[75] It just so happens that our contemporary epoch offers us the example of a musical culture that is day by day losing the sense of continuity and the taste for a common language.
Individual caprice and intellectual anarchy, which tend to control the world in which we live, isolate the artist from his fellow artists and condemn him to appear as a monster in the eyes of the public; a monster of originality, inventor of his own language, of his own vocabulary, and of the apparatus of his art. The use of already employed materials and of established forms is usually forbidden him. So he comes to the point of speaking an idiom without relation to the world that listens to him. His art becomes truly unique, in the sense [76] that it is incommunicable and shut off on every side. The erratic block is no longer a curiosity that is an exception; it is the sole model offered neophytes for emulation.
The appearance of a series of anarchic, incompatible, and contradictory tendencies in the field of history corresponds to this complete break in tradition. Times have changed since the day when Bach, Handel, and Vivaldi quite evidently spoke the same language which their disciples repeated after them, each one unwittingly transforming this language according to his own personality. The day when Haydn, Mozart, and Cimarosa echoed each other in works that served their successors as models, successors such as Rossini, who was fond of repeating in so touching a way that Mozart had been the delight of his youth, the desperation of his maturity, and the consolation of his old age.
Those times have given way to a new age that seeks to reduce everything to uniformity in the realm of matter while it tends to shatter all universality in the realm of the spirit in deference to an anarchic individualism. That his how once universal centers of culture have become isolated. They withdraw into a national, even regional, framework, which in its turn splits up to the point of eventual disappearance.
[77] Whether he wills it or not, the contemporary artist is caught in this infernal machination. There are simple souls who rejoice in this state of affairs. There are criminals who approve of it. Only a few are horrified at a solitude that obliges them to turn in upon themselves when everything invites them to participate in social life.
The universality whose benefits we are gradually losing is an entirely different thing from the cosmopolitanism that is beginning to take hold of us. Universality presupposes the fecundity of a culture that is spread and communicated everywhere, whereas cosmopolitanism provides for neither action nor doctrine and induces the indifferent passivity of a sterile eclecticism.
Universality necessarily stipulates submission to an established order. And its reasons for this stipulation are convincing. We submit to this order out of sympathy or prudence. In either case the benefits of submission are not long in appearing.
In a society like that of the Middle Ages, which recognized and safeguarded the primacy of the spiritual realm and the dignity of the human person (which must not be confused with the individual)—in such a society recognition by everyone of a hierarchy of values and a body of moral principles established an order of things that put everyone in accord concerning certain fundamental [78] concepts of good and evil, truth and error. I do not say of beauty and ugliness, because it is absolutely futile to dogmatize in so subjective a domain.
It should not surprise us then that social order has never directly governed these matters. As a matter of fact, it is not by promulgating an aesthetic, but by improving the status of man and by exalting the competent workman in the artist that a civilization communicates something of its order to works of art and speculation. The good artisan himself in those happy ages dreams of achieving the beautiful only through the categories of the useful. His prime concern is applied to the rightness of an operation that is performed well, in keeping with a true order. The aesthetic impression that will arise from this rightness will not be legitimately achieved except insofar as it was not calculated. Poussin said quite correctly that "the goal of art is delectation." He did not say that this delectation should be the goal of the artist who must always submit solely to the demands of the work to be done.
It is a fact of experience, and one that is only seemingly paradoxical, that we find freedom in a strict submission to the object: "It is not wisdom, but foolishness, that is stubborn," says Sophocles, in the magnificent translation of Antigone given us by André Bonnard. "Look at the trees. By embracing [78] the movements of the tempest they preserve their tender branches; but if they rear against the wind they are carried off, roots and all."
Let us take the best example: the fugue, a pure form in which the music means nothing outside itself. Doesn't the fugue imply the composer's submission to the rules? And is it not within those strictures that he finds the full flowering of his freedom as a creator? Strength, says Leonardo da Vinci, is born of constraint and dies in freedom.
Insubordination boasts of just the opposite and does away with constraint in the ever-disappointed hope of finding in freedom the principle of strength. Instead, it finds in freedom only the arbitrariness of whim and the disorders of fancy. Thus it loses every vestige of control, loses its bearings and ends by demanding of music things outside its scope and competence. Do we not, in truth, ask the impossible of music when we expect it to express feelings, to translate dramatic situations, even to imitate nature? And, as if it were not enough to condemn music to the job of being an illustrator, the century to which we owe what it called "progress through enlightenment" invented for good measure the monumental absurdity which consists of bestowing on every accessory, as well as on every feeling and every character of the lyrical drama, a sort of check-room number called a Leitmotiv—a [80] system that led Debussy to say that the Ring struck him as a sort of vast musical city directory.
---
Source: Igor Stravinsky, Poetics of Music in the Form of Six Lessons, trans. by Arthur Knodel and Ingolf Dahl (New York: Vintage Books, 1947), 75–80.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Sunday, November 10, 2019
A New Vocation (1930)
[66] The Catholic Gazette (Vol. XXI, No. 2) thinks the moment is propitious for some sort of corporate action by Catholic ladies (and every true Catholic woman is a lady) to emphasize the present trend of fashion towards a more becoming and more artistic style of dress. Any artist will tell you, says our contemporary, that the short dress was not beautiful, whatever may be claimed for it on the score of comfort and hygiene. The trend of fashion is now against it, and possibly the energetic action of Catholic women in Italy and elsewhere has had much to do with the change. We have heard an eminent professor of moral theology argue that a few Catholic women, recognized as leaders of fashion, could quickly put an end to the extravagances of the dress designers by corporate action. Let it be agreed amongst them that they will resolutely refuse to buy anything, however beautiful, which offends Christian modesty, and let it be equally agreed that they will not buy a modest garment which is not beautiful, and the designers will quickly toe the line. This idea opens up the interesting possibility of turning the ''cult of fashion" into a vocation, but it requires a little pluck on the part of the few Catholic women who are sufficiently well-off and well-placed to be recognized as "leaders of fashion."
---
Source: Anonymous editorial, "A New Vocation," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 37, no. 3 (March 1930): 66.
---
Source: Anonymous editorial, "A New Vocation," The Catholic Fortnightly Review 37, no. 3 (March 1930): 66.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Dangers of Modern Fashions and Social Codes for Women (1928)
[8] "THERE IS STILL ANOTHER lurking danger in connection with fashion and social codes. Our Catholic women are practically everywhere in the minority. In aspiring to social prominence, some accept prevalent standards that are manifestly unchristian. As every Catholic woman individually should be herself and stand firmly on Catholic principles, refusing absolutely to make concessions to the pagan spirit of the day, whether it be noisy, or cultured, or intriguing; so every group of Catholic women in the minority must likewise stand inflexibly against the insidious encroachments of neo-pagamism in our modern social life. This is not because we have the least desire to stand as a group apart, but because we cleary recognize that for us there can be no possible compromise where the very fundamental principles of Christian morality are at stake.
"If our Catholic women are to exercise the powerful influence that it is possible for them to exercise, they should have thought not so much of their numbers, or of political affiliations, but rather of the high and ennobling principles by which they must be guided and which are guaranteed by their divine religion. It is simply impossible for any group of women to live truly Catholic lives and to stand unalterably for basic Christian principles without influencing profoundly and permanently the community in which they live."—From Archbishop McNicholas' Sermon at the Cleveland Convention of the N. C. C. W.
---
Source: "Archbishop McNicholas Points Out Dangers in Connection with Modern Fashions and Social Codes," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 6 (November 1928): 8.
"If our Catholic women are to exercise the powerful influence that it is possible for them to exercise, they should have thought not so much of their numbers, or of political affiliations, but rather of the high and ennobling principles by which they must be guided and which are guaranteed by their divine religion. It is simply impossible for any group of women to live truly Catholic lives and to stand unalterably for basic Christian principles without influencing profoundly and permanently the community in which they live."—From Archbishop McNicholas' Sermon at the Cleveland Convention of the N. C. C. W.
---
Source: "Archbishop McNicholas Points Out Dangers in Connection with Modern Fashions and Social Codes," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 6 (November 1928): 8.
Duties of Catholic Women (1928)
[7] MOST REVEREND JOHN T. McNICHOLAS, Archbishop of Cincinnati, sounded the keynote of the Eighth Annual Convention for the National Council of Catholic Women when, in a sermon delivered at the Solemn Pontifical Mass at St. John's Cathedral, Cleveland, he stressed the present day need of trained leadership in all fields which Catholic women have entered, urgently insisted that Catholic women should be mindful of their civic obligations and urged constructive work in behalf of an endangered youth and the promotion of womanly modesty.
At the very beginning of his sermon, Archbishop McNicholas emphasized that the Convention has no political significance, but would be "an example of that dignity, liberality and tolerance, and that freedom from any tendency to use the organization of your Church as a political instrument, which should characterize Catholic women."
After calling attention to the fact that the day chosen for the opening of the Convention was the Feast of our Blessed Mother, under one of her most endearing titles—"Queen of the Holy Rosary," Archbishop McNicholas asked: "What are the special lessons we should learn from Mary—those that will aid in giving us the help and the inspiration to meet the conditions of our times?"
ONE of the greatest works awaiting Catholic women, he declared, is to make their influence felt upon youth. He pointed to the "incredible change" which has taken place among youth in modern times, characterized by indifference to religion and a distorted view of liberty. Liberty in its true sense, he insisted, does not mean merely a restriction which enables one to escape the penalty of the law," but "a perfecting, not a demoralizing power—a gift of God, a gift which neither the Church nor the State has the right to take away but rather has the obligation to safeguard." Much of the law-making today shows a tendency not to protect this God-given liberty of individuals, he said, but rather to exercise compulsion. He declared it the duty of mothers to teach their children a true concept of liberty—that it is not license.
"Under this false concept of liberty," His Grace continued, "the public virtue of modesty is considered as something hampering the development of young women." Christian mothers, he warned, must not leave wholly to the schools the combating of this trend.
"We must face the fact," continued the Archbishop, "that the daily press, the ephemeral literature, the sensational and too frequently suggestive moving picture, the general tone of the conversation of youth, the abuses brought about by the automobile, the immodest manner of dress now in vogue among women, the weakening of home ties and the lessening of home influence, the rejection of the wisdom and experience of the older generation, not perhaps by disrespect but by regarding it as an outworn philosophy of life not applicable to our modern times—all these necessarily make their impress on the mind and character of youth and tend to lower the ideals inculcated during their school years. Youth must be in fashion, and unfortunately at the present time pagans are dictating the fashions, not only in the matter of dress but of conduct as well. And this is the precise state of affairs which offers to Catholic women today a field in which there are exceptional opportunities of achievement.
"THERE is no doubt that women can exert a much greater influence over youth than men, but it must be wisely exercised. Mere fault-finding does no good whatever, but simply alienates those whom we wish to influence. It makes them feel that there is no sympathy for them on the part of the older generation, nor any understanding of their youthful problems. Who so well as our Catholic women, who hold our Blessed Mother as their model, can help to reestablish the sense of Christian modesty and bring about the observances of those delicacies and refinements of life—not to speak of the ordinary decencies of life—which are too little appreciated today?"
"OUR Catholic women," continued Archbishop McNicholas, "must study Mary especially as a mother. The lives of our Catholic women must be a manifest challenge to the women of the whole world with regard to the sacred obligations of marriage, and especially of Christian motherhood.
[8] "Marriage today outside the Catholic Church is reduced practically to the level of a business contract, to be terminated whenever it proves unsatisfactory to the contracting parties. The marvel is, with divorce so readily accepted in principle in our country, that public opinion has not brought about the abrogation of all official procedure leading to it. One trembles at the thought of the consequences to society when this comes about. And come it must unless Catholic women and Catholic principles are able to stem the tide of divorce, the cause of which, however much we may try to disguise the fact, is in its true analysis sensuality.
"IT is not surprising under these circumstances that the home should lose almost entirely its influence; that it should be no longer the center of true family life, where Christian virtues bear fruit, but merely a place to eat and sleep."
"Other things that are undermining the stability of the home," the Archbishop pointed out, "are the immoderate pursuit of temporal goods and the craze for pleasure. The modern world is frankly engrossed in material things, eager for power and place and for all the advantages and pleasures that go with them. There is no wish to discourage a laudable ambition to rise in the world. It is the right of every human being to acquire by industry and the proper use of God's gifts a share of all that the world has to offer, provided things be held in their true proportion, and that in the pursuit of temporal prosperity the spiritual life be not choked and deadened.
"IT is possible to acquire even great wealth and yet remain poor in spirit, recognizing ever and always that wealth means a stewardship, to be strictly accounted for, rather than personal ownership and the unrestrained indulgence of luxurious tastes. If the home is to be restored to its proper place and to exercise its divine influence, it must be through our women. Catholic women must be the leaders in this restoration. They are not called upon in an heroic degree to emulate Mary, who with the sublimest vocation ever given to a creature lived in extreme poverty in her little home in Nazareth, but they are required at least to take her as the model in the home."
WORK in which diocesan councils could well engage, with the approval of their Bishops, said His Grace, is the training of a number of Catholic young women for leadership, "and this in all fields where women are active today." Here he made a practical suggestion: That intellectual women of fine character who have completed their college course, or even girls of promise who have finished high school, be selected and given additional opportunities for study in university centers. A group of women in the diocese might unite to finance such a project, he said. After emphasizing that they should have the advantage of Catholic philosophy and the sane direction of the Church, he exclaimed:
"Who can measure what ten outstanding women who would command the attention of the whole country would mean to the Church if we had them at the present moment! What a simple task it would be for the Church, through groups of women of means in many of the principal centers, to give opportunities to intelligent, sensible, laudably ambitious Catholic women to attain eminence in the professions and in public life!"
"GREAT praise," said His Grace, "is due to the National Council of Catholic Women for the establishment of the School of Social Service at Washington. Generous patrons have helped to support it, but it deserves also the interest of every Catholic woman and the encouragement of every society of Catholic women throughout the country." [emphasis original]
In concluding his sermon, Archbishop McNicholas referred to the persecution of the Church in Mexico as follows:
"We have within recent years given our Blessed Mother the beautiful title, 'Queen of Peace.' During the World War we fervently invoked her intercession to bring about a cessation of hostilities. Shall we not now with equal fervor implore her good offices to restore to the afflicted Church of Mexico the rights of which a tyrannical government has deprived her and to deliver her from the cruel persecution from which she has long suffered. Resolve today to join the women of Mexico, your sisters in the South, in imploring the Queen of the Rosary to obtain for their unhappy country the blessings of peace and religious liberty."
When Archbishop McNicholas had concluded his sermon, Bishop Schrembs, before resuming the Mass, thanked him and declared: "You have spoken with fine poise the watchword of the Convention."
---
Source: "Archbishop McNicholas Calls for Catholic Leadership: Outlines Duties of Catholic Women in Forceful Sermon at Opening of Cleveland Convention," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 6 (November 1928): 7–8.
At the very beginning of his sermon, Archbishop McNicholas emphasized that the Convention has no political significance, but would be "an example of that dignity, liberality and tolerance, and that freedom from any tendency to use the organization of your Church as a political instrument, which should characterize Catholic women."
After calling attention to the fact that the day chosen for the opening of the Convention was the Feast of our Blessed Mother, under one of her most endearing titles—"Queen of the Holy Rosary," Archbishop McNicholas asked: "What are the special lessons we should learn from Mary—those that will aid in giving us the help and the inspiration to meet the conditions of our times?"
ONE of the greatest works awaiting Catholic women, he declared, is to make their influence felt upon youth. He pointed to the "incredible change" which has taken place among youth in modern times, characterized by indifference to religion and a distorted view of liberty. Liberty in its true sense, he insisted, does not mean merely a restriction which enables one to escape the penalty of the law," but "a perfecting, not a demoralizing power—a gift of God, a gift which neither the Church nor the State has the right to take away but rather has the obligation to safeguard." Much of the law-making today shows a tendency not to protect this God-given liberty of individuals, he said, but rather to exercise compulsion. He declared it the duty of mothers to teach their children a true concept of liberty—that it is not license.
"Under this false concept of liberty," His Grace continued, "the public virtue of modesty is considered as something hampering the development of young women." Christian mothers, he warned, must not leave wholly to the schools the combating of this trend.
"We must face the fact," continued the Archbishop, "that the daily press, the ephemeral literature, the sensational and too frequently suggestive moving picture, the general tone of the conversation of youth, the abuses brought about by the automobile, the immodest manner of dress now in vogue among women, the weakening of home ties and the lessening of home influence, the rejection of the wisdom and experience of the older generation, not perhaps by disrespect but by regarding it as an outworn philosophy of life not applicable to our modern times—all these necessarily make their impress on the mind and character of youth and tend to lower the ideals inculcated during their school years. Youth must be in fashion, and unfortunately at the present time pagans are dictating the fashions, not only in the matter of dress but of conduct as well. And this is the precise state of affairs which offers to Catholic women today a field in which there are exceptional opportunities of achievement.
"THERE is no doubt that women can exert a much greater influence over youth than men, but it must be wisely exercised. Mere fault-finding does no good whatever, but simply alienates those whom we wish to influence. It makes them feel that there is no sympathy for them on the part of the older generation, nor any understanding of their youthful problems. Who so well as our Catholic women, who hold our Blessed Mother as their model, can help to reestablish the sense of Christian modesty and bring about the observances of those delicacies and refinements of life—not to speak of the ordinary decencies of life—which are too little appreciated today?"
"OUR Catholic women," continued Archbishop McNicholas, "must study Mary especially as a mother. The lives of our Catholic women must be a manifest challenge to the women of the whole world with regard to the sacred obligations of marriage, and especially of Christian motherhood.
[8] "Marriage today outside the Catholic Church is reduced practically to the level of a business contract, to be terminated whenever it proves unsatisfactory to the contracting parties. The marvel is, with divorce so readily accepted in principle in our country, that public opinion has not brought about the abrogation of all official procedure leading to it. One trembles at the thought of the consequences to society when this comes about. And come it must unless Catholic women and Catholic principles are able to stem the tide of divorce, the cause of which, however much we may try to disguise the fact, is in its true analysis sensuality.
"IT is not surprising under these circumstances that the home should lose almost entirely its influence; that it should be no longer the center of true family life, where Christian virtues bear fruit, but merely a place to eat and sleep."
"Other things that are undermining the stability of the home," the Archbishop pointed out, "are the immoderate pursuit of temporal goods and the craze for pleasure. The modern world is frankly engrossed in material things, eager for power and place and for all the advantages and pleasures that go with them. There is no wish to discourage a laudable ambition to rise in the world. It is the right of every human being to acquire by industry and the proper use of God's gifts a share of all that the world has to offer, provided things be held in their true proportion, and that in the pursuit of temporal prosperity the spiritual life be not choked and deadened.
"IT is possible to acquire even great wealth and yet remain poor in spirit, recognizing ever and always that wealth means a stewardship, to be strictly accounted for, rather than personal ownership and the unrestrained indulgence of luxurious tastes. If the home is to be restored to its proper place and to exercise its divine influence, it must be through our women. Catholic women must be the leaders in this restoration. They are not called upon in an heroic degree to emulate Mary, who with the sublimest vocation ever given to a creature lived in extreme poverty in her little home in Nazareth, but they are required at least to take her as the model in the home."
WORK in which diocesan councils could well engage, with the approval of their Bishops, said His Grace, is the training of a number of Catholic young women for leadership, "and this in all fields where women are active today." Here he made a practical suggestion: That intellectual women of fine character who have completed their college course, or even girls of promise who have finished high school, be selected and given additional opportunities for study in university centers. A group of women in the diocese might unite to finance such a project, he said. After emphasizing that they should have the advantage of Catholic philosophy and the sane direction of the Church, he exclaimed:
"Who can measure what ten outstanding women who would command the attention of the whole country would mean to the Church if we had them at the present moment! What a simple task it would be for the Church, through groups of women of means in many of the principal centers, to give opportunities to intelligent, sensible, laudably ambitious Catholic women to attain eminence in the professions and in public life!"
"GREAT praise," said His Grace, "is due to the National Council of Catholic Women for the establishment of the School of Social Service at Washington. Generous patrons have helped to support it, but it deserves also the interest of every Catholic woman and the encouragement of every society of Catholic women throughout the country." [emphasis original]
In concluding his sermon, Archbishop McNicholas referred to the persecution of the Church in Mexico as follows:
"We have within recent years given our Blessed Mother the beautiful title, 'Queen of Peace.' During the World War we fervently invoked her intercession to bring about a cessation of hostilities. Shall we not now with equal fervor implore her good offices to restore to the afflicted Church of Mexico the rights of which a tyrannical government has deprived her and to deliver her from the cruel persecution from which she has long suffered. Resolve today to join the women of Mexico, your sisters in the South, in imploring the Queen of the Rosary to obtain for their unhappy country the blessings of peace and religious liberty."
When Archbishop McNicholas had concluded his sermon, Bishop Schrembs, before resuming the Mass, thanked him and declared: "You have spoken with fine poise the watchword of the Convention."
---
Source: "Archbishop McNicholas Calls for Catholic Leadership: Outlines Duties of Catholic Women in Forceful Sermon at Opening of Cleveland Convention," National Catholic Welfare Council Bulletin 10, no. 6 (November 1928): 7–8.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)