect and veneration. There is deeply implanted in the childish mind that first and above all things comes duty to God. In a home where that policy is pursued, where religion is always spoken of with respect and with affection, where the priesthood is honored, where prayer is regularly said, where God is thanked constantly for the blessings of health and strength, where reverence for the Church and sympathy for her hard fight in the world is freely expressed, where solemn warning is given at frequent intervals against the dangers of the times and the conditions and surroundings, where children are continually impressed with the importance of being truthful and good—there, in that home, is an atmosphere which has its inevitable effects on the soul, heart and mind of the child as cold or heat has on its body.

That is the Catholic Christian atmosphere; and that is the atmosphere of the truly Catholic home. Though Christian parents are necessarily solicitous for the physical welfare of the children, they never permit matters of the soul to be made secondary or subservient to other matters; and above all, they take precautions against anything which might lead the children into temptation or sin. St. Blanche's words spoken to St. Louis in his youth: "I had rather see you dead at my feet than guilty of mortal sin," were engraved on his heart and influenced him throughout his entire life.

The home is the primeval school, and the mother the most influential of teachers. History is full of examples of great men and women who owed practically all that was in them to good religious mothers. And many wonderfully edifying examples may be found in fathers who were true devotees of St. Joseph, the Patron of Family Life, and whom the Divine Child fondly addressed as "father." Even among the saintly, the Holy Family of Nazareth is immeasurably transcendent, uniting heaven with earth and clothing with love unfathomable the names of "father" and "mother."

---

Source: D. J. McDonald, "Prize Winning Essay—'The Christian Family'," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 4 (Sept. 1928): 11.

The "Why" of Catholic Schools (1928)

[2] IN 1926 THERE WERE 162 major and minor seminaries, with 15,836 students; 154 colleges and universities, with 74,849 students; 2,242 secondary schools, with 204,815 pupils; and 7,449 elementary schools, with 2,111,560 pupils. The total number of all schools was 10,087, with an attendance of 2,423,019.

THESE figures, quoted from the latest school statistics, have a salient and inescapable significance. They portray the existence of a vast system of separate schools, established and maintained without appreciable outside aid in money or material, labor or talent. They prove an accomplishment and a sacrifice. They set forth the fulfillment of the personal, religious and patriotic duty of education. They are evidence of obedience to the moral law and the positive law of the Church. They represent an expression of faith. They are, in a manner of speaking, a vote of confidence in the rightfulness and efficacy of the Catholic educational policy.

SUCH is the favorable significance of the figures. But they have also an unfavorable significance, which is no less salient and inescapable. They imply that a very large number—nearly one half—of the Catholic youth are not attending Catholic schools. Even after allowance is made for the many instances where Catholic schools are not available or can not [sic] be conveniently attended, the figures still justify the conclusion that in many quarters there is an unfortunate lack of that spirit of sacrifice, that fulfillment of duty, that obedience of law, that faith and that confidence, of which mention was made a moment ago.

WHOM to blame? A part of the blame can be put upon the agents of the Church; but most of it undoubtedly rests upon the parents and to some degree upon the young themselves. Our school figures are not so high as they should be, because many Catholics fail or neglect or refuse fully to understand the "why" of Catholic schools.

AGAIN and again it seems necessary to insist that the primary and principal reason for the existence of Catholic schools is the Catholic religion. This is elementary. If salvation is our ultimate goal—if religion, therefore, is the chief concern of man—then schooling, whether it is to prepare for life or be life itself for a time, cannot without ruin be robbed of religion. Deny the need of religion in education, and you deny the need of salvation.

IT is a false defense to say that religious education can ordinarily take place apart from regular schooling; for it can not so take place successfully. It is a perverse pedagogy and an insincere psychology that propound such a doctrine. You can not counteract twenty hours (the average school week) spent in a non-religious, or perhaps anti-religious, school by one or two or five hours spent anywhere in a religious class. Education is very much a matter of environment, and impression; of atmosphere, and absorption; of example, and imitation. Education, even in a formal process, is fostered as much by indirection as by direction. As much is taught by vague suggestion as by positive instruction. As much damage is done by unmeaning omission as by culpable commission.

TO allege that there are greater temporal benefits—scientific, social or what not—to be derived from non-Catholic schooling, is faithless flippancy on the part of parents and nothing but upstart sophistication on the part of the young. Are not the treasures of religion immeasurably more valuable than the richest of secular advantages? Is not the sacred simplicity of the faith ineffably superior to the world's vainglorious complexities? It is shocking to see Christian parents pretentiously planning mere careers for their children. It is not a good living they should make, but it is a Christian life they should lead. They should not seek selfish success, but rather service of God and man, and, through such service, salvation of soul.

LOVING parents want their children to be happy. But happiness is not in the fame of a name, not in the pride of learning, not in the glory of art, not in the triumphs of science, not in the comfort of riches, not in the delights of love, not in the command of men, not in the conquest of nature. True happiness is only in the fulfillment of the soul's desire to see its God. Such is the Christian doctrine, lofty in its lowliness. "Thou hast made us unto Thee, O Lord, and my heart is restless until it reposeth in Thee."

FOR Catholic children, a Catholic education is the pre-requisite equipment for traveling the road to true happiness. That is "WHY" the Church, being our God-given guide, maintains her own schools.

---

Source: Charles A. McMahon, "The 'Why' of Catholic Schools," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 4 (Sept. 1928): 2.

National Council of Catholic Women's Resolution on Modesty in Dress (1928)

[20] WHEREAS careful study of costumes made by the best sports-goods houses and used by the majority of private and public schools and colleges, leads to the conclusion that the necessary requirements for an appropriate costume for the girl and young woman in athletics may be met by the knicker-bloomer of material suited to the season; middie [sic] Blouses for children; tailored shirts with long (or short) sleeves for older girls; sweaters, sleeveless or with sleeves according to season; long stockings and "sneakers;"

BE IT RESOLVED that the National Council of Catholic Women recommend the above costume as best suited to feminine dignity and the best interest of sportsmanship and good health.

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council condemn "trunks" and other such objectionable extremes of costume which are as inappropriate and undesirable for women as are the particular forms of athletics with which they are especially associated.

The National Council of Catholic Women directs attention again to the Resolution on "Christian Conduct" passed by the Convention of 1927 and reaffirms its positive opposition to bathing and other "beauty" contests as vulgar and dangerous to the morals of Christian women.

---

NCCW = National Council of Catholic Women

Source: "Resolutions Adopted at the 8th Annual Convention of the N. C. C. W.: Modesty in Dress," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 6 (November 1928): 20

Saturday, November 9, 2019

Fr. Henry Woods, SJ, Standardization and its Abuse (1928)

[45] To have followed year by year the meeting of our Association is to know how large a place standardization has had in its discussions. One can neither grudge the time spent nor complain of the prominence granted. The supremacy claimed for standardization in education has made it a vital question.

Standardization is closely connected with order. Generically it brings in order by referring many things to one taken as the expression of attainable perfection. Thus it is natural to the intelligent creature. His every action supposes it. The adjectives and adverbs of his speech imply it. Operations are right or wrong. He performs each more or less perfectly. In all, efficiency and standardization go hand in hand. Man extends his field of activity by perfecting standards.

Standardization is sought, not for itself, but for the end it facilitates. Its efficiency determines its limits. Once the critical point has been passed, standardization becomes an impediment to personal initiative. Its problem is how to blend these two so as to get the best result. The solution must depend on the nature of the things to be standardized, of the means employed, and of the end to be obtained. Let us begin with what modern educators seek to standardize.

Of all God's creatures man alone is of universal adaptability to the world. Every other living being has its natural habitat. Domestic animals, however wide their range, cannot, like man, live and thrive everywhere. His use of creatures is equally universal. [46] Whatever distributed amongst others is food for life, becomes his sustenance. Their wool and fur and silk and down are his raiment. His intelligence contrives daily more profitable uses of the contents of earth. In the briefest space, one reared in luxury can change to savage life. Another passes after years of toil to wealthy ease as if to the manner born. "For the heaven of heavens is the Lord's: the earth He has given to the children of men."

This singular universality of human capacity must have its correlative in a singular individualism of human initiative, which reduces the standardization of man to a minimum. Whether we consider man's nature or the immense field of his operation, we see that to act humanly is to act freely, to choose from a multitudinous complexity of motives limited only by the actual limits of his intelligence and the actual capacity of things to receive his activity, the proximate reasons of his action. In the irrational creature the specific activity of its nature fixes our attention. In man this specific activity is, as it were, eclipsed by the supreme individualism of the person.

Standardization presupposes in things to be standardized various potentialities which the standardizer by the intelligent employment of means can actuate or not as he wills and to whatever degree he sees fit. These, when actuated, are in a natural harmony, which the standardizer upsets to develop artificially now one potency now another. Learning by experience the limits set by nature to such developments, he establishes permanent standards. Thus in the wild horse is the potentiality of the draught-horse's strength, of the racer's speed, of the action of the carriage-horse, of the charger's mettle and grace. By his art man brings out the standard draught-horse, the standard racehorse, the standard carriage-horse, the standard charger.

Standardization, then, from the point of view of the thing standardized, means sacrifice. In the development of speed much of the horse's natural strength and endurance is lost. The racehorse lasts for a mile, a mile and a half, perhaps for two or three miles at a marvelous pace. To travel at a natural gait twenty or thirty miles a day for a month would be its ruin. The draught-horse retains no trace of equine speed or grace or beauty. So [47] it is always; and the greater the number and variety of potentialities, the greater the sacrifice. In man the exigency of this law is the strictest. To reach a standard in any line one must withdraw from whatever implies dissipation of energy.

"To shun delights and live laborious days"

is the universal canon of excellence.

Since standardization, though within the limits of nature, does, nevertheless, a certain violence to nature, its supreme norm must be the will of the Creator of all nature. Should one question the lawfulness of its dealings with lower creatures, it will not do to answer: "We do them no wrong, since lacking intelligence, they have no rights." It is true that the irrational creatures can have no rights. But it is equally true that in His creatures the Creator has rights supreme and absolute. By the principle alleged we defend our use of creatures according to the divine concession: "The heaven of heavens is the Lord's : the earth He has given to the children of men." But the concessions itself is our sole adequate justification in standardizing the irrational creature. In harmony with universal nature, though doing violence to particular natures, we use irrational creatures to serve our own ends.

With regard to the rational creature the question takes a very different aspect. None is too humble to share in the Creator's gift. It is his because he needs the irrational creature, not only for his temporal wants but also as the means of working out his title to the eternal good. This is a matter purely personal. With the individual must rest the final decision as to how he will use the creature. Laws and their sanctions, governments, social organizations are necessary helps to a right decision because man's nature is social. Nevertheless they are but things of time, ministers only to the heir of eternity.

Wherefore the same Creator who grants the rational creature the fullest useful service of the irrational, allows no such exploiting of man by men, whether individual or organized. Man is social. He engages himself naturally to serve others; and in doing so obliges himself to attain a serviceable standard. He has [48] his duty to the society of which he is a member, and must fit himself for its performance. But because society is a union of wills, though he must avail himself of social direction, he discharges his obligation of his own initiative. Should he fail, the individual or the society could enforce compliance. This, however, would be abnormal, a transient vindication of violated right, not the normal exercise of constant right Man has not been given to the State merely to be formed by it and used for its own purpose.

Coming now to the end to be obtained by a legitimate standardization of education, we must not attenuate essential facts to propitiate those who would hold the fate of the rising generation in the hollow of their hands. To do so would be to betray our trust as Christian teachers, to desert those to whose service we are consecrated, to imperil souls Christ died to save. Should those who have assumed control of education prove so averse to the truth in this matter as to reject as inefficient all education based on it or to exact concessions that will rob the truth of its vitality, mutual understanding must become impossible.

The end of education is the end of man's creation. It is so to train the youth as to incline the man to live a life leading to immortal bliss. We do not say that formal religious teaching should meet the pupil at every turn. As in his after life [i.e. adult life] there will be religious exercises and secular pursuits, so in his pupilage, education will be religious and secular. Yet, as revealed religion must underlie all secular activity, the universal rule to determine the right and wrong of things, giving its color to the entire life; so religion must permeate education, its motive and its norm for both teacher and pupil. A system which separates religion and education, confining this to the affairs of time, excluding from it peremptorily the very mention of God, man's beginning and his last end, provides for its own condemnation.

With this clearly understood, it is plain that education so intimately connected with man's last end cannot be a matter merely social, to be controlled by the civil power. It is supremely personal. Though it is a personal interest in which the child depends necessarily on others, it is so sacred in itself as to generate in those others most sacred obligations. So sacred is it that [49] God Himself indicates those others on whom those sacred obligations rest. To direct the beginnings of education He provides the parent. Because He has raised its end to the supernatural order, making it in a word salvation, He has confided the general direction of education to those to whom the word was spoken: "Go, teach all nations." It is not within the competence of the secular power to define for the citizen the education he is to receive. State standardization is a euphemism for State-usurpation.

For if the putting of the child in the way of salvation be a personal work, it connotes in school, college and teacher an individuality which will enable parent and child to find what the individual practical judgment determines to be most conducive to the satisfaction of the personal obligation. Until recent years such individualism was a matter of course. Christendom could not have understood anything else. Religion permeated all education. Ecclesiastical authority watched over it, protected and encouraged it, leaving its formal provision to individual initiative. Even when an ecclesiastic became a founder, he was such in his personal, not in his official, capacity. William of Wykeham, not the Bishop of Winchester, founded Winchester and New College. The mere material of education was everywhere much the same. Methods, traditions, the genius loci gave to each school its character, that each impressed on its own. To speak of what we are more familiar with, nothing is more plainly recognizable than the distinction between the Oxford and the Cambridge touch. And this was in perfect accord with Christian society so wonderfully organized and compacted of subordinate associations manifold in their variety. The Oxford man had a brother in every Oxford man who would stand by him in any quarrel touching him as an Oxford man. The Cambridge man was brother to all Cambridge men. So too was it of the great schools. Even to-day Eton, Winchester, Westminster, Shrewsbury, Rugby, Harrow, have their own personality, each giving its own formation. The same is true of the London schools, Charterhouse, St. Paul's, Merchant Taylors, Christ's Hospital. The minor schools, hardly less famous, such as, Manchester, Bedford Grammar, Abingdon had each its own character; and [50] when to meet the demands of the new age, Marlborough, Clifton, Wellington and their fellows were established, each grew up in its own place an individual complete in itself, distinct from all others, the principle of its own activity, neither seeking favors from universities or associations, nor tolerating discrimination.

And this individualism passed over into our own land. Though John Harvard would fain have named his foundation after his Alma Mater, he could not transplant the spirit of Cambridge to the new world. The name persists by the Charles River. But Harvard is simply Harvard, and could be nothing else. Yale and Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, and William and Mary matured in well-marked personality. Individualism characterized Phillips Andover, Phillips Exeter, Roxbury Latin, Boston Latin and all later foundations on similar lines. Attempts to introduce the English public school into the United States have resulted only in new American schools, each with a character all its own. The old common school—the very antithesis of the modern public—expressing the mind of the community administering it, was intensely individualistic; while our Catholic schools and colleges, embodying the methods and traditions of the orders and congregations, vivified by religion diffused through their entire organism—individualism was their very life.

Coming now to the means and methods of standardization, no one can pretend that the old time individualism made for anything but efficiency. Each school or college or university was standardized for efficiency, not by any outside agency destroying individual character, but by the intrinsic methods, traditions, personal history, which formed that character. The expression of the standard of an institution was in its own performance. In this was its success, the guarantee of its endurance. The inefficient school had no support. It was not an element in a vast system, its existence in inefficiency ensued because any competition had become impossible. Fulfilling its purpose it flourished. Failing to do so it was deserted. If things went wrong, tradition was the standard of reformation. There was no blaming of the essential system, no running after new methods, no proclaiming of a new panacea. This was reserved for the standardizers of to-day, who about every decade announce the failure of what they [51] took up so enthusiastically, and impose upon educators the working out of some fresh theory destined to be abandoned in turn.

It is hard to see how any intelligent being can grant as a principle not to be questioned, that because schools B, C, D, E, differ each in its own method from that of a dominating institution A, they are inefficient and must change what has stood the test of time for methods new and tentative. Saul thought to secure efficiency by standardizing David. Had David consented we should be telling the history of Goliath in another way.

Were the standardizer a logician he would interpose: "Your example betrays you. Your argument is an ignoratio elenchi. You assume that we would standardize men by means of education. Our only aim is to standardize education for the good of man." To answer will, in carrying us to the root of the matter, compel the mention of things painful to hear.

To standardize education for man's good, suppose a norm of excellence drawn from his nature, according to which the education elaborated is an evident good. Such a good is either absolute or relative. There is but one good absolute, the final term of man's progressive nature. Education must be a relative good, a means, as we have seen, to the absolute. But we have already shown that education cannot be standardized according to this norm by those who, as a rule, deny its reality, and insist unanimously on its exclusion. One may say that modern standardized education can be used as a means to the supreme good. This may be true. If so, it comes from man's natural tendency to that good, and God's grace enabling him to overcome the obstacles raised by modern education, much as his longing after liberty enables the prisoner to make a pen-knife and a file the instruments of his freedom. But such a use is entirely outside the standardizing intention. This, the condemnation of religious education, the substitution of education purely secular, proves conclusively.

The term of a standardization ignoring the supreme end of man, operating constantly for the extinction of every method making that end its central element, is obvious. It is man oblivious of his personal end, oblivious, therefore, of his personal rights, of his personal duties; of the same personal rights and [52] duties in every other man; of the obligation of social authority to respect and protect those rights, to facilitate the performance of those duties. What is this but to reform man, to destroy in him as far as possible the image of God, to standardize him according to another standard than that established by the Creator in the creature?

"But citizens must be educated up to the standard of the Republic." Noting that here is an acknowledgment that the standardizer aims at the standardization of man, let us analyze his principle. It seems to mean that to form the American citizen needs a long specialized training. This would imply in our Constitution an unnatural character which every American should reject. Monkeys are by nature gregarious and imitative. With this foundation it is possible to dress and arm them like soldiers and to teach them some military exercises and evolutions. To do so would be to superimpose upon their nature an artificial habit, not without much labor. Not altogether alien from this is the modern notion of educating for citizenship, a corollary perhaps of the popular theory of evolutionary human and social origins. We think better of the American citizen than to make him an artificial product. Our Republic is a noble concept because nobly human. Its theory embodies the largest human liberty. The theory actualized meets an intelligent subordination that has never been surpassed. In the new nation conceived in the spirit of liberty, no special discipline was provided. Men went out to it spontaneously because of its harmony with human nature. Hence it has been wisely said that in every well-ordered commonwealth civic instruction is confined to the positive law; and is the more efficacious as it is easier, briefer and complete according to the subject's condition.

For let us consider. Why do men live peacefully and happily obedient to lawful authority? Not, evidently, through fear of punishment. There are some such in every civil society, for whom are provided police, criminal courts, prisons and death. But they are relatively few. Neither is it through any special study of the nature of society, the origin of authority, the source of supreme civil power. The citizen obeys the law spontaneously. The most learned sociologist follows the direction of the traffic [53] officer without a thought of his science, as readily as his humblest neighbor. The universal reason is man's social nature, whereby he lives intelligently in the society of his fellows with the habitual will to attain the common good as determined by the social intellect and resolved on by the social will. To this add his universal adaptability, which we have already considered, and the adequate reason appears why man lives peaceably and happily in habitual obedience to any mode of legitimate government. Civic virtue, a part of patriotism, is therefore a substantial habit growing out of man's nature, not an acquired habit superadded to nature. Obedience to parents in the family, to the teacher in the school will strengthen it; but no civic instruction could implant it. Because the American Constitution rightly understood is so consonant with nature, those born under it grew up in its spirit; those coming from without were so quickly assimilated as to be hardly distinguishable by any civic note from the native-born. If at times they fell short of the perfect Americanism, it was but an episode in the history of the immigrant population, whence came the American people of to-day. Moreover this must never be forgotten, that whatever civic corruption obtained among the foreign-born, there were always Americans of purest blood to make it possible, to protect it, to profit by it; and there was always the great mass of citizens native and immigrant alike, to reprobate, chastise, and expel it.

"But you cannot deny in the immigrant of to-day a special need of civic instruction." Even so, the immigrant's special need cannot be made the general standard of all American education. The modern civic instruction, therefore, is for the American formed by the traditions of his fathers and the principles of our fundamental Constitution. He it is, not the adventitious alien, who is out of harmony with the new education. As for the alien, his need is not so much of instruction in American principles, as of the extirpation of false social doctrine. One and all must know that between the principles of our government and the theories of the European revolutionist there can be nothing in common. That the fundamental Constitution of the Republic is in danger becomes daily more evident. But the peril is not from the immigrant, but from ourselves. Despising the old education full of [54] the influences of religion recognized by our forefathers as a necessary foundation of the nation, Americans brought in deliberately from Europe its very antithesis, a system saturated with atheism, pregnant with the worst of all tyrannies, the impersonal State. The standardization of modern education works for the fuller development of that system. Vain then, is the hope of Americanizing by such education those who see it ready to reproduce in the land of liberty conditions from which they fled, or of eradicating from their minds destructive social principles embraced through antagonism to those conditions, when they see the fear of such conditions generating the same principles in Americans themselves, in even the very teachers to whom their Americanization has been entrusted.

That the omnipotent, irresistible State, using the citizen for its own purposes, is the term of public education to-day, no one can fail to see. That the effect of all our standardizing is to rivet the chains, intellectual and moral, of such a slavery, is no less evident. Seeking the standardizers we find men and women acting, apparently, through their own initiative. Whether they perceive the trend of their operations is not to the point. We give them the benefit of every doubt. Nevertheless they have assumed exclusive control of education, not only fixing and multiplying standards, but also intimating disaster as the result of not conforming to their rules. Behind them is the whole organization of state-education, controlled at present rather loosely by each State within its own boundaries, yet tending to become a national function organized down to the last detail as a department of the Federal Government. Should this be brought about standardizing will have its full effect, the loss of liberty of teaching, the elimination of the personal element in school and scholar, a new slavery as surely destructive of the nation "conceived in the spirit of liberty" as that other from which the nation was purified in the blood and flame of civil war.

It will not do to say that in the standardizing of the individual denominational school, is sought only the subordination of private interests to the public welfare. Were this all, it would nevertheless rest on an entirely wrong concept of government. This [55] is not primarily the subordination of private interests to public welfare, which would lead inevitably to the exaggeration of the omnipotent State and the neglect of personal rights; but the promotion of the common good by the protection, promotion and harmonizing of private rights. As a matter of fact, however, standardizing as it is being practiced works out for all that is worst in the modem world, for libertinism of thought, the breaking up of the family, the extirpation of Christianity, the denial of God. For instance: "The standard college must have a money-endowment." This gives neither a guarantee of efficiency nor a remedy against inefficiency. Its natural effect is the extinction of all colleges of which the endowment is the consecration to God of teachers, both men and women, who, by their traditions, their talents, their long preparation, their methods and their motives, have proved themselves most efficient educators. We would not say that an endowed denominational school is impossible. We do maintain that secularism is the open road to endowment, and that thirst for further endowment has led one endowed denominational institution after another to change to undenominationalism. Again: "In a standard institution the higher chairs must be held by Doctors of Philosophy." In practice the degree will come from some university purely secular. Thus will prevail in all schools a philosophy always reducible, whatever its momentary form, to its evolutionary Hegelian stock. "The standard college must have a working library, in which students may practice research." Such a library can be obtained at brief notice only from our chief publishers, whose catalogues rarely show anything that is not at least rationalistic. Whether the cribbing a bit here, a bit there from such books can be called research, is very doubtful: the result, however, is certain. "The standard college must therefore promote private study and restrict public teaching." Thus the pupil is to be free to absorb error: the teacher who would save him is to be gagged.

These are some of the more notable examples. Others touching the lower schools will occur to you, all tending the same way. There is no sadder demonstration of the gulf between the older school in which without noisy display loyalty to country and its banner flowed as a sacred duty from man's obligation to his [56] Creator and the modern public school with its tediously unconvincing civic instruction setting before pupils only the impersonal State—than the substitution for daily religious exercise, of the daily salute to the flag, the need of which appeared only when God's place in education had been forgotten.

To sum up, the modern abuse of standardization is: first, unnatural and therefore unphilosophical. Secondly, it wrongs the parent, the child, the individual school. Thirdly, a false ideal of education having been introduced, standardization is used to maintain it. Fourthly, God has been shut out of education; standardization is made to turn the key on Him. Fifthly, it standardizes, not education for the benefit of the citizen, but the citizen for the benefit of the State.

DISCUSSION

RT. REV. MSGR. FRANCIS T. MORAN, D. D.: The philosophy of Father Woods on standardization will not be questioned. The learned educator adequately accounts for the purpose of uniformity and concedes its necessity within certain bounds to promote harmony. In weights and measures it is undoubtedly necessary. But in education there must be allowed a large latitude to meet the individual initiative. Otherwise education will sink to a dead level, and scholars will become automatons doing a set piece of work and unable to venture beyond a particular task. Mass production may be the requirement of industrialism, but after the formulas, as for instance of the four fundamentals of mathematics are fixed, freedom of development should be encouraged in the training of the mind.

It is not surprising that Father Woods takes the position he does. It would be surprising if the member of a great order, one of whose chief purposes is education, with a tradition of several centuries of achievement and the heir to many centuries of tradition, could be definitely led to any other conclusion. The exigencies of the present moment and new conditions may seem to suggest new methods. But an old educational institution of world-wide experience will rightly hesitate before breaking with the past and responding readily to the invitation to reject freedom and to adopt limitation.

The Jesuit Order if so disposed may point with pride to a record in the educational field that has not been surpassed and will not be surpassed for many a day if ever by any body of teachers in the whole world. The libraries are filled with their books. They have produced a multitude of scholars eminent in canon law, exegetics, philosophy, theology, the natural sciences, and in every branch of learning. They have staffed high schools, lyceums, colleges and universities in every country and continent, and their [57] opinion therefore in educational matters is of the highest value and is worthy of the greatest respect. We must not be carried away by the clamor of the period. Each individual has a tendency to think that the world was created the day he was born. Mankind or a given portion of it, is prone to be deceived by the voices of a prevailing sentiment. How far is this true in the matter of standardization? It is well to inquire carefully before making a definite committal.

The conditions in the development of education in our country have been such as to suggest standardization. The country was new. It is only yesterday that we came out of the little red school house. There was a consuming passion for knowledge amongst the masses increased often by the isolation in which they lived. The form of government, participated in by the people, encouraged a desire on the part of the individual to discuss public questions intelligently and to fit himself for the holding of official position. Opportunity for success in the mercantile and industrial fields was abundant and became more assured when accompanied by adequate mental equipment. As a result, schools of all kinds sprang up all over the land. Each school was practically a law unto itself. It speaks well for the earnestness of the people in their pursuit of learning that they came to the determination that the wheat should be sifted from the chaff, and that the dishonest purveyors of distinctions and degrees, the frauds and charlatans, should be driven out. Things had come to a pretty pass when a fake educator could hang out a shingle on an office and advertise university degrees at ten dollars or one hundred dollars or more, according to the gullibility of the recipient. It would seem high time to standardize. This was one reason but of course there were many other reasons for establishing some kind of uniformity so that a student from one institution could readily find his place in another, either in the same course or in a progressive course of advancement. There can be only general sympathy with the purpose of standardization in these conditions.

Again, for colleges and universities the one main assurance of stability was the investment in buildings and the endowment for maintenance and growth. At least such an institution could not run away over night. Situated as we Catholics are, with a large portion of our capital derived from the devoted efforts of our educators who labor without pay and because of their love for their fellowman and especially our youth, the first effect of a money endowment policy was to cause surprise and disquiet. I remember very well when my neighbors, the Jesuits of Cleveland, communicated in conversation their anxiety about the Hipes law which set up a pecuniary qualification. It seemed to involve a hardship and an attack on voluntary personal contribution in the education of the young. There was no such purpose; and when it was suggested that the requirements of the law would be met by capitalizing the voluntary service, a solution was found that the State as well as the different associations were quite willing to recognize. We should clearly understand that in the discussion [58] of standardization the good will of our fellow citizens is taken for granted. There is no intention to visit hardship on any honest effort. We can all therefore readily grasp hands on what makes for the good of the cause.

Now what is the good of the cause? Is it standard production or freedom for initiative for the institution and the individual? Undoubtedly the latter. It was on this basis that the old universities came to achieve their special excellences. Salerno had eminence in medicine, Bologna in law. Paris in theology. We have learned something since the ninth and tenth centuries when these universities were established. This is true, but we have not learned to depart from fundamental principles and formulas. With the impulse given by these great universities there came others in rapid development reaching up to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries: Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow, Salamanca, Pavia, Padua and many others. Each seemed to have its own specialty; each was working with its own earnestness. There certainly was not standardization in the sense in which we know it. Scholars were held in esteem and exercised the largest influence on their own and succeeding times. Alcuin, Venerable Bede, Peter Lombard, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure are names resplendent in light and shedding a lustre over the whole field of learning. One such name is a luminary outshining in brilliancy a whole host of twinkling stars. But the stars also give light and brighten the skies.

With change of times there comes change of methods. In our day industrialism makes its demands, and while this may connote an improvement in living conditions beyond those of the Middle Ages, or at least we need not argue the comparison, it will not be maintained that industrialism should set the standards for education. The mind is above matter; the spirit is more than the body. The smokestack may be the symbol of our prosperity but it should not be the symbol of our education. The Cathedral of an olden day was the shining mirror in which man beheld himself. Here art and religion met. Better by far was it in the development of the race that, let us say, after the time of Gregory VII, 1073, the Cathedral exhibited the hopes and aspirations of mankind than that the era of industrialism should have set in with the smokestack for its chiefest ornament. My plea in brief is: Back to the mind, back to the spirit. Let our universities lead the way and let them stand again for law, medicine, theology. Let the liberal arts be cultivated. If industrialism demands the technical school and manual training, so be it; but let not our whole educational process be based on this material foundation.

I would argue that we should maintain our independence in our educational policy. Surely there should be cooperation and friendship. But we have a heritage in education. We have traditions age-old and we have achievements of renown. We carried the torch through long centuries and our experience is worthy of great consideration. It is incumbent on us to know our own mind and to formulate our own program, and while [59] looking at the subject from our own standpoint to make an honest endeavor to see it from the other man's standpoint.

American educators see the shortcomings of the present system and show an admirable spirit in the candor and frankness in which they discuss them. It is a sincere conviction that if our Catholic educators who have the responsibility of our Catholic higher education will discuss and study and weigh all the elements of this problem and outline some policy or perhaps formulate some program; and if this program has the cordial approval and united support of the Bishops of the country, the position of Catholic education will command the attention and respect of the educators of the country.

---

Source: Fr. Henry Woods, S.J., "Standardization and Its Abuse," The National Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 25, no. 1 (Nov. 1928): 45–59.