[61] A few years ago you might have been surprised (shocked?) to hear that Guy Lombardo had written a mass. Or Spike Jones. Today people in that category are writting [sic] masses but without the talent or musicianship of anybody leading a name-band or even a local combo. I wonder what the Rolling Stones, the Four Lads, (going back again) Jackie Gleason or the Dave Clark Five could work up for a church wedding or a modern Requiem? The Beatles might attract a crowd with some special music for Holy Week. Lloyd Thaxton could probably take over some afternoon Mass in California and direct the crowd through a Gloria in the best Frug rhythms, or Peter, Paul and Mary might be invited to some cathderal [sic] to work out a few numbers for Christmas. But get everybody into it. Just so they all participate!
A few musicologists and a great number of non-musicologists have decided lately that there is really no difference between secular and church music. The problem isn't half so much whether there is a difference as whether they want a difference. We must attract teenagers, relate to the existential world, accept a realistic culture — and all that. Then why not retranslate the Hail Mary into jive-talk or into ancient rock n' roll: "like man, Mary, you are in, really cool among women...." I'd better stop. As someone said, "It's all right for me to make these cracks because I'm deeply religious!" If you use the music, why not use the words that go with it? Under what auspices are we trying to achieve participation? Togetherness. With the latest hankering for store-front churches and family masses, much could be done to "come alive" with the music. Or are all these sentiments the final groanings of a bitter conservative? I think not. Not as long as God is worthy of the best we have in talent and art and appropriate expression; not as long as we can distinguish between the Eucharist and a continental breakfast!
It seems more and more evident, as hootenanny masses are being promoted here and there, that we had better line up our notions of participation with the purpose we have in participation; otherwise, see if you can program a little Gregorian Chant for the New Year's party in the Blue Room of New Orlean's Roosevelt Hotel. There must be a difference between secular and sacred music! The Church has been trying to impress this doctrine on people since the days of Palestrina. The vestments of a priest (how long will they last?) indicate the vast difference between worshipping God and driving a taxicab. The windows in a church are supposed to add something sacred to the mere function of ventilation. So with the language we address to God. So, then, with the music we use in His presence.
[62] Serious-minded church musicians are alarmed by the great number of inept composers who contribute to the current mediocrity in music destined for worship. The rediscovery of private judgment and freedom of untrained opinion has silenced many proficient musicians and stimulated people to compose who hardly understand the elements of the modern major scale. When I was a child I begged and begged to be allowed to sit at the piano. Finally the day came when the concession was granted for a period of two minutes. I was dismayed that I couldn't make effective music simply by hitting the piano with my hands and fists. The only difference between some of these composers and me is that they seem undismayed by the results of their efforts.
These jeremiads have been repeated over and over, but the stockpile of church-music "bombs" increases hourly. Some liturgical people have developed a keen discriminatory sense regarding metrical English hymns; they anathematize — rightly — the old sugar-tunes and ballads and commend heartily the vast importation of heterodox tunes and amended texts — rightly; but they seem to look with unruffled spirit upon every kind of musical tripe which is set to the proper and the ordinary of High Masses: "It's good; everybody will participate." Is it artistic, well adapted to reverent worship, competently composed by people with true musical instinct? "Oh, that's not important: the thing is to get the people singing!" This is not a complaint against modern or contemporary concepts or true progressivism in church music; it's a complaint against the tawdry and secularistic substitutes. Too often if a piece of music is sufficiently discordant it is considered "aggiornamented," — "hodiernistic," I like to call it. Discord and dissonance mean the same thing to an untrained musician. If the music follows the fundamental rules of acoustics (harmony and counterpoint) it's "romantic" — Ugh! that ugly word! But a musician should know the rules of harmony well enough to break them skillfully and for a good musical reason. Bad grammar may be respectable at times if it is used deliberately. Otherwise it is just stupidity. Not so in hodiernistic church music! Anything goes, just so the crowd can be made to sing it. To impose the free expression of an ignorant composer on a congregation is to make slaves of the many! The people will accept the compositions of a well-prepared and knowledgeable musician even if some elements were foreign to their tastes. They could assume, at least, that they were being asked to sing good music, music worthy of the worship of God.
The whole problem is reducible to an appropriate system of wieghts [sic] and measures: standards. That problem cannot be handled well except by trained musicians any more than a simple appendectomy can be performed by a whittler. The Church Music Association of America will shortly be calling [63] upon definitely proficient musicians to put out a list of recommended music as a service to choirmasters and organists. There will likely be no direct condemnations of any music proposed for church use, but on a positive level the Association will name the items which it feels will preserve the proper elements for truly artistic and worship-engendering music. This list will supplant the former "White List of the St. Gregory Society" which attempted the same thing at a level based on church legislation. At any rate, the judgment of competent church musicians will afford greater reliability in deciding what is appropriate and spiritual.
The problems connected with the adaptation of chant to the vernacular have been gone over in the previous issue of SACRED MUSIC as well as in other trade papers; but there is no question that St. Pius X's principle about judging music for church on the objective standards of the movement, inspiration and savor of the Gregorian Chant is entirely valid today; all subsequent direction from the Holy See has backed up the same principle because it produces a music which is innately holy, artistic and universally acceptable. That does not mean that we must compose chant, or distort the chant melodies by weaving them into modern music. But all church music, however up-to-date, will have the qualities proper to worship when it reflects the spirit which the chant evinces.
Presently being prepared is a type of music known as Verna Canto which will undoubtedly come into very wide use. The composer intends to remain ananymous [sic]. The experimental stages have revealed that the music has a high spiritual content, is ideally suited to the vernacular and, though it preserves the modality and the rhythm of the ancient chant, it makes no attempt to reflect the actual melodies or musical formulae. Others have also experimented with adaptations of polyphony, but these efforts may not fare so well. In spite of that, the original literature is often so noble that it may furnish a legitimate excuse for some arbitrary use of Latin in our future liturgy.
Modern and contemporary church music is impossible for the hack, the amateur composer. Only a skilled musician can keep it from all sorts of absurd affectations and eccentricities. The banalities produced under this category are indistinguishable from the abominations about which we have been complaining. The liturgy is still to undergo many changes in text and format. Experiments are soon to be conducted in this country, but the strain of waiting for a truly spiritual music based on a final form for the English should not drive us into accepting the worse-than-mediocre materials which are produced these days in so great an abundance. What we might consider a temporary expedient could dissipate good taste and propriety for generations. Caution is then the interim corollary.
---
Source: John C. Selner, "Singing the New Songs," Sacred Music 92, no. 1 (1965): 61–63.
Showing posts with label secularism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label secularism. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
The Religious School: An American Institution (1929)
[11] *
HISTORICALLY, FREEDOM OF education has always been a characteristic of our American polity. The first American schools were religious, and they continued so up to the middle of the last century.
In origin, at least, the secular school is not an American institution; it is an importation from Continental Europe, born of the compromises and ambitions of contending politicians.
Constitutionally, the religious school is as American as the secular school. If there is one point in American jurisprudence which is accepted by all, it is the principle that to the parent belongs the primary right to educate and to select the type of education he desires his children to have.
Legal decision after decision confirms that right. The Supreme Court itself, in the famous Oregon decision [i.e. Pierce vs. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names (1925) regarding an Oregon law requiring children to attend only public schools], once and forever settled that question of right. And in the pursuance of that right of American citizenship, if we elect to give at our own expense a religious education to our children, who can gainsay that right, who can accuse us of disloyalty to the Constitution, who can justly contend that we oppose one of the fundamental institutions of the country?
Since the beginning of this nation we have had religious schools; we have the constitutional right to conduct such schools; we would be traitors to our highest interests and to our profoundest beliefs in the need of religious training for the preservation of the best in American citizenship, were we to fail to maintain and support religious education.
THE reason is simple—religious education for us is not a purple patch added on to the ordinary curriculum. It is the very soul, the life-breath of all our training. It is as necessary to the preservation and development of Catholic life as is the air we breathe to the preservation of our natural life. To close our schools in the hope that our fellow-citizens would then come to understand that we do not oppose public education, would be a futile gesture; it would be to betray our faith in American justice, history, law; it would but add to the tremendous difficulties which every democracy must face in its continuous struggle for existence; it would be a denial of our very belief in the teaching of Christ which we profess to hold.
Fortunately, one need no longer defend, at least in educational circles, the religious school. There has come about a wonderful change in viewpoint in that regard in the last ten years. To an attitude of hostility there has succeeded an attitude of challenge, and I venture to think that it will be much more difficult for us to meet the latter than it was the former.
The religious school today is on trial before the bar of American education. And it will be judged in the only way that Americans know how to judge—by results. Its future will be determined not by attacks made upon it but rather by the type of men and women which the religious school produces. It is to them that we must turn, in the last analysis, for the justification of our schools.
IF the religious school continues to turn out, as it has done, strong, virile, intelligent, unusually upright men and women as citizens of this Republic, we need have little fear of those narrow partisans who go about poisoning the public conscience with the age-old cry of Catholic opposition to the public school.
The Catholic citizenship of this Republic can not [sic] rise above its source—and that source is our schools. If we are to be compelled, for any reason whatsoever, to continue to meet rancor, prejudice, hatred, and discrimination, let us meet them in the only way Christians can and should, and in the only way which will bring certain and complete victory. And what is that way? By concentrating our efforts toward the development of a Catholic body which, because of its understanding, intelligence, and virtue, will be irresistible. Knowledge can conquer ignorance; love, hatred; truth, prejudice; loyalty, distrust. And the great instrument in the production of these qualities in our men and women is the school. From elementary school to university let us make of these schools a great crucible from which shall come forth gold of the purest quality in the form of alert, sincere, educated men and women.
I WOULD particularly insist on the need of university trained men and women, since it is from them that leadership and all the accomplishments which we associate rightly with finely trained minds must come. The training of scholars may seem, at first view, no part of our Catholic duty. On second thought there is no one who can not understand that without general support the university can not function as it should, that it is to the interest of each individual, no matter how lowly his position may be, to assist in the training of that group of scholars who by their labors in the fields of science, philosophy, and religion will do more to dispel the dark clouds of ignorance and bigotry than a veritable army of men ready to lay down their lives for their beliefs.
I am not quite sure whether we would succeed, should we go out at this time to the American public and seek directly its understanding and appreciation of our position. But I am sure that if we continue to contribute to the upbuilding of the national life those qualities of heart and mind which [27] are found in every true Catholic citizen, that if particularly from our universities men go forth who will loyally do their share in the development of the intellectual and moral life of our country, I am sure that the fog of intolerance which seems to be setting down upon our fair land will soon be dispelled before this glorious sun of understanding; that in the centuries to come this nation will be illumined and go forward to ever loftier heights, led on by the pure light which comes from truth joined with that love which Christ came to bring us here below, which He foretold would bind His brethren together, would be an unfailing sign to the whole world that men were truly Christian.
---
Footnote:
* From an Address delivered at the June, 1929 Commencement Exercises of the Cathedral High School, Indianapolis, Ind.
---
Source: Msgr. James H. Ryan, "The Religious School: An American Institution," The National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 11, no. 3 (Aug. 1929): 11, 27.
HISTORICALLY, FREEDOM OF education has always been a characteristic of our American polity. The first American schools were religious, and they continued so up to the middle of the last century.
In origin, at least, the secular school is not an American institution; it is an importation from Continental Europe, born of the compromises and ambitions of contending politicians.
Constitutionally, the religious school is as American as the secular school. If there is one point in American jurisprudence which is accepted by all, it is the principle that to the parent belongs the primary right to educate and to select the type of education he desires his children to have.
Legal decision after decision confirms that right. The Supreme Court itself, in the famous Oregon decision [i.e. Pierce vs. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names (1925) regarding an Oregon law requiring children to attend only public schools], once and forever settled that question of right. And in the pursuance of that right of American citizenship, if we elect to give at our own expense a religious education to our children, who can gainsay that right, who can accuse us of disloyalty to the Constitution, who can justly contend that we oppose one of the fundamental institutions of the country?
Since the beginning of this nation we have had religious schools; we have the constitutional right to conduct such schools; we would be traitors to our highest interests and to our profoundest beliefs in the need of religious training for the preservation of the best in American citizenship, were we to fail to maintain and support religious education.
THE reason is simple—religious education for us is not a purple patch added on to the ordinary curriculum. It is the very soul, the life-breath of all our training. It is as necessary to the preservation and development of Catholic life as is the air we breathe to the preservation of our natural life. To close our schools in the hope that our fellow-citizens would then come to understand that we do not oppose public education, would be a futile gesture; it would be to betray our faith in American justice, history, law; it would but add to the tremendous difficulties which every democracy must face in its continuous struggle for existence; it would be a denial of our very belief in the teaching of Christ which we profess to hold.
Fortunately, one need no longer defend, at least in educational circles, the religious school. There has come about a wonderful change in viewpoint in that regard in the last ten years. To an attitude of hostility there has succeeded an attitude of challenge, and I venture to think that it will be much more difficult for us to meet the latter than it was the former.
The religious school today is on trial before the bar of American education. And it will be judged in the only way that Americans know how to judge—by results. Its future will be determined not by attacks made upon it but rather by the type of men and women which the religious school produces. It is to them that we must turn, in the last analysis, for the justification of our schools.
IF the religious school continues to turn out, as it has done, strong, virile, intelligent, unusually upright men and women as citizens of this Republic, we need have little fear of those narrow partisans who go about poisoning the public conscience with the age-old cry of Catholic opposition to the public school.
The Catholic citizenship of this Republic can not [sic] rise above its source—and that source is our schools. If we are to be compelled, for any reason whatsoever, to continue to meet rancor, prejudice, hatred, and discrimination, let us meet them in the only way Christians can and should, and in the only way which will bring certain and complete victory. And what is that way? By concentrating our efforts toward the development of a Catholic body which, because of its understanding, intelligence, and virtue, will be irresistible. Knowledge can conquer ignorance; love, hatred; truth, prejudice; loyalty, distrust. And the great instrument in the production of these qualities in our men and women is the school. From elementary school to university let us make of these schools a great crucible from which shall come forth gold of the purest quality in the form of alert, sincere, educated men and women.
I WOULD particularly insist on the need of university trained men and women, since it is from them that leadership and all the accomplishments which we associate rightly with finely trained minds must come. The training of scholars may seem, at first view, no part of our Catholic duty. On second thought there is no one who can not understand that without general support the university can not function as it should, that it is to the interest of each individual, no matter how lowly his position may be, to assist in the training of that group of scholars who by their labors in the fields of science, philosophy, and religion will do more to dispel the dark clouds of ignorance and bigotry than a veritable army of men ready to lay down their lives for their beliefs.
I am not quite sure whether we would succeed, should we go out at this time to the American public and seek directly its understanding and appreciation of our position. But I am sure that if we continue to contribute to the upbuilding of the national life those qualities of heart and mind which [27] are found in every true Catholic citizen, that if particularly from our universities men go forth who will loyally do their share in the development of the intellectual and moral life of our country, I am sure that the fog of intolerance which seems to be setting down upon our fair land will soon be dispelled before this glorious sun of understanding; that in the centuries to come this nation will be illumined and go forward to ever loftier heights, led on by the pure light which comes from truth joined with that love which Christ came to bring us here below, which He foretold would bind His brethren together, would be an unfailing sign to the whole world that men were truly Christian.
---
Footnote:
* From an Address delivered at the June, 1929 Commencement Exercises of the Cathedral High School, Indianapolis, Ind.
---
Source: Msgr. James H. Ryan, "The Religious School: An American Institution," The National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 11, no. 3 (Aug. 1929): 11, 27.
Sunday, November 10, 2019
The Influence of Secularism in Education (1930)
[53] That there exists an antagonism between the spirit of the world and the spirit of Christ is proclaimed on nearly every page of Holy Writ. This spirit of the world, secularism, from the Latin saeculum, strives after the things of the earth as if the things beyond the earth had no real existence. Those imbued with this spirit sometimes pity, sometimes despise, and not infrequently hate those who are led by the spirit of Christ. The Book of Wisdom (V. 3) represents them as saying within themselves at seeing the reward of the just: "These are they whom we had sometime in derision, and for a parable of reproach; we fools esteemed their life madness and their end without honor."
At times this opposition breaks forth in deeds of violence, and we then have an era of persecution, an age of martyrs. At other times it works secretly, scarcely betraying its presence by outward signs; working as slow poison works in destroying life. But never will there be a cessation of hostilities as long as children of men inhabit this earth. Our present Holy Father in his encyclical on the Kingdom of Christ stresses anew the dangers of this bitter and unrelenting conflict.
What applies to the conflict between these two forces in general, is found particularly in the field of education. Here also we at times meet with open violence, as, for instance, in France and Mexico, and as attempted in Oregon and Michigan, to mention only recent instances. But more frequently it is a warfare hidden, but none the less dangerous, none the less bitter and determined, that is being waged: Secularism, under some disguise or other, is continually trying to dominate the educational field, and backed as it often is by the wealth and the power of the State, it would surely gain the victory were it not for the assistance of Christ, who promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. Let me briefly call attention to some of the aspects of this struggle:
1. Secular education places paramount importance on the training of the intellect, not hesitating to state, with Socrates of old, that "ignorance is the only sin." Secular teachers (by this term I mean those that are influenced by the secular spirit) are calling continually for more and more book-learning; are continually on the lookout for a new "ology" of some kind or other to squeeze into their already over-crowded curriculum. They seem not to know that at the man who from things visible, from things created, can rise to the knowledge of his Creator, as man, far surpasses the product of pure secular education. They would look askance at the words of Dr. Cassidy (Cath. Educational Review) that "Education is the making of the man; is the development of the Christian." They rank the mountaineer of Kentucky very low in their educational standards because he does not know how to read man-made books; they disregard entirely the fact that the same mountaineer often knows how to read the far more important book of nature and finds [54] therein lessons of uprightness, honesty, loyalty, deep religious convictions, etc. I wonder if Dr. Johnson, of the Catholic University, would still condemn as unreservedly as he did in 1919 the following opinion of a well-known educator: "I would say to elementary teachers: 'Give me a boy of the age of eleven or twelve, who writes a good legible hand, who spells correctly, reads with expression, has an accurate knowledge of the Baltimore Catechism and of Bible History, who can do rapid and accurate work in arithmetic, who knows fractions and percentages, who can write a short letter in simple and plain English, whose habits of speech are correct, and not slangy, whose manners, if not gentle, show at least some thought of others besides himself, and whose life is virtuous—and I will say that this boy has received a good elementary education. With these results we need not care how much or how little information he has acquired, nor need we inquire about methods, nor ask how much the teacher knows about psychology'." 'Tis strange indeed, in the pulpit and on the platform, our Catholic spokesmen emphasize the need of a complete education of the child, as distinct from the mere training of the intellect; they would in this respect be willing to quote Dr. Butler, who says: "Mere learning is not enough. The educated man whose character is not sound, whose conscience is not rightly instructed, whose conduct is not governed by higher considerations than those resting on mere expediency is liable to become a detriment to society: selfishness is apt to rule the life of such a one." And yet what do we find? Are not those who have been intellectually first in mathematics, science, history, etc., called upon the stage to receive all honors? Is it hard to find herein the influence of secularism, which is able to make us follow in practice what in theory we all condemn? The true religious teacher ought to view things from God's standpoint: the sentire cum ecclesia must be a pronounced trait in his or her character. Does God reward the intellectual giants on account of their achievements? Does the Church reserve her honors for those who have been able to astound their fellowmen by their mental prowess? Why not reward those and those only who have sincerely tried to use whatever talent God has given them and have made earnest efforts to conform their conduct to God's holy rule?
2. Secularism likewise stands revealed in the modern educator's attitude towards classical training; modern education insists, beyond all measure, that education must be practical, that it must impart ability to the child to share in the world's power and riches: hence the insistence on a business or manual training. What shall we eat? what shall we drink? with what shall we be clothed?—seems adequately to express this whole outlook on life. Training for a certain condition or vocation cannot be reasonably condemned; but we cannot approve the a priori condemnation of classical learning as something impractical for modern times. The underlying principle of the advocates of this tendency is that the training of the child should enable it to gain the most of life's advantages in the shortest possible time. An editorial writer in one of the afternoon papers puts it thus: "In this industrial and commercial age the public mind is on money or the means whereby money may be obtained."
3. If we carefully look over the textbooks used in the modern schools we meet again and easily recognize the spirit of the world hostile to the spirit of God. How many of our histories unblushingly teach the progress of nations along the lines of evolution. The Bible tells us that the first man was gifted with preternatural powers of mind and body; that owing to sin his mind became darkened and his will weak; and hence the state of barbarism is the result of his own conduct; but pseudo history teaches that somehow or other, by his own efforts and fitness man has gradually reached the present pinnacle of perfection, after evolving from some lower type. How many geographies tell the child only of material [55] and commercial progress; as illustrations you will find pictures of mining operations, industrial sites, business activities, etc., but seldom, if ever is allusion made to monuments inspired by religion, to cathedrals, universities, works of art. Not a few textbooks give extracts from authors who are justly condemned on account of their immoral teaching, thus opening to the mind of the child a vast field of what is vile and debasing. Many other examples of the same type could be quoted, but these few will suffice to show in how many different ways, through textbooks, the spirit of the world tries to gain the heart of the child.
4. In that indefinable something which we call the atmosphere of the schoolroom the workings of secularism are oftentimes very apparent. In our public schools all religious instruction is barred; no teacher is allowed to speak of man's duties towards God;—duties towards fellowman, perhaps, and towards self, but not towards God. The pupil may be told to live his own life and to obey his own impulses, but not that God has a right to exact of him obedience and submission. During the day no allusions will be made to the supernatural; no religious pictures or sacred images, the silent yet powerful reminders of a world beyond, are allowed. Even in our own Catholic schools—especially such as have non-Catholic pupils—secularism now and then shows itself under this guise. For fear of offending the non-Catholic child, the Catholic child is deprived of his birthright; his religious education is confined to a half-hour daily; indeed, in some extreme cases strictly Catholic pictures and emblems are banished from the classroom. Do such teachers realize that religion is not merely a body of truth, but also a virtue, in fact the highest of the moral virtues; that to form this virtue in the child must be the supreme aim of the teacher; and that since virtue is formed and strengthened by repeated acts, the teacher, not only during the period of instruction in religion, but frequently during the day, must strive to arouse in the child acts of this virtue, and that religious pictures, statues, devotions, etc., are a great help to the teacher in this respect? Dr. Johnson, in Fundamentals of Education, very appropriately says: "It is not enough for the child to learn the truth; he must like- wise be schooled in living according to it. Opportunities must be afforded him for putting his ideas to work. . . . The whole atmosphere of the school, the personality of the teacher, the discipline, the spirit, the experience provided, should reflect the truths that are taught . . , [sic] so that while the pupil acquires the necessary ideas, he may develop the attitudes and the habits that are of the essence of Christian character." That Sister who, as quoted by the Rev. Felix Kirsch, O.M.Cap., said, "Since I am called to make saints of my pupils, I must be a saint myself," seems to understand this truth. The hostile government of Mexico is fully aware of the influence of a Catholic atmosphere on the mind of a child. How pitiful this cry of the superioress of a teaching community in Mexico: "We have pretended that in our schools only lay instruction is impartial. We have removed the sacred images from our parlors and reception rooms. We have taught the pupils to conceal the fact that they are being taught religion. We have, in short, taught our pupils to deny the truth, and if we go farther, we shall tear out by the roots from their tender hearts their Christian faith and manhood." How courageous and truly Christian: "We will refuse in every school we have in Mexico to accept these infernal rules. . . . We are prepared with all our Sisters to undertake the hardships of an effective and open fight." This trying to spare the susceptibilities of the non-Catholic by toning down Catholic teaching is known in Europe as "Americanism" and was condemned by the late Pope Leo XIII. A recent editorial in the Dearborn Independent said quite apropos: "This is the broad age of suave tolerance. The soft pedal threatens at times to become our national symbol. Tolerance is our shibboleth; intolerance our greatest [56] dread. We must not speak our minds lest we offend. . . . Be bland! is the new commandment." The title of the editorial was: The Great Hush-Hush.
5. "He that is not with me is against me." According to this principle of our Saviour [sic] we must consider most governments of the present day as on the side of secularism. Now we find that there is a growing interference on the part of the State in our educational system, and some of us even seem proud of State supervision and boast of State approbation. Do we not find academies and high schools glorying in the fact that they are affiliated with the State University, as if our Catholic schools should serve as feeders to these centers of learning so frequently condemned by pope and bishop! A certain State superintendent personally told me that he was asked by some religious to come and inspect their schools because they were anxious for the State's approval! Need we be surprised, then, if the State arrogates to itself the power to dictate as to the requirements of the religious teachers and their course of studies? King Ezechias, as is mentioned in Holy Writ, invited God's enemies to come and inspect his treasures; the punishment, foretold by Isaias [Isaiah], was not long delayed; the Babylonians came and carried away all the boasting king's possessions.
6. Secularism shows itself likewise in the treatment of religious instruction. Time is but grudgingly allowed for this subject, especially in our high schools and normal schools. When Bismarck, in 1872, tried to bring the Church under the complete control of the State, he wanted to allow two hours weekly for religious instruction; the German episcopate fought him and insisted on having six hours a week at least. How many of our high schools allow more than a half credit for religion, whereas a full credit is allowed for English, science, mathematics, etc. Even in our teachers' training schools religious instruction is considered more or less of secondary importance—but studies demanded by the State receive fullest consideration.
If the provisions of §203 of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore were carried out, we should perhaps not meet with religious teachers who do not know the principal parts of the Mass, or who would teach children that certain acts are mortal sins which are not sins at all, or would frighten with eternal hell fire the little child telling a lie. I have heard of instances where, during the year of the novitiate, which, according to canon 565, must be entirely devoted to the religious formation of the novice, some of the time is spent in preparing for examination in secular branches—because the State requires it! Need we be astonished if even some of our own teachers think that the principal difference between themselves and the public school teachers consists in their being somewhat more piously dressed? During their years of training they have not been made to realize the truth of Bishop McFaul's words: "That education, whose value ends with the few fleeting years of this earthly life, is of comparatively little importance, seeing that our future weal and woe depends upon the life we have led in this world. . . . Here is the object the religious teacher must unceasingly keep in mind—the Kingdom of God and His justice! . . . It is well to be learned, polished, and cultured, yet it is far more necessary to be God-fearing, conscious of an approaching day of reckoning, when the acts of life will be weighed in the balance of divine justice."
7. Since this insistence for higher education has taken hold of our religious teaching communities, there has come along with it some of the worldling's love for titles, for an M.A., or a Ph.D., etc., and a certain superiority complex which fits in badly with the Christian spirit. The old teacher may not know all the new terms modern pedagogy finds necessary to coin; but neither does the old-fashioned mother know aught about calories, carbohydrates, vitamines [sic], balanced rations, etc., yet many a savory meal does she know how to prepare, and many a man finds a country dinner more nourishing than [57] a meal prepared by a domestic science expert. There is danger that the young teacher, in her anxiety to acquire the new knowledge, will forget some of the decorum, modesty, unselfishness, childlike faith and simplicity which a religious teacher must possess in an eminent degree. There is danger that the young teacher, disregarding the laws of the Church, will seek knowledge at secular schools where, as Archbishop Curley puts it, "in the school of history Catholic students are forced to listen to vitriolic diatribes against their Church, the papacy, and Catholic religious life in general; in the school of sociology the professor may give out a teaching which is fundamentally opposed to Christian doctrine." G. K. Chesterton is even more explicit: "The professor can teach any sectarian idea, not in the name of the sect, but in the name of science. The professor can preach the advantage of polygamy and call it a lesson in anthropology or history. The professor can insinuate any ideas about life, because biology is a study of life. The professor can suggest any views on the nature of man, because history is the story of man." (Illustrated London News, Aug., 1925.)
Not only is attendance at such schools fraught with danger for the student ("He who loves danger shall perish therein"), but it is often a source of scandal to others. Some time ago a priest told me how he had warned a mother against sending her girl to the University of Cincinnati and got the reply, "Why, Father, quite a few Sisters attend the lectures there." There is a secular university in the East attended, I am told, by a large number of Sisters, because it offers some courses not found elsewhere, and this reason is considered sufficient for disregarding the wishes of Holy Church. "Verily, He who hears you hears me, he who despiseth you despiseth me," must be considered a dead letter by these nuns.
The Gnostics of old certainly made a mistake when they grossly exaggerated the power of evil and made of it a vital principle equal in power to the good God. But are we not drifting to the opposite extreme by minimizing the potency for evil of him who still goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour ? In the garden of Eden he enticed our first parents by the promise of greater knowledge—"you shall be knowing good and evil"—to disregard God's commandment, and at the present day he still holds out the same lure to make men deaf to the Church's cry of alarm.
"East is East and West is West and ne'er the twain shall meet," says Kipling. This holds good, so it seems to me, as regards the public school system and the parochial school system. The one is of earth, earthy; the other must be from heaven, heavenly; the one's great object is to train good and useful citizens; the other's chief aim is to win adherents for the kingdom of God. The one teaches the values of the means leading to material prosperity; the other deals mainly in spiritual realities. The one is becoming daily more intensely national; the other is essentially Catholic, teaching that we all are children of one Father in Heaven, who loves all men without distinction of color or race. Though it would be blindness not to see the good accomplished by our public school teachers, yet we would be betraying a sacred trust and opening the doors of our schools to secularism, were we slavishly to imitate their methods and copy their curriculum.
Brann, of Iconoclast fame [William Cowper Brann (1855–1898), American journalist, owned and ran a newspaper out of Austin, Texas and later Waco, called the Iconoclast], said to an Episcopalian who asked him for his opinion as to the difference between the Episcopalian and the Catholic Church; "The Catholics are Papists and you people are Apists." Let us always be Papists and never Apists.
---
[Anonymous Editorial appended to the above essay:]
While we make a great fuss about education and boast how many millions we are spending as a people in educating everybody in this land of ours, it is rather amusing to read that the coach of a football team receives a larger salary than any of the professors who teach only such minor and unimportant studies at literature, logic, philosophy, mathematics, etc.
---
Source: Fr. Michael Leick, "The Influence of Secularism in Education," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 37, no. 3 (March 1930): 53–57.
At times this opposition breaks forth in deeds of violence, and we then have an era of persecution, an age of martyrs. At other times it works secretly, scarcely betraying its presence by outward signs; working as slow poison works in destroying life. But never will there be a cessation of hostilities as long as children of men inhabit this earth. Our present Holy Father in his encyclical on the Kingdom of Christ stresses anew the dangers of this bitter and unrelenting conflict.
What applies to the conflict between these two forces in general, is found particularly in the field of education. Here also we at times meet with open violence, as, for instance, in France and Mexico, and as attempted in Oregon and Michigan, to mention only recent instances. But more frequently it is a warfare hidden, but none the less dangerous, none the less bitter and determined, that is being waged: Secularism, under some disguise or other, is continually trying to dominate the educational field, and backed as it often is by the wealth and the power of the State, it would surely gain the victory were it not for the assistance of Christ, who promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church. Let me briefly call attention to some of the aspects of this struggle:
1. Secular education places paramount importance on the training of the intellect, not hesitating to state, with Socrates of old, that "ignorance is the only sin." Secular teachers (by this term I mean those that are influenced by the secular spirit) are calling continually for more and more book-learning; are continually on the lookout for a new "ology" of some kind or other to squeeze into their already over-crowded curriculum. They seem not to know that at the man who from things visible, from things created, can rise to the knowledge of his Creator, as man, far surpasses the product of pure secular education. They would look askance at the words of Dr. Cassidy (Cath. Educational Review) that "Education is the making of the man; is the development of the Christian." They rank the mountaineer of Kentucky very low in their educational standards because he does not know how to read man-made books; they disregard entirely the fact that the same mountaineer often knows how to read the far more important book of nature and finds [54] therein lessons of uprightness, honesty, loyalty, deep religious convictions, etc. I wonder if Dr. Johnson, of the Catholic University, would still condemn as unreservedly as he did in 1919 the following opinion of a well-known educator: "I would say to elementary teachers: 'Give me a boy of the age of eleven or twelve, who writes a good legible hand, who spells correctly, reads with expression, has an accurate knowledge of the Baltimore Catechism and of Bible History, who can do rapid and accurate work in arithmetic, who knows fractions and percentages, who can write a short letter in simple and plain English, whose habits of speech are correct, and not slangy, whose manners, if not gentle, show at least some thought of others besides himself, and whose life is virtuous—and I will say that this boy has received a good elementary education. With these results we need not care how much or how little information he has acquired, nor need we inquire about methods, nor ask how much the teacher knows about psychology'." 'Tis strange indeed, in the pulpit and on the platform, our Catholic spokesmen emphasize the need of a complete education of the child, as distinct from the mere training of the intellect; they would in this respect be willing to quote Dr. Butler, who says: "Mere learning is not enough. The educated man whose character is not sound, whose conscience is not rightly instructed, whose conduct is not governed by higher considerations than those resting on mere expediency is liable to become a detriment to society: selfishness is apt to rule the life of such a one." And yet what do we find? Are not those who have been intellectually first in mathematics, science, history, etc., called upon the stage to receive all honors? Is it hard to find herein the influence of secularism, which is able to make us follow in practice what in theory we all condemn? The true religious teacher ought to view things from God's standpoint: the sentire cum ecclesia must be a pronounced trait in his or her character. Does God reward the intellectual giants on account of their achievements? Does the Church reserve her honors for those who have been able to astound their fellowmen by their mental prowess? Why not reward those and those only who have sincerely tried to use whatever talent God has given them and have made earnest efforts to conform their conduct to God's holy rule?
2. Secularism likewise stands revealed in the modern educator's attitude towards classical training; modern education insists, beyond all measure, that education must be practical, that it must impart ability to the child to share in the world's power and riches: hence the insistence on a business or manual training. What shall we eat? what shall we drink? with what shall we be clothed?—seems adequately to express this whole outlook on life. Training for a certain condition or vocation cannot be reasonably condemned; but we cannot approve the a priori condemnation of classical learning as something impractical for modern times. The underlying principle of the advocates of this tendency is that the training of the child should enable it to gain the most of life's advantages in the shortest possible time. An editorial writer in one of the afternoon papers puts it thus: "In this industrial and commercial age the public mind is on money or the means whereby money may be obtained."
3. If we carefully look over the textbooks used in the modern schools we meet again and easily recognize the spirit of the world hostile to the spirit of God. How many of our histories unblushingly teach the progress of nations along the lines of evolution. The Bible tells us that the first man was gifted with preternatural powers of mind and body; that owing to sin his mind became darkened and his will weak; and hence the state of barbarism is the result of his own conduct; but pseudo history teaches that somehow or other, by his own efforts and fitness man has gradually reached the present pinnacle of perfection, after evolving from some lower type. How many geographies tell the child only of material [55] and commercial progress; as illustrations you will find pictures of mining operations, industrial sites, business activities, etc., but seldom, if ever is allusion made to monuments inspired by religion, to cathedrals, universities, works of art. Not a few textbooks give extracts from authors who are justly condemned on account of their immoral teaching, thus opening to the mind of the child a vast field of what is vile and debasing. Many other examples of the same type could be quoted, but these few will suffice to show in how many different ways, through textbooks, the spirit of the world tries to gain the heart of the child.
4. In that indefinable something which we call the atmosphere of the schoolroom the workings of secularism are oftentimes very apparent. In our public schools all religious instruction is barred; no teacher is allowed to speak of man's duties towards God;—duties towards fellowman, perhaps, and towards self, but not towards God. The pupil may be told to live his own life and to obey his own impulses, but not that God has a right to exact of him obedience and submission. During the day no allusions will be made to the supernatural; no religious pictures or sacred images, the silent yet powerful reminders of a world beyond, are allowed. Even in our own Catholic schools—especially such as have non-Catholic pupils—secularism now and then shows itself under this guise. For fear of offending the non-Catholic child, the Catholic child is deprived of his birthright; his religious education is confined to a half-hour daily; indeed, in some extreme cases strictly Catholic pictures and emblems are banished from the classroom. Do such teachers realize that religion is not merely a body of truth, but also a virtue, in fact the highest of the moral virtues; that to form this virtue in the child must be the supreme aim of the teacher; and that since virtue is formed and strengthened by repeated acts, the teacher, not only during the period of instruction in religion, but frequently during the day, must strive to arouse in the child acts of this virtue, and that religious pictures, statues, devotions, etc., are a great help to the teacher in this respect? Dr. Johnson, in Fundamentals of Education, very appropriately says: "It is not enough for the child to learn the truth; he must like- wise be schooled in living according to it. Opportunities must be afforded him for putting his ideas to work. . . . The whole atmosphere of the school, the personality of the teacher, the discipline, the spirit, the experience provided, should reflect the truths that are taught . . , [sic] so that while the pupil acquires the necessary ideas, he may develop the attitudes and the habits that are of the essence of Christian character." That Sister who, as quoted by the Rev. Felix Kirsch, O.M.Cap., said, "Since I am called to make saints of my pupils, I must be a saint myself," seems to understand this truth. The hostile government of Mexico is fully aware of the influence of a Catholic atmosphere on the mind of a child. How pitiful this cry of the superioress of a teaching community in Mexico: "We have pretended that in our schools only lay instruction is impartial. We have removed the sacred images from our parlors and reception rooms. We have taught the pupils to conceal the fact that they are being taught religion. We have, in short, taught our pupils to deny the truth, and if we go farther, we shall tear out by the roots from their tender hearts their Christian faith and manhood." How courageous and truly Christian: "We will refuse in every school we have in Mexico to accept these infernal rules. . . . We are prepared with all our Sisters to undertake the hardships of an effective and open fight." This trying to spare the susceptibilities of the non-Catholic by toning down Catholic teaching is known in Europe as "Americanism" and was condemned by the late Pope Leo XIII. A recent editorial in the Dearborn Independent said quite apropos: "This is the broad age of suave tolerance. The soft pedal threatens at times to become our national symbol. Tolerance is our shibboleth; intolerance our greatest [56] dread. We must not speak our minds lest we offend. . . . Be bland! is the new commandment." The title of the editorial was: The Great Hush-Hush.
5. "He that is not with me is against me." According to this principle of our Saviour [sic] we must consider most governments of the present day as on the side of secularism. Now we find that there is a growing interference on the part of the State in our educational system, and some of us even seem proud of State supervision and boast of State approbation. Do we not find academies and high schools glorying in the fact that they are affiliated with the State University, as if our Catholic schools should serve as feeders to these centers of learning so frequently condemned by pope and bishop! A certain State superintendent personally told me that he was asked by some religious to come and inspect their schools because they were anxious for the State's approval! Need we be surprised, then, if the State arrogates to itself the power to dictate as to the requirements of the religious teachers and their course of studies? King Ezechias, as is mentioned in Holy Writ, invited God's enemies to come and inspect his treasures; the punishment, foretold by Isaias [Isaiah], was not long delayed; the Babylonians came and carried away all the boasting king's possessions.
6. Secularism shows itself likewise in the treatment of religious instruction. Time is but grudgingly allowed for this subject, especially in our high schools and normal schools. When Bismarck, in 1872, tried to bring the Church under the complete control of the State, he wanted to allow two hours weekly for religious instruction; the German episcopate fought him and insisted on having six hours a week at least. How many of our high schools allow more than a half credit for religion, whereas a full credit is allowed for English, science, mathematics, etc. Even in our teachers' training schools religious instruction is considered more or less of secondary importance—but studies demanded by the State receive fullest consideration.
If the provisions of §203 of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore were carried out, we should perhaps not meet with religious teachers who do not know the principal parts of the Mass, or who would teach children that certain acts are mortal sins which are not sins at all, or would frighten with eternal hell fire the little child telling a lie. I have heard of instances where, during the year of the novitiate, which, according to canon 565, must be entirely devoted to the religious formation of the novice, some of the time is spent in preparing for examination in secular branches—because the State requires it! Need we be astonished if even some of our own teachers think that the principal difference between themselves and the public school teachers consists in their being somewhat more piously dressed? During their years of training they have not been made to realize the truth of Bishop McFaul's words: "That education, whose value ends with the few fleeting years of this earthly life, is of comparatively little importance, seeing that our future weal and woe depends upon the life we have led in this world. . . . Here is the object the religious teacher must unceasingly keep in mind—the Kingdom of God and His justice! . . . It is well to be learned, polished, and cultured, yet it is far more necessary to be God-fearing, conscious of an approaching day of reckoning, when the acts of life will be weighed in the balance of divine justice."
7. Since this insistence for higher education has taken hold of our religious teaching communities, there has come along with it some of the worldling's love for titles, for an M.A., or a Ph.D., etc., and a certain superiority complex which fits in badly with the Christian spirit. The old teacher may not know all the new terms modern pedagogy finds necessary to coin; but neither does the old-fashioned mother know aught about calories, carbohydrates, vitamines [sic], balanced rations, etc., yet many a savory meal does she know how to prepare, and many a man finds a country dinner more nourishing than [57] a meal prepared by a domestic science expert. There is danger that the young teacher, in her anxiety to acquire the new knowledge, will forget some of the decorum, modesty, unselfishness, childlike faith and simplicity which a religious teacher must possess in an eminent degree. There is danger that the young teacher, disregarding the laws of the Church, will seek knowledge at secular schools where, as Archbishop Curley puts it, "in the school of history Catholic students are forced to listen to vitriolic diatribes against their Church, the papacy, and Catholic religious life in general; in the school of sociology the professor may give out a teaching which is fundamentally opposed to Christian doctrine." G. K. Chesterton is even more explicit: "The professor can teach any sectarian idea, not in the name of the sect, but in the name of science. The professor can preach the advantage of polygamy and call it a lesson in anthropology or history. The professor can insinuate any ideas about life, because biology is a study of life. The professor can suggest any views on the nature of man, because history is the story of man." (Illustrated London News, Aug., 1925.)
Not only is attendance at such schools fraught with danger for the student ("He who loves danger shall perish therein"), but it is often a source of scandal to others. Some time ago a priest told me how he had warned a mother against sending her girl to the University of Cincinnati and got the reply, "Why, Father, quite a few Sisters attend the lectures there." There is a secular university in the East attended, I am told, by a large number of Sisters, because it offers some courses not found elsewhere, and this reason is considered sufficient for disregarding the wishes of Holy Church. "Verily, He who hears you hears me, he who despiseth you despiseth me," must be considered a dead letter by these nuns.
The Gnostics of old certainly made a mistake when they grossly exaggerated the power of evil and made of it a vital principle equal in power to the good God. But are we not drifting to the opposite extreme by minimizing the potency for evil of him who still goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour ? In the garden of Eden he enticed our first parents by the promise of greater knowledge—"you shall be knowing good and evil"—to disregard God's commandment, and at the present day he still holds out the same lure to make men deaf to the Church's cry of alarm.
"East is East and West is West and ne'er the twain shall meet," says Kipling. This holds good, so it seems to me, as regards the public school system and the parochial school system. The one is of earth, earthy; the other must be from heaven, heavenly; the one's great object is to train good and useful citizens; the other's chief aim is to win adherents for the kingdom of God. The one teaches the values of the means leading to material prosperity; the other deals mainly in spiritual realities. The one is becoming daily more intensely national; the other is essentially Catholic, teaching that we all are children of one Father in Heaven, who loves all men without distinction of color or race. Though it would be blindness not to see the good accomplished by our public school teachers, yet we would be betraying a sacred trust and opening the doors of our schools to secularism, were we slavishly to imitate their methods and copy their curriculum.
Brann, of Iconoclast fame [William Cowper Brann (1855–1898), American journalist, owned and ran a newspaper out of Austin, Texas and later Waco, called the Iconoclast], said to an Episcopalian who asked him for his opinion as to the difference between the Episcopalian and the Catholic Church; "The Catholics are Papists and you people are Apists." Let us always be Papists and never Apists.
---
[Anonymous Editorial appended to the above essay:]
While we make a great fuss about education and boast how many millions we are spending as a people in educating everybody in this land of ours, it is rather amusing to read that the coach of a football team receives a larger salary than any of the professors who teach only such minor and unimportant studies at literature, logic, philosophy, mathematics, etc.
---
Source: Fr. Michael Leick, "The Influence of Secularism in Education," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 37, no. 3 (March 1930): 53–57.
Monday, June 5, 2017
Bp. Athanasius Schneider on the Effects of Ignoring Original Sin
[...] without the acceptance of the truth about original sin and sins in general, one cannot understand properly the redemption of the human race through the sacrifice of Christ at the Cross. If one eliminates the language of sin, one finally also eliminates the true redemption; and one then turns Christianity into a Humanism or into a Pelagianism. Then there is left only the self-redemption or a religion of a naturalistic moral ethic and pedagogy, or a new religion of ecology and of climate change.
---
Source: Athanasius Schneider, interview by Maike Hickson, LifeSiteNews, June 8, 2015.
---
Source: Athanasius Schneider, interview by Maike Hickson, LifeSiteNews, June 8, 2015.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Paul Joseph Watson on the Truth about Popular Culture
Warning: the following video contains graphic and obscene images.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLUIXWnrC0
Related--on the truth about popular music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0wuwJBdMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyLUIXWnrC0
Related--on the truth about popular music:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP0wuwJBdMI
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Can the Descent of Modern Society Reverse?
To act as though man made history by his own purposes and decisions is a kind of spiritual blindness which bears within it its own downfall.
[xxxix] And it is precisely this spiritual blindness which is characteristic of modern civilization, a kind of hubris which leads to the frustration of social idealism and society’s turning away from those principles it professes to be following, in order to promote their opposite. Has there ever been a society which set a higher store on the ideals of humanitarianism than our own, and has there ever been one which, at the same time, allowed for the killing off of such countless millions of unborn infants? And has there ever been a culture which so repeatedly emphasized its concerns for the rights of man, and at the same time meekly acquiesced in the obliteration of those rights by totalitarian regimes in all parts of the world?
Written thirty-five years ago, in the midst of World War II, the following judgment of Christopher Dawson has a direct relationship to the condition in which the whole of the modern world finds itself today:
But this is just the truth which the modern world has denied. It has put its trust in the “arm of flesh”; it has believed the word of man rather than the Word of God. It has reversed the whole hierarchy of spiritual values so that our civilization has been turned backwards and upside down, with its face toward darkness and nonentity and its back to the sun of truth and the source of being. For a short time—whether we reckon it in decades or centuries is of small importance—it remained precariously skating on the thin ice of rationalism and secular humanism. Now the ice has broken and we are being carried down the flood, though we may delude ourselves that the forces that have been released are of our own creation and serve our will to power.
Is it possible to reverse this process? No human power can stop this progress to the abyss. It can only come about by a profound movement of change or conversion which brings the human spirit once more into vital relation with the spirit of God. (The Judgment of the Nations [London: Sheed and Ward, 1942], 157)---
Source: John J. Mulloy, “Preface to the 1978 Edition”, in Dynamics of World History, ed. John J. Mulloy (Washington, DE: ISI Books, 2002), xxxviii–xxxix.
When Society Loses Its Higher Spiritual Ordering
Our own civilization, as Dawson points out, is one which has increasingly ignored the significance of the religious element, whether through prophecy or through the consecration of its social institutions to religious ends. The result is a widespread sense of spiritual dissatisfaction, which leads participants in the culture to look upon it with distrust and hostility. This not only withdraws from society the psychological support which it needs, but also, it leaves society vulnerable to movements of violence against its social structure and the values it embodies. “When the prophets are silent and society no longer possesses any channel of communication with the divine world, the way to the lower depths is still open and man’s frustrated spiritual powers will find their outlet in the unlimited will to power and destruction” (Religion and Culture [London: Sheed & Ward, 1948], 83).
[…] [xxxvii] But while society needs religion for its survival, it cannot return to religious belief simply by an act of the will, as a means of recovering its spiritual roots. This arises from the very nature of religion, from the fact that there is a basic difference between the motivations of religious feeling and those of political purpose. “It is useless to judge a religion from the point of view of the politician or the social reformer. We shall never create a living religion merely as a means to an end, a way out of our practical difficulties. For the religious view of life is opposite of the utilitarian. It regards the world and human life sub specie aeternitatis. It is only by accepting the religious point of view, by regarding religion as an end in itself and not as a means to something else, that we can discuss religious problems profitably” (Christianity and the New Age [London: Sheed & Ward, 1931], 172).
Now this conception of religion is so opposed to the modern attitude that it is difficult for modern man to accept it or appreciate its force. He is always asking whether religion serves this or that purpose, has this effect or that on the social order or on human behavior, as a way of deciding whether its existence is justified. It is man’s will rather than God’s which is taken as a standard, man’s conception of human welfare, not life seen in the light of eternity, which forms the basis for judgments concerning the significance of religion.
Yet this is discernment only on a superficial level; and even history itself testifies how limited and earthbound such ideas of human welfare and human destiny turn out to be. There is, as Dawson points out, an unpredictable character to events and outcomes in history which goes quite counter to rational calculations and makes the standards of a purely human judgment strikingly inadequate. “The real meaning of history is something entirely different from that which the human actors in the historical drama themselves believe or intend” (Religion and the Modern State [London: Sheed & Ward, 1935], 81). As an example of this, Dawson cites the contrast between the expectations of the Liberals concerning the purposes of the French Revolution and the harsh realities of the Revolution itself.
---
Source: John J. Mulloy, “Preface to the 1978 Edition”, in Dynamics of World History, ed. John J. Mulloy (Washington, DE: ISI Books, 2002), xxxvi.
[…] [xxxvii] But while society needs religion for its survival, it cannot return to religious belief simply by an act of the will, as a means of recovering its spiritual roots. This arises from the very nature of religion, from the fact that there is a basic difference between the motivations of religious feeling and those of political purpose. “It is useless to judge a religion from the point of view of the politician or the social reformer. We shall never create a living religion merely as a means to an end, a way out of our practical difficulties. For the religious view of life is opposite of the utilitarian. It regards the world and human life sub specie aeternitatis. It is only by accepting the religious point of view, by regarding religion as an end in itself and not as a means to something else, that we can discuss religious problems profitably” (Christianity and the New Age [London: Sheed & Ward, 1931], 172).
Now this conception of religion is so opposed to the modern attitude that it is difficult for modern man to accept it or appreciate its force. He is always asking whether religion serves this or that purpose, has this effect or that on the social order or on human behavior, as a way of deciding whether its existence is justified. It is man’s will rather than God’s which is taken as a standard, man’s conception of human welfare, not life seen in the light of eternity, which forms the basis for judgments concerning the significance of religion.
Yet this is discernment only on a superficial level; and even history itself testifies how limited and earthbound such ideas of human welfare and human destiny turn out to be. There is, as Dawson points out, an unpredictable character to events and outcomes in history which goes quite counter to rational calculations and makes the standards of a purely human judgment strikingly inadequate. “The real meaning of history is something entirely different from that which the human actors in the historical drama themselves believe or intend” (Religion and the Modern State [London: Sheed & Ward, 1935], 81). As an example of this, Dawson cites the contrast between the expectations of the Liberals concerning the purposes of the French Revolution and the harsh realities of the Revolution itself.
---
Source: John J. Mulloy, “Preface to the 1978 Edition”, in Dynamics of World History, ed. John J. Mulloy (Washington, DE: ISI Books, 2002), xxxvi.
The Religion of Enlightenment Utopianism
Late-eighteenth [xxi] and nineteenth-century utopianism was more absurd than most. But wherein lay the absurdity? Not so much in the ignorance of human history as in its faux religiosity. The great abstractions—Liberity, Equality, Fraternity; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—always came in threes. They were secular trinities amply supplied with creeds, priests, keepers of orthodoxy, heresy-hunters, the fervent faithful. All they lacked was self-knowledge, awareness of themselves as profane theologies. Indeed, nowhere was this more apparent than in their understanding of religion itself. Philosophes fashioned a “purely rational philosophy of religion based on the abstract generalities . . . common to all forms of religion. For deism is nothing but the ghost of religion which haunts the grave of dead faith and lost hope” (Dynamics of World History, 88). It never occurred to the builders of the new society hat the religion they concocted—of society itself—was not enough. Such things cannot be concocted anyway, put together as from some recipe book of socially useful devotion. Real religion, Dawson argued, must “embody itself in concrete forms appropriate to the national character and the cultural tradition” (88) of a people. The late-eighteenth-century version was manifestly ersatz.
---
Dermot Quinn, “Introduction,” in Dynamics of World History, ed. John J. Mulloy (Washington, DE: ISI Books, 2002), xx–xxi.
---
Dermot Quinn, “Introduction,” in Dynamics of World History, ed. John J. Mulloy (Washington, DE: ISI Books, 2002), xx–xxi.
Secularism Destroys True Individuality
It would be hard to offer a better description of secularism than “religious emotion divorced from religious belief.” Nor are we likely to find a more accurate account of the spiritual vanity characteristic of the contemporary world. There is, perhaps, only one serious difference between Dawson’s day and our own. When he wrote, half a century ago, he complained of a secularism that was essentially collective. Democracy, nationalism and socialism are movements larger than the individual. This is their point. Nowadays, the secular mind fixates on the purely personal, shrinking from the social. Its preoccupations are curiously private: the cult of the body, authenticity, sexual license, the New Age in all its mystic vapidity. Secularism has become the numinosity of the narcissist. Postmodern man elevates a monstrance and sees at its center a mirror.
There is an obvious irony here. This self-worship is ignorant of the sources of the self. It prizes a rootless individualism, undifferentiated from place to place. In the name of local truths—my right, my body, my opinion—it banishes localism, replacing it with compulsory cosmopolitanism, the standard self-absorptions of Everyman. In the name of distinctive identity it produces identical “individuals.” Yet it is in the local and regional where a person is formed and made. Dawson, the most urbane of thinkers, was unsettled by this derogation of the provincial and the parochial. He knew that cosmopolitanism—the same citified culture the world over—produced homogenous [sic] [xx] cities, homogenous citizens. Urban man, deracinated and despiritualized, forgot the sources of his moral vitality: family, region, local clay. As with early civilizations, so with late: the closer to the land the better.
There is an obvious irony here. This self-worship is ignorant of the sources of the self. It prizes a rootless individualism, undifferentiated from place to place. In the name of local truths—my right, my body, my opinion—it banishes localism, replacing it with compulsory cosmopolitanism, the standard self-absorptions of Everyman. In the name of distinctive identity it produces identical “individuals.” Yet it is in the local and regional where a person is formed and made. Dawson, the most urbane of thinkers, was unsettled by this derogation of the provincial and the parochial. He knew that cosmopolitanism—the same citified culture the world over—produced homogenous [sic] [xx] cities, homogenous citizens. Urban man, deracinated and despiritualized, forgot the sources of his moral vitality: family, region, local clay. As with early civilizations, so with late: the closer to the land the better.
---
Dermot Quinn, “Introduction,” in Dynamics of World History, ed. John J. Mulloy (Washington, DE: ISI Books, 2002), xix–xx.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)