Skip to main content

Full text of "Explanation of Catholic morals : a concise, reasoned, and popular exposition of Catholic morals"

See other formats


I 


ill 


i 


ST.  MICHAEL'S  COLLEGE 

TORONTO,  CANADA 


LIBRARY 


PRESENTED  BY 


Rt.   Rev,  William  A.  Egan 


-LIBRARY 


EXPLANATION 

OF 

CATHOLIC    MORALS 


A  CONCISE,  REASONED,  AND  POPULAR 
EXPOSITION  OF  CATHOLIC  MORALS 


BY 


REV.  JOHN  H.  STAPLETON 


NEW  YORK,  CINCINNATI,  CHICAGO: 

BENZIGER    BROTH 

PRINTERS  TO  THE       I  PUBLISHERS  OF 

HOLY  APOSTOLIC  SEE       BENZIGER'S  MAGAZI 


flfbfl  (Pbetat. 


REMY  LAFORT, 

Censor  Librorum. 


Imprimatur. 


JOHN  M.  FARLEY, 

Archbishop  of  New  York. 


NEW  YORK,  March  25,  1904. 


MAY  15  1953 


Copyright,  1904,  by  BENZIGER  BROTHERS. 


PREFACE. 


THE  contents  of  this  volume  appeared  originally 
in  The  Catholic  Transcript,  of  Hartford,  Connecti 
cut,  in  weekly  instalments,  from  February,  1901,  to 
February,  1903.  During  the  course  of  their  publica 
tion,  it  became  evident  that  the  form  of  instruction 
adopted  was  appreciated  by  a  large  number  of  read 
ers  in  varied  conditions  of  life — this  appreciation 
being  evinced,  among  other  ways,  by  a  frequent  and 
widespread  demand  for  back-numbers  of  the  publish 
ing  journal.  The  management,  finding  itself  unable 
to  meet  this  demand,  suggested  the  bringing  out  of 
the  entire  series  in  book-form;  and  thus,  with  very 
few  corrections,  we  offer  the  "  Briefs  "  to  all  desir 
ous  of  a  better  acquaintance  with  Catholic  Morals. 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CONTENTS. 


Believing  and  Doing        ......  9 

The  Moral  Agent             ......  II 

Conscience            .       .......  17 

Laxity  and  Scruples         ......  SI 

The  Law  of  God  and  Its  Breach        ...  24 

Sin            ..........  28 

How  to  Count  Sins          ......  32 

Capital 


Pride  .........  40 

Covetousness  .......  44 

Lust         .....        .....  47 

Anger  .........  51 

Gluttony  .........  55 

Drink  .........  53 

Envy  ......       ...  62 

Sloth  .........  65 

What  We  Believe      .......  68 

Why  We  Believe       .  .....  71 

Whence  Our  Belief  :     Reason    ....  78 

Whence  Our  Belief  :  Grace  and  Will      .       .  76 

How  We  Believe        .......  79 

Faith  and  Error         .        .       ...       .       .  82 

The  Consistent  Believer        .....  85 

Unbelief          .........  89 

How  Faith  May  Be  Lost  .....  92 

Hope        .....       .....  9« 

Love  of  God         ........  89 

Love  of  Neighbor       .......  102 

Prayer  .       .......  104 

Petitions  ......       .       .  107 

Religion          .........  110 

Devotions  .  .  118 


CONTENTS. 

XXXIII.  Idolatry  and  Superstition Ill 

XXXIV.  Occultism  119 

XXXV.    Christian  Science 12t 

XXXVI.    Swearing 127 

XXXVII.    Oaths 130 

XXXVIII.    Vows 132 

XXXIX.    The  Professional  Vow* 135 

XL.    The  Profession  138 

XLJ.    The  Religious 140 

XLII.    The  Vow  of  Poverty 14$ 

XLIIL    The  Vow  of  Obedience       .  ....  148 

XLIV.    The  Vow  of  Chastity 149 

XLV.    Blasphemy  151 

XLVI.    Cursing  155 

XLVII.    Profanity  '. 157 

XLVIII.    The  Law  of  Rest 160 

XLIX.    The  Day  of  Rest 182 

L.    Keeping  the  Lord,'s  Day  Holy          ...  185 

LI.    Worship  of  Sacrifice 187 

LII.    Worship  of  Rest  170 

LIII.    Servile  Works  178 

LIV.    Common  Works 178 

LV.    Parental  Dignity  179 

LVI.    Filial  Respect  181 

LVII.    Filial  Love          1S4 

LVIII.    Authority  and  Obedience  .       ...  188 

LIX.    Should  We  Help  Our  Parents?          ...  189 

LX.    Disinterested  Love  in  Parents  ...  191 

LXL    Educate  the  Children  194 

LXII.    Educational  Extravagance          .       ...  197 

LXIII.    Godless  Education  ......  200 

LXIV.    Catholic  Schools  .       .       . ,     .'.       .       .  202 

LXV.    Some  Weak  Points  in  the  Catholic  School 

System  .       .       .       .       .       .       .  205 

LXVI.    Correction  808 

LXVII.    Justice  and  Rights 211 

LXVIII.    Homicide  21S 

LXIX.    Is  Sucide  a  Sin  ?        . 21* 

LXX.    Self-Defense  219 

LXXI.    Murder  Often  Sanctioned  <  222 


CONTENTS. 

LXXII.    On  the  Ethics  of  War 22& 

LXXIII.  The  Massacre  of  the  Innocents         .       .       .  228 

LXXIV.    Enmity 231 

LXXV.    Our  Enemies  233 

— -LXXVI.    Immorality 23« 

LXXVII.    The  Sink  of  Iniquity  239 

LXXVIIL  Wherein  Nature  Is  Opposed              ...  242 

LXXIX.    Hearts  24& 

LXXX.    Occasions  24* 

LXXXI.    Scandal 2C1 

LXXXII.    Not  Good  to  Be  Alone  25* 

LXXXIII.    A  Helping  Hand 267 

L.XXXIV.    Thou  Shalt  Not  Steal  260 

LXXXV.    Petty    Thefts  264 

LXXXVI.  An  Oft  Exploited,  But  Specious  Plea          .  267 

LXXXVII.    Contumely  270 

L.XXXVIII.    Defamation  27$ 

LXXXIX.    Detraction 276 

XC.    Calumny  279 

XCI.    Rash   Judgment  283 

XCIL    Mendacity  28« 

XCIIL    Concealing  the  Truth  289 

XCIV.    Restitution  292 

XCV.    Undoing  the  Evil  295 

XCVI.    Paying  Back .  299 

XCVII.  Getting  Rid  of  Ill-Gotten  Goods         ...  302 

XCVIII.  What  Excuses  From  Restitution             .       .  305 

XCIX.  Debts  80S 


MORAL  BRIEFS. 

CHAPTER  I. 
BELIEVING  AND  DOING. 

MORALS  pertain  to  right  living,  to  the  things  we 
do,  in  relation  to  God  and  His  law,  as  opposed  to 
right  thinking,  to  what  we  believe,  to  dogma.  Dogma 
directs  our  faith  or  belief,  morals  shape  our  lives.  By 
faith  we  know  God,  by  moral  living  we  serve  Him; 
and  this  double  homage,  of  our  mind  and  our  works, 
is  the  worship  we  owe  our  Creator  and  Master  and 
the  necessary  condition  of  our  salvation. 

Faith  alone  will  save  no  man.  It  may  be  con 
venient  for  the  easy-going  to  deny  this,  and  take  an 
opposite  view  of  the  matter;  but  convenience  is  not 
always  a  safe  counsellor.  It  may  be  that  the  just 
man  liveth  by  faith ;  but  he  lives  not  by  faith  alone. 
Or,  if  he  does,  it  is  faith  of  a  different  sort  from 
what  we  define  here  as  faith,  viz.,  a  firm  assent  of  the 
mind  to  truths  revealed.  We  have  the  testimony  of 
Holy  Writ,  again  and  again  reiterated,  that  faith, 
even  were  it  capable  of  moving  mountains,  without 
good  works  is  of  no  avail.  The  Catholic  Church  is 
convinced  that  this  doctrine  is  genuine  and  reliable 
enough  to  make  it  her  own ;  and  sensible  enough,  too. 
For  faith  does  not  make  a  man  impeccable;  he  may 
believe  rightly,  and  live  badly.  His  knowledge  of 
what  God  expects  of  him  will  not  prevent  him  from 
doing  just  the  contrary ;  sin  is  as  easy  to  a  believer  as 
to  an  unbeliever.  And  he  who  pretends  to  have  found 
.religion,  holiness,  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  whatever  else 
he  may  call  it,  and  can  therefore  no  longer  prevari- 


10  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

cate  against  the  law,  is,  to  common-sense  people, 
nothing  but  a  sanctified  humbug  or  a  pious  idiot. 

Nor  are  good  works  alone  sufficient.  Men  of 
emancipated  intelligence  and  becoming  breadth  of 
mind,  are  often  heard  to  proclaim  with  a  greater 
flourish  of  verbosity  than  of  reason  and  argument, 
that  the  golden  rule  is  religion  enough  for  them,  with 
out  the  trappings  of  creeds  and  dogmas ;  they  respect 
themselves  and  respect  their  neighbors,  at  least  they 
say  they  do,  and  this,  according  to  them,  is  the  ful 
filment  of  the  law.  We  submit  that  this  sort  of  wo*~ 
ship  was  in  vogue  a  good  many  centuries  before  tht 
God-Man  came  down  upon  earth;  and  if  it  fills  the 
bill  now,  as  it  did  in  those  days,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
the  utility  of  Christ's  coming,  of  His  giving  of  a  law 
of  belief  and  of  His  founding  of  a  Church.  It  is 
beyond  human  comprehension  that  He  should  have 
come  for  naught,  labored  for  naught  and  died  for 
naught.  And  such  must  be  the  case,  if  the  observ 
ance  of  the  natural  law  is  a  sufficient  worship  of  the 
Creator.  What  reasons  Christ  may  have  had  for  im 
posing  this  or  that  truth  upon  our  belief,  is  beside 
the  question;  it  is  enough  that  He  did  reveal  truths, 
the  acceptance  of  which  glorifies  Him  in  the  mind  of 
the  believer,  in  order  that  the  mere  keeping  of  the 
commandments  appear  forthwith  an  insufficient  mode 
of  worship. 

Besides,  morals  are  based  on  dogma,  or  they 
have  no  basis  at  all;  knowledge  of  the  manner  of 
serving  God  can  only  proceed  from  knowledge  of  who 
and  what  He  is;  right  living  is  the  fruit  of  right 
thinking.  Not  that  all  who  believe  rightly  are  right 
eous  and  walk  in  the  path  of  salvation:  losing  them 
selves,  these  are  lost  in  spite  of  the  truths  they  know 
and  profess ;  nor  that  they  who  cling  to  an  erroneous 
belief  and  a  false  creed  can  perform  no  deed  of  true 
moral  worth  and  are  doomed ;  they  may  be  righteous 
in  spite  of  the  errors  they  profess,  thanks  alone  to 
the  truths  in  their  creeds  that  are  not  wholly  cor- 


BELIEVING   AND  DOING.  II 

rupted.  But  the  natural  order  of  things  demands 
that  our  works  partake  of  the  nature  of  our  convic 
tions,  that  truth  or  error  in  mind  beget  truth  or  error 
correspondingly  in  deed  and  that  no  amount  of  self- 
confidence  in  a  man  can  make  a  course  right  when  it 
is  wrong,  can  make  a  man's  actions  good  when  they 
are  materially  bad.  This  is  the  principle  of  the  tree 
and  its  fruit  and  it  is  too  old-fashioned  to  be  easily 
denied.  True  morals  spring  from  true  faith  and  true 
dogma;  a  false  creed  cannot  teach  correct  morality, 
unless  accidentally,  as  the  result  of  a  sprinkling  of 
truth  through  the  mass  of  false  teaching.  The  only 
accredited  moral  instructor  is  the  true  Church.  Where 
there  is  no  dogma,  there  can  logically  be  no  morals, 
save  such  as  human  instinct  and  reason  devise;  but 
this  is  an  absurd  morality,  since  there  is  no  recogni 
tion  of  an  authority,  of  a  legislator,  to  make  the  moral 
law  binding  and  to  give  it  a  sanction.  He  who 
says  he  is  a  law  unto  himself  chooses  thus  to  veil  his 
proclaiming  freedom  from  all  law.  His  golden  rule 
is  a  thing  too  easily  twistable  to  be  of  any  assured  ben 
efit  to  others  than  himself;  his  moral  sense,  that  is, 
his  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  is  very  likely  where  his 
faith  is — nowhere. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  requirements  of 
good  morals  are  a  heavy  burden  for  the  natural  man, 
that  is,  for  man  left,  in  the  midst  of  seductions  and  al 
lurements,  to  the  purely  human  resources  of  his  own 
unaided  wit  and  strength ;  so  heavy  a  burden  is  this,  in 
fact,  that  according  to  Catholic  doctrine,  it  cannot  be 
borne  without  assistance  from  on  high,  the  which 
assistance  we  call  grace.  This  supernatural  aid  we 
believe  essential  to  the  shaping  of  a  good  moral  life; 
for  man,  being  destined,  in  preference  to  all  the  rest 
of  animal  creation,  to  a  supernatural  end,  is  thereby 
raised  from  the  natural  to  a  supernatural  order.  The 
requirements  of  this  order  are  therefore  above  and 
beyond  his  native  powers  and  can  only  be  met  with 
the  help  of  a  force  above  his  own.  It  is  labor  lost  for 


12  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

us  to  strive  to  climb  the  clouds  on  a  ladder  of  our 
own  make;  the  ladder  must  be  let  down  from  above. 
Human  air-ships  are  a  futile  invention  and  cannot  be 
made  to  steer  straight  or  to  soar  high  in  the  atmos 
phere  of  the  supernatural.  One-half  of  those  who  fail 
in  moral  matters  are  those  who  trust  altogether,  or 
too  much,  in  their  own  strength,  and  reckon  without 
the  power  that  said  "  Without  Me  you  can  do  noth 
ing." 

The  other  half  go  to  the  other  extreme.  They  im 
agine  that  the  Almighty  should  not  only  direct  and  aid 
them,  but  also  that  He  should  come  down  and  drag 
them  along  in  spite  of  themselves ;  and  they  complain 
when  He  does  not,  excuse  and  justify  themselves  on 
the  ground  that  He  does  not,  and  blame  Him  for 
their  failure  to  walk  straight  in  the  narrow  path. 
They  expect  Him  to  pull  them  from  the  clutches  of 
temptation  into  which  they  have  deliberately  walked. 
The  drunkard  expects  Him  to  knock  the  glass  out  of 
his  hand :  the  imprudent,  the  inquisitive  and  the  vicious 
would  have  it  so  that  they  might  play  with  fire, 
yea,  even  put  in  their  hand,  and  not  be  scorched  or 
burnt.  Tis  a  miracle  they  want,  a  miracle  at  every 
turn,  a  suspension  of  the  laws  of  nature  to  save  them 
from  the  effects  of  their  voluntary  perverseness.  Too 
lazy  to  employ  the  means  at  their  command,  they 
thrust  the  whole  burden  on  the  Maker.  God  helps 
those  who  help  themselves.  A  supernatural  state 
does  not  dispense  us  from  the  obligation  of  practising 
natural  virtue.  You  can  build  a  supernatural  life 
only  on  the  foundations  of  a  natural  life.  To  do  away 
with  the  latter  is  to  build  in  the  air;  the  structure  will 
not  stay  up,  it  will  and  must  come  down  at  the  first 
blast  of  temptation. 

Catholic  morals  therefore  require  faith  in  re 
vealed  truths,  of  which  they  are  but  deductions, 
logical  conclusions;  they  presuppose,  in  their  observ 
ance,  the  grace  of  God;  and  call  for  a  certain  stren- 
tiosity  of  life  without  which  nothing  meritorious  can 


THE    MORAL   AGENT.  1 3 

be  effected.  We  must  be  convinced  of  the  right  God 
has  to  trace  a  line  of  conduct  for  us;  we  must  be  as 
earnest  in  enlisting  His  assistance  as  if  all  depended 
on  Him ;  and  then  go  to  work  as  if  it  all  depended  on 
ourselves. 


CHAPTER  II. 
THE  MORAL  AGENT. 

MORALS  are  for  man,  not  for  the  brute;  they  are 
concerned  with  his  thoughts,  desires,  words  and 
deeds ;  they  suppose  a  moral  agent. 

What  is  a  moral  agent? 

A  moral  agent  is  one  who,  in  the  conduct  of  his 
life,  is  capable  of  good  and  evil,  and  who,  in  conse 
quence  of  this  faculty  of  choosing  between  right  and 
wrong  is  responsible  to  God  for  the  good  and  evil 
he  does. 

Is  it  enough,  in  order  to  qualify  as  a  moral  and 
responsible  agent,  to  be  in  a  position  to  respect  or  to 
violate  the  Law? 

It  is  not  enough;  but  it  is  necessary  that  the 
agent  know  what  he  is  doing ;  know  that  it  is  right  or 
wrong;  that  he  will  to  do  it,  as  such;  and  that  he  be 
free  to  do  it,  or  not  to  do  it.  Whenever  any  one  of 
these  three  elements — knowledge,  consent  and  liberty 
— is  wanting  in  the  commission  or  omission  of  any 
act,  the  deed  is  not  a  moral  deed;  and  the  agent, 
under  the  circumstances,  is  not  a  moral  agent. 

When  God  created  man,  He  did  not  make  him 
simply  a  being  that  walks  and  talks,  sleeps  and 
eats,  laughs  and  cries ;  He  endowed  him  with  the 
faculties  of  intelligence  and  free  will.  More  than 
this,  He  intended  that  these  faculties  should  be  exer 
cised  in  all  the  details  of  life;  that  the  intelligence 
should  direct,  and  the  free  will  approve,  every  step 


14  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

taken,  every  act  performed,  every  deed  left  undone. 
Human  energy  being  thus  controlled,  all  that  man 
does  is  said  to  be  voluntary  and  bears  the  peculiar 
stamp  of  morality,  the  quality  of  being  good  or  evil 
in  the  sight  of  God  and  worthy  of  His  praise  or 
blame,  according  as  it  squares  or  not  with  the  Rule 
of  Morality  laid  down  by  Him  for  the  shaping  of 
human  life.  Of  all  else  He  takes  no  cognizance,  since 
all  else  refers  to  Him  not  indifferently  from  the  rest 
of  animal  creation,  and  offers  no  higher  homage  than 
that  of  instinct  and  necessity. 

When  a  man  in  his  waking  hours  does  something 
in  which  his  intelligence  has  no  share,  does  it  without 
being  aware  of  what  he  is  doing,  he  is  said  to  be  in  a 
state  of  mental  aberration,  which  is  only  another  name 
for  insanity  or  folly,  whether  it  be  momentary  or 
permanent  of  its  nature.  A  human  being,  in  such  a 
condition,  stands  on  the  same  plane  with  the  animal, 
with  this  difference,  that  the  one  is  a  freak  and  the 
other  is  not.  Morals,  good  or  bad,  have  no  meaning 
for  either. 

If  the  will  or  consent  has  no  part  in  what  is  done, 
we  do  nothing,  another  acts  through  us ;  'tis  not  ours, 
but  the  deed  of  another.  An  instrument  or  tool  used 
in  the  accomplishment  of  a  purpose  possesses  the 
same  negative  merit  or  demerit,  whether  it  be  a  thing 
without  a  will  or  an  unwilling  human  being.  If  we 
are  not  free,  have  no  choice  in  the  matter,  must  con 
sent,  we  differ  in  nothing  from  all  brutish  and  inan 
imate  nature  that  follows  necessarily,  fatally,  the  bent 
of  its  instinctive  inclinations  and  obeys  the  laws  of 
its  being.  Under  these  conditions,  there  can  be  no 
morality  or  responsibility  before  God;  our  deeds  are 
alike  blameless  and  valueless  in  His  sight 

Thus,  the  simple  transgression  of  the  Law  does 
not  constitute  us  in  guilt;  we  must  transgress  delib 
erately,  wilfully.  Full  inadvertence,  perfect  forget- 
fulness,  total  blindness  is  called  invincible  ignorance; 
this  destroys  utterly  the  moral  act  and  makes  us  in 
voluntary  agents.  When  knowledge  is  incomplete, 


THE    MORAL   AGENT.  1$ 

the  act  is  less  voluntary;  except  it  be  the  case  of 
ignorance  brought  on  purposely,  a  wilful  blinding  of 
oneself,  in  the  vain  hope  of  escaping  the  consequences 
of  one's  acts.  This  betrays  a  stronger  willingness  to 
act,  a  more  deliberately  set  will. 

Concupiscence  has  a  kindred  effect  on  our  rea 
son.  It  is  a  consequence  of  our  fallen  nature  by 
which  we  are  prone  to  evil  rather  than  to  good,  find 
it  more  to  our  taste  and  easier  to  yield  to  wrong  than 
to  resist  it.  Call  it  passion,  temperament,  character, 
what  you  will, — it  is  an  inclination  to  evil.  We  can 
not  always  control  its  action.  Everyone  has  felt  more 
or  less  the  tyranny  of  concupiscence,  and  no  child  of 
Adam  but  has  it  branded  in  his  nature  and  flesh. 
Passion  may  rob  us  of  our  reason,  and  run  into  folly 
or  insanity ;  in  which  event  we  are  unconscious  agents, 
and  do  nothing  voluntary.  It  may  so  obscure  the 
reason  as  to  make  us  less  ourselves,  and  consequently 
less  willing.  But  there  is  such  a  thing  as,  with  studied 
and  refined  malice  and  depravity,  to  purposely  and 
artificially,  as  it  were,  excite  concupiscence,  in  order 
the  more  intensely  and  savagely  to  act.  This  is  only 
a  proof  of  greater  deliberation,  and  renders  the  deed 
all  the  more  voluntary. 

A  person  is  therefore  more  or  less  responsible 
according  as  what  he  does,  or  the  good  or  evil  of  what 
he  does,  is  more  or  less  clear  to  him.  Ignorance  or 
the  passions  may  affect  his  clear  vision  of  right  and 
wrong,  and  under  the  stress  of  this  deception,  wring 
a  reluctant  yielding  of  the  will,  a  consent  only  half 
willingly  given.  Because  there  is  consent,  there  is  guilt 
but  the  guilt  is  measured  by  the  degree  of  premedita 
tion.  God  looks  upon  things  solely  in  their  relation  to 
Him.  An  abomination  before  men  may  be  some 
thing  very  different  in  His  sight  who  searches  the 
heart  and  reins  of  man  and  measures  evil  by  the 
malice  of  the  evil-doer.  The  only  good  or  evil  He 
sees  in  our  deeds  is  the  good  or  evil  we  ourselves  see 
in  them  before  or  while  we  act. 


l6  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

Violence  and  fear  may  oppress  the  will,  and 
thereby  prove  destructive  to  the  morality  of  an  act  and 
the  responsibility  of  the  agent.  Certain  it  is,  that 
we  can  be  forced  to  act  against  our  will,  to  perform 
that  which  we  abhor,  and  do  not  consent  to  do. 
Such  force  may  be  brought  to  bear  upon  us  as  we 
cannot  withstand.  Fear  may  influence  us  in  a  like 
manner.  It  may  paralyze  our  faculties  and  rob  us  of 
our  senses.  Evidently,  under  these  conditions,  no 
voluntary  act  is  possible,  since  the  will  does  not  con 
cur  and  no  consent  is  given.  The  subject  becomes 
a  mere  tool  in  the  hands  of  another. 

Can  violence  and  fear  do  more  than  this?  Can 
it  not  only  rob  us  of  the  power  to  will,  not  only  force 
us  to  act  without  consent,  but  also  force  the  will, 
force  us  to  consent?  Never;  and  the  simple  reason 
is  that  we  cannot  do  two  contradictory  things  at 
the  same  time — consent  and  not  consent,  for  that  is 
what  it  means  to  be  forced  to  consent.  Violence  and 
fear  may  weaken  the  will  so  that  it  finally  yield.  The 
fault,  if  fault  there  be,  may  be  less  inexcusable  by 
reason  of  the  pressure  under  which  it  labored.  But 
once  we  have  willed,  we  have  willed,  and  essentially, 
there  is  nothing  unwilling  about  what  is  willingly 
done. 

The  will  is  an  inviolable  shrine.  Men  may  cir 
cumvent,  attack,  seduce  and  weaken  it.  But  it  can 
not  be  forced.  The  power  of  man  and  devil  cannot 
go  so  far.  Even  God  respects  it  to  that  point. 

In  all  cases  of  pressure  being  brought  to  bear 
upon  the  moral  agent  for  an  evil  purpose,  when  re 
sistance  is  possible,  resistance  alone  can  save  him 
from  the  consequences.  He  must  resist  to  his  utmost, 
to  the  end,  never  yield,  if  he  would  not  incur  the  re 
sponsibility  of  a  free  agent.  Non-resistance  betokens 
nerfect  willingness  to  act.  The  greater  the  resistance, 
the  less  voluntary  the  act  in  the  event  of  consent  be 
ing  finally  given;  for  resistance  implies  reluctance, 
aiid  reluctance  is  the  opposition  of  a  will  that  battles 


CONSCIENCE.  17 

against  an  oppressing  influence.  In  moral  matters, 
defeat  can  never  be  condoned,  no  matter  how  great 
the  struggle,  if  there  is  a  final  yielding  of  the  will; 
but  the  circumstance  of  energetic  defense  stands  to 
a  man's  credit  and  will  protect  him  from  much  of  the 
blame  and  disgrace  due  to  defeat. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  first  quality  of  the  acts 
of  a  moral  agent  is  that  he  think,  desire,  say  and 
do  with  knowledge  and  free  consent.  Such  acts, 
and  only  such,  can  be  called  good  or  bad.  What 
makes  them  good  and  bad,  is  another  question. 


CHAPTER  III. 
CONSCIENCE. 

THE  will  of  God,  announced  to  the  world  at 
large,  is  known  as  the  Law  of  God;  manifested  to 
each  individual  soul,  it  is  called  conscience.  These 
are  not  two  different  rules  of  morality,  but  one  and 
the  same  rule.  The  latter  is  a  form  or  copy  of 
the  former.  One  is  the  will  of  God,  the  other  is  its 
echo  in  our  souls. 

We  might  fancy  God,  at  the  beginning  of  all 
things,  speaking  His  will  concerning  right  and 
wrong,  in  the  presence  of  the  myriads  of  souls  that 
lay  in  the  state  of  possibility.  And  when,  in  the 
course  of  time,  these  souls  come  into  being,  with 
unfailing  regularity,  at  every  act,  conscience,  like  a 
spiritual  phonograph,  gives  back  His  accents  and  re 
echoes:  "it  is  lawful,"  or  "it  is  not  lawful."  Or, 
to  use  another  simile,  conscience  is  the  compass  by 
which  we  steer  aright  our  moral  lives  towards  the 
haven  of  our  souls'  destination  in  eternity.  But 
just  as  behind  the  mariner's  compass  is  the  great 
unseen  power,  called  attraction,  under  whose 


l8  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

influence  the  needle  points  to  the  star ;  so  does  the  will 
or  Law  of  God  control  the  action  of  the  conscience, 
and  direct  it  faithfully  towards  what  is  good. 

We  have  seen  that,  in  order  to  prevaricate  it  is 
not  sufficient  to  transgress  the  Law  of  God :  we  must 
know;  conscience  makes  us  know.  It  is  only  when 
we  go  counter  to  its  dictates  that  we  are  constituted 
evil-doers.  And  at  the  bar  of  God's  justice,  it  is  on 
the  testimony  of  conscience  that  sentence  will  be 
passed.  Her  voice  will  be  that  of  a  witness  present 
at  every  deed,  good  or  evil,  of  our  lives. 

Conscience  should  always  tell  the  truth,  and  tell 
it  with  certainty.  Practically,  this  is  not  always  the 
case.  We  are  sometimes  certain  that  a  thing  is  right 
when  it  is  really  wrong.  There  are  therefore  two 
kinds  of  conscience :  a  true  and  a  certain  conscience, 
and  they  are  far  from  being  one  and  the  same  thing. 
A  true  conscience  speaks  the  truth,  that  is,  tells  us 
what  is  truly  right  and  truly  wrong.  It  is  a  gen 
uine  echo  cf  the  voice  of  God.  A  certain  conscience, 
whether  it  speaks  the  truth  or  not,  speaks  with  as 
surance,  without  a  suspicion  of  error,  and  its -voice 
carries  conviction.  When  we  act  in  accordance  wkh 
the  first,  we  are  right;  we  may  know  it,  doubt  it  or 
think  it  probable,  but  we  are  right  in  fact.  When 
we  obey  the  latter,  we  know,  we  are  sure  that  we 
are  right,  but  it  is  possible  that  we  be  «n  error.  A 
true  conscience,  therefore,  may  be  certain  or  uncer 
tain  ;  a  certain  conscience  may  be  true  or  erroneous. 

A  true  conscience  is  not  the  rule  of  morality. 
It  must  be  certain.  It  is  not  necessary  that  it  be 
true,  although  this  is  always  to  be  desired,  and  in 
the  normal  state  of  things  should  be  the  case.  But 
true  or  false,  it  must  be  certain.  The  reason  is 
obvious.  God  judges  us  according  as  we  do  good  or 
evil.  Our  merit  or  demerit  is  dependent  upon  our 
responsibility.  We  are  responsible  only  for  the  good 
or  evil  we  know  we  do.  Knowledge  and  certainty 
come  from  a  certain  conscience,  and  yet  not  from 
a  true  conscience  which  may  be  doubtful. 


CONSCIENCE.  19 

Now,  suppose  we  are  in  error,  and  think  we  are 
doing  something  good,  whereas  it  is  in  reality  evil. 
We  perceive  no  malice  in  the  deed,  and,  in  perform 
ing  it,  there  is  consequently  no  malice  in  us,  we  do 
not  sin.  The  act  is  said  to  be  materially  evil,  but 
formally  good;  and  for  such  evil  God  cannot  hold 
us  responsible.  Suppose  again  that  we  err,  and  that 
the  evil  we  think  we  do  is  really  good.  In  this 
instance,  first,  the  law  of  morality  is  violated, — a  cer 
tain,  though  erroneous  conscience:  this  is  sinful. 
Secondly,  a  bad  motive  vitiates  an  act,  even  if  the 
deed  in  itself  be  good.  Consequently,  we  incur  guilt 
and  God's  wrath  by  the  commission  of  such  a  deed, 
which  is  materially  good,  but  formally  bad. 

One  may  wonder  and  say:  "how  can  guilt  at 
tach  to  doing  good?"  Guilt  attaches  to  formal  evil, 
that  is,  evil  that  is  shown  to  us  by  our  conscience 
and  committed  by  us  as  such.  The  wrong  comes, 
not  from  the  object  of  our  doing  which  is  good,  but 
from  the  intention  which  is  bad.  It  is  true  that 
nothing  is  good  that  is  not  thoroughly  good,  that  a 
thing  is  bad  only  when  there  is  something  lacking  in 
its  goodness,  that  evil  is  a  defect  of  goodness;  but 
formal  evil  alone  can  be  imputed  to  us  and  material 
cannot.  The  one  is  a  conscious,  the  other  an  un 
conscious,  defect.  Here  an  erroneous  conscience  is 
obeyed ;  there  the  same  conscience  is  disregarded. 
And  that  kind  of  a  conscience  is  the  rule  of  morality ; 
to  go  against  it  is  to  sin. 

There  are  times  when  we  have  no  certitude.  The 
conscience  may  have  nothing  to  say  concerning  the 
honesty  of  a  cause  to  which  we  are  about  to  commit 
ourselves.  This  state  of  uncertainty  and  perplexity 
is  called  doubt.  To  doubt  is  to  suspend  judgment; 
a  dubious  conscience  is  one  that  does  not  function. 

In  doubt  the  question  may  be:   "To  do;  is   it 

right  or  wrong?      May  I  perform  this  act,  or  must 

abstain    therefrom?"       In    this    case,    we    inquire 

whether  it  be  lawful  or  unlawful  to  go  on,  but  we 


2O  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

are  sure  that  it  is  lawful  not  to  act.  There  is  but 
one  course  to  pursue.  We  must  not  commit  our 
selves  and  must  refrain  from  acting,  until  such  a 
time,  at  least,  as,  by  inquiring  and  considering,  we 
shall  have  obtained  sufficient  evidence  to  convince 
us  that  we  may  allow  ourselves  this  liberty  without 
incurring  guilt.  If,  on  the  contrary,  while  stili 
doubting,  we  persist  in  committing  the  act,  we  sin, 
because  in  all  affairs  of  right  and  wrong  we  must 
follow  a  certain  conscience  as  the  standard  of  moral 
ity. 

But  the  question  may  be  :  "To  do  or  not  to 
do;  which  is  right  and  which  is  wrong?"  Here 
we  know  not  which  way  to  turn,  fearing  evil  in 
either  alternative.  We  must  do  one  thing  or  the 
other.  There  are  reasons  and  difficulties  on  both 
sides.  We  are  unable  to  resolve  the  difficulties,  lay 
the  doubt,  and  form  a  sure  conscience,  what  must 
we  do? 

If  all  action  can  be  momentarily  suspended,  and 
we  have  the  means  of  consulting,  we  must  abstain 
from  action  and  consult.  If  the  affair  is  urgent,  and 
this  cannot  be  done ;  if  we  must  act  on  the  spot  and 
decide  for  ourselves,  then,  we  can  make  that  dubious 
conscience  prudently  certain  by  applying  this  prin 
ciple  to  our  conduct:  "Of  two  evils,  choose  the 
lesser."  We  therefore  judge  which  action  involves 
the  least  amount  of  evil.  We  may  embrace  the 
course  thus  chosen  without  a  fear  of  doing  wrong. 
If  we  have  inadvertently  chosen  the  greater  evil,  it 
is  an  error  of  judgment  for  which  we  are  in  nowise 
responsible  before  God.  But  this  means  must  be 
employed  only  where  all  other  and  surer  means  fail. 
The  certainty  we  thereby  acquire  is  a  prudent  cer 
tainty,  and  is  sufficient  to  guarantee  us  against  of 
fending. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
LAXITY  AND  SCRUPLES. 

IN  every  question  of  conscience  there  are  two 
opposing  factors:  Liberty,  which  is  agreeable  to  our 
nature,  which  allows  us  to  do  as  we  list;  and  Law 
which  binds  us  unto  the  observance  of  what  is 
unpleasant.  Liberty  and  law  are  mutually  antagonistic. 
A  concession  in  favor  of  one  is  an  infringement  upon 
the  claims  of  the  other. 

Conscience,  in  its  normal  state,  gives  to  liberty 
and  to  law  what  to  each  is  legitimately  due,  no  more, 
no  less. 

Truth  lies  between  extremes.  At  the  two  opposite 
poles  of  conscientious  rectitude  are  laxity  and 
scruples,  one  judging  all  things  lawful,  the  other  all 
things  forbidden.  One  inordinately  favors  liberty, 
the  other  the  law.  And  neither  has  sufficient  grounds 
on  which  to  form  a  sound  judgment. 

They  are  counterfeit  consciences,  the  one  dis 
honest,  the  other  unreasonable.  They  do  unlawful 
business ;  and  because  the  verdict  they  render  is 
founded  on  nothing  more  solid  than  imaginations, 
they  are  in  nowise  standards  of  morality,  and  should 
not  be  considered  as  such. 

The  first  is  sometimes  known  as  a  "rubber"  con 
science,  on  account  of  its  capacity  for  stretching  it 
self  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  a  like  or  a  dislike. 

Laxity  may  be  the  effect  of  a  simple  illusion. 
Men  often  do  wrong  unawares.  They  excuse  them 
selves  with  the  plea:  "I  did  not  know  any  better." 
But  we  are  not  here  examining  the  acts  that  can  be 
traced  back  to  self-illusion;  rather  the  state  of  per 
sons  who  labor  under  the  disability  of  seeing  wrong 
anywhere,  and  who  walk  through  the  commandments 

?/M_<^  and  the  Cnurch  with  apparent  unconcern. 
What  must  we  think  of  such  people  in  face  of  the 
fact  that  they  not  only  could,  but  should  know  bet- 


22  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

ter!  They  are  supposed  to  know  their  catechism. 
Are  there  not  Catholic  books  and  publications  of  va 
rious  sorts?  What  about  the  Sunday  instructions 
and  sermons?  These  are  the  means  and  opportu 
nities,  and  they  facilitate  the  fulfilment  of  what  is  in 
us  a  bounden  duty  to  nourish  our  souls  before  they 
die  of  spiritual  hunger. 

A  delicate,  effeminate  life,  spiritual  sloth,  and 
criminal  neglect  are  responsible  for  this  kind  of  lax 
ity. 

This  state  of  soul  is  also  the  inevitable  conse 
quence  of  long  years  passed  in  sin  and  neglect  of 
prayer.  Habit  blunts  the  keen  edge  of  perception. 
Evil  is  disquieting  to  a  novice;  but  it  does  not  look 
so  bad  after  you  have  done  it  a  while  and  get  used  to 
it.  Crimes  thus  become  ordinary  sins,  and  ordinary 
sins  peccadillos. 

Then  again  there  are  people  who,  like  the  Phar 
isees  of  old,  strain  out  a  gnat  and  swallow  a  camel. 
They  educate  themselves  up  to  a  strict  observance  of 
all  things  insignificant.  They  would  not  forget  to  say 
grace  before  and  after  meals,  but  would  knife  the 
neighbor's  character  or  soil  their  minds  with  all  filth- 
mess,  without  a  scruple  or  a  shadow  of  remorse. 

These  are  they  who  walk  in  the  broad  way  that 
leadeth  to  destruction.  In  the  first  place,  their  con 
science  or  the  thing  that  does  duty  for  a  conscience, 
is  false  and  they  are  responsible  for  it.  Then,  this 
sort  of  a  conscience  is  not  habitually  certain,  and 
laxity  consists  precisely  in  contemning  doubts  and 
passing  over  lurking,  lingering  suspicions  as  not 
worthy  of  notice.  Lastly,  it  has  not  the  quality  of 
common  prudence  since  the  judgment  it  pronounces 
is  not  supported  by  plausible  reasons.  Its  character 
is  dishonesty. 

A  scruple  is  a  little  sharp  stone  formerly  used  as 
a  measure  of  weight.  Pharmacists  always  have 
scruples.  There  is  nothing  so  torturing  as  to  walk 
with  one  or  several  of  these  pebbles  in  the  shoe.  Spir- 


LAXITY  AND  SCRUPLES.  23 

itual  scruples  serve  the  same  purpose  for  the  con 
science.  They  torture  and  torment;  they  make  de 
votion  and  prayer  impossible,  and  blind  the  con 
science  ;  they  weaken  the  mind,  exhaust  the  bodily 
forces,  and  cause  a  disease  that  not  infrequently 
comes  to  a  climax  in  despair  or  insanity. 

A  scrupulous  conscience  is  not  to  be  followed  as 
a  standard  of  right  and  wrong,  because  it  is  un 
reasonable.  In  its  final  analysis  it  is  not  certain,  but 
doubtful  and  improbable,  and  is  influenced  by  the  most 
futile  reasons.  It  is  lawful,  it  is  even  necessary,  to 
refuse  assent  to  the  dictates  of  such  a  conscience. 
To  persons  thus  afflicted  the  authoritative  need  of  a 
prudent  adviser  must  serve  as  a  rule  until  the  con 
science  is  cured  of  its  morbid  and  erratic  tendencies. 

It  is  not  scruples  to  walk  in  the  fear  of  God, 
and  avoid  sin  and  the  occasions  thereof:  that  is  wis 
dom  ;  nor  to  frequent  the  sacraments  and  be  assid 
uous  in  prayer  through  a  deep  concern  for  the  wel 
fare  of  one's  soul :  that  is  piety. 

It  is  not  scruples  to  be  at  a  loss  to  decide  whether 
a  thing  is  wrong  or  right ;  that  is  doubt ;  nor  to  suffer 
keenly  after  the  commission  of  a  grievous  sin;  that 
is  remorse. 

It  is  not  scruples  to  be  greatly  anxious  and  dis 
turbed  over  past  confessions  when  there  is  a  reason 
able  cause  for  it :  that  is  natural. 

A  scrupulous  person  is  one  who,  outside  these 
several  contingencies,  is  continually  racked  with 
fears,  and  persists,  against  all  evidence,  in  seeing  sin 
where  there  is  none,  or  magnifies  it  beyond  all  pro 
portion  where  it  really  is. 

The  first  feature — empty  and  perpetual  fears — 
concerns  confessions  which  are  sufficient,  according 
to  all  the  rules  of  prudence ;  prayers,  which  are  said 
with  overwrought  anxiety,  lest  a  single  distraction 
creep  in  and  mar  them;  and  temptations,  which  are 
resisted  with  inordinate  contention  of  mind,  and  per 
plexity  lest  consent  be  given. 


24  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

The  other  and  more  desperate  feature  is  perti 
nacity  of  judgment.  The  scrupulous  person  will  ask 
advice  and  not  believe  a  word  he  is  told.  The  more 
information  he  gets,  the  worse  he  becomes,  and  he 
adds  to  his  misery  by  consulting  every  adviser  in 
sight.  He  refuses  to  be  put  under  obedience  and 
seems  to  have  a  morbid  affection  for  his  very  condi 
tion. 

There  is  only  one  remedy  for  this  evil,  and  that 
remedy  is  absolute  and  blind  obedience  to  a  prudent 
director.  Choose  one,  consult  him  as  often  as  you 
desire,  but  do  not  leave  him  for  another.  Then  sub 
mit  punctiliously  to  his  direction.  His  conscience 
must  be  yours,  for  the  time  being.  And  if  you 
should  err  in  following  him,  God  will  hold  him,  and 
not  you,  responsible. 


CHAPTER  V. 
THE  LAW  OF  GOD  AND  ITS  BREACH. 

WITHOUT  going  into  any  superflous  details,  we 
shall  call  the  Law  of  God  an  act  of  His  will  by  which 
He  ordains  what  things  we  may  do  or  not  do,  and 
binds  us  unto  observance  under  penalty  of  His  divine 
displeasure. 

The  law  thus  defined  pertains  to  reasonable  be 
ings  alone,  and  supposes  on  our  part,  as  we  have 
seen,  knowledge  and  free  will.  The  rest  of  creation 
is  blindly  submissive  under  the  hand  of  God,  and 
yields  a  necessary  obedience.  Man  alone  can  obey 
or  disobey;  but  in  this  latter  case  he  renders  himself 
amenable  to  God's  justice  who,  as  his  Creator,  has 
an  equal  right  to  command  him,  and  be  obeyed. 

The  Maker  first  exercised  this  right  when  He 
put  into  His  creature's  soul  a  sense  of  right  and 
wrong,  which  is  nothing  more  than  conscience,  or  as 


THE  LAW   OF  GOD  AND   ITS  BREACH.  25 

it  is  called  here,  natural  law.v  To  this  law  is  subject 
every  human  being,  pagan,  Jew  and  Christian  alike. 
No  creature  capable  of  a  human  act  is  exempt. 

The  provisions  of  this  law  consider  the  nature 
of  our  being,  that  is,  the  law  prescribes  what  the 
necessities  of  our  being  demand,  and  it  prohibits  what 
is  destructive  thereof.  Our  nature  requires 
physically  that  we  eat,  drink  and  sleep.  Similarly,  in 
a  moral  sense,  it  calls  for  justice,  truthfulness,  respect 
of  God,  of  the  neighbor,  and  of  self.  All  its  precepts 
are  summed  up  in  this  one :  "Do  unto  others  as  you 
would  have  them  do  unto  you " — the  golden  rule. 
Thence  flows  a  series  of  deducted  precepts  calculated 
to  protect  the  moral  and  inherent  rights  of  our  nature. 

But  we  are  more  concerned  here  with  what  is 
known  as  the  positive  Law  of  God,  given  by  Him  to 
man  by  word  of  mouth  or  revelation. 

We  believe  that  God  gave  a  verbal  code  to  Moses 
who  promulgated  it  in  His  name  before  the  Jewish 
people  to  the  whole  world.  It  was  subsequently  in 
scribed  on  two  stone  tables,  and  is  known  as  the 
Decalogue  or  Ten  Commandments  of  God.  Of  these 
ten,  the  first  three  pertain  to  God  Himself,  the  lat 
ter  seven  to  the  neighbor;  so  that  the  whole  might 
be  abridged  in  these  two  words,  "Love  God,  and  love 
thy  neighbor."  This  law  is  in  reality  only  a  specified 
form  of  the  natural  law,  and  its  enactment  was  neces 
sitated  by  the  iniquity  of  men  which  had  in  time  ob 
scured  and  partly  effaced  the  letter  of  the  law  in  their 
souls. 

Latterly  God  again  spoke,  but  this  time  in  the 
person  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Saviour,  after  confirm 
ing  the  Decalogue  with  His  authority,  gave  other 
laws  to  men  concerning  the  Church  He  had  founded 
and  the  means  of  applying  to  themselves  the  fruits  of 
the  Redemption.  We  give  the  name  of  dogma  to 
what  He  tells  us  to  believe  and  of  morals  to  what  we 
must  do.  These  precepts  of  Jesus  Christ  are  con-, 
tained  in  the  Gospel,  and  are  called  the  Evangelical 


26  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

Law.  It  is  made  known  to  us  by  the  infallible 
Church  through  which  God  speaks. 

Akin  to  these  divine  laws  is  the  purely  ecclesias 
tical  law  or  law  of  the  Church.  Christ  sent  forth 
His  Church  clothed  with  His  own  and  His  Father's 
authority.  "As  the  Father  sent  me,  so  I  send  you." 
She  was  to  endure,  perfect  herself  and  fulfil  her 
mission  on  earth.  To  enable  her  to  carry  out  this  divine 
plan  she  makes  laws,  laws  purely  ecclesiastical,  but 
laws  that  have  the  same  binding  force  as  the  divine 
laws  themselves,  since  they  bear  the  stamp  of  divine 
authority.  God  willed  the  Church  to  be;  He  willed 
consequently  all  the  necessary  means  without  which 
she  would  cease  to  be.  For  Catholics,  therefore,  as 
far  as  obligations  are  concerned,  there  is  no  practical 
difference  between  God's  law  and  the  law  of  His 
Church.  Jesus  Christ  is  God.  The  Church  is  His 
spouse.  To  her  the  Saviour  said:  "He  that  heareth 
you,  heareth  me,  and  he  that  despiseth  you  despiseth 
Me." 

A  breach  of  the  law  is  a  sin.  A  sin  is  a 
deliberate  transgression  of  the  Law  of  God.  A  sin 
may  be  committed  in  thought,  in  desire,  in  word,  or 
in  deed,  and  by  omission  as  well  as  by  commission. 

It  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  a  thought,  as  well 
as  a  deed,  is  an  act,  may  be  a  human  and  a  moral  act, 
and  consequently  may  be  a  sin.  Human  laws  may  be 
violated  only  in  deed ;  but  God,  who  is  a  searcher  of 
hearts,  takes  note  of  the  workings  of  the  will  whence 
springs  all  malice.  To  desire  to  break  His  com 
mandments  is  to  offend  Him  as  effectually  as  to  break 
them  in  deed ;  to  relish  in  one's  mind  forbidden  fruits, 
to  meditate  and  deliberate  on  evil  purposes,  is  only  a 
degree  removed  from  actual  commission  of  wrong. 
Evil  is  perpetrated  in  the  will,  either  by  a  longing  to 
prevaricate  or  by  affection  for  that  which  is  prohib 
ited.  If  the  evil  materializes  exteriorly,  it  does  not  con 
stitute  one  in  sin  anew,  but  only  completes  the  malice 
already  existing.  Men  judge  their  fellows  by  their 


THE  LAW  OF  GOD  AND  ITS  BREACH.  2/ 

works;  God  judges  us  by  our  thoughts,  by  the  inner 
workings  of  the  soul,  and  takes  notice  of  our  exterior 
doings  only  in  so  far  as  they  are  related  to  the  will. 
Therefore  it  is  that  an  offense  against  Him,  to  be  an 
offense,  need  not  necessarily  be  perpetrated  in  word 
or  in  deed ;  it  is  sufficient  that  the  will  place  itself  in 
opposition  to  the  Will  of  God,  and  adhere  to  what  the 
Law  forbids. 

Sin  is  not  the  same  as  vice.  One  is  an  act,  the 
other  is  a  state  or  inclination  to  act.  One  is  transi 
tory,  the  other  is  permanent.  One  can  exist  without 
the  other.  A  drunkard  is  not  always  drunk,  nor  is 
a  man  a  drunkard  for  having  once  or  twice  over 
indulged. 

In  only  one  case  is  vice  less  evil  than  sin,  and 
that  is  when  the  inclination  remains  an  unwilling  in 
clination  and  does  not  pass  to  acts.  A  man  who  re 
forms  after  a  protracted  spree  still  retains  an  inclina 
tion,  a  desire  for  strong  drink.  He  is  nowise  criminal 
so  long  as  he  resists  that  tendency. 

But  practically  vice  is  worse  than  sin,  for  it  sup 
poses  frequent  wilful  acts  of  sin  of  which  it  is  the 
natural  consequence,  and  leads  to  many  grievous  of 
fenses. 

A  vice  is  without  sin  when  one  struggles  success 
fully  against  it  after  the  habit  has  been  retracted.  It 
may  never  be  radically  destroyed.  There  may  be  un 
conscious,  involuntary  lapses  under  the  constant 
pressure  of  a  strong  inclination,  as  in  the  vice  of 
cursing,  and  it  remains  innocent  as  long  as  it  is  not 
wilfully  yielded  to  and  indulged.  But  to  yield  to  the 
gratification  of  an  evil  desire  or  propensity,  without 
constraint,  is  to  doom  oneself  to  the  most  prolific  of 
evils  and  to  lie  under  the  curse  of  God. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
SIN. 

IF  the  Almighty  had  never  imposed  upon  His 
creatures  a  Law,  there  would  be  no  sin;  we  would 
be  free  to  do  as  we  please.  But  the  presence  of  God's 
Law  restrains  our  liberty,  and  it  is  by  using,  or  rather 
abusing,  our  freedom,  that  we  come  to  violate  the 
Law.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Law  is  said  to  be 
opposed  to  Liberty.  Liberty  is  a  word  of  many 
meanings.  Men  swear  by  it  and  men  juggle  with  it. 
It  is  the  slogan  in  both  camps  of  the  world's  warfare. 
It  is  in  itself  man's  noblest  inheritance,  and  yet  there 
is  no  name  under  the  sun  in  which  more  crimes  are 
committed. 

By  liberty  as  opposed  to  God's  law  we  do  not 
understand  the  power  to  do  evil  as  well  as  good.  That 
liberty  is  the  glory  of  man,  but  the  exercise  of  it,  in 
the  alternative  of  evil,  is  damnable,  and  debases  the 
creature  in  the  same  proportions  as  the  free  choice  of 
good  ennobles  him.  That  liberty  the  law  lea-ves 
untouched.  We  never  lose  it;  or  rather,  we  may 
lose  it  partially  when  under  physical  restraint,  but 
totally,  only  when  deprived  of  our  senses.  The  law 
respects  it.  It  respects  it  in  the  highest  degree  when 
in  an  individual  it  curtails  or  'destroys  it  for  the 
protection  of  society. 

Liberty  may  also  be  the  equal  right  to  do  good 
and  evil.  There  are  those  who  arrqgate  to  themselves 
such  liberty.  No  man  ever  possessed  it,  the  law 
annihilated  it  forever.  And  although  we  have  used 
the  word  in  this  sense,  the  fact  is  that  no  man  has 
the  right  to  do  evil  or  ever  will  have,  so  long  as  God 
is  God.  These  people  talk  much  and  loudly  about 
freedom — the  magic  word! — assert  with  much  pomp 
and  verbosity  the  rights  of  man,  proclaim  his 


SIN.  SK) 

independence,  and  are  given  to  much  like  inane  vaunt 
ing  and  braggadocio. 

We  may  be  free  in  many  things,  but  where  God 
is  concerned  and  He  commands,  we  are  free  only  to 
obey.  His  will  is  supreme,  and  when  it  is  asserted,  we 
purely  and  simply  have  no  choice  to  do  as  we  list. 
This  privilege  is  called  license,  not  liberty.  We  ha<ve 
certain  rights  as  men,  but  we  have  duties,  too,  as 
creatures,  and  it  ill-becomes  us  to  prate  about  our 
rights,  or  the  duties  of  others  towards  us,  while  we 
ignore  the  obligations  we  are  under  towards  others 
and  our  first  duty  which  is  to  God.  Our  boasted 
independence  consists  precisely  in  this :  that  we  owe  to 
Him  not  only  the  origin  of  our  nature,  but  even  the 
very  breath  we  draw,  and  which  preserves  our  being, 
for  "in  Him  we  live,  move  and  have  our  being." 

The  first  prerogative  of  God  towards  us  is 
authority  or  the  right  to  command.  Our  first  obliga- ' 
tion  as  well  as  our  highest  honor  as  creatures  is  to 
obey.  And  until  we  understand  this  sort  of  liberty, 
we  live  in  a  world  of  enigmas  and  know  not  the  first 
letter  of  the  alphabet  of  creation.  We  are  not  free 
to  sin. 

Liberty  rightly  understood,  true  liberty  of  the 
children  of  God,  is  the  right  of  choice  within  the  law, 
the  right  to  embrace  what  is  good  and  to  avoid  what 
is  evil.  This  policy  no  man  can  take  from  us ;  and 
far  from  infringing  upon  this  right,  the  law  aids  it  to  — 
a  fuller  development.  A  person  reading  by  candle 
light  would  not  complain  that  his  vision  was  obscured 
if  an  arc  light  were  substituted  for  the  candle.  A 
traveler  who  takes  notice  of  the  signposts  along  his 
way  telling  the  direction  and  distance,  and  pointing 
out  pitfalls  and  dangers,  would  not  consider  his  rights 
contested  or  his  liberty  restricted  by  these  things.  And 
the  law,  as  it  becomes  more  clearly  known  to  us, 
defines  exactly  the  sphere  of  our  action  and  shows 
plainly  where  dangers  lurk  and  evil  is  to  be  appre- 


30  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

hended.  And  we  gladly  avail  ourselves  of  this  infor 
mation  that  enables  us  to  walk  straight  and  secure. 
The  law  becomes  a  godsend  to  our  liberty,  and 
obedience  to  it,  our  salvation. 

He  who  goes  beyond  the  bounds  of  true  moral 
liberty,  breaks  the  law  of  God  and  sins.  He  thereby 
refuses  to  God  the  obedience  which  to  Him  is  due. 
Disobedience  involves  contempt  of  authority  and  of 
him  who  commands.  Sin  is  therefore  an  offense 
against  God,  and  that  offense  is  proportionate  to  the 
dignity  of  the  person  offended. 

The  sinner,  by  his  act  of  disobedience,  not  only 
sets  at  naught  the  will  of  his  Maker,  but  by  the  same 
act,  in  a  greater  or  lesser  degree,  turns  away  from  his 
appointed  destiny;  and  in  this  he  is  imitated  by  noth 
ing  else  in  creation.  Every  other  created  thing  obeys.  • 
The  heavens  follow  their  designated  course.  Beasts 
and  birds  and  fish  are  intent  upon  one  thing,  and  that 
is  to  work  out  the  divine  plan.  Man  alone  sows  dis 
order  and  confusion  therein.  He  shows  irreverence 
for  God's  presence  and  contempt  for  His  friendship; 
ingratitude  for  His  goodness  and  supreme  indifference 
for  the  penalty  that  follows  his  sin  as  surely  as  the 
shadow  follows  its  object.  So  that,  taken  all  in  all, 
such  a  creature  might  fitly  be  said  to  be  one  part 
criminal  and  two  parts  fool.  Folly  and  sin  are 
synonymous  in  Holy  Writ.  "The  fool  saith  in  his 
heart  there  is  no  God." 

Sin  is  essentially  an  offense.  But  there  is  a  dif 
ference  of  degree  between  a  slight  and  an  outrage. 
There  are  direct  offenses  against  God,  such  as  the 
refusal  to  believe  in  Him  or  unbelief ;  to  hope  in  Him, 
or  despair,  etc.  Indirect  offenses  attain  Him  through 
the  neighbor  or  ourselves. 

All  duties  to  neighbor  or  self  are  not  equally 
imperious  and  to  fail  in  them  all  is  not  equally  evil. 
Then  again,  not  all  sins  are  committed  through  pure 
malice,  that  is,  with  complete  knowledge  and  full  con- 


SIN.  31 

sent.  Ignorance  and  weakness  are  factors  to  be  con 
sidered  in  our  guilt,  and  detract  from  the  malice  of 
our  sins.  Hence  two  kinds  of  sin,  mortal  and  venial. 

These  mark  the  extremes  of  offense.  One  severs 
all  relation  of  friendship,  the  other  chills  the  existing 
friendship.  By  one,  we  incur  God's  infinite  hatred,  by 
the  other,  His  displeasure.  The  penalty  for  one  is 
eternal ;  the  other  can  be  atoned  for  by  suffering. 

It  is  not  possible  in  all  cases  to  tell  exactly  what 
is  mortal  and  what  venial  in  our  offenses.  There  is 
a  clean-cut  distinction  between  the  two,  but  the  line 
of  demarcation  is  not  always  discernible.  There  are, 
however,  certain  characteristics  which  enable  us  in 
the  majority  of  cases  to  distinguish  one  from  the 
other. 

First,  the  matter  must  be  grievous  in  fact  or  iv 
intention;  that  is,  there  must  be  a  serious  breach  of 
the  law  of  God  or  the  law  of  conscience.  Then,  we 
must  know  perfectly  well  what  we  are  doing  and  give 
it  our  full  consent.  It  must  therefore  be  a  grave 
offense  in  all  the  plenitude  of  its  malice.  Of  course, 
to  act  without  sufficient  reason,  with  a  well-founded 
doubt  as  to  the  malice  of  the  act,  would  be  to  violate 
the  la»w  of  conscience  and  would  constitute  a  mortal 
sin.  There  is  no  moral  sin  without  the  fulfilment  of 
these  conditions.  All  other  offenses  are  venial. 

We  cannot,  of  course,  read  the  soul  of  anybody. 
If,  however,  we  suppose  knowledge  and  consent,  there 
are  certain  sins  that  are  always  mortal.  Such  are 
blasphemy,  luxury,  heresy,  etc.  When  these  sins  are 
deliberate,  they  are  always  mortal  offenses.  Others 
are  usually  mortal,  such  as  a  sin  against  justice.  To 
steal  is  a  sin  against  justice.  It  is  frequently  a 
mortal  sin,  but  it  may  happen  that  the  amount  taken 
be  slight,  in  which  case  the  offense  ceases  to  be  mortal. 

Likewise,  certain  sins  are  usually  venial,  but  in 
certain  circumstances  a  venial  sin  may  take  On  such 
malice  as  to  be  constituted  mortal. 


32  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

Our  conscience,  under  God,  is  the  best  judge  of 
our  malevolence  and  consequently  of  our  guilt. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
HOW  TO  COUNT  SINS. 

THE  number  of  sins  a  person  may  commit  is  well- 
nigh  incalculable,  which  is  only  one  way  of  saying 
that  the  malice  of  man  has  invented  innumerable 
means  of  offending  the  Almighty — a  compliment  to  our 
ingenuity  and  the  refinement  of  our  natural  perver 
sity.  It  is  not  always  pleasant  to  know,  and  few 
people  try  very  hard  to  learn,  of  what  kind  and  how 
many  are  their  daily  offenses.  This  knowledge  re 
veals  too  nakedly  our  wickedness  which  we  prefer  to 
ignore.  Catholics,  however,  who  believe  in  the  neces 
sity  of  confession  of  sins,  take  a  different  view  of 
the  matter.  The  requirements  of  a  good  confession 
are  such  as  can  be  met  only  by  those  who  know  in 
what  things  they  have  sinned  and  how  often. 

There  are  many  different  kinds  of  sin.  It  is 
possible  by  a  single  act  to  commit  more  than  one 
sin.  And  a  given  sin  may  be  repeated  any  number 
of  times. 

To  get  the  exact  number  of  our  misdeeds  we 
must  begin  by  counting  as  many  sins  at  least  as  there 
are  kinds  of  sin.  We  might  say  there  is  an  offense 
for  every  time  a  commandment  or  precept  is  violated, 
for  sin  is  a  transgression  of  the  law.  But  this  would 
be  insufficient  inasmuch  as  the  law  may  command 
or  forbid  more  than  one  thing. 

Let  the  first  commandment  serve  as  an  example. 
It  is  broken  by  sins  against  faith,  or  unbelief,  against 
hope,  or  despair,  against  charity,  against  religion,  etc. 
All  these  offenses  are  specifically  different,  that  is,  are 


HOW  TO  COUNT  SINS.  33 

different  kinds  of  sin;  yet  but  one  precept  is  trans 
gressed.  Since  therefore  each  commandment  pre 
scribes  the  practice  of  certain  virtues,  the  first  rule 
is  that  there  is  a  sin  for  every  virtue  violated. 

But  this  is  far  from  exhausting  our  capacity  for 
evil.  Our  virtue  may  impose  different  obligations,  so 
that  against  it  alone  we  may  offend  in  many 
different  ways.  Among  the  virtues  prescribed 
by  the  first  commandment  is  that  of  religion, 
which  concerns  the  exterior  homage  due  to  God.  I 
may  worship  false  gods,  thus  offending  against  the 
virtue  of  religion,  and  commit  a  sin  of  idolatry.  If 
I  offer  false  homage  to  the  true  God,  I  also  violate 
the  virtue  of  religion,  but  commit  a  sin  specifically 
different,  a  sin  of  superstition.  Thus  these  different 
offenses  are  against  but  one  of  several  virtues  en 
joined  by  one  commandment.  The  virtue  of  charity 
is  also  prolific  of  obligations ;  the  virtue  of  chastity 
even  more  so.  One  act  against  the  latter  may  con 
tain  a  four-fold  malice. 

It  would  be  out  of  place  here  to  adduce  more 
examples:  a  detailed  treatment  of  the  virtues  and 
commandments  will  make  things  clearer.  For  the 
moment  it  is  necessary  and  sufficient  to  know  that  a 
commandment  may  prescribe  many  virtues,  a  virtue 
may  impose  many  obligations,  and  there  is  a  specifi 
cally  different  sin  for  each  obligation  violated. 

But  we  can  go  much  farther  than  this  in  wrong 
doing,  and  must  count  one  sin  every  time  the  act  is 
committed. 

"Yes,  but  how  are  we  to  know  when  there  is  one 
act  or  more  than  one  act!  An  act  may  be  of  long 
or  short  duration.  How  many'  sins  do  I  commit  if 
the  act  lasts,  say,  two  hours?  And  how  can  I  tell 
where  one  act  ends  and  the  other  begins  ?" 

In  an  action  which  endures  an  hour  or  two  hours, 
there  may  be  one  and  there  may  be  a  dozen  acts.  When 
the  matter  a  sinner  is  working  on  is  a  certain,  specified 
evil,  the  extent  to  which  he  prevaricates  numericall) 


34  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

depends  upon  the  action  of  the  will.  A  fellow  who 
enters  upon  the  task  of  slaying  his  neighbor  can  kill 
but  once  in  fact;  but  he  can  commit  the  sin  of  murder 
in  his  soul  once  or  a  dozen  times.  It  depends  on  the 
will.  Sin  is  a  deliberate  transgression,  that  is,  first  of 
all  an  act  of  the  will.  If  he  resolves  once  to  kill  and 
never  retracts  till  the  deed  of  blood  is  done,  he  sins 
but  once.  If  he  disavows  his  resolution  and  after 
wards  resolves  anew,  he  repeats  the  sin  of  murder 
in  his  soul  as  often  as  he  goes  through  this  process 
of  will  action.  This  sincere  retraction  of  a  deed  is 
called  moral  interruption  and  it  has  the  mysterious 
power  of  multiplying  sins. 

Not  every  interruption  is  a  moral  one.  To  put  the 
matter  aside  for  a  certain  while  in  the  hope  of  a  better 
opportunity,  for  the  procuring  of  necessary  facilities 
or  for  any  other  reason,  with  the  unshaken  pur 
pose  of  pursuing  the  course  entered  upon,  is  to  sus 
pend  action;  but  this  action  is  wholly  exterior,  and 
does  not  affect  the  will.  The  act  of  the  will  perseveres, 
never  loses  its  force,  so  there  is  no  moral,  but  only  a 
physical,  interruption.  There  is  no  renewal  of  consent 
for  it  has  never  been  withdrawn.  The  one  moral  act 
goes  on,  and  but  one  sin  is  committed. 

Thus,  of  two  wretches  on  the  same  errand  of 
crime,  one  may  sin  but  once,  while  the  other  is  guilty 
of  the  same  sin  a  number  of  times.  But  the  several 
sins  last  no  longer  than  the  one.  Which  is  the  more 
guilty  ?  That  is  a  question  for  God  to  decide ;  He  does 
the  judging,  we  do  the  counting. 

This  possible  multiplication  of  sin  where  a  single 
act  is  apparent  emphasizes  the  fact  that  evil  and  good 
proceed  from  the  will.  It  is  by  the  will  primarily  and 
essentially  that  we  serve  or  offend  God,  and,  absolutely 
speaking,  no  exterior  deed  is  necessary  for  the 
accomplishment  of  this  end. 

The  exterior  deed  of  sin  always  supposes  a 
natural  preparation  of  sin — thought;  desires,  resolu- 


HOW  TO  COUNT  SINS.  35 

tion, — which  precede  or  accompany  the  deed,  and 
without  which  there  would  be  no  sin.  It  is  sinful  only 
inasmuch  as  it  is  related  to  the  will,  and  is  the  fruit 
thereof.  The  interior  act  constitutes  the  sin  in  its  being  ; 
the  exterior  act  constitutes  it  in  its  completeness. 

All  of  which  leads  up  to  the  conclusion,  of  a 
nature  perhaps  to  surprise  some,  that  to  resolve  to  sin 
and  to  commit  the  sin  in  deed  are  not  two  different 
sins,  but  one  complete  sin,  in  all  the  fulness  of  its 
malice.  True,  the  exterior  act  may  give  rise  to 
scandal,  and  from  it  may  devolve  upon  us  obligations 
of  justice,  the  reparation  of  injury  done;  true,  with 
the  exterior  complement  the  sin  may  be  more  grievous. 
But  there  cannot  be  several  sins  if  there  be  one  single 
uninterrupted  act  of  the  will. 

An  evil  thing  is  proposed  to  your  mind ;  you  enjoy 
the  thought  of  doing  it,  knowing  it  to  be  wrong ;  you 
desire  to  do  it  and  resolve  to  do  it ;  you  take  the  natural 
means  of  doing  it;  you  succeed  and  consummate  the 
evil — a  long  drawn  out  and  well  prepared  deed,  'tis 
true,  but  only  one  sin.  The  injustices,  the  scandal,  the 
sins  you  might  commit  incidentally,  which  do  not 
pertain  naturally  to  the  deed,  all  these  are  another 
matter,  and  are  other  kinds  of  sins ;  but  the  act  itself 
stands  alone,  complete  and  one. 

But  these  interior  acts  of  sin,  whether  or  not  they 
have  reference  to  external  completion,  must  be  sinful. 
The  first  stage  is  the  suggestion  of  the  imagination 
or  simple  seeing  of  the  evil  in  the  mind,  which  is  not 
sinful ;  the  next  is  the  moving  of  the  sensibility  or  the 
purely  animal  pleasure  experienced,  in  which  there  is 
no  evil,  either ;  for  we  have  no  sure  mastery  over  these 
faculties.  From  the  imagination  and  sensibility  the 
temptation  passes  before  the  will  for  consent.  If  con 
sent  is  denied,  there  is  no  deadly  malice  or  guilt,  no 
matter  how  long  the  previous  effects  may  have 
been  endured.  No  thought  is  a  sin  unless  it  be  fully 
consented  to. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
CAPITAL  SINS. 

You  can  never  cure  a  disease  till  you  get  at  the 
seat  or  root  of  the  evil.  It  will  not  do  to  attack  the 
several  manifestations  that  appear  on  the  surface,  the 
aches  and  pains  and  attendant  disorders.  You  must 
attack  the  affected  organ,  cut  out  the  root  of  the  evil 
growth,  and  kill  the  obnoxious  germ.  There  is  no 
other  permanent  remedy;  until  this  is  done,  all  relief 
is  but  temporary. 

And  if  we  desire  to  remove  the  distemper  of  sin, 
similarly  it  is  necessary  to  seek  out  the  root  of  all  sin. 
We  can  lay  our  finger  on  it  at  once;  it  is  inordinate 
self-love. 

Ask  yourself  why  you  broke  this  or  that  com 
mandment.  It  is  because  it  forbade  you  a  satisfaction 
that  you  coveted,  a  satisfaction  that  your  self-love 
imperiously  demanded ;  or  it  is  because  it  prescribed  an 
act  that  cost  an  effort,  and  you  loved  yourself  too 
much  to  make  that  effort.  Examine  every  failing, 
little  or  great,  and  you  will  trace  them  back  to  the 
same  source.  If  we  thought  more  of  God  and  less  of 
ourselves  we  would  never  sin.  The  sinner  lives  for 
himself  first,  and  for  God  afterwards. 

Strange  that  such  a  sacred  thing  as  love,  the 
source  of  all  good,  may  thus,  by  abuse,  become  the 
fountainhead  of  all  evil !  Perhaps,  if  it  were  not  so 
sacred  and  prolific  of  good,  its  excess  would  not  be  so 
unholy.  But  the  higher  you  stand  when  you  tumble* 
the  greater  the  fall ;  so  the  better  a  thing  is  in  itself, 
the  more  abominable  is  its  abuse.  Love  directed 
aright,  towards  God  first,  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  Law  ; 
love  misdirected  is  the  very  destruction  of  all  law. 


CAPITAL  SINS.  37 

Yet  it  is  not  wrong  to  love  oneself;  that  is  the 
first  law  of  nature.  One,  and  one  only  being,  the 
Maker,  are  we  bound  to  love  more  than  ourselves. 
The  neighbor  is  to  be  loved  as  ourselves.  And  if  our 
just  interests  conflict  with  his,  if  our  rights  and  his 
are  opposed  to  each  other,  there  is  no  legitimate  means 
but  we  may  employ  to  obtain  or  secure  what  is  rightly 
ours.  The  evil  of  self-love  lies  in  its  abuse  and  excess, 
in  that  it  goes  beyond  the  limits  set  by  God  and  nature, 
that  it  puts  unjustly  our  interests  before  God's  and  the 
neighbor's,  and  that  to  self  it  sacrifices  them  and  all 
that  pertains  to  them.  Self,  the  "ego,"  is  the  idol 
before  which  all  must  bow. 

Self-love,  on  an  evil  day,  in  the  garden  of  Eden, 
wedded  sin,  Satan  himself  officiating  under  the  dis 
guise  of  a  serpent;  and  she  gave  birth  to  seven 
daughters  like  unto  herself,  who  in  turn  became  fruit 
ful  mothers  of  iniquity.  Haughty  Pride,  first-born 
and  queen  among  her  sisters,  is  inordinate  love  of  one's 
worth  and  excellence,  talents  and  beauty ;  sordid 
Avarice  or  Covetousness  is  excessive  love  of  riches ; 
loathsome  Lust  is  the  third,  and  loves  carnal  pleasures 
without  regard  for  the  law ;  fiery  Anger,  a  counterpart 
of  pride,  is  love  rejected  but  seeking  blindly  to  remedy 
the  loss  ;  bestial  Gluttony  worships  the  stomach ;  green- 
eyed  Envy  is  hate  for  wealth  and  happiness  denied; 
finally  Sloth  loves  bodily  ease  and  comfort  to  excess. 
The  infamous  brood !  These  parents  of  all  iniquity  are 
called  the  seven  capital  sins.  They  assume  the  leader 
ship  of  evil  in  the  world  and  are  the  seven  arms  of 
Satan. 

As  it  becomes  their  dignity,  these  vices  never 
walk  alone  or  go  unattended,  and  that  is  the  desperate 
feature  of  their  malice.  Each  has  a  cortege  of  pas 
sions,  a  whole  train  of  inferior  minions,  that  accom 
pany  or  follow.  Once  entrance  gained  and  a  free 
hand  given,  there  is  no  telling  the  result.  Once  seated 
and  secure,  the  passion  seeks  to  satisfy  itself;  that  is 
its  business.  Certain  means  are  required  to  this  end, 


38  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

and  these  means  can  be  procured  only  by  sinning. 
Obstacles  often  stand  in  the  way  and  new  sins  furnish 
steps  to  vault  over,  or  implements  to  batter  them 
down.  Intricate  and  difficult  conditions  frequently 
arise  as  the  result  of  self-indulgence,  out  of  which 
there  is  no  exit  but  by  fresh  sins.  Hence  the  long 
train  of  crimes  led  by  one  capital  sin  towards  the  goal 
of  its  satisfaction,  and  hence  the  havoc  wrought  by  its 
untrammeled  working  in  a  human  soul. 

This  may  seem  exaggerated  to  some;  others  it 
may  mislead  as  to  the  true  nature  of  the  capital  sins, 
unless  it  be  clearly  put  forth  in  what  their  malice  con 
sists.  Capital  sins  are  not,  in  the  first  place,  in  them 
selves,  sins ;  they  are  vices,  passions,  inclinations  or 
tendencies  to  sin,  and  we  know  that  a  vice  is  not 
necessarily  sinful.  Our  first  parents  bequeathed  to 
us  as  an  inheritance  these  germs  of  misery  and  sin. 
We  are  all  in  a  greater  or  lesser  degree  prone  to 
excess  and  to  desire  unlawful  pleasures.  Yet,  for 
all  that,  we  do  not  of  necessity  sin.  We  sin  when 
we  yield  to  these  tendencies  and  do  what  they  suggest. 
The  simple  proneness  to  evil,  devoid  of  all  wilful 
yielding  is  therefore  not  wrong.  Why?  Because 
we  cannot  help  it ;  that  is  a  good  and  sufficient  reason. 

These  passions  may  lie  dormant  in  our  nature 
without  soliciting  to  evil ;  they  may,  at  any  moment, 
awake  to  action  with  or  without  provocation.  The 
sight  of  an  enemy  or  the  thought  of  a  wrong  may 
stir  up  anger;  pride  may  be  aroused  by  flattery, 
applause  or  even  compliments ;  the  demon  of  lust  may 
make  its  presence  known  and  felt  for  a  good  reason, 
for  a  slight  reason,  or  for  no  reason  at  all ;  gluttony 
shows  its  head  at  the  sight  of  food  or  drink,  etc. 

He  who  deliberately  and  without  reason  arouses 
a  passion,  and  thus  exposes  himself  imprudently  to 
an  assault  of  concupiscence,  is  grievously  guilty;  for 
it  is  to  trifle  with  a  powerful  and  dangerous  enemy 
and  it  betokens  indifference  to  the  soul's  salvation. 


CAPITAL   SINS.  39 

Suggestions,  seductions,  allurements  follow  upon 
the  awakening  of  these  passions.  When  the  array  of 
these  forces  comes  in  contact  with  the  will,  the  struggle 
is  on;  it  is  called  temptation.  Warfare  is  the  natural 
state  of  man  on  earth.  Without  it,  the  world  here 
below  would  be  a  paradise,  but  life  would  be  without 
merit. 

In  this  unprovoked  and  righteous  battle  with  sin, 
the  only  evil  to  be  apprehended  is  the  danger  of 
yielding.  But  far  from  being  sinful,  the  greater  the 
danger,  the  more  meritorious  the  struggle.  It  matters 
not  what  we  experience  while  fighting  the  enemy. 
Imagination  and  sensation  that  solicit  to  yielding, 
anxiety  of  mind  and  discouragement,  to  all  this  there 
is  no  wrong  attached,  but  merit. 

Right  or  wrong  depends  on  the  outcome.  Every 
struggle  ends  in  victory  or  defeat  for  one  party  and 
in  temptation  there  is  sin  only  in  defeat.  A  single 
act  of  the  will  decides.  It  matters  not  how  long  the 
struggle  lasts ;  if  the  will  does  not  capitulate,  there  is 
no  sin. 

This  resistance  demands  plenty  of  energy,  a  soul 
inured  to  like  combats  and  an  ample  provision  of 
weapons  of  defense — faith,  hatred  of  sin,  love  of  God. 
Prayer  is  essential.  Flight  is  the  safest  means,  but 
is  not  always  possible.  Humility  and  self-denial  are 
an  excellent,  even  necessary,  preparation  for  assured 
victory. 

No  man  need  expect  to  make  himself  proof 
against  temptation.  It  is  not  a  sign  of  weakness;  or 
if  so,  it  is  a  weakness  common  to  all  men.  There  is 
weakness  only  in  defeat,  and  cowardice  as  well.  The 
gallant  and  strong  are  they  who  fight  manfully. 
Manful  resistance  means  victory,  and  victory  makes 
one  stronger  and  invincible,  while  defeat  at  every 
repetition  places  victory  farther  and  farther  beyond 
our  reach. 


4O  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

Success  requires  more  than  strength,  it  requires 
wisdom,  the  wisdom  to  single  out  the  particular 
passion  that  predominates  in  us,  to  study  its  artifices 
and  by  remote  preparation  to  make  ourselves  secure 
against  its  assaults.  The  leader  thus  exposed  and  its 
power  for  evil  reduced  to  a  minimum,  it  will  be 
comparatively  easy  to  hold  in  check  all  other  dependent 
passions. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
PRIDE. 

EXCELLENCE  is  a  quality  that  raises  a  man  above 
the  common  level  and  distinguishes  him  among  his 
fellow-beings.  The  term  is  relative.  The  quality  may 
exist  in  any  degree  or  measure.  Tis  only  the  few 
that  excel  eminently ;  but  anyone  may  be  said  to  excel 
who  is,  ever  so  little,  superior  to  others,  be  they  few 
or  many.  Three  kinds  of  advantages  go  to  make 
up  one's  excellence.  Nature's  gifts  are  talent,  knowl 
edge,  health,  strength,  and  beauty;  fortune  endows 
us  with  honor,  wealth,  authority;  and  virtue,  piety, 
honesty  are  the  blessings  of  grace.  To  the  possession 
of  one  or  several  of  these  advantages  excellence  is 
attached. 

All  good  is  made  to  be  loved.  All  gifts  directly 
or  indirectly  from  God  are  good,  and  if  excellence  is 
the  fruit  of  these  gifts,  it  is  lawful,  reasonable,  human 
to  love  it  and  them.  But  measure  is  to  be  observed 
in  all  things.  Virtue  is  righteously  equidistant,  while 
vice  goes  to  extremes.  It  is  not,  therefore,  attachment 
and  affection  for  this  excellence,  but  inordinate, 
unreasonable  love  that  is  damnable,  and  constitutes  the 
vice  of  pride. 


PRIDE.  41 

God  alone  is  excellent  and  all  greatness  is  from 
Him  alone.  And  those  who  are  born  great,  who  acquire 
greatness,  or  who  have  greatness  thrust  upon  them, 
alike  owe  their  superiority  to  Him.  Nor  are  these 
advantages  and  this  preeminence  due  to  our  merits 
and  deserts.  Everything  that  comes  to  us  from  God 
is  purely  gratuitous  on  His  part,  and  undeserved  on 
ours.  Since  our  very  existence  is  the  effect  of  a 
free  act  of  His  will,  why  should  not,  for  a  greater 
reason,  all  that  is  accidental  to  that  existence  be 
dependent  on  His  free  choice?  Finally,  nothing  of  all 
this  is  ours  or  ever  can  become  ours.  Our  qualities 
are  a  pure  loan  confided  to  our  care  for  a  good  and 
useful  purpose,  and  will  be  reclaimed  with  interest. 

Since  the  malice  of  our  pride  consists  in  the 
measure  of  affection  we  bestow  upon  our  excellence, 
if  we  love  it  to  the  extent  of  adjudging  it  not  a  gift 
of  God,  but  the  fruit  of  our  own  better  selves ;  or  if 
we  look  upon  it  as  the  result  of  our  worth,  that  is, 
due  to  our  merits,  we  are  guilty  of  nothing  short  of 
downright  heresy,  because  we  hold  two  doctrines 
contrary  to  faith.  "What  hast  thou,  that  thou  hast 
not  received  ?"  If  a  gift  is  due  to  us,  it  is  no  longer  a 
gift.  This  extreme  of  pride  is  happily  rare.  It  is 
directly  opposed  to  God.  It  is  the  sin  of  Lucifer. 

A  lesser  degree  of  pride  is,  while  admitting  our 
selves  beholden  to  God  for  whatever  we  possess  and 
confessing  His  bounties  to  be  undeserved,  to  consider 
the  latter  as  becoming  ours  by  right  of  possession, 
with  liberty  to  make  the  most  of  them  for  our  own 
personal  ends.  This  is  a  false  and  sinful  appreciation 
of  God's  gifts,  but  it  respects  His  and  all  subordinate 
authority.  If  it  never,  in  practice,  fails  in  this 
submission,  there  is  sin,  because  the  plan  of  God,  by 
which  all  things  must  be  referred  to  Him,  is  thwarted ; 
but  its  malice  is  not  considered  grievous.  Pride, 
however,  only  too  often  fails  in  this,  its  tendency  being 
to  satisfy  itself,  which  it  cannot  do  within  the  bounds 


42  MORAL  BRIEFS 

of  authority.  Therefore  it  is  that  from  being  a  venial, 
this  species  of  pride  becomes  a  mortal  offense,  because 
it  leads  almost  infallibly  to  disobedience  and  rebellion. 
There  is  a  pride,  improperly  so  called,  which  is  in 
accordance  with  all  the  rules  of  order,  reason  and 
honor.  It  is  a  sense  of  responsibility  and  dignity 
which  every  man  owes  to  himself,  and  which  is 
compatible  with  the  most  sincere  humility.  It  is  a 
regard,  an  esteem  for  oneself,  too  great  to  allow  one 
to  stoop  to  anything  base  or  mean.  It  is  submissive 
to  authority,  acknowledges  shortcomings,  respects 
others  and  expects  to  be  respected  in  return.  It  can 
preside  with  dignity,  and  obey  with  docility.  Far 
from  being  a  vice,  it  is  a  virtue  and  is  only  too  rare 
in  this  world.  It  is  nobility  of  soul  which  betrays 
itself  in  self-respect. 

Here  is  the  origin,  progress  and  development  of 
the  vice.  We  first  consider  the  good  that  is  in  us,  and 
there  is  good  in  all  of  us,  more  or  less.  This 
consideration  becomes  first  exaggerated  ;  then  one-sided 
by  reason  of  our  overlooking  and  ignoring  imperfec 
tions  and  shortcomings.  Out  of  these  reflections  arises 
an  apprehension  of  excellence  or  superiority  greater 
than  we  really  possess.  From  the  mind  this  estimate 
passes  to  the  heart  which  embraces  it  fondly,  rejoices 
and  exults.  The  conjoint  acceptation  of  this  false 
appreciation  by  the  mind  and  heart  is  the  first  complete 
stage  of  pride — an  overwrought  esteem  of  self.  The 
next  move  is  to  become  self-sufficient,  presumptuous. 
A  spirit  of  enterprise  asserts  itself,  wholly  out  of 
keeping  with  the  means  at  hand.  It  is  sometimes 
foolish,  sometimes  insane,  reason  being  blinded  by 
error. 

The  vice  then  seeks  to  satisfy  itself,  craves  for  the 
esteem  of  others,  admiration,  flattery,  applause,  and 
glory.  This  is  vanity,  different  from  conceit  only  hi 
this,  that  the  former  is  based  on  something  that  is, 
or  has  been  done,  while  the  latter  is  based  on  nothing. 


PRIDE.  43 

Vanity  manifested  in  word  is  called  boasting ;  in  deed 
that  is  true,  vain-glory;  in  deed  without  foundation 
of  truth,  hypocrisy. 

But  this  is  not  substantial  enough  for  ambition, 
another  form  of  pride.  It  covets  exterior  marks  of 
appreciation,  rank,  honor,  dignity,  authority.  It  seeks 
to  rise,  by  hook  or  crook,  for  the  sole  reason  of  showing 
off  and  displaying  self.  Still  growing  apace,  pride 
becomes  indignant,  irritated,  angry  if  this  due 
appreciation  is  not  shown  to  its  excellence ;  it  despises 
others  either  for  antipathy  or  inferiority.  It  believes 
its  own  judgment  infallible  and,  if  in  the  wrong,  will 
never  acknowledge  a  mistake  or  yield.  Finally  the 
proud  man  becomes  so  full  of  self  that  obedience 
is  beneath  him,  and  he  no  longer  respects  authority 
of  man  or  of  God.  Here  we  have  the  sin  of  pride  in 
all  the  plenitude  of  its  malice. 

Pride  is  often  called  an  honorable  vice,  because 
its  aspirations  are  lofty,  because  it  supposes  strength, 
and  tends  directly  to  elevate  man,  rather  than  to  debase 
and  degrade  him,  like  the  other  vices.  Yet  pride  is 
compatible  with  every  meanness.  It  lodges  in  the 
heart  of  the  pauper  as  well  as  in  that  of  the  prince. 
There  is  nothing  contemptible  that  it  will  not  do  to 
satisfy  itself;  and  although  its  prime  malice  is  to 
oppose  God  it  has  every  quality  to  make  it  as  hideous 
as  Satan  himself.  It  goeth  before  a  fall,  but  it  does 
not  cease  to  exist  after  the  fall ;  and  no  matter  how 
deep  down  in  the  mire  of  iniquity  you  search,  you 
will  find  pride  nethermost.  Other  vices  excite  one's 
pity ;  pride  makes  us  shudder. 


CHAPTER  X. 
COVETOUSNESS. 

"WHAT  is  a  miser?"  asked  the  teacher  of  her 
pupils,  and  the  bright  boy  spoke  up  and  answered: 
one  who  has  a  greed  for  gold.  But  he  and  all  the  class 
were  embarrassed  as  to  how  this  greed  for  gold 
should  be  qualified.  The  boy  at  the  foot  of  the  class 
came  to  the  rescue,  and  shouted  out :  misery. 

Less  wise  answers  are  made  every  day  in  our 
schools.  Misery  is  indeed  the  lot,  if  not  the  vice,  cf 
the  miser.  'Tis  true  that  this  is  one  of  the  few  vices 
that  arrive  at  permanent  advantages,  the  others 
offering  satisfaction  that  lasts  but  for  a  moment,  and 
leaves  nothing  but  bitterness  behind.  Yet,  the  more 
the  miser  possesses  the  more  insatiable  his  greed 
becomes,  and  the  less  his  enjoyment,  by  reason  of  the 
redoubled  efforts  he  makes  to  have  and  to  hold. 

But  the  miser  is  not  the  only  one  infected  with 
the  sin  of  avarice.  His  is  not  an  ordinary,  but  an 
extreme  case.  He  is  the  incarnation  of  the  evil.  He 
believes  in,  hopes  in,  and  loves  gold  above  all  things ; 
he  prays  and  sacrifices  to  it.  Gold  is  his  god,  and 
gold  will  be  his  reward,  a  miserable  one. 

This  degree  of  the  vice  is  rare ;  or,  at  least,  is 
rarely  suffered  to  manifest  itself  to  this  extent;  and 
although  scarcely  a  man  can  be  found  to  confess  to 
this  failing,  because  it  is  universally  regarded  as  most 
loathsome  and  repulsive,  still  few  there  are  who  are 
not  more  or  less  slaves  to  cupidity.  Pride  is  the  sin 
of  the  angels ;  lust  is  the  sin  of  the  brute,  and  avarice 
is  the  sin  of  man.  Scripture  calls  it  the  universal 
evil.  We  are  more  prone  to  inveigh  against  it,  and 
accuse  others  of  the  vice  than  to  admit  it  in  ourselves. 


COVETOUSNESS.  45 

Sometimes,  it  is  "the  pot  calling  the  kettle  black;" 
more  often  it  is  a  clear  case  of  "sour  grapes."  Disdain 
for  the  dollars  "that  speak,"  "the  mighty  dollars,"  in 
abundance  and  in  superabundance,  is  rarely  genuine. 

There  are,  concerning  the  passion  of  covetousness, 
two  notions  as  common  as  they  are  false.  It  is  thought 
that  this  vice  is  peculiar  to  the  rich,  and  is  not  to  be 
met  with  among  the  poor.  Now,  avarice  does  not 
necessarily  suppose  the  possession  of  wealth,  and  does 
not  consist  in  the  possession,  but  in  the  inordinate 
desire,  or  greed  for,  or  the  lust  of,  riches.  It  may 
be,  and  is,  difficult  for  one  to  possess  much  wealth 
without  setting  one's  heart  on  it.  But  it  is  also  true 
that  this  greed  may  possess  one  who  has  little  or 
nothing.  It  may  be  found  in  unrestrained  excess 
under  the  rags  of  the  pauper  and  beggar.  They  who 
aspire  to,  or  desire,  riches  with  avidity  are  covetous 
whether  they  have  much,  little,  or  nothing.  Christ 
promised  His  kingdom  to  the  poor  in  spirit,  not  to  the 
poor  in  fact.  Spiritual  poverty  can  associate  with 
abundant  wealth,  just  as  the  most  depraved  cupidity 
may  exist  in  poverty. 

Another  prejudice,  favorable  to  ourselves,  is  that 
only  misers  are  covetous,  because  they  love  money 
for  itself  and  deprive  themselves  of  the  necessaries 
of  life  to  pile  it  up.  But  it  is  not  necessary  that  the 
diagnosis  reveal  these  alarming  symptoms  to  be  sure 
of  having  a  real  case  of  cupidity.  They  are  covetous 
who  strive  after  wealth  with  passion.  Various 
motives  may  arouse  this  passion,  and  although  they 
may  increase  the  malice,  they  do  not  alter  the  nature, 
of  the  vice.  Some  covet  wealth  for  the  sake  of 
possessing  it ;  others,  to  procure  pleasures  or  to  satisfy 
different  passions.  Avarice  it  continues  to  be,  what 
ever  the  motive.  Not  even  prodigality,  the  lavish 
spending  of  riches,  is  a  token  of  the  absence  of 
cupidity.  Rapacity  may  stand  behind  extravagance  to 
keep  the  supply  inexhausted. 


46  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

It  is  covetousness  to  place  one's  greatest  happiness 
in  the  possession  of  wealth,  or  to  consider  its  loss 
or  privation  the  greatest  of  misfortunes ;  in  other 
words,  to  over-rejoice  in  having  and  to  over-grieve 
in  not  having. 

It  is  covetousness  to  be  so  disposed  as  to  acquire 
riches  unjustly  rather  than  suffer  poverty. 

It  is  covetousness  to  hold,  or  give  begrudgingly, 
when  charity  presses  her  demands 

There  is,  in  these  cases,  a  degree  of  malice  that 
is  ordinarily  mortal,  because  the  law  of  God  and  of 
nature  is  not  respected. 

It  is  the  nature  of  this  vice  to  cause  unhappiness 
which  increases  until  it  becomes  positive  wretchedness 
in  the  miser.  Anxiety  of  mind  is  followed  by 
hardening  of  the  heart;  then  injustice  in  desire  and 
in  fact ;  blinding  of  the  conscience,  ending  in  a  general 
stultification  of  man  before  the  god  Mammon. 

All  desires  of  riches  and  comfort  are  not,  therefore, 
avarice.  One  may  aspire  to,  and  seek  wealth  without 
avidity.  This  ambition  is  a  laudable  one,  for  it  does 
not  exaggerate  the  value  of  the  world's  goods,  would 
not  resort  to  injustice,  and  has  not  the  characteristic 
tenacity  of  covetousness.  There  is  order  in  this  desire 
for  plenty.  It  is  the  great  mover  of  activity  in  life; 
it  is  good  because  it  is  natural,  and  honorable  because 
of  its  motives. 


CHAPTER  XL 
LUST. 

PRIDE  resides  principally  in  the  mind,  anu  thence 
sways  over  the  entire  man  ;  avarice  proceeds  from 
the  heart  and  affections;  lust  has  its  seat  in  the  flesh. 
By  pride  man  prevaricating  imitates  the  angel  of  whose 
nature  he  partakes ;  avarice  is  proper  to  man  as  being 
a  composite  of  angelic  and  animal  natures;  lust  is 
characteristic  of  the  brute  pure  and  simple.  This 
trinity  of  concupiscence  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
Trinity  of  God — to  the  Father,  whose  authority  pride 
would  destroy;  to  the  Son,  whose  voluntary  stripping 
of  the  divinity  and  the  poverty  of  whose  life  avarice 
scorns  and  contemns ;  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  whom  lust 
is  opposed  as  the  flesh  is  opposed  to  the  spirit.  This 
is  the  mighty  trio  that  takes  possession  of  the  whole 
being  of  man,  controls  his  superior  and  inferior 
appetites,  and  wars  on  the  whole  being  of  God.  And 
lust  is  the  most  ignoble  of  the  three. 

Strictly  speaking,  it  is  not  here  question  of  the 
commandments.  They  prescribe  or  forbid  acts  of  sin 
— thoughts,  words  or  deeds  ;  lust  is  a  passion,  a  vice  or 
inclination,  a  concupiscence.  It  is  not  an  act.  It  does 
not  become  a  sin  while  it  remains  in  this  state  of  pure 
inclination.  It  is  inbred  in  our  nature  as  children  of 
Adam.  Lust  is  an  appetite  like  any  other  appetite, 
conformable  to  our  human  nature,  and  can  be  satisfied 
lawfully  within  the  order  established  by  God  and 
nature.  But  it  is  vitiated  by  the  corruption  of  fallen 
flesh.  This  vitiated  appetite  craves  for  unlawful  and 
forbidden  satisfactions  and  pleasures,  such  as  are  not 
in  keeping  with  the  plans  of  the  Creator.  Thus  the 


48  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

vitiated  appetite  becomes  inordinate.  At  one  and  the 
same  time,  it  becomes  inordinate  and  sinful,  the 
passion  being  gratified  unduly  by  a  positive  act  of 
sin. 

This  depraved  inclination,  as  everyone  knows, 
may  be  in  us,  without  being  of  us,  that  is,  without  any 
guilt  being  imputed  to  us.  This  occurs  in  the  event 
of  a  violent  assault  of  passion,  in  which  our  will  has 
no  part,  and  which  consequently  does  not  materialize, 
exteriorly  or  interiorly,  in  a  human  act  forbid4en  by 
the  laws  of  morality.  Nor  is  there  a  transgression, 
even  when  gratified,  if  reason  and  faith  control  the 
inclination  and  direct  it  along  the  lines  laid  down  by 
the  divine  and  natural  la,ws.  Outside  of  this,  all 
manners,  shapes  and  forms  of  lust  are  grievous  sins, 
for  the  law  admits  no  levity  of  matter.  No  further 
investigation,  at  the  present  time,  into  the  essence  of 
this  vice  is  necessary. 

There  is  an  abominable  theory  familiar  to,  and 
held  by  the  dissolute,  who,  not  content  with  spreading 
the  contagion  of  their  souls,  aim  at  poisoning  the  very 
wells  of  morality.  They  reason  somewhat  after  this 
fashion :  Human  nature  is  everywhere  the  same.  He 
knows  others  who  best  knows  himself.  A  mere  glance 
at  themselves  reveals  the  fact  that  they  are  chained 
fast  to  earth  by  their  vile  appetites,  and  that  to  break 
these  chains  is  a  task  too  heavy  for  them  to  undertake. 
The  fact  is  overlooked  that  these  bonds  are  of  their 
own  creation,  and  that  every  end  is  beyond  reach  of 
him  who  refuses  to  take  the  means  to  that  end. 
Incapable,  too,  of  conceiving  a  sphere  of  morality 
superior  to  that  in  which  they  move,  and  without 
further  investigation  of  facts  to  make  their  induction 
good,  they  conclude  that  all  men  are  like  themselves ; 
that  open  profession  of  morality  is  unadulterated 
hypocrisy,  that  a  pure  man  is  a  living  lie.  A  more 
wholesale  impeachment  of  human  veracity  and  a 
more  brutal  indignity  offered  to  human  nature  could 


LUST.  49 

scarcely  be  imagined.  Reason  never  argued  thus ;  the 
heart  has  reasons  which  the  reason  cannot  comprehend. 
Truth  to  be  loved  needs  only  to  be  seen.  Adversely, 
it  is  the  case  with  falsehood. 

It  is  habitual  with  this  passion  to  hide  its 
hideousness  under  the  disguise  of  love,  and  thus  this 
most  sacred  and  hallowed  name  is  prostituted  to 
signify  that  which  is  most  vile  and  loathsome. 
Depravity?  No.  Goodness  of  heart,  generosity  of 
affections,  the  very  quintessence  of  good  nature !  But 
God  is  love,  and  love  that  does  not  see  the  image 
of  the  Creator  in  its  object  is  not  love,  but  the  brutal 
instinct. 

There  are  some  who  do  not  go  so  far  as  to 
identify  vice  with  virtue,  but  content  themselves  with 
esteeming  that,  since  passion  is  so  strong,  virtue  so 
difficult  and  G-od  so  merciful  to  His  frail  creatures, 
to  yield  a  trifle  is  less  a  sin  than  a  confession  of 
native  weakness.  This  "weakness"  runs  a  whole  gamut 
of  euphemisms;  imperfections,  foibles,  frailties, 
mistakes,  miseries,  accidents,  indiscretions — anything 
to  gloss  it  over,  anything  but  what  it  is.  At  this  rate, 
you  could  efface  the  whole  Decalogue  and  at  one  fell 
stroke  destroy  all  laws,  human  and  divine.  What  is 
yielding  to  any  passion  but  weakness?  Very  few 
sins  are  sins  of  pure  malice.  If  one  is  weak  through 
one's  own  fault,  and  chooses  to  remain  so  rather  than 
take  the  necessary  means  of  acquiring  strength,  that 
one  is  responsible  in  full  for  the  weakness.  The  weak 
and  naughty  in  this  matter  are  plain,  ordinary  sinners 
of  a  very  sable  dye. 

Theirs  is  not  the  view  that  God  took  of  things 
when  He  purged  the  earth  with  water  and  destroyed 
the  five  cities  with  fire.  From  Genesis  to  the  Apocalypse 
you  will  not  find  a  weakness  against  which  He  inveighs 
so  strongly,  and  chastises  so  severely.  He  forbids  and 
condemns  every  deliberate  yielding,  every  voluntary 
step  taken  over  the  threshold  of  moral  cleanness  in 
thought,  word,  desire  or  action. 


50  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

The  gravity  and  malice  of  sin  is  not  to  be 
measured  by  the  fancies,  opinions,  theories  or  attitude 
of  men.  The  first  and  only  rule  is  the  will  of  God 
which  is  sufficiently  clear  to  anyone  who  scans  the 
sacred  pages  whereon  it  is  manifested.  And  the 
reason  of  His  uncompromising  hostility  to  voluptuous 
ness  can  be  found  in  the  intrinsic  malice  of  the  evil. 
In  man,  as  God  created  him,  the  soul  is  superior  to  the 
body,  and  of  its  nature  should  rule  and  govern.  Lust 
inverts  this  order,  and  the  flesh  lords  it  over  the  spirit. 
The  image  of  God  is  defiled,  dragged  in  the  mire  of 
filth  and  corruption,  and  robbed  of  its  spiritual  nature, 
as  far  as  the  thing  is  possible.  It  becomes  corporal, 
carnal,  animal.  And  thus  the  superior  soul  with  its 
sublime  faculties  of  intelligence  and  will  is  made  to 
obey  under  the  tyranny  of  emancipated  flesh,  and  like 
the  brute  seeks  only  for  things  carnal. 

It  is  impossible  to  say  to  what  this  vice  will  not 
lead,  or  to  enumerate  the  crimes  that  follow  in  its 
wake.  The  first  and  most  natural  consequence  is  to 
create  a  distaste  and  aversion  for  prayer,  piety, 
devotion,  religion  and  God;  and  this  is  God's  most 
terrible  curse  on  the  vice,  for  it  puts  beyond  reach 
of  the  unfortunate  sinner  the  only  remedy  that  could 
save  him. 

But  if  God's  justice  is  so  rigorous  toward  the 
wanton,  His  mercy  is  never  so  great  as  toward  those 
who  need  it  most,  who  desire  it  and  ask  it.  The  most 
touching  episodes  in  the  Gospels  are  those  in  which 
Christ  opened  wide  the  arms  of  His  charity  to  sinful 
but  repentant  creatures,  and  lifted  them  out  of  their 
iniquity.  That  same  charity  and  power  to  shrive, 
uplift  and  strengthen  resides  to-day,  in  all  its 
plenitude,  in  the  Church  which  is  the  continuation  of 
Christ.  Where  there  is  a  will  there  is  a  way.  The 
will  is  the  sinner's;  the  way  is  in  prayer  and  the 
sacraments. 


CHAPTER  XII. 
ANGER. 

NEVER  say,  when  you  are  angry,  that  you  are 
mad ;  it  makes  you  appear  much  worse  than  you  really 
are,  for  only  dogs  get  mad.  The  rabies  in  a  human 
being  is  a  most  unnatural  and  ignoble  thing.  Yet 
common  parlance  likens  anger  to  it. 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  one  has  yet  been  born 
that  never  yielded,  more  or  less,  to  the  sway  of  this 
passion.  Everybody  gets  angry.  The  child  sulks,  the 
little  girl  calls  names  and  makes  faces,  the  boy  fights 
and  throws  stones ;  the  maiden  waxes  huffy,  spiteful, 
and  won't  speak,  and  the  irascible  male  fumes,  rages, 
and  says  and  does  things  that  become  him  not  in  the 
least.  Even  pious  folks  have  their  tiffs  and  tilts.  All 
flesh  is  frail,  a/nd  anger  has  an  easy  time  of  it;  not 
because  this  passion  is  so  powerful,  but  because  it  is 
insidious  and  passes  for  a  harmless  little  thing  in  its 
ordinary  disguise.  And  yet  all  wrath  does  not  manifest 
itself  thus  exteriorly.  Still  waters  are  deepest.  An 
imperturbable  countenance  may  mask  a  very  inferno 
of  wrath  and  hatred. 

To  hear  us  talk,  there  is  no  fault  in  all  this,  the 
greater  part  of  the  time.  It  is  a  soothing  tonic  to  our 
conscience  after  a  fit  of  rage,  to  lay  all  the  blame  on 
a  defect  of  character  or  a  naturally  bad  temper.  If 
fault  there  is,  it  is  anybody's  but  our  own.  We  recall 
the  fact  that  patience  is  a  virtue  that  has  its  limits,  and 
mention  things  that  we  solemnly  aver  would  try  the 
enduring  powers  of  the  beatified  on  their  thrones  in 
heaven.  Some,  at  a  loss  otherwise  to  account  for  it, 
protest  that  a  particular  devil  got  hold  of  them  and 
made  resistance  impossible. 


52  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

But  it  was  not  a  devil  at  all.  It  was  a  little 
volcano,  or  better,  a  little  powder  magazine  hidden 
away  somewhere  in  the  heart.  The  imp  Pride  had  its 
head  out  looking  for  a  caress,  when  it  received  a  rebuff 
instead.  Hastily  disappearing  within,  it  spat  fire  right 
and  left,  and  the  explosion  followed,  proportionate 
in  energy  and  destructive  power  to  the  quantity  of 
pent-up  self-love  that  served  as  a  charge.  Once  the 
mine  is  fired,  in  the  confusion  and  disorder  that  follow, 
vengeance  stalks  forth  in  quest  of  the  miscreant  that 
did  the  wrong. 

Anger  is  the  result  of  hurt  pride,  of  injured  self- 
love.  It  is  a  violent  and  inordinate  commotion  of 
the  soul  that  seeks  to  wreak  vengeance  for  an  injury 
done.  The  causes  that  arouse  anger  vary  infinitely 
in  reasonableness,  and  there  are  all  degrees  of 
intensity. 

The  malice  of  anger  consists  wholly  in  the 
measure  of  our  deliberate  yielding  to  its  promptings. 
Sin,  here  as  elsewhere,  supposes  an  act  of  the  will, 
A  crazy  man  is  not  responsible  for  his  deeds;  nor  is 
anyone,  for  more  than  what  he  does  knowingly. 

The  first  movement  or  emotion  of  irascibility  is 
usually  exempt  of  all  fault;  by  this  is  meant  the  play 
of  the  passion  on  the  sensitive  part  of  our  nature,  the 
sharp,  sudden  fit  that  is  not  foreseen  and  is  not  within 
our  control,  the  first  effects  of  the  rising  wrath,  such 
as  the  rush  of  blood,  the  trouble  and  disorder  of  the 
arffections,  surexcitation  and  solicitation  to  revenge.  A 
person  used  to  repelling  these  assaults  may  be  taken 
unawares  and  carried  away  to  a  certain  extent  in  the 
first  storm  of  passion,  in  this  there  is  nothing  sinful. 
But  the  same  faultlessness  could  not  be  ascribed  to  him 
who  exercises  no  restraining  power  over  his  failing, 
and  by  yielding  habitually  fosters  it  and  must  shoulder 
the  responsibility  of  every  excess.  We  incur  the 
burden  of  God's  wrath  when,  through  our  fault, 
negligence  or  a  positive  act  of  the  will,  we  suffer  this 


ANGER. 


53 


passion  to  steal  away  our  reason,  blind  us  to  the  value 
of  our  actions,  and  make  us  deaf  to  all  considerations. 
No  motive  can  justify  such  ignoble  weakness  that 
would  lower  us  to  the  level  of  the  madman.  He 
dishonors  his  Maker  who  throws  the  reins  to  his 
animal  instincts  and  allows  them  to  gallop  ahead  with 
him,  in  a  mad  career  of  vengeance  and  destruction. 

Many  do  not  go  to  this  extent  of  fury,  but  give 
vent  to  their  spleen  in  a  more  cool  and  calculating 
manner.  Their  temper,  for  being  less  fiery,  is  more 
bitter.  They  are  choleric  rather  than  bellicose.  They 
do  not  fty  to  acts  but  to  desires  and  well-laid  plans  of 
revenge.  If  the  desire  or  deed  lead  to  a  violation  of 
justice  or  charity,  to  scandal  or  any  notable  evil 
consequence,  the  sin  is  clearly  mortal ;  the  more  so,  if 
this  inward  brooding  be  of  long  duration,  as  it  betrays 
a  more  deep-seated  malice. 

Are  there  any  motives  capable  of  justifying  these 
outbursts  of  passion  ?  None  at  all,  if  our  ire  has  these 
two  features  of  unreasonableness  and  vindictiveness. 
This  is  evil.  No  motive,  however  good,  can  justify 
an  evil  end. 

If  any  cause  were  plausible,  it  would  be  a  grave 
injury,  malicious  and  unjust.  But  not  even  this  is 
sufficient,  for  we  are  forbidden  to  return  evil  for  evil. 
It  may  cause  us  grief  and  pain,  but  should  not  incite 
us  to  anger,  hatred  and  revenge.  What  poor  excuses 
would  therefore  be  accidental  or  slight  injuries,  just 
penalties  for  our  wrongdoings  and  imaginary 
grievances !  The  less  excusable  is  our  wrath,  the  more 
serious  is  our  delinquency.  Our  guilt  is  double-dyed 
when  the  deed  and  the  cause  of  the  deed  are  both  alike 
unreasonable. 

Yet  there  is  a  kind  of  anger  that  is  righteous. 
We  speak  of  the  wrath  of  God,  and  in  God  there  can 
be  no  sin.  Christ  himself  was  angry  at  the  sight  of 
the  vendors  in  the  temple.  Holy  Writ  says :  Be  ye 
angry  and  sin  not.  But  this  passion,  which  is  the 


54  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

fruit  of  zeal,  has  three  features  which  make  it 
impossible  to  confound  it  with  the  other.  It  is  always 
kept  within  the  bounds  of  a  wise  moderation  and  under 
the  empire  of  reason;  it  knows  not  the  spirit  of 
revenge;  and  it  has  behind  it  the  best  of  motives, 
namely,  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God.  It  is  aroused  at  the 
sight  of  excesses,  injustices,  scandals,  frauds ;  it  seeks 
to  destroy  sin,  and  to  correct  the  sinner.  It 
is  often  not  only  a  privilege,  but  a  duty. 
It  supposes,  naturally,  judgment,  prudence,  and 
discretion,  and  excludes  all  selfish  motives. 

Zeal  in  an  inferior  and  more  common  degree  is 
called  indignation,  a.nd  is  directed  against  all  things 
unworthy,  low  and  deserving  of  contempt.  It  respects 
persons,  but  loathes  whatever  of  sin  or  vice  that  is 
in,  or  comes  from,  unworthy  beings.  It  is  a  virtue, 
and  is  the  effect  of  a  high  sense  of  respectability. 

Impatience  is  not  anger,  but  a  feeling  somewhat 
akin  to  it,  provoked  by  untoward  events  and  inevitable 
happenings,  such  as  the  weather,  accidents,  etc.  It 
is  void  of  all  spirit  of  revenge.  Peevishness  is  chronic 
impatience,  due  to  a  disordered  nervous  system  and 
requires  the  services  of  a  competent  physician,  being 
a  physical,  not  a.  moral,  distemper. 

Anger  is  a  weakness  and  betrays  many  other 
weaknesses ;  that  is  why  sensible  people  never  allow 
this  passion  to  sway  them.  It  is  the  last  argument 
of  a  lost  cause:  "You  are  angry,  therefore  you  are 
wrong."  The  great  misery  of  it  is  that  hot-tempered 
people  consider  their  mouths  to  be  safety-valves,  while 
the  truth  is  that  the  wagging  tongue  generates  bile 
faster  than  the  open  mouth  can  give  exit  to  it.  St. 
Liguori  presented  an  irate  scold  with  a  bottle,  the 
contents  to  be  taken  by  the  mouthful  and  held  for 
fifteen  minutes,  each  time  her  lord  and  master  returned 
home  in  his  cups.  She  used  it  with  surprising  results 
and  went  back  for  more.  The  saint  told  her  to  go  to 
+he  well  and  draw  inexhaustibly  until  cured. 


ANGER.  55 


For  all  others,  the  remedy  is  to  be  found  in  a 
meditation  of  these  words  of  the  "Our  Father:" 
"forgive  us  our  trespasses,  as  we  forgive  those  who 
trespass  against  us."  The  Almighty  will  take  us  at 
our  word. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
GLUTTONY. 

SELF-PRESERVATION  is  nature's  first  law,  and  the 
first  and  essential  means  of  preserving  one's  existence 
is  the  taking  of  food  and  drink  sufficient  to  nourish 
the  body,  sustain  its  strength  and  repair  the  forces 
thereof  weakened  by  labor,  fatigue  or  illness.  God,  ais 
well  as  nature,  obliges  us  to  care  for  our  bodily  health, 
in  order  that  the  spirit  within  may  work  out  on  earth 
the  end  of  its  being. 

Being  purely  animal,  this  necessity  is  not  the 
noblest  and  most  elevating  characteristic  of  our  nature. 
Nor  is  it,  in  its  imperious  and  unrelenting  require 
ments,  far  removed  from  a  species  of  tyranny.  A 
kind  Providence,  however,  by  lending  taste,  savor  and 
delectability  to  our  aliments,  makes  us  find  pleasure 
in  what  otherwise  would  be  repugnant  and 
insufferably  monotonous. 

An  appetite  is  a  good  and  excellent  thing.  To 
eat  and  drink  with  relish  and  satisfaction  is  a  sign 
of  good  health,  one  of  the  precious  boons  of  nature. 
And  the  tendency  to  satisfy  this  appetite,  far  from 
being  sinful,  is  wholly  in  keeping  with  the  divine  plan, 
and  is  necessary  for  a  fulsome  benefiting  of  the 
nourishment  we  take. 


56  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  digestive  organism  of 
the  body  is  such  a  delicate  and  finely  adjusted  piece 
of  mechanism  that  any  excess  is  liable  to  clog  its 
workings  and  put  it  out  of  order.  It  is  made  for 
sufficiency  alone.  Nature  never  intended  man  to  be  a 
glutton;  and  she  seldom  fails  to  retaliate  and  avenge 
excesses  by  pain,  disease  and  death. 

This  fact  coupled  with  the  grossness  of  the  vice 
of  gluttony  makes  it  happily  rare,  at  least  in  its  most 
repulsive  form ;  for,  be  it  said,  it  is  here  question  of 
the  excessive  use  of  ordinary  food  and  drink,  and  not 
of  intoxicants  to  which  latter  form  of  gluttony  we 
shall  pay  our  respects  later. 

The  rich  are  more  liable  than  the  poor  to  sin  by 
gluttony;  but  gluttony  is  fatal  to  longevity,  and  they 
who  enjoy  best  life,  desire  to  live  longest.  Tis  true, 
physicians  claim  that  a  large  portion  of  diseases  are 
due  to  over-eating  and  over-drinking;  but  it  must  be 
admitted  that  this  is  through  ignorance  rather  than 
malice.  So  that  this  passion  can  hardly  be  said  to  be 
commonly  yielded  to,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  grievous 
offending. 

Naturally,  the  degree  of  excess  in  eating  and 
drinking  is  to  be  measured  according  to  age, 
temperament,  condition  of  life,  etc.  The  term  gluttony 
is  relative.  What  would  be  a  sin  for  one  person  might 
be  permitted  as  lawful  to  another.  One  man  might 
starve  on  what  would  constitute  a  sufficiency  for  more 
than  one.  Then  again,  not  only  the  quantity,  but 
the  quality,  time  and  manner,  enter  for  something  in 
determining  just  where  excess  begins.  It  is  difficult 
therefore,  and  it  is  impossible,  to  lay  down  a  general 
rule  that  will  fit  all  cases. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  he  is  mortally  guilty 
who  is  so  far  buried  in  the  flesh  as  to  make  eating  and 
drinking  the  sole  end  of  life,  who  makes  a  god  of  his 
stomach.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  mention  certain 
unmentionable  excesses  such  as  were  practiced  by  the 


GLUTTONY.  57 

degenerate  Romans  towards  the  fall  of  the  Empire. 
It  would  likewise  be  a  grievous  sin  of  gluttony  to  put 
the  satisfaction  of  one's  appetite  before  the  law  of  the 
Church  and  violate  wantonly  the  precepts  of  fasting 
and  abstinence. 

And  are  there  no  sins  of  gluttony  besides  these? 
Yes,  and  three  rules  may  be  laid  down,  the  application 
of  which  to  each  particular  case  will  reveal  the  malice 
of  the  individual.  Overwrought  attachment  to 
satisfactions  of  the  palate,  betrayed  by  constant 
thinking  of  viands  and  pleasures  of  the  table,  and  .by 
avidity  in  taking  nourishment,  betokens  a  dangerous, 
if  not  a  positively  sinful,  degree  of  sensuality.  Then, 
to  continue  eating  or  drinking  after  the  appetite  is 
appeased,  is  in  itself  an  excess,  and  mortal  sin  may 
be  committed  even  without  going  to  the  last  extreme. 
Lastly,  it  is  easy  to  yield  inordinately  to  this  passion 
by  attaching  undue  importance  to  the  quality  of  our 
victuals,  seeking  after  delicacies  that  do  not  become 
our  rank,  and  catering  to  an  over-refined  palate.  The 
evil  of  all  this  consists  in  that  we  seem  to  eat  and 
drink,  if  we  do  not  in  fact  eat  and  drink,  to  satisfy 
our  sensuality  first,  and  to  nourish  our  bodies  after 
wards  ;  and  this  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  nature. 

We  seemed  to  insist  from  the  beginning  that  this 
is  not  a  very  dangerous  or  common  practice.  Yet 
there  must  be  a  hidden  and  especial  malice  in  it.  Else 
why  is  fasting  and  abstinence — two  correctives  of 
gluttony — so  much  in  honor  and  so  universally 
recommended  and  commanded  in  the  Church? 
Counting  three  weeks  in  Advent,  seven  in  Lent  and 
three  Ember  days  four  times  a  year,  we  have,  without 
mentioning  fifty-two  Fridays,  thirteen  weeks  or  one- 
fourth  of  the  year  by  order  devoted  to  a  practical 
warfare  on  gluttony.  No  other  vice  receives  the  honor 
of  such  systematic  and  uncompromising  resistance. 
The  enemy  must  be  worthy. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  lies  under  all  this  a 


58  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

great  moral  principle  of  Christian  philosophy.  This 
philosophy  sought  out  and  found  the  cause  and  seat 
of  all  evil  to  be  in  the  flesh.  The  forces  of  sin  reside 
in  the  flesh  while  the  powers  of  righteousness — 
faith,  reason  and  will — are  in  the  spirit.  The 
real  issue  of  life  is  between  these  forces  contending 
for  supremacy.  The  spirit  should  rule;  that  is  the 
order  of  our  being.  But  the  flesh  revolts,  and  by 
ensnaring  the  will  endeavors  to  dominate  over  the 
spirit. 

Now  it  stands  to  reason  that  the  only  way  for 
the  superior  part  to  succeed  is  to  weaken  the  inferior 
part.  Just  as  prayer  and  the  grace  of  the  sacraments 
fortify  the  soul,  so  do  food  and  drink  nourish  the 
animal ;  and  if  the  latter  is  cared  for  to  the  detriment 
of  the  soul,  it  waxes  strong  and  formidable  and 
becomes  a  menace. 

The  only  resource  for  the  soul  is  then  to  cut  off 
the  supply  that  benefits  the  flesh,  and  strengthen 
herself  thereby.  She  acts  like  a  wise  engineer  who 
keeps  the  explosive  and  dangerous  force  of  his 
locomotive  within  the  limit  by  reducing  the  quantity 
of  food  he  throws  into  its  stomach.  Thus  the  passions 
being  weakened  become  docile,  and  are  easily  held 
under  sway  by  the  power  that  is  destined  to  govern, 
and  sin  is  thus  rendered  morally  impossible. 

It  is  gluttony  that  furnishes  the  passion  of  the 
flesh  with  fuel  by  feeding  the  animal  too  well;  and 
herein  lies  the  great  danger  and  malice  of  this  vice. 
The  evil  of  a  slight  excess  may  not  be  great  in  itself ; 
but  that  evil  is  great  in  its  consequences.  Little 
over-indulgences  imperceptibly,  but  none  the  less 
surely,  strengthen  the  flesh  against  the  spirit,  and 
when  the  temptation  comes  the  spirit  will  be  overcome. 
The  ruse  of  the  saints  was  to  starve  the  enemy. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
DRINK. 

INTEMPERANCE  is  the  immoderate  use  of  anything, 
good  or  bad;  here  the  word  is  used  to  imply  an 
excessive  use  of  alcoholic  beverages,  which  excess, 
when  it  reaches  the  dignity  of  a  habit  or  vice,  makes  a 
man  a  drunkard.  A  drunkard  who  indulges  in  "high 
balls"  and  other  beverages  of  fancy  price  and  name,  is 
euphemistically  styled  a  "tippler;"  his  brother,  a  poor 
devil  who  swallows  vile  concoctions  or  red  "pizen"  is 
called  a  plain,  ordinary  "soak."  Whatever  name  we 
give  to  such  gluttons,  the  evil  in  both  is  the  same ;  'tis 
the  evil  of  gluttony. 

This  vice  differs  from  gluttony  proper  in  that  its 
object  is  strong  drink,  while  the  latter  is  an  abuse  of 
food  and  nourishment  necessary,  in  regulated  quantity, 
for  the  sustenance  of  the  body.  But  alcohol  is  not 
necessary  to  sustain  life  as  an  habitual  beverage;  it 
may  stimulate,  but  it  does  not  sustain  at  all.  It  has 
its  legitimate  uses,  like  strychnine  and  other  poison 
and  drugs ;  but  being  a  poison,  it  must  be  detrimental 
to  living  tissues,  when  '  taken  frequently,  and  cannot 
have  been  intended  by  the  Creator  as  a  life-giving 
nourishment.  Its  habitual  use  is  therefore  not  a 
necessity.  Its  abuse  has  therefore  a  more  far-fetched 
malice. 

But  its  use  is  not  sinful,  any  more  than  the  use 
of  any  drug,  for  alcohol,  or  liquor,  is  a  creature  of 
God  and  is  made  for  good  purposes.  Its  use  is  not 
evil,  whether  it  does  little  good,  or  no  good  at  all.  The 
fact  of  its  being  unnecessary  does  not  make  it  a  for 
bidden  fruit.  The  habit  of  stimulants,  like  the  habit 
of  tobacco,  while  it  has  no  title  to  be  called  a  good 


60  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

habit,  cannot  be  qualified  as  an  intrinsically  bad  habit ; 
it  may  be  tolerated  as  long  as  it  is  kept  within  the 
bounds  of  sane  reason  and  does  not  give  rise  to  evil 
consequences  in  self  or  others.  Apart,  therefore,  from 
the  danger  of  abuse — a  real  and  fatal  danger  for  many, 
especially  for  the  young — and  from  the  evil  effects  that 
may  follow  even  a  moderate  use,  the  habit  is  like 
another;  a  temperate  man  is  not,  to  any  appreciable 
degree,  less  righteous  than  a  moderate  smoker.  The 
man  who  can  use  and  not  abuse  is  just  as  moral  as  his 
brother  who  does  not  use  lest  he  abuse.  He  must, 
however,  be  said  to  be  less  virtuous  than  another  who 
abstains  rather  than  run  the  risk  of  being  even  a 
remote  occasion  of  sin  unto  the  weak. 

The  intrinsic  malice  therefore  of  this  habit 
consists  in  the  disorder  of  excess,  which  is  called 
intoxication.  Intoxication  may  exist  in  different 
degrees  and  stages ;  it  is  the  state  of  a  man  who  loses, 
to  any  extent,  control  over  his  reasoning  faculties 
through  the  effects  of  alcohol.  There  is  evil  and  sin 
the  moment  the  brain  is  affected ;  when  reason  totters 
and  falls  from  its  throne  in  the  soul,  then  the  crime 
is  consummated.  When  a  man  says  and  does  and 
thinks  what  in  his  sober  senses  he  would  not  say,  do, 
or  think,  that  man  is  drunk,  and  there  is  mortal  sin 
on  his  soul.  It  is  not  an  easy  matter  to  define  just 
when  intoxication  properly  begins  and  sobriety  ends ; 
every  man  must  do  that  for  himself.  But  he  should 
consider  himself  well  on  the  road  to  guilt  when,  being 
aware  that  the  fumes  of  liquor  were  fast  beclouding 
his  mind,  he  took  another  glass  that  was  certain  to 
still  further  obscure  his  reason  and  paralyze  his  will. 

Much  has  been  said  and  written  about  the  gross- 
ness  of  this  vice,  its  baneful  effects  and  consequences, 
to  which  it  were  useless  here  to  refer.  Suffice  it  to 
say  there  is  nothing  that  besots  a  man  more  completely 
and  lowers  him  more  ignobly  to  the  level  of  the  brute. 
He  falls  below,  for  the  most  stupid  of  brutes,  the  ass, 


DRINK.  6l 

knows  when  it  has  enough ;  and  the  drunkard  does  not. 
It  requires  small  wit  indeed  to  understand  that  there 
is  no  sin  in  the  catalogue  of  crime  that  a  person  in 
this  state  is  not  capable  of  committing.  He  will  do 
things  the  very  brute  would  blush  to  do;  and  then 
he  will  say  it  was  one  of  the  devil's  jokes.  The  effects 
on  individuals,  families  and  generations,  born  and 
unborn,  cannot  be  exaggerated ;  and  the  drunkard  is 
a  tempter  of  God  and  the  curse  of  society. 

Temperance  is  a  moderate  use  of  strong  drink; 
teetotalism  is  absolute  abstention  therefrom.  A  man 
may  be  temperate  without  being  a  teetotaler;  all 
teetotalers  are  temperate,  at  least  as  far  as  alcohol  is 
concerned,  although  they  are  sometimes,  some  of  them, 
accused  of  using  temperance  as  a  cloak  for  much 
intemperance  of  speech.  If  this  be  true — and  there 
are  cranks  in  all  causes — then  temperance  is  itself  the 
greatest  sufferer.  Exaggeration  is  a  mistake  ;  it  repels 
right-thinking  men  and  never  served  any  purpose.  We 
believe  it  has  done  the  cause  of  teetotalism  a  world  of 
harm.  But  it  is  poor  logic  that  will  identify  with  so 
holy  a  cause  the  rabid  rantings  of  a  few  irresponsible 
fools. 

The  cause  of  total  abstinence  is  a  holy  and 
righteous  cause.  It  takes  its  stand  against  one  of  the 
greatest  evils,  moral  and  social,  of  the  day.  It  seeks 
to  redeem  the  fallen,  and  to  save  the  young  and 
inexperienced.  Its  means  are  organization  and  the 
mighty  weapon  of  good  example.  It  attracts  those 
who  need  it  and  those  who  do  not  need  it ;  the  former, 
to  save  them;  the  latter,  to  help  save  others.  And 
there  is  no  banner  under  which  Catholic  youth  could 
more  honorably  be  enrolled  than  the  banner  of  total 
abstinence.  The  man  who  condemns  or  decries  such 
a  cause  either  does  not  know  what  he  is  attacking  or 
his  mouthing-s  are  not  worth  the  attention  of  those 
who  esteem  honesty  and  hate  hypocrisy.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  be  able  to  practice  virtue  in  order  to 


62  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

esteem  its  worth.  And  it  does  not  make  a  fellow 
appear  any  better  even  to  himself  to  condemn  a  cause 
that  condemns  his  faults. 

Saloon-keepers  are  engaged  in  an  enterprise 
which  in  itself  is  lawful ;  the  same  can  be  said  of  those 
who  buy  and  sell  poisons  and  dynamite  and  fire-arms. 
The  nature  of  his  merchandise  differentiates  his 
business  from  all  other  kinds  of  business,  and  his 
responsibilities  are  of  the  heaviest.  It  may,  and  often 
does,  happen  that  this  business  is  criminal ;  and  in  this 
matter  the  civil  law  may  be  silent,  but  the  moral  law 
is  not.  For  many  a  one  such  a  place  is  an  occasion 
of  sin,  often  a  near  occasion.  It  is  not  comforting  to 
kneel  in  prayer  to  God  with  the  thought  in  one's  mind 
that  one  is  helping  many  to  damnation,  and  that  the 
curses  of  drunkards'  wives  and  mothers  and  children 
are  being  piled  upon  one's  head.  How  far  the  average 
liquor  seller  is  guilty,  God  only  knows ;  but  a  man 
with  a  deep  concern  for  his  soul's  salvation,  it  seems, 
would  not  like  to  take  the  risk. 


CHAPTER  XV. 
ENVY. 

WHEN  envy  catches  a  victim  she  places  an  evil 
eye  in  his  mind,  gives  him  a  cud  to  chew,  and  then 
sends  him  gadding. 

If  the  mind's  eye  feeds  upon  one's  own  excellence 
for  one's  own  satisfaction,  that  is  pride;  if  it  feeds 
upon  the  neighbor's  good  for  one's  own  displeasure 
and  unhappiness,  that  is  envy.  It  is  not  alone  this  dis 
pleasure  that  makes  envy,  but  the  reason  of  this 
displeasure,  that  is,  what  the  evil  eye  discerns  in  the 


ENVV.  63 

neighbor's  excellence,  namely,  a  detriment,  an  obstacle 
to  one's  own  success.  It  is  not  necessary  that  another's 
prosperity  really  work  injury  to  our  own;  it  is 
sufficient  that  the  evil  eye,  through  its  discolored 
vision,  perceive  a  prejudice  therein.  "Ah!"  says  envy, 
"he  is  happy,  prosperous,  esteemed!  My  chances  are 
spoiled.  I  am  overshadowed.  I  am  nothing,  he  is 
everything.  I  am  nothing  because  he  is  everything." 

Remember  that  competition,  emulation,  rivalry  are 
not  necessarily  envy.  I  dread  to  see  my  rival  succeed. 
I  am  pained  if  he  does  succeed.  But  the  cause  of  this 
annoyance  and  vexation  is  less  his  superiority  than 
my  inferiority.  I  regret  my  failure  more  than  his 
success.  There  is  no  evil  eye.  Tis  the  sting  of  defeat 
that  causes  me  pain.  If  I  regret  this  or  that  man's 
elevation  because  I  fear  he  will  abuse  his  power ;  if  I 
become  indignant  at  the  success  of  an  unworthy 
person ;  I  am  not  envious,  because  this  superiority  of 
another  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  a  prejudice  to  my 
standing.  Whatever  sin  there  is,  there  is  no  sin 
of  envy. 

We  may  safely  assume  that  a  person  who  would 
be  saddened  by  the  success  of  another,  would  not 
fail  to  rejoice  at  that  other's  misfortune.  This  is  a 
grievous  offense  against  charity,  but  it  is  not,  properly 
speaking,  envy,  for  envy  is  always  sad ;  it  is  rather  an 
effect  of  envy,  a  natural  product  thereof  and  a  form 
of  hatred. 

This  unnatural  view  of  things  which  we  qualify 
as  the  evil  eye,  is  not  a  sin  until  it  reaches  the  dignity 
of  a  sober  judgment,  for  only  then  does  it  become 
a  human  act.  Envy  like  pride,  anger,  and  the  other 
vicious  inclinations,  may  and  often  does  crop  out  in 
our  nature,  momentarily,  without  our  incurring  guilt, 
if  it  is  checked  before  it  receives  the  acquiescence  of 
the  will,  it  is  void  of  wrong,  and  only  serves  to  remind 
us  that  we  have  a  rich  fund  of  malice  in  our  nature 
capable  of  an  abundant  yield  of  iniquity. 


64  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

After  being  born  in  the  mind,  envy  passes  to  the 
feelings  where  it  matures  and  furnishes  that  supply 
of  misery  which  characterizes  the  vice.  Another  is 
happy  at  our  expense;  the  sensation  is  a  painful  one, 
yet  it  has  a  diabolical  fascination,  and  we  fondle  and 
caress  it.  We  brood  over  our  affliction  to  the  embit 
tering  and  souring  of  our  souls.  We  swallow  and 
regurgitate  over  and  over  again  our  dissatisfaction, 
and  are  aptly  said  to  chew  the  cud  of  bitterness. 

Out  of  such  soil  as  this  naturally  springs  a  rank 
growth  of  uncharity  and  injustice  in  thought  and 
desire.  The  mind  and  heart  of  envy  are  untrammeled 
by  all  bonds  of  moral  law.  It  may  think  all  evil  of  a 
rival  and  wish  him  all  evil.  He  becomes  an  enemy,  and 
finally  he  is  hated.  Envy  points  directly  to  hatred. 

Lastly,  envy  is  "a  gadding  passion,  it  walketh  the 
street  and  does  not  keep  home."  It  were  better  to  say 
that  it  "talketh."  There  is  nothing  like  language  to 
relieve  one's  feelings ;  it  is  quieting  and  soothing,  and 
envy  has  strong  feelings.  Hence,  evil  insinuations, 
detraction,  slander,  etc.  Justice  becomes  an  empty 
word  and  the  seamless  robe  of  charity  is  torn  to  shreds. 
As  an  agent  of  destruction  envy  easily  holds  the  palm, 
for  it  commands  the  two  strong  passions  of  pride  and 
anger,  and  they  do  its  bidding. 

People  scarcely  ever  acknowledge  themselves 
envious.  It  is  such  a  base,  unreasonable  and  unnatural 
vice.  If  we  cannot  rejoice  with  the  neighbor,  why  be 
pained  at  his  felicity?  And  what  an  insanity  it  is  to 
imagine  that  in  this  wide  world  one  cannot  be  happy 
without  prejudicing  the  happiness  of  another!  What 
a  severe  shock  it  would  be  to  the  discontented,  the 
morosely  sour,  the  cynic,  and  other  human  owls,  to  be 
told  that  they  are  victims  of  this  green-eyed  monster. 
They  would  confess  to  calumny,  and  hatred ;  to  envy, 
never ! 

Envy  can  only  exist  where  there  is  abundant 
pride.  It  is  a  form  of  pride,  a  shape  which  it  fre- 


ENVY.  65 

quently  assumes,  because  under  this  disguise  it  can 
penetrate  everywhere  without  being  as  much  as 
noticed.  And  it  is  so  seldom  detected  that  wherever 
it  gains  entrance  it  can  hope  to  remain  indefinitely. 

Jealousy  and  envy  are  often  confounded ;  yet  they 
differ  in  that  the  latter  looks  on  what  is  another's, 
while  the  former  concerns  itself  with  what  is  in  one's 
own  possession.  I  envy  what  is  not  mine ;  I  am  jealous 
of  what  is  my  own.  Jealousy  has  a  saddening 
influence  upon  us,  by  reason  of  a  fear,  more  or  less 
well  grounded,  that  what  we  have  will  be  taken  from 
us.  We  foresee  an  injustice  and  resent  it. 

Kept  within  the  limits  of  sane  reason,  jealousy  is 
not  wrong,  for  it  is  founded  on  the  right  we  have  to 
what  is  ours.  It  is  in  our  nature  to  cling  to  what 
belongs  to  us,  to  regret  being  deprived  of  it,  and  to 
guard  ourselves  against  injustice. 

But  when  this  fear  is  without  cause,  visionary, 
unreasonable,  jealousy  partakes  of  the  nature  and 
malice  of  envy.  It  is  even  more  malignant  a  passion, 
and  leads  to  greater  disorders  and  crimes,  for  while 
envy  is  based  on  nothing  at  all,  there  is  here  a  true 
foundation  in  the  right  of  possession,  and  a  motive  in 
right  to  repel  injustice. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
SLOTH. 

NOT  the  least,  if  the  last,  of  capital  sins  is  sloth, 
and  it  is  very  properly  placed ;  for  who  ever  saw  the 
sluggard  or  victim  of  this  passion  anywhere  but  after 
all  others,  last! 

Sloth,  of  course,  is  a  horror  of  difficulty,  an 
aversion  for  labor,  pain  and  effort,  which  must  be 


66  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

traced  to  a  great  love  of  one's  comfort  and  ease. 
Either  the  lazy  fellow  does  nothing  at  all — and  this 
is  sloth;  or  he  abstains  from  doing  what  he  should 
do  while  otherwise  busily  occupied — and  this  too,  is 
sloth ;  or  he  does  it  poorly,  negligently,  half-heartedly 
— and  this  again  is  sloth.  Nature  imposes  upon  us 
the  law  of  labor.  He  who  shirks  in  whole  or  in  part 
is  slothful. 

Here,  in  the  moral  realm,  we  refer  properly  to  the 
difficulty  we  find  in  the  service  of  God,  in  fulfiling  our 
obligations  as  Christians  and  Catholics,  in  avoiding  evil 
and  doing  good;  in  a  word,  to  the  discharge  of  our 
spiritual  duties.  But  then  all  human  obligations  have 
a  spiritual  side,  by  the  fact  of  their  being  obligations. 
Thus,  labor  is  not,  like  attendance  at  mass,  a  spiritual 
necessity ;  but  to  provide  for  those  who  are  dependent 
upon  us  is  a  moral  obligation  and  to  shirk  it  would  be 
a  sin  of  sloth. 

Not  that  it  is  necessary,  if  we  would  avoid  sin,  to 
hate  repose  naturally  and  experience  no  difficulty  or 
repugnance  in  working  out  our  soul's  salvation.  Sloth 
is  inbred  in  our  nature.  There  is  no  one  but  would 
rather  avoid  than  meet  difficulties.  The  service  of  God 
is  laborious  and  painful.  The  kingdom  of  God  suffers 
violence.  It  has  always  been  true  since  the  time  of  our 
ancestor  Adam,  that  vice  is  easy,  and  virtue  difficult ; 
that  the  flesh  is  weak,  and  repugnance  to  effort,  natural 
because  of  the  burden  of  the  flesh.  So  that,  in  this 
general  case,  sloth  is  an  obstacle  to  overcome  rather 
than  a  fault  of  the  will.  We  may  abhor  exertion,  feel 
the  laziest  of  mortals ;  if  we  effect  our  purpose  in  spite 
of  all  that,  we  can  do  no  sin. 

Sometimes  sloth  takes  on  an  acute  form  known  as 
aridity  or  barrenness  in  all  things  that  pertain  to  God. 
The  most  virtuous  souls  are  not  always  exempt  from 
this.  It  is  a  dislike,  a  distaste  that  amounts  almost  to 
a  disgust  for  prayer  especially,  a  repugnance  that 
threatens  to  overwhelm  the  soul.  That  is  simply  an 
absence  of  sensible  fervor,  a  state  of  affliction  and  pro- 


SLOTH.  67 

bation  that  is  as  pleasing  to  God  as  it  is  painful  to 
us.  After  all  where  would  the  merit  be  in  the  service 
of  God,  if  there  were  no  difficulty  ? 

The  type  of  the  spiritually  indolent  is  that  fixture 
known  as  the  half-baked  Catholic — some  people  call 
him  "a  poor  stick" — who  is  too  lazy  to  meet  his  obli 
gations  with  his  Maker.  He  says  no  prayers,  because 
he  can't;  he  lies  abed  Sunday  mornings  and  lets  the 
others  go  to  mass — he  is  too  tired  and  needs  rest; 
the  effort  necessary  to  prepare  for  and  to  go  to  confes 
sion  is  quite  beyond  him.  In  fine,  religion  is  altogether 
too  exacting,  requires  too  much  of  a  man. 

And,  as  if  to  remove  all  doubt  as  to  the  purely 
spiritual  character  of  this  inactivity,  our  friend  can  be 
seen,  without  a  complaint,  struggling  every  day  to  earn 
the  dollar.  He  will  not  grumble  about  rising  at  five 
to  go  fishing  or  cycling.  He  will,  after  his  hard  day's 
work,  sit  till  twelve  at  the  theatre  or  dance  till  two  in 
the  morning.  He  will  spend  his  energy  in  any  direc 
tion  save  in  that  which  leads  to  God. 

Others  expect  virtue  to  be  as  easy  as  It  is  beautiful. 
Religion  should  conduce  to  one's  comfort.  They  like 
incense,  but  not  the  smell  of  brimstone.  They  would  re 
main  forever  content  on  Tabor,  but  the  dark  frown  of 
Calvary  is  insupportable.  Beautiful  churches,  artistic 
music,  eloquent  preaching  on  interesting  topics,  that 
is  their  idea  of  religion ;  that  is  what  thev  intend  relig 
ion — their  religion — shall  be,  and  they  proceed  to  cut 
out  whatever  jars  their  finer  feelings.  This  is  fashion 
able,  but  it  is  not  Christian :  to  do  anything  for  God — 
if  it  is  easy;  and  if  it  is  hard, — well,  God  does  not 
expect  so  much  of  us. 

You  will  see  at  a  glance  that  this  sort  of  a  thing  is 
fatal  to  the  sense  of  God  in  the  soul ;  it  has  for  its 
first,  direct  and  immediate  effect  to  weaken  little  by  lit 
tle  the  faith  until  it  finally  kills  it  altogether.  Sloth  is 
a  microbe.  It  creeps  into  the  soul,  sucks  in  its  sub 
stance  and  causes  a  spiritual  consumption.  This  is 


68  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

neither  an  acute  nor  a  violent  malady,  but  it  consumes 
the  patient,  dries  him  up,  wears  him  out,  till  life  goes 
out  like  a  lamp  without  oil. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
WHAT  WE  BELIEVE. 

OUR  first  duty  to  God,  and  the  first  obligation 
imposed  upon  us  by  the  First  Commandment  is  Faith, 
or  belief  in  God — we  must  know  Him. 

Belief  is  solely  a  manner  of  knowing.  It  is  one 
way  of  apprehending,  or  getting  possession  of,  a  truth. 
There  are  other  ways  of  acquiring  knowledge ;  by  the 
senses,  for  instance,  seeing,  hearing,  etc.,  and  by  our 
intelligence  or  reason.  When  truth  comes  to  us 
through  the  senses,  it  is  called  experience;  if  the 
reason  presents  it,  it  is  called  science;  if  we  use  the 
faculty  of  the  soul  known  as  faith,  it  is  belief. 

You  will  observe  that  belief,  experience  and 
science  have  one  and  the  same  object,  namely,  truth. 
These  differ  only  in  the  manner  of  apprehending  truth. 
Belief  relies  on  the  testimony  of  others;  experience, 
on  the  testimony  of  the  senses;  science,  on  that  of  the 
reason.  What  I  believe,  I  get  from  others ;  what  I 
experience  or  understand,  I  owe  to  my  individual  self. 
I  neither  believe  nor  understand  that  Hartford  exists 
— I  see  it.  I  neither  understand  nor  see  that  Rome 
exists — I  believe  it.  I  neither  see  nor  believe  that 
two  parallel  lines  will  never  meet — I  reason  it  out,  I 
understand  it. 

Now  it  is  beside  the  question  here  to  object  that 
belief,  or  what  we  believe,  may  or  may  not  be  true. 
Neither  is  all  that  we  see,  nor  all  that  our  reason 
produces,  true.  Human  experience  and  human 


WHAT    WE   BELIEVE.  69 

reason,  like  all  things  human,  may  err.  Here  we 
simply  remark  that  truth  is  the  object  of  our  belief, 
as  it  is  the  object  of  our  experience  and  of  understand 
ing.  We  shall  later  see  that  if  human  belief  may  err, 
faith  or  divine  belief  cannot  mislead  us,  cannot  be 
false. 

Neither  is  it  in  order  here  to  contend  that  belief, 
of  its  very  nature,  is  something  uncertain,  that  it  is 
synonymous  of  opinion ;  or  if  it  supposes  a  judgment, 
that  judgment  is  "formidolose,"  liable  at  any  moment 
to  be  changed  or  contradicted.  The  testimony  of  the 
senses  and  of  reason  does  not  always  carry  certain 
conviction.  We  may  or  may  not  be  satisfied  with  the 
evidence  of  human  belief.  As  for  the  divine,  or  faith, 
it  is  certain,  or  it  is  not  at  all ;  and  who  would  not  be 
satisfied  with  the  guarantee  offered  by  the  Word  of 
God! 

And  the  truths  we  believe  are  those  revealed  by 
God,  received  by  us  through  a  double  agency,  the 
written  and  the  oral  word,  known  as  Scripture  and 
Tradition.  Scripture  is  contained  in  the  two  Testa 
ments  ;  Tradition  is  found  in  the  bosom,  the  life  of 
the  Church  of  Christ,  in  the  constant  and  universal 
teachings  of  that  Church. 

The  Scripture  being  a  dead  letter  cannot  explain 
or  interpret  itself.  Yet,  since  it  is  applied  to  the  ever- 
varying  lives  of  men,  it  needs  an  explanation  and  an 
interpretation;  it  is  practically  of  no  value  without 
it.  And  in  order  that  the  truth  thus  presented  be 
accepted  by  men,  it  is  necessary,  of  prime  necessity, 
that  it  have  the  guarantee  of  infallibility.  This  infalli 
bility  the  Church  of  Christ  possesses,  else  His  mission 
were  a  failure. 

This  infallibility  is  to  control  the  vagaries  of 
Tradition,  for  Tradition,  of  its  very  nature,  tends  to 
exaggeration,  as  we  find  in  the  legends  of  ancient 
peoples.  Exaggerated,  they  destroy  themselves,  but 
in  the  bosom  of  God's  Church  these  truths  forever 
retain  their  character  unchanged  and  unchangeable. 


7O  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

If  you  accept  the  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and 
nothing  but  the  truth  as  revealed  by  God  and  delivered 
to  man  by  the  infallible  Church  from  the  Bible  and 
Tradition,  you  have  what  is  called  ecclesiastical, 
Catholic  or  true  faith.  There  is  no  other  true  faith. 
It  is  even  an  open  question  whether  there  is  any  faith 
at  all  outside  of  this ;  for  outside  the  Church  there  is 
no  reasonable  foundation  for  faith,  and  our  faith  must 
be  reasonable. 

However,  granting  that  such  a  thing  can  be,  the 
faith  of  him  who  takes  and  leaves  off  the  divine  Word 
is  called  divine  faith.  He  is  supposed  to  ignore  in 
vincibly  a  portion  of  revealed  truth,  but  he  accepts 
what  he  knows.  If  he  knew  something  and  refused 
to  embrace  it,  he  would  have  no  faith  at  all.  The 
same  is  true  of  one  who  having  once  believed,  believes 
no  longer.  He  impeaches  the  veracity  of  God,  and 
therefore  cannot  further  rely  on  His  Word. 

Lastly,  it  matters  not  at  all  what  kind  of  truths  we 
receive  from  God.  Truth  is  truth  always  and  ever. 
We  may  not  be  able  to  comprehend  what  is  revealed 
to  us,  and  little  the  wonder.  Our  intelligence  is  not 
infinite,  and  God's  is.  Many  things  that  men  tell 
us  we  believe  without  understanding;  God  deserves 
our  trust  more  than  men.  Our  incapacity  for  under 
standing  all  that  faith  teaches  us  proves  one  thing: 
that  there  are  limits  to  our  powers,  which  may  be 
surprising  to  some,  but  is  nevertheless  true. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
WHY  WE  BELIEVE. 

BELIEF,  we  have  said,  is  the  acceptance  of  a 
truth  from  another.  We  do  not  always  accept  what 
others  present  to  us  as  truth,  for  the  good  reason 
that  we  may  have  serious  doubts  as  to  whether  they 
speak  the  truth  or  not.  It  is  for  us  to  decide  the 
question  of  our  informant's  intellectual  and  moral 
trustworthiness.  If  we  do  believe  him,  it  is  because 
we  consider  his  veracity  to  be  beyond  question. 

The  foundation  of  our  belief  is  therefore  the 
veracity  of  him  whose  word  we  take.  They  tell  me 
that  Lincoln  was  assassinated.  Personally,  I  know 
nothing  about  it.  But  I  do  know  that  they  who  speak 
of  it  could  know,  did  know,  and  could  not  lead  us 
all  astray  on  this  point.  I  accept  their  evidence;  I 
believe  on  their  word. 

It  is  on  the  testimony  of  God's  word  that  we 
believe  in  matters  that  pertain  to  faith.  The  idea  we 
have  of  God  is  that  He  is  infinitely  perfect,  that  He 
is  all-wise  and  all-good.  He  cannot,  therefore,  under 
pain  of  destroying  His  very  existence,  be  deceived  or 
deceive  us.  When,  therefore,  He  speaks,  He  speaks 
the  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth.  It  would  be  a 
very  stultification  of  our  reason  to  refuse  to  believe 
Him,  once  we  admit  His  existence. 

Now,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  inquire  into  the 
things  He  reveals,  or  to  endeavor  to  discover  the  why, 
whence  and  wherefore.  It  is  truth,  we  are  certain  of 
it ;  what  more  do  we  need !  It  may  be  a  satisfaction  to 
see  and  understand  these  truths,  just  as  it  is  to  solve 
a  problem  two  or  three  different  ways.  But  it  is  not 
essential,  for  the  result  is  always  the  same — truth. 


72  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

But  suppose,  with  my  senses  and  my  reason,  I 
come  to  a  result  at  variance  with  the  first,  suppose  the 
testimony  of  God's  word  and  that  of  my  personal 
observations  conflict,  what  then?  There  is  an  error 
somewhere.  Either  God  errs  or  my  faculties  play  me 
false.  Which  should  have  the  preference  of  my  assent  ? 
The  question  is  answered  as  soon  as  it  is  put.  I  can 
conceive  an  erring  man,  but  I  cannot  conceive  a  false 
God.  Nothing  human  is  infallible ;  God  alone  is  proof 
against  all  error.  This  would  not  be  my  first  offense 
against  truth. 

"Yes,  all  this  is  evident.  I  shall  and  do  believe 
everything  that  God  deigns  to  reveal,  because  He  says 
it,  whether  or  not  I  see  or  understand  it.  But  the 
difficulty  with  me  is  how  to  know  that  God  did  speak, 
what  He  said,  what  He  meant.  My  difficulty  is  prac 
tical,  not  theoretical." 

And  by  the  same  token  you  have  shifted  the 
question  from  "Why  we  believe"  to  "Whence  we 
believe;"  you  no  longer  seek  the  authority  of  your 
faith,  but  its  genesis.  You  believe  what  God  says, 
because  He  says  it;  you  believe  He  did  say  it  because 
— the  Church  says  it.  You  are  no  longer  dealing  with 
the  truth  itself,  but  with  the  messenger  that  brings 
the  truth  to  be  believed.  The  message  of  the  Church 
is:  these  are  God's  words.  As  for  what  these  words 
stand  for,  you  are  not  to  trust  her,  but  Him.  The 
foundation  of  divine  belief  is  one  thing ;  the  motives  of 
credibility  are  another. 

We  should  not  confound  these  two  things,  if  we 
would  have  a  clear  notion  of  what  faith  is,  and  discover 
the  numerous  counterfeits  that  are  being  palmed  off 
nowadays  on  a  world  that  desires  a  convenient,  rather 
than  a  genuine  article. 

The  received  manner  of  belief  is  first  to  examine 
the  truths  proposed  as  coming  from  God,  measure 
them  with  the  rule  of  individual  reason,  of  expediency, 
feeling,  fancy,  and  thus  to  decide  upon  their  merits.  If 
this  proposition  suits,  it  is  accepted.  If  that  other  is 


WHY   WE  BELIEVE.  73 

found  wanting,  it  is  forthwith  rejected.  And  then 
it  is  in  order  to  set  out  and  prove  them  to  be  or  not  to 
be  the  word  of  God,  according  to  their  suitability  or 
non-suitability. 

One  would  naturally  imagine,  as  reason  and 
common  sense  certainly  suggest,  that  one's  first  duty 
would  be  to  convince  oneself  that  God  did  communicate 
these  truths ;  and  if  so,  then  to  accept  them  without 
further  dally  or  comment.  There  is  nothing  to  be 
done,  once  God  reveals,  but  to  receive  His  revelation. 

Outside  the  Church,  this  procedure  is  not  always 
followed,  because  of  the  rationalistic  tendencies  of 
latter-day  Protestantism.  It  is  a  glaring  fact  that 
many  do  not  accept  all  that  God  says  because  He  says, 
but  because  it  meets  the  requirements  of  their  condition, 
feelings  or  fancy.  They  lay  down  the  principle  that 
a  truth,  to  be  a  truth,  must  be  understood  by  the  human 
intelligence.  This  is  paramount  to  asserting  that  God 
cannot  know  more  than  men — blasphemy  on  the  face 
of  it.  Thus  the  divine  rock-bed  of  faith  is  torn  away, 
and  a  human  basis  substituted.  Faith  itself  is  destroyed 
in  the  process. 

It  is,  therefore,  important,  before  examining 
whence  comes  our  faith,  to  remember  why  we  believe, 
and  not  to  forget  it.  This  much  gained,  and  for  all 
time,  we  can  go  farther;  without  it,  all  advance  is 
impossible. 

1 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
WHENCE  OUR  BELIEF:  REASON. 

MY  faith  is  the  most  reasonable  thing ,  in  the 
world,  and  it  must  needs  be  such.  The  Amighty  gave 
me  intelligence  to  direct  my  life.  When  He  speaks 


74  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

He  reveals  Himself  to  me  as  to  an  intelligent  being 
and  He  expects  that  I  receive  His  word  intelligently. 
Were  I  to  abdicate  my  reason  in  the  acceptance  of  His 
truths,  I  would  do  my  Maker  as  great  an  injury  as 
myself.  All  the  rest  of  creation  offers  Him  an  homage 
of  pure  life,  of  instinct  or  feeling;  man  alone  can,  and 
must,  offer  a  higher,  nobler  and  more  acceptable  hom 
age — that  of  reason. 

My  faith  is  reasonable,  and  this  is  the  account  my 
reason  gives  of  my  faith :  I  can  accept  as  true,  without 
in  the  least  comprehending,  and  far  from  dishonoring 
my  reason,  with  a  positive  and  becoming  dignity, — I 
can  accept! — but  I  must  accept — whatever  is  confided 
to  me  by  an  infallible  authority,  an  authority  that  can 
neither  deceive  nor  be  deceived.  There  is  nothing 
supernatural  about  this  statement. 

That  which  is  perfect  cannot  be  subject  to  error, 
for  error  is  evil  and  perfection  excludes  evil.  If  God 
exists  He  is  perfect.  Allow  one  imperfection  to  enter 
into  your  notion  of  God,  and  you  destroy  that  notion. 
When,  therefore,  God  speaks  He  is  an  infallible 
authority.  This  is  the  philosophy  of  common  sense. 

Now  I  know  that  God  has  spoken.  The  existence 
of  that  historical  personage  known  as  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  is  more  firmly  established  than  that  of 
Alexander  or  Caesar.  Four  books  relate  a  part  of  His 
sayings  and  doings ;  and  I  have  infinitely  less  reason 
to  question  their  authenticity  than  I  have  to  doubt  the 
authenticity  of  Virgil  or  Shakespeare.  No  book 
ever  written  has  been  subjected  to  such  a  searching, 
probing  test  of  malevolent  criticism,  at  all  times 
but  especially  of  late  years  in  Germany  and  France. 
Great  men,  scholars,  geniuses  have  devoted  their  lives 
to  the  impossible  task  of  explaining  the  Gospels  away, 
with  the  evident  result  that  the  position  of  the  latter 
remains  a  thousandfold  stronger.  Unless  I  reject  all 
human  testimony,  and  reason  forbids,  I  must  accept 
them  as  genuine,  at  least  in  substance. 


WHENCE   OUR   BELIEF:    REASON.  75 

These  four  books  relate  how  Jesus  healed 
miraculously  the  sick,  raised  the  dead  to  life,  led  the 
life  of  the  purest,  most  honest  and  sagest  of  men, 
claimed  to  be  God,  and  proved  it  by  rising  from  the 
dead  Himself.  That  this  man  is  divine,  reason  can 
admit  without  being  unreasonable,  and  must  admit  to 
be  reasonable;  and  revelation  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  matter. 

A  glaring  statement  among  all  others,  one  that  is 
reiterated  and  insisted  upon,  is  that  all  men  should 
share  in  the  fruit  of  His  life ;  and  for  this  purpose  He 
founded  a  college  of  apostles  which  He  called  His 
Church,  to  teach  all  that  He  said  and  did,  to  all  men, 
for  all  time.  The  success  of  His  life  and  mission 
depends  upon  the  continuance  of  His  work. 

Why  did  He  act  thus  ?  I  do  not  know.  Are  there 
reasons  for  this  economy  of  salvation?  There 
certainly  are,  else  it  would  not  have  been  established. 
But  we  are  not  seeking  after  reasons  ;  we  are  gathering 
facts  upon  which  to  build  an  argument,  and  these  facts 
we  take  from  the  authentic  life  of  Christ. 

Now  we  give  the  Almighty  credit  for  wisdom  in 
all  His  plans,  the  wisdom  of  providing  His  agencies 
with  the  means  to  reach  the  end  they  are  destined  to 
attain.  To  commission  a  church  to  teach  all  men 
without  authority,  is  to  condemn  it  to  utter  nothingness 
from  the  very  beginning.  To  expect  men  to  accept  the 
truths  He  revealed,  and  such  truths!  without  a  guar 
antee  against  error  in  the  infallibility  of  the  teacher,  is 
to  be  ignorant  of  human  nature.  And  since  at  no  time 
must  it  cease  to  teach,  it  must  be  indefectible.  Being 
true,  it  must  be  one ;  the  work  of  God,  it  must  be  holy ; 
being  provided  for  all  creatures,  it  must  be  Catholic  or 
universal ;  and  being  the  same  as  Christ  founded  upon 
His  Apostles,  it  must  be  apostolic.  If  it  is  not  all  these 
things  together,  it  is  not  the  teacher  sent  by  God  to 
instruct  and  direct  men. 

No  one  who  seeks  with  intelligence,  single- 
mindedness  and  a  pure  heart,  will  fail  to  find  these 


76  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

attributes  and  marks  of  the  true  Church  of  Christ. 
Whether,  after  finding  them,  one  will  make  an  act  of 
faith,  is  another  question.  But  that  he  can  give  his 
assent  with  the  full  approval  of  his  reason  is  absolutely 
certain.  Once  he  does  so,  he  has  no  further  use  for  his 
reason.  He  enters  the  Church,  an  edifice  illumined 
by  the  superior  light  of  revelation  and  faith.  He  can 
leave  reason,  like  a  lantern,  at  the  door. 

Therein  he  will  learn  many  other  truths  that  he 
never  could  have  found  out  with  reason  alone,  truths 
superior,  but  not  contrary,  to  reason.  These  truths  he 
can  never  repudiate  without  sinning  against  reason, 
first,  because  reason  brought  him  to  this  pass  where  he 
must  believe  without  the  immediate  help  of  reason. 

One  of  the  first  things  we  shall  hear  from  the 
Church  speaking  on  her  own  authority  is  that  these 
writings,  the  four  relations  of  Christ's  life,  are  inspired. 
However  a  person  could  discover  and  prove  this  truth 
to  himself  is  a  mystery  that  will  never  be  solved.  We 
cannot  assume  it;  it  must  be  proven.  Unless  it  be 
proven,  the  faith  based  on  this  assumption  is  not 
reasonable;  and  proven  it  can  never  be,  unless  we  take 
it  from  an  authority  whose  infallibility  is  proven.  That 
is  why  we  say  that  it  is  doubtful  if  non-Catholic  faith 
is  faith  at  all,  because  faith  must  be  reasonable  ;  and 
faith  that  is  based  on  an  assumption  is  to  say  the 
least  doubtfully  reasonable. 


CHAPTER  XX. 
WHENCE  OUR  BELIEF:  GRACE  AND  WILL. 

To  believe  is  to  assent  to  a  truth  on  the  authority 
of  God's  word.  We  must  find  that  the  truth  proposed 
is  really  guaranteed  by  the  authority  of  God.  In  this 


WHENCE   OUR  BELIEF:    GRACE   AND   WILL.  77 

process  of  mental  research,  the  mind  must  be  satisfied, 
and  the  truth  found  to  be  in  consonance  with  the 
dictates  of  right  reason,  or  at  least,  not  contrary 
thereto. 

But  the  fact  that  we  can  securely  give  our  assent 
to  this  truth  does  not  make  us  believe.  Something 
more  than  reason  enters  into  an  act  of  faith. 

Faith  is  not  something  natural,  purely  human, 
beginning  and  ending  in  the  brain,  and  a  product 
thereof.  This  is  human  belief,  not  divine,  and  is 
consequently  not  faith. 

We  believe  that  faith  is,  of  itself,  as  far  beyond 
the  native  powers  of  a  human  being  as  the  sense  of 
feeling  is  beyond  the  power  of  a  stone,  or  intelligence, 
the  faculty  of  comprehension,  is  beyond  the  power 
of  an  animal.  In  other  words,  it  is  supernatural,  above 
the  natural  forces,  and  requires  the  power  of  God  to 
give  it  existence.  "No  man  can  come  to  me,  unless 
the  Father  who  has  sent  Me,  draw  him." 

Some  have  faith,  others  have  it  not  Where  did 
you  get  your  faith?  You  were  not  born  with  it,  as 
you  were  with  the  natural,  though  dormant  faculties 
of  speech,  reason,  and  free  will.  You  received  it 
through  Baptism.  You  are  a  product  of  nature; 
therefore  nature  should  limit  your  existence.  But 
faith  aspires  to,  and  obtains,  an  end  that  is  not  natural 
but  supernatural.  It  consequently  must  itself  be 
supernatural,  and  cannot  be  acquired  without  divine 
assistance. 

Unless  God  revealed,  you  could  not  know  the 
truths  of  religion.  Unless  He  established  a  court 
of  final  appeal  in  His  Church,  you  could  not  be  sure 
what  He  did  reveal  or  what  He  meant  to  say.  Because 
of  the  peculiar  character  of  these  truths  and  the  nature 
of  the  certitude  we  possess,  many  would  not  believe 
at  all,  if  God's  grace  were  not  there  to  help  them. 
And  even  though  one  could  and  would  believe,  there 
is  no  divine  belief  or  faith  proper  until  the  soul 
receives  the  faculty  from  Him  who  alone  can  give  it. 


78  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

The  reason  why  many  do  not  believe  is  not 
because  God's  grace  is  wanting  nor  because  their 
minds  cannot  be  satisfied,  not  because  they  cannot,  but 
because  they  will  not. 

Faith  is  a  gift  of  God,  but  not  that  alone ;  it  is  a 
conviction,  but  not  that  alone.  It  is  a  firm  assent  of 
the  will.  We  are  free  to  believe  or  not  to  believe. 

"As  one  may  be  convinced  and  not  act  according 
to  his  conviction,  so  may  one  be  convinced  and  not 
believe  according  to  his  conviction.  The  arguments 
of  religion  do  not  compel  anyone  to  believe,  just  as 
the  arguments  for  good  conduct  do  not  compel  anyone 
to  obey.  Obedience  is  the  consequence  of  willing  to 
obey,  and  faith  is  the  consequence  of  willing  to 
believe." 

I  am  not  obliged  to  receive  as  true  any  religious 
dogma,  as  I  am  forced  to  accept  the  proposition  that 
two  and  two  are  four.  I  believe  because  I  choose  to 
believe.  My  faith  is  a  submission  of  the  will.  The 
authority  of  God  is  not  binding  on  me  physically,  for 
men  have  refused  and  still  do  refuse  to  submit  to  His 
authority  and  the  authority  He  communicated  to  His 
Church.  And  I  know  that  I,  too,  can  refuse  and 
perhaps  more  than  once  have  been  tempted  to  refuse, 
my  assent  to  truths  that  interfered  too  painfully  with 
my  interests  and  passions. 

Besides,  faith  is  meritorious,  and  in  order  to  merit 
one  must  do  something  difficult  and  be  free  to  act.  The 
difficulty  is  to  believe  what  we  cannot  understand, 
through  pride  of  intelligence,  and  to  bring  that  stiff 
domineering  faculty  to  recognize  a  superior. 
The  difficulty  is  to  bend  the  will  to  the  acceptance 
of  truths,  and  consequent  obligations  that  gall 
our  self-love  and  the  flesh.  The  believer  must 
have  humility  and  self-denial.  The  grace  of  God 
follows  these  virtues  into  a  soul,  and  then  your  act 
of  faith  is  complete. 

Herein  we  discover  the  great  wisdom  of  God 
who  sets  the  price  of  faith,  and  of  salvation  that 


WHENCE   OUR   BELIEF:    GRACE   AND   WILL.  79 

depends  on  it,  not  on  the  mind,  but  on  the  will; 
not  on  the  intelligence  alone,  but  on  the  heart.  To 
no  man  is  grace  denied.  Every  man  has  the  will  to 
grasp  what  is  good.  But  though  to  all  He  gives  a 
will,  all  have  not  the  same  degree  of  intelligence ;  He 
does  not  endow  them  equally  in  this  respect.  How 
then  could  He  make  intelligence  the  first  principle  of 
salvation  and  of  faith?  God  searches  the  heart,  not 
the  mind.  A  modicum  of  wit  is  guaranteed  to  all  to 
know  that  they  can  safely  believe.  Be  one  ever  so 
unlettered  and  ignorant,  and  dull,  faith  and  heaven 
are  to  him  as  accessible  as  to  the  sage,  savant  and  the 
genius.  For  all,  the  way  is  the  same. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 
HOW  WE  BELIEVE. 

FAITH  is  the  edifice  of  a  Christian  life.  It  is,  of 
itself,  a  mere  shell,  so  to  speak,  for  unless  good  works 
sustain  and  adorn  it,  it  will  crumble,  and  the  Almighty 
in  His  day  will  reduce  it  to  ashes ;  faith  without  works 
is  of  no  avail.  The  corner  stone  of  this  edifice  is  the 
authority  of  the  word  of  God,  while  His  gratuitous 
grace,  our  intelligence  and  will  furnish  the  material 
for  build  ng.  Now,  there  are  three  features  of  that 
spiritual  construction  that  deserve  a  moment's 
consideration. 

First,  the  edifice  is  solid ;  our  faith  must  be  firm. 
No  hesitation,  no  wavering,  no  deliberate  doubting, 
no  suspicion,  no  take-and-leave.  What  we  believe 
conies  from  God,  and  we  have  the  infallible  authority 
of  the  Church  for  it,  and  of  that  we  must  be  certain. 
That  certainly  must  not  for  a  moment  falter,  and  the 


80  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

moment  it  does  falter,  there  is  no  telling  but  that  the 
whole  edifice  so  laboriously  raised  will  tumble  down 
upon  the  guilty  shoulders  of  the  imprudent  doubter. 

And  of  reasons  for  hesitating  and  disbelieving 
there  is  absolutely  none,  once  we  have  made  the 
venture  of  faith  and  believe  sincerely  and  reasonably. 
No  human  power  can  in  reason  impugn  revealed  truths 
for  they  are  impervious  to  human  intelligence.  One 
book  may  not  at  the  same  time  be  three  books ;  but  can 
one  divine  nature  be  at  one  and  the  same  time  three 
divine  persons?  Until  we  learn  what  divinity  and 
personality  are  we  can  affirm  nothing  on  the  authority 
of  pure  reason.  If  we  cannot  assert,  how  can  we  deny? 
And  if  we  know  nothing  about  it,  how  can  we  do 
either?  The  question  is  not  how  is  it,  but  if  it  is. 
While  it  stands  thus,  and  thus  ever  it  must  stand,  no 
objection  or  doubt  born  of  human  mind  can  influence 
our  belief.  Nothing  but  pride  of  mind  and  corruption 
of  heart  can  disturb  it. 

If  you  have  a  difficulty,  well,  it  is  a  difficulty, 
and  nothing  more.  A  difficulty  does  not  destroy  a 
thesis  that  is  solidly  founded.  Once  a  truth  is  clearly 
established,  not  all  the  difficulties  in  the  world  can 
make  it  an  untruth.  A  difficulty  as  to  the  truth 
revealed  argues  an  imperfect  intelligence;  it  is  idle  to 
complain  that  we  are  finite.  A  difficulty  regarding 
the  infallible  Church  should  not  make  her  less  infallible 
in  our  mind,  it  simply  demands  a  clearing  away. 
Theological  difficulties  should  not  surprise  a  novice  in 
theological  matters;  they  are  only  misunderstandings 
that  militate  less  against  the  Church  than  against  the 
erroneous  notions  we  have  of  her.  To  allow  such 
difficulties  to  undermine  faith  is  like  overthrowing 
a  solid  wall  with  a  soap-bubble.  Common  sense 
demands  that  nothing  but  clearly  demonstrated  falsity 
should  make  us  change  firm  convictions,  and  such 
demonstration  can  never  be  made  against  our  faith. 

Not  from  difficulties,  properly  speaking,  but  from 
our  incapacity  for  understanding  what  we  accept  as 


HOW    WE   BELIEVE.  8l 

true,  results  a  certain  obscurity,  which  is  anoiher 
feature  of  faith.  Believing  is  not  seeing.  Such  strange 
things  we  do  believe !  Who  can  unravel  the  mysteries 
of  religion?  Moral  certitude  is  sufficient  to  direct 
one's  life,  to  make  our  acts  human  and  moral  and  is 
all  we  can  expect  in  this  world  where  nothing  is 
perfect.  But  because  the  consequences  of  faith  are  so 
far-reaching,  we  would  believe  nothing  short  of 
absolute,  metaphysical  certitude. 

But  this  is  impossible.  Hence  the  mist,  the  vague 
dimness  that  surrounds  faith,  baffling  every  effort  to 
penetrate  it ;  and  within,  a  sense  of  rarefied  perception 
that  disquiets  and  torments  unless  humility  born  of 
common  sense  be  there  to  soothe  and  set  us  at  rest. 
Moral  truths  are  not  geometric  theorems  and  multi 
plication  tables,  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  they 
should  be. 

Of  course,  if,  as  in  science  so  in  faith,  reason 
were  everything,  our  position  would  hardly  be  tenable, 
for  then  there  should  be  no  vagueness  but  clear  vision. 
But  the  will  enters  for  something  in  our  act  of  faith. 
If  everything  we  believe  were  as  luminous  as  "two 
and  two  are  four,"  a  special  act  of  the  will  would 
be  utterly  uncalled  for.  We  must  be  able,  free  to 
dissent,  and  this  is  the  reason  of  the  obscurity  of  our 
faith. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  such  belief  is 
meritorious.  Christ  Himself  said  that  to  be  saved  it 
is  necessary  to  believe,  and  no  man  is  saved  but 
through  his  own  merit.  Faith  is,  therefore,  gratuitous 
on  His  part  and  meritorious  on  ours.  It  is  in  reality 
a  good  work  that  proceeds  from  the  will,  under  the 
dictates  of  right  reason,  with  the  assistance  of  divine 
grace. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 
FAITH  AND  ERROR. 

INTOLERANCE  is  a  harsh  term.  It  is  stem,  rigid, 
brutal,  almost.  It  makes  no  compromise,  combats  a 
outrance  and  exacts  blind  and  absolute  obedience. 
Among  individuals  tolerance  should  prevail,  man 
should  be  liberal  with  man?  the  Law  of  Charity 
demands  it.  In  regard  to  principles,  there  must  and 
shall  eternally  be  antagonism  between  truth  and  error, 
justice  demands  it.  It  is  a  case  of  self-preservation; 
one  destroys  the  other.  Political  truth  can  never 
tolerate  treason  preached  or  practised;  neither  can 
religious  truth  tolerate  unbelief  and  heresy  preached 
or  practised. 

Now  our  faith  is  based  on  truth,  the  Church  is 
the  custodian  of  faith,  and  the  Church,  on  the  platform 
of  religious  truth,  is  absolutely  uncompromising  and 
intolerant,  just  as  the  State  is  in  regard  to  treason. 
She  cannot  admit  error,  she  cannot  approve  error; 
to  do  so  would  be  suicidal.  She  cannot  lend  the 
approval  of  her  presence,  nay  even  of  her  silence,  to 
error.  She  stands  aloof  from  heresy,  must  always 
see  in  it  an  enemy,  condemns  it  and  cannot  help 
condemning  it,  for  she  stands  for  truth,  pure  and 
unalloyed  truth,  which  error  pollutes  and  outrages. 

Call  this  what  you  will,  but  it  is  the  attitude  of 
honesty  first,  and  of  necessity  afterwards.  "He  who 
is  liberal  with  what  belongs  to  him  is  generous, 
he  who  undertakes  to  be  generous  with  what  does  not 
belong  to  him  is  dishonest."  Our  faith  is  not  founded 
on  an  act  or  agreement  of  men,  but  on  the  revelation 
of  God.  No  human  agency  can  change  or  modify  it. 
Neither  Church  nor  Pope  can  be  liberal  with  the  faith 


FAITH  AND  ERROR.  83 

of  which  they  are  the  custodians.  Their  sole  duty  is 
to  guard  and  protect  it  as  a  precious  deposit  for  the 
salvation  of  men. 

This  is  the  stand  all  governments  take  when  there 
is  question  of  political  truth.  And  whatever  lack  of 
generosity  or  broadmindedness  there  be,  however 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  this  free  age  it  may  seem,  it 
is  nevertheless  the  attitude  of  God  Himself  who  hates 
error,  for  it  is  evil,  who  pursues  it  with  His  wrath 
through  time  and  through  eternity.  How  can  a 
custodian  of  divine  truth  act  otherwise?  Even  in 
human  affairs,  can  one  admit  that  two  and  three  are 
seven  ? 

We  sometimes  hear  it  said  that  this  intolerance 
takes  from  Catholics  the  right  to  think.  This  is  true 
in  the  same  sense  that  penitentiaries,  or  the  dread  of 
them,  deprive  citizens  of  the  right  to  act.  Everybody, 
outside  of  sleeping  hours  and  with  his  thinking  machine 
in  good  order,  thinks.  Perhaps  if  there  were  a  little 
more  of  it,  there  would  be  more  solid  convictions 
and  more  practical  faith.  Holy  Writ  has  it  some 
where  that  the  whole  world  is  given  over  to  vice  and 
sin  because  there  is  no  one  who  thinks. 

But  you  have  not  and  never  had  the  right  to  think 
as  you  please,  inside  or  outside  the  Church.  This 
means  the  right  to  form  false  judgments,  to  draw 
conclusions  contrary  to  fact.  This  is  not  a  right,  it  is 
a  defect,  a  disease.  Thus  to  act  is  not  the  normal 
function  of  the  brain.  It  is  no  more  the  nature  of  the 
mind  to  generate  falsehoods  than  it  is  the  nature  of  a 
sewing  machine  to  cut  hair.  Both  were  made  for 
different  things.  He  therefore  who  disobeys  the  law 
that  governs  his  mind  prostitutes  that  faculty  to  error. 

But  suppose,  being  a  Catholic,  I  cannot  see  things 
in  that  true  light,  what  then?  In  such  a  case,  either 
you  persist,  in  the  matter  of  your  faith,  in  being  guided 
by  the  smoky  lamp  of  your  reason  alone,  or  you  will 
be  guided  by  the  authority  of  God's  appointed  Church. 
In  the  first  alternative,  your  place  is  not  in  the  Church , 


84  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

for  you  exclude  yourself  by  not  living  up  to  the 
conditions  of  her  membership.  You  cannot  deny  but 
that  she  has  the  right  to  determine  those  conditions. 

If  you  choose  the  latter,  then  correct  yourself.  It 
is  human  to  err,  but  it  is  stupidity  to  persist  in  error 
and  refuse  to  be  enlightened.  If  you  cannot  see  for 
yourself,  common  sense  demands  that  you  get  another 
to  see  for  you.  You  are  not  supposed  to  know  the 
alpha  and  omega  of  theological  science,  but  you  are 
bound  to  possess  a  satisfactory  knowledge  in  order 
that  your  faith  be  reasonable. 

Has  no  one  a  right  to  differ  from  the  Church? 
Yes,  those  who  err  unconsciously,  who  can  do  so 
conscientiously,  that  is,  those  who  have  no  suspicion 
of  their  being  in  error.  These  the  heavenly  Father 
will  look  after  and  bring  safe  to  Himself,  for  their 
error  is  material  and  not  formal.  He  loves  them  but 
He  hates  their  errors.  So  does  the  Church  abominate 
the  false  doctrines  that  prevail  in  the  world  outside  her 
fold,  yet  at  the  same  time  she  has  naught  but 
compassion  and  pity  and  prayers  for  those  deluded 
ones  who  spread  and  receive  those  errors.  To  her 
the  individual  is  sacred,  but  the  heresy  is  damnable. 

Thus  we  may  mingle  with  our  fellow  citizens  in 
business  and  in  pleasure,  socially  and  politically,  but 
religiously — never.  Our  charity  we  can  offer  in  its 
fullest  measure,  but  charity  that  lends  itself  to  error, 
loses  its  sacred  character  and  becomes  fhe  handmaid 
of  evil,  for  error  is  evil. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
THE  CONSISTENT  BELIEVER. 

THE  intolerance  of  the  Church  towards  error,  the 
natural  position  of  One  who  is  the  custodian  of  truth, 
her  only  reasonable  attitude,  makes  her  forbid  her 
children  to  read,  or  listen  to,  heretical  controversy, 
or  to  endeavor  to  discover  religious  truth  by  examining 
both  sides  of  the  question.  This  places  the  Catholic 
in  a  position  whereby  he  must  stand  aloof  from  all 
manner  of  doctrinal  teaching  other  than  that  delivered 
by  his  Church  through  her  accredited  ministers.  And 
whatever  outsiders  may  think  of  the  correctness  of  his 
belief  and  religious  principles,  they  cannot  have  two 
opinions  as  to  the  logic  and  consistency  of  this  stand 
he  takes.  They  may  hurl  at  him  all  the  choice  epithets 
they  choose  for  being  a  slave  to  superstition  and 
erroneous  creeds ;  but  they  must  give  him  credit  for 
being  consistent  in  his  belief;  and  consistency  in 
religious  matters  is  too  rare  a  commodity  these  days 
to  be  made  light  of. 

The  reason  of  this  stand  of  his  is  that,  for  him, 
there  can  be  no  two  sides  to  a  question  which  for  him 
is  settled ;  for  him,  there  is  no  seeking  after  the  truth : 
he  possesses  it  in  its  fulness,  as  far  as  God  and  religion 
are  concerned.  His  Church  gives  him  all  there  is  to 
be  had ;  all  else  is  counterfeit.  And  if  he  believes,  as 
he  should  and  does  believe,  that  revealed  truth  comes, 
and  can  come,  only  by  way  of  external  authority,  and 
not  by  way  of  private  judgment  and  investigation,  he 
must  refuse  to  be  liberal  in  the  sense  of  reading  all 
sorts  of  Protestant  controversial  literature  and  listening 
to  all  kinds  of  heretical  sermons.  If  he  does  not  this, 
he  is  false  to  his  principles ;  he  contradicts  himself 


86  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

by  accepting  and  not  accepting  an  infallible  Church; 
he  knocks  his  religious  props  from  under  himself  a  d 
stands — nowhere.  The  attitude  of  the  Catholic,  there 
fore,  is  logical  and  necessary.  Holding  to  Catholic 
principles  how  can  he  do  otherwise?  How  can  he 
consistently  seek  after  truth  when  he  is  convinced 
that  he  holds  it?  Who  else  can  teach  him  religious 
truth  when  he  believes  that  an  infallible  Church  gives 
him  God's  word  and  interprets  it  in  the  true  and 
only  sense? 

A  Protestant  may  not  assume  this  attitude  or 
impose  it  upon  those  under  his  charge.  If  he  does  so, 
he  is  out  of  harmony  with  his  principles  and  denies 
the  basic  rule  of  his  belief.  A  Protestant  believes 
in  no  infallible  authority;  he  is  an  authority  unto 
himself,  which  authority  he  does  not  claim  to  be 
infallible,  if  he  is  sober  and  sane.  He  is  after  truth ; 
and  whatever  he  finds,  and  wherever  he  finds  it,  he 
subjects  it  to  his  own  private  judgment.  He  is  free 
to  accept  or  reject,  as  he  pleases.  He  is  not,  cannot 
be,  absolutely  certain  that  what  he  holds  is  true;  he 
thinks  it  is.  He  may  discover  to-day  that  yesterday's 
truths  are  not  truths  at  all.  We  are  not  here  examining 
the  soundness  of  this  doctrine;  but  it  does  follow 
therefrom,  sound  or  unsound,  that  he  may  consistently 
go  where  he  likes  to  hear  religious  doctrine  exposed 
and  explained,  he  may  listen  to  whomever  has  religious 
information  to  impart.  He  not  only  may  do  it,  but 
he  is  consistent  only  when  he  does.  It  is  his  duty  to 
seek  after  truth,  to  read  and  listen  to  controversial 
books  and  sermons. 

If  therefore  a  non-Catholic  sincerely  believes  in 
private  judgment,  how  can  he  consistently  act  like  a 
Catholic  who  stands  on  a  platform  diametrically 
opposed  to  his,  against  which  platform  it  is  the  very 
essence  of  his  religion  to  protest  ?  How  can  he  refuse 
to  hear  Catholic  preaching  and  teaching,  any  more 
than  Baptist,  Methodist  and  Episcopalian  doctrines? 
He  has  no  right  to  do  so,  unless  he  knows  all  the 


THE  CONSISTENT  BELIEVER.  87 

Catholic  Church  teaches,  which  case  may  be  safely 
put  down  as  one  in  ten  million.  He  may  become  a 
Catholic,  or  lose  all  the  faith  he  has.  That  is  one  of  the 
risks  he  has  to  take,  being  a  Protestant. 

If  he  is  faithful  to  his  own  principles  and  under 
stands  the  Catholic  point  of  view,  he  must  not  be 
surprised  if  his  Catholic  friends  do  not  imitate  his 
so-called  liberality;  they  have  motives  which  he  haj 
not.  If  he  is  honest,  he  will  not  urge  or  even  expect 
them  to  attend  the  services  of  his  particular  belief. 
And  a  Catholic  who  thinks  that  because  a  Protestant 
friend  can  accompany  him  to  Catholic  services,  he  too 
should  return  the  compliment  and  accompany  his 
friend  to  Protestant  worship,  has  a  faith  that  needs 
immediate  toning  up  to  the  standard  of  Catholicity; 
he  is  in  ignorance  of  the  first  principles  of  his  religion 
and  belief. 

A  Catholic  philosopher  resumes  this  whole  matter 
briefly,  and  clearly  in  two  syllogisms,  as  follows: 


Major.  He  who  believes  in  an  infallible  teacher 
of  revelation  cannot  consistently  listen  to  any  fallible 
teacher  with  a  view  of  getting  more  correct  informa 
tion  than  his  infallible  teacher  gives  him.  To  do  so 
would  be  absurd,  for  it  would  be  to  believe  and  at  the 
same  time  not  believe  in  the  infallible  teacher. 

Minor.  The  Catholic  believes  in  an  infallible 
teacher  of  revelation. 

Conclusion.  Therefore,  the  Catholic  cannot 
listen  to  any  fallible  teacher  with  a  view  of  getting 
more  correct  information  about  revealed  truth  than 
his  Church  gives  him.  To  do  so  would  be  to  stultify 
himself. 

(II.) 

Major.  He  who  believes  in  a  fallible  teacher  — 
private  judgment  or  fallible  church  —  is  free,  nay 
bound,  to  listen  to  any  teacher  who  comes  along  pro- 


88  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

fessing  to  have  information  to  impart,  for  at  no  time 
can  he  be  certain  that  the  findings  of  his  own  fallible 
judgment  or  church,  are  correct.  Each  newcomer 
may  be  able  to  give  him  further  light  that  may  cause 
him  to  change  his  mind. 

Minor.  The  Protestant  believes  in  such  fallible 
teacher — his  private  judgment  or  church. 

Conclusion.  Therefore,  the  Protestant  is  free  to 
hear,  and  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  principles,  to 
accept  the  teaching  of  any  one  who  approaches  him 
for  the  purpose  of  instructing  him.  He  is  free  to  hear 
with  a  clear  conscience,  and  let  his  children  hear,  Cath 
olic  teaching,  for  the  Church  claiming  infallibility  is 
at  its  worst  as  good  as  his  private  judgment  is  at  best, 
namely,  fallible. 

Religious  variations  are  so  numerous  nowadays 
that  most  people  care  little  what  another  thinks  or 
believes.  All  they  ask  is  that  thay  may  be  able  to 
know  at  any  time  where  he  stands ;  and  they  insist,  as 
right  reason  imperiously  demands,  that,  in  all  things, 
he  remain  true  to  his  principles,  whatever  they  be. 
Honest  men  respect  sincerity  and  consistency  every 
where  ;  they  have  nothing  but  contempt  for  those  who 
stand,  now  on  one  foot,  now  on  the  other,  who  have 
one  code  for  theory  and  another  for  practice,  who 
shift  their  grounds  as  often  as  convenience  suggests. 
The  Catholic  should  bear  this  well  in  mind.  There  can 
t  no  compromise  with  principles  of  truth ;  to  sacrifice 
them  for  the  sake  of  convenience  is  as  despicable  before 
man  as  it  is  offensive  to  God. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 
UNBELIEF. 

AN  atheist  in  principle  is  one  who  denies  the 
existence  of  God  and  consequently  of  all  revealed 
truth.  How,  in  practice,  a  man  endowed  with  reason 
and  a  conscience  can  do  this,  is  one  of  the  unexplained 
mysteries  of  life.  Christian  philosophers  refuse  to 
admit  that  an  atheist  can  exist  in  the  flesh.  They 
claim  that  his  denial  is  fathered  by  his  desire  and  wish, 
that  at  most  he  only  doubts,  and  while  professing 
atheism,  he  is  simply  an  agnostic. 

An  agnostic  does  not  know  whether  God  exists 
or  not — and  cares  less.  He  does  not  affirm,  neither 
does  he  deny.  All  arguments  for  and  against  are  either 
insufficient  or  equally  plausible,  and  they  fail  to  lodge 
conviction  in  his  mind  of  minds.  Elevated  upon  this 
pedestal  of  wisdom,  he  pretends  to  dismiss  all  further 
consideration  of  the  First  Cause.  But  he  does  no  such 
thing,  for  he  lives  as  though  God  did  not  exist.  Why 
not  live  as  though  He  did  exist !  From  a  rational  point 
of  view,  he  is  a  bigger  fool  than  his  atheistic  brother, 
for  if  certainty  is  impossible,  prudence  suggests  that 
the  surer  course  be  taken.  On  one  hand,  there  is  all  to 
gain ;  on  the  other,  all  to  lose.  The  choice  he  makes 
smacks  of  convenience  rather  than  of  logic  or  com 
mon  sense. 

No  one  may  be  accused  of  genuine,  or  as  we  call 
it — formal — heresy,  unless  he  persistently  refuses  to 
believe  all  the  truths  by  God  revealed.  Heresy  sup 
poses  error,  culpable  error,  stubborn  and  pertinacious 
error.  A  person  may  hold  error  in  good  faith,  and  be 
so  disposed  as  to  relinquish  it  on  being  convinced  of 
the  truth.  To  all  exterior  appearances,  he  may  differ 


90  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

in  nothing  from  a  formal  heretic,  and  he  passes  for  a 
heretic.  In  fact,  and  before  God,  he  belongs  to  the 
Church,  to  the  soul  of  the  Church ;  he  will  be  saved  if 
in  sj>ite  of  his  unconscious  error  he  lives  well.  He  is 
known  as  a  material  heretic. 

An  infidel  is  an  unbaptized  person,  whose  faith, 
even  if  he  does  believe  in  God,  is  not  supernatural, 
but  purely  natural.  He  is  an  infidel  whether  he  is 
found  in  darkest  Africa  or  in  the  midst  of  this 
Christian  commonwealth,  and  in  this  latter  place  there 
are  more  infidels  than  most  people  imagine.  A 
decadent  Protestantism  rejects  the  necessity  of 
baptism,  thereby  ceasing  to  be  Christian,  and  in  its 
trail  infidelity  thrives  and  spreads,  disguised,  'tis  true, 
but  nevertheless  genuine  infidelity.  It  is  baptism  that 
makes  faith  possible,  for  faith  is  a  gift  of  God. 

An  apostate  is  one  who,  having  once  believed, 
ceases  to  believe.  All  heretics  and  infidels  are  not 
apostates,  although  they  may  be  in  themselves  or  in 
their  ancestors.  One  may  apostatize  to  heresy  by 
rejecting  the  Church,  or  to  infidelity  by  rejecting  all 
revelation;  a  Protestant  may  thus  become  an 
apostate  from  faith  as  well  as  a  Catholic.  This 
going  back  on  the  Almighty — for  that  is  what  apostasy 
is, — is,  of  all  misfortunes  the  worst  that  can  befall 
man.  There  may  be  excuses,  mitigating  circumstances, 
for  our  greatest  sins,  but  here  it  is  useless  to  seek  for 
any.  God  gives  faith.  It  is  lost  only  through  our  own 
fault.  God  abandons  them  that  abandon  Him. 
Apostasy  is  the  most  patent  case  of  spiritual  suicide, 
and  the  apostate  carries  branded  on  his  forehead  the 
mark  of  reprobation.  A  miracle  may  save  him,  but 
nothing  short  of  a  miracle  can  do  it^  and  who  has  a 
right  to  expect  it  ?  God  is  good,  but  God  is  also  just. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pose  as  an  apostate  before  the 
public.  One  may  be  a  renegade  at  heart  without 
betraying  himself,  by  refusing  his  inner  assent  to  a 
dogma  of  faith,  by  wilfully  doubting  and  ^allowing 
such  doubts  to  grow  upon  him  and  form  convictions. 


UNBELIEF.  91 

People  sometimes  say  things  that  would  brand 
them  as  apostates  if  they  meant  what  they  said.  This 
or  that  one,  in  the  midst  of  an  orgy  of  sin,  or  after 
long  practical  irreligion,  in  order  to  strangle  remorse 
that  arises  at  an  inopportune  moment,  may  seem  to 
form  a  judgment  of  apostasy.  This  is  treading  on 
exceedingly  thin  glass.  But  it  is  not  always  properly 
defection  from  faith.  Apostasy  kills  faith  as  surely 
as  a  knife  plunged  into  the  heart  kills  life. 

A  schismatic  does  not  directly  err  in  matters  of 
faith,  but  rejects  the  discipline  of  the  Church  and 
refuses  to  submit  to  her  authority.  He  believes  all 
that  is  taught,  but  puts  himself  without  the  pale  of  the 
Church  by  his  insubordination.  Schism  is  a  grievous 
sin,  but  does  not  necessarily  destroy  faith. 

The  source  of  all  this  unbelief  is,  of  course,  in 
the  proud  mind  and  sensual  heart  of  man.  It  takes 
form  exteriorly  in  an  interminable  series  of  "isms" 
that  have  the  merit  of  appealing  to  the  weaknesses  of 
man.  They  all  mean  the  same  thing  in  the  end,  and 
are  only  forms  of  paganism.  Rationalism  and  Mater 
ialism  are  the  most  frequently  used  terms.  One  stands 
on  reason  alone,  the  other,  on  matter,  and  both  have 
declared  war  to  the  knife  on  the  Supernatural.  They 
tell  us  that  these  are  new  brooms  destined  to  sweep 
clean  the  universe,  new  lamps  intended  to  dissipate 
the  clouds  of  ignorance  and  superstition  and  to  purify 
with  their  light  the  atmosphere  of  the  world.  But, 
truth  to  tell,  these  brooms  have  been  stirring  up  dust 
from  the  gutters  of  passion  and  sin,  and  these  lamps 
Have  been  offending  men's  nostrils  by  their  smoky 
stench  ever  since  man  knew  himself.  And  they  shall 
continue  to  do  service  in  the  same  cause  as  long  as 
human  nature  remains  what  it  is.  But  Christ  did  not 
bring  His  faith  on  earth  to  be  destroyed  by  the 
lillipntian  efforts  of  man. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 
HOW  FAITH  MAY  BE  LOST. 

IT  is  part  of  our  belief  that  no  man  can  lose  his 
faith  without  mortal  sin.  The  conscious  rejection  of  all 
or  any  religious  truth  once  embraced  and  forming  a 
part  of  Christian  belief,  or  the  deliberate  questioning 
of  a  single  article  thereof,  is  a  sin,  a  sin  against  God's 
light  and  God's  grace.  It  is  a  deliberate  turning  away 
from  God.  The  moral  culpability  of  such  an  act  is 
great  in  the  extreme,  while  its  consequences  cannot  be 
weighed  or  measured  by  any  human  norm  or  rule. 

No  faith  was  ever  wrecked  in  a  day;  it  takes 
time  to  come  to  such  a  pass ;  it  is  by  easy  stages  of 
infidelity,  by  a  slow  process  of  half-denials,  a  constant 
fostering  of  habits  of  ignorance,  that  one  undermines, 
little  by  little,  one's  spiritual  constitution.  Taking 
advantage  of  this  state  of  debility,  the  microbe  of 
unbelief  creeps  in,  eats  its  way  to  the  soul  and  finally 
sucks  out  the  very  vitals  of  faith.  Nor  is  this  growth 
of  evil  an  unconscious  one;  and  there  lies  the  malice 
and  guilt.  Ignorant  pride,  neglect  of  prayer  and 
religious  worship,  disorders,  etc.,  these  are  evils  the 
culprit  knows  of  and  wills.  He  cannot  help  feeling 
the  ravages  being  wrought  in  his  soul;  he  cannot 
help  knowing  that  these  are  deadly  perils  to  his 
treasure  of  faith.  He  complacently  allows  them  to  run 
their  course;  and  he  wakes  up  one  fine  morning  to 
find  his  faith  gone,  lost,  dead — and  a  chasm  yawning 
between  him  and  his  God  that  only  a  miracle  can 
bridge  over. 

We  mentioned  ignorance:  this  it  is  that  attacks 
the  underpinning  of  faith,  its  rational  basis,  by  which 
it  is  made  intelligent  and  reasonable,  without  which 
there  can  be  no  faith. 


HOW    FAITH    MAY   BE   LOST.  93 

Ignorance  is,  of  course,  a  relative  term ;  there  are 
different  degrees  and  different  kinds.  An  ignorant 
man  is  not  an  unlettered  or  uncultured  one,  but  one 
who  does  not  know  what  his  religion  means,  what  he 
believes  or  is  supposed  to  believe,  and  has  no  reason 
to  give  for  his  belief.  He  may  know  a  great  many 
other  things,  may  be  chock  full  of  worldly  learning, 
but  if  he  ignores  these  matters  that  pertain  to  the  soul, 
we  shall  label  him  an  ignoramus ;  for  the  elementary 
truths  of  human  knowledge  are,  always  have  been, 
and  always  shall  be,  the  solution  of  the  problems  of 
the  why,  the  whence  and  the  whither  of  life  here  below. 
Great  learning  frequently  goes  hand  in  hand  with 
dense  ignorance.  The  Sunday-school  child  knows 
better  than  the  atheist  philosopher  the  answer  to  these 
important  questions.  There  is  more  wisdom  in  the  first 
page  of  the  Catechism  than  in  all  the  learned  books  of 
sceptics  and  infidels. 

Knowledge,  of  course,  a  thorough  knowledge  of 
all  theological  science  will  not  make  faith,  any  more 
than  wheels  will  make  a  cart.  But  a  certain  knowledge 
is  essential,  and  its  absence  is  fatal  to  faith.  There 
are  the  simple  ignorant  who  have  forgotten  their 
Catechism  and  leave  the  church  before  the  instruction, 
for  fear  they  might  learn  something;  who  never  read 
anything  pertaining  to  religion,  who  would  be  ashamed 
to  be  detected  with  a  religious  book  or  paper  in  their 
hands.  Then,  there  are  the  learned  ignorant,  such  as 
our  public  schools  turn  out  in  great  numbers  each 
year ;  who,  either  are  above  mere  religious  knowledge- 
seeking  and  disdain  all  that  smacks  of  church  and 
faith ;  or,  knowing  little  or  nothing  at  all,  imagine  they 
possess  a  world  of  theological  lore  and  know  all  that 
is  knowable.  These  latter  are  the  more  to  be  pitied, 
their  ignorance  doubling  back  upon  itself,  as  it  were. 
When  a  man  does  not  realize  his  own  ignorance,  his 
case  is  well  nigh  hopeless. 

If  learning  cannot  give  faith,  neither  can  it  alone 
preserve  it.  Learned  men,  pillars  of  the  Church  have 


94  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

fallen  away.  Pride,  you  will  say.  Yes,  of  course, 
pride  is  the  cause  of  all  evil.  But  we  have  all  our 
share  of  it.  If  it  works  less  havoc  in  some  than 
in  others,  that  is  because  pride  is  or  is  not  kept  within 
bounds.  It  is  necessarily  fatal  to  faith  only  when  it 
is  not  controlled  by  prayer  and  the  helps  of  practical 
religion*  God  alone  can  preserve  our  faith.  He  will 
do  it  only  at  our  solicitation. 

If,  therefore,  some  have  not  succeeded  in  keeping 
the  demon  of  pride  under  restraint,  it  is  because  they 
refused  to  consider  their  faith  a  pure  gift  of  God  that 
cannot  be  safely  guarded  without  God's  grace ;  or  they 
forgot  that  God's  grace  is  assured  to  no  man  who  does 
not  pray.  The  man  who  thinks  he  is  all-sufficient  unto 
himself  in  matters  of  religion,  as  in  all  other  matters, 
is  in  danger  of  being  brought  to  a  sense  of  his  own 
nothingness  in  a  manner  not  calculated  to  be  agreeable. 
No  man  who  practised  humble  prayer  ever  lost  his 
faith,  or  ever  can ;  for  to  him  grace  is  assured. 

And  since  faith  is  nothing  if  not  practical,  since 
it  is  a  habit,  it  follows  that  irreligion,  neglect  to 
practise  what  we  believe  will  destroy  that  habit.  People 
who  neglect  their  duty  often  complain  that  they  have 
no  taste  for  religion,  cannot  get  interested,  find  no 
consolation  therein.  This  justifies  further  neglect. 
They  make  a  pretence  to  seek  the  cause.  The  cause 
is  lack  of  faith;  the  fires  of  God's  grace  are  burning 
low  in  their  souls.  They  will  soon  go  out  unless  they 
are  furnished  with  fuel  in  the  shape  of  good,  solid, 
practical  religion.  That  is  their  only  salvaticn. 
Ignorance,  supplemented  by  lack  of  prayer  and  practice, 
goes  a  long-  way  in  the  destruction  of  faith  in  any 
soul,  for  two  essentials  are  deficient. 

Disorder,  too,  is  responsible  for  the  loss  of  much 
faith.  Luther  and  Henry  might  have  retained  their 
faith  in  spite  of  their  pride,  but  they  were  lewd,  and 
avaricious;  and  there  is  small  indulgence  for  such 
within  the  Church.  Not  but  that  we  are  all  human, 
and  sinners  are  the  objects  of  the  Church's  greatest 


HOW    FAITH    MAY   BE  LOST.  95 

solicitude;  but  within  her  pale  no  man,  be  he  king 
or  genius,  can  sit  down  and  feast  his  passions  and 
expect  her  to  wink  at  it  and  call  it  by  another  name 
than  its  own.  The  law  of  God  and  of  t*  e  Church 
is  a  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  the  vicious  man.  The  authority 
of  the  Church  is  a  sword  of  Damocles  held  perpetually 
over  his  head — until  it  is  removed.  Many  a  one  denies 
God  in  a  moment  of  sin  in  order  to  take  the  sting  of 
remorse  out  of  it.  One  gets  tired  of  the  importunities 
of  religion  that  tell  us  not  to  sin,  to  confess  if  we  do 
sin. 

When  you  meet  a  pervert  who,  with  a  glib  tongue, 
protests  that  his  conscience  drove  him  from  the 
Church,  that  his  enslaved  intelligence  needed  deliver 
ance,  search  him  and  you  will  find  a  skeleton  in  his 
closet;  and  if  you  do  not  find  it,  it  is  there  just  the 
same.  A  renegade  priest  some  years  ago,  held  forth 
before  a  gaping  audience,  at  great  length,  on  the 
reasons  of  his  leaving  the  Church.  A  farmer  sitting 
on  the  last  bench  listened  patiently  to  his  profound 
argumentation.  When  the  lecturer  was  in  the  middle 
of  his  twelfthly,  the  other  arose  and  shouted  to  him 
across  the  hall:  "Cut  it  short,  and  say  you  wanted  a 
wife."  The  heart  has  reasons  which  the  reason  does 
not  understand. 

Not  always,  but  frequently,  ignorance,  neglect 
and  vice  come  to  this.  The  young,  the  weak  and  the 
proud  nave  to  guard  themselves  against  these  dangers. 
They  work  slowly,  imperceptibly,  but  surely.  Two 
things  increase  the  peril  and  tend  to  precipitate 
matters ;  reading  and  companionship.  The  ignorant 
are  often  anxious  to  know  the  other  side,  when  they 
do  not  know  their  own.  The  consequence  is  that  they 
will  not  understand  fully  the  question ;  and  if  they  do, 
will  not  be  able  to  resolve  the  difficulty.  They  are 
handicapped  by  their  ignorance  and  can  only  make  a 
mess  out  of  it.  The  result  is  that  they  are  caught  by 
sophistries  like  a  fly  in  a  web. 

The  company  of  those  who  believe  differently,  or 


96  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

not  at  all,  is  also  pernicious  to  unenlightened  and  weak 
faith.  The  example  in  itself  is  potent  for  evil.  The 
Catholic  is  usually  not  a  persona  grata  as  a  Catholic 
but  for  some  quality  he  possesses.  Consequently,  he 
must  hide  his  religion  under  the  bushel  for  fear  of 
offending.  Then  a  sneer,  a  gibe,  a  taunt  are  unpleasant 
things,  and  will  be  avoided  even  at  the  price  of  what 
at  other  times  would  look  like  being  ashamed  of  one's 
faith.  If  ignorant,  he  will  be  silent;  if  he  has  not 
prayed,  he  will  be  weak;  if  vicious,  he  will  be 
predisposed  to  fall. 

If  we  would  guard  the  precious  deposit  of  faith 
secure  against  any  possible  emergency,  we  must 
enlighten  it,  we  must  strengthen  it,  we  must  live  up 
to  it. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 
HOPE. 

THE  First  Commandment  bids  us  hope  as  well  as 
believe  in  God.  Our  trust  and  confidence  in  His 
mercy  to  give  us  eternal  life* and  the  means  to  obtain 
it, — this  is  our  hope,  founded  on  our  belief  that  God 
is  what  He  reveals  Himself  to  us,  able  and  willing  to 
do  by  us  as  we  would  have  Him  do.  Hope  is  the 
flower  of  our  faith ;  faith  is  the  substance  of  the  things 
we  hope  for. 

To  desire  and  to  hope  are  not  one  and  the  same 
thing.  We  may  long  for  what  is  impossible  of 
obtaining,  while  hope  always  supposes  this  possibility, 
better,  a  probability,  nay,  even  a  moral  certitude.  This 
expectation  remains  hope  until  it  comes  to  the  fruition 
of  the  things  hoped  for. 


HOPE.  97 

The  desire  of  general  happiness  is  anchored  in 
the  human  heart,  deep  down  in  the  very  essence  of  our 
being.  We  all  desire  to  be  happy.  We  may  be  free 
in  many  things;  in  this  we  are  not  free.  We  must 
have  happiness,  greater  than  the  present,  happiness 
of  one  kind  or  another,  real  or  apparent.  We  may 
have  different  notions  of  this  happiness;  we  desire 
it  according  to  our  notions.  Life  itself  is  one,  long, 
painful,  unsatisfied  desire. 

When  that  desire  is  centered  in  God  and  the  soul's 
salvation,  it  incontinently  becomes  hope,  for  then  we 
have  real  beatitude  before  us,  and  all  may  obtain  it. 
It  can  be  true  hope  only  when  founded  on  faith. 

Not  only  is  hope  easy,  natural,  necessary,  but  it 
is  essential  to  life.  It  is  the  mainspring  of  all  activity. 
It  keeps  all  things  moving,  and  without  it  life  would 
not  be  worth  living.  If  men  did  not  think  they  could 
get  what  they  are  striving  after,  they  would  sit  down, 
fold  their  arms,  let  the  world  move,  but  they  wouldn't. 

Especially  is  Christian  hope  absolutely  necessary 
for  the  leading  of  a  Christian  life,  and  no  man  would 
take  upon  himself  that  burden,  if  he  did  not  confidently 
expect  a  crown  of  glory  beyond,  sufficient  to  repay  him 
for  all  the  things  endured  here  below  for  conscience's 
sake.  Hope  is  a  star  that  beckons  us  on  to  renewed 
effort,  a  vision  of  the  goal  that  animates  and 
invigorates  us  ;  it  is  also  a  soothing  balm  to  the  wounds 
we  receive  in  the  struggle. 

To  be  without  this  hope  is  the  lowest  level  to 
which  man  may  descend.  St.  Paul  uses  the  term 
"men  without  hope"  as  the  most  stinging  reproach 
he  could  inflict  upon  the  dissolute  pagans. 

To  have  abandoned  hope  is  a  terrible  misfortune 
— despair.  This  must  not  be  confounded  with  an 
involuntary  perturbation,  a  mere  instinctive  dread,  a 
phantasmagoric  illusion  that  involves  no  part  of  the 
will.  It  is  not  even  an  excessive  fear  that  goes  by  the 
name  of  pusillanimity.  It  is  a  cool  judgment  like  that 


98  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

of  Cain:  "My  sin  is  too  great  that  I  should  expect 
forgiveness." 

He  who  despairs,  loses  sight  of  God's  mercy  and 
sees  only  His  stern,  rigorous  justice.  After  hatred  of 
God,  this  is  perhaps  the  greatest  injury  man  can  do 
to  his  Master,  who  is  Love.  There  has  always  been 
more  of  mercy  than  of  justice  in  His  dealings  with 
men.  We  might  say  of  Him  that  He  is  all  mercy  in 
this  world,  to  be  all  justice  in  the  next.  Therefore 
while  there  is  life,  there  is  hope. 

The  next  abomination  is  to  hope,  but  to  place  our 
supreme  happiness  in  that  which  should  not  be  the 
object  of  our  hope.  Men  live  for  pleasures,  riches, 
and  honors,  as  though  these  things  were  worthy  of 
our  highest  aspirations,  as  though  they  could  satisfy 
the  unappeasable  appetite  of  man  for  happiness. 
Greater  folly  than  this  can  no  man  be  guilty  of.  He 
takes  the  dross  for  the  pure  gold,  the  phantom  for  the 
reality.  Few  men  theoretically  belong  to  this  class; 
practically  it  has  the  vast  majority. 

The  presumptuous  are  those  who  hope  to  obtain 
the  prize  and  do  nothing  to  deserve  it.  He  who  would 
hope  to  fly  without  wings,  to  walk  without  feet,  to 
live  without  air  or  food  would  be  less  a  fool  than  he 
who  hopes  to  save  his  soul  without  fulfiling  the 
conditions  laid  down  by  Him  who  made  us.  There 
is  no  wages  without  service,  no  reward  without  merit, 
no  crown  without  a  cross. 

This  fellow's  mistake  is  to  bank  too  much  on 
God's  mercy,  leaving  His  justice  out  of  the  bargain 
altogether.  Yet  God  is  one  as  well  as  the  other,  and 
both  equally.  The  offense  to  God  consists  in  making 
Him  a  being  without  any  backbone,  so  to  speak,  a  soft, 
incapable  judge,  whose  pity  degenerates  into  weakness. 
And  certainly  it  is  a  serious  offense. 

No,  hope  should  be  sensible  and  reasonable.  It 
must  keep  the  middle  between  two  extremes.  The 
measure  of  our  hope  should  reasonably  be  the  measure 
of  our  efforts,  for  he  who  wishes  the  end  wishes  the 


HOPE.  99 

means.  Of  course  God  will  make  due  allowances  for 
our  frailties,  but  that  is  His  business,  not  ours;  and 
we  have  no  right  to  say  just  how  far  that  mercy  will 
go.  Even  though  we  lead  the  lives  of  saints,  we  shall 
stand  in  need  of  much  mercy.  Prudence  tells  us  to 
do  all  things  as  though  it  all  depended  upon  us  alone ; 
then  God  will  make  up  for  the  deficiencies. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 
LOVE  OF  GOD. 

ONCE  upon  a  time,  there  lived  people  who 
pretended  that  nothing  had  existence  outside  the  mind, 
that  objects  were  merely  fictions  of  the  brain;  thus, 
when  they  gave  a  name  to  those  objects,  it  was  like 
sticking  a  label  in  the  air  where  they  seemed  to  be. 
The  world  is  not  without  folks  who  have  similar  ideas 
concerning  charity,  to  whom  it  is  a  name  without 
substance.  Scarcely  a  Christian  but  will  pretend  that 
he  has  the  virtue  of  charity,  and  of  course  one  must 
take  his  word  for  it,  and  leave  his  actions  and  conduct 
out  of  all  consideration.  With  him,  to  love  God  is 
to  say  you  do,  whether  you  really  do  or  not.  This 
is  charity  of  the  "sounding  brass  and  tinkling  cymbal" 
assortment. 

To  be  honest  about  it,  charity  or  love  of  God  is 
nothing  more  or  less,  practically,  than  freedom  from, 
and  avoidance  of,  mortal  sin.  "If  any  one  say,  'I  love 
God'  and  hates  his  brother,  (or  otherwise  sins)  he  is 
a  liar."  Strong  language,  but  straight  to  the  point! 
The  state  of  grace  is  the  first,  fundamental,  and 
essential  condition  to  the  existence  of  charity.  Charity 


100  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

and  mortal  sin  are  two  things  irreducibly  opposed;, 
uncompromisingly  antagonistic,  eternally  inimical. 
There  is  no  charity  where  there  is  sin;  there  is  no 
sin  where  there  is  charity.  That  is  why  charity  is 
called  the  fulfilment  of  the  law. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  sometimes  happens  that 
humble  folks  of  the  world,  striving  against  temptation 
and  sin  to  serve  the  Master,  imagine  they  can  hardly 
succeed.  True,  they  rarely  offend  and  to  no  great 
extent  of  malice,  but  they  envy  the  lot  of  others  more 
advantageously  situated,  they  think,  nearer  by  talent 
and  state  to  perfection,  basking  in  the  sunshine  of 
God's  love.  Talent,  position,  much  exterior  activity, 
much  supposed  goodness,  are,  in  their  eyes,  titles  to  the 
kingdom,  and  infallible  signs  of  charity.  And  then 
they  foolishly  deplore  their  own  state  as  far  removed 
from  that  perfection,  because  forsooth  their  minds  are 
uncultured,  their  faith  simple,  and  their  time  taken 
up  with  the  drudgery  of  life. 

They  forget  that  not  this  gift  or  that  work  or 
anything  else  is  necessary.  One  thing  alone  is 
necessary,  and  that  is  practical  love  of  God.  Nothing 
counts  without  it.  And  the  sage  over  his  books,  the 
wonder-worker  at  his  task,  the  apostle  in  his  wander 
ings  and  labors,  the  very  martyr  on  the  rack  is  no  more 
sure  of  having  charity  than  the  most  humble  man, 
woman  or  child  in  the  lowest  walks  of  life  who  loves 
God  too  much  to  offend  Him.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
have  the  tongues  of  men  and  angels,  or  faith  that  will 
move  mountains,  or  the  fortitude  of  martyrs ;  charity 
expressed  in  our  lives  and  deeds  rates  higher  than 
these. 

A  thing  is  good  in  the  eyes  of  its  maker  if  it 
accomplishes  that  for  which  it  was  made.  A  watch 
that  does  not  tell  time,  a  knife  that  does  not  cut,  and 
a  soul  that  does  not  love  God  are  three  utterly  useless 
things.  And  why  ?  Because  they  are  no  good  for  what 
they  were  made.  The  watch  exists  solely  to  tell  the 
hour,  the  blade  to  cut  and  the  soul  to  love  and  serve 


LOVE   OF   GOD.  IOI 

its  Maker.  Failing  in  this,  there  is  no  more  reason 
for  their  being.  Their  utility  ceasing,  they  themselves 
cease  to  exist  to  a  certain  extent,  for  a  thing  is  really 
no  longer  what  it  was,  when  it  fails  to  execute  that  for 
which  it  came  into  being. 

Charity,  in  a  word,  amounts  to  this,  that  we  love 
God,  but  to  the  extent  of  not  offending  Him.  Anything 
that  falls  short  of  such  affection  is  something  other 
than  charity,  no  matter  how  many  tags  and  labels  it 
may  wear.  If  I  beheld  a  brute  strike  down  an  aged 
parent,  I  would  not  for  a  moment  think  that  affection 
was  behind  that  blow ;  and  I  could  not  conceive  how 
there  could  be  a  spark  of  filial  love  in  that  son's  heart 
until  he  had  atoned  for  his  crime.  Now  love  is  not 
one  thing  when  directed  towards  God,  and  another 
where  man  is  concerned. 

The  great  hypocrisy  of  life  consists  in  this  that 
people  make  an  outward  showing  of  loving  God, 
because  they  know  full  well  that  it  is  their  first  duty : 
yet,  for  all  that,  they  do  not  a  whit  mend  their  ways, 
and  to  sin  costs  them  nothing.  They  varnish  it  over 
with  an  appearance  of  honesty  and  decency,  and  fair- 
minded  men  take  them  for  what  they  appear  to  be, 
and  should  be,  and  they  pass  for  such.  These  watches 
are  pretty  to  look  upon,  beautiful,  magnificent,  but 
they  are  stopped,  the  interior  is  out  of  order,  the 
main-spring  is  broken,  the  hands  that  run  across  the 
face  lie.  These  blades  are  bright  and  handsome,  but 
they  are  dull,  blunt,  full  of  nicks,  good  enough  for 
coarse  and  vulgar  work,  but  useless  for  the  fine, 
delicate  work  for  which  they  were  made. 

The  master  mechanic  and  artist  of  our  souls,  who 
wants  trustworthy  timepieces  and  keen  blades,  will 
not  be  deceived  by  these  gaudy  trinkets,  and  will  reject 
them.  Others  may  esteem  you  for  this  or  that  quality, 
admire  this  or  that  qualification  you  possess,  be  taken 
with  their  superficial  gloss  a<nd  accidental  usefulness. 
The  quality  required  by  Him  who  made  you  is  that  your 
soul  be  filled  with  charity,  and  proven  by  absence  of  sin. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
LOVE  OF  NEIGHBOR. 

THE  precept,  written  in  our  hearts,  as  well  as  in 
the  law,  to  love  God,  commands  us,  at  the  same  time, 
to  love  the  neighbor.  When  you  go  to  confession,  you 
are  told  to  be  sorry  for  your  sins  and  to  make  a  firm 
purpose  of  amendment.  These  appear  to  be  two 
different  injunctions ;  yet  in  fact  and  reality,  they  are 
one  and  the  same  thing,  for  it  is  impossible  to  abhor 
and  detest  sin,  having  at  the  same  moment  the  intention 
of  committing  it.  One  therefore  includes  the  other; 
one  is  not  sincere  and  true  without  the  other ;  therefore 
one  cannot  be  without  the  other.  So  it  is  with  love 
of  God  and  of  the  neighbor;  these  two  parts  of  one 
precept  are  coupled  together  because  they  complete 
each  other,  and  they  amount  practically  to  the  same 
thing. 

The  neighbor  we  are  to  love  is  not  alone  those 
for  whom  we  naturally  have  affection,  such  as  parents, 
friends,  benefactors,  etc.,  whom  it  is  easy  to  love.  But 
our  neighbor  is  all  mankind,  those  far  and  those  near, 
those  who  have  blessed  us  and  those  who  have  wronged 
us,  the  enemy  as  well  as  the  friend;  all  who  have 
within  them,  as  we  have,  the  image  and  likeness  of 
God.  No  human  being  can  we  put  outside  the  pale  of 
neighborly  love. 

As  for  the  love  we  bear  others,  it  is  of  course  one 
in  substance,  but  it  may  be  different  in  degree  and 
various  in  quality.  It  may  be  more  or  less  tender, 
intense,  emphatic.  Some  we  love  more,  others,  less; 
yet  for  all  that,  we  love  them.  It  is  impossible  for  us 
to  have  towards  any  other  being  the  same  feelings 
we  entertain  for  a  parent.  The  love  a  good  Christian 


LOVE  OF  NEIGHBOR.  IO3 

bears  towards  a  stranger  is  not  the  love  he  bears 
towards  a  good  friend.  The  love  therefore  that  charity 
demands  admits  a  variety  of  shades  without  losing  its 
character  of  love. 

When  it  comes  to  loving  certain  ones  of  our 
neighbors,  the  idea  is  not  of  the  most  welcome.  What ! 
Must  I  love,  really  love,  that  low  rascal,  that 
cantankerous  fellow,  that  repugnant,  repulsive  being? 
Or  this  other  who  has  wronged  me  so  maliciously? 
Or  that  proud,  overbearing  creature  who  looks  down 
on  me  and  despises  me  ? 

We  have  said  that  love  has  its  degrees,  its  ebb 
and  flow  tide,  and  still  remains  love.  The  low  water 
mark  is  this:  that  we  refuse  not  to  pray  for  such 
neighbors,  that  we  speak  not  ill  of  them,  that  we  refuse 
not  to  salute  them,  or  to  do  them  a  good  turn,  or  to 
return  a  favor.  A  breach  in  one  of  these  common 
civilities,  due  to  every  man  from  his  fellow-man,  may 
constitute  a  degree  of  hatred  directly  opposed  to  the 
charity  strictly  required  of  us. 

It  is  not  however  necessary  to  go  on  doing  these 
things  all  during  life  and  at  all  moments  of  life.  These 
duties  are  exterior,  and  are  required  as  often  as  a 
contrary  bearing  would  betoken  a  lack  of  charity  in 
the  heart.  Just  as  we  are  not  called  upon  to  embrace 
and  hug  an  uninviting  person  as  a  neighbor,  neither 
are  we  obliged  to  continue  our  civilities  when  we  find 
that  they  are  offensive  and  calculated  to  cause  trouble. 
But  naturally  there  must  be  charity  in  the  heart. 

We  should  not  confound  uncharity  with  a  sort  of 
natural  repugnance  and  antipathy,  instinctive  to  some 
natures,  betraying  a  weakness  of  character,  if  you 
will,  but  hardly  what  one  could  call  a  clearly  defined 
fault.  There  are  people  who  can  forgive  more  easily 
than  forget  and  who  succeed  only  after  a  long  while 
in  overcoming  strong  feelings.  In  consequence  of  this 
state  of  mind,  and  in  order  to  maintain  peace  and 
concord,  they  prefer  the  absence  to  the  presence  of  the 
objects  of  their  antipathy.  Of  course,  to  nourish  this 


IO4  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

feeling  is  sinful  to  a  degree ;  but  while  striving  against 
it,  to  remove  prudently  all  occasions  of  opening  afresh 
the  wound,  if  we  act  honestly,  this  does  not  seem 
to  have  any  uncharitable  malice. 

Now  all  this  is  not  charity  unless  the  idea  of  God 
enter  therein.  There  is  no  charity  outside  the  idea  of 
God.  Philanthropy,  humanity  is  one  thing,  charity 
is  another.  The  one  is  sentiment,  the  other  is  love — 
two  very  different  things.  The  one  supposes  natural 
motives,  the  other,  supernatural.  Philanthropy  looks 
at  the  exterior  form  and  discovers  a  likeness  to  self. 
Charity  looks  at  the  soul  and  therein  discovers  an 
image  of  God,  by  which  we  are  not  only  common 
children  of  Adam,  but  also  children  of  God  and 
sharers  of  a  common  celestial  inheritance.  Neither 
a  cup  of  water  nor  a  fortune  given  in  any  other  name 
than  that  of  God  is  charity. 

There  are  certain  positive  works  of  charity,  such 
as  almsgiving  and  brotherly  correction,  etc.,  that  may 
be  obligatory  upon  us  to  a  degree  of  serious  respon 
sibility.  We  must  use  prudence  and  intelligence  in 
discerning  these  obligations,  but  once  they  clearly 
stand  forth  they  are  as  binding  on  us  as  obligations 
of  justice.  We  are  our  brothers'  keepers,  especially 
of  those  whom  misfortune  oppresses  and  whose  lot  is 
cast  under  a  less  lucky  star. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 
PRAYER. 

No  word  so  common  and  familiar  among 
Christians  as  prayer.  Religion  itself  is  nothing  more 
than  a  vast,  mighty,  universal,  never  ceasing  prayer. 
Our  churches  are  monuments  of  prayer  and  houses  of 


PRAYER.  105 

prayer.  Our  worship,  our  devotions,  our  ceremonies 
are  expressions  of  prayer.  Our  sacred  music  is  a 
prayer.  The  incense,  rising  in  white  clouds  before 
the  altar,  is  symbolical  of  prayer.  And  the  one  accent 
that  is  dinned  into  our  ears  from  altar  and  pulpit  is 
prayer. 

Prayer  is  the  life  of  the  Christian  as  work  is  the 
life  of  the  man ;  without  one  and  the  other  we  would 
starve  spiritually  and  physically.  If  we  live  well,  it 
is  because  we  pray ;  if  we  lead  sinful  lives,  it  is  because 
we  neglect  to  pray.  Where  prayer  is,  there  is  virtue ; 
where  prayer  is  unknown,  there  is  sin.  The 
atmosphere  of  piety,  sanctity,  and  honesty  is  the 
atmosphere  of  prayer. 

Strange  that  the  nature  and  necessity  of  prayer 
are  so  often  misunderstood  !  Yet  the  definition  in  our 
Catechism  is  clear  and  precise.  There  are  four  kinds 
of  prayer ;  adoration,  thanksgiving,  petition  for  pardon, 
and  for  our  needs,  spiritual  and  bodily. 

One  need  be  neither  a  Catholic  nor  a  Christian 
to  see  ho\\  becoming  it  is  in  us  to  offer  to  God  our 
homage  of  adoration  and  thanksgiving ;  it  is  necessary 
only  to  believe  in  a  God  who  made  us  and  who  is 
infinitely  perfect.  Why,  the  very  heathens  made  gods 
to  adore,  and  erected  temples  to  thank  them,  so  deep 
was  their  sense  of  the  devotion  they  owed  the  Deity. 
They  put  the  early  Christians  to  death  because  the 
latter  refused  to  adore  their  gods.  Everywhere  you 
go,  under  the  sun,  you  will  find  the  creature  offering 
to  the  Creator  a  homage  of  worship. 

He,  therefore,  who  makes  so  little  of  God  as  to 
forget  to  adore  and  thank  Him  becomes  inferior  to  the 
verv  pagans  who,  sunk  in  the  darkness  of  corruption 
and  superstition  as  they  were,  did  not,  however,  forget 
their  first  and  natural  duty  to  the  Maker.  Neglect 
of  this  obligation  in  a  man  betravs  an  absence,  a  loss 
of  religious  instinct,  and  an  irreligious  man  is  a  pure 
animal,  if  he  is  a  refined  one.  His  refinement  and 


106  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

superiority  come  from  his  intelligence,  and  these 
qualities,  far  from  attenuating  his  guilt,  only  serve 
to  aggravate  it. 

The  brute  eats  and  drinks;  when  he  is  full  and 
tired  he  throws  himself  down  to  rest.  When  refreshed, 
he  gets  up,  shakes  himself  and  goes  off  again  in  quest 
of  food  and  amusement.  In  what  does  a  man  without 
prayer  differ  from  such  a  being? 

But  prayer,  strictly  speaking,  means  a  demand, 
a  petition,  an  asking.  We  ask  for  our  needs  and  our 
principal  needs  are  pardon  and  succor.  This  is  prayer 
as  it  is  generally  understood.  It  is  necessary  to 
salvation.  Without  it  no  man  can  be  saved.  Our 
assurance  of  heaven  should  be  in  exact  proportion  to 
our  asking.  "Ask  and  you  shall  receive/'  Ask 
nothing,  and  you  obtain  nothing;  and  that  which  you 
do  not  obtain  is  just  what  you  must  have  to  save  your 
soul. 

Here  is  the  explanation  of  it  in  a  nutshell.  The 
doctrine  of  the  Church  is  that  when  God  created  man, 
He  raised  him  from  a  natural  to  a  supernatural  state, 
and  assigned  to  him  a  supernatural  end.  Supernatural 
means  what  is  above  the  natural,  beyond  our  natural 
powers  of  obtaining.  Our  destiny  therefore  cannot  be 
fulfilled  without  the  help  of  a  superior  power.  We 
are  utterly  incapable  by  ourselves  of  realizing  the  end 
to  which  we  are  called.  The  condition  absolutely 
required  is  the  grace  of  God  and  through  that  akne 
can  we  expect  to  come  to  our  appointed  end. 

Here  is  a  stone.  That  that  stone  should  have 
feeling  is  not  natural,  but  supernatural.  God,  to  give 
sensation  to  that  stone,  must  break  through  the  natural 
order  of  things,  because  to  feel  is  beyond  the  native 
powers  of  a  stone.  It  is  not  natural  for  an  animal  to 
reason,  it  is  impossible.  God  must  work  a  miracle 
to  make  it  understand.  Well,  the  stone  is  just  as 
capable  of  feeling,  and  the  animal  of  reasoning,  as  is 
man  capable  of  saving  his  soul  by  himself. 


PRAYER.  lO/ 

To  persevere  in  the  state  of  grace  and  the 
friendship  of  God,  to  recover  it  when  lost  by  sin,  are 
supernatural  works.  Only  by  the  grace  of  God  can 
this  be  effected.  Will  God  do  this  without  being 
asked?  Say  rather  will  God  save  us  in  spite  of 
ourselves,  or  unknown  to  ourselves.  He  who  does  not 
ask  gives  no  token  of  a  desire  to  obtain. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 
PETITIONS. 

FOR  all  spiritual  needs,  therefore,  prayer  is  the 
one  thing  necessary.  I  am  in  the  state  of  sin.  I 
desire  to  be  forgiven.  To  obtain  pardon  is  a 
supernatural  act.  Alone  I  can  no  more  do  it  than  fly. 
I  pray  then  for  the  grace  of  a  good  confession — I 

Prudently  think  myself  in  the  state  of  grace.  Were 
for  a  moment  left  to  my  depraved  nature,  to  the 
mercy  of  my  passions,  I  should  fall  into  the  lowest 
depths  of  iniquity.  The  holiest,  saintliest  of  men  are 
just  as  capable  of  the  greatest  abominations  as  the 
blackest  sinner  that  ever  lived.  If  he  does  not  fall, 
and  the  other  does,  it  is  because  he  prays  and  the 
other  does  not. 

Some  people  have  certain  spiritual  maladies,  that 
become  second  nature  to  them,  called  dominant 
passions.  For  one,  it  is  cursing  and  swearing;  for 
another  vanity  and  conceit.  One  is  afflicted  with  sloth, 
another  with  uncleanness  of  one  kind  or  another.  To 
discover  the  failing  is  the  first  duty,  to  pray  against 
it  is  the  next.  You  attack  it  with  prayer  as  you  attack 
a  disease  with  remedies.  And  if  we  only  used  praver 
with  half  the  care,  perseverance  and  confidence  that 
we  use  medicines,  our  spiritual  distemper  would  be 
short-lived. 


108  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

A  person  who  passes  a  considerable  time  without 
prayer  is  usually  in  a  bad  state  of  soul.  There  is 
probably  no  one,  who,  upon  reflection,  will  fail  to 
discover  that  his  best  days  were  those  which  his 
prayers  sanctified,  and  his  worst,  those  which  had  to 
get  along  without  any.  And  when  a  man  starts  out 
badly,  the  first  thing  he  takes  care  to  do  is  to  neglect 
his  prayers.  For  praying  is  an  antidote  and  a 
reminder;  it  makes  him  feel  uneasy  while  in  sin,  and 
would  make  him  break  with  his  evil  ways  if 
he  continued  to  pray.  And  since  he  does  not  wish 
to  stop,  he  takes  no  chances,  and  gives  up  his  prayers. 
When  he  wants  to  stop,  he  falls  back  on  his  prayers. 

This  brings  us  to  the  bodily  favors  we  should  ask 
for.  You  are  sick.  You  desire  to  get  well,  but  you 
do  not  see  the  sense  of  praying  for  it;  for  you  say, 
"Either  I  shall  get  well  or  I  shall  not."  For  an 
ordinary  statement  that  is  as  plain  and  convincing  as 
one  has  a  right  to  expect;  it  will  stand  against  all 
argument.  But  the  conclusion  is  not  of  a  piece  with 
the  premises.  In  that  case  why  do  you  call  in  the 
physician,  why  do  you  take  nasty  pills  and 
swallow  whole  quarts  of  vile  concoctions  that 
have  the  double  merit  of  bringing  distress  to  your 
palate  and  your  purse?  You  take  these  precautions 
because  your  most  elementary  common  sense  tells  you 
that  such  precautions  as  medicaments,  etc.,  enter  for 
something  of  a  condition  in  the  decree  of  God  which 
reads  that  you  shall  die  or  not  die.  Your  return  to 
health  or  your  shuffling  off  of  the  mortal  coil  is  subject 
to  conditions  of  prudence,  and  according  as  they  are 
fulfiled  or  not  fulfiled  the  decree  of  God  will  go  into 
effect  one  way  or  the  other. 

And  why  does  not  your  sane  common  sense 
suggest  to  you  that  prayer  enters  as  just  such  a 
condition  in  the  decrees  of  God,  that  your  recovery  is 
just  as  conditional  on  the  using  of  prayer  as  to  the 
taking  of  pills? 

There  are  people  who  have  no  faith  in  drugs, 


PETITIONS.  109 

either  because  they  have  never  used  any  or  because 
having  once  used  them,  failed  to  get  immediate  relief. 
Appreciation  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer  is  frequently 
based  on  similar  experience. 

To  enumerate  all  the  cures  effected  by  prayer 
would  be  as  bootless  as  to  rehearse  all  the  miracles  of 
therapeutics  and  surgery.  The  doctor  says:  "Here, 
take  this,  it  will  do  you  good.  I  know  its  virtue."  The 
Church  says  likewise :  "Try  prayer,  I  know  its  virtue." 
Your  faith  in  it  has  all  to  do  with  its  successful 
working. 

As  in  bodily  sickness,  so  it  is  in  all  the  other 
afflictions  that  flesh  is  heir  to.  Prayer  is  a  panacea; 
it  cures  all  ills.  But  it  should  be  taken  with  two  tonics, 
as  it  were,  before  and  after.  Before:  faith  and 
confidence  in  the  power  of  God  to  cure  us  through 
prayer.  After:  resignation  to  the  will  of  God,  by 
which  we  accept  what  it  may  please  Him  to  do  in  our 
case;  for  health  is  not  the  greatest  boon  of  life,  nor 
are  sickness  and  death  the  greatest  evils.  Sin  alone  is 
bad ;  the  grace  of  God  alone  is  good.  All  other  things 
God  uses  as  means  in  view  of  this  supreme  good  and 
against  this  supreme  evil.  Faith  prepares  the  system 
and  puts  it  in  order  for  the  reception  of  the  remedy. 
Resignation  helps  it  work  out  its  good  effects,  and 
brings  out  all  its  virtue. 

Thus  prayer  is  necessary  to  us  all,  whether  we  be 
Christians  or  pagans,  whether  just  or  sinners,  whether 
sick  or  well.  It  brings  us  near  to  God,  and  God  near 
to  us,  and  thus  is  a  foretaste  and  an  image  of  our 
union  with  Him  hereafter. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 
RELIGION. 

As  far  back  as  the  light  of  history  extends,  it 
shows  man,  of  every  race  a"d  of  every  clime,  occupied 
in  giving  expression,  in  one  way  or  another,  to  his 
religious  impressions,  sentiments,  and  convictions.  He 
knew  God;  he  was  influenced  by  this  knowledge 
unto  devotion ;  and  sought  to  exteriorize  this  devotion 
for  the  double  purpose  of  proving  its  truth  and  sin 
cerity,  and  of  still  further  nourishing,  strengthening, 
safeguarding  it  by  means  of  an  external  worship  and 
sensible  things.  Accordingly,  he  built  temples,  erected 
altars,  offered  sacrifices,  burnt  incense;  he  sang  and 
wept,  feasted  and  fasted ;  he  knelt,  stood  and  prostrated 
himself — all  things  in  harmony  with  his  hopes  and 
fears.  This  is  worship  or  cult.  We  call  it  religion, 
distinct  from  interior  worship  or  devotion,  but  sup 
posing  the  latter  essentially.  It  is  commanded  by  the 
first  precept  of  God. 

He  who  contents  himself  with  a  simple  acknowl 
edgment  of  the  Divinity  in  the  heart,  and  confines  his 
piety  to  the  realm  of  the  soul,  does  not  fulfil  the  first 
commandment.  The  obligation  to  worship  God  was 
imposed,  not  upon  angels — pure  spirits,  but  upon 
men — creatures  composed  of  a  body  as  wel)  as  a 
soul.  The  homage  that  He  had  a  right  to  expect  was 
therefore  not  a  purely  spiritual  one,  but  one  in  which 
the  body  had  a  part  as  well  as  the  soul.  A  man  is  not 
a  man  without  a<  body.  Neither  can  God  be  satisfied 
with  man's  homage  unless  his  physical  being  cooper 
ate  with  his  spiritual,  unless  his  piety  be  translated 
into  acts  and  become  religion,  in  the  sense  in  which 
we  use  the  word. 


RELIGION.  Ill 

There  is  no  limit  to  the  different  forms  religion 
may  take  on  a»s  manifestations  of  intense  fervor  and 
strong  belief.  Sounds,  attitudes,  practices,  etc.,  are 
so  many  vehicles  of  expression,  and  may  be  multiplied 
indefinitely.  They  become  letters  and  words  and 
figures  of  a  language  which,  while  being  conventional 
in  a  way,  is  also  natural  and  imitative,  and  speaks 
more  clearly  and  eloquently  and  poetically  than  any 
other  human  language.  This  is  what  makes  the  Cath 
olic  religion  so  beautiful  as  to  compel  the  admiration 
of  believers  and  unbelievers  alike. 

Of  course,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  an  individ 
ual  from  making  religion  a  mask  of  hypocrisy.  If 
in  using  these  practices,  he  does  not  mean  what  they 
imply,  he  lies  as  plainly  as  if  he  used  words  without 
regard  for  their  signification.  These  practices,  too, 
ma/y  become  absurd,  ridiculous  and  even  abominable. 
When  this  occurs,  it  is  easily  explained  by  the  fact 
that  the  mind  and  heart  of  man  are  never  proof 
against  imbecility  and  depravity.  There  are  as  many 
fools  and  cranks  in  the  world  as  there  are  villains  and 
degenerates. 

The  Church  of  God  regulates  divine  worship  for 
us  with  the  wisdom  and  experience  of  centuries.  Her 
sacrifice  is  the  first  great  act  of  worship.  Then  there 
are  her  ceremonies,  rites,  and  observances ;  the  use  of 
holy  water,  blessed  candles,  ashes,  incense,  vestments ; 
her  chants,  and  fasts  and  feasts,  the  symbolism  of  her 
sacraments.  This  is  the  language  in  which,  as  a 
Church,  and  in  union  with  her  children,  she  speaks  to 
God  her  adoration,  praise  and  thanksgiving.  This  is 
her  religion,  and  we  practice  it  by  availing  ourselves 
of  these  things  and  by  respecting  them  as  pertaining 
to  God. 

We  are  sometimes  branded  as  idolaters,  that  is,  as 
people  who  adore  another  or  others  than  God.  We 
offer  our  homage  of  adoration  to  God  who  is  in  heaven, 
and  to  that  same  God  whom  we  believe  to  be  on  our 


112  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

altars.  Looking  through  Protestant  spectacles,  we  cer 
tainly  are  idolaters,  for  we  adore  what  they  consider  as 
simple  bread.  In  this  light  we  plead  guilty;  but  is 
it  simple  bread?  That  is  the  question.  The  homage 
we  offer  to  everything  and  everybody  else  is  relative, 
that  is,  it  refers  to  God,  and  therefore  is  not  idolatry. 

As  to  whether  or  not  we  are  superstitious  in  our 
practices,  that  depends  on  what  is  the  proper  homage 
to  offer  God  and  in  what  does  excess  consist.  It  is 
not  a  little  astonishing  to  see  the  no-creed,  dogma- 
hating,  private- judgment  sycophants  sitting  in  judg 
ment  against  us  and  telling  us  what  is  and  what  is  not 
correct  in  our  religious  practices.  We  thought  that 
sort  of  a  thing — dogmatism — was  excluded  from 
Protestant  ethics ;  that  every  one  should  be  allowed 
to  choose  his  own  mode  of  worship,  that  the  right  and 
proper  way  is  the  way  one  thinks  right  and  proper. 
If  the  private-interpreter  claims  this  freedom  for  him 
self,  why  not  allow  it  to  us!  We  thought  they 
objected  to  this  kind  of  interference  in  us  some  few 
hundred  years  ago;  is  it  too  much  if  we  object  most 
strenuously  to  it  in  them  in  these  days !  It  is  strange 
how  easily  some  people  forget  first  principles,  and 
what  a  rare  article  on  the  market  is  consistency. 

The  persons,  places  and  things  that  pertain  to  the 
exterior  worship  of  God  we  are  bound  to  respect,  not 
for  themselves,  but  by  reason  of  the  usage  for  which 
they  are  chosen  and  set  aside,  thereby  becoming  conse 
crated,  religious.  We  should  respect  them  in  a  spirit 
ual  way  as  we  respect  in  a  human  way  all  that  belongs 
to  those  whom  we  hold  dear.  Irreverence  or  disre 
spect  is  a  profanation,  a  sacrilege. 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 
DEVOTIONS. 

THERE  is  in  the  Church  an  abundance  and  a  rich 
variety  of  what  we  call  devotions — practices  that 
express  our  respect,  affection  and  veneration  for  the 
chosen  friends  of  God.  These  devotions  we  should 
be  careful  not  to  confound  with  a  thing  very  differ 
ently  known  as  devotion — to  God  Himself.  This 
latter  is  the  soul,  the  very  essence  of  religion;  the 
former  are  sometimes  irreverently  spoken  of  as 
"frills." 

Objectively  speaking,  these  devotions  find  their 
justification  in  the  dogma  of  the  Communion  of  Saints, 
according  to  which  we  believe  that  the  blessed  in 
heaven  are  able  and  disposed  to  help  the  unfortunate 
here  below.  Subjectively  they  are  based  on  human 
nature  itself.  In  our  self-conscious  weakness  and 
unworthiness,  we  choose  instinctively  to  approach  the 
throne  of  God  through  His  tried  and  faithful  friends 
rather  than  to  hazard  ourselves  alone  and  helpless  in 
His  presence. 

Devotion,  as  all  know,  is  only  another  name  for 
charity  towards  God,  piety,  holiness,  that  is,  a  condi 
tion  of  soul  resulting  from,  and  at  the  same  time, 
conducive  to,  fidelity  to  God's  law  and  the  dictates  of 
one's  conscience.  It  consists  in  a  proper  understand 
ing  of  our  relations  to  God — creatures  of  the  Creator, 
paupers,  sinners  and  children  in  the  presence  of  a 
Benefactor,  Judge  and  Father;  and  in  sympathies  and 
sentiments  aroused  in  us  by,  and  corresponding  with, 
these  convictions.  In  other  words,  one  is  devoted  to 
a  friend  when  one  knows  him  well,  is  true  as  steel  to 
him,  and  basks  in  the  sunshine  of  a  love  that  rebukes 
that  fidelity.  Towards  God,  this  is  devotion. 


114  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

Devotions  differ  in  pertaining,  not  directly,  but 
indirectly  through  the  creature  to  God.  No  one  but 
sees  at  once  that  devotion,  in  a  certain  degree  is 
binding  upon  all  men ;  a  positive  want  of  it  is  nothing 
short  of  impiety.  But  devotions  have  not  the  dignity 
of  entering  into  the  essence  of  God-worship.  They 
are  not  constituent  parts  of  that  flower  that  grows  in 
God's  garden  of  the  soul — charity ;  they  are  rather  the 
scent  and  fragramce  that  linger  around  its  petals  and 
betoken  its  genuine  quality.  They  are  of  counsel,  so 
to  speak,  as  opposed  to  the  precept  of  charity  and 
devotion.  They  are  outside  all  commandment,  and 
are  taken  up  with  a  view  of  doing  something  more 
than  escaping  perdition  "quasi  per  ignem." 

For  human  nature  is  rarely  satisfied  with  what  is 
rigorously  sufficient.  It  does  not  relish  living  per 
petually  on  the  ragged  edge  of  a  scant,  uncertain 
meagerness.  People  want  enough  and  plenty,  abun 
dance  and  variety.  If  there  are  many  avenues  that  lead 
to  God's  throne,  they  want  to  use  them.  Ii  there  are 
many  outlets  for  their  intense  fervor  and  abundant 
generosity,  they  will  have  them.  Devotions  answer 
these  purposes. 

Impossible  to  enumerate  all  the  different  practices 
that  are  in  vogue  in  the  Church  and  go  under  the  name 
of  devotions.  Legion  is  the  number  of  saints  that  have 
their  following  of  devotees.  Some  are  universal,  are 
praised  and  invoked  the  world  over;  others  have  a 
local  niche  and  are  all  unknown  beyond  the  confines 
of  a  province  or  nation.  Some  are  invoked  in  all 
needs  and  distresses ;  St.  Blase,  on  the  other  hand 
is  credited  with  a  special  power  for  curing  throats,  St. 
Anthony,  for  finding  lost  things,  etc.  Honor  is  paid 
them  on  account  of  their  proximity  to  God.  To  invoke 
them  is  as  much  an  honor  to  them  as  an  advantage 
to  us. 

If  certain  individuals  do  not  like  this  kind  of  a 
thing,  they  are  under  no  sort  of  an  obligation  to  prac- 


DEVOTIONS.  115 

tise  it.  If  they  can  get  to  heaven  without  the  assist 
ance  of  the  saints,  then  let  them  do  so,  by  all  means ; 
only  let  them  be  sure  to  get  there.  No  one  finds 
devotions  repugnant  but  those  who  are  ignorant  of 
their  real  character  and  meaning.  If  they  are  fortu 
nate  enough  to  make  this  discovery,  they  then,  like 
nearly  all  converts,  become  enthusiastic  devotees,  find 
ing  in  their  devotions  new  beauties,  and  new  advan 
tages  every  day. 

And  it  is  a  poor  Catholic  that  leaves  devotions 
entirely  alone,  and  a  rare  one.  He  may  not  feel 
inclined  to  enlist  the  favor  of  this  or  that  particular 
saint,  but  he  usually  has  a  rosary  hidden  away  some 
where  in  his  vest  pocket  and  a  scapular  around  his 
neck,  or  in  his  pocket,  as  a  last  extreme.  If  he  scorns 
even  this,  then  the  chances  are  that  he  is  Catholic 
only  in  name,  for  the  tree  of  faith  is  such  a*  fertile 
one  that  it  rarely  fails  to  yield  fruit  and  flowers  of 
exquisite  fragrance. 

Oh!  of  course  the  lives  of  all  the  saints  are  not 
history  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word.  But  what 
has  that  to  do  with  the  Communion  of  Saints?  If 
simplicity  and  naivete  have  woven  around  some  names 
an  unlikely  tale,  a  fable  or  a  myth,  it  requires  some 
effort  to  see  how  that  could  affect  their  standing  with 
God,  or  their  disposition  to  help  us  in  our  needs. 

Devotions  are  not  based  on  historical  facts, 
although  in  certain  facts,  events  or  happenings,  real  or 
alleged,  they  may  have  been  furnished  with  occasions 
for  coming  into  existence.  The  authenticity  of  these 
facts  is  not  guaranteed  by  the  doctrinal  authority  of 
the  Church,  but  she  may,  and  does,  approve  the  devo 
tions  that  spring  therefrom.  Independently  of  the 
truth  of  private  and  individual  revelations,  visions  and 
miracles,  which  she  investigates  as  to  their  probability, 
she  makes  sure  that  there  is  nothing  contrary  to  the 
deposit  of  faith  and  to  morals,  and  then  she  gives 
these  devotions  the  stamp  of  her  approval  as  a 


Il6  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

security  to  the  faithful  who  wish  to  practise  them.  A 
Catholic  or  non-Catholic  may  think  what  he  likes  con 
cerning  the  apparitions  of  the  Virgin  at  Lourdes;  if 
he  is  dense  enough,  he  may  refuse  to  believe  that 
miracles  have  been  performed  there.  But  he  cannot 
deny  that  the  homage  offered  to  Our  Lady  at  Lourdes, 
and  known  as  devotion  to  Our  Lady  of  Lourdes,  is  in 
keeping  with  religious  worship  as  practised  by  the 
Church  and  in  consonance  with  reason  enlightened  by 
faith,  and  so  with  all  other  devotions. 

A  vase  of  flowers,  a  lamp,  a«  burning  candle 
before  the  statue  of  a  saint  is  a  prayer  whose  silence 
is  more  eloquent  than  all  the  sounds  that  ever  came 
from  the  lips  of  man.  It  is  love  that  puts  it  there,  love 
that  tells  it  to  dispense  its  sweet  perfume  or  shed  its 
mellow  rays,  and  love  that  speaks  by  this  touching 
symbolism  to  God  through  a«  favorite  saint. 


CHAPTER  XXXIII. 
IDOLATRY  AND  SUPERSTITION. 

THE  first  and  greatest  sinner  against  religion  is 
the  idolater,  who  offers  God-worship  to  others  than 
God.  There  are  certain  attributes  that  belong  to  God 
alone,  certain  titles  that  He  alone  has  a  right  to  bear, 
certain  marks  of  veneration  that  are  due  to  Him  alone. 
To  ascribe  these  to  any  being  under  God  is  an  abomi 
nation,  and  is  called  idolatry. 

The  idols  of  paganism  have  long  since  been 
thrown,  their  temples  destroyed;  the  folly  itself  has 
fallen  into  disuse,  and  its  extravagances  serve  only 
in  history  "to  point  a  moral  or  adorn  a  tale."  Yet,  in 
truth,  idolatry  is  not  so  dead  as  all  that,  if  one  would 


IDOLATRY   AND  SUPERSTITION. 

take  the  pains  to  peruse  a  few  pages  of  the  current 
erotic  literature  wherein  people  see  heaven  in  a  pair 
of  blue  eyes,  catch  inspired  words  from  ruby  lips  and 
adore  a  well  trimmed  chin-whisker.  I  would  sooner, 
with  the  old-time  Egyptians,  adore  a  well-behaved  cat 
or  a  toothsome  cucumber  than,  with  certain  modern 
feather-heads  and  gum-drop  hearts,  sing  hymns  to  a 
shapely  foot  or  dimpled  cheek  and  offer  incense  to 
"divinities,"  godlike  forms,  etc.  The  way  hearts  and 
souls  a<re  thrown  around  from  one  to  another  is  sug 
gestive  of  the  national  game ;  while  the  love  they  bear 
one  another  is  always  infinite,  supreme,  without 
parallel  on  earth  or  in  heaven. 

No,  perhaps  they  do  not  mean  what  they  say ;  but 
that  helps  matters  very  little,  for  the  fault  lies  pre 
cisely  in  saying  what  they  do  say ;  the  language  used 
is  idolatrous.  And  a  queer  thing  about  it  is  that  they 
do  mean  more  than  half  of  what  they  say.  When 
degenerate  love  runs  riot,  it  dethrones  the  Almighty, 
makes  gods  of  clay  and  besots  itself  before  them. 

What  is  superstition  and  what  is  a  superstitious 
practice?  It  is  something  against  the  virtue  of 
religion;  it  sins,  not  by  default  as  unbelief,  but  by 
excess.  Now,  to  be  able  to  say  what  is  excessive,  one 
must  know  what  is  right  and  just,  one  must  have  a 
measure.  To  attempt  to  qualify  anything  as  excessive 
without  the  aid  of  a  rule  or  measure  is  simply  guess 
work. 

The  Yankee  passes  for  a  mighty  clever  guesser, 
outpointing  with  ease  his  transatlantic  cousin.  Over 
there  the  sovereign  guesses  officially  that  devotion 
to  the  Mother  of  God  is  a  superstitious  practice.  This 
reminds  one  of  the  overgrown  farmer  boy,  who,  when 
invited  by  his  teacher  to  locate  the  center  of  a  circle 
drawn  on  the  blackboard,  stood  off  and  eyed  the  figure 
critically  for  a  moment  with  a  wise  squint;  and  then 
said,  pointing  his  finger  to  the  middle  or  thereabouts : 
"I  should  jedge  it  to  be  about  thar'."  He  was  candid 


Il8  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

enough  to  offer  only  an  opinion.  But  how  the  royal 
guesser  could  be  sure  enough  to  swear  it,  and  that 
officially,  is  what  staggers  plain  people. 

Now  right  reason  is  a  rule  by  which  to  judge 
what  is  and  what  is  not  superstitious.  But  individual 
reason  or  private  judgment  and  right  reason  are  not 
synonyms  in  the  English  or  in  any  other  language 
that  is  human.  When  reasoning  men  disagree,  right 
reason,  as  far  as  the  debated  question  is  concerned,  is 
properly  said  to  be  off  on  a  vacation,  a  thing  uncom 
monly  frequent  in  human  affairs.  In  order,  therefore 
that  men  should  not  be  perpetually  at  war  concerning 
matters  that  pertain  to  men's  salvation,  God  estab 
lished  a  competent  authority  which  even  simple  folks 
with  humble  minds  and  pure  hearts  can  find.  In 
default  of  any  adverse  claimant  the  Catholic  Church 
must  be  adjudged  that  authority.  The  worship,  there 
fore,  that  the  Church  approves  as  worthy  of  God  is 
not,  cannot  be,  superstition.  And  what  is  patently 
against  reason,  or,  in  case  of  doubt,  what  she  reproves 
and  condemns  in  religion  is  superstitious. 

Leaving  out  of  the  question  for  the  moment  those 
species  of  superstition  that  rise  to  the  dignity  of 
science,  to  the  accidental  fame  and  wealth  of  humbugs 
and  frauds,  the  evil  embraces  a  host  of  practices  that 
are  usually  the  result  of  a  too  prevalent  psychological 
malady  known  as  softening  of  the  brain.  These  poor 
unfortunates  imagine  that  the  Almighty  who  holds  the 
universe  in  the  hollow  of  His  handj  deals  with  His 
creatures  in  a  manner  that  would  make  a  full-grown 
man  pass  as  a  fool  if  he  did  the  same.  Dreams,  luck- 
pieces,  certain  combinations  of  numbers  or  figures, 
ordinary  or  extraordinary  events  and  happenings — 
these  are  the  means  whereby  God  is  made  to  reveal  to 
men  secrets  and  mysteries  as  absurd  as  the  means 
themselves.  Surely  God  must  have  descended  from 
His  throne  of  wisdom. 

Strange  though  it  appear,  too  little  religion — and 


IDOLATRY  AND  SUPERSTITION.  1 1 9 

not  too  much — leads  to  these  unholy  follies.  There 
is  a  religious  instinct  in  man.  True  religion  satisfies 
it  fully.  Quack  religion,  pious  tomfoolery,  and  doc 
trinal  ineptitude  foisted  upon  a  God-hungry  people 
end  by  driving  some  from  one  folly  to  another  in  a 
pitiful  attempt  to  get  away  from  the  deceptions  of  man 
and  near  to  God.  Others  are  led  on  by  a  sinful  curios 
ity  that  outweighs  their  common-sense  as  well  as  their 
respect  for  God.  These  are  the  guilty  ones. 

It  has  been  said  that  there  is  more  superstition — 
that  is  belief  and  dabbling  in  these  inane  practices — 
to-day  in  one  of  our  large  cities  than  the  Dark  Ages 
ever  was  afflicted  with.  If  true,  it  is  one  sign  of  the 
world's  spiritual  unrest,  the  decay  of  unbelief;  and 
irreligion  thus  assists  at  its  own  disintegration.  The 
Church  swept  the  pagan  world  clean  of  superstition 
once;  she  may  soon  be  called  upon  to  do  the  work 
over  again. 


CHAPTER  XXXIV. 
OCCULTISM. 

SPIRITISM  as  a  theory,  a  science,  a  practice,  a 
religion,  or — I  might  add — a  profitable  business  ven 
ture,  is  considered  an  evil  thing  by  the  Church,  and 
by  her  is  condemned  as  superstition,  that  is,  as  a 
false  and  unworthy  homage  to  God,  belittling  His 
majesty  and  opposed  to  the  Dispensation  of  Christ, 
according  to  which  alone  God  can  be  worthily 
honored.  This  evil  has  many  names ;  it  includes  all 
dabbling  in  the  supernatural  against  the  sanction  of 


120  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

Church  authority,  and  runs  a  whole  gamut  of  "isms" 
from  fake  trance-mediums  to  downright  diabolical 
possession. 

The  craft  found  favor  with  the  pagans  and 
flourished  many  years  before  the  Christian  era.  Won 
drous  things  were  wrought  by  the  so-called  pythonic 
spirit;  evidently  outside  the  natural  order,  still  more 
evidently  not  by  the  agency  of  God,  and  of  a  certainty 
through  the  secret  workings  of  the  "Old  Boy"  him 
self.  It  was  called  Necromancy,  or  the  Black  Art. 
It  had  attractions  for  the  Jews  and  they  yielded  to 
some  extent  to  the  temptation  of  consulting  the 
Python.  For  this  reason  Moses  condemned  the  evil 
as  an  abomination.  These  are  his  words,  taken  from 
Deuteronomy : 

"Neither  let  there  be  found  among  you  any  one 
that  consulteth  soothsayers,  or  observeth  dreams  and 
omens;  neither  let  there  be  any  wizard,  nor  charmer, 
nor  any  one  that  consulteth  pythonic  spirits  or  fortune 
tellers,  or  that  seeketh  the  truth  from  the  dead.  For 
the  Lord  abhorreth  all  these  things ;  and  for  these 
abominations  He  will  destroy  them." 

The  Black  Art  had  its  votaries  during  the  Middle 
Ages  and  kept  the  Church  busy  warning  the  faithful 
against  its  dangers  and  its  evils.  Even  so  great  a 
name  as  that  of  Albert  the  Great  has  been  associated 
with  the  dark  doings  of  the  wizard,  because,  no  doubt, 
of  the  marvelous  fruits  of  his  genius  and  deep  learn 
ing,  which  the  ignorant  believed  impossible  to  mere 
human  agency.  As  witchcraft,  it  flourished  during 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  The  excesses 
to  which  it  gave  rise  caused  severe  laws  to  be  enacted 
against  it  and  stringent  measures  were  taken  to  sup 
press  it.  Many  were  put  to  death,  sometimes  after 
the  most  cruel  tortures.  As  is  usually  the  case,  the 
innocent  suffered  with  the  guilty.  The  history  of  the 
early  New  England  settlers  makes  good  reading  on 
the  subject. 


OCCULTISM.  121 

Some  people  claim  that  the  spiritism  of  to-day 
is  only  a  revival  of  old-time  witchery  and  necromancy, 
that  it  is  as  prevalent  now  as  it  was  then,  perhaps 
more  prevalent.  "Only,"  as  Father  Lambert  remarks, 
"the  witch  of  to-day  instead  of  going  to  the  stake  as 
formerly,  goes  about  as  Madam  So-and-So,  and  is 
duly  advertised  in  our  enlightened  press  as  the  great 
and  renowned  seeress  or  clairvoyant,  late  from  the 
court  of  the  Akoorid  of  Swat,  more  recently  from 
the  Sublime  Porte,  where  she  was  in  consultation 
with  the  Sultan  of  Turkey,  and  more  recently  still 
from  the  principal  courts  of  Europe.  As  her  stay  in 
the  city  will  be  brief,  those  who  wish  to  know  the 
past  or  future  or  wish  to  communicate  with  deceased 
friends,  are  advised  to  call  on  her  soon.  Witchcraft 
is  as  prevalent  as  it  ever  was,  and  the  witches  are 
as  real.  They  may  not  have  cats  on  their  shoulders 
or  pointed  caps,  or  broomsticks  for  quick  transit,  but 
they  differ  from  the  witches  of  the  past  only  in  being 
liberally  paid,  instead  of  liberally  punished/' 

The  Church  does  not  deny  the  possibility  of  iri- 
tercourse  between  the  living  and  the  souls  of  the  dead ; 
she  goes  farther  and  admits  the  fact  that  such  inter 
course  has  taken  place,  pointing,  as  well  she  may,  to 
the  Scriptures  themselves  wherein  such  facts  are  re 
corded.  The  lives  of  her  saints  are  not  without  proof 
that  this  world  may  communicate  with  the  unknown. 
And  this  belief  forms  the  groundwork,  furnishes  the 
basic  principles,  of  Spiritism. 

Nevertheless,  the  Church  condemns  all  attempts 
at  establishing  such  communication  between  the  liv 
ing  and  the  dead,  or  even  claiming,  though  falsely, 
such  intercourse.  If  this  is  done  in  the  name  of 
religion,  she  considers  it  an  insult  to  God,  Who 
thereby  is  trifled  with  and  tempted  to  a  miraculous 
manifestation  of  Himself  outside  the  ordinary  chan 
nels  of  revelation.  As  an  instrument  of  mere  human 
curiosity,  it  is  criminal,  since  it  seeks  to  subject  Him 


122  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

to  the  beck  and  call  of  a  creature.  In  case  such 
practices  succeed,  there  is  the  grave  danger  of  being 
mislead  and  deceived  by  the  evil  spirit,  who  is  often 
permitted,  as  the  instrument  of  God,  to  punish  guilty 
men.  When  resorted  to,  as  a  means  of  relieving  fools 
of  their  earnings,  it  is  sacrilegious;  and  those  who 
support  such  impious  humbugs  can  be  excused  from 
deadly  sin  only  on  the  grounds  of  lunacy. 

Hypnotism  and  Mesmerism  differ  from  Spiritism 
in  this,  that  their  disciples  account  for  the  phenomena 
naturally  and  lay  no  claim  to  supernatural  interven 
tion.  They  produce  a  sleep  in  the  subject,  either  as 
they  claim,  by  the  emanation  of  a  subtile  fluid  from 
the  operator's  body,  or  by  the  influence  ot  his  mind 
over  the  mind  of  the  subject.  They  are  agreed  on  this 
point,  that  natural  laws  could  explain  the  phenomenon, 
if  these  laws  were  well  understood. 

With  this  sort  of  a  thing,  as  belonging  to  the 
domain  of  science  and  outside  her  domain,  the  Church 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do.  This  is  a  theory  upon 
which  it  behooves  men  of  science  to  work ;  they  alone 
are  competent  in  the  premises.  But  without  at  all 
encroaching  on  their  domain,  the  Church  claims  the 
right  to  pronounce  upon  the  morality  of  such  prac 
tices  and  to  condemn  the  evils  that  flow  therefrom. 
So  great  are  these  evils  and  dangers,  when  unscru 
pulous  and  ignorant  persons  take  to  experimenting, 
that  able  and  reliable  physicians  and  statesmen  have 
advocated  the  prohibition  by  law  of  all  such  indis 
criminate  practices.  Crimes  have  been  committed  on 
hypnotized  persons  and  crimes  have  been  committed 
by  them.  It  is  a  dangerous  power  exercised  by  men 
of  evil  mind  and  a  sure  means  to  their  evil  ends.  It 
is  likewise  detrimental  to  physical  and  moral  health. 
Finally,  he  who  subjects  himself  to  such  influence 
commits  an  immoral  act  by  giving  up  his  will,  his 
free  agency,  into  the  hands  of  another.  He  does  this 
willingly,  for  no  one  can  be  hypnotized  against  his 


OCCULTISM.  123 

will ;  he  does  it  without  reason  or  just  motive.  This 
is  an  evil,  and  to  it  must  be  added  the  responsibility  of 
any  evil  he  may  be  made  to  commit  whilst  under  this 
influence.  Therefore  is  the  Church  wise  in  condemning 
the  indiscriminate  practice  of  hypnotism  or  mesmerism  ; 
and  therefore  will  her  children  be  wise  if  they  leave 
it  alone.  It  is  not  superstition,  but  it  is  a  sin  against 
man's  individual  liberty  over  which  he  is  constituted 
sole  guardian,  according  to  the  use  and  abuse  of  which 
he  will  one  day  be  judged. 


CHAPTER  XXXV. 
CHRISTIAN  SCIENCE. 

A  RECENTLY  discovered  sin  against  the  First 
Commandment  is  the  worship  of  Mrs.  Eddy,  and  it 
is  commonly  called  Christian  Science.  This 
sacrilegious  humbug  was  conceived  in  the  brain  of 
an  old  woman  up  in  New  Hampshire  and,  like  the 
little  demon  of  error  that  it  is,  it  leaped  forth,  after  a 
long  period  of  travail,  full-fledged  and  panoplied,  and 
on  its  lips  were  these  words:  "What  fools  these 
mortals  be!"  Dame  Eddy  gets  good  returns  from 
the  sacrilegio-comic  tour  of  her  progeny  around  the 
country.  Intellectual  Boston  is  at  her  feet,  and  Boston 
pays  well  for  its  amusements. 

It  is  remarkable  for  an  utter  lack  of  anything 
like  Christianity  or  science.  It  is  as  Christian  as 
Buddhism  and  as  scientific  as  the  notions  of  our  early 
forefathers  concerning  the  automobile.  It  is  a  parody 
on  both  and  like  the  usual  run  of  parodies,  it  is  a 
success. 


124  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

The  average  man  should  not  attempt  to  delve 
down  into  the  mysterious  depths  of  mind  and  matter 
which  form  the  basis  of  this  system.  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  an  impossible  task  for  an  ordinary 
intelligence;  then,  again,  it  were  labor  lost,  for  even 
if  one  did  get  down  far  enough  one  could  get  nothing 
satisfactory  out  of  it.  The  force  of  Eddyism  lies  in 
its  being  mysterious,  incomprehensible  and  contra 
dictory.  These  qualities  would  kill  an  ordinary  system, 
but  this  is  no  ordinary  system.  The  only  way  to  beat 
the  Christian  Scientist  is  to  invite  him  to  focus  all  the 
energy  of  his  mind  on  a  vulgar  lamp-post  and  engrave 
thereon  the  name  of  the  revered  Eddy — this  to  show 
the  power  of  mind.  Then  to  prove  the  non-existence 
of  matter,  ask  him  to  consent  to  your  endeavoring 
to  make  a  material  impression  on  his  head  with  an 
immaterial  hammer. 

Of  course  this  is  not  what  he  meant;  but  what 
he  did  mean  will  become  by  no  means  clearer  after 
the  wearisome,  interminable  lengths  to  which  he  will 
go  to  elucidate.  The  fact  is  that  he  does  not  know 
it  himself,  and  no  one  can  give  what  he  does  not 
possess.  True  philosophy  tells  us  to  define  terms  and 
never  to  employ  expressions  of  more  than  one  meaning 
without  saying  in  what  sense  we  use  them.  Contempt 
of  this  rule  is  the  salvation  of  Christian  Science,  and 
that  is  where  we  lose. 

Yet  there  is  something  in  this  fad  after  all.  Total 
insanity  is  never  met  with  outside  state  institutions, 
and  these  people  are  at  large.  The  ravings  of  a 
delirious  patient  are  often  a  monstrous  mass  of  wild 
absurdities ;  but,  if  you  question  the  patient  when 
convalescent,  you  will  sometimes  be  surprised  to  find 
they  were  all  founded  on  facts  which  had  become 
exaggerated  and  distorted.  There  is  no  such  thing 
as  pure  unadulterated  error.  All  of  which  is  meant 
to  convey  the  idea  that  at  the  bottom  of  all  fraud 
and  falsehood  there  is  some  truth,  and  the  malice  of 


CHRISTIAN    SCIENCE.  125 

error  is  always  proportionate  with  the  amount  of  truth 
it  has  perverted. 

The  first  truth  that  has  been  exaggerated  beyond 
recognition  is  this,  that  a  large  proportion  of  human 
diseases  are  pure  fiction  of  morbid  imaginations, 
induced  by  the  power  of  the  mind.  That  such  is  the 
case,  all  medical  men  admit.  Thus,  the  mind  may 
often  be  used  as  a  therapeutic  agent,  and  clever 
physicians  never  fail  to  employ  this  kind  of  Christian 
Science.  Mrs.  Eddy  is  therefore  no  more  the 
discoverer  of  the  "malade  imaginaire"  than  Moliere. 
When  you  distort  this  truth  and  write  books 
proclaiming  the  fact  that  all  ills  are  of  this  sort,  then 
you  have  Eddyism  up  to  date.  Mrs.  Eddy  gathers 
her  skirts  in  her  hand  and  leaps  over  the  abyss 
between  "some  ills"  and  "all  ills"  with  the  agility  of 
a  gazelle.  Yes,  the  mind  has  a  wonderful  power 
for  healing,  but  it  will  make  just  as  much  impression 
on  a  broken  leg  as  on  a  block  of  granite.  So  much 
for  the  scientific  part  of  the  theory. 

The  method  of  healing  of  Jesus  Christ  and  that 
of  the  foundress  of  Christian  Science  are  not  one  and 
the  same  method,  although  called  by  the  name  of 
faith  they  appear  at  first  sight  to  the  unwary  to  be 
identical.  There  is  a  preliminary  act  of  the  intelligence 
in  both;  there  is  the  exercise  of  the  will  power;  and 
a  mention  of  God  in  Eddyism  makes  it  look  like  a 
divine  assistance.  To  the  superficial  there  is  no 
difference  between  a  miracle  performed  at  Lourdes 
by  God  at  the  intercession  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  and 
a  "cure"  effected  by  the  Widow  of  New  Hampshire 
hills. 

Yet  there  is  a  wide  difference,  as  wide  as  the 
abyss  between  error  and  truth.  In  faith  healing,  God 
interposes  and  alone  does  the  healing.  It  is  a  miracle, 
a  suspension  of  the  ordinary  laws  of  nature.  Faith 
is  not  a  cause,  but  an  essential  condition.  In  Christian 
Science,  it  is  the  mind  of  the  patient  or  of  Mrs. 


126  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

Eddy  that  does  the  work.  It  is  God  only  in  the  sense 
that  God  is  one  with  the  patient.  Mind  is  the  only 
thing  that  exists,  and  the  human  mind  is  one  with 
the  Mind  which  is  God.  Then  again  this  cure  instead 
of  being  in  opposition  to  the  normal  state  of  things 
like  a  miracle,  itself  establishes  a  normal  state,  for 
disease  is  abnormal  and  in  contradiction  with  the 
natural  state  of  man.  Mental  healing,  according  to 
this  system  sets  the  machine  going  regularly ;  miracles 
put  it  out  of  order  for  the  moment.  Christian  Science 
therefore,  repudiates  the  healing  method  of  Jesus  by 
faith  and  sets  up  one  of  its  own,  thereby  forfeiting  all 
title  to  be  called  Christian. 

Being,  therefore,  neither  Christian  nor  scientific, 
this  new  cult  is  nothing  but  pure  nonsense,  like  all 
superstitions;  the  product  of  a  diseased  mind  swayed 
by  the  demon  of  pride,  and  should  be  treated  principally 
as  a  mental  disorder.  The  chief,  and  only,  merit  of  the 
system  consists  in  illustrating  the  truth,  as  old  as  the 
world,  that  when  men  wander  from  the  House  where 
they  are  fed  with  a  celestial  nourishment,  they  will 
be  glad  to  eat  any  food  offered  them  that  has  a 
semblance  of  food,  even  though  it  be  but  husks  and 
refuse.  Man  is  a  religious  animal ;  take  away  the 
true  God,  and  he  will  adore  anything  or  everything, 
even  to  a  cucumber.  However  limited  otherwise, 
there  is  no  limit  to  his  religious  folly. 


CHAPTER  XXXVI. 
SWEARING. 

"Tnou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  the  Lord,  thy 
God  in  vain." 

A  name  is  a  sign,  and  respect  for  God  Himself, 
as  prescribed  by  the  First  Commandment  through 
faith,  hope,  charity,  prayer  and  religion,  naturally 
implies  respect  for  the  name  that  stands  for  and 
signifies  God.  Your  name  may,  of  itself,  be  nothing 
more  than  mere  sound;  but  used  in  relation  to  what 
it  represents,  it  is  as  sacred,  and  means  as  much  to 
you,  as  your  very  person,  for  whatever  is  addressed 
to  your  name,  whether  of  praise  or  blame,  is  intended 
to  reach,  and  does  effectively  reach,  yourself,  to  your 
honor  or  dishonor.  You  exact  therefore  of  men,  as 
a  right,  the  same  respect  for  your  name  as  for  your 
person;  and  that  is  what  God  does  in  the  Second 
Commandment. 

The  name  of  God  represents  all  that  He  is.  He 
who  profanes  that  name  profanes  a  sacred  thing,  aaid 
is  guilty  of  what  is,  in  reality,  a  sacrilege.  To  use 
it  with  respect  and  piety  is  an  act  of  religion  which 
honors  God.  Men  use  and  abuse  this  holy  name,  and 
first  of  all,  by  swearing,  that  is,  by  taking  oaths. 

In  the  early  history  of  mankind,  we  are  told, 
swearing  was  unknown.  Men  were  honest,  could 
trust  each  other  and  take  each  other's  word.  But 
when  duplicity,  fraud  and  deception  rose  out  of  the 
currupt  heart  of  man,  when  sincerity  disappeared, 
then  confidence  disappeared  also,  no  man's  word  was 
any  longer  good.  Then  it  was  that,  in  order  to  put 
an  end  to  their  differences,  they  called  upon  God  by 


128  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

name  to  witness  the  truth  of  what  they  affirmed.  They 
substituted  God's  unquestioned  veracity  for  their  own 
questioned  veracity,  and  incidentally  paid  homage  to 
His  truth;  God  went  security  for  man.  Necessity 
therefore  made  man  swear;  oaths  became  a  substitute 
for  honesty. 

A  reverent  use  of  the  name  of  God,  for  a  lawful 
purpose,  cannot  be  wrong ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  good, 
being  a  public  recognition  of  the  greatest  of  God's 
attributes — truth.  But  like  all  good  things  it  is  liable 
to  be  abused.  A  too  frequent  use  of  the  oath  will 
easily  lead  to  irreverence,  and  thence  to  perjury.  It  is 
against  this  danger,  rather  than  against  the  fact  itself 
of  swearing,  that  Christ  warns  us  in  a  text  that  seems 
at  first  blush  to  condemn  the  oath  as  evil.  The  common 
sense  of  mankind  has  always  given  this  interpretation 
to  the  words  of  Christ. 

An  oath,  therefore,  is  a  calling  upon  God  to 
witness  the  truth  of  what  we  say,  and  it  means  that 
we  put  our  veracity  on  a  par  with  His  and  make  Him 
shoulder  the  responsibility  of  truthfulness. 

To  take  an  oath  we  must  swear  by  God.  To 
swear  by  all  the  saints  in  the  calendar  would  not  make 
an  oath.  Properly  speaking,  it  is  not  even  sufficient 
to  simply  say:  "I  swear,"  we  must  use  the  name  of 
God.  In  this  matter,  we  first  consider  the  words.  Do 
they  signify  a  swearing,  by  God,  either  in  their  natural 
sense  or  in  their  general  acceptation?  Or  is  there  an 
intention  of  giving  them  this  signification?  In 
conscience  and  before  God,  it  is  only  when  there  is 
such  an  intention  that  there  is  a  formal  oath  and  one 
is  held  to  the  conditions  and  responsibilities  thereof. 

Bear  in  mind  that  we  are  here  dealing  for  the 
moment  solely  with  lawful  swearing.  There  are  such 
things  as  imprecation,  blasphemy,  and  general 
profanity,  of  which  there  will  be  question  later,  and 
which  have  this  in  common  with  the  oath,  that  they 
call  on  the  name  of  God;  the  difference  is  the  same 


SWEARING.  129 

that  exists  between  bad  and  good,  right  and  wrong. 
These  must  therefore  be  clearly  distinguished  from 
religious  and  legal  swearing. 

There  is  also  a  difference  between  a  religious 
and  a  legal  oath.  The  religious  oath  is  content  with 
searching  the  conscience  in  order  to  verify  the  sincerity 
or  insincerity  of  the  swearer.  If  one  really  intends  to 
swear  by  God  to  a  certain  statement,  and  employs 
certain  words  to  express  his  intention,  he  is  considered 
religiously  to  have  taken  an  oath.  If  he  pronounces 
a  formula  that  expresses  an  oath,  without  the  intention 
of  swearing,  then  he  has  sworn  to  nothing.  He  has 
certainly  committed  a  sin,  but  there  is  no  oath.  Again, 
if  a  man  does  not  believe  in  God,  he  cannot  swear  by 
Him;  and  in  countries  where  God  is  repudiated,  all 
attempts  at  administering  oaths  are  vain  and  empty. 
You  cannot  call,  to  attest  the  truth  of  your  words, 
a  being  that  does  not  exist,  and  for  him  who  does  not 
believe  in  God,  He  does  not  exist. 

The  purely  legal  oath  considers  the  fact  and 
supposes  the  intention.  If  you  swear  without 
deliberation,  then,  with  you  lies  the  burden  of  proving 
it ;  since  the  law  will  allow  it  only  on  evidence  and 
will  hold  you  bound  until  such  evidence  is  shown. 
When  a  person  is  engaged  in  a  serious  affair,  he  is 
charitably  supposed  to  know  what  he  is  talking  about ; 
if  it  happens  that  he  does  not,  then  so  much  the  worse 
for  him.  In  the  case  of  people  who  protest  beforehand 
that  they  are  infidels  or  agnostics,  or  who  being 
sworn  on  the  New  Testament,  disclaim  all  belief  in 
Christ,  there  is  nothing  to  be  done,  except  it  be  to 
allow  them  to  attest  by  the  blood  of  a  rooster  or  by 
the  Great  Horn  Spoon.  Then,  whatever  way  they; 
swear,  there  is  no  harm  done. 


CHAPTER  XXXVII. 
OATHS. 

THE  first  quality  of  an  oath  is  that  it  be  true.  It 
is  evident  that  every  statement  we  make,  whether 
simple  or  sworn,  must  be  true.  If  we  affirm  what 
we  know  to  be  false  we  lie,  if  we  swear  to  what  we 
know  to  be  false,  we  perjure  ourselves.  Perjury 
is  a  sacrilegious  falsehood,  and  the  first  sin  against 
the  Second  Commandment. 

If,  while  firmly  believing  it  to  be  true,  what  we 
swear  to  happens  to  be  false,  we  are  not  guilty  of 
perjury,  for  the  simple  reason  that  our  moral  certitude 
places  us  in  good  faith,  and  good  faith  guarantees  us 
against  offending.  The  truth  we  proclaim  under  oath 
is  relative  not  absolute,  subjective  rather  than 
objective,  that  is  to  say,  the  statement  we  make  is 
true  as  far  as  we  are  in  a  position  to  know.  All  this 
holds  good  before  the  bar  of  conscience,  but  it  may 
be  otherwise  in  the  courts  where  something  more  than 
personal  convictions,  something  more  akin  to  scientific 
knowledge,  is  required. 

He  who  swears  without  sufficient  certitude, 
without  a  prudent  examination  of  the  facts  of  the 
question,  through  ignorance  that  must  be  imputed  to 
his  guilt,  that  one  takes  a  rash  oath — a  sin  great  or 
small  according  to  the  gravity  of  the  circumstances. 
It  is  not  infrequently  grievous. 

Some  oaths,  instead  of  being  statements,  are  prom 
ises,  sworn  promises.  That  of  which  we  call  God  to 
witness  the  truth  is  not  something  that  is,  but  some 
thing  that  will  be.  If  one  promises  under  oath,  and  has 
no  intention  of  redeeming  his  pledge;  or  if  he  after- 


OATHS.  131 

wards  revokes  such  an  intention  without  serious  rea 
sons,  and  fails  to  make  good  his  sworn  promise,  he  sins 
grievously,  for  he  makes  a  fool  and  a  liar  of  Almighty 
God  who  acts  as  sponsor  of  a  false  pledge.  Concerning 
temperance  pledges,  it  may  here  be  said  that  they  are 
simple  promises  made  to  God,  but  not  being  sworn  to, 
are  not  oaths  in  any  sense  of  the  word. 

Then,  again,  to  be  lawful,  an  oath  must  be 
necessary  or  useful,  demanded  by  the  glory  of  God, 
our  own  or  our  neighbor's  good;  and  it  must  be 
possible  to  fulfil  the  promise  within  the  given  time. 
Otherwise,  we  trifle  with  a  sacred  thing,  we  are  guilty 
of  taking  vain  and  unnecessary  oaths.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  but  that  this  is  highly  offensive  to  God,  who 
is  thus  made  little  of  in  His  holy  name. 

This  is  the  most  frequent  offense  against  the 
Second  Commandment,  the  sin  of  profane  swearing, 
the  calling  upon  God  to  witness  the  truth  of  every 
second  word  we  utter.  It  betrays  in  a  man  a  very 
weak  sense  of  his  own  honesty  when  he  cannot  let  his 
words  stand  for  themselves.  It  betokens  a.  blasphemous 
disrespect  for  God  Himself,  represented  by  that  name 
which  is  made  a  convenient  tool  to  further  every 
vulgar  end.  It  is  therefore  criminal  and  degrading, 
and  the  guilt  thereby  incurred  cannot  be  palliated  by 
the  plea  of  habit.  A  sin  is  none  the  less  a  sin  because 
it  is  one  of  a  great  matty.  Vice  is  criminal.  The 
victim  of  a  vice  can  be  considered  less  guilty  only  on 
condition  of  seriously  combating  that  vice.  Failing 
in  this,  he  must  bear  the  full  burden  of  his  guilt. 

Are  we  bound  to  keep  our  oaths?  If  valid,  we 
certainly  are.  An  oath  is  valid  when  the  matter  thereof 
is  not  forbidden  or  illicit.  The  matter  is  illicit  when 
the  statement  or  promise  we  make  is  contrary  to  right. 
He  who  binds  himself  under  oath  to  do  evil,  not  only 
does  not  sin  in  fulfiling  his  pledge,  but  would  sin 
if  he  did  redeem  it.  The  sin  he  thus  commits  may  be 


132  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

mortal  or  venial  according  to  the  gravity  of  the  matter 
of  the  oath.  He  sinned  in  taking  the  oath;  he  sins 
more  grievously  in  keeping  it. 

The  binding  force  of  an  oath  is  also  destroyed  by 
fraud  and  deception.  Fear  may  have  a  kindred  effect, 
if  it  renders  one  incapable  of  a  human  act.  Likewise  a 
former  oath  may  annul  a  subsequent  oath  under  certain 
conditions. 

Again,  no  man  in  taking  an  oath  intends  to  bind 
himself  to  anything  physically  or  morally  impossible, 
or  forbidden  by  his  superiors ;  he  expects  that  his 
promise  will  be  accepted  by  the  other  party,  that  all 
things  will  remain  unchanged,  that  the  other  party  will 
keep  faith,  and  that  there  will  be  no  grave  reason  for 
him  to  change  his  mind.  In  the  event  of  any  of  these 
conditions  failing  of  fulfilment  his  intention  is  not  to 
be  held  by  his  sworn  word,  and  his  oath  is  considered 
invalidated.  He  is  to  be  favored  in  all  doubts  and  is 
held  only  to  the  strict  words  of  his  promise. 

The  least  therefore  we  have  to  do  with  oaths,  the 
better.  They  are  things  too  sacred  to  trifle  with. 
When  necessity  demands  it,  let  our  swearing  honor 
the  Almighty  by  the  respect  we  show  His  holy  name. 


CHAPTER  XXXVIII. 
VOWS. 

Vows  are  less  common  than  oaths,  and  this  is 
something  to  be  thankful  for,  since  being  even  more 
sacred  than  oaths,  their  abuse  incidental  to  frequent 
usage  would  be  more  abominable.  The  fact  that  men 
so  far  respect  the  vow  as  to  entirely  leave  it  alone 
when  they  feel  unequal  to  the  task  of  keeping  it 


vows.  133 

inviolate,  is  a  good  sign — creditable  to  themselves  and 
honorable  to  God. 

People  ha-ve  become  accustomed  to  looking  upon 
vows  as  the  exclusive  monopoly  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  her  religious  men  and  women.  Such  things  are 
rarely  met  with  outside  monasteries  and  convents, 
except  in  the  case  of  secular  priests.  Tis  true,  one 
hears  tell  occasionally  of  a  stray  unfortunate  who  has 
broken  away  from  a  state  voluntarily,  deliberately, 
chosen  and  entered  upon,  and  who  struggles  through 
life  with  a  violated  vow  saddled  upon  him.  But  one 
does  not  associate  the  sacred  and  heroic  character  of 
the  vow  with  such  pitiable  specimens  of  moral  worth. 

The  besom  of  Protestant  reform  thought  to  sweep 
all  vows  off  the  face  of  the  earth,  as  immoral,  unlawful, 
unnatural  or,  at  least,  useless  things.  The  first  Coryphei 
broke  theirs ;  and  having  lea-rned  from  experience  what 
troublesome  things  they  are,  instiled  into  their  follow 
ers  a  salutary  distaste  for  these  solemn  engagements 
that  one  can  get  along  so  well  without.  From  disliking 
them  in  themselves,  they  came  to  dislike  them  in  others, 
and  it  has  come  to  this  that  the  Church  has  been 
obliged  to  defend  against  the  charge  of  immorality  an 
institution  that  alone  makes  perfection  possible. 
Strange,  this !  More  sad  than  strange. 

First  of  all,  what  is  a  vow?  It  is  a  deliberate 
promise  made  to  God  by  which  we  bind  ourselves  to  do 
something  good  that  is  more  pleasing  to  Him  than  its 
omission  would  be.  It  differs  from  a  promissory  oath 
in  this,  that  an  oath  makes  God  a  witness  of  a  promise 
made  to  a  third  party,  while  in  a  vow  there  is  no  third 
party,  the  promise  being  made  directly  to  God.  In  a 
violated  oath,  we  break  faith  with  man ;  in  a  broken 
vow,  we  are  faithless  to  God.  The  vow  is  more 
intimate  than  the  oath,  and  although  sometimes  the 
words  are  taken  one  for  the  other,  in  meaning  they 
are  widely  different. 

Resolutions  or  purposes,  such  as  we  make  in  con- 


134  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

fession  never  to  sin  again,  or  in  moments  of  fervor  to 
perform  works  of  virtue,  are  not  vows.  A  promise 
made  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  or  the  saints  is  not  at  vow ; 
it  must  be  made  directly  to  God  Himself. 

A  promise  made  to  God  to  avoid  mortal  sin  is  not 
a  vow,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word ;  or  rather  such  a 
promise  is  outside  the  ordinary  province  of  the  vow, 
which  naturally  embraces  works  of  supererogation  and 
counsel.  It  is  unnecessary  and  highly  imprudent  to 
make  such  promises  under  vow.  A  promise  to  commit 
sin  is  a  blasphemous  outrage.  If  what  we  promise  to 
do  is  something  indifferent,  vain  and  useless,  opposed 
to  evangelical  counsels  or  generally  less  agreeable  to 
God  than  the  contrary,  our  promise  is  null  and  void  as 
far  as  the  having  the  character  of  a  vow  is  concerned. 

Of  course,  in  taking  a*  vow  we  must  know  what 
we  are  doing  and  be  free  to  act  or  not  to  act.  If  then 
the  object  of  the  vow  is  matter  on  which  a  vow  may 
validly  be  taken,  we  are  bound  in  conscience  to  keep 
our  solemn  engagement.  What  we  forbid  ourselves  to 
do  may  be  perfectly  lawful  and  innocent,  but  by  that 
vow  we  forfeit  the  right  we  had  to  do  it,  and  for  us  it 
has  become  sinful.  The  peculiar  position  in  which  a 
vow  places  a  man  in  relation  to  his  fellow-men  concern 
ing  what  is  right  and  wrong,  is  the  characteristic  of  the 
vow  that  makes  it  the  object  of  much  attention.  But 
it  requires  something  lacking  in  the  outfit  of  an  intelli 
gent  man  to  perceive  therein  anything  that  savors  of 
the  unnatural,  the  unlawful  or  the  immoral. 

Concerning  those  whom  a  vow  has  constituted  in 
a  profession,  we  shall  have  a  word  to  say  later.  Right 
here  the  folly,  to  say  nothing  stronger,  of  those  who 
contract  vows  without  thinking,  must  be  apparent  to 
all.  No  one  should  dare  take  upon  himself  or  herself 
such  a  burden  of  his  or  her  own  initiative.  It  is  an 
affair  that  imperiously  demands  the  services  of  an 
outside,  disinterested,  experienced  party,  whose  pru- 


vows.  135 

dence  will  well  weigh  the  conditions  and  the  necessity 
of  such  a  step.  Without  this,  there  is  no  end  to  the 
possible  misery  and  dangers  the  taking  of  a  vow  may 
lead  to. 

If  through  an  act  of  unthinking  foolishness  or 
rash  presumption,  you  find  yourself  weighed  down 
with  the  incubus  of  a  vow  not  made  for  your  shoulders, 
the  only  way  out  is  to  make  a  clean  breast  of  the  matter 
to  your  confessor,  and  follow  his  directions. 


CHAPTER  XXXIX. 
THE  PROFESSIONAL  VOWS. 

THE  professional  vow  is  a  triple  one,  and  embraces 
the  three  great  evangelical  counsels  of  perfect  chastity, 
poverty  and  obedience.  The  cloister  is  necessary  for 
the  observance  of  such  engagements  as  these,  and  it 
were  easier  for  a  lily  to  flourish  on  the  banks  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  or  amid  the  fiery  blasts  of  the  Sahara,  than 
for  these  delicate  flowers  of  spirituality  to  thrive  in 
the  midst  of  the  temptations,  seductions  and  passions  of 
the  every  day  world  of  this  life.  Necessity  makes  a 
practice  of  these  virtues  a  profession. 

It  is  good  to  be  chaste,  good  to  be  obedient,  good 
to  be  voluntarily  poor.  What  folly,  then,  to  say  that 
it  is  unlawful  to  bind  oneself  by  promises  of  this  kind, 
since  it  is  lawful  to  be  good — the  only  thing  that  is 
lawful !  It  is  not  unlawful,  if  you  will,  to  possess  riches, 
to  enjoy  one's  independence,  to  wed  ;  but  there  is  virtue 
in  foregoing  these  pleasures,  and  virtue  is  better  than 
its  defect,  and  it  is  no  more  unlawful  to  do  better  than 
to  do  good. 


136  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

If  it  is  lawful  to  contract  a  solemn  engagement 
with  man,  why  not  with  God?  If  it  is  lawful  for  a 
short  time,  why  not  for  a  long  time  ?  If  it  is  lawful  for 
two  years,  why  not  for  ten,  and  a  lifetime!  The 
engagement  is  no  more  unlawful  itself  than  that  to 
which  we  engage  ourselves. 

The  zealous  guardians  of  the  rights  of  man  protest 
that,  nevertheless,  vows  destroy  man's  liberty,  and 
should  therefore  be  forbidden,  and  the  profession 
suppressed.  It  is  along  this  line  that  the  governmental 
machine  is  being  run  in  France  at  present.  If  the  vow 
destroys  liberty,  these  fanatics  are  doing  what  appears 
dangerously  near  being  the  same  thing. 

There  is  a  decided  advantage  in  being  your  own 
slave-master  over  having  another  perform  that  service 
for  you.  If  I  do  something  which  before  God  and  my 
conscience  I  have  a  perfect  right  to  do,  if  I  do  it  with 
deliberate  choice  and  affection,  it  is  difficult  to  see 
wherein  my  liberty  suffers.  Again,  if  I  decide  not  to 
marry — a  right  that  every  man  certainly  has — and  in 
this  situation  engage  myself  by  vow  to  observe  perfect 
chastity — which  I  must  do  to  retain  the  friendship  of 
God — I  do  not  see  how  I  forfeit  my  liberty  by  swearing 
away  a  right  I  never  had. 

In  all  cases,  the  more  difficult  an  enterprise  a  man 
enters  upon  and  pursues  to  a  final  issue,  the  more  fully 
he  exercises  his  faculty  of  free  will.  And  since  the 
triple  vow  supposes  nothing  short  of  heroism  in  those 
who  take  it,  it  follows  that  they  must  use  the  very 
plenitude  of  their  liberty  to  make  the  thing  possible. 

The  "cui  bono"  is  the  next  formidable  opponent 
the  vow  has  to  contend  with.  What's  the  good  of  it? 
Where  is  the  advantage  in  leading  such  an  impossible 
existence  when  a  person  can  save  his  soul  without  it? 
All  are  not  damned  who  refuse  to  take  vows.  Is  it  not 
sufficient  to  be  honest  men  and  women  ? 

That  depends  upon  what  you  mean  by  an  honest 


THE  PROFESSIONAL  VOWS.  137 

man,  A  great  saint  once  said  that  an  honest  man 
would  certainly  not  be  hanged,  but  that  it  was  by  no 
means  equally  certain  that  he  would  not  be  damned. 
A  man  may  do  sundry  wicked  and  crooked  things  and 
not  forfeit  his  title  to  be  called  honest.  The  majority 
of  Satan's  subjects  were  probably  honest  people  in  their 
day. 

The  quality  of  being:  an  honest  man,  according  to 
many  people,  consists  in  having  the  privilege  of  doing 
a  certain  amount  of  wickedness  without  prejudice  to 
his  eternal  salvation.  The  philosohy  of  this  class  of 
people  is  summed  up  in  these  words  :  "  Do  little  and  get 
much ;  make  a  success  of  life  from  the  standpoint  of 
your  own  selfishness,  and  then  sneak  into  heaven 
almost  by  stealth  and  fraud."  That  is  one  way  of 
doing  business  with  the  Lord.  But,  there  are  greater 
things  in  heaven  and  on  earth  than  are  dreamt  of  in 
your  philosophy,  Horatio. 

Human  natures  differ  as  much  as  pebbles  on  the 
sea  shore.  One  man's  meat  has  often  proven  poison 
to  another.  In  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  there  is 
something  more  than  the  Commandments  given  to 
Moses.  Love  of  God  has  degrees  of  intensity  a-nd 
perfection.  Such  words  as  sacrifice,  mortification,  self- 
denial  have  a  meaning  as  they  have  always  had.  God 
gives  more  to  some,  less  to  others;  He  demands 
corresponding  returns.  These  are  things  Horatio 
ignores.  Yet  they  are  real,  real  as  his  own  empty  and 
conceited  wisdom. 


CHAPTER  XL. 
THE  PROFESSION. 

ONE  of  the  advantages  of  the  monastic  life, 
created  by  vows,  is  that  it  is  wholly  in  keeping  with 
human  nature  such  as  God  created  it.  Men  differ 
in  their  spiritual  complexion  more  widely  even  than 
they  do  in  mental  caliber  and  physical  make-up.  All 
are  not  fitted  by  character  and  general  condition  for 
the  same '"career;  we  are  "cut  out"  for  our  peculiar 
tasks.  It  is  the  calling  of  one  to  be  a  soldier,  of 
another  to  be  a  statesman,  because  each  is  best  fitted 
by  nature  for  this  particular  walk  of  life.  The  born 
poet,  if  set  to  put  together  a  machine,  will,  in  the 
majority  of  cases,  make  a  sorry  mess  of  the  job,  and 
a  bricklayer  will  usually  prove  to  be  an  indifferent 
story-writer. 

So  also  one  is  called  to  be  a  good  Christian,  while 
his  brother  may  be  destined  for  a  more  perfect  life.  If 
there  are  vocations  in  the  natural  life,  why  should 
there  not  be  in  the  supernatural,  which  is  just  as  truly 
a  life?  If  variety  of  aptitudes  and  likes  determine 
difference  of  calling,  why  should  this  not  hold  good 
for  the  soul  as  well  as  for  the  body  and  mind  ?  If  one 
should  always  follow  the  bent  of  one's  legitimately 
natural  inclinations,  no  fault  can  reasonably  be  found 
if  another  hearkens  to  the  voice  of  his  soul's  aspirations 
and  elect  a  career  in  harmony  with  his  nature. 

There  are  two  roads  on  which  all  men  must  travel 
to  their  destiny.  One  is  called  the  way  of  Precept, 
the  other  the  way  of  Counsel.  In  each  the  advantages 
and  inconveniences  are  about  equally  balanced.  The 
former  is  wide  and  level  with  many  joys  and  pleasures 
along  the  way;  but  there  are  many  pitfalls  and 


THE  PROFESSION.  139 

stumbling  blocks,  while  on  one  side  is  a  high,  steep 
precipice  over  which  men  fall  to  their  eternal  doom. 
Those  destined  by  Providence  to  go  over  this  road  are 
spiritually  shod  for  the  travel ;  if  they  slip  and  tumble, 
it  is  through  their  own  neglect 

Some  there  are  to  whom  it  has  been  shown  by 
experience — very  little  sometimes  suffices — that  they 
have,  for  reasons  known  alone  to  God,  been  denied 
the  shoe  that  does  not  slip ;  and  that  if  they  do  not 
wish  to  go  over  the  brink,  they  must  get  off  the 
highway  and  follow  a*  path  removed  from  this  danger, 
a  path  not  less  difficult  but  more  secure  for  them. 
Their  salvation  depends  on  it.  This  inside  path,  while 
it  insures  safety  for  these,  might  lead  the  others  astray. 
Each  in  his  respective  place  will  be  saved;  if  they 
exchange  places,  they  are  lost. 

Then  again,  if  you  will  look  at  it  from  another 
standpoint,  there  remains  still  on  earth  such  a  thing 
as  love  of  God,  pure  love  of  God.  And  this  love  can 
be  translated  into  acts  and  life.  Love,  as  all  well 
know,  has  its  degrees  of  intensity  and  perfection.  All 
well-born  children  love  their  parents,  but  they  do  not 
all  love  them  in  the  same  degree.  Some  are  by  nature 
more  affectionate,  some  appreciate  favors  better,  some 
receive  more  and  know  that  more  is  expected  of  them. 

In  like  manner,  we  who  are  all  children  of  the 
Great  Father  are  not  all  equally  loving  and  generous. 
What  therefore  is  more  natural  than  that  some  should 
choose  to  give  themselves  up  heart,  soul  and  body 
to  the  exclusive  service  of  God?  What  is  there 
abnormal  in  the  fact  that  they  renounce  the  world 
and  all  its  joys  and  legitimate  pleasures,  fast,  pray  and 
keep  vigil,  through  pure  love  of  God?  There  is  only 
one  thing  they  fear,  and  that  is  to  offend  God.  By 
their  vows  they  put  this  misfortune  without  the  pale 
of  possibility,  as  far  as  such  a  thing  can  be  done  by  a 
creature  endowed  with  free  will. 

Of  course  there  are  those  for  whom  all  this  is 
unmitigated  twaddle  and  bosh.  To  mention 


I4O  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

abnegation,  sacrifice,  etc.,  to  such  people  is  to  speak 
in  a  language  no  more  intelligible  than  Sanskrit. 
Naturally  one  of  these  will  expect  his  children  to 
appreciate  the  sacrifices  he  makes  for  their  happiness, 
but  with  God  they  think  it  must  be  different. 

There  was  once  a  young  man  who  was  rich.  He 
had  never  broken  the  Commandments  of  God. 
Wondering  if  he  had  done  enough  to  be  saved,  he 
came  to  the  Messiah  and  put  the  question  to  Him. 
The  answer  he  received  was,  that,  if  he  were  sinless, 
he  had  done  well,  but  that  there  was  a  sanctity,  not 
negative  but  positive,  which  if  he  would  acquire,  would 
betoken  in  him  a  charity  becoming  a  follower  of  a- 
Crucified  God.  Christ  called  the  youne  man  to  a  life 
of  perfection.  "If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go,  sell  what 
thou  hast,  give  to  the  poor,  then  come,  and  follow 
me."  It  is  not  known  whether  this  invitation  was 
accepted  by  the  young  man ;  but  ever  since  then  it  has 
been  the  joy  of  men  and  women  in  the  Catholic  Church 
to  accept  it,  and  to  give  up  all  in  order  to  serve  the 
Maker. 

Scoffers  and  revilers  of  monasticism  are  a 
necessary  evil.  Being  given  the  course  of  nature  that 
sometimes  runs  to  freaks,  they  must  exist.  Living, 
they  must  talk,  and  talking  they  must  utter  ineptitudes. 
People  always  do  when  they  discourse  on  things  they 
do  not  comprehend.  But  let  this  be  our  consolation: 
monks  are  immortal.  They  were,  they  are,  they  ever 
shall  be.  All  else  is  grass. 


CHAPTER  XLI. 
THE  RELIGIOUS. 

OWING  to  the  disturbance  over  things  religious  in 
France,  vows  and  those  who  exemplify  them  in  their 


THE  RELIGIOUS.  141 

lives  are  receiving  of  late  a  large  share  of  public 
attention.  On  this  topic,  it  seems,  every  one  is 
qualified  to  speak;  all  sorts  of  opinions  have  been 
ventilated  in  the  religious,  the  non-religious,  and  the 
irreligious  press,  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  are 
interested  in  this  pitiful  spasm  of  Gallic  madness 
against  the  Almighty  and  His  Church.  The  measure 
of  unparalleled  tyranny  a<nd  injustice,  in  which 
antipathy  to  religious  orders  has  found  expression, 
is  being  favorably  and  unfavorably  commented  upon. 
But  since  monks,  friars  and  nuns  seldom  find  favor 
with  the  non  Catholic  world,  the  general  verdict  is 
that  the  religious,  like  the  anarchist,  must  go ;  society 
is  afraid  of  both  and  is  safe  from  neither. 

To  Catholics  who  understand  human  nature  and 
have  read  history,  this  condition  of  things  is  not 
surprising ;  it  is,  we  might  venture  to  say,  the  normal 
state  of  mind  in  relation  to  things  so  intensely  Catholic 
a-s  religious  vows.  Antagonism  against  monasticism 
was  born  the  day  Luther  decided  to  take  a  wife ;  and 
as  long  as  that  same  spirit  lingers  on  earth  we  shall 
expect  this  antagonism  to  thrive  and  prosper.  Not 
only  that,  but  we  shall  never  expect  the  religious  to 
get  a  fair  hearing  for  their  cause.  The  hater,  open  or 
covert,  of  the  habit  and  cowl  is  whole-souled  or 
nothing  in  his  convictions.  And  he  believes  the  devil 
should  be  fought  with  his  own  weapons. 

We  do  not  expect  all  men  to  think  as  we  do 
concerning  the  merits  of  the  religious  profession.  To 
approve  it  without  restriction  would  be  to  approve  the 
Church.  To  find  no  wrong  in  it  would  be  indicative 
of  a  dangerous  Romish  tendency.  And  we  are  not 
prepared  to  assert  that  any  such  symptoms  exist  to  an 
alarming  extent  in  those  who  expatiate  on  religious 
topics  these  latter  days.  There  will  be  differences  of 
opinion  on  this  score,  as  on  many  others,  and  one 
fellow's  opinion  is  as  good,  to  himself,  as  another's. 

There  are  even  objections,  to  many  a<n  honest 
man,  serious  objections,  that  may  be  brought  up  and 


142  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

become  legitimate  matter  for  discussion.  We  take  it 
for  granted  that  intelligent  men  do  not  oppose  an 
institution  as  venerable  as  monasticism  without  reasons. 
Contention  between  people  who  respect  intelligence  is 
always  based  on  what  has  at  least  a  semblance  of  truth, 
and  has  for  its  object  to  detect  reality  and  label  it  as 
distinct  from  appearance. 

We  go  farther,  and  admit  that  there  have  been 
abuses  in  this  system  of  perfection,  abuses  that  we 
were  the  first  to  detect,  the  first  to  deplore  and  feel 
the  shame  of  it.  But  before  we  believed  it,  we 
investigated  and  made  sure  it  was  so.  We  found  out 
very  often  that  the  accusations  were  false.  Scan 
dalmongers  and  dishonest  critics  noted  the  charges, 
but  forgot  to  publish  the  verdict,  and  naturally  with 
the  public  these  charges  stand.  No  wonder  then  that 
such  tales  breed  antipathy  and  hatred  among  those 
who  are  not  in  position  to  control  facts. 

A  queer  feature  about  this  is  that  people  do  not 
give  religious  credit  for  being  human.  That  they 
are  flesh  and  blood,  all  agree ;  that  they  should  err,  is 
preposterous.  A  hue-and-cry  goes  up  when  it  becomes 
known  that  one  of  these  children  of  Adam  has  paid 
the  penalty  of  being  human.  One  would  think  an 
angel  had  fallen  from  heaven.  We  notice  in  this 
attitude  an  unconscious  recognition  of  the  sanctity  of 
the  religious  state;  but  we  see  behind  it  a  Pharisaic 
spirit  that  exaggerates  evil  at  the  expense  of  justice. 

Now,  if  the  principle  that  abuse  destroys  use  is 
applied  to  all  things,  nothing  will  remain  standing, 
and  the  best  will  go  first.  Corruptio  optimi  pessima. 
Everything  human  is  liable  to  abuse ;  that  which  is  not, 
is  divine.  Religious  and  laymen,  mortals  all,  the  only 
time  it  is  beyond  our  power  to  do  wrong  is  when  we 
are  dead,  buried,  and  twenty-four  hours  underground. 
If  in  life  we  make  mistakes,  the  fault  lies,  not  in  our 
being  of  this  or  that  profession,  but  in  being  human. 
Whatever,  therefore,  the  excesses  that  religious  can  be 
proven  guilty  of,  the  institution  itself  must  not  be  held 


THE    RELIGIOUS.  143 

responsible,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  there  exists  a 
relation  of  cause  and  effect.  And  whoever  reasons 
otherwise,  abuses  the  intelligence  of  his  listeners. 

We  desire,  in  the  name  of  honesty  and  fairness, 
to  see  less  of  that  spirit  that  espies  all  manner  of  ev'l 
beneath  the  habit  of  a  religious;  that  discovers  in 
convents  and  monasteries  plotting  against  the  State 
in  favor  of  the  Papacy,  the  accumulation  of  untold 
wealth  by  oppression  and  extortion  for  the  satisfaction 
of  laziness  and  lust,  iniquity  of  the  deepest  dye  allied 
to  general  worthlessness.  Common  sense  goes  a  long 
way  in  this  world.  If  it  were  only  a  less  rare 
commodity,  and  if  an  effective  tribunal  could  be 
erected  for  the  suppression  of  mendacity,  the  religious 
would  appear  for  the  first  time  in  history  in  their 
true  colors  before  the  world,  and  light  would  shine  in 
darkness. 


CHAPTER  XLII. 
THE  VOW  OF  POVERTY. 

ONE  objection  to  the  vow  of  poverty  that 
has  a  serious  face  on  it,  and  certainly  looks  wicked, 
is  that  it  does  not  prevent  the  accumulation  of  great 
wealth,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  cases  of  the  Philippine 
Friars  and  the  French  orders.  This  is  one  difficulty ; 
here  is  another  and  quite  different:  the  wealth  of  the 
religious  is  excessive,  detrimental  to  the  well-being  of 
the  people  and  a  menace  to  the  State.  Taken 
separately,  it  is  easy  to  dispose  of  these  charges  and 
to  explain  them  away.  But  if  you  put  them  together 
in  one  loose,  vague,  general  imputation  of  avarice, 
extortion  and  injustice,  and  hurl  the  same  at  a  person 
unable  to  make  distinctions,  the  shock  is  apt  to 
disconcert  him  for  a  moment. 


144  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

The  first  indictment  seems  to  hint  at  a 
contradiction,  or  at  least  an  incompatibility,  between 
the  profession  of  poverty  and  the  fact  of  possessing 
wealth.  We  claim  that  the  one  does  not  affect  the 
other,  that  a  religious  may  belong  to  a  rich  order  and 
still  keep  his  vow  inviolate.  The  vow  in  the  religious 
is  individual  and  personal ;  the  riches  collective.  It  is 
the  physical  person  that  is  poor;  the  moral  being  has 
the  wealth.  Men  may  club  together,  put  their  means 
into  a  common  fund,  renounce  all  personal  claim 
thereto,  live  on  a  meagre  revenue  and  employ  the 
surplus  for  various  purposes  other  than  their  needs. 
The  personal  poverty  of  such  as  these  is  real. 

This  is  the  case  of  the  religious.  Personally  they 
do  not  own  the  clothes  on  their  backs.  The  necessaries 
of  life  are  furnished  them  out  of  a  common  fund. 
What  remains,  goes  through  their  hands  for  the  glory 
of  God  and  in  charity  to  fellow-man.  The  employ 
ment  to  which  these  men  devote  their  lives,  such  as 
prayer,  charity,  the  maintenance  and  conducting  of 
schools  and  hospitals,  is  not  lucrative  to  any  great 
extent.  And  since  very  few  Orders  resort  to  begging, 
the  revenue  from  capital  is  the  only  means  of  assuring 
existence.  It  is  therefore  no  more  repugnant  for 
religious  to  depend  on  funded  wealth  than  it  was  for 
the  Apostolic  College  to  have  a  common  purse.  The 
secret  reason  for  this  condition  of  things  is  that  works 
of  zeal  rarely  yield  abundant  returns,  and  man  cannot 
live  on  the  air  of  heaven. 

As  to  the  extent  of  such  wealth  and  its  dangers, 
it  would  seem  that  if  it  be  neither  ill  gotten  nor 
employed  for  illegitimate  purposes,  in  justice  and 
equity,  there  cannot  be  two  opinions  on  the  subject. 
Every  human  being  has  a  right  to  the  fruit  of  his 
industry  and  activity.  To  deny  this  is  to  advocate 
extreme  socialism  and  anarchy  and,  he  who  puts  this 
doctrine  into  practice,  destroys  the  principle  on  which 
society  rests.  The  law  that  strikes  at  religious 
corporations  whose  wealth  accrues  from  centuries  of 


THE   VOW   OF   POVERTY.  145 

toil  and  labor,  may  to-morrow  consistently  confiscate 
the  goods  and  finances  of  every  other  corporation  in 
the  realm.  If  you  force  the  religious  out  of  land  and 
home,  why  not  force  Morgan,  Rockefeller  &  Co.,  out 
of  theirs !  The  justice  in  one  case  is  as  good  as  in  the 
other. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  people  suffer  from 
accumulated  wealth,  the  revenues  from  which  are 
almost  entirely  devoted  to  the  relief  of  misery  and  the 
instruction  of  the  ignorant.  The  people  are  the  sole 
beneficiaries.  There  is  here  none  of  the  arrogance 
and  selfishness  that  usually  characterize  the  possession 
of  wealth  to  the  embitterment  of  misery  and 
misfortune.  The  religious,  by  their  vow  and  their 
means,  can  share  the  condition  of  the  poor  and  relieve 
it.  If  there  is  any  institution  better  calculated  to 
promote  the  well-being  of  the  common  people,  it 
should  be  put  to  work.  When  the  moneyed  combi 
nations  whose  rights  are  respected,  show  themselves 
as  little  prejudicial  to  the  welfare  of  the  classes,  the 
religious  will  be  prepared  to  go  out  of  existence. 

Everyone  is  inclined  to  accept  as  true  the 
statement,  on  record  as  official,  that  the  wealth  of  the 
Religious  Orders  in  France  is  at  the  bottom  of  the 
trouble.  We  are  not  therefore  a  little  astonished  to 
learn  from  other  sources  that  it  is  rather  their  poverty, 
which  is  burdensome  to  the  people.  The  religious 
are  not  too  rich,  but  too  poor.  They  cannot  support 
themselves,  and  live  on  the  enforced  charity  of  the 
laborer.  French  parents,  not  being  equal  to  the  task 
of  maintaining  monasteries  and  supporting  large 
families,  limited  the  number  of  their  children.  The 
population  fell  off  in  consequence.  The  government 
came  to  the  relief  of  the  people  and  cast  out  the 
religious. 

And  here  we  have  the  beautiful  consistency  of 
those  who  believe  that  any  old  reason  is  better  than 
none  at  all.  The  religious  are  too  poor,  their  poverty 
is  a  burden  on  the  people;  the  religious  are  too  rich, 


146  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

their  riches  are  prejudicial  to  the  welfare  of  the  people. 
One  reason  is  good ;  two  are  better.  If  they  contradict, 
it  is  only  a  trifling  matter.  As  for  us,  we  don't  know 
quite  where  we  stand.  We  can  hear  well  enough, 
amid  the  din  of  denunciation,  the  conclusion  that  the 
religious  must  go;  but  we  cannot,  for  the  life  of  us, 
catch  the  why  and  wherefore.  Is  it  because  they  are 
too  poor?  or  because  they  are  too  rich?  or  because 
they  are  both?  We  might  be  justified  in  thinking: 
because  they  are  neither,  but  because  they  are  what 
they  are — religious,  devoted  to  the  Church  and 
champions  of  Her  cause.  This  reason  is  at  least  as 
good  as  the  two  that  contradict  and  destroy  each  other. 
In  this  sense,  is  monastic  poverty  a  bad  and  evil  thing ! 


CHAPTER  XLIII. 
THE  VOW  OF  OBEDIENCE. 

WHAT  kind  of  obedience  is  that  which  makes 
religious  "unwilling  to  acknowledge  any  superior  but 
the  Pope?"  We  have  been  confidently  informed  this 
is  the  ground  given  in  several  instances  for  their 
removal.  And  we  confess  that,  if  the  words 
"acknowledge"  and  "superior"  are  used  in  certain  of 
the  meanings  they  undoubtedly  have,  there  is  good 
and  sufficient  ground  for  such  removal.  At  the  same 
time  we  submit  that  the  foregoing  phrase  is  open  to 
different  interpretations  of  meaning,  several  of  which 
would  make  out  this  measure  of  repression  to  be  one 
of  rank  injustice. 

The  studied  misrule  and  abuse  of  language 
serves  a  detestable  purpose  that  is  only  too  evident. 
A  charge  like  the  above  is  true  and  false,  that  is  to 


THE  VOW  OF  OBEDIENCE.  147 

say,  it  is  neither  true  nor  false ;  it  says  nothing,  unless 
explained,  or  unless  you  make  it  say  what  you  wish. 
It  is  a  sure,  safe,  but  cowardly  way  of  destroying  an 
enemy  without  being  obliged  to  admit  the  guilt  to 
oneself. 

Now  the  religious,  and  Catholic  laity  as  well, 
never  think  of  acknowledging,  in  the  full  acceptation 
of  the  word,  any  other  spiritual  superior  than  the 
Pope,  and  there  can  be  nothing  in  this  deserving 
repression.  Again,  no  Catholic  may  consistently 
with  Catholic  principles,  refuse  to  accept  as  legitimate 
the  legally  constituted  authority  of  the  country  in 
which  he  resides.  As  to  a  man's  views  on  the  different 
forms  of  government,  that  is  nobody's  business  but 
his  own.  But  whether  he  approves  or  disapproves  in 
theory,  his  life  and  conduct  must  conform  with  the 
laws  justly  enacted  under  the  form  of  Government 
that  happens  to  be  accepted.  To  depart  from  this 
rule  is  to  go  counter  to  Catholic  teaching,  and  no 
religious  order  does  so  without  incurring  strict 
censure. 

The  vow  of  obedience  in  a  religious  respects 
Caesar  as  well  as  God.  It  cannot  validly  bind 
one  to  violate  the  laws  of  State  any  more  than  to  vio 
late  the  law  of  God.  This  vow  does  not  even  concern 
itself  with  civil  and  political  matters ;  by  it  the 
religious  alone  is  affected,  the  citizen  looks  out  for 
himself.  But  the  citizen  is  already  bound  by  his 
conscience  and  the  laws  of  the  Church  to  respect  and 
obey  lawful  authority. 

A  good  religious  is  a  good  citizen,  and  he  cannot 
be  the  former,  if  he  is  not  the  latter.  As  a  mere 
Catholic,  he  is  more  liable  to  be  always  found  on  the 
side  of  good  citizenship,  because  in  his  religion  he  is 
taught,  first  of  all,  to  respect  authority  on  which  all  his 
religious  convictions  are  based.  There  is  a  natural 
tendency  in  a  Protestant,  who  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  authority  in  spiritual  matters,  to  bring  this  state 
of  mind  over  with  him  into  temporary  affairs;  being 


14  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

self-willed  in  greater  things,  he  is  fore-inclined  to  be 
self-willed  in  lesser.  The  Catholic  and,  for  a  greater 
reason,  the  religious  knows  less  of  this  temptation; 
and  the  better  Catholic  and  religious  he  is,  the  farther 
removed  he  is  from  possible  revolt  against,  or  even 
disrespect  of,  authority. 

Against  but  one  Order  of  all  those  repressed  can 
the  charge  of  insubordination  be  brought  with  any 
show  of  truth.  The  Assumptionists  made  the  mistake 
of  thinking  that  they  could  with  impunity  criticise  the 
doings  of  the  Government,  just  as  it  is  done  in  Paris 
every  day  by  the  boulevard  press.  It  is  generally  con 
ceded  that,  considering  the  well-known  attitude  of  the 
Government  towards  the  order,  this  was  a  highly 
imprudent  course  for  a  religious  paper  to  pursue.  But 
their  right  to  do  so  is  founded  on  the  privilege  of  free 
speech.  It  takes  very  little  to  find  abuse  of  free  speech 
in  the  utterances  of  the  clergy  or  religious  in  France. 
They  are  safe  only  when  they  are  silent.  If  there 
were  less  docility  and  more  defiance  in  their  attitude, 
if  the  French  Catholics  relied  less  on  God  and  more  on 
man  for  redress,  they  would  receive  more  justice  than 
they  have  been  receiving. 

The  punishment  meted  out  to  the  religious  for  their 
insubordination  has  had,  we  are  told,  a  doleful  effect 
on  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope,  an  interesting 
patch  of  which  has  been  broken  up  by  the  new  French 
law.  It  is  a  mystery  to  us  how  this  law  can  affect  the 
temporal  power  of  the  Pope  any  more  than  the  politi 
cal  status  of  Timbuctoo.  It  is  passably  difficult  to 
make  an  impression  on  what  has  ceased  to  exist  these 
thirty  years.  We  thought  the  temporal  power  was 
dead.  This  bit  of  news  has  been  dinned  into  our  ears 
until  we  have  come  to  believe.  No  conference,  synod 
or  council  is  considered  by  our  dissenting  friends 
without  a  good  strong  sermon  on  this  topic.  Strange 
that  it  should  resurrect  just  in  time  to  lose  "an  inter 
esting  patch"  of  itself!  This  is  cruelty.  Why  not 
tespect  the  grave?  We  recommend  the  perusal  of  the 


THE  VOW  OF  OBEDIENCE.  149 

obituary  of  the  temporal  power  written  in  Italian 
politics  since  the  year  1870.  We  believe  the  tomb  is 
carefully  guarded. 


CHAPTER  XLIV. 
THE  VOW  OF  CHASTITY. 

RELIGIOUS  are  sometimes  called  celibates.  Now, 
a  celibate,  one  of  the  bachelor  persuasion,  is  a  person 
who  considers  himself  or  herself  good  enough 
company  in  this  life,  and  chooses  single  blessedness 
in  preference  to  the  not  unmixed  joys  of  wedlock. 
This  alone  is  sufficient  to  make  one  a  celibate,  and 
nothing  more  is  required.  Religious  do  not  wed ;  but, 
specifically,  that  is  all  there  is  in  common  between 
them.  All  celibates  are  not  chaste;  celibacy  is  not 
necessarily  chastity,  by  a  large  majority.  Unless 
something  other  than  selfishness  suggests  this  choice 
of  life,  the  word  is  apt  to  be  a  misnomer  for  profligacy. 
And  one  who  takes  the  vow  of  celibacy  does  not  break 
it  by  sinning  against  the  Sixth  Commandment ;  he  is 
true  to  it  until  he  weds.  The  religious  vow  is 
something  more  than  this. 

Again,  chastity,  by  itself,  does  not  properly 
designate  the  state  of  religious  men  and  women. 
Chastity  is  moral  purity,  but  purity  is  a  relative  term, 
and  admits  of  many  degrees.  It  is  perfect  or  imper 
fect.  There  is  a  conjugal  chastity;  while  in  single 
life,  it  may  concern  itself  with  the  body,  with  or 
without  reference  to  the  mind  and  heart.  Chastity 
reaches  its  highest  form  when  it  excludes  everything 
carnal,  what  is  lawful  as  well  as  what  is  unlawful, 
thoughts  and  desires  as  well  as  deeds. 


150  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

This  is  the  chastity  that  is  proper  to  religious,  and 
it  is  more  correctly  called  virginity.  This  is  the 
natural  state  of  spirits  who  have  no  bodies ;  cultivated 
in  the  frail  flesh  of  children  of  Adam,  it  is  the  most 
delicate  flower  imaginable.  Considering  the  incessant 
struggle  it  supposes  in  those  who  take  such  a  vow 
against  the  spirit  within  us  that  is  so  strong,  the  taking 
and  keeping  of  it  indicate  a  degree  of  fortitude  little 
short  of  heroism.  Only  the  few,  and  that  few  relying 
wholly  on  the  grace  of  God,  can  aspire  to  this  state. 

From  a  spiritual  point  of  view,  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  the  superiority  of  this  state  of  life  over 
all  others.  The  teaching  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians 
is  too  plain  to  need  any  comment,  not  to  mention  the 
example  of  Christ,  His  Blessed  Mother,  His  disciples 
and  all  those  who  in  the  course  of  time  have  loved  God 
best  and  served  Him  most  generously. 

Prescinding  from  all  spiritual  considerations  and 
looking  a-t  things  through  purely  human  eyes,  vows 
of  this  sort  must  appear  prejudicial  to  the  propagation 
of  the  species.  In  fact,  they  go  against  the  law  of 
nature  which  says:  increase  and  multiply,  so  we  are 
told. 

If  that  law  is  natural  as  well  as  positive,  it  is 
certain  that  it  applies  to  man  collectively,  and  not 
individually.  It  is  manifested  only  in  the  instinct 
that  makes  this  duty  a  pleasure.  Where  the  inclina 
tion  is  lacking,  the  obligation  is  not  obvious.  That 
which  is  repugnant  is  not  natural,  in  any  true  sense  of 
the  word ;  whether  this  repugnance  be  of  the  intellec 
tual  or  spiritual  order,  it  matters  not,  for  our  nature  is 
spiritual  as  truly  as  it  is  animal.  The  law  of  nature 
forces  no  man  into  a  state  that  is  not  in  harmony  with 
his  sympathies  and  affections. 

Nevertheless,  it  must  be  admitted  that  to  a  certain 
extent  the  race  suffers  numerically  from  an  institution 
that  fosters  abstention  from  marriage.  To  what 
extent,  is  an  entirely  different  question.  Not  all  lay 
men  marry.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  vast  majority  of 


THE  VOW  OF  CHASTITY.  15! 

religious  men,  vow  or  no  vow,  would  never  wed;  so 
that  the  vow  is  not  really  to  blame  for  their  state,  and 
the  consequences  thereof.  As  for  women,  statistics 
show  it  to  be  impossible  for  all  to  marry  since  their 
number  exceeds  that  of  men. 

Now,  marriage  with  the  fair  sex,  is  very  often  a 
matter  of  competition.  Talent,  beauty,  character, 
disposition  and  accomplishments  play  a  very  active 
role  in  the  acquisition  of  a  husband.  Considering  that 
the  chances  of  those  who  seek  refuge  under  the  veil 
are  not  of  the  poorest,  since  they  are  the  fairest  and 
best  endowed  of  our  daughters,  it  would  seem  to 
follow  that  their  act  is  a  charity  extended  to  their  less 
fortunate  sisters  who  are  thereby  aided  to  success, 
instead  of  being  doomed  to  failure  by  the  insufficiency 
of  their  own  qualifications. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  what  we  most  strenuously 
object  to,  is  that  vows  be  held  responsible  for  the  sins 
of  others.  In  some  countries  and  sections  of  countries, 
the  population  is  almost  stationary  in  marked  contrast 
to  that  of  others.  Looking  for  the  cause  for  this 
unnatural  phenomenon,  there  a-re  who  see  it  in  the 
spread  of  monasticism,  with  its  vow  of  chastity.  They 
fail  to  remark  that  not  numerous,  but  large  families 
are  the  best  sign  of  vigor  in  a  nation.  Impurity,  not 
chastity,  is  the  enemy  of  the  race.  Instead  of  warring 
against  those  whose  lives  are  pure,  why  not  destroy 
that  monster  that  is  gnawing  at  the  very  vitals  of  the 
race,  sapping  its  strength  at  the  very  font  of  life,  that 
modern  Moloch,  to  whom  fashionable  society  offers 
sacrifice  more  abominable  than  the  hecatombs  of 
Carthage.  This  iniquity,  rampant  wherever  the  sense 
of  God  is  absent,  and  none  other,  is  the  cause  which 
some  people  do  not  see  because  they  have  good  reasons 
for  not  wanting  to  see.  It  is  very  convenient  to  have 
someone  handy  to  accuse  of  one's  own  faults.  It  is 
too  bad  that  the  now  almost  extinct  race  of  Puritans 
did  not  have  a  few  monks  a«round  to  blame  for  the 


152  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

phenomenon  of  their  failure  to  keep  abreast  of  the 
race. 

If  celibacy,  therefore,  means  untrammeled  vice, 
and  marriage  degenerates  into  New  Englandism,  the 
world  will  get  along  better  with  less  of  both.  Vows, 
if  they  have  no  other  merit,  respect  at  least  the  law 
of  God,  and  this  world  is  run  according  to  that  law. 


CHAPTER  XLV. 
BLASPHEMY. 

To  blaspheme  is  to  speak  ill  of  God ;  blasphemy  is 
an  utterance  derogatory  to  the  respect  and  honor  due 
to  God.  Primarily,  it  is  a  sin  of  the  tongue;  but,  like 
all  other  sins,  it  draws  its  malice  from  the  heart. 
Thus,  a  thought  may  be  blasphemous,  even  though  the 
blasphemy  remain  unexpressed ;  and  a  gesture,  often 
times  more  expressive  than  a  word,  may  contain  all 
the  malice  of  blasphemy.  This  impiety  therefore  may 
be  committed  in  thought,  in  word  and  in  deed. 

Blasphemy  addresses  itself  directly  to  God,  to 
His  attributes  and  perfections  which  are  denied,  or 
ridiculed ;  to  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Blessed  Sacrament ; 
indirectly,  through  His  Mother  and  His  saints, 
through  Holy  Scripture  and  religion,  through  the 
Church  and  her  ministers  in  their  quality  of  ministers, 
— all  of  which,  being  intimately  and  inseparably 
connected  with  the  idea  of  God,  cannot  be  vilified 
without  the  honor  of  God  being  affected;  and, 
consequently,  all  contempt  and  irreverence  addressed 
to  them,  takes  on  the  nature  of  blasphemy.  An 
indirect  sin  of  blasphemy  is  less  enormous  than  a  direct 
offense,  but  the  difference  is  in  degree,  not  in  kind. 

All  error  that  affects  God  directly,  or  indirectly 
through  sacred  things,  is  blasphemy  whether  the  error 


BLASPHEMY.  153 

consist  in  a  denial  of  what  is  true,  or  an  attribution 
of  what  is  false.  Contempt,  ridicule,  scoffing  and 
sneering,  where  are  concerned  the  Holy  and  things 
holy,  are  blasphemous.  He  also  blasphemes  who 
attributes  to  a  creature  what  belongs  to  God  alone, 
or  can  be  said  only  of  holy  things,  who  drags  down 
the  sacred  to  the  level  of  the  profane. 

Revilings  against  God  are  happily  rare ;  when  met 
with,  they  are  invariably  the  mouthings  of  self-styled 
atheists  or  infidels  whose  sanity  is  not  always  a  patent 
fact.  Heretics  are  usually  blasphemous  when  they 
treat  of  anything  outside  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Bible; 
and  not  even  Christ  and  Scripture  escape,  for  often 
their  ideas  and  utterances  concerning  both  are  as 
injurious  to  God  as  they  are  false  and  erroneous. 
Finally,  despair  and  anger  not  infrequently  find 
satisfaction  in  abusing  God  and  all  that  pertains  to 
Him. 

Nothing  more  abominable  can  be  conceived  than 
this  evil,  since  it  attacks,  and  is  in  opposition  to,  God 
Himself.  And  nothing  shows  up  its  malice  so  much 
as  the  fact  that  blasphemy  is  the  natural  product  and 
offspring  of  hate ;  it  goes  to  the  limit  of  human  power 
in  revolt  against  the  Maker.  It  is,  however,  a 
consolation  to  know  that,  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
blasphemy  is  found  where  faith  is  wanting  or 
responsibility  absent,  for  it  may  charitably  be  taken 
for  granted  that  if  the  blasphemer  really  knew  what 
he  was  saying,  he  would  rather  cut  out  his  tongue 
than  repeat  it.  So  true  is  it  that  the  salvation  of  many 
depends  almost  as  much  on  their  own  ignorance  as  on 
the  grace  of  God. 

There  is  a  species  of  blasphemy,  not  without  its 
degree  of  malice,  found  sometimes  in  people  who  are 
otherwise  God-fearing  and  religtous.  When  He  visits 
them  with  affliction  and  adversity,  their  self-conscious 
righteousness  goes  out  and  seeks  comparison  with 
prosperous  ungodliness,  and  forthwith  comments  on 
strange  fact  of  the  deserving  suffering  while  the 


154  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

undeserving  are  spared.  They  remark  to  themselves 
that  the  wicked  always  succeed,  and  entertain  a  strong 
suspicion  that  if  they  were  as  bad  as  others  certain 
things  would  not  happen. 

All  this  smacks  dangerously  of  revolt  against 
the  Providence  of  God.  Job's  problem  is  one  that  can 
be  solved  only  by  faith  ,a*id  a  strong  spiritual  sense. 
He  who  has  it  not  is  liable  to  get  on  the  wrong 
side  in  the  discussion;  and  it  is  difficult  to  go  very 
far  on  that  side  without  finding  Providence  at  fault 
and  thus  becoming  guilty  of  blasphemy.  For,  to 
mention  partiality  in  the  same  breath  with  God's 
care  of  the  universe,  is  to  deny  Him. 

The  daily  papers,  a  few  years  ago,  gave  public 
notoriety  to  two  instances  of  blasphemy,  and  their 
very  remarkable  punishment,  for  it  is  impossible  not 
to  see  the  hand  of  God  in  what  followed  so  close  upon 
the  offending.  A  desperate  gambler  called  upon  the 
Almighty  to  strike  him  dumb,  if  in  the  next  deal  a 
certain  card  turned  up.  It  did  turn  up,  and  at  the  last 
accounts  the  man  had  not  yet  spoken.  Another  cast 
from  his  door  a  vendor  of  images  and  crucifixes 
with  a  curse  and  the  remark  that  he  would  rather  have 
the  devil  in  his  house  than  a  crucifix.  The  very  next 
day,  he  became  the  father  of  what  came  as  near  being 
the  devil  as  anything  the  doctors  of  that  vicinity  ever 
saw.  These  are  not  Sunday-school  stories  invented 
to  frighten  children;  the  facts  occurred,  and  were 
heralded  broadcast  throughout  the  land. 

Despair  urged  the  first  unfortunate  to  defy  the 
Almighty.  In  the  other  'twas  hatred  for  the  Church 
that  honors  the  image  of  Christ  crucified  as  one 
honors  the  portrait  of  a  mother.  The  blasphemy  in 
the  second  case  reached  God  as  effectively  as  in  the 
first,  and  the  outrage  contained  in  both  is  of  an  order 
that  human  language  is  incapable  of  qualifying. 


CHAPTER  XLVI. 
CURSING. 

To  bless  one  is  not  merely  to  wish  that  one  well, 
but  also  to  invoke  good  fortune  upon  his  head,  to 
recommend  him  to  the  Giver  of  all  goods.  So,  too, 
cursing,  damning,  imprecation,  malediction — synony 
mous  terms  —  is  stronger  than  evil  wishing  and 
desiring.  He  who  acts  thus  invokes  a  spirit  of  evil, 
asks  God  to  visit  His  wrath  upon  the  object  cursed, 
to  inflict  death,  damnation,  or  other  ills.  There  is 
consequently  in  such  language  at  least  an  implicit 
calling  upon  God,  for  the  evil  invoked  is  invoked  of 
God,  either  directly  or  indirectly.  And  that  is  why 
the  Second  Commandment  concerns  itself  with  cursing. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  this  abuse  of  language 
offends  against  religion  and  charity  as  well.  To  the 
malice  of  calling  down  evil  upon  a  brother's  head  is 
added  the  impiety  of  calling  upon  God  to  do  it,  to 
curse  when  He  should  be  prayed  to  bless. 

Of  course  all  depends  on  what  is  the  object  of 
our  imprecations.  One  species  of  this  vice  contains 
blasphemy  pure  and  simple,  that  is,  a  curse  which 
attains  something  that  refers  to  God  in  an  especial 
manner,  and  as  such  is  cursed.  The  idea  of  God 
cannot  be  separated  from  that  of  the  soul,  of  faith, 
of  the  Church,  etc.  Malediction  addressed  to  them 
reaches  God,  and  contains  all  the  malice  of  blasphemy. 

When  the  malediction  falls  on  creatures,  without 
any  reference  to  their  relationship  to  God,  we  have 
cursing  in  its  proper  form  with  a  special  malice  of  its 
own.  Directly,  charity  alone  is  violated,  but  charity 
has  obligations  which  are  binding  under  pain  of  mortal 
sin.  No  man  can  sin  against  himself  or  against  his 
neighbor  without  offending  God. 


1^  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

A  curse  may  be,  and  frequently  is,  emphasized 
with  a  vow  or  an  oath.  One  may  solemnly  promise 
God  in  certain  contingencies  that  he  will  damn  another 
to  hell;  or  he  may  call  upon  God  to  witness  his 
execrations.  The  malice  of  two  specific  sins  is  here 
accumulated,  the  offense  is  double  in  this  one 
abominable  utterance;  nothing  can  be  conceived  more 
horrible,  unless  it  be  the  indifferent  frequency  with 
which  it  is  perpetrated. 

The  guilt  incurred  by  those  who  thus  curse  and 
damn,  leaving  aside  the  scandal  which  is  thereby 
nearly  always  given,  is  naturally  measured  by  the 
degree  of  advertence  possessed  by  such  persons. 
Supposing  full  deliberation,  to  curse  a  fellow-man  or 
self,  if  the  evil  invoked  be  of  a  serious  nature,  is  a 
mortal  sin. 

Passion  or  habit  may  excuse,  if  the  movement  is 
what  is  called  "a  first  movement,"  that  is,  a  mechanical 
utterance  without  reflection  or  volition;  also,  if  the 
habit  has  been  retracted  and  is  in  process  of  reform. 
If  neither  damnation  nor  death  nor  infamy  nor  any 
major  evil  is  invoked,  the  sin  may  be  less  grievous, 
but  sin  it  always  is.  If  the  object  anathematized  is 
an  animal,  a  thing,  a  vice,  etc.,  there  may  be  a  slight 
sin  or  no  sin  at  all.  Some  things  deserved  to  be 
cursed.  In  damning  others,  there  may  be  disorder 
enough  to  constitute  a  venial  sin,  without  any  greater 
malice. 

Considering  the  case  of  a  man  who,  far  removed 
from  human  hearing,  should  discover  too  late,  his 
forgetfulness  to  leave  the  way  clear  between  a  block 
and  a  fast-descending  and  ponderous  ax,  and,  in  a  fit 
of  acute  discomfort  and  uncontrollable  feeling 
consequential  to  such  forgetfulness,  should  consign 
block,  ax,  and  various  objects  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  to  the  nethermost  depths  of  Stygian  darkness : 
in  such  a  case,  we  do  not  think  there  would  be  sin. 

On  the  other  hand,  they  in  whose  favor  such 
attenuating  circumstances  do  not  militate,  do  the  office 


CURSING.  157 

of  the  demons.  These  latter  can  do  nothing  but  curse 
and  heap  maledictions  upon  all  who  do  not  share  their 
lot.  To  damn  is  the  office  of  the  damned.  It  is 
therefore  fitting  that  those  who  cease  not  to  damn 
while  on  earth  be  condemned  to  damn  eternally  and 
be  damned  in  the  next  life.  And  if  it  is  true  that 
"the  mouth  speaks  out  of  the  abundance  of  the  heart," 
to  what  but  to  hell  can  be  compared  the  inner  soul 
of  him  whose  delight  consists  in  vomiting  forth  curses 
and  imprecations  upon  his  fellow-men? 


CHAPTER  XLVIL 
PROFANITY. 

PROFANITY  is  not  a  specific  sin.  Under  this 
general  head  come  all  blasphemy,  false,  rash,  unjust 
and  unnecessary  oaths,  rash  and  violated  vows,  and 
cursing: — called  profanity,  because  in  each  case  the 
name  of  God  is  profaned,  that  is  to  say,  is  made  less 
holy,  by  its  application  to  unworthy  objects  and  in 
unbecoming  circumstances ;  profanity,  because  it  has 
to  do  with  the  Holy  Name,  and  not  profanation,  which 
looks  to  sacred  things.  Although  language  lends  itself 
to  many  devices  and  is  well  nigh  inexhaustible  in  its 
resources,  this  category  of  sins  of  profanity  embraces 
about  all  modes  of  offending  against  the  Holy  Name, 
and  consequently  against  the  Second  Commandment. 

We  have  already  examined  the  different  species 
of  profanity.  But  it  is  not  always  easy  to  classify 
certain  utterances  and  expressions  that  savour  of 
profanity,  to  determine  the  specific  nature  of  their 
malice,  especially  the  guilt  incurred  by  the  speaker. 
First  of  all,  the  terms  used  are  often  distorted  from 
their  original  signification,  or  require  that  words  left 


158  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

understood  be  supplied;  as  they  stand,  they  are  often 
as  meaningless  to  the  speaker  as  to  the  general 
uninitiated  public.  To  get  at  the  formal  malice  of 
such  utterances  is  still  more  difficult,  for  it  becomes 
necessary  to  interpret  the  intentions  of  the  speaker. 
Thus,  in  one  case,  words  that  contain  no  evident 
insult  to  God  may  be  used  with  all  the  vehemence  of 
profanity,  to  which  guilt  is  certainly  attached;  in 
another,  the  most  unholy  language  may  be  employed 
in  ignorance  of  its  meaning,  with  no  evil  intent,  the 
only  danger  of  malice  being  from  habit,  passion  or 
scandal. 

This  brings  us  to  consider  certain  ejaculatory 
or  exclamatory  expressions  such  as:  God!  good  God! 
Lord!  etc.,  employed  by  persons  of  very  different 
spiritual  complexion.  Evidently,  these  words  may  be 
employed  in  good  and  in  evil  part ;  whether  in  one  or 
the  other,  depends  on  the  circumstances  of  their  using. 

They  may  proceed  from  piety  and  true  devotion 
of  the  heart,  out  of  the  abundance  of  which  the  mouth 
speaks.  Far  from  being  wrong,  this  is  positively  good 
and  meritorious. 

If  this  is  done  through  force  of  habit,  or  is 
the  result  of  levity,  without  the  least  interior  devotion 
or  affection,  it  is  a  mitigated  form  of  profanity.  To 
say  the  least,  no  honor  accrues  to  God  from  such 
language  and  such  use  of  His  name ;  and  where  He  is 
concerned,  not  to  honor  Him  is  dangerously  near 
dishonoring  Him.  If  contempt  of  God  or  scandal 
result  from  such  language,  the  offense  may  easily  be 
mortal. 

Finally,  excited  feelings  of  passion  or  wrath  vent 
themselves  in  this  manner,  and  here  it  is  still  more 
easy  to  make  it  a  grievous  offending.  About  the  only 
thing  that  can  excuse  from  fault  is  absolute 
indeliberation. 

Again,  without  implying  any  malediction, 
prescinding  altogether  from  the  supernatural  character 
of  what  they  represent,  as  ejaculations  only,  we  come 


PROFANITY.  159 

across  the  use  of  such  words  as  hell,  devil,  damnation, 
etc.  Good  ethics  condemn  such  terms  in  conversation  ; 
hearing  them  used  people  may  be  scandalized, 
especially  the  young;  if  one  uses  them  with  the 
mistaken  idea  that  they  contain  blasphemy,  then  that 
one  is  formally  guilty  of  blasphemy;  finally,  it  is 
vulgar,  coarse  and  unmannerly  to  do  so.  But  all  this 
being  admitted,  we  do  not  see  any  more  moral  iniquity 
in  the  mention  of  these  words  than  of  their  equivalents  : 
eternal  fire,  Satan,  perdition,  etc.  We  do  not  advise 
or  encourage  the  use  of  such  terms,  but  it  sometimes 
jars  one's  sense  of  propriety  to  see  people  hold  up 
their  hands  in  holy  horror  at  the  sound  of  these  words, 
as  if  their  mention  were  something  unspeakably 
wicked,  while  they  themselves  would  look  fornication, 
for  instance,  straight  in  the  face  without  a  shudder  or 
a  blush. 

Profanity  is  certainly  a  sin,  sometimes  a  grievous 
sin;  but  in  our  humble  opinion,  the  fiat  of  self- 
righteous  Pharisaism  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding, 
it  is  a  few  hundred  times  oftener  no  sin  at  all,  or  a 
very  white  sin,  than  the  awful  crime  some  people  see 
in  it  If  a  fellow  could  quote  classical  "Mehercule," 
and  Shakespearean  cuss-words,  he  would  not  perhaps 
be  so  vulgar  as  to  say  "hell."  But  not  having  such 
language  at  his  command,  and  being  filled  with  strong 
feelings  that  clamor  for  a  good  substantial  expression, 
if  he  looks  around  and  finds  these  the  strongest  and 
only  available  ones,  and  uses  them, — it  is  necessity  and 
human  nature,  we  wot,  more  than  sacrilegious 
profanity.  It  were  better  if  his  speech  were  aye,  aye 
and  nay,  nay ;  but  it  does  not  make  it  look  any  better 
to  convict  him  of  the  blackest  sin  on  the  calendar 
just  because  he  mentioned  a  place  that  really  exists, 
if  it  is  hot,  and  which  it  is  well  to  have  ever  before 
our  eyes  against  the  temptations  of  life. 


CHAPTER  XLVIII. 

THIRD  COMMANDMENT 

THE  LAW  OF  REST. 

THE  last  of  the  three  Commandments  that  refer 
directly  to  God,  prescribes  a  rest  from  toil,  and  pro 
fane  works;  and  in  commemoration  of  the  mystical 
repose  of  the  Lord  after  the  six  days'  creation, 
designates  the  Sabbath  or  seventh  day  as  a  day  that 
shall  be  set  apart  and  made  sacred  to  God.  The 
peculiarity  of  the  commandment  is  that  it  interferes 
with  the  occupations  of  man,  intrudes  upon  his 
individual  affairs  and  claims  a  worship  of  works. 
The  others  do  not  go  thus  far,  and  are  satisfied  with 
a  worship  of  the  heart  and  tongue,  of  affections  and 
language. 

Leaving  aside  for  the  moment  the  special  desig 
nation  of  a  day  devoted  to  this  worship,  the  law  of 
rest  itself  deserves  attention.  Whether  the  Saturday 
or  Sunday  be  observed,  whether  the  rest  be  long  or 
brief,  a  day  or  an  hour,  depends  entirely  on  the  posi 
tive  will  of  God.  More  than  this  must  be  said  of  the 
command  of  rest ;  that  law  grows  out  of  our  relations 
with  God,  is  founded  in  nature,  is  according  to  the 
natural  order  of  things. 

This  repose  means  abstention  from  bodily  activity. 
The  law  does  not  go  so  far  as  to  prescribe  stag 
nation  and  sloth,  but  it  is  satisfied  with  such  abstention 
as  is  compatible  with  the  reasonable  needs  of  man. 
Of  its  nature,  it  constitutes  an  exterior,  public  act 
of  religion.  The  question  is:  Does  the  nature  of  our 
relations  with  God  demand  this  sort  of  worship? 
Evidently,  yes.  Else  God,  who  created  the  whole 
man,  would  not  receive  a  perfect  worship.  If  God 


THIRD   COMMANDMENT — LAW   OF   REST.  l6l 

made  man,  man  belongs  to  Him;  if  from  that  pos 
session  flows  a  natural  obligation  to  worship  with 
heart  and  tongue,  why  not  also  of  the  body?  God 
has  a  Maker's  right  over  us,  and  without  some 
acknowledgment  on  the  part  of  the  body  of  this  right, 
there  would  be  no  evidence  that  such  a  right  existed. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  law  of  our  being 
requires  of  us  an  interior  worship.  Now,  if  that 
spirit  of  homage  within  us  is  sincere,  it  will  naturally 
seek  to  exteriorize  itself;  if  it  is  to  be  preserved,  it 
must  "out."  We  are  not  here  speaking  of  certain 
peculiarly  ordered  individuals,  but  of  the  bulk  of 
common  humanity.  Experience  teaches  that  what 
does  not  come  out  either  never  existed  or  is  not 
assured  of  a  prolonged  existence.  Just  as  the  mind 
must  go  out  of  itself  for  the  substance  of  its  thoughts, 
so  must  the  heart  go  out  to  get  relief  from  the 
pressure  of  its  feelings.  God  commanded  this  ex 
ternal  worship  because  it  alone  could  preserve  internal 
affections. 

Again,  there  are  many  things  which  the  ordinary 
man  ignores  concerning  God,  which  it  is  necessary 
for  him  to  know,  and  which  do  not  come  by  intuition. 
In  other  words,  he  must  be  taught  a  host  of  truths 
that  he  is  incapable  of  finding  out  by  himself.  Edu 
cation  and  instruction  in  religious  matters  are  outside 
the  sphere  of  his  usual  occupations.  Where  will  he  ever 
get  this  necessary  information,  if  he  is  not  taught? 
And  how  can  he  be  taught,  if  he  does  not  lay  aside 
occupations  that  are  incompatible  with  the  acquisition 
of  intellectual  truths?  He  is  therefore  forced  by 
the  law  of  his  being,  and  the  obligation  he  owes 
his  Maker,  to  rest  from  his  every-day  labors,  once  in 
awhile,  in  order  to  learn  his  full  duty,  if  for  nothing 
else. 

Pagans,  who  never  knew  the  law  of  Moses, 
observe  neither  Saturday  nor  Sunday ;  neither  do  they 
all  give  an  entire  day,  at  fixed  intervals  to  the  ex 
terior  worship  of  the  Deity,  as  we  do.  But  a  case  will 


l62  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

not  be  found  where  they  did  not  on  certain  occasions 
rest  from  work  in  order  to  offer  the  homage  of  their 
fidelity  to  their  gods,  and  to  listen  to  instruction  and 
exhortation  from  their  holy  men.  These  pagans 
follow  the  natural  law  written  in  their  souls,  and  it 
is  there  they  discover  the  obligation  they  are  under 
to  honor  God  by  rest  from  labor  and  to  make  holy 
unto  Him  a  certain  space  of  time. 


CHAPTER  XLIX. 
THE  DAY  OF  REST. 

THE  third  article  of  the  Mosaic  Code  not  only 
enunciates  the  law  of  rest,  but  says  just  how  much 
time  shall  be  given  to  its  observance;  it  prescribes 
neither  a  week  nor  a  few  hours,  but  one  day  in  seven. 
If  you  have  a  taste  for  such  things  and  look  well,  you 
will  find  several  reasons  put  forth  as  justifying  this 
special  designation  of  one  day  in  seven.  The  number 
seven  the  Jews  regarded  as  a  sacred  number;  the 
Romans,  as  the  symbol  of  perfection.  Students  of 
antiquity  have  discovered  that  among  nearly  all  peoples 
this  number  in  some  way  or  other  refers  to  the  Deity. 
Science  finds  that  nature  prefers  this  number;  light 
under  analysis  reveals  seven  colors,  and  all  colors 
refer  to  the  seven  orders  of  the  solar  spectrum;  the 
human  voice  has  seven  tones  that  constitute  the  scale 
of  sound;  the  human  body  is  renewed  every  seven 
years.  Authorities  on  hygiene  and  physiology  teach 
that  one  day  in  six  is  too  much,  one  day  in  eight  is 
too  little,  but  that  one  day  in  seven  is  sufficient  and 
necessary  for  the  physical  needs  of  man. 

These  considerations  may  or  may  not  carry 
conviction  to  the  average  mind.  On  the  face  of  it, 
they  confirm  rather  than  prove.  They  do  not  reveal 


THE  DAY  OF  REST.  163 

the  necessity  of  a  day  of  rest  so  much  as  show  its 
reasonableness  and  how  it  harmonizes  with  nature 
in  its  periodicity,  its  symmetry  and  its  exact  proportion 
to  the  strength  of  man.  As  for  real  substantial 
reasons,  there  is  but  one, — a  good  and  sufficient, — and 
that  is  the  positive  will  of  God.  He  said:  keep  this 
day  holy ;  such  is  His  command ;  no  man  should  need 
a  better  reason. 

The  God-given  law  of  Moses  says  Saturday, 
Christians  say  Sunday.  Protestants  and  Catholics 
alike  say  Sunday,  and  Sunday  it  is.  But  this  is  not 
a  trifling  change;  it  calls  for  an  explanation.  Why 
was  it  made?  What  is  there  to  justify  it?  On  what 
authority  was  it  done?  Can  the  will  of  God,  unmis 
takably  manifested,  be  thus  disregarded  and  put  aside 
by  His  creatures?  This  is  a  serious  question. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  things  in  the  world 
would  be  to  hear  a  Protestant  Christian,  on  Protestant 
grounds,  justify  his  observance  of  the  Sunday  instead 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  give  reasons  for  his  conduct. 
"Search  the  Scriptures."  Aye,  search  from  Genesis 
to  Revelations,  the  Mosaic  prescriptions  will  hold 
good  in  spite  of  all  your  researches.  Instead  of 
justification  you  will  find  condemnation.  "The  Bible, 
the  Bible  alone"  theory  hardly  fits  in  here.  Are 
Papists  the  only  ones  to  add  to  the  holy  writings,  or 
to  go  counter  to  them?  Suppose  this  change  cannot 
be  justified  on  Scriptural  grounds,  what  then?  And 
the  fact  is,  it  cannot. 

It  is  hardly  satisfactory  to  remark  that  this  is  a 
disciplinary  injunction,  and  Christ  abrogated  the 
Jewish  ceremonial.  But  if  it  is  nothing  more  than 
this,  how  came  it  to  get  on  the  table  of  the  Law?  Its 
embodiment  in  the  Decalogue  makes  it  somewhat 
different  from  all  other  ceremonial  prescriptions ;  as  it 
stands,  it  is  on  a  par  with  the  veto  to  kill  or  to  steal. 
Christ  abolished  the  purely  Jewish  law,  but  he  left  the 
Decalogue  intact. 

Christ  rose  from  the  dead  on  Sunday,  'tis  true; 


164  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

but  nowhere  in  writing  can  it  be  found  that  His 
resurrection  on  that  day  meant  a  change  in  the  Third 
Commandment.  In  the  nature  of  the  event,  there  is 
absolutely  no  relation  between  it  and  the  observance 
of  Sunday. 

Where  will  our  friend  find  a  loop-hole  to  escape? 
Oh !  as  usual,  for  the  Sunday  as  for  the  Bible,  he  will 
have  to  fall  back  on  the  old  Church.  What  in  the 
world  could  he  do  without  her  ?  He  will  find  there  an 
authority,  and  he  is  obliged  to  recognize  it,  even  if 
he  does  on  ordinary  occasions  declaim  against  and 
condemn  it.  Incidentally,  if  his  eyes  are  open,  he  will 
discover  that  his  individually  interpreted  Bible  has 
failed  most  woefully  to  do  its  work;  it  condemns  the 
Protestant  Sunday. 

This  day  was  changed  on  the  sole  authority  of 
the  Holy  Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  the  representative 
of  God  on  earth,  to  whose  keeping  was  confided  the 
interpretation  of  God's  word,  and  in  whose  bosom  is 
found  that  other  criterion  of  truth,  called  tradition. 
Tradition  it  is  that  justifies  the  change  she  made. 
Deny  this,  and  there  is  no  justification  possible,  and  you 
must  go  back  to  the  Mosaic  Sabbath.  Admit  it,  and  if 
you  are  a  Protestant  you  will  find  yourself  in  some 
what  of  a  mess. 

A  logical  Protestant  must  be  a  very  uneasy  being. 
If  the  Church  is  right  in  this,  why  should  she  not 
be  right  in  defining  the  Immaculate  Conception?  And 
if  she  errs  here,  what  assurance  is  there  that  she 
does  not  err  there?  How  can  he  say  she  is  right  on 
one  occasion,  and  wrong  on  another?  What  kind  of 
nonsense  is  it  that  makes  her  truthful  or  erring 
according  to  one's  fancy  and  taste?  Truly,  the 
reformer  blundered  when  he  did  not  treat  the  Sunday 
as  he  treated  the  Pope  and  all  Church  authority,  for  it 
is  papistical  to  a  degree. 


CHAPTER  L. 
KEEPING  THE  LORD'S  DAY  HOLY. 

THE  Third  Commandment  bids  us  sanctify  the 
Lord's  day;  but  in  what  that  sanctification  shall 
consist,  it  does  not  say.  It  is  certain,  however,  that 
it  is  only  by  worship,  of  one  kind  or  another,  that 
the  day  can  be  properly  kept  holy  to  the  Lord;  and 
since  interior  worship  is  prescribed  by  the  First 
Commandment,  exterior  and  public  worship  must  be 
what  is  called  for.  Then,  there  are  many  modes  of 
worship ;  there  is  no  end  to  the  means  man  may 
devise  of  offering  homage  to  the  Creator. 

The  first  element  of  worship  is  abstention  from 
profane  labor;  rest  is  the  first  condition  of  keeping 
the  Sabbath.  The  word  Sabbath  itself  means  cessation 
of  work.  You  cannot  do  two  things  at  the  same  time, 
you  cannot  serve  God  and  Mammon.  Our  everyday 
occupations  are  not,  of  their  nature,  a  public  homage 
of  fidelity  to  God.  If  any  homage  is  to  be  offered, 
as  a  preliminary,  work  must  cease.  This  interruption 
of  the  ordinary  business  of  life  alone  makes  it  possible 
to  enter  seriously  into  the  more  important  business  of 
God's  service,  and  in  this  sense  it  is  a  negative  worship. 

Yet,  there  is  also  something  positive  about  it,  for 
the  simple  fact  of  desisting  from  toil  contains  an 
element  of  direct  homage.  Six  days  are  ours  for 
ourselves.  What  accrues  from  our  activity  on  those 
days  is  our  profit.  To  God  we  sacrifice  one  day  and 
all  it  might  bring  to  us,  we  pay  to  Him  a  tithe  of  our 
time,  labor  and  earnings.  By  directing  aright  our 
intentions,  therefore,  our  rest  assumes  the  higher 
dignity  of  explicit,  emphatic  religion  and  reverence, 
and  in  a  fuller  manner  sanctifies  the  dav  that  is  the 
Lord's. 

We  should,  however,  guard  ourselves  against  the 


1 66  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

mistaken  notion  that  sloth  and  idleness  are  synonymous 
of  rest.  It  is  not  all  activity,  but  the  ordinary  activity 
of  common  life,  that  is  forbidden.  It  were  a 
sacrilegious  mockery  to  make  God  the  author  of  a  law 
that  fosters  laziness  and  favors  the  sluggard.  Another 
extreme  that  common  sense  condemns  is  that  the 
physical  man  should  suffer  martyrdom  while  the  soul 
thus  communes  with  God,  that  promenades  and 
recreation  should  be  abolished,  and  social  amenities 
ignored,  that  dryness,  gloom,  moroseness  and  severity 
are  the  proper  conditions  of  Sabbatical  observance. 

In  this  respect,  our  Puritan  ancestors  were  the 
true  children  of  Pharisaism,  and  their  Blue  Laws 
more  properly  belong  in  the  Talmud  than  in  the 
Constitution  of  an  American  Commonwealth.  God 
loves  a  cheerful  giver,  and  would  you  not  judge  from 
appearances  that  religion  was  painful  to  these  pious 
witch-burners  and  everything  for  God  most  grudgingly 
done?  Sighs,  grimaces,  groans  and  wails,  this  is  the 
homage  the  devils  in  hell  offer  to  the  justice  of  God ; 
there  is  no  more  place  for  them  in  the  religion  of 
earth  than  in  the  religion  of  heaven. 

Correlative  with  the  obligation  of  rest  is  that  of 
purely  positive  worship,  and  here  is  the  difficulty  of 
deciding  just  what  is  the  correct  thing  in  religious 
worship.  The  Jews  had  their  institutions,  but  Christ 
abolished  them.  The  Pagans  had  their  way — sacrifice ; 
Protestants  have  their  preaching  and  hymn-singing. 
Catholics  offer  a  Sacrifice,  too,  but  an  unbloody  one. 
Later  on,  we  shall  hear  the  Church  speak  out  on  the 
subject.  She  exercised  the  right  to  change  the  day 
itself ;  she  claims  naturally  the  right  to  say  how  it 
should  be  observed,  because  the  day  belongs  to  her. 
And  she  will  impose  upon  her  children  the  obligation 
to  attend  mass.  But  here  the  precepts  of  the  Church 
are  out  of  the  question. 

The  obligation,  however,  to  participate  in  some 
act  of  worship  is  plain.  The  First  Commandment 
charges  every  man  to  offer  an  exterior  homage  of  one 


KEEPING  THE  LORD'S  DAY  HOLY.  l6? 

kind  or  another,  at  some  time  or  another.  The  Third 
sets  aside  a  day  for  the  worship  of  the  Divinity.  Thus 
the  general  command  of  the  first  precept  is  specified. 
This  is  the  time,  or  there  is  no  time.  With  the  Third 
Commandment  before  him,  man  cannot  arbitrarily 
choose  for  himself  the  time  for  his  worship,  he  must 
do  it  on  Sunday. 

Public  worship  being  established  in  all  Christian 
communities,  every  Christian  who  cannot  improve 
upon  what  is  offered  and  who  is  convinced  that  a 
certain  mode  of  worship  is  the  best  and  true,  is  bound 
by  the  law  to  participate  therein.  The  obligation  may 
be  greater  if  he  ignores  the  principles  of  religion 
and  cannot  get  information  and  instruction  outside  the 
temple  of  religion.  For  Catholics,  there  is  only  one 
true  mode  of  public  worship,  and  that  is  the  Sacrifice 
of  the  Mass.  No  layman  is  sufficient  unto  himself 
to  provide  such  an  act  of  religion.  He  has,  therefore, 
no  choice,  he  must  assist  at  that  sacrifice  if  he  would 
fulfil  the  obligation  he  is  under  of  Sunday  worship. 


CHAPTER  LI. 
WORSHIP  OF  SACRIFICE. 

WE  Catholics  contend,  and  our  contention  is 
based  on  a  law  of  nature  that  we  glean  from  the 
history  of  man,  that  sacrifice  is  the  soul  of  religion, 
that  there  never  was  a  universally  and  permanently 
accepted  religion — and  that  there  cannot  be  any  such 
religion — without  an  altar,  a  victim,  a  priest,  and  a 
sacrifice.  We  claim  that  reason  and  experience  would 
bear  us  out  in  this  contention,  even  without  the 
example  and  teaching  and  express  commands  of  Jesus 


l68  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

Christ,  who,  in  founding  a  new  and  the  only  true 
religion,  Himself  offered  sacrifice  a-nd  left  a  sacrifice 
to  be  perpetually  offered  in  His  religion;  and  that 
sacrifice  constitutes  the  high  worship  we  owe  to  the 
Creator. 

It  is  our  conviction  thata  when  man  came  into 
the  presence  of  the  Almighty,  his  first  impulse  was 
to  speak  to  Him,  and  his  first  word  was  an  act  of 
adoration.  But  human  language  is  a  feeble  medium 
of  communication  with  the  Almighty.  Man  talks  to 
man.  To  talk  with  God,  he  sought  out  another 
language;  and,  as  in  the  case  of  Adam's  sons,  he 
discovered  in  sacrifice  a  better  and  stronger  mode  of 
expressing  his  religious  feelings.  He  therefore  offered 
sacrifice,  and  sacrifice  became  the  language  of  man  in 
his  relations  with  the  Deity. 

In  its  simplest  definition,  sacrifice  is  the  offering 
to  God  of  a  victim,  by  one  authorized  for  that  task. 
It  supposes  essentially  the  destruction  of  the  victim; 
and  the  act  is  an  eloquent  acknowledgment,  in 
language  that  is  as  plain  as  it  possibly  can  be  made, 
that  God  is  the  supreme  Lord  of  life  and  death,  that 
all  things  that  exist  come  from  Him,  and  revert  to 
Him  as  to  their  natural  end. 

The  philosophy  of  sacrifice  is  that  man,  in  some 
manner  or  other4  had  incurred  the  wrath  of  the 
Almighty.  The  pagan  could  not  tell  in  just  what  his 
offense  consisted ;  but  there  is  nothing  plainer  than  the 
fact  that  he  considered  himself  under  the  ban  of  God's 
displeasure,  and  that  sin  had  something  to  do  with  it ; 
and  he  feared  the  Deity  accordingly.  We  know  that 
original  sin  was  the  curse  under  which  he  labored. 

Whatever  the  offense  was,  it  was  in  the  flesh, 
the  result  of  weakness  rather  than  malice.  There  was 
something  in  his  nature  that  inclined  to  evil  and  was 
responsible  for  sin.  The  better  part  tried  to  serve,  but 
the  inferior  man  revolted.  Flesh,  therefore,  was 
wicked  and  sinful ;  and  since  all  offense  must  be  atoned 
for,  the  flesh  should  pay  the  penalty  of  evil.  The 


WORSHIP  OF  SACRIFICE.  169 

wrath  of  God  could  be  appeased,  and  sacrifice  was  the 
thing  that  could  do  it. 

Another  thing  most  remarkable  among  those  who 
worshiped  by  sacrifice  in  the  early  times,  is  tftelt 
they  believed  firmly  in  the  reversibility  of  merit,  that 
is,  that  the  innocent  could  atone  for  the  wicked. 
Somehow,  they  acquired  the  notion  that  stainless 
victims  were  more  agreeable  to  God  than  others.  God 
sanctioned  this  belief  among  the  Jews,  and  most 
strikingly  on  the  hill  of  Calvary. 

This  being  the  case,  man  being  guilty  and  not 
having  the  right  to  inflict  the  supreme  penalty  upon 
himself,  the  natural  thing  to  do  was  to  substitute  a 
vicitim  for  himself,  to  put  the  flesh  of  another  in  the 
place  of  his  own  and  to  visit  upon  it  the  punishment 
that  was  due  to  himself.  And  he  offered  to  God  this 
vicarious  atonement.  His  action  spoke  in  this  wise: 
"My  God,  I  am  a  sinner  and  deserve  Thy  wrath.  But 
look  upon  this  victim  as  though  it  were  myself.  My 
sins  and  offenses  I  lay  upon  its  shoulders,  this  knife 
shall  be  the  bolt  of  Thy  vengeance,  and  it  shall  make 
atonement  in  blood."  This  is  the  language  of  sacrifice. 
As  we  have  said,  it  supposes  the  necessity  of  atonement 
and  belief  in  the  reversibility  of  merit. 

Now,  if  we  find  in  history,  as  we  certainly  do  find, 
— that  all  peoples  offered  sacrifice  of  this  kind,  we  do 
not  think  we  would  be  far  from  the  truth  if  we 
deduced  therefrom  a  law  of  nature ;  and  if  it  is  a  law 
of  nature,  it  is  a  law  of  God.  If  there  is  no  religion 
of  antiquity  that  did  not  offer  sacrifice,  then  it  would 
seem  that  the  Almighty  had  traced  a  path  a»long 
which  man  naturally  trod  and  which  his  natural 
instinct  showed  him. 

We  believe  in  the  axiom  of  St.  Augustine: 
"securus  judicet  orbis  terrarum,  a  universally  accepted 
judgment  can  be  safely  followed."  Especially  do  we 
feel  secure  with  the  history  of  the  chosen  people  of 
God  before  us  and  its  sacrifice  ordained  by  the  law; 
with  the  sanction  of  Christ's  sacrifice  in  our  mind,  and 


I7O  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

the  practice  of  the  divinely  inspired  Church  which 
makes  sacrifice  the  soul  of  her  worship. 

The  victim  we  have  is  Jesus  Christ  Himself,  and 
none  other  than  He.  He  gave  us  His  flesh  and  blood 
to  consume,  with  the  command  to  consume.  Our 
sacrifice,  therefore,  consists  in  the  offering  up  of  this 
Victim  to  God  and  the  consuming  of  it.  Upon  the 
Victim  of  the  altar,  as  upon  the  Victim  of  the  Cross, 
we  lay  our  sins  and  offenses,  a«nd,  in  one  case  as  in  the 
other,  the  sacred  blood,  in  God's  eyes,  washes  our 
iniquity  away. 

Of  course,  it  requires  faith  to  believe,  but  religion 
is  nothing  if  it  is  not  whole  and  entire  a  matter  of 
faith.  The  less  faith  you  have,  the  more  you  try  to 
simplify  matters.  Waning  faith  began  by  eliminating 
authority  and  sacrifice  and  the  unwritten  word.  Now 
the  written  word  is  going  the  same  way.  Pretty  soon 
we  shall  hear  of  the  Decalogue's  being  subjected  to 
this  same  eliminating  process.  After  all,  when  one 
gets  started  in  that  direction,  what  reason  is  there 
that  he  should  ever  stop ! 


CHAPTER  LII. 
WORSHIP  OF  REST. 

PARTICIPATION  in  public  worship  is  the  positive 
obligation  flowing  from  the  Third  Commandment; 
abstention  from  labor  is  what  is  negatively  enjoined. 
Now,  works  differ  as  widely  in  their  nature  as  differ 
in  form  and  dimension  the  pebbles  on  the  sea-shore. 
There  are  works  of  God  and  works  of  the  devil,  and 
works  which,  as  regards  spirituality,  are  totally 


WORSHIP    OF    REST.  17! 

indifferent,  profane  works,  as  distinguished  from 
sacred  and  sinful  works.  And  these  latter  may  be 
corporal  or  intellectual  or  both.  Work  or  labor  or  toil, 
in  itself,  is  a  spending  of  energy,  an  exercise  of 
activity ;  it  covers  a  deal  of  ground.  And  since  the  law 
simply  says  to  abstain  from  work,  it  falls  to  us  to 
determine  just  what  works  are  meant,  for  it  is  certain 
that  all  works,  that  is,  all  that  come  under  the  general 
head  of  work,  do  not  profane  the  Lord's  day. 

The  legislation  of  the  Church,  which  is  the 
custodian  of  the  Sunday,  on  this  head  commends  itself 
to  all  thoughtful  men;  while,  for  those  who  recognize 
the  Church  as  the  true  one,  that  legislation  is  authority. 
The  Church  distinguishes  three  kinds  of  profane 
works,  that  is,  works  that  are  neither  sacred  nor 
iniquitous  of  their  nature.  There  is  one  kind  which 
requires  labor  of  the  mind  rather  than  of  the  body. 
These  works  tend  directly  to  the  culture  or  exercise 
of  the  mind,  and  are  called  liberal  works,  because 
under  the  Romans,  freemen  or  "liberi"  almost 
exclusively  were  engaged  therein.  Such  are  reading, 
writing,  studying,  music,  drawing — in  general,  mental 
occupations  in  whole,  or  more  mental  than  corporal. 
These  works  the  Church  does  not  consider  the  law 
includes  in  its  prohibition,  and  they  are  consequently 
not  forbidden. 

It  is  impossible  here  to  enumerate  all  that  enters 
into  this  class  of  works ;  custom  has  something  to  say 
in  determining  what  is  liberal  in  our  works;  and  in 
investigating,  we  must  apply  to  each  case  the  general 
principle.  The  labor  in  question  may  be  gratuitous 
or  well  paid ;  it  may  cause  fatigue  or  afford  recreation : 
all  this  is  not  to  the  point.  The  question  is,  outside  the 
danger  of  omitting  divine  service,  scandal  or  circum 
stances  that  might  lead  to  the  annoyances  and 
distraction  of  others — the  question  is :  does  this  work 
call  for  exercise  of  the  mind  more  than  that  of  the 
body?  If  the  answer  is  affirmative,  then  the  work 
is  liberal,  and  as  such  it  is  not  forbidden  on  Sunday, 


172  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

it  is  not  considered  a  profanation  of  the  Lord's  day. 

On  the  other  extreme  are  what  go  by  the  name 
of  servile  works,  which  call  forth  principally  bodily 
effort  and  tend  directly  to  the  advantage  of  the  body. 
They  are  known  also  as  works  of  manual  labor. 
Before  the  days  of  Christianity,  slaves  alone  were 
thus  employed,  and  from  the  word  "servi"  or  slaves 
these  are  called  servile  works. 

Here  again  it  is  the  nature  of  the  work  that  makes 
it  servile.  It  may  be  remunerative  or  not,  recreative 
or  not,  fatiguing  or  not ;  it  may  be  a  regular  occupation, 
or  just  taken  up  for  the  moment;  it  may  be,  outside 
cases  of  necessity,  for  the  glory  of  God  or  for  the 
good  of  the  neighbor.  If  it  is  true  that  the  body  has 
more  part  therein  than  the  mind,  then  it  is  a  servile 
work  and  it  is  forbidden.  Of  course  there  are  serious 
reasons  that  dispense  us  from  our  obligation  to  this 
law,  but  we  are  not  talking  about  that  just  at  present. 

The  reason  of  the  proscription  is,  not  that  such 
works  are  evil,  but  that  they  interfere  with  the  intention 
we  should  give  to  the  worship  we  owe  to  God,  and 
that,  without  this  cessation  of  labor,  our  bodily  health 
would  be  impaired:  these  are  the  two  motives  of  the 
law.  But  even  if  it  happened,  in  an  individual  case, 
that  these  inconveniences  were  removed,  that  neither 
God's  reverence  nor  one's  own  health  suffered  from 
such  occupations  as  the  law  condemns,  the  obligation 
would  still  remain  to  abstain  therefrom,  for  it  is 
general  and  absolute,  and  when  there  is  question  of 
obeying  a  law,  the  subject  has  a  right  to  examine 
the  law,  but  not  the  motives  of  the  law. 

We  shall  later  see  that  there  are  other  works, 
called  common,  which  require  activity  of  the  mind  and 
of  the  body  in  about  an  equal  measure  or  which  enter 
into  the  common  necessities  of  life.  These  are  not 
forbidden  in  themselves,  although  in  certain 
contingencies  they  may  be  adjudged  unlawful ;  but,  in 
the  matter  of  servile  works,  nothing  but  necessity,  the 
greater  glory  of  God,  or  the  good  of  the  neighbor,  can 


WORSHIP    OF    REST.  173 

allow  us  to  consider  the  law  non-binding.  To  break 
it  is  a  sin,  slight  or  grievous,  according  to  the  nature 
of  the  offense. 


CHAPTER  LIII. 
SERVILE  WORKS. 

BUT,  if  servile  works  are  prohibited  on  the  Lord's 
day,  it  must  be  remembered  that  "the  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,"  that, 
for  certain  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  the  law  ceases 
to  oblige;  and,  in  these  circumstances,  works  of  a 
purely  servile  nature  are  no  longer  unlawful.  This 
is  a  truth  Christ  made  very  clear  to  the  straight-laced 
Pharisees  of  the  old  dispensation  who  interpreted  too 
rigorously  the  divine  prohibition ;  and  certain  Pharisees 
of  the  new  dispensation,  who  are  supposed  assiduously 
to  read  the  Bible,  should  jog  their  memories  on  the 
point  in  order  to  save  themselves  from  the  ridicule 
that  surrounds  the  memory  of  their  ancestors  of  Blue- 
Law  fame.  The  Church  enters  into  the  spirit  of  her 
divine  Founder  and  recognizes  cases  in  which  labor 
on  Sunday  may  be,  and  is,  more  agreeable  to  God,  and 
more  meritorious  to  ourselves,  than  rest  from  labor. 

The  law  certainly  does  not  intend  to  forbid 
a  kind  of  works,  specifically  servile  in  themselves, 
connected  with  divine  worship,  required  by  the 
necessities  of  public  religion,  or  needed  to  give  to 
that  worship  all  the  solemnity  and  pomp  which  it 
deserves ;  provided,  of  course,  such  things  could  not 
well  be  done  on  another  day.  All  God's  laws  are  for 
His  greater  glory,  and  to  assert  that  works  necessary 
for  the  honoring  of  God  are  forbidden  by  His  law  is 


174  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

to  be  guilty  of  a  contradiction  in  terms.  All  things 
therefore  needed  for  the  preparation  amd  becoming 
celebration  of  the  rites  of  religion,  even  though  of  a 
servile  nature,  are  lawful  and  do  not  come  under  the 
head  of  this  prohibition. 

The  law  ceases  likewise  to  bind  when  its 
observance  would  prevent  an  act  of  charity  towards 
the  neighbor  in  distress,  necessity,  or  pressing  need. 
If  the  necessity  is  real  and  true  charity  demands  it, 
in  matters  not  what  work,  not  intrinsically  evil,  is  to 
be  done,  on  what  day  or  for  how  long  a  time  it  is  to 
be  done;  charity  overrides  every  law,  for  it  is  itself 
the  first  law  of  God.  Thus,  if  the  neighbor  is  in 
danger  of  suffering,  or  actually  suffers,  any  injury, 
damage  or  ill,  God  requires  that  we  give  our  services 
to  that  neighbor  rather  than  to  Himself.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  in  thus  serving  the  neighbor,  we  serve  God 
in  the  best  possible  way. 

Finally,  necessity,  public  as  well  as  personal, 
dispenses  from  obligation  to  the  law.  In  time  of  war, 
all  things  required  for  its  carrying  on  are  licit.  It  is 
lawful  to  fight  the  elements  when  they  threaten 
destruction,  to  save  crops  in  an  interval  of  fine  weather 
when  delay  would  mean  a  risk;  to  cater  to  public 
conveniences  which  custom  adjudges  necessary, — and 
by  custom  we  mean  that  which  has  at  least  the  implicit 
sanction  of  authority, — such  as  public  conveyances, 
pharmacies,  hotels,  etc.  Certain  industries  run  by 
steam  power  require  that  their  fires  should  not  be 
put  out  altogether,  and  the  labor  necessary  to  keep 
them  going  is  not  considered  illicit.  In  general,  all 
servile  work  that  is  necessary  to  insure  against  serious 
loss  is  lawful. 

As  for  the  individual,  it  is  easier  to  allow  him  to 
toil  on  Sunday,  that  is,  a  less  serious  reason  is  required, 
if  he  assists  at  divine  worship,  than  in  the  contrary 
event.  One  can  be  justified  in  omitting  both 
obligations  only  in  the  event  of  inability  otherwise 
to  provide  for  self  and  family.  He  whose  occupation 


SERVILE  WORKS.  1/5 

demands  Sunday  labor  need  not  consider  himself 
guilty  so  long  as  he  is  unable  to  secure  a  position 
with  something  like  the  same  emoluments;  but  it  is 
his  duty  to  regret  the  necessity  that  prevents  him 
from  fulfiling  the  law,  and  to  make  efforts  to  better 
his  condition  from  a  spiritual  point  of  view,  even  if 
the  change  does  not  to  any  appreciable  extent  better  it 
financially;  a  pursuit  equally  available  should  be 
preferred.  Neglect  in  seeking  out  such  an  amelioration 
of  situation  would  cause  the  necessity  of  it  to  cease 
and  make  the  delinquent  responsible  for  habitual 
breach  of  the  law. 

If  it  is  always  a  sin  to  engage  without  necessity 
in  servile  works  on  Sunday,  it  is  not  equally  sinful 
to  labor  little  or  labor  much.  Common  sense  tells  us 
that  all  our  failings  are  not  in  the  same  measure 
offensive  to  God,  for  they  do  not  all  contain  the  same 
amount  of  malice  and  contempt  of  authority.  A  person 
who  resolves  to  break  the  law  and  persists  in  working 
all  day  long,  is  of  a  certainty  more  guilty  than  he 
who  after  attending  divine  service  fails  so  far  as  to 
labor  an  hour.  The  question  therefore  is,  how  long 
must  one  work  on  Sunday  to  be  guilty  of  a  mortal 
sin. 

The  answer  to  this  question  is:  a  notable  time; 
but  that  does  not  throw  a  very  great  abundance  of 
light  on  the  subject.  But  surely  a  fourth  of  the  whole 
is  a  notable  part.  Now,  considering  that  a  day's  work 
is,  not  twenty-four  hours,  but  ten  hours,  very  rarely 
twelve,  frequently  only  eight,  it  will  be  seen  to  follow 
that  two  hours'  work  would  be  considered  a  notable 
breach  of  the  law  of  rest.  And  this  is  the  decision 
of  competent  authority.  Not  but  that  less  might  make 
us  grievously  guilty,  but  we  may  take  it  as  certain 
that  he  who  works  during  two  full  hours,  at  a  labor 
considered  servile,  without  sufficient  reason,  commits 
a  mortal  sin. 


CHAPTER  LIV. 
COMMON  WORKS. 

THERE  is  a  third  sort  of  works  to  be  considered 
in  relation  to  Sunday  observance,  which,  being  of  their 
nature  neither  liberal  nor  servile,  go  by  the  specific 
name  of  common  works.  This  class  embraces  works 
of  two  kinds,  viz.,  those  which  enter  into  the  common, 
daily,  inevitable  necessities  of  life,  and  those  in  which 
the  mind  and  body  are  exerted  in  an  equal  measure. 

The  former  are  not  considered  servile  because 
they  are  necessary,  not  in  certain  circumstances,  but 
at  all  times,  for  all  persons,  in  all  conditions  of  life. 
Activity  of  this  kind,  so  universally  and  imperiously 
demanded,  does  not  require  dispensation  from  the  law, 
as  in  the  case  of  necessary  servile  works  properly 
so-called;  but  it  stands  outside  all  legislation  and  is 
a  law  unto  itself. 

These  works  are  usually  domestic  occupations, 
as  cooking  and  the  preparation  of  victuals,  the  keeping 
of  the  house  in  becoming  tidiness,  the  proper  care  of 
children,  of  beasts  of  burden  and  domestic  animals. 
People  must  eat,  the  body  must  be  fed,  life  requires 
attention  on  Sunday  as  well  as  on  the  other  six  days ; 
and  in  no  circumstances  can  this  labor  be  dispensed 
with.  Sometimes  eatables  for  Sunday  consumption 
may  be  prepared  on  the  previous  day;  if  this  is  not 
done,  whether  through  forgetfulness,  neglect  or 
indifference,  it  is  lawful  on  Sunday  to  prepare  a  good 
table,  even  one  more  sumptuous  than  on  ordinary 
days.  For  Sunday  is  a  day  of  festival,  and  without 
enthusing  over  the  fact,  we  must  concede  that  the 
words  feast  and  festival  are  synonymous  in  human 


COMMON   WORKS.  177 

language,  that  the  ordinary  and  favorite  place  for 
human  rejoicing  is  the  table,  and  in  this  man  differs 
not  from  the  other  animals  of  creation.  This  may  not 
be  aesthetic,  but  it  is  true. 

In  walking,  riding,  games,  etc.,  the  physical  and 
mental  forces  of  man  are  called  into  play  in  about 
equal  proportion,  or  at  least,  these  occupations  can  be 
called  neither  liberal  arts  nor  manual  labor;  all 
manners  of  persons  engage  therein  without  respect 
to  condition  or  profession.  These  are  also  called 
common  works;  and  to  them  may  be  added  hunting 
and  fishing,  when  custom,  rightly  understood,  does  not 
forbid  them,  and  in  this  region  custom  most  uniformly 
does  so  forbid. 

These  occupations  are  looked  upon  as  innocent 
pastime,  affording  relief  to  the  body  and  mind,  and  in 
this  respect  should  be  likened  to  the  taking  of  food. 
For  it  is  certain  that  sanitary  conditions  often  as 
imperiously  demand  recreation  as  nourishment. 
Especially  is  this  the  case  with  persons  given  to 
sedentary  pursuits,  confined  during  the  week  to  shops, 
factories  and  stores,  and  whose  only  opportunity  this 
is  to  shake  off  the  dull  monotony  of  work  and  to  give 
the  bodies  and  minds  necessary  relaxation  and 
distraction.  It  is  not  physical  rest  that  such  people 
require  so  much  as  healthy  movement  of  a  pleasing 
kind,  and  activity  that  will  draw  their  attention  from 
habitual  channels  and  thus  break  the  strain  that 
fatigues  them.  Under  these  conditions,  common 
works  are  not  only  allowed,  but  they  are  to  be 
encouraged. 

But  it  must  not  be  lost  sight  of  that  these  pursuits 
are  permitted  as  long  as  they  remain  common  works, 
that  is,  as  long  as  they  do  not  accidentally  become 
servile  works,  or  go  contrary  to  the  end  for  which 
they  are  allowed.  This  may  occur  in  three  different 
manners,  and  when  it  does  occur,  the  works  known  as 
common  are  forbidden  as  servile  works. 


178  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

1.  They  must  not  expose  us  to  the  danger  of 
omitting  divine  service.     The  obligation  to  positively 
sanctify    the    day    remains    intact.       Sin    may    be 
committed,  slight  or  grievous,  according  as  the  danger 
to  which  we  expose  ourselves,  by  indulging  in  these 
pursuits,  of  missing  public  worship,  is  more  or  less 
remote,  more  or  less  probable. 

2.  These   works  become   illicit   when  they  are 
excessive,  when  too  much  time  is  given  to  them,  when 
the  body  receives  too  large  a  share  of  the  exercise, 
when  accompanied  by  overmuch  application,  show  or 
fatigue.     In  these  cases,  the  purpose  of  the  law  is 
defeated,  the  works  are  considered  no  longer  common 
and  fall  under  the  veto  that  affects  servile  works.    An 
aggravating  circumstance  is  that  of  working  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  gain,  as  in  the  case  of  professional 
baseball,  etc. 

3.  Lastly,  there  are  exterior  circumstances  that 
make  these  occupations  a  desecration  of  the  Lord's 
day,  and  as  such  evidently  they  cannot  be  tolerated. 
They  must  not  be  boisterous  to  the  extent  of  disturbing 
the  neighbor's  rest  and  quiet,  or  detracting  from  the 
reverence  due  the  Sabbath ;  they  must  not  entice  others 
away  from  a  respectful  observance  of  the  Lord's  day 
or  offer  an  opportunity  or  occasion  for  sin,  cursing, 
blasphemy  and  foul  language,  contention  and  drunken 
ness;  they  must  not  be  a  scandal  for  the  community. 
Outside  these  contingencies  of  disorder,  the 
Sabbath  rest  is  not  broken  by  indulgence  in  works 
classified  as  common  works.  Such  activity,  in  all 
common  sense  and  reason,  is  compatible  with  the 
reverence  that  God  claims  as  His  due  on  His  day. 


CHAPTER  LV. 
PARENTAL  DIGNITY. 

WE  have  done  with  the  three  commandments 
that  refer  directly  to  God.  The  second  Table  of  the 
Law  contains  seven  precepts  that  concern  themselves 
with  our  relations  to  God,  indirectly,  through  the 
creature;  they  treat  of  our  duties  and  obligations 
toward  the  neighbor.  As  God  may  be  honored,  so  He 
may  be  dishonored,  through  the  works  of  His  ha<nd; 
one  may  offend  as  effectively  by  disregard  for  the 
law  that  binds  us  to  God's  creatures  as  for  that  which 
binds  us  to  the  Creator  Himself. 

Since  parents  are  those  of  God's  creatures  that 
stand  nearest  to  us,  the  Fourth  Commandment 
immediately  orders  us  to  honor  them  as  the  authors 
of  our  being  and  the  representatives  of  divine 
authority,  and  it  prescribes  the  homage  we  owe  them 
in  their  capacity  of  parents.  But  that -which  applies 
to  fathers  and  mothers,  applies  in  a  certain  degree 
to  all  who  have  any  right  or  authority  to  command; 
consequently,  this  law  also  regulates  the  duties  of 
superiors  and  inferiors  in  general  to  one  another. 

The  honor  we  owe  to  our  parents  consists  in  four 
things:  respect  for  their  dignity,  love  for  their 
beneficence,  obedience  to  their  authority  and  assistance 
in  their  needs.  Whoever  fails  in  one  of  these 
requirements,  breaks  the  law,  offends  God  and  sins. 
His  sin  may  be  mortal,  if  the  quality  of  the  offense 
and  the  malice  of  the  offender  be  such  as  to  constitute 
a  serious  breach  of  the  law. 

'Tis  the  great  fault  of  our  age  to  underrate 
parental  dignity.  In  the  easy-going  world,  preference 


180  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

is  given  to  profligate  celibacy  over  honorable  wedlock ; 
marriage  itself  is  degraded  to  the  level  of  a  purely 
natural  contract,  its  bond  has  lost  its  character  of 
indissolubility  and  its  obligations  are  shirked  to  meet 
the  demands  of  fashion  and  convenience.  When 
parents,  unworthy  ones,  do  not  appreciate  their  own 
dignity,  how  will  others,  their  children,  appreciate  it? 
And  parenthood  will  never  be  esteemed  while  its  true 
nature  and  sanctity  are  ignored  and  contemned;  there 
is  no  dignity  where  the  idea  of  God  is  excluded. 

After  God  had  created  man,  He  left  him  to  work 
out  his  destiny  in  a  natural  way ;  and  immediately  man 
assumed  towards  his  offspring  the  relation  that  God 
first  held  towards  himself — he  assumed  the  preroga 
tives  of  paternity  and  of  authority.  All  paternity 
belongs  to  God,  and  to  Him  alone ;  yet  man  is  delegated 
to  that  lofty,  quasi-divine  function.  God  alone  can 
create;  yet  so  near  does  the  parental  office  approach 
to  the  power  of  creation  that  we  call  it  pro-creation. 

'Tis  true,  this  privilege  man  holds  in  common 
with  the  rest  of  animated  nature,  but  with  this 
difference :  that  the  fruit  of  his  loins  is  a  child  of  God, 
with  an  immortal  soul,  an  heir  to  heaven  where  its 
destiny  is  to  glorify  the  Eternal  during  all  eternity. 
And  thus,  man,  in  his  function  of  parent,  is  as  far 
differentiated  from  the  rest  of  animal  nature  as  the 
act  by  which  God  created  man  is  superior  to  all  His 
other  creative  acts. 

If  the  tempter,  when  working  out  his  plan  for  the 
fall  of  our  first  parents,  had  simply  and  unconditionally 
said:  "Ye  shall  be  as  gods,"  his  utterance  would 
have  in  it  more  truth  than  he  intended,  for  the  mantle 
of  parenthood  that  was  soon  to  fall  upon  them  made 
them  like  unto  God.  The  children  that  romped  around 
them,  looked  up  to  them  even,  almost,  as  they  were 
accustomed  to  look  up  to  the  Creator.  And  little  the 
wonder,  since  to  their  parents  they  owed  their  very 
existence. 

As  depositaries  of  authority,  there  is  no  human 


PARENTAL   DIGNITY.  l8l 

station,  however  exalted,  comparable  to  theirs. 
Children  are  not  merely  subjects,  they  belong  to  their 
parents.  Church  and  State,  under  God,  may  see  to  it 
that  that  authority  is  not  abused ;  but  within  the  bounds 
of  right,  they  are  held  to  respect  it ;  and  their  acts  that 
go  contrary  to  the  exercise  of  parental  authority  are, 
by  the  fact  of  such  opposition,  null  and  void.  Before 
the  State  or  Church,  the  family  was ;  its  natural  rights 
transcend  theirs,  and  this  bowing,  as  it  were,  of  all 
constituted  human  authority  before  the  dominion  of 
parents  is  evidence  enough  of  their  dignity. 

"God  could  not  be  everywhere,  therefore  he  made 
parents — fathers  and  mothers" — that  is  how  the  pagans 
used  to  put  it.  However  theologically  unsound  this 
proposition  may  appear,  it  is  a  beautiful  attempt  at  a 
great  truth,  viz.,  that  parents  towards  us  stand  in 
God's  stead.  In  consequence  of  this  eminent  dignity 
that  is  theirs,  they  deserve  our  respect.  They  not  only 
deserve  it,  but  God  so  ordains  it. 


CHAPTER  LVI. 
FILIAL  RESPECT. 

WORTHY  of  honor  are  they  whom  the  Lord  sees 
fit  to  honor.  In  the  exalted  station  to  which  they 
have  been  called  and  in  the  express  command  made 
by  the  Lord  to  honor  them,  we  see  evidence  of  the 
dignity  of  parents;  and  the  honor  we  owe  them  for 
this  dignity  is  the  honor  of  respect.  By  respect,  we 
mean  the  recognition  of  their  superiority,  the  rever 
ence,  veneration  and  awe  all  well-born  men  instinc 
tively  feel  for  natural  worth  that  transcends  their 
own,  the  deference  in  tone,  manner  and  deportment 
that  naturally  belongs  to  such  worth. 


1 82  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

It  is  much  easier  to  say  in  what  respect  does 
not  consist  than  to  define  the  term  itself.  If  it  really 
exists  in  the  heart — and  there  it  must  exist,  to  be 
at  all — it  will  find  expression  in  a  thousand  different 
ways,  and  will  never  be  at  a  loss  to  express  itself. 
Books  will  give  you  the  laws  of  etiquette  and  will 
tell  you  how  to  be  polite;  but  the  laws  that  govern 
respect  are  graven  on  the  heart,  and  he  whose  heart 
is  in  the  right  place  never  fails  to  read  and  interpret 
them  correctly.  Towards  all,  at  all  times  and  in  all 
places,  he  will  conform  the  details  of  his  life  with 
the  suggestions  of  his  inner  consciousness — this  is 
respect. 

Respect  has  no  substitute ;  neither  assistance  nor 
obedience  nor  love  can  supply  it  or  take  its  place 
It  may  happen  that  children  are  no  longer  obliged 
to  help  their  parents;  they  may  be  justified  in  not 
obeying  them;  the  circumstances  may  be  such  that 
they  no  longer  have  love  or  affection  for  them;  but 
respect  can  never  be  wanting  without  serious  guilt. 
The  reason  is  simple:  because  it  is  due  in  justice, 
because  it  is  founded  on  natural  rights  that  can  never 
be  forfeited,  even  when  parents  themselves  lose  the 
sense  of  their  own  dignity. 

Sinful,  wicked  and  scandalous  parents  there  have 
been,  are,  and  will  be.  But  just  as  they  do  not  owe 
the  excellence  to  any  deed  of  their  own,  but  to  the 
free  choice  of  the  Almighty,  so  it  depends  not  on 
themselves  to  forfeit  it.  God  made  them  parents 
without  respect  for  their  personal  worth.  He  is  the 
custodian  of  their  dignity.  Good  or  bad,  they  are 
parents  and  remain  parents.  Woe  unto  those  who 
despise  the  authors  of  their  days! 

Respect  overlooks  an  innocent  joke  at  the  ex 
pense  of  a  parent,  when  absolutely  no  malice  is  in 
tended,  when  on  both  sides  it  is  looked  upon  as  a 
matter  of  good-natured  pleasantry.  It  brooks  humor. 
Not  all  familiarity  breeds  contempt. 

But  contempt,  which  is  directly  opposed  to  re- 


PARENTAL  DIGNITY.  183 

spect,  is  a  sin  that  is  never  anything  but  mortal.  It 
refuses  honor,  belittles  dignity  and  considers  parents 
beneath  esteem.  It  is  contempt  to  laugh  at,  to  mock, 
to  gibe  and  insult  parents ;  it  is  contempt  to  call  them 
vile,  opprobrious  names,  to  tell  of  their  faults;  it  is 
contempt,  and  the  height  of  contempt,  to  defy  them, 
to  curse  them  or  to  strike  them.  It  is  bad  enough 
when  this  sort  of  thing  is  directed  against  an  equal; 
but  when  parents  are  made  the  objects  of  contempt, 
it  acquires  a  dignity  that  is  infernal. 

The  malediction  of  Heaven,  the  almighty  wrath 
of  God  follows  him  or  her  who  despises  a  parent. 
We  are  repeatedly  told  in  Holy  Writ  that  such 
offenders  4'shall  die  the  death."  Scorn  of  parents 
is  looked  upon  as  a  crime  almost  on  a  par  with  hatred 
of  God.  Pagans  frequently  punished  it  with  death. 
Among  Christians  it  is  left  to  the  avenging  wrath 
of  God  who  is  pledged  to  defend  the  dignity  of  His 
delegated  paternity. 

It  is  not  a  rare  occurrence  to  see  just  retribution 
visited  upon  parents  who  in  their  day  were  undutiful, 
unworthy  and  unnatural  children.  The  justice  of 
Heaven  often  permits  it  to  be  done  unto  us  as  we  do 
unto  others.  Our  children  will  treat  us  as  we  shall 
have  treated  our  parents;  their  hands  will  be  raised 
against  us  and  will  smite  us  on  the  cheek  to  avenge 
the  grandsire's  dishonor  and  tears,  and  to  make  us 
atone  in  shame  for  our  sins  against  our  parents.  If 
we  respect  others,  they  will  respect  us;  if  we  respect 
our  parents,  our  children  will  respect  us. 


CHAPTER  LVIL 
FILIAL  LOVE. 

HE  who  has  a  heart,  and  has  it  properly  located, 
will  not  fail  to  love  that  which  is  good;  he  will  have 
no  difficulty  in  so  doing,  it  will  require  neither  com 
mand  nor  persuasion  to  make  him  do  so.  If  he  proves 
refractory  to  this  law  of  nature,  it  is  because  he  is  not 
like  the  rest  of  mortals,  because  he  is  inhuman;  and 
his  abnormal  condition  is  due,  not  to  nature's  mis 
takes,  but  to  his  own.  And  no  consideration  under 
heaven  will  be  equal  to  the  task  of  instiling  affection 
into  a  stone  or  a  chunk  of  putty. 

That  is  good  which  is  desirable,  or  which  is 
the  source  of  what  is  desirable.  God  alone  is  abso 
lutely  good,  that  is  to  say,  good  in  Himself  and  the 
cause  of  all  good.  Created  things  are  good  in  the 
proportion  of  their  furnishing  us  with  things  desir 
able,  and  are  for  that  reason  called  relatively  good. 
They  confer  benefits  on  one  and  not  perhaps  on 
another.  When  I  say:  this  or  that  is  good,  I  mean 
that  it  is  useful  to  me,  and  is  productive  of  comfort, 
happiness  and  other  desirable  things.  Because  we 
are  naturally  selfish,  our  appreciation  of  what  is  good 
depends  on  what  we  get  out  of  it. 

Therefore,  it  is  that  a  child's  first,  best  and 
strongest  love  should  be  for  its  parents,  for  the 
greatest  good  it  enjoys,  the  thing  of  all  others  to  be 
desired,  the  essential  condition  of  all  else,  namely  its 
existence,  it  owes  to  its  parents.  Life  is  the  boon  we 
receive  from  them ;  not  only  the  giving,  but  the  saving 
in  more  than  one  instance,  the  fostering  and  preserv 
ing  and  sustaining  during  long  years  of  helplessness, 


FILIAL    LOVE.  185 

and  the  adorning  of  it  with  all  the  advantages  we 
possess.  Nor  does  this  take  into  account  the  inti 
mate  cost,  the  sufferings  and  labors,  the  cares  and 
anxieties,  the  trouble  and  worriment  that  are  the  lot 
of  devoted  parenthood.  It  is  life  spent  and  given 
for  life.  Flesh  and  blood,  substance,  health  and  com 
fort,  strength  of  body  and  peace  of  soul,  lavished 
with  unstinted  generosity  out  pf  the  fulness  of  par 
ental  affection — these  are  things  that  can  never  be 
repaid  in  kind,  they  are  repaid  with  the  coin  of  filial 
piety  and  love,  or  they  remain  dead  debts. 

Failure  to  meet  these  obligations  brands  one  a 
reprobate.  There  is  not,  in  all  creation,  bird  or  beast, 
but  feels  and  shows  instinctive  affection  towards 
those  to  whom  it  owes  its  being.  He,  therefore, 
who  closes  his  heart  to  the  promptings  of  filial  love, 
has  the  consolation  of  knowing  that,  not  only  he  does 
not  belong  to  the  order  of  human  beings,  but  he  places 
himself  outside  the  pale  of  animal  nature  itself,  and 
exists  in  a  world  of  his  own  creation,  which  no  human 
language  is  able  to  properly  qualify 

The  love  we  owe  to  our  parents  is  next  in  quality 
to  that  which  we  owe  to  God  and  to  ourselves.  Love 
has  a  way  of  identifying  its  object  and  its  subject; 
the  lover  and  the  beloved  become  one,  their  interests 
are  common,  their  purpose  alike.  The  dutiful  child, 
therefore,  looks  upon  its  parent  as  another  self,  and 
remains  indifferent  to  nothing  that  for  weal  or  for 
woe  affects  that  parent.  Love  consists  in  this  com 
munity  of  feeling,  concern  and  interest.  When  the 
demon  of  selfishness  drives  gratitude  out  of  the  heart 
and  the  ties  of  natural  sympathy  become  strained, 
and  love  begins  to  wane;  when  they  are  snapped 
asunder,  love  is  dead. 

The  love  of  God,  of  course,  primes  all  other  love. 
"He  who  loves  father  or  mother  more  than  me/'  says 
the  Saviour,  "is  not  worthy  of  me."  Filial  love, 
therefore,  must  not  conflict  with  that  which  we  owe 
to  God ;  it  must  yield,  for  it  draws  its  force  from  the 


1 86  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

latter  and  has  no  meaning  without  it.  In  normal 
conditions,  this  conflict  never  occurs ;  it  can  occur 
only  in  the  event  of  parents  overriding  the  law  that 
governs  their  station  in  life.  To  make  divine  love 
wait  on  the  human  is  criminal. 

It  may,  and  no  doubt  does,  happen  that  parents 
become  unlovable  beings  through  disregard  for  the 
moral  law.  And  because  love  is  not  a  commodity 
that  is  made  to  order,  children  may  be  found  who 
justify  on  these  grounds  their  absence  of  affection 
or  even  their  positive  hatred  for  such  parents.  A 
drunken  parent,  one  who  attacks  the  life,  virtue  or 
reputation  of  his  offspring,  a  low  brute  who  has 
neither  honor  nor  affection,  and  whose  office  it  is 
to  make  home  a  living  hell,  such  a  one  can  hardly  be 
loved. 

But  pity  is  a  form  of  love;  and  just  as  we  may 
never  despise  a  fallen  parent,  just  so  do  we  owe  him 
or  her,  even  in  the  depths  of  his  or  her  degradation, 
a  meed  of  pity  and  commiseration.  There  is  no 
erring  soul  but  may  be  reclaimed ;  every  soul  is  worth 
the  price  of  its  redemption,  and  there  is  no  unfor 
tunate,  be  he  ever  so  low,  but  deserves,  for  the  sake 
of  his  soul,  a  tribute  of  sympathy  and  a  prayer  for 
his  betterment.  And  the  child  that  refuses  this,  how 
ever  just  the  cause  of  his  aversion,  offends  against 
the  law  of  nature,  of  charity  and  of  God. 


CHAPTER  LVIII. 
AUTHORITY  AND  OBEDIENCE. 

AUTHORITY  means  the  right  to  command ;  to 
command  is  to  exact  obedience,  and  obedience  is  the 
submission  of  one's  will  to  that  of  another.  The 
will  is  a  faculty  that  adores  its  own  independence,  is 


AUTHORITY  AND  OBEDIENCE.  187 

ambitious  of  rule  and  dominion,  and  can  hardly  bear 
to  serve.  It  is  made  free,  and  may  not  bend;  it  is 
proud,  and  hates  to  bend;  some  will  add,  it  is  the 
dominant  faculty  in  man,  and  therefore  should  not 
bend. 

Every  man  for  himself ;  we  are  born  free ;  all  men 
are  equal,  and  no  one  has  the  right  to  impose  his  will 
upon  another ;  we  are  directly  responsible  to  God,  and 
"go-betweens"  are  repudiated  by  the  common  sense  of 
mankind, — this  is  good  Protestant  theory  and  it  is 
most  convenient  and  acceptable  to  the  unregenerate 
heart  of  man.  We  naturally  like  that  kind  of  talk ; 
it  appeals  to  us  instinctively.  It  is  a  theory  that 
possesses  many  merits  besides  that  of  being  true  in  a 
sense  in  which  only  one  takes  it  out  of  fifty  who 
advocate  it. 

But  these  advocates  are  careful — and  the  reason 
of  their  solicitude  is  anything  but  clear — to  keep  within 
the  religious  lines,  and  they  never  dare  to  carry  their 
theory  into  the  domain  of  political  society ;  their  hard 
common  sense  forbids.  And  they  are  likewise  careful 
to  prevent  their  children  from  practicing  the  doctrine 
within  the  realm  of  paternal  authority,  that  is,  if 
they  have  any  children.  Society  calls  it  anarchy,  and 
parents  call  it  "unnatural  cussedness ;"  in  religion  it 
is  "freedom  of  the  children  of  God !" 

If  there  is  authority,  there  must  be  obedience; 
if  one  has  the  right  to  command,  there  arises  in  others 
the  correlative  duty  and  obligation  to  submit.  There 
is  no  question  of  how  this  will  suit  us ;  it  simply  does 
not,  and  will  not,  suit  us;  it  is  hard,  painful  and 
humiliating,  but  it  is  a  fact,  and  that  is  sufficient. 

Likewise,  it  is  a  fact  that  if  authority  was  ever 
given  by  God  to  man,  it  was  given  to  the  parent ;  all 
men,  Protestants  and  anarchists  alike,  admit  this.  The 
social  being  and  the  religious  being  may  reject  and 
repudiate  all  law,  but  the  child  is  subject  to  its  parents, 
it  must  obey.  Failing  in  this,  it  sins. 

Disobedience  is  always  a  sin,  if  it  is  disobedience, 


1 88  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

that  is,  a  refusal  to  submit,  in  things  that  are  just,  to 
the  express  command  of  paternal  authority.  The  sin 
may  be  slight  or  grievous,  the  quality  of  its  malice 
depending  on  the  character  of  the  refusal,  of  the 
things  commanded  and  of  the  command  itself.  In 
order  that  the  offense  may  be  mortal,  the  refusal  must 
be  deliberate,  containing  an  element  of  contempt,  as 
all  malicious  disobedience  does.  The  command  must 
be  express,  peremptory,  absolute.  And  nothing  must 
be  commanded  done  that  may  not  reasonably  be 
accomplished  or  is  not  within  the  sphere  of  parental 
jurisdiction  or  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 

An  order  that  is  unreasonable  or  unlawful  is 
invalid.  Not  only  it  may,  but  it  should  be,  disregarded. 
It  is  not  sufficient  for  a  parent,  wishing  to  oblige  under 
pain  of  grievous  sin,  that  he  ask  a  thing  done,  that  he 
express  his  mind  on  the  matter; ;  he  must  order  it  and 
leave  no  room  to  doubt  that  he  means  what  he  says. 
There  may  be  disobedience  without  this  peremptoriness 
of  command,  but  it  cannot  be  a  serious  fault.  It  is 
well  also  to  make  certain  allowance  for  the  levity  and 
thoughtlessness  of  youth,  especially  in  matters  whose 
importance  is  beyond  their  comprehension. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  parental  authority, 
exercised  in  things  that  concern  good  morals  and  the 
salvation  of  the  soul,  can  scarcely  ever  be  ignored 
without  mortal  offending.  This  means  that  besides  the 
sin  committed — if  the  prohibition  touches  matters  of 
sin — there  is  a  sin  specifically  different  and  a  grievous 
one,  of  disobedience;  by  reason  of  the  parental 
prohibition,  there  are  two  sins,  instead  of  one.  This 
should  be  remembered  by  those  who,  against  the 
express  command  of  their  parents,  frequent  bad 
companions,  remain  on  the  street  at  night,  neglect 
their  religious  duty,  etc. 

Parents  have  nothing  to  sa/y  in  the  choice  their 
children  make  of  a  state  in  life,  that  is,  they  may 
suggest,  but  must  not  coerce.  This  is  a  matter  that 
depends  on  personal  tastes  and  the  inner  voicings  of 


AUTHORITY  AND  OBEDIENCF  l80 

the  spirit ;  having  come  to  the  age  of  manhood  or 
womanhood,  the  party  interested  knows  best  what  walk 
of  life  will  make  him  or  her  happy  and  salvation 
easier.  It  is  therefore  for  them  to  choose,  and  their 
choice  must  be  respected.  In  this  they  are  not  bound 
to  obey  the  will  of  their  parents,  and  if  disinclined  to 
do  so,  should  not. 


CHAPTER  LIX. 
SHOULD  WE  HELP  OUR  PARENTS? 

THERE  are  few  things  more  evident  to  natural 
reason  than  the  obligation  children  are  under  to  assist 
their  parents  when  necessity  knocks  at  their  door,  and 
finding  them  unable  to  meet  its  harsh  demands,  presses 
them  with  the  goad  of  misery  and  want.  Old  age  is 
weak  and  has  to  lean  on  strength  and  youth  for 
support;  like  childhood,  it  is  helpless.  Accidentally, 
misfortune  may  render  a  parent  dependent  and  needy. 
In  such  contingencies,  it  is  not  for  neighbors,  friends 
or  relatives  to  come  in  and  lend  a  helping  hand;  this 
duty  devolves  on  the  offspring,  on  them  first  and  on 
them  alone. 

Charity  is  not  alone  to  prescribe  this  office  of 
piety.  A  stronger  law  than  charity  has  a  claim  in  the 
matter,  and  that  is  the  law  of  justice.  Justice  demands 
a  "quid  pro  quo,"  it  exacts  a  just  compensation  for 
services  rendered.  Even  though  there  be  no  agreement 
between  parents  and  offspring,  and  the  former  gave 
without  a  thought  of  return,  nature  records  a  contract, 
by  the  terms  of  which  parents  in  want  are  entitled  to 
the  same  support  from  their  children  as  the  latter 
received  from  them  in  the  days  of  their  helplessness. 

Those  who  do  not  live  up  to  the  terms  of  this 
natural  contract  stand  amenable  to  the  justice  of 


MORAL    BRIEFS. 

Heaven.  The  obligation  follows  them  during  life, 
wherever  they  go ;  and  they  can  no  more  shirk  it  than 
they  can  efface  the  characters  that  declare  it,  graven 
on  their  hearts.  Nothing  but  sheer  impossibility  can 
dispense  them. 

So  sacred  and  inviolable  is  this  obligation  that  it 
passes  before  that  of  assisting  wife  and  children,  the 
necessity  being  equal ;  for  filial  obligations  enjoy  the 
distinction  of  priority.  Not  even  engagements 
contracted  before  God  hold  against  the  duty  of 
relieving  parental  distress  and  want,  for  vows  are  of 
counsel  and  must  yield  to  the  dictates  of  natural  and 
divine  law. 

Of  course,  the  gravity  of  this  obligation  is 
proportionate  to  the  stress  of  necessity  under  which 
parents  labor.  To  constitute  a  mortal  sin  of  neglect, 
it  is  not  necessary  that  a  parent  be  in  the  extreme  of 
privation  and  beggary.  It  is  not  easy  to  draw  the  line 
between  slight  and  grievous  offending  in  this  matter, 
but  if  some  young  men  and  women  examined  their 
conscience  as  carefully  as  they  do  their  new  spring 
suits  and  hats,  they  would  find  material  for  confession 
the  avowal  of  which  might  be  necessary  to  confessional 
integrity. 

It  has  become  the  fashion  with  certain  of  the  rising 
generation,  after  draining  the  family  exchequer  for 
some  sixteen  or  eighteen  years,  to  emancipate  them 
selves  as  soon  as  their  wages  cover  the  cost  of  living, 
with  a  little  surplus.  They  pay  their  board,  that  is  to 
say,  they  stand  towards  their  parents  as  a  stranger 
would,  and  forgetting  the  debt  their  younger  years 
have  piled  up  against  them,  they  hand  over  a  miserable 
pittance  just  enough  to  cover  the  expenses  of  bed  and 
board.  This  might,  and  possibly  does,  make  them 
"feel  big,"  but  that  feeling  is  a  false  one,  and  the 
"bigness"  experienced  is  certainly  not  in  their  moral 
worth,  in  many  cases  such  conduct  is  a  prevarication 
aginst  the  law  of  God.  This  applies  with  equal  force  to 
young  women  whose  vanity  overrides  the  claims  of 


SHOULD  WE  HELP  OUR  PARENTS?  IQI 

charity  and  justice,  and  who  are  said  to  "put  all  their 
earnings  on  their  backs,"  while  they  eat  the  bread  that 
another  earns. 

Frequently  children  leave  home  and  leave  all 
their  obligations  to  their  parents  behind  them  at  home. 
If  their  letters  are  rare,  enclosed  checks  are  still  rarer. 
They  like  to  keep  the  old  folks  informed  of  the  fact 
that  it  costs  a  good  deal  to  live  away  from  home.  They 
sometimes  come  home  on  a  visit ;  but  these  are  visits  \ 
and  visitors,  even  if  they  do  stay  quite  a  while,  do 
not  pay  board. 

But  pecuniary  assistance  is  not  all ;  it  is  occasionally 
care  and  attention  an  aged  parent  requires,  the  presence 
of  a  daughter  who  prefers  the  gaiety  of  the  city  to  the 
quiet  of  the  old  homestead  that  is  imperiously 
demanded.  If  the  parent  be  feeble  or  sick,  the 
undutiful  child  is  criminally  negligent ;  the  crime  is  still 
greater  if  there  be  danger  through  that  absence  of  the 
parent's  dying  without  religious  consolation. 

I  have  said  nothing  of  that  unnatural  specimen  of 
humanity,  sometimes  called  a  "loafer,"  and  by  still 
more  ignoble  names,  who,  to  use  a  vulgar  term, 
"grubs"  on  his  parents,  drinks  what  he  earns  and 
befouls  the  home  he  robs,  with  his  loathsome  presence 
and  scandalous  living.  The  least  said  of  him  the 
better.  He  exists :  'tis  already  too  much  said. 


CHAPTER  LX. 
DISINTERESTED  LOVE  IN  PARENTS. 

LOVE  seems  to  resume  all  the  obligations  of  parents 
toward  their  offspring;  certainly,  it  directs  all  their 
actions,  and  they  fulfil  these  obligations  ill  or  well 
according  to  the  quality  of  that  love.  But  love  is 


I92  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

not  sufficient ;  love  is  of  two  kinds,  the  right  and  the 
wrong;  nothing  good  comes  of  an  affection  that  is 
not  properly  ordered.  In  itself,  parental  love  is  natural, 
instinctive ;  therefore  it  is  not  meritorious  to  any  high 
degree.  But  there  is  much  merit  in  the  proper  kind 
of  parental  affection,  because  it  requires  sacrifice. 

There  may  be  too  little  love,  to  the  neglect  and 
misfortune  of  children.  There  may  be  too  much,  to 
their  spoiling  and  utter  perversion.  Again  there 
may  be  affection  that  is  partial,  that  singles  out  one 
for  caresses  and  favors  to  the  exclusion  of  the  others ; 
hence  discord  and  dissensions  in  the  family.  The 
first  two  forms  of  inordinate  affection  are  equally  bad, 
while  the  last  combines  both  and  contains  the  double 
evil  thereof.  It  is  hard  to  say  which  is  the  worse 
off,  the  child  that  receives  too  much  or  the  one  that 
receives  too  little  of  that  love  which  to  be  correct 
should  avoid  extremes. 

Parents  are  apt,  under  the  sway  of  natural 
affection,  to  overlook  the  fact  that  God  has  rights  over 
the  children,  and  that  the  welfare  and  interests  of  the 
children  must  not  be  left  outside  all  consideration: 
herein  lies  the  root  of  all  the  evil  that  befalls  the 
family  through  degenerate  love.  What  is  commonly, 
but  improperly,  called  love  is  either  pagan  fondness 
or  simon-pure  egotism  and  self-love. 

When  a  vain  person  looks  into  a  mirror,  she  (if 
it  be  a  "she")  will  immediately  fall  in  love  with  the 
image,  because  it  is  an  image  of  herself.  And  a  selfish 
parent  sees  in  his  child,  not  another  being,  but  himself, 
and  he  loves  it  for  himself.  His  affection  is  not  an 
act  of  generosity,  as  it  should  be,  but  an  act  of  self- 
indulgence.  He  does  not  seek  to  please  another,  he 
seeks  to  please  himself.  His  love,  therefore,  is  noth 
ing  but  concentrated  vanity — and  that  is  the  wrong 
kind. 

Such  a  parent  will  neglect  a  less  favored  child, 
and  he  will  so  far  dote  on  the  corporal  and  physical 
object  of  his  devotion  as  to  forget  there  is  a  soul 


DISINTERESTED  LOVE  IN  PARENTS.  193 

within.  He  will  account  all  things  good  that  flatter 
his  conceit,  and  all  things  evil  that  disturb  the 
voluptuousness  of  his  attachment.  He  owns  that  child, 
and  he  is  going  to  make  it  the  object  of  his  eternal 
delights,  God's  rights  and  the  child's  own  interests  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding.  This  fellow  is  not  a 
parent ;  he  is  a  pure  animal,  and  the  cub  wiU  one  day 
make  good  returns  for  services  rendered. 

A  parent  with  a  growing-up  family,  carefully 
reared  and  expensively  educated,  will  often  lay  clever 
plans  and  dream  elaborate  dreams  of  a  golden  future 
from  which  it  would  almost  be  cruelty  to  awake  him. 
He  sees  his  pains  and  toils  requited  a  thousand  fold, 
his  disbursements  yielding  a  high  rate  of  interest  and 
the  name  his  children  bear — his  name — respected  and 
honored.  In  all  this  there  is  scarcely  anything  blame 
worthy;  but  the  trouble  comes  when  the  views  of  the 
Almighty  fail  to  square  with  the  parental  views. 

Symptoms  of  the  malady  then  reveal  themselves. 
Misfortunes  are  met  with  complaints  and  murmurings 
against  Providence  and  the  manner  in  which  it  runs 
the  cosmic  machine.  Being  usually  self-righteous, 
such  parents  bring  up  the  old  discussion  as  to  the 
justice  of  the  divine  plan  by  which  the  good  suffer 
and  the  wicked  prosper  in  this  world.  Sorrow  in 
bereavement  is  legitimate  and  sacred,  but  when  wounded 
love  vents  its  wrath  on  the  Almighty,  the  limit  is 
passed,  and  then  we  say:  "Such  love  is  love  only  in 
name,  love  must  respect  the  rights  of  God ;  if  it  does 
not,  it  is  something  else."  The  Almighty  never 
intended  children  to  be  a  paying  investment ;  it  belongs 
to  Him  to  call  children  to  Himself  as  well  as  parents 
themselves,  when  He  feels  like  it.  Parents  who  ignore 
this  do  not  give  their  children  the  love  the  latter  have 
a  right  to  expect. 

Intelligent  and  Christian  parents,  therefore,  need 
to  understand  the  true  status  of  the  offspring,  and 
should  make  careful  allowance  for  children's  own 
interests,  both  material  and  spiritual,  and  for  the  all- 


194  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

supreme  rights  of  God  in  the  premises.  Since  true 
love  seeks  to  do  good,  in  parents  it  should  first  never 
lose  sight  of  the  child's  soul  and  the  means  to  help 
him  save  it.  Without  this  all  else  is  labor  lost.  God 
frowns  on  such  unchristian  affection,  and  He  usually 
sees  to  it  that  even  in  this  world  the  reaping  be  accord 
ing  to  the  sowing. 

The  rearing  of  a  child  is  the  making  or  unmaking 
of  a  man  or  woman.  Love  is  the  motive  power  behind 
this  enterprise.  That  is  why  we  insist  on  the  disinter 
estedness  of  parental  love,  before  touching  on  the  all- 
important  question  of  education. 


CHAPTER  LXI. 
EDUCATE  THE  CHILDREN. 

BEFORE  reaching  the  age  of  reason,  the  child's 
needs  are  purely  animal ;  it  requires  to  be  fed,  clothed 
and  provided  with  the  general  necessities  of  life. 
Every  child  has  a  natural  right  that  its  young  life  be 
fostered  and  protected;  the  giver  must  preserve  his 
gift,  otherwise  his  gift  is  vain.  To  neglect  this  duty 
is  a  sin,  not  precisely  against  the  fourth,  but  rather 
against  the  fifth,  commandment  which  treats  of  killing 
and  kindred  acts. 

When  the  mind  begins  to  open  and  the  reason 
ing  faculties  to  develop,  the  duty  of  educating  the 
child  becomes  incumbent  on  the  parent.  As  its 
physical,  so  its  intellectual,  being  must  be  trained  and 
nourished.  And  by  education  is  here  meant  the 
training  of  the  young  mind,  the  bringing  out  of  its 
mental  powers  and  the  acquisition  of  useful  knowl 
edge,  without  reference  to  anything  moral  or  relig 
ious.  This  latter  feature — the  most  important  of 
all  deserves  especial  attention. 


EDUCATE  THE   CHILDREN.  IQ5 

Concerning  the  culture  of  the  mind,  it  is  a  fact, 
recognized  by  all,  that  in  this  era  of  popular  rights 
and  liberties,  no  man  can  expect  to  make  anything 
but  a  meagre  success  of  life,  if  he  does  that  much, 
without  at  least  a  modicum  of  knowledge  and  intel 
lectual  training.  This  is  an  age  in  which  brains  are 
at  a  high  premium;  and  although  brains  are  by  no 
means  the  monopoly  of  the  cultured  class,  they  must 
be  considered  as  non-existent  if  they  are  not  brought 
out  by  education.  Knowledge  is  what  counts  now 
adays.  Even  in  the  most  common  walks  of  life 
advancement  is  impossible  without  it.  This  is  one 
reason  why  parents,  who  have  at  heart  the  future 
success  and  well-being  of  their  children,  should  strive 
to  give  them  as  good  an  education  as  their  means 
allow. 

Their  happiness  here  is  also  concerned.  If  he 
be  ignorant  and  untaught,  a  man  will  be  frowned 
at,  laughed  at,  and  be  made  in  many  ways,  in  contact 
with  his  fellow-men,  to  feel  the  overwhelming 
inferiority  of  his  position.  He  will  be  made  unhappy, 
unless  he  chooses  to  keep  out  of  the  way  of  those 
who  know  something  and  associate  with  those  who 
know  nothing — in  which  case  he  is  very  liable  to 
feel  lonesome. 

He  is  moreover  deprived  of  the  positive  comforts 
and  happiness  that  education  affords.  Neither  books 
nor  public  questions  will  interest  him;  his  leisure 
moments  will  be  a  time  of  idleness  and  unbearable 
tedium ;  a  whole  world — the  world  of  the  mind — will 
be  closed  to  him,  with  its  joys,  pleasures  and  com 
forts  which  are  many. 

Add  to  this  the  fact  that  the  Maker  never  intended 
that  the  noble  faculty  of  the  intelligence  should 
remain  an  inert  element  in  the  life  of  His  creature, 
that  this  precious  talent  should  remain  buried  in  the 
flesh  of  animal  nature.  Intelligence  alone  distin 
guishes  us  from  the  brute;  we  are  under  obligation 
to  perfect  our  humanity.  And  since  education  is  a 


Ip  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

means  of  doing  this,  we  owe  it  to  our  nature  that  we 
educate  ourselves  and  have  educated  those  who  are 
under  our  care. 

How  long  should  the  child  be  kept  at  school? 
The  law  provides  that  every  child  attend  school  until 
it  reaches  the  age  of  fourteen.  This  law  appears  to 
be  reasonable  and  just,  and  we  think  that  in  ordinary 
circumstances  it  has  the  power  to  bind  in  conscience. 
The  parent  therefore  who  neglects  to  keep  children 
at  school  we  account  guilty  of  sin,  and  of  grievous 
sin,  if  the  neglect  be  notable. 

Outside  this  provision  of  the  law,  we  think 
children  should  be  kept  at  school  as  long  as  it  is  pos 
sible  and  prudent  to  do  so.  This  depends,  of  course, 
on  the  means  and  resources  of  the  parents.  They  are 
under  no  obligation  to  give  to  their  children  arc  edu 
cation  above  what  their  means  allow.  Then,  the  apti 
tudes,  physical  and  mental,  of  the  child  are  a  factor 
to  be  considered.  Poor  health  or  inherited  weakness 
may  forbid  a  too  close  application  to  studies,  while 
it  may  be  a  pure  waste  of  time  and  money  to  keep 
at  school  a  child  that  will  not  profit  by  the  advantage 
offered.  It  is  better  to  put  such  a  child  at  work  as 
soon  as  possible.  As  says  the  philosopher  of  Archey 
Road :  "You  may  lead  a  young  man  to  the  university, 
but  you  cannot  make  him  learn." 

Outside  these  contingencies,  we  think  every  child 
has  a  right  to  a  common  school  education,  such  as 
is  given  in  our  system  under  the  high  school,  whether 
it  be  fourteen  years  of  age  or  over.  Reading  and 
writing,  grammar  and  arithmetic,  history  and 
geography,  these  a<re  the  fundamental  and  essential 
elements  of  a  common  school  education;  and  in  our 
time  and  country,  a  modicum  of  information  on  these 
subjects  is  necessary  for  the  future  well-being,  success 
and  happiness  of  our  children.  And  since  parents 
are  bound  to  care  for  the  future  of  their  children,  we 
consider  them  likewise  bound  to  give  them  such  an 
education  as  will  insure  these  blessings. 


CHAPTER  LXIL 
EDUCATIONAL  EXTRAVAGANCE. 

OUR  public  educational  system  is  made  up  of  a 
grammar  and  a  high  school  course,  the  latter  consist 
ing  of  a  four  years  term  of  studies,  devoted  in  part, 
to  a  more  thorough  grounding  in  the  essentials  of 
education;  the  other  part — by  far  the  more  consider 
able,  according  to  the  consensus  of  opinion — is 
expended  on  educational  frills  and  vanities.  These 
"trimmings"  are  given  gratis,  the  public  bearing  the 
burden  of  expense,  which  foots  up  to  a  very  respect 
able  total. 

For  a  certain  class  of  people — the  people  of 
means — this  sort  of  a  thing  has  not  many  disadvan 
tages;  it  is  in  a  line  with  the  future  occupation  or 
profession  of  their  offspring.  But  for  the  bulk  of 
the  children  who  attend  our  free  schools'  and  on 
whose  parents  educational  taxes  are  levied,  it  has 
serious  inconveniences,  is  not  in  line  with  their  future 
occupation  or  profession,  is  not  only  superfluous,  but 
detrimental.  It  is  for  them  so  much  time  lost — 
precious  time,  that  were  better  spent  learning  a  trade 
or  otherwise  fitting  themselves  for  their  life  work. 
Herein  therefore  we  discover  a  double  extravagance: 
that  of  parents  who  provide  unwisely  for  their 
children's  future  and  that  of  the  municipality  which 
offers  as  popular  an  education  that  is  anything  but 
popular,  since  only  the  few  can  enjoy  it  while  all  must 
bear  the  burden  alike. 

There  is  much  in  getting  a  start  in  life,  in 
beginning  early;  a  delay  is  often  a  handicap  hard  to 
overcome.  With  very  few  exceptions,  our  children 


198  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

gain  their  livelihood  with  their  hands  and  eyes  and 
ears,  and  not  solely  with  their  brains;  they  therefore 
require  the  most  practical  education  imaginable.  They 
need  intellectual  tools  to  work  with,  and  not  a  smat 
tering  of  science,  botany,  drawing  and  political 
philosophy  to  forget  as  soon  as  possible.  Pure 
culture  studies  are  not  a  practical  gain  for  them, 
while  the  time  consumed  in  pursuing  these  is  so  much 
taken  away  from  a  thorough  training  in  the  essen 
tials.  Lectures  on  science,  elementary  experiments  in 
chemistry,  kindergarten  instructions  in  water  color 
painting,  these  are  as  much  in  their  place  in  the 
education  of  the  average  child  as  an  ivory-handled 
gold  pen  in  the  hand  that  wields  the  pick-ax. 

A  boy  is  better  off  learning  a  trade  than  cramming 
his  head  full  of  culture  fads;  he  is  then  doing  some 
thing  useful  and  profitable  on  which  the  happiness 
and  success  of  his  life  will  depend.  By  the  time  his 
companions  have  done  dabbling  in  science  and  have 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  are  simply  being 
shown  how  ignorant  they  are — not  a  very  consoling 
conclusion  after  all— he  will  have  already  laid  the 
foundation  of  his  career  and  be  earning  enough  to 
settle  down  in  life.  He  may  not  be  able  to  talk  on 
an  infinity  of  subjects  about  which  he  knows  nothing 
at  all,  but  he  will  be  able  to  earn  his  own  living, 
which  is  something  worth  while. 

If  the  free  high  school  were  more  of  a  business 
school,  people  would  get  better  returns  for  their 
money.  True,  some  would  then  be  obliged  to  pay 
for  the  expensive  fads  that  would  be  done  away  with ; 
but  since  they  alone  enjoy  these  things,  why  should 
others  be  made  to  pay  for  them  who  cannot  enjoy 
them?  Why  should  the  poor  be  taxed  to  educate  the 
rich?  Why  not  give  the  poor  full  value  for  their 
share  of  the  burden?  Why  not  provide  them  with 
intellectual  tools  that  suit  their  condition,  just  as  the 
rkh  are  being  provided  for  in  the  present  system? 

The  parochial  high  school  has,  in  several  places 


EDUCATIONAL    EXTRAVAGANCE.  IQO, 

we  know  of,  been  made  to  serve  as  a  protest  against 
such  evils  and  as  an  example  that  has  already  been 
followed  in  more  than  one  instance  by  the  public 
schools.  Intelligent  and  energetic  pastors,  knowing 
full  well  the  conditions  and  needs  of  their  people, 
offer  the  children  a  course  in  business  methods  as 
being  more  suitable,  more  profitable  and  less  extrav 
agant  than  four  years  spent  in  acquiring  a  smattering 
of  what  they  will  never  possess  thoroughly  and  never 
need  in  their  callings  in  life.  It  is  better  to  fill  young 
minds  with  the  useful  than  with  the  agreeable,  when 
it  is  impossible  to  furnish  both.  Results  already 
bespeak  the  wisdom  of  this  plan  and  reflect  no  small 
honor  on  its  originators. 

Parents  therefore  should  see  to  it  tha.t  their 
children  get  the  kind  of  education  they  need,  the  kind 
that  will  serve  them  best  in  after  life.  They  should 
not  allow  the  precious  time  of  youth  to  be  whiled 
away  in  trifles  and  vanities.  Children  have  a  right 
to  be  educated  in  a  manner  in  keeping  with  their 
conditions  in  life,  and  it  is  criminal  in  parents  to 
neglect  the  real  needs  of  their  children  while  trying 
to  fit  them  for  positions  they  will  never  occupy. 

In  the  meantime,  let  them  protest  against  the 
extravagance  of  educational  enthusiasts  and  excessive 
State  paternalism.  Let  them  ask  that  the  burden  of 
culture  studies  be  put  where  it  belongs,  that  is,  on  the 
shoulders  of  those  who  are  the  sole  beneficiaries;  and 
that  free  popular  education  be  made  popular,  that  is, 
for  all,  and  not  for  an  elite  of  society.  The  public 
school  system  was  called  into  existence  to  do  one 
work,  namely,  to  educate  the  masses:  it  was  never 
intended  to  furnish  a  college  education  for  the  bene 
fit  of  the  rich  men's  sons  at  the  expense  of  the  poor. 
As  it  stands  to-day,  it  is  an  unadulterated 
extravagance. 


CHAPTER  LXIII. 
GODLESS  EDUCATION. 

THE  other  defect,  respecting  education  as  found 
in  the  public  schools  of  the  land,  is  that  it  leaves  the 
soul  out  of  all  consideration  and  relegates  the  idea 
of  God  to  a  background  of  silent  contempt.  On  this 
subject  we  can  do  no  better  than  quote  wisdom  from 
the  Fathers  of  the  Third  Plenary  Council  of 
Baltimore. 

"Few,  if  any,  will  deny  that  a  sound  civilization 
must  depend  upon  sound  popular  education.  But 
education,  in  order  to  be  sound  and  to  produce 
beneficial  results,  must  develop  what  is  best  in  man, 
and  make  him  not  only  clever,  but  good.  A  one-sided 
education  will  develop  a  one-sided  life;  and  such  a 
life  will  surely  topple  over,  and  so  will  every^  social 
system  that  is  built  up  of  such  lives.  True  civiliza 
tion  requires  that  not  only  the  physical  and  intel 
lectual,  but  also  the  moral  and  religious,  well-being  of 
the  people  should  be  improved,  and  at  least  with 
equal  care. 

"It  cannot  be  desirable  or  advantageous  that 
religion  should  be  excluded  from  the  school.  On  the 
contrary,  it  ought  to  be  there  one  of  the  chief  agencies 
for  moulding  the  young  life  to  all  that  is  true  and 
virtuous,  and  holy.  To  shut  religion  out  of  the 
school,  and  keep  it  for  home  and  the  Church,  is, 
logically,  to  train  up  a  generation  that  will  consider 
religion  good  for  home  and  the  Church,  but  not  for 
the  practical  business  of  real  life.  A  life  is  not 
dwarfed,  but  ennobled,  by  being  lived  in  the  presence 
of  God. 


GODLESS  EDUCATION.  2OI 

"The  avowed  enemies  of  Christianity  in  some 
European  countries  are  banishing  religion  from  the 
schools  (they  have  done  it  since)  in  order  to  elimi 
nate  it  gradually  from  among  the  people.  In  this 
they  are  logical.  Take  away  religion  from  the  school, 
and  you  take  it  away  from  the  people.  Take  it  away 
from  the  people,  and  morality  will  soon  follow ; 
morality  gone,  even  their  physical  condition  will  ere 
long  degenerate  into  corruption  which  breeds  decrep 
itude,  while  their  intellectual  attainments  would  only 
serve  as  a  light  to  guide  them  to  deeper  depths  of 
vice  and  ruin.  A  civilization  without  religion  would 
be  a  civilization  of  'the  struggle  for  existence,  and  the 
survival  of  the  fittest/  in  which  cunning  and  strength 
would  become  the  substitutes  for  principle,  virtue, 
conscience  and  duty." 

One  of  the  things  the  Catholic  Church  fears  least 
in  this  country  is  Protestantism.  She  considers  it 
harmless,  moribund,  in  the  throes  of  disintegration. 
It  never  has,  cannot  and  never  will  thrive  long  where 
it  has  to  depend  on  something  other  than  wealth  and 
political  power.  It  has  unchurched  millions,  is  still 
unchurching  at  a  tremendous  rate,  and  will  end  by 
unchurching  itself.  The  godless  school  has  done  its 
work  for  Protestantism,  and  done  it  well.  Its  dearest 
enemy  could  not  wish  for  better  results. 

Popular  education  comes  more  and  more  to  mean 
popularized  irreligion.  The  future  struggles  of  the 
Church  will  be  with  Agnosticism  and  Infidelity — the 
product  of  the  godless  public  school.  And  without 
pretending  to  be  prophets  or  sons  of  prophets,  we 
Catholics  can  foresee  the  day  when  godless  education, 
after  making  bad  Christians,  will  make  bad  citizens. 
And  because  no  civilization  worthy  of  the  name  has 
ever  subsisted,  or  can  subsist,  without  religion,  the 
maintenance  of  this  system  of  popular  and  free 
government  will  devolve  on  the  product  of  Christian 
education,  and  its  perpetuity  will  depend  upon  the 
generations  turned  out  of  the  religious  school. 


202  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

The  most  substantial  protest  the  Catholic  Church 
offers  against  godless  education  is  the  system  of  her 
parochial  schools;  and  this  alone  is  sufficient  to  give 
an  idea  of  the  importance  of  this  question.  From 
headquarters  conies  the  order  to  erect  Catholic  schools 
in  every  parish  in  this  land  as  soon  as  the  thing  can 
be  done.  This  means  a  tremendous  amount  of  work, 
and  a  tremendous  expense.  It  means  a  competition 
on  educational  grounds  with  the  greatest,  richest  and 
most  powerful  nation  in  the  world.  The  game  must 
be  worth  the  candle;  there  must  be  some  proportion 
between  the  end  and  the  means. 

The  Catholic  Church  has  the  wisdom  of  ages  to 
learn  from;  and  when  she  embarks  on  an  enterprise 
of  this  kind,  even  her  bitterest  enemies  can  afford  to 
take  it  for  granted  that  there  is  something  behind  it. 
And  there  is.  There  is  her  very  life,  which  depends 
on  the  fidelity  of  her  children.  And  her  children 
are  lost  to  her  and  to  God  unless  she  fosters  religion 
in  her  young.  Let  parents  share  this  solicitude  of 
the  Church  for  the  little  ones,  and  beware  or  the 
dangers  of  the  godless  school. 


CHAPTER  LXIV. 
CATHOLIC  SCHOOLS. 

THE  Catholic  school  system  all  over  this  land  has 
been  erected  and  stands  dedicated  to  the  principle  that 
no  child  can  be  properly,  thoroughly  and  profitably 
— for  itself — educated,  whose  soul  is  not  fed  with 
religion  and  morality  while  its  intelligence  is  being 
stocked  with  learning  and  knowledge.  It  is  intended, 
and  made,  to  avoid  the  two  defects  under  which  our 
public  school  system  labors— the  one  accidental,  the 


CATHOLIC  SCHOOLS.  2O3 

other  fundamental — namely,  extravagance  and  god- 
lessness.  The  child  is  taught  the  things  that  are 
necessary  for  it  to  know ;  catechism  and  religion  take 
the  place  of  fads  and  costly  frills. 

The  Catholic  school  does  not  lay  claim  to 
superiority  over  another  on  purely  secular  lines, 
although  in  many  cases  its  superiority  is  a  very  patent 
fact;  it  repudiates  and  denies  charges  to  the  effect 
that  it  is  inferior,  although  this  may  be  found  in  some 
cases  to  be  true.  It  contends  that  it  is  equal  to,  as 
good  as,  any  other;  and  there  is  no  evidence  why 
this  should  not  be  so.  But  it  does  pretend  to  give 
a  more  thorough  education  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word,  if  education  really  means  a  bringing  out  of 
that  which  is  best  in  our  nature. 

Neither  do  we  hold  that  such  a  training  as  our 
schools  provide  will  assure  the  faith  and  salvation  of 
the  children  confided  to  our  care.  Neither  church, 
nor  religion,  nor  prayer,  nor  grace,  nor  God  Himself 
will  do  this  alone.  The  child's  fidelity  to  God  and  its 
ultimate  reward  depends  on  that  child's  efforts  and 
will,  which  nothing  can  supply.  But  what  we  do 
guarantee  is  that  the  child  will  be  furnished  with 
what  is  necessary  to  keep  the  faith  and  save  its  soul, 
that  there  will  be  no  one  to  blame  but  itself  if  it  fails, 
and  that  such  security  it  will  not  find  outside  the 
Catholic  school.  It  is  for  just  such  work  that  the 
school  is  equipped,  that  is  the  only  reason  for  its 
existence,  and  we  are  not  by  any  means  prepared 
to  confess  that  our  system  is  a  failure  in  that  feature 
which  is  its  essential  one. 

That  every  Catholic  child  has  an  inherent  right 
to  such  a  training,  it  is  not  for  one  moment  permitted 
to  doubt ;  there  is  nothing  outside  the  very  bread  that 
keeps  its  body  and  soul  together  to  which  it  has  a 
better  right.  Intellectual  training  is  a  very  secondary 
matter  when  the  immortal  soul  is  concerned.  And  if 
the  child  has  this  right,  there  is  a  corresponding  duty 
in  the  parent  to  provide  it  with  such ;  and  since  that 


204  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

right  is  inalienable,  that  duty  is  of  the  gravest.  Hence 
it  follows  that  parents  who  neglect  the  opportunity 
they  enjoy  of  providing  their  offspring  with  a  sound 
religious  and  moral  training  in  youth,  and  expose 
them,  unprepared,  to  the  attacks,  covert  and  open, 
of  modern  indifferentism,  while  pursuing  secular 
studies,  display  a  woeful  ignorance  of  their  obligations 
and  responsibilities. 

This  natural  right  of  the  child  to  a  religious 
education,  and  the  authority  of  the  Church  which 
speaks  in  no  uncertain  accents  on  the  subject  go  to 
make  a  general  law  that  imposes  a  moral  obligation 
upon  parents  to  send  their  children  to  Catholic  schools. 
Parents  who  fail  in  this  simply  do  wrong,  and  in 
many  cases  cannot  be  excused  from  mortal  offending. 
And  it  requires,  according  to  the  general  opinion,  a 
very  serious  reason  to  justify  non-compliance  with 
this  law. 

Exaggeration,  of  course,  never  serves  any 
purpose ;  but  when  we  consider  the  personal  rights  of 
children  to  have  their  spiritual  life  well  nurtured, 
and  the  general  evils  against  which  this  system  of 
education  has  been  judged  necessary  to  make  the 
Church  secure,  it  will  be  easily  seen  that  there  is  little 
fear  of  over-estimating  the  importance  of  the  question 
and  the  gravity  of  the  obligations  under  which 
parents  are  placed. 

Moreover,  disregard  for  this  general  law  on  the 
part  of  parents  involves  contempt  of  authority,  which 
contempt,  by  reason  of  its  being  public,  cannot  escape 
the  malice  of  scandal.  Even  when  the  early  religious 
education  of  the  child  is  safeguarded  by  excellent 
home  training  and  example  and  no  evil  effects  of 
purely  secular  education  are  to  be  feared,  the  fact 
of  open  resistance  to  the  direction  of  Church  authority 
is  an  evil  in  itself;  and  may  be  the  cause  of  leading 
others  in  the  same  path  of  revolt — others  who  have 
not  like  circumstances  in  their  favor. 

About  the  only  person  I  know  who  might  be 


CATHOLIC  SCHOOLS.  20$ 

justified  in  not  sending  his  children  to  Catholic  schools 
is  the  "crank,"  that  creature  of  mulish  propensities, 
who  balks  and  kicks  and  will  not  be  persuaded  to 
move  by  any  method  of  reasoning  so  far  discovered. 
He  usually  knows  all  that  is  to  be  learned  on  the 
school  question — which  is  a  lie ;  and  having  compared 
the  parochial  and  the  public  school  systems  in  an 
intelligent  and  disinterested  manner — which  is  another 
— he  finds  that  the  Catholic  school  is  not  the  place  for 
his  children.  If  his  children  are  like  himself,  his 
conclusion  is  wisely  formed,  albeit  drawn  from  false 
premises.  In  him,  three  things  are  on  a  par ;  his 
conceit,  his  ignorance  and  his  determination.  From 
these  three  ingredients  results  a  high  quality  of 
asininity  which  in  moral  theology  is  called  invincible 
ignorance  and  is  said  to  render  one  immune  in  matters 
of  sin.  May  his  tribe  decrease ! 


CHAPTER  LXV. 

SOME  WEAK   POINTS   IN   THE   CATHOLIC 
SCHOOL  SYSTEM. 

SOME  parents  claim  that  their  children  do  not 
learn  anything  in  the  Catholic  school.  It  is  good 
policy  always  to  accept  this  statement  as  true  in  all 
its  parts ;  it  may  be  true,  and  it  is  never  good  to  deny 
the  truth.  All  are  not  equally  endowed  with  brains 
in  this  world.  If  a  child  has  it  dinned  into  his  ears 
that  the  school  he  attends  is  inferior,  he  will  come 
to  be  convinced  of  the  fact ;  and  being  convinced,  he 
will  set  to  work  verifying  it,  in  his  case,  at  least. 
Heredity  may  have  something  to  d<*  with  it ;  children 
are  sometimes  "chips  of  the  old  block," — a  great 


206  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

misfortune  in  many  cases,  handicapping  them  in  the 
race  of  life.  It  is  well,  therefore,  not  to  claim  too 
much  for  our  schools.  We  concede  the  point. 

Another  parent  thinks  that  because  he  went 
through  the  public  schools  and  kept  the  faith  in  his 
day,  his  children  may  be  trusted  to  do  the  same.  This 
objection  has  a  serious  front  to  it.  It  does  seem 
strange  that  children  should  not  walk  in  the  footsteps 
of  their  worthy  parents ;  but  the  fact  is,  and  facts  are 
stubborn  things,  the  fact  is  that  they  do  not  always 
act  thus.  And  they  might  tell  you,  to  justify  their 
unseemly  conduct,  that  the  conditions  that  obtained 
in  life  in  olden  days  are  not  the  same  as  at  present; 
that  there  were  no  parochial  schools  then  to  offer  a 
choice  in  matters  of  education  and  that  kind  Providence 
might  have  taken  this  into  consideration:  that  it  was 
the  custom  in  those  days  for  children  to  imitate  the 
rugged  virtues  of  their  parents  struggling  against 
necessity  on  one  hand  and  bigotry  on  the  other;  but 
that  through  the  powerful  influence  of  money,  the 
progeny  of  the  persecuted  may  now  hobnob  with  the 
progeny  of  the  bigot,  and  the  association  is  not  always 
the  best  thing  in  the  world  for  the  faith  and  religious 
convictions  of  the  former,  unless  these  convictions 
are  well  grounded  in  youth.  The  parent  therefore 
who  kept  the  faith  with  less  had  a  very  considerable 
advantage  over  his  child  who  apparently  has  more 
privileges,  but  also  more  temptations  and  dangers. 
The  objection  does  not  look  so  serious  now. 

Of  course  there  is  the  question  of  social  standing 
— a  very  important  matter  with  some  parents  of  the 
"nouveau  riche"  type.  A  fop  will  gauge  a  man's 
worth  by  the  size  of  his  purse  or  the  style  and  cut  of 
the  coat  he  wears.  There  are  parents  who  would  not 
mind  their  children's  sitting  beside  a  little  darkey, 
but  who  do  object  most  strenuously  to  their  occupying 
the  same  bench  with  a  dirty  little  Irish  child.  A 
calico  dress  or  a  coat  frayed  at  the  edges  are  certainly 
not  badges  of  high  social  standing,  but  they  are  not 


THE    CATHOLIC    SCHOOL    SYSTEM. 

incompatible  with  honesty,  purity,  industry  and  respect 
for  God,  which  things  create  a  wholesome  atmosphere 
to  live  in  and  make  the  world  better  in  every  sense 
of  the  word.  There  is  no  refinement  in  these  little 
ones,  to  speak  of,  not  even  the  refinement  of  vice. 
There  is  something  in  the  air  they  breathe  that  kills 
the  germ  of  vice.  The  discipline  considers  sin  a  worse 
evil  than  ignorance  of  social  amenities,  and  virtue 
and  goodness  as  far  superior  to  etiquette  and 
distinction  of  manners.  If  a  different  appreciation  of 
things  is  entertained,  we  grant  the  inferiority  of  our 
schools. 

"But  then,  it  is  so  very  un-American,  you  know, 
to  maintain  separate  schools  in  opposition  to  an 
institution  so  intensely  American  as  our  public  school 
system.  This  state  of  affairs  fosters  creed  prejudices 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  true  American  to  help 
destroy.  The  age  of  religious  differences  is  past,  and 
the  parochial  school  is  a  perpetual  reminder  of  things 
of  the  past  that  were  best  forgotten." 

We  deny  that  the  system  that  stands  for  no  relig 
ious  or  moral  training  is  intensely  American.  This  is  a 
Christian  land.  If  our  denial  cannot  be  sustained,  we 
consider  such  a  system  radically  wrong  and  detri 
mental  to  the  best  interests  of  the  country;  and  we 
protest  against  it,  just  as  some  of  us  protest  against 
imperialism,  high  tariff  and  monometalism.  It  is 
wrong,  bad,  therefore  un-American. 

We  also  claim  that  the  Protestant  propaganda 
that  is  being  carried  on  under  the  guise  of  non-sectarian 
education  is  unspeakably  unjust  and  outrageous. 
Protestantism  is  not  a  State  institution  in  this  country. 
A  stranger  might  think  so  by  the  way  public  shekels 
are  made  to  serve  the  purposes  of  proselytism ;  but 
to  make  the  claim,  in  theory,  or  in  practise,  is  to  go 
counter  to  the  laws  of  this  land,  and  is  un-American 
to  a  degree.  That  is  another  un-Americanism  we 
protest  against. 

We  teach  truth,  not  creed  prejudices;  we  train 


208  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

our  children  to  have  and  always  maintain  a  strong 
prejudice  for  religious  truth,  'and  that  kind  of 
prejudice  is  the  rock-bed  of  all  that  is  good  a-nd  holy 
and  worth  living  for.  We  teach  dogma.  We  do  not 
believe  in  religion  without  dogma,  any  more  than 
religion  without  truth.  "That  kind  of  religion  has 
not  been  invented,  but  it  will  come  in  when  we  have 
good  men  without  convictions,  parties  without 
principles  and  geometry  without  theories." 

If  there  is  anything  un-American  in  all  this,  it 
is  because  the  term  is  misunderstood  and  misapplied. 
We  are  sorry  if  others  find  us  at  odds  on  religious 
grounds.  The  fact  of  our  existence  will  always  be  a 
reminder  of  our  differences  with  them  in  the  past. 
But  we  are  not  willing  to  cease  to  exist  on  that 
account. 


CHAPTER  LXVI. 
CORRECTION. 

AMONG  the  many  things  that  are  good  for 
children  and  that  parents  are  in  duty  bound  to  supply 
is — the  rod!  This  may  sound  old-fashioned,  and  it 
unfortunately  is;  there  is  a  new  school  of  home 
discipline  in  vogue  nowadays. 

Slippers  have  outgrown  their  usefulness  as 
implements  of  persuasion,  being  now  employed 
exclusively  as  foot-gear.  The  lissom  birch  thrives 
ungarnered  in  the  thicket,  where  grace  and  gentleness 
supply  the  whilom  vigor  of  its  sway.  The  unyielding 
barrel-stave,  that  formerly  occupied  a  place  of  honor 
and  convenience  in  the  household,,  is  now  relegated,  a 
hannless  thing,  to  a  forgotten  corner  of  the  cellar, 
and  no  longer  points  a  moral  but  adorns  a  wood-pile. 
Disciplinary  applications  of  the  old  type  have  fallen 


CORRECTION.  209 

into  innocuous  desuetude ;  the  penny  now  tempts,  the 
sugar  candy  soothes  and  sugar-coated  promises  entice 
when  the  rod  should  quell  and  blister.  Meanwhile 
the  refractory  urchin,  with  no  fear  to  stimulate  his 
sluggish  conscience,  chuckles,  rejoices  and  is  glad, 
and  bethinks  himself  of  some  uninvented  methods  of 
devilment. 

Yes,  it  is  old-fashioned  in  these  days  to  smite 
with  the  rattan  as  did  the  mighty  of  yore.  The  custom 
certainly  lived  a  long  time.  The  author  of  the 
Proverbs  spoke  of  the  practise  to  the  parents  of  his 
generation,  and  there  is  no  mistaking  the  meaning  of 
his  words.  He  spoke  with  authority,  too;  if  we 
mistake  not,  it  was  the  Holy  Ghost  that  inspired  his 
utterances.  Here  are  a  few  of  his  old-fashioned 
sayings:  "Spare  the  rod  and  spoil  the  child;  he  who 
loves  his  child  spares  not  the  rod;  correction  gives 
judgment  to  the  child  who  ordinarily  is  incapable  of 
reflection;  if  the  child  be  not  chastised,  it  will  bring 
down  shame  and  disgrace  upon  the  head  of  its  parent." 
It  is  our  opinion  that  authority  of  this  sort  should 
redeem  the  defect  of  antiquity  under  which  the 
teaching  itself  labors.  There  are  some  things  "ever 
ancient,  ever  new ;"  this  is  one  of  them. 

The  philosophy  of  correction  may  be  found  in  the 
doctrine  of  original  sin.  Every  child  of  Adam  has  a 
nature  that  is  corrupted ;  it  is  a  soil  in  which  pride  in 
all  its  forms  and  with  all  its  cortege  of  vices  takes 
strong  and  ready  root.  This  growth  crops  out  into 
stubbornness,  selfishness,  a  horror  of  restraint,  effort 
and  self-denial ;  mischief,  and  a  spirit  of  rebellion  and 
destruction.  In  its  native  state,  untouched  by  the 
rod  of  discipline,  the  child  is  wild.  Now,  you  must 
force  a  crooked  tree  to  grow  straight ;  you  must  break 
a  wild  colt  to  domesticate  it,  and  you  must  whip  a 
wild  boy  to  make  him  fit  for  the  company  of  civilized 
people.  Being  self-willed,  he  will  seek  to  follow  the 
bent  of  his  own  inclinations ;  without  intelligence  or 
experience  and  by  nature  prone  to  evil,  he  will  follow 


210  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

the  wrong  path;  and  the  habits  acquired  in  youth, 
the  faults  developed  he  will  carry  through  life  to  his 
own  and  the  misery  of  others.  He  therefore  requires 
training  and  a  substitute  for  judgment;  and  according 
to  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  rod  furnishes  both.  In  the 
majority  of  cases  nothing  can  supply  it. 

This  theory  has  held  good  in  all  the  ages  of  the 
world,  and  unless  the  species  has  "evolved"  by 
extraordinary  leaps  and  bounds  within  the  last  fifty 
years,  it  holds  good  to-day,  modern  nursery  milk-amd- 
honey  discipline  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  It 
may  be  hard  on  the  youngster — it  was  hard  on  us! — 
but  the  difficulty  is  only  temporary;  and  difficulty, 
some  genius  has  said,  is  the  nurse  of  greatness,  a 
harsh  nurse,  who  roughly  rocks  her  foster-children 
into  strength  and  athletic  proportions. 

The  great  point  is  that  this  treatment  be  given 
in  time,  when  it  is  possible  to  administer  it  with 
success  and  fruit.  The  ordinary  child  does  not  need 
oft-repeated  doses ;  a  firm  hand  and  a  vigorous  appli 
cation  go  a  long  way,  in  most  cases.  Half-hearted, 
milk-and-water  castigation,  like  physic,  should  be 
thrown  to  the  dogs.  Long  threatenings  spoil  the 
operation;  they  betray  weakness  which  the  child  is 
the  first  to  discover.  And  without  being  brutal,  it  is 
well  that  the  chastisement  be  such  as  will  linger 
somewhat  longer  in  the  memory  than  in  the  sensibility. 

The  defects  that  deserve  this  corrective  especially 
are  insubordination,  sulkiness  and  sullenness;  it  is 
good  to  stir  up  the  lazy ;  it  is  necessary  to  instil  in  the 
child's  mind  a  saving  sense  of  its  own  inferiority  and 
to  inculcate  lessons  of  humility,  self-effacement  and 
self-denial.  It  should  scourge  dishonesty  and  lying. 
The  bear  licks  its  cub  into  shape;  let  the  parent  go 
to  the  bear,  inquire  of  its  ways  and  be  wise.  His 
children  will  then  have  a  moral  shape  and  a  form 
of  character  that  will  stand  them  in  good  stead  in  after 
life;  and  they  will  give  thanks  in  proportion  to  the 
pain  inflicted  during  the  process  of  formation. 


CHAPTER  LXVII. 
JUSTICE  AND  RIGHTS. 

JUSTICE  is  a  virtue  by  which  we  render  unto  every 
man  that  which  to  him  is  due.  Among  equals,  it 
is  called  commutative  justice,  the  which  alone  is  here 
in  question.  It  protects  us  in  the  enjoyment  of  our 
own  rights,  and  imposes  upon  us  the  obligation  of 
respecting  the  rights  of  our  fellow-men.  This,  of 
course,  supposes  that  we  have  certain  rights  and  that 
we  know  what  a  right  is.  But  what  is  a  right? 

The  word  itself  may  be  clearer  in  the  minds  of 
many  than  its  definition ;  few  ignore  what  a  right  is, 
and  fewer  still  perhaps  could  say  clearly  and  correctly 
what  they  mean  by  the  word.  A  right  is  not  some 
thing  that  you  can  see  and  feel  and  smell:  it  is  a 
moral  faculty,  that  is,  a  recognized,  inviolable  power 
or  liberty  to  do  something,  to  hold  or  obtain  possession 
of  something.  Where  the  right  of  property  is 
concerned,  it  supposes  a  certain  relation  or  connection 
between  a  person  and  an  object;  this  may  be  a  relation 
of  natural  possession,  as  in  the  case  of  life  or 
reputation,  a  relation  of  lawful  acquisition,  as  that 
of  the  goods  of  life,  etc.  Out  of  this  relation  springs 
a  title,  just  and  proper,  by  which  I  may  call  that 
object  "mine,"  or  you,  "yours;"  ownership  is  thereby 
established  of  the  object  and  conceded  to  the  party  in 
question.  This  party  is  therefore  said  to  have  a  right 
to  the  object;  and  the  right  is  good,  whether  he  is  in 
possession  or  not  thereof.  Justice  respects  this  right, 
respects  the  just  claims  and  titles  of  the  owner,  and 
forbids  every  act  injurious  thereto. 

All  this  pre-supposes  the  idea  of  God,  and  without 
that  idea,  there  can  be  no  justice  and  no  rights, 


212  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

properly  so-called.  Justice  is  based  on  the  conformity 
of  all  things  with  the  will  of  God.  The  will  of  God 
is  that  we  attain  to  everlasting  happiness  in  the  next 
world  through  the  means  of  an  established  order  of 
things  in  this  life.  This  world  is  so  ruled,  and  our 
nature  is  such,  that  certain  means  are  either  absolutely 
or  relatively  necessary  for  the  attaining  of  that  end; 
for  example,  life,  reputation,  liberty,  the  pursuit  of 
happiness  in  the  measure  of  our  lawful  capacity.  The 
obligation  therefore  to  reach  that  end  gives  us  the 
right  to  use  these  means;  and  God  places  in  every 
soul  the  virtue  of  justice  so  that  this  right  may  be 
respected. 

But  it  must  be  understood  that  the  rights  of  God 
towards  us  transcend  all  other  rights  that  we  may 
have  towards  our  fellow-men;  ours  we  enjoy  under 
the  high  dominion  of  Him  who  grants  all  rights. 
Consequently,  in  the  pursuit  of  justice  for  ourselves, 
our  rights  cease  the  moment  they  come  into 
antagonism  with  the  superior  rights  of  God  as  found 
in  His  Law.  No  man  has  a  right  to  do  what  is  evil, 
not  even  to  preserve  that  most  inalienable  and  sacred 
of  all  rights,  his  right  to  life.  To  deny  this  is  to 
destroy  the  very  notion  of  justice;  the  restrictions  of 
our  rights  are  more  sacred  than  those  rights 
themselves. 

Violation  of  rights  among  equals  is  called 
injustice.  This  sin  has  a  triple  malice;  it  attacks  the 
liberty  of  fellow-men  and  destroys  it;  it  attacks  the 
order  of  the  world  and  the  basis  of  society ;  it  attacks 
the  decree  and  mandate  of  the  Almighty  who  wills 
that  this  world  shall  be  run  on  the  plan  of  justice.  ' 
Injustice  is  therefore  directly  a  sin  against  man,  and 
indirectly  a  crime  against  God. 

So  jealous  is  God  of  the  rights  of  His  creatures 
that  He  never  remains  satisfied  until  full  justice  is 
done  for  every  act  of  injustice.  Charity  may  be 
wounded,  and  the  fault  condoned ;  but  only  reparation 
in  kind  will  satisfy  justice.  Whatever  is  mine  is  mine, 


JUSTICE  AND  RIGHTS.  213 

and  mine  it  will  ever  remain,  wherever  in  this  world 
another  may  have  betaken  himself  with  it.  As  long 
as  it  exists  it  will  appeal  to  me  as  to  its  master  and 
owner;  if  justice  is  not  done  in  this  world,  then  it 
will  appeal  to  the  justice  of  Heaven  for  vengeance. 

The  six  last  commandments  treat  of  the  rights 
of  man  and  condemn  injustice.  We  are  told  to  respect 
the  life,  the  virtue,  the  goods  and  the  reputation  of  our 
fellow-men;  we  are  commanded  to  do  so  not  only  in 
act,  but  also  in  thought  and  desire.  Life  is  protected 
by  the  fifth,  virtue  by  the  sixth  and  ninth,  property 
by  the  seventh  and  tenth,  and  reputation  by  the  eighth. 
To  sin  against  any  of  these  commandments  is  to  sin 
against  justice  in  one  form  or  another. 

The  claims,  however,  of  violated  justice  are  not 
such  as  to  exact  the  impossible  in  order  to  repair  an 
injury  done.  A  dead  man  cannot  be  brought  back  to 
life,  a  penniless  thief  cannot  make  restitution  unless 
he  steals  from  somebody  else,  etc.,  etc.  But  he  who 
finds  himself  thus  physically  incapable  of  undoing  the 
wrongs  committed  must  have  at  least  the  will  and 
intention  of  so  doing:  to  revoke  such  intention  would 
be  to  commit  a  fresh  sin  of  injustice.  The  alternative 
is  to  do  penance,  either  willingly  in  this  life,  or  forcibly 
in  the  purging  flames  of  the  suffering  Church  in  the 
next.  In  that  way,  some  time  or  other,  justice, 
according  to  the  plan  of  God,  will  be  done;  but  He 
will  never  be  satisfied  until  it  is  done. 


CHAPTER  LXVIII. 
HOMICIDE. 

To  kill  is  to  take  life,  human  or  animal  It  was 
once  thought  by  a  sect  of  crazy  fanatics,  that  the  Fifth 
Commandment  applied  to  the  killing  of  animals  as 


214  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

well  as  of  men.  When  a  man  slays  a  man,  he  slays 
an  equal ;  when  he  kills  an  animal,  he  kills  a  creature 
made  to  serve  him  and  to  be  his  food ;  and  raw  meat 
is  not  always  palatable,  and  to  cook  is  to  kill. 
"Everything  that  moves  and  lives,"  says  Holy  Writ, 
"shall  be  unto  you  as  food." 

The  killing  therefore  herein  question  is  the  taking 
of  human  life,  or  homicide.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
but  that  life  is  man's  best  and  most  precious  possession, 
and  that  he  has  ,an  inborn  right  to  live  as  long  as 
nature's  laws  operate  in  his  favor.  But  man  is  not 
master  of  that  gift  of  life,  either  in  himself  or  in 
others.  God,  who  alone  can  give,  alone  may  take  it 
away.  Sole  master  of  life,  He  deals  it  out  to  His 
creatures  as  it  pleases  Him;  and  whoever  tampers 
with  human  life  intrudes  upon  the  domain  of  the 
Divinity,  violating  at  the  some  time  the  first  right  of 
his  fellow-man. 

We  have  an  instinctive  horror  of  blood,  human 
blood.  For  the  ordinary  individual  the  Mosaic 
enactment  that  forbids  murder  is  almost  superfluous, 
so  deeply  has  nature  graven  on  our  hearts  the  letter 
of  that  law.  Murder  is  abominable,  for  the  very  reason 
that  life  is  precious ;  and  no  reasonable  being,  civilized 
or  savage,  dealing  death  unjustly  unto  a  fellow-man, 
can  have  any  other  conviction  in  his  soul  than  that  he  is 
committing  a  crime  and  incurring  the  almighty  wrath 
of  the  Deity.  If  such  killing  is  done  by  a  responsible 
agent,  and  against  the  right  of  the  victim,  the  crime 
committed  is  murder  or  unjustifiable  homicide. 

Which  supposes  that  there  is  a  kind  of  homicide 
that  is  justifiable,  in  seeming  contradiction  of  the 
general  law  of  God  and  nature,  which  specifies  no 
exception.  But  there  is  a  question  here  less  of 
exception  than  of  distinction.  The  law  is  a  general 
one,  of  vast  comprehension.  Is  all  killing  prohibited? 
Evidently  no.  It  is  limited  to  human  beings,  in  the 
first  place;  to  responsible  agents,  in  the  next;  and 
thirdly,  it  involves  a  question  of  injustice.  What  is 


HOMICIDE.  215 

forbidden  is  the  voluntary  and  unjust  killing  of  a 
human  being.  Having  thus  specified  according  to  the 
rules  of  right  reasoning,  we  find  we  have  a  considerable 
margin  left  for  the  taking  of  life  that  is  justifiable. 
And  the  records  of  Divine  revelation  will  approve  the 
findings  of  right  reason. 

We  find  God  in  the  Old  Law^  while  upholding 
His  fifth  precept,  commanding  capital  punishment  and 
sanctioning  the  slaughter  of  war;  He  not  only 
approved  the  slaying  of  certain  persons,  I  -.t  there  are 
instances  of  His  giving  authority  to  kill.  By  so  doing 
He  delegated  His  supreme  right  over  life  to  His 
creatures.  "Whoever  sheds  human  blood,  let  his  blood 
be  shed."  In  the  New  Testament  the  officer  of  the  law 
is  called  the  minister  of  God  and  is  said  not  without 
cause  to  carry  the  sword ;  and  the  sword  is  the  symbol 
of  the  power  to  inflict  death. 

The  presence  of  such  laws  as  that  of  capital 
punshment,  of  war  and  of  self-defense,  in  all  the  written 
codes  of  civilized  peoples,  as  well  as  in  the  unwritten 
codes  of  savage  tribes,  can  be  accounted  for  only  by 
a  direct  or  indirect  commission  from  the  Deity.  A 
legal  tradition  so  universal  and  so  constant  is  a  natural 
law,  and  consequently  a  divine  law.  In  a  matter  of 
such  importance  all  mankind  could  not  have  erred; 
if  it  has,  it  is  perfectly  safe  to  be  with  it  in  its 
error. 

These  exceptions,  if  we  may  call  them  exceptions, 
suppose  the  victim  to  have  forfeited  his  right  to  live, 
to  have  placed  himself  in  a  position  of  unjust 
aggression,  which  aggression  gives  to  the  party 
attacked  the  right  to  repel  it,  to  protect  his  own  life 
even  at  the  cost  of  the  life  of  the  unjust  aggressor. 
This  is  an  individual  privilege  in  only  one  instance, 
that  of  self-defence ;  in  all  others  it  is  invested  in  the 
body  politic  or  society  which  alone  can  declare  war 
and  inflict  death  on  a  capital  offender. 

Of  course  it  may  be  said  that  in  moral  matters, 
like  does  not  cure  like,  that  to  permit  killing  is  a 


N 

2l6  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

strange  manner  of  discouraging  the  same.  But  this 
measure  acts  as  a  deterrent;  it  is  not  a  cure  for  the 
offender,  or  rather  it  is,  and  a  radical  one;  it  is 
intended  to  instil  a  salutary  dread  into  the  hearts  of 
those  who  may  be  inclined  to  play  too  freely  with 
human  life.  This  is  the  only  argument  assassins 
understand;  it  is  therefore  the  only  one  we  can  use 
against  them. 


CHAPTER  LXIX. 
IS  SUICIDE  A  SIN? 

MOST  people  no  doubt  remember  how,  a  short 
time  previous  to  his  death,  Col.  Robert  Ingersoll,  the 
agnostic  lecturer,  gave  out  a  thesis  with  the  above 
title,  offering  a  negative  conclusion.  Some  discussion 
insued  in  public  print ;  the  question  was  debated  hotly, 
and  whole  columns  of  pros  and  cons  were  inflicted  on 
the  suffering  public  by  the  theologues  who  had  taken 
the  matter  seriously. 

We  recall,  too,  how,  in  the  height  of  the  discussion, 
a  poor  devil  of  an  unfortunate  was  found  in 
one  of  the  parks  of  the  Metropolis  with  an  empty 
pistol  in  his  clinched  fist,  a  bullet  in  his  head  and  in 
his  pocket  a  copy  of  the  thesis :  Is  suicide  a  sin  ? 

To  a  Christian,  this  theorizing  and  speculation  was 
laughable  enough ;  but  when  one  was  brought  face  to 
face  with  the  reality  of  the  thing,  a  grim  humor  was 
added  to  the  situation.  Comedy  is  dangerous  that 
leads  to  tragedy. 

The  witty  part  of  the  matter  was  this :  Ingersoll 
spoke  of  sin.  Now,  what  kind  of  an  intelligible  thing 
could  sin  be  in  the  mind  of  a  blasphemous  agnostic? 


IS  SUICIDE  A  SIN?  217 

What  meaning  could  it  have  for  any  man  who 
professes  not  to  know,  or  to  care,  who  or  what  God 
is? 

If  there  is  no  Legislator,  there  is  no  Law ;  if  no 
Law,  then  no  violation  of  the  Law.  If  God  does  not 
exist,  there  can  be  no  offending  Him.  Eliminate  the 
notion  of  God,  and  there  is  no  such  thing  as  sin.  Sin, 
therefore,  had  no  meaning  for  Ingersoll;  his  thesis 
had  no  meaning,  nothing  he  said  had  any  meaning. 
Yet,  people  took  him  seriously !  And  at  least  one  poor 
wretch  was  willing  to  test  the  truth  of  the  assertion 
and  run  his  chances. 

Some  people,  less  speculative,  contend  that  the 
fact  of  suicide  is  sufficient  evidence  of  irresponsibility, 
as  no  man  in  his  right  senses  would  take  his  own  life. 
This  position  is  both  charitable  and  consoling; 
unfortunately,  certain  facts  of  premeditation  and  clear 
mindedness  militate  so  strongly  against  such  a  general 
theory  that  one  can  easily  afford  to  doubt  its  soundness. 
That  this  is  true  in  many  cases,  perhaps  in  the  majority 
of  cases,  all  will  admit;  in  all  cases,  few  will  admit  it. 
However,  the  question  here  is  one  of  principle,  and  not 
of  fact. 

The  prime  evil  at  the  bottom  of  all  killing  is  that 
of  injustice;  but  in  self-destruction  where  the  culprit 
and  the  victim  are  one  and  the  same  person,  there 
can  be  no  question  of  injustice.  Akin  to,  and  a 
substitute  for,  the  law  of  justice  is  that  of  charity,  by 
which  we  are  bound  to  love  ourselves  and  do  ourselves 
no  harm  cr  injury.  The  saying  "charity  begins  at 
home"  means  that  we  ourselves  are  the  first  objects  of 
our  charity.  If  therefore  we  must  respect  the  life  of 
our  neighbor,  the  obligation  is  still  greater  to  respect 
our  own. 

Then  there  is  the  supreme  law  of  justice  that 
reposes  in  God.  We  should  remember  that  God  is  the 
supreme  and  sole  Master  of  life.  Man  has  a  lease 
of  life,  but  it  does  not  belong  to  him  to  destroy  at  his 
own  will.  He  did  not  give  it  to  himself ;  and  he  cannot 


MORAL   BRIEFS. 

take  it  away.  Destruction  supposes  an  authority  and 
dominion  that  does  not  belong  to  any  man  where  life 
is  concerned.  And  he  who  assumes  such  a  prerogative 
commits  an  act  of  unquestionable  injustice  against 
Him  whose  authority  is  usurped. 

By  indirect  killing  we  mean  the  placing  of  an  act, 
good  or  at  least  morally  indifferent,  from  which  may 
result  a  benefit  that  is  intended,  but  also  an  evil — death 
— which  is  not  intended  but  simply  suffered  to  occur. 
In  this  event  there  is  no  sin,  provided  there  be  suffi 
cient  reason  for  permitting  said  evil  effect.  The  act 
may  be  an  operation,  the  benefit  intended,  a  cure;  the 
evil  risked,  death.  The  misery  of  ill  health  is  a  suffi 
cient  reason  for  risking  the  evil  of  death  in  the  hope  of 
regaining  strength  and  health.  To  escape  sure  death, 
to  escape  from  grave  danger  or  ills,  to  preserve  one's 
virtue,  to  save  another's  life,  to  assure  a  great  public 
benefit,  etc.,  these  are  reasons  proportionate  to  the  evil 
of  risking  life ;  and  in  these  and  similar  cases,  if  death 
results,  it  is  indirect  suicide,  and  is  in  nowise  criminal. 

The  same  cannot  be  said  of  death  that  results  from 
abuses  or  excesses  of  any  kind,  such  as  dissipation  or 
debauchery;  from  risks  that  are  taken  in  a  spirit  of 
bravado  or  with  a  view  to  winning  fame  or  lucre. 
For  a  still  better  reason  this  cannot  be  said  of  those 
who  undergo  criminal  operations :  it  is  never  permitted 
to  do  what  is  intrinsically  evil  that  good  may  come 
therefrom. 

All  this  applies  to  self-mutilation  as  well  as  to 
self-destruction ;  as  parts  of  the  whole,  one's  limbs 
should  be  the  objects  of  one's  charity,  and  God's  law 
demands  that  we  preserve  them  as  well  as  the  body 
itself.  It  is  lawful  to  submit  to  the  maiming  process 
only  when  the  utility  of  the  whole  body  demands  it; 
otherwise  it  is  criminal. 

One  word  more.  What  about  those  who  call  upon, 
and  desire  death?  To  desire  evil  is  sinful.  Yes,  but 
death  is  a  moral  evil  when  its  mode  is  contrary  to  the 
laws  of  God  and  of  nature.  Thus,  with  perfect 


IS  SUICIDE  A  SIN?  219 

acquiescence  to  order  of  Divine  Providence,  if  one 
desire  death  in  order  to  be  at  rest  with  God,  that  one 
desires  a  good  and  meritorious  thing  and  with  perfect 
regularity;  it  is  less  meritorious  to  desire  death  with 
the  sole  view  of  escaping  the  ills  and  troubles  of  life ; 
it  would  even  be  difficult  to  convict  one  of  mortal 
offending  if  he  desired  death  for  a  slight  a-nd  futile 
reason,  if  there  be  due  respect  for  the  will  of  God. 
The  sin  of  such  desires  consists  in  rebellion  against 
the  divine  Will  and  opposition  to  the  providence  of 
God;  in  such  cases  the  sin  is  never  anything  but 
grievous. 


CHAPTER  LXX. 
SELF-DEFENSE. 

THE  thought  is  a  terrible  one — and  the  act  is 
desperate  in  itself — of  a  man,  however  justified  his 
conduct  may  be,  slaying  with  his  own  hand  a  fellow 
being  and  sending  his  soul,  unprepared  perhaps,  before 
its  Maker.  But  it  is  a  still  more  desperate  thing, 
because  it  strikes  us  nearer  home,  to  yield  up  one's  life 
into  the  hands  of  an  agent  of  injustice.  There  is  here 
an  alternative  of  two  very  great  evils ;  it  is  a  question 
of  two  lives,  his  and  mine ;  I  must  slay  or  I  must  die 
without  having  done  anything  to  forfeit  my  life. 

But  the  law  of  charity,  founded  in  nature,  makes 
my  life  more  precious  to  me  than  his,  for  charity  begins 
at  home.  Then,  to  save  his  life,  I  must  give  mine ; 
and  he  risks  his  to  take  mine !  I  do  not  desire  to  kill 
my  unjur.t  aggressor,  but  I  do  intend,  as  I  have  a 
perfect  right,  to  protect  my  own  life.  If  he,  without 


2JO  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

cause,  places  his  existence  as  an  obstacle  to  my  enjoy 
ment  of  life,  then  I  shall  remove  that  obstacle,  and  to 
do  it,  I  shall  kill.  Again,  a  desperate  remedy,  but 
the  situation  is  most  terribly  desperate.  Being  given 
law  of  my  being,  I  can  not  help  the  inevitable  result 
of  conditions  of  which  I  am  nowise  responsible.  The 
man  who  attacks  my  life  places  his  own  beyond  the 
possibility  of  my  saving  it. 

This,  of  course,  supposes  a  man  using  the  full 
measure  of  his  rights.  But  is  he  bound  to  do  this, 
morally?  Not  if  his  charity  for  another  be  greater 
than  that  which  he  bears  towards  himself,  if  he  go 
beyond  the  divine  injunction  to  love  his  neigh 
bor  as  himself  and  love  him  better  than  him 
self;  if  he  feel  that  he  is  better  prepared  to  meet 
his  God  than  the  other,  if  he  have  no  one  dependent 
on  him  for  maintenance  and  support.  Even  did  he 
happen  to  be  in  the  state  of  mortal  sin,  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  such  charity  as  will  sacrifice 
life  for  another,  greater  than  which  no  man  has,  would 
wash  away  that  sin  and  open  the  way  of  mercy ;  while 
great  indeed  must  be  the  necessity  of  the  dependent 
ones  to  require  absolutely  the  death  of  another. 

The  aggression  that  justifies  killing  must  be 
unjust.  This  would  not  be  the  case  of  a  criminal  being 
brought  to  justice  or  resisting  arrest.  Justice  cannot 
conflict  with  itself  and  can  do  nothing  unjust  in 
carrying  out  its  own  mandates.  The  culprit  therefore 
has  no  grounds  to  stand  upon  for  his  defense. 

Neither  is  killing  justifiable,  if  wounding  or 
mutilation  would  effect  the  purpose.  But  here  the 
code  of  morals  allows  much  latitude  on  account  of  the 
difficulty  of  judging  to  a  nicety  the  intentions  of  the 
aggressor,  that  is,  whether  he  means  to  kill  or  not; 
and  of  so  directing  the  protecting  blow  as  to  inflict 
just  enough,  and  no  more  disability  than  the  occasion 
requires. 

Virtue  in  woman  is  rightly  considered  a  boon 
greater  than  life ;  and  for  that  matter,  so  is  the  state  of 


SELF  DEFENSE.  221 

God's  friendship  in  the  soul  of  any  creature.  Then, 
here  too  applies  the  principle  of  self-defense.  If  I  may 
kill  to  save  my  life,  I  may  for  a  better  reason  kill  to 
save  my  soul  and  to  avoid  mortal  offense.  True,  the 
loss  of  bodily  integrity  does  not  necessarily  imply  a 
staining  of  the  soul;  but  human  nature  is  such  as  to 
make  the  one  an  almost  fatal  consequence  of  the  other. 
The  person  therefore  who  kills  to  escape  unjust 
contamination  acts  within  his  or  her  rights  and  before 
God  is  justified  in  the  doing. 

We  would  venture  to  say  the  same  thing  of  a 
man  who  resorts  to  this  extreme  in  order  to  protect 
his  rightly  gotten  goods,  on  these  two  conditions, 
however:  that  there  be  some  kind  of  proportion 
between  the  loss  and  the  remedy  he  employs  to  protect 
himself  against  it;  and  that  he  have  well  grounded 
hope  that  the  remedy  will  be  effective,  that  it  will 
prevent  said  loss,  and  not  transform  itself  into  revenge. 

And  here  a  last  remark  is  in  order.  The  killing 
that  is  permitted  to  save,  is  not  permitted  to  avenge 
loss  sustained ;  the  law  sanctions  self-defense,  but  not 
vengeance.  If  a  man,  on  the  principle  of  self-defense, 
has  the  right  to  kill  to  save  his  brother,  and  fails  to  do 
so,  his  further  right  to  kill  ceases ;  the  object  is  past 
saving  and  vengeance  is  criminal.  If  a  woman  has 
been  wronged,  once  the  wrong  effected,  there  can  be 
no  lawful  recourse  to  slaying,  for  what  is  lost  is  beyond 
redemption,  and  no  reason  for  such  action  exists  except 
revenge.  In  these  cases  killing  is  murder,  pure  and 
simple,  and  there  is  nothing  under  Heaven  to  justify  it. 

Remembering  the  injunction  to  love  our  neighbor 
as  ourself,  we  add  that  we  have  the  same  right  to 
defend  our  neighbor's  life  as  we  have  to  defend  our 
own,  even  to  protect  his  or  her  innocence  and  virtue 
and  possessions.  A  husband  may  defend  the  honor 
of  his  wife,  which  is  his  own,  even  though  the  wife 
be  a  party  to  the  crime  and  consent  to  the  defilement ; 
but  the  right  is  only  to  prevent,  and  ceases  on  the 
event  of  accomplishment,  even  at  the  incipient  stage. 


CHAPTER  LXXI. 
MURDER  OFTEN  SANCTIONED. 

ALL  injury  done  to  another  in  order  to  repair  an 
insult  is  criminal,  and  if  said  injury  result  in  death, 
it  is  murder. 

Here  we  consider  an  insult  as  an  attack  on  one's 
reputation  or  character,  a  charge  or  accusation,  a 
slurring  remark,  etc.,  without  reference  to  the  truth 
or  falsity  thereof.  It  may  be  objected  that  whereas 
reputation,  like  chastity  and  considerable  possessions, 
is  often  valued  as  high  as  life  itself,  the  same  right 
exists  to  defend  it  even  at  the  cost  of  another's  life. 
But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  loss  of  character 
sustained  in  consequence  of  an  insult  of  this  kind  is 
something  very  ephemeral  and  unsubstantial ;  and  only 
to  a  mind  abnormally  sensitive  can  any  proportion  be 
perceived  between  the  loss  and  the  remedy.  This  is 
especially  true  when  the  attack  is  in  words  and  goes 
no  farther  than  words:  for  "sticks  and  stones  will 
break  your  bones,  but  names  will  never  hurt  you,"  as 
we  used  to  say  when  we  were  boys.  Then,  words  are 
such  fleeting  things  that  the  harm  is  done,  whatever 
harm  there  is,  before  any  remedy  can  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  it;  which  fact  leaves  no  room  for  self- 
defense. 

In  such  a  case,  the  only  redress  that  can  be  had 
is  from  the  courts  of  justice,  established  to  undo 
wrongs  as  far  as  the  thing  can  be  done.  The  power 
to  do  this  belongs  to  the  State  alone,  and  is  vested 
in  no  private  individual.  To  assume  the  prerogative 
of  privately  doing  oneself  justice,  when  recourse  can 
be  had  to  the  tribunals  of  justice,  is  to  sin,  and  every 
act  committed  in  this  pursuit  of  justice  is  unlawful 
and  criminal. 


MURDER  OFTEN    SANCTIONED.  223 

This  applies  likewise  to  all  the  other  cases  of 
self-defense  wherein  life,  virtue  and  wealth  are  con 
cerned,  if  the  harm  is  already  done,  or  if  legal 
measures  can  prevent  the  evil,  or  undo  it.  It  may 
be  that  the  justice  dealt  out  by  the  tribunal,  in  case 
of  injury  being  done  to  us,  prove  inferior  to  that 
which  we  might  have  obtained  ourselves  by  private 
methods.  But  this  is  not  a  reason  for  one  to  take 
the  law  into  one's  own  hands.  Such  loss  is  accidental 
and  must  be  ascribed  to  the  inevitable  course  of  human 
things. 

Duelling  is  a  form  of  murder  and  suicide  com 
bined,  for  which  there  can  possibly  be  no  justification. 
The  code  of  honor  that  requires  the  reparation  of 
an  insult  at  the  point  of  the  sword  or  the  muzzle  of 
a  pistol  has  no  existence  outside  the  befogged  intel 
ligence  of  godless  men.  The  duel  repairs  nothing 
and  aggravates  the  evil  it  seeks  to  remedy.  The 
justice  it  appeals  to  is  a  creature  dependent  on  skill 
and  luck;  such  justice  is  not  only  blind,  but  crazy 
as  well. 

That  is  why  the  Church  anathematizes  duelling. 
The  duel  she  condemns  is  a  hand-to-hand  combat 
prearranged  as  to  weapons,  time  and  place,  and  it 
is  immaterial  whether  it  be  to  the  death  or  only  to 
the  letting  of  first  blood.  She  fulminates  her  major 
excommunication  against  duellists,  even  in  the  event 
of  their  failing  to  keep  their  agreement.  Her  sen 
tence  affects  seconds  and  all  those  who  advise  or 
favor  or  abet^  and  even  those  whose  simple  presence 
is  an  incentive  and  encouragement.  She  refuses 
Christian  burial  to  the  one  who  falls,  unless  before 
dying  he  shows  certain  dispositions  of  repentance. 

Prize  fighting,  however  brutal  and  degrading, 
must  not  be  put  in  the  category  of  duelling.  Its  object 
is  not  to  wipe  out  an  insult,  but  to  furnish  sport  and  to 
reap  the  incidental  profits.  In  normal  conditions  there 
is  no  danger  to  life  or  limb.  Sharkey  might  stop  with 
the  point  of  his  chin  a  blow  that  would  send  many 


224  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

another  into  kingdom  come;  but  so  long  as  Sharkey 
does  the  stopping  the  danger  remains  non-existent.  If, 
however,  hate  instead  of  lucre  bring  the  men  together, 
that  motive  would  be  sufficient  to  make  the  game  one 
of  blood  if  not  of  death. 

Lynching,  is  another  kind  of  murder,  and  a 
cowardly,  brutal  kind,  at  that.  No  crime,  no  abom 
ination  on  the  part  of  the  victim,  however  great,  can 
justify  such  an  inhuman  proceeding.  It  brands  with 
the  crime  of  wilful  murder  every  man  or  woman  who 
has  a  hand  in  it.  To  defend  the  theory  of  lynching 
is  as  bad  as  to  carry  it  out  in  practice.  And  it  is 
greatly  to  be  feared  that  the  Almighty  will  one  day 
call  this  land  to  account  for  the  outrageous  perform 
ances  of  unbridled  license  and  heartless  cruelty  that 
occur  so  frequently  in  our  midst. 

The  only  plea  on  which  to  ground  a<n  excuse  for  such 
exhibitions  of  brutality  and  disrespect  for  order  and 
justice  would  be  the  inability  of  established  government 
to  mete  out  justice  to  the  guilty ;  but  this  is  not  even 
the  case,  for  government  is  defied  and  lawful  authority 
capable  and  willing  to  punish  is  spurned;  the  culprit 
is  taken  from  the  hands  of  the  law  and  delivered 
over  to  the  vengeance  of  a  mob.  However  popular 
the  doctrine  of  Judge  Lynch  may  be  in  certain  sec 
tions  of  the  land,  it  is  nevertheless  reprobated  by  the 
law  of  God  and  stands  condemned  at  the  bar  of  His 
justice. 


CHAPTER  LXXII. 
ON  THE  ETHICS  OF  WAR. 

IN  these  days,  since  we  have  evolved  into  a  fight 
ing  nation,  our  young  men  feel  within  them  the  in 
stinct  of  battle,  which,  like  Job's  steed,  "when  it 
heareth  the  trumpet,  saith :  'ha,  ha' ;  that  smelleth  the 
battle  afar  off,  the  encouraging  of  the  captains,  the 
shouting  of  the  army/'  Military  trappings  are  no 
longer  looked  upon  as  stage  furniture,  good  only  for 
Fourth-of-July  parades  and  sham  manoeuvers.  War 
with  us  has  become  a  stern  reality,  and  promises  to 
continue  such,  for  people  do  not  yield  up  willingly 
their  independence,  even  to  a  world-power  with  a 
providential  "destiny"  to  fulfil.  And  since  war  is 
slaughter,  it  might  be  apropos  to  remark  on  the 
morality  of  such  killing  as  is  done  on  the  field  of  battle 
and  of  war  in  general. 

In  every  war  there  is  a  right  side  and  a  wrong 
side;  sometimes,  perhaps,  more  frequently,  there  is 
right  and  wrong  on  both  sides,  due  to  bungling  di 
plomacy  and  the  blindness  of  prejudice.  But  in  every 
case  justice  demands  the  triumph  of  one  cause  and 
the  defeat  of  the  other.  To  determine  in  any  particu 
lar  case  the  side  of  right  and  justice  is  a  very  difficult 
matter.  And  perhaps  it  is  just  as  well  that  it  is  so; 
for  could  this  be  done  with  truth  and  accuracy,  fright 
ful  responsibilities  would  have  to  be  placed  on  the 
shoulders  of  somebody;  and  we  shrink  instinctively 
from  the  thought  of  any  one  individual  or  body  of 
individuals  standing  before  God  with  the  crime  of  war 
on  his  or  their  souls. 

Therefore  it  is  that  grave  men  are  of  the  opinion 
that  such  a  tremendous  event  as  war  is  not  wholly 


226  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

of  man's  making,  but  rather  an  act  of  God,  like  earth 
quakes,  volcanic  eruptions  and  the  like;  which  things 
He  uses  as  flails  to  chastise  His  people,  or  to  bring 
them  to  a  sense  of  their  own  insignificance  in  His  sight. 
Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  a  private 
individual  is  rarely,  if  ever,  competent  to  judge  rightly 
by  himself  of  the  morality  of  any  given  cause,  until 
such  time  at  least  as  history  has  probed  the  matter 
and  brought  every  evidence  to  light.  In  case,  there 
fore,  of  doubt,  every  presumption  should  favor  the 
cause  of  one's  own  country.  If,  in  my  private  opinion, 
the  cause  of  my  country  is  doubtfully  wrong,  then 
that  doubt  should  yield  to  the  weight  of  higher 
authoritative  opinion.  Official  or  popular  judgment 
will  be  authority  for  me ;  on  that  authority  I  may  form 
a  strong  probable  opinion,  at  least;  and  this  will 
assure  the  morality  of  my  taking  up  my  country's 
cause,  even  though  it  be  doubtful  from  my  personal 
point  of  view.  If  this  cannot  be  done  and  one's  con 
science  positively  reprove  such  a  cause,  then  that  one 
cannot,  until  a  contrary  conviction  is  acquired,  take 
any  part  therein.  But  he  is  in  no  wise  bound  to 
defend  with  arms  the  other  side,  for  his  convictions 
are  subjective  and  general  laws  do  not  take  these 
into  account. 

Who  are  bound  to  serve?  That  depends  on  the 
quality  of  danger  to  which  the  commonwealth  is  ex 
posed.  First,  the  obligation  is  for  those  who  can  do 
so  easily ;  young  men,  strong,  unmarried,  with  a  taste 
for  such  adventure  as  war  affords.  The  greater  the 
general  peril,  the  less  private  needs  should  be  con 
sidered.  The  situation  may  be  such  as  to  call  forth 
every  able-bodied  man,  irrespective  of  family  neces 
sities.  To  shirk  this  duty  when  it  is  plainly  a  duty 
— a  rare  circumstance,  indeed — is  without  doubt  a  sin. 

Obedience  to  orders  is  the  alpha  and  omega  of 
army  disclipine;  without  it  a  cause  is  lost  from  the 
beginning.  Numbers  are  nothing  compared  to  order ; 
a  mob  is  not  a  fighting  machine;  it  is  only  a  fair 


ON    THE    ETHICS   OF    WAR.  22/ 

target.  The  issue  of  a  battle,  or  even  of  a  whole  war, 
may  depend  on  obedience  to  orders.  Army  men  know 
this  so  well  that  death  is  not  infrequently  the  penalty 
of  disobedience.  Consequently,  a  violation  of  dis 
cipline  is  usually  a  serious  offense ;  it  may  easily  be  a 
mortal  sin. 

War  being  slaughter,  the  soldier's  business  is  to 
kill  or  rather  to  disable,  as  many  of  the  enemy  as  pos 
sible  on  the  field  of  battle.  This  disabling  process 
means,  of  course,  and  necessarily,  the  maiming  unto 
death  of  many.  Such  killing  is  not  only  lawful,  but 
obligatory.  War,  like  the  surgeon's  knife,  must  often 
lop  off  much  in  order  to  save  the  whole.  The  best 
soldier  is  he  who  inflicts  most  damage  on  the  enemy. 

But  the  desire  and  intention  of  the  soldier  should 
not  be  primarily  to  kill,  but  only  to  put  the  enemy 
beyond  the  possibility  of  doing  further  harm.  Death 
will  be  the  result  of  his  efforts  in  many  cases,  and  this 
he  suffers  to  occur  rather  than  desires  and  intends. 
He  has  no  right  to  slay  outside  of  battle  or  without 
the  express  command  of  a  superior  officer ;  if  he  does 
so,  he  is  guilty  of  murder.  Neither  must  there  be 
hate  behind  the  aim  that  singles  out  a  foe  for 
destruction;  the  general  hatred  which  he  bestows  on 
the  opposing  cause  must  respect  the  individual  enemy. 

It  is  not  lawful  to  wantonly  torture  or  maim  an 
enemy,  whoever  or  whatever  he  may  be,  however  great 
his  crime.  Not  even  the  express  command  of  a 
superior  officer  can  justify  such  doings,  because  it  is 
barbarity,  pure  and  unmitigated.  In  war  these  things 
are  morally  just  what  they  would  be  if  they  were 
perpetrated  in  the  heart  of  peace  and  civilization  by  a 
gang  of  thugs.  These  are  abominations  that,  not  only 
disgrace  the  flag  under  which  they  are  committed,  but 
even  cry  to  Heaven  for  vengeance, 


CHAPTER  LXXIIL 
THE  MASSACRE  OF  THE  INNOCENTS. 

HEROD,  the  Bloody,  slew  all  under  two.  A  modern 
Moloch,  a  creature  of  lust  and  blood,  disguised  often 
under  the  cloak  of  respectability,  stalks  through  a 
Christian  land  denying  the  babe  the  right  to  be  born 
at  all,  demanding  that  it  be  crushed  as  soon  as  con 
ceived.  There  is  murder  and  murder;  but  this  is  the 
most  heartless,  cowardly  and  brutal  on  the  catalogue 
of  crime. 

It  is  bad  enough  to  cut  down  an  enemy,  to  shoot 
him  in  the  back;  but  when  it  comes  to  slaying  a  vic 
tim  as  helpless  as  a  babe,  incapable  of  entering  a  pro 
test,  innocent  of  all  wrong  save  that  of  existing ;  when 
even  baptism  is  denied  it,  and  thereby  the  sight  of 
God  for  all  eternity;  when  finally  the  victim  is  one's 
own  flesh  and  blood,  the  language  of  hell  alone  is 
capable  of  qualifying  such  deeds. 

Do  not  say  there  is  no  injustice.  Every  innocent 
human  being,  at  every  stage  of  its  existence,  from 
the  first  to  the  last,  born  or  unborn,  has  a  natural  and 
inalienable  right  to  live,  as  long  as  nature's  laws 
operate  in  its  favor.  Being  innocent  it  cannot  forfeit 
that  right.  God  is  no  exceptor  of  persons;  a  soul 
is  a  soul,  whether  it  be  the  soul  of  a  pontiff,  a  king 
or  a  sage,  or  the  soul  of  the  unborn  babe  of  the  last 
woman  of  the  people.  In  every  case,  the  right  to  live 
is  exactly  the  same. 

The  circumstances,  regular  or  irregular,  of  its 
coming  into  life,  not  being  of  its  own  making,  do  not 
affect  the  right  in  the  least.  It  obeyed  the  law  by 
which  every  man  is  created ;  it  could  not  disobey,  for 


THE  MASSACRE  OF  THE  INNOCENTS.  229 

the  law  is  fatal.  Its  presence  therefore,  cannot  be 
morally  obnoxious,  a  crime  on  its  part.  Whether 
its  presence  is  a  joy  or  a  shame,  that  depends  solely 
on  the  free  act  of  others  than  itself ;  and  it  is  for  them 
to  enjoy  the  privilege  or  bear  the  disgrace  and  burden. 
That  presence  may  occasion  poverty,  suffering,  it  may 
even  endanger  life;  what  if  it  does!  Has  a  person 
in  misfortune  the  right  to  strike  down  another  who  has 
had  no  part  in  making  that  misfortune  ? 

Life  does  not  begin  at  birth,  but  precedes  it; 
prenatal  life  is  truly  life.  That  which  is  conceived, 
is ;  being,  it  lives  as  essentially  as  a  full-grown  man 
in  the  prime  of  life.  Being  the  fruit  of  humanity  it 
is  human  at  every  instant  of  its  career ;  being  human, 
it  is  a  creature  of  God,  has  an  immortal  soul  with  the 
image  of  the  Maker  stamped  thereon.  And  the  veto 
of  God,  "Thou  shalt  not  kill,"  protects  that  life,  or  it 
has  no  meaning  at  all. 

The  psychological  moment  of  incipient  life,  the 
instant  marked  by  the  infusion  of  soul  into  body,  may 
furnish  a  problem  of  speculation  for  the  savant;  but 
even  when  certitude  ends  and  doubt  begins,  the  law 
of  God  fails  not  to  protect.  No  man  who  doubts 
seriously  that  the  act  he  is  about  to  perform  is  a 
crime,  and  is  free  to  act  or  not  to  act,  is  anything  but 
a  criminal,  if  he  goes  ahead  notwithstanding  and  does 
the  deed.  If  I  send  a  bullet  into  a  man's  head 
doubting  whether  or  not  he  be  dead,  I  commit  murder 
by  that  act,  and  it  matters  not  at  all  in  point  of  fact 
whether  said  person  were  really  dead  or  not  before  I 
made  sure.  In  the  matter,  therefore,  which  concerns 
us  here,  doubt  will  not  make  killing  justifiable.  The 
law  is :  when  in  doubt,  do  not  act. 

Then,  again,  as  far  as  guilt  is  concerned,  it  makes 
not  a  particle  of  difference  whether  results  follow  or 
not.  Sin,  you  know,  is  an  act  of  the  will;  the  ex 
terior  deed  completes,  but  does  not  make,  the  crime. 
If  I  do  all  in  my  power  to  effect  a  wrong  and  fail  in 
the  attempt  through  no  fault  of  my  own,  I  am  just 


MORAL   BRIEFS. 

as  guilty  before  God  as  if  I  perpetrated  the  crime 
in  deed.  It  is  more  than  a  desire  to  commit  sin, 
which  is  sinful ;  it  is  a  specific  sin  in  itself,  and  in  this 
matter,  it  is  murder  pure  and  simple. 

This  applies  with  equal  force  to  the  agent  who 
does  the  deed,  to  the  principal  who  has  it  done  or 
consents  to  its  being  done,  to  those  who  advise,  en 
courage,  urge  or  co-operate  in  any  way  therein,  as 
well  as  to  those  who  having  authority  to  prevent, 
neglect  to  use  it.  The  stain  of  blood  is  on  the  soul  of 
every  person  to  whom  any  degree  of  responsibility 
or  complicity  can  be  attached. 

If  every  murderer  in  this  enlightened  Christian 
land  of  ours  received  the  rope  which  is  his  or  her  due, 
according  to  the  letter  of  the  law,  business  would  be 
brisk  for  quite  a  spell.  It  is  a  small  town  that  has  not 
its  professional  babe-slaughterer,  who  succeeds  in 
evading  the  law  even  when  he  contrives  to  kill  two  at 
one  time.  He  does  not  like  to  do  it,  but  there  is  money 
in  it,  you  know;  and  he  pockets  his  unholy  blood 
money  without  a  squirm.  Don't  prosecute  him ;  if  you 
do,  he  will  make  revelations  that  will  startle  the  town. 

As  for  the  unnatural  mother,  it  is  best  to  leave 
her  to  listen  in  the  dead  of  night  to  the  appealing  voice 
of  her  murdered  babes  before  the  tribunal  of  God's 
infinite  justice.  Their  blood  calls  for  vengeance. 


CHAPTER  LXXIV. 

ENMITY. 

KILLING  is  not  the  only  thing  forbidden  by  the 
Fifth  Commandment :  thereby  are  prescribed  all  forms 
of  enmity,  of  which  killing  is  one,  that  attack  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  thought  or  desire,  as  well  as 
in  deed,  the  life,  limbs  or  health  of  the  neighbor.  The 
fifth  precept  protects  the  physical  man;  everything 
therefore  that  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a  design  on 
the  body  of  another  is  an  offense  against  this 
commandment.  All  such  offenses  are  not  equally 
grievous,  but  each  contains  a  malice  of  its  Own,  which 
is  prescribed  under  the  head  of  killing. 

Enmity  that  takes  the  form  of  fighting,  assault 
and  battery,  is  clearly  a  breach  of  the  law  of  God. 
It  is  lawful  to  wound,  maim  and  otherwise  disable  an 
assailant,  on  the  principle  of  self-defense,  when  there 
is  no  other  means  of  protecting  oneself  against  attack. 
But  outside  this  contingency,  such  conduct  is  ruffianism 
before  man,  and  sin  before  God.  The  State  alone  has 
the  right  to  inflict  penalties  and  avenge  wrongs ;  to 
turn  this  right  over  to  every  individual  would  be 
destructive  of  society.  If  this  sort  of  a  thing  is 
unlawful  and  criminal  when  there  might  be  some  kind 
of  an  excuse  for  it  on  the  ground  of  injury  received, 
the  malice  thereof  is  aggravated  considerably  by  the 
fact  of  there  being  no  excuse  at  all,  or  only  imaginary 
ones. 

There  is  another  form  of  enmity  or  hatred  that 
runs  not  to  blows  but  to  words.  Herein  is  evil,  not 
because  of  any  bodily  injury  wrought,  of  which  there 
is  none,  but  because  of  the  diabolical  spirit  that 
manifests  itself,  a  spirit  reproved  by  God  and  which, 


232  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

in  given  circumstances,  is  ready  to  resort  to  physical 
injury  and  even  to  the  letting  of  blood.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  hatred  in  itself  is  forbidden  by  this 
commandment,  for  "whosoever  hateth  his  brother  is  a 
murderer,"  according  to  St.  John.  It  matters  little, 
therefore,  whether  such  hatred  be  in  deeds  or  in  words ; 
the  malice  is  there  and  the  sin  is  consummated.  A 
person,  too  weak  to  do  an  enemy  bodily  harm,  may 
often  use  his  or  her  tongue  to  better  effect  than  another 
could  his  fists,  and  the  verbal  outrage  thus  committed 
may  be  worse  than  a  physical  one. 

It  is  not  even  necessary  that  the  spirit  of  enmity 
show  itself  at  all  on  the  outside  for  the  incurring  of 
such  guilt  as  attends  the  violation  of  this 
commandment.  It  is  sufficient  that  it  possess  the  souly 
and  go  no  farther  than  a  desire  to  do  harm.  This  is 
the  spirit  of  revenge,  and  it  is  none  the  less  sinful  in 
the  eyes  of  God  because  it  lacks  the  complement  of 
exterior  acts.  It  is  immoral  to  nourish  a  grudge 
against  a  fellow-man.  Such  a  spirit  only  awaits  an 
occasion  to  deal  a  blow,  and,  when  that  occasion  shows 
itself,  will  be  ready,  willing  and  anxious  to  strike.  The 
Lord  refuses  the  gifts  and  offerings  and  prayers  of 
such  people  as  these;  they  are  told  to  go  and  become 
reconciled  with  their  brother  and  lay  low  the  spirit 
that  holds  them;  then,  and  only  then,  will 
their  offerings  be  acceptable. 

Even  less  than  this  suffices  to  constitute  a  breach 
of  the  Fifth  Commandment.  It  is  the  quality  of  such 
passions  as  envy  and  jealousy  to  sometimes  be  content 
with  the  mere  thought  of  injury  done  to  their  object, 
without,  even  going  so  far  as  to  desire  to  work  the 
evil  themselves.  These  passions  are  often  held  in 
check  for  a  time;  but,  in  the  event  of  misfortune 
befalling  the  hated  rival,  there  follows  a  sense  of 
complacency  and  satisfaction  which,  if  entertained,  has 
all  the  malice  of  mortal  sin.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the 
prosperity  of  another  inspire  us  with  a  feeling  of 
regret  and  sadness,  which  is  deliberately  countenanced 


ENMITY. 

and  consented  to,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the 
grievous  malice  of  such  a  failing. 

Finally  recklessness  may  be  the  cause  of  our 
harming  another.  It  is  a  sound  principle  of  morals 
that  one  is  responsible  for  his  acts  in  the  measure  of 
his  foreseeing,  and  consenting  to,  the  results  and 
consequences.  But  there  is  still  another  sound  principle 
according  to  which  every  man  is  accountable,  at  least 
indirectly,  for  the  evil  consequences  of  his  actions, 
even  though  they  be  unforeseen  and  involuntary,  in  the 
measure  of  the  want  of  ordinary  human  prudence 
shown  in  his  conduct.  A  man  with  a  loaded  revolver 
in  his  hand  may  not  have  any  design  on  the  lives  of 
his  neighbors;  but  if  he  blazes  away  right  and  left, 
and  happens  to  fill  this  or  that  one  with  lead,  he  is 
guilty,  if  he  is  in  his  right  mind;  and  a  sin,  a  mortal 
sin,  is  still  a  sin,  even  if  it  is  committed  indirectly. 
Negligence  is  often  culpable,  and  ignorance  frequently 
a  sin. 

Naturally,  just  as  the  soul  is  superior  to  the  body, 
so  evil  example,  scandal,  the  killing  of  the  soul  of 
another  is  a  crime  of  a  far  greater  enormity  than  the 
working  of  injury  unto  the  body.  Scandal  comes 
properly  under  the  head  of  murder ;  but  it  is  less  blood 
than  lust  that  furnishes  it  with  working  material.  It 
will  therefore  be  treated  in  its  place  and  time. 


CHAPTER  LXXV. 
OUR  ENEMIES. 

WHAT  is  an  enemy?  A  personal,  an  individual 
enemy  is  he  who  has  done  us  a  personal  injury.  The 
enemy,  in  a  general  or  collective  sense,  are  they — a 
people,  a  class  or  party — who  are  opposed  to  our 
interests,  whose  presence,  doings  or  sayings  are 


234  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

obnoxious  to  us  for  many  natural  reasons.  Concerning 
these  latter,  it  might  be  said  that  it  is  natural,  often 
times  necessary  and  proper,  to  oppose  them  by  all 
legitimate  means.  This  opposition,  however  lawful,  is 
scarcely  ever  compatible  with  any  high  degree  of 
charity  or  affection.  But  whatever  of  aversion, 
antipathy  or  even  hatred  is  thereby  engendered,  it  is 
not  of  a  personal  nature;  it  does  not  attain  the 
individual,  but  embraces  a  category  of  beings  as  a 
whole,  who  become  identified  with  the  cause  they 
sustain  and  thereby  fall  under  the  common  enmity. 
The  law  that  binds  us  unto  love  of  our  enemy 
operates  only  in  favor  of  the  units,  and  not  of  the 
group  as  a  group. 

Hatred,  aversion,  antipathy,  such  as  divides 
peoples,  races  and  communities,  is  one,  though  not  the 
highest,  characteristic  of  patriotism;  it  may  be  called 
the  defect  of  a  quality.  When  a  man  is  whole-souled 
in  a  cause,  he  will  brook  with  difficulty  any  system  of 
ideas  opposed  to,  and  destructive  of,  his  own.  Anxious 
for  the  triumph  of  what  he  believes  the  cause  of  right 
and  justice,  he  will  rejoice  over  the  discomfiture  of  his 
rivals  and  the  defeat  of  their  cause.  Wars  leave  behind 
an  inheritance  of  hatred;  persecution  makes  wounds 
that  take  a  long  time  to  heal.  The  descendants  of  the 
defeated,  conquered  or  persecuted  will  look  upon  the 
generations  of  their  fathers'  foes  as  typifying 
oppression,  tyranny  and  injustice,  will  wish  them  all 
manner  of  evil  and  gloat  over  their  downfall.  Such 
feelings  die  hard.  They  spring  from  convictions.  The 
wounds  made  by  injustice,  fancied  or  real,  will  smart ; 
and  just  as  naturally  will  men  retain  in  their  hearts 
aversion  for  all  that  which,  for  them,  stands  for  such 
injustice.  This  is  criminal  only  when  it  fails  to  respect 
the  individual  and  become  personal  hate. 

Him  who  has  done  us  a  personal  injury  we  must 
forgive.  Pardon  drives  hatred  out  of  the  heart  Love 
of  God  is  incompatible  with  personal  enmity ;  therefore 
such  enmity  must  be  quelched.  He  who  says  he  loves 


OUR    ENEMIES. 


235 


God  and  hates  his  brother  is  a  liar,  according  to  divine 
testimony.  What  takes  the  place  of  this  hate?  Love, 
a  love  that  is  called  common  love,  to  distinguish  it 
from  that  special  sort  of  affection  that  we  have  for 
friends.  This  is  a  general  kind  of  love  that  embraces 
all  men,  and  excludes  none  individually.  It  forbids 
all  uncharity  towards  a  man  as  a  unit,  and  it  supposes 
a  disposition  of  the  soul  that  would  not  refuse  to  give 
a  full  measure  of  love  and  assistance,  if  necessity 
required  it.  This  sort  of  love  leaves  no  room  for 
hatred  of  a  personal  nature  in  the  heart. 

Is  it  enough  to  forgive  sincerely  from  the  heart? 
It  is  not  enough;  we  must  manifest  our  forgiveness, 
and  this  for  three  good  reasons :  first,  in  order  to  secure 
us  against  self-illusion  and  to  test  the  sincerity  of  our 
dispositions  ;  secondly,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to  discord 
by  showing  the  other  party  that  we  hold  no  grudge ; 
lastly,  in  order  to  remove  whatever  scandal  may  have 
been  given  by  our  breach  of  friendship.  The  disorder 
of  enmity  can  be  thoroughly  cured  a*nd  healed  only  by 
an  open  renewal  of  the  ties  of  friendship ;  and  this  is 
done  by  the  offering  and  acknowledgment  of  the  signs 
of  friendship. 

The  signs  of  friendship  are  of  two  sorts,  the  one 
common,  the  other  special.  Common  tokens  of  friend 
ship  are  those  signs  which  are  current  among  people 
of  the  same  condition  of  life;  such  as  saluting, 
answering  a  question,  dealing  in  business  affairs,  etc. 
These  are  commonly  regarded  as  sufficient  to  take 
away  any  reasonable  suspicion  of  hatred,  although,  in 
matter  of  fact,  the  inference  may  be  false.  But  the 
refusal  to  give  such  tokens  of  pardon  usually  argues 
the  presence  of  an  uncharitable  feeling  that  is  sinful ; 
it  is  nearly  always  evidence  of  an  unforgiving  spirit. 
There  are  certain  cases  wherein  the  offense  received 
being  of  a  peculiar  nature,  justifies  one  in  deferring 
such  evidence  of  forgiveness ;  but  these  cases  are  rare. 

If  we  are  obliged  to  show  by  unmistakable  signs 
that  we  forgive  a  wrong  tha<t  has  been  done,  we  are 


236  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

in  nowise  bound  to  make  a  particular  friend  of  the 
person  who  has  been  guilty  of  the  wrong.  We  need 
not  go  out  of  our  way  to  meet  him,  receive  or  visit 
him  or  treat  him  as  a  long  lost  brother.  He  would 
not  expect  it,  and  we  fulfil  our  obligations  toward  him 
by  the  ordinary  civilities  we  show  him  in  the  business 
of  life. 

If  we  have  offended,  we  must  take  the  first  step 
toward  reconciliation  and  apologize;  that  is  the  only 
way  we  have  of  repairing  the  injury  done,  and  to  this 
we  are  held  in  conscience.  If  there  is  equal  blame  on 
both  sides,  then  both  are  bound  to  the  same  duty  of 
offering  an  apology.  To  refuse  such  advances  on  the 
part  of  one  who  has  wronged  us  is  to  commit  an  offense 
that  might  very  easily  be  grievous. 

All  this,  of  course,  is  apart  from  the  question  of 
indemnification  in  case  of  real  damage  being  sustained. 
We  may  condone  an  offense  and  at  the  same  time 
require  that  the  loss  suffered  be  repaired.  And  in  case 
the  delinquent  refuse  to  settle  amicably,  we  are  justified 
in  pursuing  him  before  the  courts.  Justice  is  not 
necessarily  opposed  to  charity. 


CHAPTER  LXXVL 
IMMORALITY. 

THE  natural  order  of  things  brings  us  to  a 
consideration  of  the  Sixth  Commandment,  and  at  the 
same  time,  of  the  Ninth,  as  treating  of  the  same  matter 
— a  matter  so  highly  immoral  as  to  deserve  the  specific 
appellation  of  immorality. 

People,  as  a  rule,  are  tolerably  well  informed  on 
this  subject.  It  is  a  knowledge  acquired  by  instinct, 
the  depraved  instinct  of  our  fallen  nature,  and  supple- 


IMMORALITY.  237 

mented  by  the  experiences  weaned  from  the  daily 
sayings  and  doings  of  common  life.  Finally,  that  sort 
of  journalism  known  as  the  "yellow,"  and  literature 
called  pornographic,  serve  to  round  off  this  education 
and  give  it  the  finishing  touches. 

But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  one  considers  the 
innocent,  the  young  and  inexperienced,  who  are  not 
a  few ;  and  likewise  the  morbidly  curious  of  sensual 
tendencies,  who  are  many,  this  matter  must  appear  as 
a  high  explosive,  capable  of  doing  any  amount  of 
damage,  if  not  handled  with  the  utmost  care  and 
caution. 

Much,  therefore,  must  be  left  unsaid,  or  half-said ; 
suggestion  and  insinuation  must  be  trusted  to  go  far 
enough,  in  order  that,  while  the  knowing  understand, 
the  ignorant  may  be  secure  in  the  bliss  of  their 
ignorance  and  be  not  prematurely  informed. 

They,  for  whom  such  language  is  insufficient, 
know  where  to  go  for  fuller  information.  Pairents 
are  the  natural  teachers ;  the  boy's  father  and  the  girl's 
mother  know  what  to  say,  how  and  when  to  say  it; 
or  at  least  should  know.  And  if  parents  were  only 
more  careful,  in  their  own  way,  to  acquaint  their 
children  with  certain  facts  when  the  time  comes  for  it, 
much  evil  would  be  avoided,  both  moral  and  physical. 

But  there  are  secrets  too  sacred  even  for  parents' 
ears,  that  are  confided  only  to  God,  through  His 
appointed  minister.  Catholics  know  this  man  is  the 
confessor,  and  the  place  for  such  information  and 
counsel,  the  holy  tribunal  of  penance.  These  two 
channels  of  knowledge  are  safe;  the  same  cannot  be 
said  of  others. 

As  a  preliminary,  we  would  remark  that  sins,  of 
the  sort  here  in  question  as  well  as  all  kinds  of  sin, 
are  not  limited  to  deeds.  Exterior  acts  consummate 
the  malice  of  evil,  but  they  do  not  constitute  such 
malice ;  evil  is  generated  in  the  heart.  One  who  desires 
to  do  wrong  offends  God  as  effectively  as  another  who 
does  the  wrong  in  deed.  Not  only  that,  but  he  who 


MORAL   BRIEFS. 

makes  evil  the  food  of  his  mind  and  ponders 
complacently  on  the  seductive  beauty  of  vice  is  no  less 
guilty  than  he  who  goes  beyond  theory  into  practice. 
This  is  something  we  frequently  forget,  or  would  fain 
forget,  the  greed  of  passion  blinding  us  more  or  less 
voluntarily  to  the  real  moral  value  of  our  acts. 

As  a  consequence  of  this  self-illusion  many  a 
one  finds  himself  far  beyond  his  depth  in  the  sea  of 
immorality  before  he  fully  realizes  his  position.  It  is 
small  beginnings  that  lead  to  lasting  results ;  it  is  by 
repeated  acts  that  habits  are  formed ;  and  evil  grows  on 
us  faster  than  most  of  us  are  willing  to  acknowledge. 
All  manner  of  good  and  evil  originates  in  thought; 
and  that  is  where  the  little  monster  of  uncleanness 
must  be  strangled  before  it  is  full-grown,  if  we  would 
be  free  from  its  unspeakable  thralldom. 

Again,  this  is  a  matter  the  malice  and  evil  of 
which  very,  very  rarely,  if  ever,  escapes  us.  He  who 
commits  a  sin  of  impurity  and  says  he  did  not  know 
it  was  wrong,  lies  deliberately,  or  else  he  is  not  in  his 
right  frame  of  mind.  The  Maker  has  left  in  our  souls 
enough  of  natural  virtue  and  grace  to  enable  us  to 
distinguish  right  and  wrong,  clean  and  unclean;  even 
the  child  with  no  definite  knowledge  of  the  matter, 
meeting  it  for  the  first  time,  instinctively  blushes  and 
recoils  from  the  moral  hideousness  of  its  aspect 
Conscience  here  speaks  in  no  uncertain  accents;  he 
alone  does  not  hear  who  does  not  wish  to  hear. 

Catholic  theologians  are  even  more  rigid 
concerning  the  matter  itself,  prescinding  altogether 
from  our  perception  of  it.  They  say  that  here  no  levity 
of  matter  is  allowed,  that  is  to  say,  every  violation, 
tiowever  slight,  of  either  of  these  two  commandments, 
is  a  sin.  You  cannot  even  touch  this  pitch  of  moral 
defilement  without  being  yourself  defiled.  It  is  useless 
therefore  to  argue  the  matter  and  enter  a  plea  of 
triviality  and  inconsequence;  nothing  is  trivial  that  is 
of  a  nature  to  offend  God  and  damn  a  soul. 

Weakness  has  the  same  value  as  an  excuse  as  it 


IMMORALITY.  239 

has  elsewhere  in  moral  matters.  Few  sins  are  of  pure 
malice;  weakness  is  responsible  for  the  damnation  of 
all,  or  nearly  all,  the  lost.  That  very  weakness  is  the 
sin,  for  virtue  is  strength.  To  make  this  plea  therefore 
is  to  make  no  plea  at  all,  for  we  are  all  weak, 
desperately  weak,  especially  against  the  demon  of  the 
flesh,  and  we  become  weaker  by  yielding.  And  we 
are  responsible  for  the  degree  of  moral  debility  under 
which  we  labor  just  as  we  are  for  the  degree  of  guilt 
we  have  incurred. 

Finally,  as  God,  is  no  exceptor  of  persons,  He 
does  not  distinguish  between  souls,  and  sex  makes 
no  difference  with  Him.  In  this  His  judgment  differs 
from  that  of  the  world  which  absolves  the  man  and 
condemns  the  woman.  There  is  no  evident  reason  why 
the  violation  of  a  divine  precept  should  be  less  criminal 
in  one  human  creature  than  in  another.  And  if  the 
reprobation  of  society  does  not  follow  both  equally,  the 
wrath  of  God  does,  and  He  will  render  unto  every 
one  according  to  his  and  her  works. 


CHAPTER  LXXVII. 

THE  SINK  OF  INIQUITY. 

THE  malice  of  lust  consists  in  the  abuse  of  a 
natural,  a  quasi-divine  faculty,  which  is  prostituted  to 
ignoble  purposes  foreign  to  the  ends  by  the  Creator 
established.  The  lines  along  which  this  faculty  may  be 
legitimately  exercised,  are  laid  down  by  natural  and 
divine  laws,  destined  to  preserve  God's  rights,  to 
maintain  order  in  society  and  to  protect  man  against 
himself.  The  laws  result  in  the  foundation  of  a  state, 
called  matrimony,  within  which  the  exercise  of  this 
human  prerogative,  delegated  to  man  by  the  Creator, 


240  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

receives  the  sanction  of  divine  authority,  and  becomes 
invested  with  a  sacred  character,  as  sacred  as  its  abuse 
is  abominable  and  odious. 

To  disregard  and  ignore  this  condition  of  things 
and  to  seek  satisfaction  for  one's  passions  outside  the 
domain  of  lawful  wedlock,  is  to  revolt  against  this 
order  of  creative  wisdom  and  to  violate  the  letter  of 
the  law.  But  the  intrinsic  malice  of  the  evil  appears 
in  the  nature  of  this  violation.  This  aibuse  touches  life ; 
not  life  in  its  being,  but  in  its  source,  in  the  principle 
that  makes  all  vitality  possible,  which  is  still  more 
serious.  Immorality  is  therefore  a  moral  poisoning  of 
the  wells  of  life.  It  profanes  and  desecrates  a  faculty 
and  prerogative  so  sacred  that  it  is  likened  to  the 
almighty  power  of  the  Creator. 

A  manifold  malice  may  attach  to  a  single  act  in 
violation  of  the  law  of  moral  purity.  The  burden  of  a 
vow  in  either  party  incurring  guilt,  whether  that  vow 
be  matrimonial  or  religious,  is  a  circumstance  that  adds 
injustice  or  sacrilege  to  the  crime,  according  to  the 
nature  of  that  vow;  and  the  double  guilt  is  on  both 
parties.  If  the  vow  exists  in  one  and  the  other 
delinquent,  then  the  offense  is  still  further  multiplied 
and  the  guilt  aggravated.  Blood-relationship  adds  a 
specific  malice  of  its  own,  slight  or  grievous  according 
to  the  intimacy  of  said  relationship.  Fornication, 
adultery,  sacrilege  and  incest— these,  to  give  to  things 
their  proper  names,  are  terms  that  specify  various 
degrees  of  malice  and  guilt  in  this  matter ;  and  although 
they  do  not  sound  well  or  look  well  in  print,  they  have 
a  meaning  which  sensible  folks  should  not  ignore. 

A  lapse  from  virtue  is  bad;  the  habit  or  vice, 
voluntarily  entertained,  is  infinitely  worse.  If  the  one 
argues  weakness,  even  culpable,  the  other  betrays  a 
studied  contempt  for  God  and  the  law,  an  utter 
perversion  of  the  moral  sense  that  does  not  even  esteem 
virtue  in  itself;  an  appalling  thralldom  of  the  spirit 
to  the  flesh,  an  appetite  that  is  all  ungodly,  a  gluttony 
that  is  bestial.  Very  often  it  supposes  a  victim  held 


THE  SINK    OF  INIQUITY.  241 

fast  in  the  clutches  of  unfeeling  hoggishness,  fascinated 
or  subjugated,  made  to  serve,  while  serviceable;  and 
then  cast  off  without  a  shred  of  respectability  for 
another.  It  is  an  ordinary  occurrence  for  one  of  these 
victims  to  swallow  a  deadly  potion  on  being  shown 
her  folly  and  left  to  its  consequences ;  and  the  human 
ogre  rides  triumphantly  home  in  his  red  automobile. 

But  the  positions  may  be  reversed ;  the  victim  may 
play  the  role  of  seductress,  and  displaying  charms  that 
excite  the  passions,  ensnare  the  youth  whose  feet  are 
not  guided  by  the  lamp  of  experience,  wisdom  and 
religion.  This  is  the  human  spider,  soulless  and 
shameless,  using  splendid  gifts  of  God  to  form  a  web 
with  which  to  inveigle  and  entrap  a  too  willing  prey. 
And  the  dead  flies,  who  will  count  them  I 

The  climax  of  infamy  is  reached  when  this  sort 
of  a  thing  is  made,  not  a  pastime,  but  a  business,  when 
virtue  is  put  on  the  market  with  its  fixed  value  attached 
and  bartered  for  a  price.  There  is  no  outrage  on 
human  feeling  greater  than  this.  We  are  all  born  of 
woman ;  and  the  sight  of  womanhood  thus  degraded 
and  profaned  would  give  us  more  of  a  shock  if  it  were 
less  common.  The  curse  of  God  is  on  such  wretches 
as  ply  this  unnatural  trade  and  live  by  infamy ;  not  only 
on  them,  but  on  those  also  who  make  such  traffic 
possible  and  lucrative.  Considering  all  things,  more 
guilty  the  latter  than  the  former,  perhaps.  Active 
co-operation  in  evil  makes  one  a  joint  partner  in  guilt ; 
to  encourage  infamy  is  not  only  to  sin,  but  also  to 
share  all  the  odium  thereof ;  while  he  who  contributes 
to  the  perpetuation  of  an  iniquity  of  this  nature  is,  in 
a  sense,  worse  than  the  unfortunates  themselves. 

The  civil  law  which  seeks  to  eliminate  the  social 
evil  of  prostitution  by  enactment  and  process,  gives 
rise,  by  enactment  and  process,  to  another  evil  almost 
as  widespread.  Divorce  is  a  creature  of  the  law,  and 
divorce  opens  the  door  to  concubinage,  legalized  if  you 
will,  but  concubinage  just  the  same.  The  marriage  tie 
is  intact  after  as  well  as  before  the  decree  of  divorce ; 


242  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

no  human  power  can  break  that  bond.  The  permission 
therefore  to  re-marry  is  permission  to  live  in  adultery, 
and  that  permission  is,  of  its  very  nature,  null  and 
void.  They  who  avail  themselves  of  such  a  permis 
sion  and  live  in  sin,  may  count  on  the  protection  of 
the  law,  but  the  law  will  not  protect  them  against  the 
wrath  of  the  Almighty  who  condemns  their  immoral 
living. 


CHAPTER  LXXVIII. 
WHEREIN  NATURE  IS  OPPOSED. 

CERTAIN  excesses,  such  as  we  have  already  alluded 
to,  however  base  and  abominable  in  themselves  and 
their  effects,  have  nevertheless  this  to  their  credit  that, 
while  violating  the  positive  law  of  God,  they  respect 
at  least  the  fundamental  laws  of  nature,  according  to 
which  the  universe  is  constructed  and  ordered.  To 
satisfy  one's  depraved  appetites  along  forbidden  but 
natural  lines,  is  certainly  criminal;  but  an  unnatural 
and  beastly  instinct  is  sometimes  not  satisfied  with  such 
abuse  and  excess;  the  passion  becomes  so  blinded  as 
to  ignore  the  difference  of  sex,  runs  even  lower,  to  the 
inferior  order  of  brutes.  This  is  the  very  acme  of 
ungodliness. 

There  are  laws  on  the  statute  books  against 
abominations  of  this  sort ;  and  be  it  said  to  the  shame 
of  a  Christian  community,  said  laws  find  an  only  too 
frequent  application.  Severe  as  are  the  penalties,  they 
are  less  an  adequate  punishment  than  a  public 
expression  of  the  common  horror  inspired  by  the  very 
mention  of  crimes  they  are  destined  to  chastise.  To 
attain  this  depth  of  infamy  is  at  one  and  the  same 
time  to  sin  and  to  receive  the  penalty  of  sin.  Here 


WHEREIN  NATURE  IS  OPPOSED.  243 

culminates  repeated  violence  to  the  moral  law.  When 
one  is  sated  with  ordinary  lusts  and  is  bent  on  sweeping 
the  whole  gamut  of  mundane  experiences  and  excita 
tions,  that  one  invariably  descends  to  the  unnatural 
and  extraordinary,  and  lives  a  life  of  protest  against 
nature. 

St.  Paul  confirms  this.  According  to  him,  God, 
in  punishment  for  sin  delivers  over  people  to  shameful 
affections,  to  a  reprobate  sense ;  he  suffers  them  to  be 
a  hell  unto  themselves.  And  nature  seldom  fails  to 
avenge  herself  for  the  outrages  suffered.  She  uses  the 
flail  of  disease  and  remorse,  of  misery  and  disgust,  and 
she  scourges  the  culprit  to  the  verge  of  the  grave,  often 
to  the  yawning  pit  of  hell. 

People  shudder  at  the  very  thought  of  such 
unmentionable  things:  but  there  are  circles  in  society 
in  which  such  sanctimonious  shuddering  is  a  mighty 
thin  veil  of  hypocrisy.  Infinitely  more  common,  and 
little,  if  any,  less  unnatural  and  abominable  are  the 
crimes  that  are  killing  off  the  old  stock  that  once 
possessed  the  land  and  making  the  country  dependent 
for  increase  of  population  on  the  floods  of  immigration. 
The  old  Puritan  families  are  almost  extinct ;  Boston  is 
more  Irish  than  Dublin.  The  phenomenon  is  so  strik 
ing  here  that  it  is  called  New  Englandism.  Why  are 
there  so  few  large  families  outside  the  Irish  and 
Canadian  elements?  Why  are  there  seen  so  few 
children  in  the  fashionable  districts  of  our  large  cities  ? 
Why  this  blast  of  sterility  with  which  the  land  is 
cursed?  Look  behind  the  phenomenon,  and  you  will 
find  the  cause ;  and  the  finding  will  make  you  shudder. 
And  if  only  those  shudder  who  are  free  from  stain,  the 
shuddering  will  be  scarcely  audible.  Onan  and  Malthus 
as  household  gods  are  worse  than  the  gods  of  Rome. 

Meanwhile,  the  unit  deteriorates  alongside  the 
family,  being  given  over  to  a  reprobat.  sense  that  is 
centered  in  self,  that  furnishes,  against  all  law,  its  own 
satisfactions,  and  reaps,  in  all  justice,  its  inevitable 
harvest  of  woe.  To  what  extent  this  vice  is  common  it 


244  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

would  serve  no  purpose  to  examine;  students  of 
criminology  have  more  than  once  made  known  their 
views  on  the  matter.  The  character  of  its  malice,  both 
moral  and  physical,  needs  no  comment;  nature  is 
outraged.  But  it  has  this  among  its  several  features; 
the  thralldom  to  which  it  subjects  its  victim  has 
nothing  outside  itself  to  which  it  may  be  compared. 
Man's  self  is  his  own  greatest  tyrant;  there  are  no 
tortures  so  exquisite  as  those  we  provide  for  ourselves. 
While  therefore  we  reprove  the  culprit,  we  commiserate 
with  the  unfortunate  victim,  and  esteem  that  there  is 
none  more  worthy  of  sympathy,  conditioned,  of  course, 
on  a  state  of  mind  and  soul  on  his  part  that  seeks 
relief  and  freedom ;  otherwise,  it  were  pity  wasted. 

We  have  done  with  this  infernal  category  of  sin 
and  filth.  Yet  we  would  remark  right  here  that  for 
the  most  part,  as  far  as  they  are  general  and  common, 
these  excesses  are  the  result  of  one  ca,use;  and  that 
cause  is  everyday  systematic  Godlessness  such  as  our 
public  schools  are  largely  responsible  for.  This 
system  is  responsible  for  a  want  of  vital  Christianity, 
of  a  lack  of  faith  and  religion  that  penetrates  the 
human  fibre  and  makes  God  and  morality  a  factor  in 
every  deed.  Deprived  of  this,  youth  has  nothing  to  fall 
back  on  when  the  hour  of  temptation  comes ;  and  when 
he  falls,  nothing  to  keep  him  from  the  bottom  of  the 
pit 

It  is  impossible  to  put  this  argument  in  detail 
before  the  Christian  and  Catholic  parent.  If  the  parent 
does  not  see  it,  it  is  because  that  parent  is  deficient 
in  the  most  essential  quality  of  a  parent.  Nothing 
but  the  atmosphere  of  a  religious  school  can  save  our 
youth  from  being  victims  of  that  maelstrom  of 
impurity  that  sweeps  the  land.  And  that  alone,  with 
the  rigid  principles  of  morality  there  inculcated,  can 
save  the  parents  of  to-morrow  from  the  blight  and 
curse  of  New  Englandism. 


CHAPTER  LXXIX. 
HEARTS. 

THE  heart,  the  seat  of  the  affections,  is,  after  the 
mind  whose  authority  and  direction  it  is  made  to  obey, 
man's  noblest  faculty ;  but  it  may,  in  the  event  of  its 
contemning  reason's  dictates,  become  the  source  and 
fountain-head  of  inordinate  lust  and  an  instrument  of 
much  moral  disaster  and  ruin.  When  the  intelligence 
becomes  powerless  to  command  and  to  say  what  and 
when  and  how  the  affections  shall  disport  themselves, 
then  man  becomes  a  slave  to  his  heart  and  is  led  like 
an  ass  by  the  nose  hither  and  thither ;  and  when  nature 
thus  runs  unrestrained  and  wild,  it  makes  for  the 
mudholes  of  lust  wherein  to  wallow  and  besot  itself. 

The  heart  is  made  to  love  what  is  good ;  now,  good 
is  real  or  apparent.  Love  is  blind,  and  needs  reason  to 
discern  for  it  what  is  good  and  what  is  not,  reason  to 
direct  its  affections  into  their  legitimate  channels.  But 
the  heart  may  refuse  to  be  thus  controlled,  swayed  by 
the  whisperings  of  ignorant  pride  and  conceit;  or  it 
may  be  unable  to  receive  the  impulse  of  the  reason  on 
account  of  the  unhealthy  fumes  that  arise  from  a  too 
exuberant  animal  nature  unchastened  by  self-denial. 
Then  it  is  that,  free  to  act  as  it  lists,  it  accepts 
indiscriminately  everything  with  an  appearance 
of  good,  in  which  gets  mixed  up  much  of  that  which 
appeals  to  the  inferior  appetites.  And  in  the  end  it 
gets  lost. 

Again,  the  heart  is  a  power  for  good  or  evil;  it 
may  be  likened  to  a  magazine,  holding  within  its 
throbbing  sides  an  explosive  deposit  of  untold  energy 
and  puissance,  capable  of  all  things  within  the  range 
of  the  human.  While  it  may  lift  man  to  the  very 


246  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

pinnacle  of  goodness,  it  may  also  sink  him  to  the  lowest 
level  of  infamy.  Only,  in  one  case,  it  is  spiritualized 
love,  in  the  other,  it  is  carnal ;  in  one  case  it  obeys  the 
spirit,  in  the  other,  the  flesh;  in  one  case  its  true  name 
is  charity,  in  the  other,  it  is  animal,  sexual  instinct, 
and  it  is  only  improperly  called  love.  For  God  is  love. 
Love  therefore  is  pure.  That  which  is  not  pure  is  not 
love. 

People  who  trifle  with  the  affections  usually  come 
to  woe  sooner  or  later,  sooner  rather  than  later ;  affairs 
of  the  heart  are  always  morally  malodorous  affairs. 
Frequently  there  is  evil  on  one  side  at  least,  in  intention, 
from  the  start.  The  devil's  game  is  to  play  on  the 
chaste  attachment,  and  in  an  unguarded  moment,  to 
swing  it  around  to  his  point.  If  the  victim  does  not 
balk  at  the  first  shock  and  surprise,  the  game  is  won ; 
for  long  experience  has  made  him  confident  of  being 
able  to  make  the  counterfeit  look  like  the  real;  and  it 
requires,  as  a  general  rule,  little  argument  to  make  us 
look  at  our  faults  in  their  best  light. 

Many  a  pure  love  has  degenerated  and  many  a 
virtue  fallen,  why  ?  because  people  forget  who  and  what 
they  are,  forget  they  are  human,  forget  they  are 
creatures  of  flesh  and  blood,  predisposed  to  sin, 
saturated  with  concupiscence  and  naturally  frail  as  a 
reed  against  the  seductions  of  the  wily  one.  They 
forget  this,  and  act  as  though  theirs  were  an  angelic, 
instead  of  a  human,  nature.  They  imagine  themselves 
proof  against  that  which  counts  such  victims  as  David 
and  Solomon,  which  would  cause  the  fall  of  a  Father 
of  the  desert,  or  even  of  an  angel  from  heaven 
encumbered  with  the  burden  we  carry,  if  he  despised 
the  claims  of  ordinary  common  sense. 

And  this  forgetfulness  on  their  part,  let  it  be 
remembered,  is  wholly  voluntary  and  culpable,  at  least 
in  its  cause.  They  may  not  have  been  attentive  at  the 
precise  moment  that  the  flames  of  passion  reached  the 
mine  of  their  affections ;  but  they  were  well  aware  tha* 
things  would  come  inevitably  to  such  a  pass.  And 


HEARTS.  247 

when  the  mine  went  up,  as  it  was  natural,  what  wonder 
if  disaster  followed !  Who  is  to  blame  but  themselves  ? 
People  do  not  play  with  matches  around  a  powder 
magazine ;  and  if  they  do,  very  little  consolation  conies 
with  the  knowledge  of  their  folly  when  they  are  being 
picked  up  in  sections  from  out  of  the  ruins. 

Of  course  there  are  easier  victims  than  these,  such 
as  would  not  recognize  true  inter-sexual  love  if  they 
saw  it  through  a  magnifying  glass ;  everything  of  the 
nature  of  a  fancy  or  whim,  of  a  sensation  or  emotion 
with  them  is  love.  Love-sick  maidens  are  usually 
soft-brained,  and  their  languorous  swains,  lascivious. 
The  latter  pose  as  "killers;"  the  former  wear  their 
heart  on  their  sleeve,  and  are  convinced  that  every 
second  man  they  meet  who  treats  them  gallantly  is 
smitten  with  their  charms  and  is  passionately  in  love 
with  them. 

Some  go  in  for  excitement  and  novelty,  to  break 
the  monotony  of  virtuous  restraint.  They  are  anxious 
for  a  little  adventure  and  romance.  A  good  thing, 
too,  to  have  these  exploits  to  narrate  to  their  friends. 
But  they  do  not  tell  all  to  their  friends ;  they  would 
be  ashamed  to.  If  said  friends  are  wise  they  can 
supply  the  deficiencies.  And  when  it  is  all  over,  it 
is  the  same  old  story  of  the  man  that  did  not  know 
the  gun  was  loaded. 

They  therefore  who  would  remain  pure  must  of 
all  necessity  keep  custody  over  their  heart's  affections, 
make  right  reason  and  faith  their  guide  and  make 
the  will  force  obedience  thereto.  If  wrong  attachments 
are  formed,  then  there  is  nothing  to  do  but  to  eradicate 
them,  to  cut,  tear  and  crush ;  they  must  be  destroyed 
at  any  cost.  A  pennyweight  of  prudence  might  have 
prevented  the  evil;  it  will  now  take  mortification  m 
large  and  repeated  doses  to  undo  it.  In  this  alone  is 
there  salvation. 


CHAPTER  LXXX. 
OCCASIONS. 

OCCASIONS  of  sin  are  persons,  places  or  things 
that  may  easily  lead  us  into  sin :  this  definition  of  the 
little  catechism  is  simple  and  clear  and  requires  no 
comment.  It  is  not  necessary  that  said  places  or 
things,  or  even  said  persons,  be  evil  in  themselves; 
it  is  sufficient  that  contact  with,  or  proximity  to,  them 
induce  one  to  commit  an  evil.  It  may  happen,  and 
sometimes  does,  that  a  person  without  any  evil  design 
whatever  become  an  occasion  of  sin  for  another.  The 
blame  therefore  does  not  necessarily  lie  with  objects, 
but  rather  with  the  subject. 

Occasions  are  of  two  kinds:  the  remote  or  far 
and  the  proximate  or  near;  they  differ  in  the  degree 
of  facility  with  which  they  furnish  temptation,  and 
in  the  quality  and  nature  of  such  temptation.  In  the 
former,  the  danger  of  falling  is  less,  in  the  latter  it  is 
more,  probable.  In  theory,  it  is  impossible  to  draw 
the  line  and  say  just  when  an  occasion  ceases  to  be 
proximate  and  becomes  remote;  but  in  the  concrete 
the  thing  is  easy  enough.  If  I  have  a  well-grounded 
fear,  a  fear  made  prudent  by  experience,  that  in  this 
or  that  conjuncture  I  shall  sin,  then  it  is  a  near 
occasion  for  me.  If,  however,  I  can  feel  with 
knowledge  and  conviction  that  I  am  strong  enough  to 
overcome  the  inevitable  temptation  arising  from  this 
other  conjunction  of  circumstances,  the  occasion  is 
only  remote. 

Thus,  since  danger  in  moral  matters  is  nearly 
3'lways  relative ;  what  is  a  remote  occasion  for  one  may 
be  a  proximate  occasion  for  another.  Proneness  to  evil 


OCCASIONS.  249 

is  not  the  same  in  us  all,  for  we  have  not  all  the  same 
temperament  and  the  same  virtue.  Two  individuals 
may  assist  at  a  ball  or  a  dance  or  a  play,  the  one  secure 
from  sin,  immune  against  temptation,  the  other  a 
manifold  victim  of  his  or  her  folly.  The  dance  or 
spectacle  may  not  be  bad  in  itself,  it  is  not  bad  in  fact 
for  erne,  it  is  positively  evil  for  the  other  and  a  near 
occasion  of  sin. 

Remote  occasions  cannot  always  be  avoided,  they 
are  so  numerous  and  frequent;  besides  the  evil  they 
contain  is  a  purely  imaginative,  and  therefore 
negligible,  quantity.  There  may  be  guilt  however  in 
seeking  such  occasions  and  without  reason  exposing 
ourselves  to  their  possible  dangers;  temerity  is 
culpable ;  he  that  loves  danger  shall  perish. 

With  the  other  kind,  it  is  difrerent.  The  ^  simple 
fact  of  embracing  a  proximate  occasion  of  sin  is  a 
grievous  fault,  even  in  the  event  of  our  accidentally 
not  succumbing  to  the  temptation  to  which  we  are 
exposed.  There  is  an  evil  in  such  rashness  independent 
of  its  consequences.  He  therefore  who  persists  in 
visiting  a  place  where  there  is  every  facility  for  sinning 
and  where  he  has  frequently  sinned,  does  a  deed  of 
crime  by  going  there ;  and  whatever  afterwards  occurs, 
or  does  not  occur,  affects  that  crime  not  in  the  least. 
The  same  is  true  of  reading  certain  books,  novels  and 
love-stories,  for  people  of  a  certain  spiritual 
complexion.  The  same  is  true  of  company-keeping, 
street-walking,  familiarity  and  loose  conversation. 
Nor  can  anything  different  be  said  of  such  liberties, 
consented  to  or  merely  tolerated,  as  embracing  and 
kissing,  amorous  effusions  and  all  perilous  amusements 
of  this  nature.  When  experience  shows  these  things 
to  be  fraught  with  danger,  then  they  become  sinful  in 
themselves,  and  can  be  indulged  in  only  in  contempt 
of  the  law  of  God  and  to  our  own  serious  spiritual 
detriment. 

But  suppose  I  cannot  avoid  the  occasion  of  sin, 
cannot  remove  it,  what  then? 


25O  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

If  it  is  a  clear  case  of  proximate  occasion  of  sin, 
and  all  mea<ns  fail  to  change  it,  then  the  supposition 
of  impossibility  is  a  ridiculous  one.  It  is  paramount 
to  asserting  that  sin  and  offense  of  God  is  sometimes 
necessary ;  and  to  talk  thus  is  to  talk  nonsense.  Sin  is 
a  deliberate  act  of  a  free  will ;  mention  necessity  in  the 
same  breath,  and  you  destroy  the  notion  of  sin.  There 
can  never  be  an  impossibility  of  avoiding  sin; 
consequently,  there  can  never  be  an  impossibility  of 
avoiding  a  near  occasion  of  sin. 

It  may  be  hard,  very  difficult ;  but  that  is  another 
thing.  But,  as  we  have  already  said,  the  difficulty  is 
rather  within  than  without  us,  it  arises  from  a  lack  of 
will  power.  But  hard  or  easy,  these  occasions  must 
nevertheless  be  removed.  Let  the  suffering  entailed 
be  what  it  may,  the  eye  must  be  plucked  out,  the  arm 
must  be  lopped  off,  to  use  the  Saviour's  figurative 
language,  if  in  no  other  way  the  soul  can  be  saved 
from  sin.  Better  to  leave  your  father's  house,  better 
to  give  up  your  very  life,  than  to  damn  your  soul  for  all 
eternity.  But  extremes  are  rarely  called  for;  small 
sacrifices  often  cost  more  than  great  ones.  A  good 
dose  of  ordinary,  everyday  mortification  and  penance 
goes  a  long  way  toward  producing  the  necessary  effect. 
An  ounce  of  self-denial  will  work  miracles  in  a 
sluggard,  cowardly  soul. 

It  would  be  well  on  occasion  to  remember  this, 
especially  when  one  in  such  a  state  is  thinking  seriously 
of  going  to  confession :  if  he  is  not  prepared  to  make 
the  required  effort,  then  he  had  better  stay  away  until 
such  a  time  as  he  is  willing.  For  if  he  states  his  case 
correctly,  he  will  not  receive  absolution ;  if  his  avowal 
is  not  according  to  fact,  his  confession  is  void,  perhaps 
sacrilegious.  Have  done  with  sin  before  you  can 
expect  to  have  your  sins  forgiven. 


CHAPTER  LXXXI. 
SCANDAL. 

ON  ONLY  rare  occasions  do  people  who  follow 
the  bent  of  their  unbridled  passions  bethink  them 
selves  of  the  double  guilt  that  frequently  attaches 
to  their  sins.  Seemingly  satisfied  with  the  evil  they 
have  wrought  unto  their  own  souls,  they  choose  to 
ignore  the  wrong  they  may  have  done  unto  others 
as  a  consequence  of  their  sinful  doings.  They  believe 
in  the  principle  that  every  soul  is  personally  respon 
sible  for  its  own  damnation :  which  is  true ;  but  they 
forget  that  many  elements  may  enter  as  causes  into 
such  a  calamity.  We  are  in  nowise  isolated  beings 
in  this  world;  our  lives  may,  and  do,  affect  the  lives 
of  others,  and  influence  them  sometimes  to  an  extra 
ordinary  extent  We  shall  have,  each  of  us,  to  answer 
one  day  for  results  of  such  influence ;  there  is  no  man 
but  is,  in  this  sense,  his  brother's  guardian. 

There  are,  who  deny  this,  like  Cain.  Yet  we 
know  that  Jesus  Christ  spoke  clearly  His  mind  in 
regard  to  scandal,  and  the  emphasis  He  lays  on  His 
anathemas  leaves  no  room  to  doubt  of  His  judgment 
on  the  subject.  Scandal,  in  fact,  is  murder;  not 
corporal  murder,  which  is  a  vengeance-crying  abom 
ination,  but  spiritual  murder,  heinous  over  the  other 
in  the  same  measure  as  the  soul's  value  transcends 
that  of  the  body.  Kill  the  body,  and  the  soul  may 
live  and  be  saved ;  kill  the  soul  and  it  is  lost  eternally. 

Properly  speaking,  scandal  is  any  word  or  deed, 
evil  or  even  with  an  appearance  of  evil,  of  a  nature 
to  furnish  an  occasion  of  spiritual  downfall,  to  lead 
another  into  sin.  It  does  not  even  matter  whether 


252  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

the  results  be  intended  or  merely  suffered  to  occur; 
it  does  not  even  matter  if  no  results  follow  at  all.  It 
is  sufficient  that  the  stumbling-block  of  scandal  be 
placed  in  the  way  of  another  to  his  spiritual  peril, 
and  designed  by  nature  to  make  him  fall;  on  him 
who  placed  it,  is  the  guilt  of  scandal. 

The  act  of  scandal  consists  in  making  sin  easier 
to  commit — as  though  it  were  not  already  easy  enough 
to  sin — for  another.  Natural  grace,  of  which  we  are 
not  totally  bereft,  raises  certain  barriers  to  protect 
and  defend  the  weak  and  feeble.  Conspicuous  among 
these  are  ignorance  and  shame ;  evil  sometimes  offers 
difficulties,  the  ones  physical,  the  others  spiritual,  such 
as  innate  delicacy,  sense  of  dignity,  timidity,  instinc 
tive  repugnance  for  filth,  human  respect,  dread  of 
consequences,  etc.  These  stand  on  guard  before  the 
soul  to  repel  the  first  advances  of  the  tempter  which 
are  the  most  dangerous;  the  Devil  seldom  unmasks 
his  heavy  batteries  until  the  advance-posts  of  the  soul 
are  taken.  It  is  the  business  of  scandal  to  break  down 
these  barriers,  and  for  scandal  this  work  is  as  easy  as 
it  is  nefarious.  For  curiosity  is  a  hungering  appe 
tite,  virtue  is  often  protected  with  a  very  thin  veil, 
and  vice  can  be  made  to  lose  its  hideousness  and 
assume  charms,  to  untried  virtue,  irresistible.  There 
is  nothing  doing  for  His  Satanic  Majesty  while  scandal 
is  in  the  field ;  he  looks  on  and  smiles. 

There  may  be  some  truth  in  the  Darwinian  theory 
after  all,  if  we  judge  from  the  imitative  propensities 
of  the  species,  probably  an  inherited  trait  of  our  com 
mon  ancestor,  the  monkey.  At  any  rate,  we  are  often 
more  easily  led  by  example  than  by  conviction; 
example  leads  us  against  our  convictions.  Asked  why 
we  did  this  or  that,  knowing  we  should  not  have  done 
it,  we  answer  with  simian  honesty,  '^because  such 
a  one  did  it,  or  invited  us  to  do  it."  We  get  over  a 
good  many  old-fashioned  notions  concerning  modesty 
and  purity,  after  listening  to  the  experiences  of  others ; 
we  foreet  to  be  ashamed  in  the  presence  of  the  brazen, 


SCANDAL.  253 

the  unabashed  and  the  impudent.  We  feel  partially 
justified  in  doing  what  we  see  done  by  one  to  whom 
we  are  accustomed  to  look  up.  "If  he  acts  thus,"  we 
say,  "how  can  it  be  so  very  wrong  in  me;  and  if 
everybody — and  everybody  sometimes  means  a  very 
few — if  everybody  does  so,  it  cannot  be  so  bad  as  I 
first  imagined."  Thus  may  be  seen  the  workings  of 
scandal  in  the  mind  and  soul  of  its  victim.  Remem 
bering  our  natural  proneness  to  carnal  indulgence, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  victims  of  scandal  are 
so  many.  But  this  cannot  be  taken  as  an  apology 
for  the  scandal-giver;  rather  the  contrary,  since  the 
malice  of  his  sin  has  possibilities  so  unbounded. 

Scandal  supposes  an  inducement  to  commit  sin, 
which  is  not  the  case  when  the  receiver  is  already 
all  disposed  to  sin  and  is  as  bad  as  the  giver.  Nor 
in  scandal  be  said  properly  to  be  given  when  those 
who  receive  it  are  in  all  probability  immune  against 
the  evil.  Some  people  say  they  are  scandalized  when 
they  are  only  shocked;  if  what  shocked  them  has 
nothing  in  it  to  induce  them  into  sinning,  then  their 
received  scandal  is  only  imaginative,  nor  has  any  been 
given.  Then,  the  number  of  persons  scandalized 
must  be  considered  as  an  aggravating  circumstance. 
Finally,  the  guilt  of  scandal  is  greater  or  less  accord 
ing  to  the  helplessness  of  the  victim  or  intended 
victim,  and  to  the  sacredness  of  his  or  her  right  to 
immunity  from  temptation,  children  being  most  sacred 
in  this  respect. 

Of  course  God  is  merciful  and  forgives  us  our 
offenses  however  great  they  may  be.  We  may  undo 
a  deal  of  wrong  committed  by  us  in  this  life,  and 
die  in  the  state  of  grace,  even  after  the  most  abomin 
able  crimes.  Theologically,  therefore,  the  idea  has 
little  to  commend  itself,  but  it  must  have  occurred 
to  more  than  one:  how  does  one  feel  in  heaven, 
knowing  that  there  is  in  hell,  at  that  moment,  one 
or  many  through  his  or  her  agency!  How  mysterious 
is  the  justice  of  God  to  suffer  such  a  state  of  affairs! 


254  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

And  although  theoretically  possible,  how  can  anyone 
count  on  such  a  contingency  in  his  or  her  particular 
case!  If  the  scandalous  would  reflect  seriously  on 
this,  they  would  be  less  willing  to  take  the  chances 
offered  by  a  possibility  of  this  nature. 


CHAPTER  LXXXII. 
NOT  GOOD  TO  BE  ALONE. 

A  MAN  may  come  to  discover  that  the  state  in 
which  he  finds  himself  placed,  is  not  the  one  for 
which  he  was  evidently  intended  by  the  Maker.  We 
do  not  all  receive  the  same  gifts  because  our  callings 
are  different ;  each  of  us  is  endowed  in  accordance 
and  in  harmony  with  the  ends  of  the  Creator  in 
making  us.  Some  men  should  marry,  others  may 
not;  but  the  state  of  celibacy  is  for  the  few,  and 
not  for  the  many,  these  few  depending  solely  on  an 
abundant  grace  of  God. 

Again,  one  may  become  alive  to  the  fact  that 
to  remain  in  an  abnormal  position  means  to  seriously 
jeopardize  his  soul's  salvation ;  celibacy  may,  as  for 
many  it  does,  spell  out  for  him,  clearly  and  plainly, 
eternal  damnation.  It  is  to  no  purpose  here  to 
examine  the  causes  of,  and  reasons  for,  such  a  con 
dition  of  affairs.  We  take  the  fact  as  it  stands, 
plain  and  evident,  a  stern,  hard  fact  that  will  not  be 
downed,  because  it  is  supported  by  the  living  proof 
of  habit  and  conduct;  living  and  continuing  to  live 
a  celibate,  taking  him  as  he  is  and  as  there  is  every 
token  of  his  remaining  without  any  reasonable 
ground  for  expecting  a  change,  this  ma<n  is  doomed 
to  perdition.  His  passions  have  made  him  their 
slave;  he  cannot,  it  is  morally  impossible  for  him 
to  do  so,  remain  continent. 


NOT  GOOD  TO  BE  ALONE.  255 

Suppose  again  that  the  Almighty  has  created  the 
state  of  wedlock  for  just  such  emergencies,  whereby 
a  man  may  find  a  remedy  for  his  weaknesses,  an  out 
let  for  his  passions,  a  regulator  of  his  life  here  below 
and  a  security  against  damnation  hereafter;  and  this 
is  precisely  the  case,  for  the  ends  of  marriage  are  not 
only  to  perpetuate  the  species,  but  also  to  furnish  a 
remedy  for  natural  concupiscence  and  to  raise  a  bar 
rier  against  the  flood  of  impurity. 

Now,  the  case  being  as  stated,  need  a  Catholic, 
young  or — a  no  longer  young — man  look  long  or 
strive  hard  to  find  his  path  of  duty  already  clearly 
traced?  And  in  making  this  application  we  refer  to 
man,  not  to  woman,  for  reasons  that  are  obvious ; 
we  refer,  again,  to  those  among  men  whose  spiritual 
sense  is  not  yet  wholly  dead,  who  have  not  entirely 
lost  all  respect  for  virtue  in  itself:  who  still  claim  to 
have  an  immortal  soul  and  hope  to  save  it ;  but  who 
have  been  caught  in  the  maelstrom  of  vice  and  whose 
passions  and  lusts  have  outgrown  in  strength  the  ordi 
nary  resisting  powers  of  natural  virtue  and  religion 
incomplete  and  half-hearted.  These  can  appreciate 
their  position ;  it  would  be  well  for  them  to  do  so ; 
the  faculty  for  so  doing  may  not  always  be  left  with 
them. 

The  obligation  to  marry,  to  increase  and  multi 
ply,  was  given  to  mankind  in  general,  and  applies 
to  man  as  a  whole,  and  not  to  the  individual ;  that  is, 
in  the  common  and  ordinary  run  of  human  things. 
But  the  circumstances  with  which  we  are  dealing  are 
outside  the  normal  sphere;  they  are  extraordinary, 
that  is  say,  they  do  not  exist  in  accordance  with  the 
plan  and  order  established  by  God ;  they  constitute 
a  disorder  resulting  from  unlawful  indulgence  and 
wild  impiety.  It  may  therefore  be,  and  it  frequently 
is  the  case,  that  the  general  obligation  to  marry 
particularize  itself  and  fall  with  its  full  weight  on  the 
individual,  this  one  or  that  one,  according  to  the  cir 
cumstances  of  his  life.  Then  it  is  that  the  voice  of 


256  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

God's  authority  reaches  the  ear  of  the  unit  and  says 
to  him  in  no  uncertain  accents :  thou  shalt  marry.  And 
behind  that  decree  of  God  stands  divine  justice  to 
vindicate  the  divine  right. 

We  do  not  deny  but  that,  absolutely  speaking, 
recourse  to  this  remedy  may  not  be  imperiously 
demanded;  but  we  do  claim  that  the  absolute  has 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  question  which  is 
one  of  relative  facts.  What  a  supposed  man  may 
do  in  this  or  that  given  circumstance  does  not  in  the 
least  alter  the  position  of  another  real,  live  man  who 
will  not  do  this  or  that  thing  in  a  given  circumstance ; 
he  will  not,  because,  morally  speaking,  he  cannot; 
and  he  cannot,  simply  because  through  excesses  he 
has  forgotten  how.  And  of  other  reasons  to  justify 
non-compliance  with  the  law,  there  can  be  none ;  it  is 
here  a,  question  of  saving  one's  soul;  inconveniences 
and  difficulties  and  obstacles  have  no  meaning  in 
such  a  contingency. 

And,  mind  you,  the  effects  of  profligate  celibacy 
are  farther-reaching  than  many  of  us  would  suppose 
at  first  blush.  The  culprit  bears  the  odium  of  it  in  his 
soul.  But  what  about  the  state  of  those — or  rather 
of  her,  whoever  she  may  be,  known  or  unknown — 
whom  he,  in  the  order  of  Providence,  is  destined  to 
save  from  the  precariousness  of  single  life?  If  it  is 
his  duty  to  take  a  wife,  whose  salvation  as  well  as 
his  own,  perhaps  depends  on  the  fulfilment  of  that 
duty,  and  if  he  shirks  his  duty,  shall  he  not  be  held 
responsible  for  the  results  in  her  as  well  as  in  himself, 
since  he  could,  and  she  could  not,  ward  off  the  evil? 

It  has  come  to  such  a  pass  nowadays  that 
celibacy,  as  a  general  thing,  is  a  misnomer  for 
profligacy.  Making  all  due  allowance  for  honorable 
exceptions,  the  unmarried  male  who  is  not  well 
saturated  with  spirituality  and  faith  is  notoriously 
gallinaceous  in  his  morals.  In  certain  classes,  he  is 
expected  to  sow  his  wild  oats  before  he  is  out  of  his 
teens ;  and  by  this  is  meant  that  he  will  begin  young 


NOT  GOOD  TO  BE  ALONE.  257 

to  tear  into  shreds  the  Sixth  Commandment  so  as 
not  to  be  bothered  with  it  later  in  life.  If  he 
married  he  would  be  safe. 

Finally  what  kind  of  an  existence  is  it  for  any 
human  being,  with  power  to  do  otherwise,  to  pass 
through  life  a  worthless,  good-for-nothing  nonentity, 
living  for  self,  shirking  the  sacred  duties  of 
paternity,  defrauding  nature  and  God  and  sowing 
corruption  where  he  might  be  laying  the  foundation 
of  a  race  that  may  never  die?  There  is  no  one  to 
whom  he  has  done  good  and  no  one  owes  him  a  tear 
when  his  barren  carcass  is  being  given  over  as  food 
to  the  worms.  He  is  a  rotten  link  on  the  chain  of 
life  and  the  curse  of  oblivion  will  vindicate  the  claims 
of  his  unborn  generations.  Young  man,  marry, 
marry  now,  and  be  something  in  the  world  besides  an 
eyesore  of  unproductiveness  and  worthies sness ;  do 
something  that  will  make  somebody  happy  besides 
yourself;  show  that  you  passed,  and  leave  something 
behind  that  will  remember  you  and  bless  your  name. 


CHAPTER  LXXXIII. 
A  HELPING  HAND. 

THE  moralist  is  usually  severe,  and  the  quality 
of  his  censure  is  merciless,  when  he  attempts  to  treat 
the  unwholesome  theme  of  moral  deformity;  and  all 
his  efforts  are  mere  attempts,  for  no  human 
language  can  do  full  justice  to  such  a  theme,  or 
fully  express  the  contempt  such  excesses  deserve.  It 
is  just,  then,  that,  when  he  stands  in  the  presence  of 
the  moral  leper  who  blushes  not  for  his  degradation, 
he  flay  with  the  whip  of  scorn  and  contempt,  scourge 
with  anathema  and  brand  him  with  every  stigma  of 


258  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

infamy,  in  order  that  the  load  of  opprobrium  thus 
heaped  upon  his  guilty  head  may  at  least  deter  the 
clean  from  such  defilement. 

But,  if  guilt  is  always  guilt,  the  quality  of  guilt 
is  varied.  Just  as  all  virtue  is  not  equally  meritorious, 
so  to  other  sources  than  personal  unworthiness  may 
often  be  traced  moral  debility  that  strives  against 
natural  causes,  necessary  conditions  of  environment 
and  an  ever-present  and  ever-active  influence  for  evil. 
A  fall  does  not  always  betoken  profound  degradation, 
nor  a  stain,  acute  perversity  of  the  will.  Those 
therefore  who  wrestle  manfully  with  the  effects  of 
regretted  lapses  or  weaknesses,  who  fight  down, 
sometimes  perhaps  unsuccessfully,  the  strong 
tendencies  of  a  too  exuberant  animal  nature,  who 
strive  to  neutralize  an  influence  that  unduly  oppresses 
them, — against  these,  guilty  though  they  may  have 
been,  is  not  directed  the  moralist's  unmeasured 
censure.  His  reproaches  in  such  cases  tend  less  to 
condemn  than  to  awake  to  a  sense  of  moral 
responsibility ;  earnestness  in  pointing  out  remedy  and 
safeguards  takes  the  place  of  severity  against 
wilfulness.  For  he  knows  that  not  a  few  sentences 
of  condemnation  Christ  writes  on  the  sands,  as  He 
did  in  a  celebrated  case,  and  many  an  over-zealous 
accuser  he  has  confounded,  like  the  villainous 
Pharisees  whom  He  challenged  to  show  a  hand  white 
enough  to  be  worthy  to  cast  the  first  stone. 

Evidently  such  pity  and  commiseration  should 
not  serve  to  make  vice  less  unlovely  and  thus  undo  the 
very  work  it  is  intended  to  perform.  It  should  not 
have  the  characteristics  of  certain  books  and  plays 
that  pretend  to  teach  morality  by  exposing  vice  in  all 
its  seductiveness.  Over-sensitive  and  maudlin  sympathy 
is  as  ridiculous  as  it  is  unhealthy;  its  tendency  is 
principally  to  encourage  and  spoil.  But  a  judicious, 
discreet  and  measured  sympathy  will  lift  up  the  fallen, 
strengthen  the  weak  and  help  the  timorous  over  many 
a  difficulty.  It  will  suggest,  too,  the  means  best 


A   HELPING   HAND.  2$9 

calculated  to  insure  freedom  from  slavery  of  the 
passions. 

The  first  of  these  is  self-denial,  which  is  the 
inseparable  companion  of  chastity;  when  they  are  not 
found  together,  seldom  does  either  exist.  And  by 
self-denial  is  here  meant  the  destruction  of  that  eternal 
I  reference  for  self,  that  is  at  the  bottom  of  all 
uncleanness,  that  makes  all  things,  however  sacred, 
subservient  to  one's  own  pleasures,  that  considers 
nothing  unlawful  but  what  goes  against  the  grain 
of  natural  impulse  and  natural  appetites.  There  may 
be  other  causes,  but  this  self-love  is  a  primary  one. 
Say  what  you  will,  but  one  does  not  fall  from  his 
own  level ;  the  moral  world  is  like  the  physical ;  if  you 
are  raised  aloft  in  disregard  for  the  laws  of  truth, 
you  are  going  to  come  down  with  a  thud.  If  you 
imagine  all  the  pleasures  of  life  made  for  you, 
and  become  lawful  because  your  nature  craves  for 
them,  you  are  taking  a  too  high  estimate  of  yourself; 
you  are  going  before  a  fall.  He  who  takes  a  correct 
measure  of  himself,  gets  his  bearings  in  relation  to 
God,  comes  to  realize  his  own  weak  points  and  several 
deficiencies,  and  acknowledges  the  obligations  such  a 
state  of  affairs  places  upon  him,  that  one  may  sin,  but 
he  will  not  go  far. 

He  may  fall,  because  he  is  human,  because 
strength  sufficient  to  guard  us  against  the  assaults  of 
impurity  is  not  from  us,  but  from  God.  The  spirit 
of  humility,  therefore,  which  makes  known  to  him 
his  own  insufficiency,  must  be  fortified  with  the  spirit 
of  faith  which  makes  him  ask  for  support  through 
prayer.  It  is  faith  that  makes  prayer  possible,  and 
living  faith,  the  spirit  of  faith,  that  makes  us  pray 
aright.  This  kind  of  prayer  need  not  express  itself 
in  words ;  it  may  be  a  habit,  a  long  drawn  out  desire, 
an  habitual  longing  for  help  coupled  with  firm 
confidence  in  God's  mercy  to  grant  our  request.  No 
state  of  soul  however  disordered  can  long  resist  such 


200  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

a  power,  and  no  habit  of  evil  but  in  time  will  be 
annihilated  by  it. 

The  man  or  woman  who  undertakes  to  keep 
himself  or  herself  pure,  or  to  rise  out  of  a  habit  of 
sin  without  the  liberal  use  of  divine  supplication  has  in 
hand  a  very  ungrateful  task,  and  he  or  she  will  realize 
it  before  going  far.  And  unless  that  prayer  is  sincere 
and  heartfelt,  a  prayer  full  of  faith  that  will  not 
entertain  the  thought  of  failure,  every  effort  will  be 
barren  of  results.  You  must  speak  to  God  as  to  one 
near  you,  and  remember  that  He  is  near  you  all  the 
time. 

Then  there  are  the  sacraments  to  repair  every 
breach  and  to  heal  every  wound.  Penance  will  cleanse 
you,  communion  will  adorn  and  equip  you  anew. 
Confession  will  give  you  a  better  knowledge  of  yourself 
every  time  you  go;  the  Food  of  God  will  strengthen 
every  fibre  of  your  soul  and  steel  you  against  the 
seductions  that  otherwise  would  make  you  a  ready 
victim.  Don't  go  once  a  year,  go  ten,  twenty  times 
and  more,  if  necessary,  go  until  you  feel  that  you  own 
yourself,  that  you  can  command  and  be  obeyed.  Then 
you  will  not  have  to  be  told  to  stop ;  you  will  be  safe. 


CHAPTER  LXXXIV. 
THOU  SHALT  NOT  STEAL. 

THE  Seventh  Commandment  is  protective  of  the 
right  of  property  which  is  vested  in  every  human 
being  enjoying  the  use  of  reason.  Property  means 
that  which  belongs  to  one,  that  which  is  one's  own, 
to  have  and  to  hold,  or  to  dispose  of,  at  one's  pleasure, 
or  to  reclaim  in  the  event  of  actual  dispossession.  The 


THOU  SHALT  NOT  STEAL.  26 1 

right  of  property  embraces  all  things  to  which  may 
be  affixed  the  seal  of  ownership;  and  it  holds  good 
until  the  owner  relinquishes  his  claim,  or  forfeits  or 
loses  his  title  without  offense  to  justice.  This  natural 
faculty  to  possess  excludes  every  alien  right,  and 
supposes  in  all  others  the  duty  and  obligation  to  respect 
it.  The  respect  that  goes  as  far  as  not  relieving  the 
owner  of  his  goods  is  not  enough ;  it  must  safeguard 
him  against  all  damage  and  injury  to  said  goods; 
otherwise  his  right  is  non-existent. 

All  violations  of  this  right  come  under  the 
general  head  of  stealing.  People  call  it  theft,  when 
it  is  effected  with  secrecy  and  slyness ;  robbery,  when 
there  is  a  suggestion  of  force  or  violence.  The 
swindler  is  he  who  appropriates  another's  goods  by 
methods  of  gross  deception  or  false  pretenses  while 
the  embezzler  transfers  to  himself  the  funds  entrusted 
to  his  care.  Petty  thieving  is  called  pilfering  or 
filching;  stealing  on  a  large  scale  usually  has  less 
dishonorable  qualificatives.  Boodling  and  lobbying  are 
called  politics  ;  watering  stock,  squeezing  out  legitimate 
competition,  is  called  financiering;  wholesale  confisca 
tion  and  unjust  conquest  is  called  statesmanship.  Give 
it  whatever  name  you  like,  it  is  all  stealing;  whether 
the  culprit  be  liberally  rewarded  or  liberally  punished, 
he  nevertheless  stands  amenable  to  God's  justice  which 
is  outraged  wherever  human  justice  suffers. 

Of  course  the  sin  of  theft  has  it^  degrees  of 
gravity,  malice  and  guilt,  to  determine  which,  that  is, 
to  fix  exactly  the  value  of  stolen  goods  sufficient 
to  constitute  a  grievous  fault,  is  not  the  simplest  and 
easiest  of  moral  problems.  The  extent  of  delinquency 
may  be  dependent  upon  various  causes  and  complex 
conditions.  On  the  one  hand,  the  victim  must  be 
considered  in  himself^  and  the  amount  of  injury 
sustained  by  him;  on  the  other,  justice  is  offended 
generally  in  all  cases  of  theft,  and  because  justice  is 
the  corner  stone  of  society,  it  must  be  protected  at  all 
hazards.  It  is  only  by  weighing  judiciously  all  these 


262  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

different  circumstances  that  we  can  come  to  enunciate 
an  approximate  general  rule  that  will  serve  as  a  guide 
in  the  ordinary  contingencies  of  life. 

Thus,  of  two  individuals  deprived  by  theft  of  a 
same  amount  of  worldly  goods,  the  one  may  suffer 
thereby  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  the  other; 
he  who  suffers  more  is  naturally  more  reluctant  to 
part  with  his  goods,  and  a  greater  injustice  is  done 
to  him  than  to  the  other.  The  sin  committed  against 
him  is  therefore  greater  than  that  committed  against 
the  other.  A  rich  man  may  not  feel  the  loss  of  a  dollar, 
whereas  for  another  less  prosperous  the  loss  of  less 
than  that  sum  might  be  of  the  nature  of  a  calamity. 
To  take  therefore  unjustly  from  a  person  what  to  that 
person  is  a  notable  amount  is  a  grievous  sin.  It  is 
uniformly  agreed  that  it  is  a  notable  loss  for  a  man 
to  be  unduly  deprived  of  what  constitutes  a  day's 
sustenance.  This  is  the  minimum  of  grievous  matter 
concerning  theft. 

But  this  rule  will  evidently  not  hold  good  applied 
on  a  rising  scale  to  more  and  more  extensive  fortunes ; 
for  a  time  would  come  when  it  would  be  possible 
without  serious  guilt  to  appropriate  good  round  sums 
from  those  abundantly  blessed  with  this  world's  goods. 

The  disorders  necessarily  attendant  on  such  a 
moral  rule  are  only  too  evident;  and  it  is  plain  that 
the  law  of  God  cannot  countenance  abuses  of  this 
nature.  Justice  therefore  demands  that  there  be  a 
certain  fixed  sum  beyond  which  one  may  not  go 
without  incurring  serious  guilt ;  and  this,  independent 
of  the  fortune  of  the  person  who  suffers.  Theolo 
gians  have  fixed  that  amount  approximately,  in  this 
country,  at  five  dollars.  This  means  that  when  such 
a  sum  is  taken,  in  all  cases,  the  sin  is  mortal.  It  is  not 
always  necessary,  it  is  seldom  necessary,  that  one 
should  steal  this  much  in  order  to  offend  grievously; 
but  when  the  thief  reaches  this  amount,  be  his  victim 
ever  so  wealthy,  he  is  guilty  of  grave  injustice. 


THOU  SHALT  NOT  STEAL.  263 

This  rule  applies  to  all  cases  in  which  the  neighbor 
is  made  to  suffer  unjustly  in  his  lawful  possessions ; 
and  it  effects  all  wrongdoers  whether  they  steal  or 
destroy  another's  goods  or  co-operate  efficaciously  in 
such  deeds  of  sin.  It  matters  not  whether  the  harm 
be  wrought  directly  or  indirectly,  since  in  either  case 
there  may  be  moral  fault ;  and  it  must  be  remembered 
that  gross  negligence  may  make  one  responsible  as 
well  as  malice  aforethought. 

The  following  are  said  to  co-operate  in  crime  to 
the  extent  of  becoming  joint-partners  with  the  principal 
agent  in  guilt:  those  in  whose  name  the  wrong  is  done, 
in  obedience  to  their  orders  or  as  a  result  of  any  other 
means  employed;  those  who  influence  the  culprit  by 
suggesting  motives  and  reasons  for  his  crime  or  by 
pointing  out  efficient  means  of  arriving  thereat;  those 
who  induce  others  to  commit  evil  by  playing  on  their 
weaknesses  thereby  subjecting  them  to  what  is  known 
as  moral  force ;  those  who  harbor  the  thief  and  conceal 
his  stolen  property  against  their  recovery;  those 
whose  silence  is  equivalent  to  approbation,  permission 
or  official  consent ;  those  finally  who  before,  during  or 
after  the  deed,  abstain  from  performing  a  plain  duty 
in  preventing,  deterring  or  bringing  to  justice  the 
guilty  party.  Such  persons  as  the  foregoing 
participate  as  abettors  in  crime  and  share  all  the  guilt 
of  the  actual  criminals;  sometimes  the  former  are 
even  more  guilty  than  the  latter. 

The  Tenth  Commandment  which  forbids  us  to 
covet  our  neighbor's  goods,  bears  the  same  relation 
to  the  Seventh  as  the  Ninth  does  to  the  Sixth.  It  must, 
however,  be  borne  in  mind  that  all  such  coveting 
supposes  injustice  in  desire,  that  is,  in  the  means  by 
which  we  desire  to  obtain  what  is  not  ours.  To  wish 
for,  to  long  ardently  for  something  that  appeals  to 
one's  like  and  fancy  is  not  sinful ;  the  wrong  consists 
in  the  desire  to  acquire  it  unjustly,  to  steal  it,  and 
thereby  work  damage  unto  the  neighbor.  It  is  a 
natural  weakness  in  man  to  be  dissatisfied  with  what 


264  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

he  has  and  to  sigh  after  what  he  has  not;  very  few 
of  us  are  free  from  this  failing.  But  so  long  as  our 
cravings  and  hankerings  are  not  tainted  with  injustice, 
we  are  innocent  of  evil. 


CHAPTER  LXXXV. 
PETTY  THEFTS. 

A  QUESTION  may  arise  as  to  petty  thefts,  venial 
in  themselves,  but  oft  repeated  a»nd  aggregating  in  the 
long  run  a  sum  of  considerable  value:  how  are  we 
to  deal  with  such  cases?  Should  peculations  of  this 
sort  be  taken  singly,  and  their  individual  malice 
determined,  without  reference  to  the  sum  total  of 
injustice  caused;  or  should  no  severe  judgment  be 
passed  until  such  a  time  as  sufficient  matter  be 
accumulated  to  make  the  fault  grievous?  In  other 
words,  is  there  nothing  but  venial  sin  in  thefts  of  little 
values,  or  is  there  only  one  big  sin  at  the  end?  The 
difficulty  is  a  practical  one. 

If  petty  thefts  are  committed  with  a  view  to 
amass  a  notable  sum,  the  simple  fact  of  such  an 
intention  makes  the  offense  a  mortal  one.  For,  as  we 
have  already  remarked  in  treating  of  the  human  act, 
pur  deeds  may  be,  and  frequently  are,  vitiated  by  the 
intention  we  have  in  performing  them.  If  we  do 
something  with  evil  intent  and  purpose,  our  action 
is  evil  whether  the  deed  in  itself  be  indifferent  or  even 
good.  Here  the  intention  is  to  cause  a  grave  injustice ; 
the  deed  is  only  a  petty  theft,  but  it  serves  as  a  means 
to  a  more  serious  offense.  The  act  therefore  takes  its 
malice  from  the  purpose  of  the  agent  and  becomes 
sinful  in  a  high  degree. 


PETTY   THEFTS.  265 

As  to  each  repeated  theft,  that  depends  again  on 
the  intention  of  the  culprit.  If  in  the  course  of  his 
pilferings  he  no  longer  adverts  to  his  first  purpose 
and  has  no  intention  in  stealing  beyond  that  of  helping 
himself  to  a  little  of  his  neighbor's  goods,  he  is  guilty 
of  nothing  more  than  a  venial  sin.  If,  however,  the 
initial  purpose  is  present  at  every  act,  if  at  every 
fresh  peculation  the  intention  to  accumulate  is  renewed 
explicitly  or  implicitly,  then  every  theft  is  identical 
with  the  first  in  malice,  and  the  offender  commits 
mortal  sin  as  often  as  he  steals.  Thus  the  state  of  soul 
of  one  who  filches  after  this  fashion  is  not  sensibly 
affected  by  his  arriving  at  a  notable  sum  of  injustice 
in  the  aggregate.  The  malice  of  his  conduct  has 
already  been  established ;  it  is  now  completed  in  deed. 

A  person  who  thievishly  appropriates  small  sums, 
but  whose  pilferings  have  no  moral  reference  to  each 
other,  will  find  himself  a  mortal  offender  the  moment 
his  accumulated  injustices  reach  the  amount  we  have 
qualified  as  notable,  provided  he  be  at  that  moment 
aware  of  the  fact,  or  even  if  he  only  have  a  doubt 
about  the  matter.  And  this  is  true  whether  the  stolen 
sums  be  taken  from  one  or  from  several  persons.  Even 
in  the  latter  case,  although  no  one  person  suffers 
serious  damage  or  prejudice,  justice  however  is 
seriously  violated  and  the  intention  of  the  guilty  party 
is  really  to  perpetrate  grave  injustice. 

However,  such  thefts  as  these  which  in  the  end 
become  accumulative.,  must  of  their  nature  be 
successive  and  joined  together  by  some  bond  of  moral 
union,  otherwise  they  could  never  be  considered  a. 
whole.  By  this  is  meant  that  there  must  not  exist 
between  the  different  single  thefts  an  interruption  or 
space  of  time  such  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  consider 
reasonably  the  several  deeds  as  forming  one  general 
action.  The  time  generally  looked  upon  as  sufficient 
to  prevent  a  moral  union  of  this  kind  is  two  months. 
In  the  absence  therefore  of  a  specific  intention  to 
arrive  at  a  large  amount  by  successive  thefts,  it  must 


266  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

be  said  tha/t  such  thefts  as  are  separated  by  an  inter 
vening  space  of  two  months  can  never  be  accounted 
as  parts  of  one  grave  injustice,  and  a  mortal  sin  can 
never  be  committed  by  one  whose  venial  offenses  are 
of  this  nature.  Of  course  if  there  be  an  evil  purpose, 
that  alone  is  sufficient  to  establish  a  moral  union 
between  single  acts  of  theft  however  considerable  the 
interval  that  separates  them. 

Several  persons  may  conspire  to  purloin  each  a 
limited  amount.  The  circumstance  of  conspiracy, 
connivance  or  collusion  makes  each  co-operator  in  the 
deed  responsible  for  the  whole  damage  done;  and  if 
the  amount  thus  defrauded  be  notable,  each  is  guilty 
of  mortal  sin. 

We  might  here  add  in  favor  of  children  who 
take  small  things  from  their  parents  and  of  wives 
who  sometimes  relieve  their  husbands  of  small  change, 
that  it  is  natural  that  a  man  be  less  reluctant  to  being 
defrauded  in  small  matters  by  his  own  than  by  total 
strangers.  It  is  only  reasonable  therefore  that  more 
latitude  be  allowed  such  delinquents  when  there  is 
question  of  computing  the  amount  to  be  considered 
notable ;  perhaps  the  amount  might  be  doubled  in  their 
favor.  The  same  might  be  said  in  favor  of  those 
whose  petty  thefts  are  directed  against  several  victims 
instead  of  one,  since  the  injury  sustained  individually 
is  less. 

The  best  plan  is  to  leave  what  does  not  belong  to 
one  severely  alone.  In  other  sins  there  may  be 
something  gained  in  the  long  run,  but  here  no  such 
.  illusion  can  be  entertained,  for  the  spectre  of  restitution, 
as  we  shall  see,  follows  every  injustice  as  a  shadow 
follows  its  object,  and  its  business  is  to  see  that  no 
man  profit  by  his  ill-gotten  goods. 


CHAPTER  LXXXVI. 
AN  OFT  EXPLOITED,  BUT  SPECIOUS  PLEA. 

IT  is  not  an  infrequent  occurrence  for  persons 
given  to  the  habit  of  petty  thefts  and  fraud,  to  seek 
to  justify  their  irregular  conduct  by  a  pretense  of 
justice  which  they  call  secret  compensation.  They 
stand  arraigned  before  the  bar  of  their  conscience  on 
the  charge  of  filching  small  sums,  usually  from  their 
employers ;  they  have  no  will  to  desist ;  they  therefore 
plead  not  guilty,  and  have  nothing  so  much  at  heart 
as  to  convince  themselves  that  they  act  within  their 
rights.  They  elaborate  a  theory  of  justice  after  their 
ideas,  or  rather,  according  to  their  own  desires ;  they 
bolster  it  up  with  facts  that  limp  all  the  way  from 
half-truths  to  downright  falsities ;  amd  thus  acquit 
themselves  of  sin,  and  go  their  way  in  peace.  A  judge 
is  always  lenient  when  he  tries  his  own  case. 

Secret  compensation  is  the  taking  surreptitiously 
from  another  of  the  equivalent  of  what  is  due  to  one, 
of  what  has  been  taken  and  is  kept  against  all  justice, 
in  order  to  indemnify  oneself  for  losses  sustained. 
This  sort  of  a  thing,  in  theory  at  least,  has  a  perfectly 
plausible  look,  nor,  in  fact,  is  it  contrary  to  justice, 
when  all  the  necessary  conditions  are  fulfilled  to  the 
letter.  But  the  cases  in  which  these  conditions  are 
fulfilled  are  so  few  and  rare  that  they  may  hardly  be 
said  to  exist  at  all.  It  is  extremely  difficult  to  find 
such  a  case,  and  nearly  always  when  this  practice  is 
resorted  to,  the  order  of  justice  is  violated. 

And  if  common  sense  in  the  case  of  any  given 
individual  fail  to  show  him  this  truth,  we  here  quote 
for  his  benefit  an  authority  capable  of  putting  all  his 
doubts  at  rest.  The  following  proposition  was 


268  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

advanced:  "Domestic  servants  who  adjudge  them 
selves  underpaid  for  services  rendered,  may  appropriate 
to  themselves  by  stealth  a  compensation."  This 
proposition  has  received  the  full  weight  cf  papal 
condemnation.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  it  applies  to 
all  who  engage  their  services  for  hire.  To  maintain 
the  contrary  is  to  revolt  against  the  highest  authority 
in  the  Church;  to  practise  it  is  purely  and  simply  to 
sin. 

A  case  is  often  made  out  on  the  grounds  that 
wages  are  small,  work  very  hard  and  the  laborer 
therefore  insufficiently  remunerated.  But  to  conclude 
therefrom  the  right  to  help  oneself  to  the  employer's 
goods,  is  a  strange  manner  of  reasoning,  while  it 
opens  the  door  to  all  manner  of  injustice.  Where  is 
there  a  man,  whatever  his  labor  and  pay,  who  could 
not  come  to  the  same  conclusion?  Who  may  not 
consider  himself  ill-paid  ?  And  who  is  there  that  really 
thinks  he  is  not  worth  more  than  he  gets?  There  is 
no  limit  to  the  value  one  may  put  on  one's  own 
services ;  and  he  who  is  justified  to-day  in  taking 
a  quarter  of  a  dollar,  would  be  equally  justified 
to-morrow  in  appropriating  the  whole  concern.  And 
then  what  becomes  of  honesty,  and  the  right  of 
property  ?  And  what  security  can  anyone  have  against 
the  private  judgment  of  his  neighbor? 

And  what  about  the  contract  according  to  the 
terms  of  which  you  are  to  give  your  services  and  to 
receive  in  return  a  stipulated  amount?  Was  there 
any  clause  therein  by  which  you  are  entitled  to  change 
the  terms  of  said  contract  without  consulting  the  other 
party  interested?  You  don't  think  he  would  mind  it. 
You  don't  think  anything  of  the  kind ;  you  know  he 
will  and  does  mind  it.  He  may  be  generous,  but  he 
is  not  a  fool. 

"But  I  make  up  for  it.  I  work  overtime,  work 
harder,  am  more  attentive  to  my  work;  and  thereby 
save  more  for  my  employer  than  I  take."  Here  you 
contradict  vourself.  You  are  therefore  not  under- 


AN  OFT  EXPLOITED,   BUT  SPECIOUS   PLEA.  269 

paid.  And  if  you  furnish  a  greater  amount 
of  labor  than  is  expected  of  you,  that  is  your 
business  and  your  free  choice.  And  the  right  you 
have  to  a  compensation  for  such  extra  labor  is  entirely 
dependent  on  the  free  will  of  your  employer.  People 
usually  pay  for  what  they  call  for;  services  uncalled 
for  are  gratuitous  services.  To  think  otherwise 
betokens  a  befuddled  state  o'f  mind. 

"But  I  am  forced  to  work  harder  and  longer  than 
we  agreed."  Then  it  is  up  to  you  to  remonstrate 
with  your  employer,  to  state  the  case  as  it  is  and  to 
ask  for  a  raise.  If  he  refuses,  then  his  refusal  is  your 
cue  to  quit  and  go  elsewhere.  It  means  that  your 
services  are  no  longer  required.  It  means,  at  any  rate, 
that  you  have  to  stand  the  cut  or  seek  to  better  your 
condition  under  other  employers.  It  is  hard!  Of 
course  it  is  hard,  but  no  harder  than  a  great  many  other 
things  we  have  to  put  up  with. 

If  my  neighbor  holds  unjustly  what  belongs  to 
me,  or  if  he  has  failed  to  repair  damages  caused,  to 
recover  my  losses  by  secret  compensation  has  the  same 
degree  of  malice  and  disorder.  The  law  is  instituted 
for  just  such  purposes ;  you  have  recourse  thereto. 
You  may  prosecute  and  get  damages.  If  the  courts 
fail  to  give  you  justice,  then  perhaps  there  may  be 
occasion  to  discuss  the  merits  of  the  secret  compen 
sation  theory.  But  you  had  better  get  the  advice  of 
some  competent  person  before  you  attempt  to  put  it 
in  practice ;  otherwise  you  are  liable  to  get  into  a  bigger 
hole  than  the  one  you  are  trying  to  get  out  of. 

Sometimes  the  bold  assertion  is  advanced  that 
the  employer  knows  perfectly  that  he  is  being 
systematically  robbed  and  tolerates  it.  It  is  incumbent 
on  this  party  to  prove  his  assertion  in  a  very  simple 
way.  Let  him  denounce  himself  to  his  employer  and 
allow  the  truth  or  falsity  thereof  hang  on  the  result. 
If  he  does  not  lose  his  job  inside  of  twenty-four  hours 
after  the  interview,  he  may  continue  his  peculations  in 
perfect  tranquillity  of  conscience.  If  he  escapes 


27O  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

prosecution  through  the  consideration  of  his  former 
employer,  he  must  take  it  for  granted  that  the  toleration 
he  spoke  of  was  of  a  very  general  nature,  the  natural 
stand  for  a  man  to  take  who  is  being  robbed  and 
cannot  help  it.  To  justify  oneself  on  such  a  principle 
is  to  put  a  premium  on  shrewd  dishonesty. 


CHAPTER  LXXXVIL 
CONTUMELY. 

THE  Eighth  Commandment  concerns  itself  with 
the  good  name  of  the  neighbor;  in  a  general  way,  it 
reproves  all  sins  of  the  tongue,  apart  from  those 
already  condemned  by  the  Second  and  Sixth 
commandments,  that  is  to  say,  blasphemous  and  impure 
speech.  It  is  as  a  weapon  against  the  neighbor  and 
an  instrument  of  untruth  that  the  tongue  is  here 
considered. 

By  a  good  name  is  here  intended  the  esteem  in 
which  a  person  is  held  by  his  fellow-men.  Call  it 
reputation,  character,  fame,  renown,  etc.,  a  good  name 
means  that  the  bearer  is  generally  considered  above 
reproach  in  all  matters  of  honesty,  moral  integrity  and 
worth.  It  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  such  esteem 
is  manifested  exteriorly  by  what  is  technically  known 
as  honor,  the  natural  concomitant  of  a  good  name; 
it  simply  stands  for  the  knowledge  entertained  by 
others  of  our  respectability  and  our  title  to  honor.  A 
good  name  is  therefore  one  thing;  honor  is  another. 
And  honor  consists  precisely  in  that  manifestation  on 
the  part  of  our  fellows  of  the  esteem  and  respect 
in  which  they  hold  us,  the  fruit  of  our  good  name, 
the  homage  rendered  to  virtue,  dignity  and  merit.  As 


CONTUMELY.  2/1 

it  may  therefore  be  easily  seen,  these  two  things — a 
good  name  and  honor — differ  as  much  as  a  sign  differs 
from  the  thing  signified. 

The  Eighth  Commandment  protects  every  man's 
honor;  it  condemns  contumely  which  is  an  attack 
upon  that  honor.  Contumely  is  a  sign  of  contempt 
which  shows  itself  by  attempting  to  impair  the  honor 
one  duly  receives ;  it  either  strives  to  prevent  that 
honor  being  paid  to  the  good  name  that  naturally 
deserves  it,  or  it  tries  to  nullify  it  by  offering  just  the 
contrary,  which  is  contumely,  more  commonly  called 
a:ffront,  outrage,  insult. 

Now,  contumely,  as  you  will  remark,  does  not 
seek  primarily  to  deprive  one  of  a  good  name ;  which 
it  nearly  always  succeeds  in  doing,  and  this  is  called 
detraction;  but  its  object  is  to  prevent  your  good 
name  from  getting  its  desert  of  respect,  your  character 
supposedly  remaining  intact.  The  insult  offered  is 
intended  to  effect  this  purpose.  Again,  all  contumely 
presupposes  the  presence  of  the  party  affronted;  the 
affront  is  thrown  in  one's  face*  and  therein  consists 
the  shocking  indecency  of  the  thing  and  its  specific 
malice. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  anger,  hatred,  the 
spirit  of  vengeance  or  any  other  passion  does  not 
excuse  one  from  the  guilt  of  contumely.  On  the 
other  hand,  one's  culpability  is  not  lessened  by  the 
accidental  fact  of  one's  intended  insults  going  wide 
of  the  mark  and  bearing  no  fruit  of  dishonor  to  the 
person  assailed.  To  the  malice  of  contumely  may, 
and  is  often,  added  that  of  defamation,  if  apart  from 
the  dishonor  received  one's  character  is  besmirched 
in  the  bargain.  Contumely  against  parents  offends 
at  the  same  time  filial  piety;  against  God  and  His 
saints,  it  is  sacrilegious;  if  provoked  by  the  practice 
of  religion  and  virtue,  it  is  impious.  If  perpetrated 
in  deed,  it  may  offend  justice  properly  so  called ;  if  it 
occasion  sin  in  others,  it  is  scandalous ;  if  it  drive  the 


272  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

victim  to  excesses  of  any  kind,  the  guilt  thereof  is 
shared  by  the  contumelious  agent. 

Sometimes  insult  is  offered  gratuitously,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  weak,  the  old,  the  cripple  and  other 
unfortunates  who  deserve  pity  rather  than  mockery; 
the  quality  of  contumely  of  this  sort  is  brutal  and 
fiendish.  Others  will  say  for  justification:  "But  he 
said  the  same,  he  did  the  same  to  me.  Can  I  not  defend 
myself?"  That  depends  on  the  sort  of  defense  you 
resort  to.  All  weapons  of  defense  are  not  lawful.  If 
a  man  uses  evil  means  to  wrong  you,  there  is  no 
justification,  in  Christian  ethics,  for  you  to  employ 
the  same  means  in  order  to  get  square,  or  even  to 
shelter  yourself  from  his  abuse.  The  "eye-for-eye" 
principle  is  not  recognized  among  civilized  and 
Christian  peoples. 

This  gross  violation  of  personal  respect  may  be 
perpetrated  in  many  ways ;  any  expression  of  contempt, 
offered  to  your  face,  or  directed  against  you  through 
a  representative,  is  contumely.  The  usual  way  to  do 
this  is  to  fling  vile  epithets,  to  call  opprobrious  names, 
to  make  shameful  charges.  It  is  not  always  necessary 
that  such  names  and  epithets  be  inapplicable  or  such 
charges  false,  if,  notwithstanding,  the  person  in 
question  has  not  thereby  forfeited  his  right  to  respect. 
In  certain  circumstances,  the  epithet  "fool"  may  hold 
all  the  opprobriousness  of  contumely:  "thief"  and 
"drunkard"  and  others  of  a  fouler  nature  may  be  thus 
malicious  for  a  better  reason.  An  accusation  of 
immorality  in  oneself  or  in  one's  parents  is 
contumelious  in  a.  high  degree.  Our  mothers  are  a 
favorite  target  for  the  shafts  of  contumely  that  through 
them  reach  us.  Abuse  is  not  the  only  vehicle  of 
contumely;  scorn,  wanton  ridicule,  indecent  mockery 
and  caricature  that  cover  the  unfortunate  victim  with 
shame  and  confusion  serve  the  purpose  as  well.  To 
strike  one,  to  spit  on  one  and  other  ignoble  attacks 
and  assaults  belong  to  the  same  category  of  crime. 


CONTUMELY.  273 

The  malice  of  contumely  is  not,  of  course,  equal 
In  all  cases ;  circumstances  have  a  great  deal  to  do 
in  determining  the  gravity  of  each  offense.  The  more 
conspicuous  a  person  is  in  dignity  and  the  more  worthy 
of  respect,  the  more  serious  the  affront  offered  him; 
and  still  more  grave  the  offense,  if  through  him  many 
others  are  attainted.  If  again  no  dishonor  is  intended 
and  no  offense  taken,  or  could  reasonably  be  taken, 
there  is  no  sin  at  all.  There  may  be  people  very  low 
on  the  scale  of  respectability  as  the  world  judges 
respectability;  but  it  can  never  be  said  of  a  man  or 
woman  that  he  or  she  caainot  be  dishonored,  that  he 
or  she  is  beneath  contempt.  Human  nature  never 
forfeits  all  respect;  it  always  has  some  redeeming 
feature  to  commend  it. 


CHAPTER  LXXXVIII. 
DEFAMATION. 

DEFAMATION  differs  from  contumely  in  that  the 
one  supposes  the  absence,  the  other,  the  presence,  of 
the  person  vilified;  and  again,  in  that  the  former 
asperses  the  reputation  of  the  victim  while  the  latter 
attacks  the  honor  due  or  paid  to  said  reputation.  A 
good  name  is,  after  the  grace  of  God,  man's  most 
precious  possession;  wealth  is  mere  trash  compared 
with  it.  You  may  find  people  who  think  otherwise, 
but  the  universal  sentiment  of  mankind  stigmatizes 
such  baseness  and  buries  it  under  the  weight  of  its 
opprobrium.  Nor  is  it  impossible  that  honor  be  paid 
where  a  good  character  no  longer  exists ;  but  this  is 
accidental  In  the  nature  of  things,  reputation  is 
the  basis  of  all  honor;  if  you  destroy  character,  you 


274  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

destroy  at  the  same  time  its  fruit,  which  is  honor. 
Thus  will  be  seen  the  double  malice  of  defamation. 

To  defame  therefore  is  to  lessen  or  to  annul 
the  estimation  in  which  a  person  is  held  by  his  fellow- 
men.  This  crime  may  be  perpetrated  in  two  different 
manners:  by  making  known  his  secret  faults,  and 
this  is  simple  detraction;  and  by  ascribing  to  him 
faults  of  which  he  is  innocent,  and  this  is  calumny 
or  slander.  Thus  it  appears  that  a  man's  character 
may  suffer  from  truth  as  well  as  from  falsehood. 
Truth  is  an  adorable  thing,  but  it  has  its  time  and 
place;  the  fact  of  its  being  truth  does  not  prevent 
it  from  being  harmful.  On  the  other  hand,  a  lie, 
which  is  evil  in  itself,  becomes  abominable  when  used 
to  malign  a  fellow-man. 

There  is  one  mitigating  and  two  aggravating 
forms  of  defamation.  Gossip  is  small  talk,  idle  and 
sufficiently  discolored  to  make  its  subject  appear  in 
an  unfavorable  light.  It  takes  a  morbid  pleasure  in 
speaking  of  the  known  and  public  faults  of  another. 
It  picks  at  little  things,  and  furnishes  a  steady  occu 
pation  for  people  who  have  more  time  to  mind  other 
people's  business  than  their  own.  It  bespeaks  small- 
ness  in  intellectual  make-up  and  general  pusillanimity. 
That  is  about  all  the  harm  there  is  in  it,  and  that  is 
enough. 

Libel  supposes  a  wide  diffusion  of  defamatory 
matter,  written  or  spoken.  Its  malice  is  great  because 
of  its  power  for  evil  and  harm.  Tale-bearing  or  back 
biting  is  what  the  name  implies.  Its  object  is  prin 
cipally  to  spread  discord,  to  cause  enmity,  to  break 
up  friendships;  it  may  have  an  ulterior  purpose,  and 
these  are  the  means  it  employs.  No  limit  can  be  set 
to  its  capacity  for  evil,  its  malice  is  especially  infernal. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  what  we  do  or  say  of  a 
defamatory  nature  result,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  in 
bringing  one's  name  into  disfavor  or  disrepute;  it 
is  sufficient  that  it  be  of  such  a  nature  and  have  such 
a  tendency.  If  by  accident  the  venomous  shaft  spend 


DEFAMATION.  275 

itself  before  attaining  the  intended  mark,  no  credit 
is  due  therefore  to  him  who  shot  it ;  his  guilt  remains 
what  it  was  when  he  sped  it  on  its  way.  Nor  is  there 
justification  in  the  plea  that  no  harm  was  meant,  that 
the  deed  was  done  in  a  moment  of  anger,  jealousy, 
etc.,  that  it  was  the  result  of  loquacity,  indulged  in 
for  the  simple  pleasure  of  talking.  These  are  excuses 
that  excuse  not. 

There  are  those  who,  speaking  in  disparagement 
of  the  neighbor,  speak  to  the  point,  directly  and 
plainly ;  others,  no  less  guilty,  do  it  in  a  covert  manner, 
have  recourse  to  subterfuge  and  insinuation.  They 
exaggerate  faults  and  make  them  appear  more  odious, 
they  put  an  evil  interpretation  on  the  deed  or  intention ; 
they  keep  back  facts  that  would  improve  the  situation ; 
they  remain  silent  when  silence  is  condemnatory ;  they 
praise  with  a  malignant  praise.  A  mean,  sarcastic 
smile  or  a  significant  reticence  often  does  the  work 
better  than  many  words  and  phrases.  And  all  this,  as 
we  have  said,  independently  of  the  truth  or  falsehood 
of  the  impression  conveyed. 

Listeners  share  the  guilt  of  the  defamers  on  the 
principle  that  the  receiver  is  as  bad  as  the  thief.  This 
supposes  of  course  that  you  listen,  not  merely  hear; 
that  you  enjoy  this  sort  of  a  thing  and  are  willing  and 
ready  to  receive  the  impression  derogatory  to  the 
neighbor's  esteem  and  good  name.  Of  course,  if  mere 
curiosity  makes  us  listen  and  our  pleasure  and  amuse 
ment  are  less  at  the  expense  of  the  neighbor's  good 
name  than  excited  by  the  style  of  the  narrator  or  the 
singularity  of  the  facts  alleged,  the  fault  is  less ;  but 
fault  there  nevertheless  is,  since  such  an  attitude  serves 
to  encourage  the  traducer  and  helps  him  drive  his 
points  home.  Many  sin  who  could  and  should  prevent 
excesses  of  this  kind,  but  refrain  from  doing  so; 
their  sin  is  greater  if,  by  reason  of  their  position, 
they  are  under  greater  obligations  of  correction. 

Although  reputation  is  a  priceless  boon  to  all 
,men,  there  are  cases  wherein  it  has  an  especial  value 


276  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

on  account  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  a  man's 
position.  It  not  infrequently  happens  that  the  whole 
success  of  a  man's  life  depends  on  his  good  name. 
Men  in  public  life,  in  the  professions,  religious  and 
others  similarly  placed,  suffer  from  defamation  far 
more  than  those  in  the  ordinary  walks  of  life;  and 
naturally  those  who  injure  them  are  guilty  of  more 
grievous  wrong.  And  it  goes  without  saying  that  a 
man  can  stand  an  immoral  aspersion  better  than  a 
woman.  In  all  cases  the  malice  is  measured  by  the 
injury  done  or  intended. 


CHAPTER  LXXXIX. 
DETRACTION. 

To  ABSOLVE  oneself  of  the  sin  of  detraction  on 
the  ground  that  nothing  but  the  truth  was  spoken 
is,  as  we  have  seen,  one  way  of  getting  around  a 
difficulty  that  is  no  way  at  all.  Some  excuses  are 
better  than  none,  others  are  not.  It  is  precisely  the 
truth  of  such  talk  that  makes  it  detraction ;  if  it  were 
not  true,  it  would  not  be  detraction  but  calumny — 
another  and  a  very  different  fault.  It  would  be  well 
for  such  people  to  reflect  for  a  moment,  and  ask 
themselves  if  their  own  character  would  stand  the 
strain  of  having  their  secret  sins  and  failings  sub 
jected  to  public  criticism  and  censure,  their  private 
shortcomings  heralded  from  every  housetop.  Would 
they,  or  would  they  not,  consider  themselves  injured 
by  such  revelations?  Then  it  would  be  in  order  for 
them  to  use  the  same  rule  and  measure  in  dealing 
with  others. 

He  who  does  moral  evil  offends  in  the  sight  of 
God  and  forfeits  God's  esteem  and  friendship.  But 


DETRACTION.  2/y 

it  docs  not  follow  that  he  should  also  forfeit  the 
esteem  of  his  fellow-men.  The  latter  evil  is  nothing 
compared  with  the  first;  but  it  is  a  great  misfor 
tune  nevertheless.  If  a  man's  private  iniquity  is 
something  that  concerns  himself  and  his  God,  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  others,  then  whosoever  presumes 
to  judge  and  condemn  him  trespasses  on  forbidden 
ground,  and  is  open  to  judgment  and  condemnation 
himself  before  his  Maker. 

All  do  not  live  in  stone  mansions  who  throw 
stones.  If  there  is  a  mote  in  the  neighbor's  eye, 
perhaps  there  is  a  very  large  piece  of  timber  in  your 
own.  Great  zeal  in  belaboring  the  neighbor  for  his 
faults  will  not  lessen  your  own,  nor  make  you  appear 
an  angel  of  light  before  God  when  you  are  some 
thing  very  different.  If  you  employed  this  same  zeal 
towards  yourself,  you  would  obtain  more  consoling 
results,  for  charity  begins  at  home.  One  learns  more 
examining  one's  own  conscience  than  dissecting  and 
flaying  others  alive. 

It  may  be  objected  that  since  detraction  deals 
with  secret  sins,  if  the  facts  related  are  of  public 
notoriety,  there  is  no  wrong  in  speaking  of  them, 
for  you  cannot  vilify  one  who  is  already  vilified.  This 
is  true ;  and  then,  again,  it  depends.  First,  these 
faults  must  be  of  public  notoriety.  A  judicial  sen 
tence  may  make  them  such,  but  the  fact  that  some, 
many,  or  a  great  many  know  and  speak  of  them  will 
not  do  it.  The  public  is  everybody,  or  nearly  every 
body.  Do  not  take  your  friends  for  the  public,  when 
they  are  only  a  fraction  thereof.  If  you  do  you  will 
find  out  oftener  than  it  is  pleasant  that  your  sins 
of  detraction  are  sins  of  slander;  for  rumors  are 
very  frequently  based  on  nothing  more  substantial 
than  lies  or  distorted  and  exaggerated  facts  set  afloat 
by  a  calumniator. 

Even  when  a  person  has  justly  forfeited,  and 
publicly,  the  consideration  of  his  fellowmen,  and  it 
is  not,  therefore,  injurious  to  his  character  to  speak 


278  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

of  his  evil  ways,  justice  may  not  be  offended,  but 
charity  may  be,  and  grievously.  It  is  a  sin,  an 
uncharity,  to  harp  on  one's  faults  in  a  spirit  of  spite, 
or  with  the  cruel  desire  to  maintain  his  dishonor; 
to  leave  no  stone  unturned  in  order  to  thoroughly 
blacken  his  name.  In  doing  this  you  sin  against 
charity,  because  you  do  something  you  would  not 
wish  to  have  done  unto  you.  Justice  itself  would 
be  violated  if,  even  in  the  event  of  the  facts  related 
being  notorious,  you  speak  of  them  to  people  who 
ignore  them  and  are  not  likely  ever  to  come  to  a 
knowledge  of  them. 

If  you  add,  after  telling  all  you  know  about  a 
poor  devil,  that  he  did  penance  and  repaired  his  sin, 
you  must  not  imagine  that  such  atonement  will 
rehabilitate  him  in  the  minds  of  all.  Men  are  more 
severe  and  unforgiving  than  God.  Grace  may  be 
recovered,  but  reputation  is  a  thing  which,  once  lost, 
is  usually  lost  for  good.  Something  of  the  infamy 
sticks ;  tears  and  good  works  will  not,  cannot  wash 
it  away.  He,  therefore,  who  banks  too  much  on  human 
magnanimity  is  apt  to  err ;  and  his  erring  constitutes  a 
fault. 

"But  I  confided  the  secret  to  but  one  person ; 
and  that  one  a  dear  friend,  who  promised  to  keep  it." 
Yes,  but  the  injured  party  has  a  right  to  the  esti 
mation  of  that  one  person,  and  his  injury  consists 
precisely  in  being  deprived  of  it.  Besides,  you 
accuse  yourself  openly.  Either  what  you  said  was 
void  of  all  harm4  or  it  was  not.  In  the  one  case, 
why  impose  silence!  In  the  other,  why  not  begin 
yourself  by  observing  the  silence  you  impose  upon 
others!  Your  friend  will  do  what  you  did,  and  the 
ball  you  set  rolling  will  not  stop  until  there  is  nothing 
left  of  your  victim's  character. 

Of  course  there  are  times  when  to  speak  of 
another's  faults  is  derogatory  neither  to  justice  nor 
to  charity;  both  may  demand  that  the  evil  be  re 
vealed.  A  man  to  defend  himself  may  expose  his 


DETRACTION.  279 

accuser's  crookedness;  in  court  his  lawyer  may  do 
it  for  him,  for  here  again  charity  begins  at  home.  In 
the  interests  of  the  delinquent,  to  effect  his  correction, 
one  may  reveal  his  shortcomings  to  those  who  have 
authority  to  correct.  And  it  is  even  admitted  that 
a  person  in  trouble  of  any  kind  may  without  sin, 
for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  advice  or  consolation, 
speak  to  a  judicious  friend  of  another's  evil  ways. 

Zeal  for  the  public  good  may  not  only  excuse, 
but  even  require  that  the  true  character  of  a  bad 
man  be  shown  up  and  publicly  censured.  Its  object 
is  to  prevent  or  undo  evil,  to  protect  the  innocent; 
it  is  intended  to  destroy  an  evil  influence  and  to  make 
hypocrisy  fly  under  his  own  colors.  Immoral  writers, 
living  or  dead,  corrupt  politicians  and  demagogues, 
unconscionable  wretches  who  prey  on  public  ignorance, 
may  and  should  be,  made  known  to  the  people, 
to  shield  them  is  to  share  their  guilt.  This  should 
not  be  done  in  a  spirit  of  vengeance,  but  for  the 
sole  purpose  of  guarding  the  unwary  against  vultures 
who  know  no  law,  and  who  thrive  on  the  simplicity 
of  their  hearers. 


CHAPTER  XC. 
CALUMNY. 

To  THE  malice  of  detraction  calumny  adds  that  of 
falsehood.  It  is  a  lie,  which  is  bad ;  it  is  a  report  pre 
judicial  to  the  character  of  another,  which  is  worse  ; 
it  is  both  combined,  out  of  which  combination  springs 
a  third  malice,  which  is  abominable.  All  the  more 
so,  since  there  can  exist  no  excuse  or  reason  in 
the  light  of  which  this  sin  may  appear  as  a  human 


280  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

weakness.  Because  slander  is  the  fruit  of  deliberate 
criminal  spite,  jealousy  and  revenge,  it  has  a  char 
acter  of  diabolism.  The  calumniator  is  not  only  a 
moral  assassin,  but  he  is  the  most  accomplished  type 
of  the  coward  known  to  man.  If  the  devil  loves  a 
cheerful  liar,  he  has  one  here  to  satisfy  his  affections. 

This  crime  is  one  that  can  never  be  tolerated,  no 
matter  what  the  circumstances;  it  can  never  be  justi 
fied  on  any  grounds  whatsoever;  it  is  instrinsically 
evil,  a  sin  of  injustice  that  admits  no  mitigation.  When 
slander  is  sworn  to  before  the  courts,  it  acquires  a 
fourth  malice,  that  of  irreligion,  and  is  called  false 
testimony.  It  is  not  alone  perjury,  for  perjury  does 
not  necessarily  attack  the  neighbor's  good  name ;  it  is 
perjured  calumny,  a  crime  that  deserves  all  the  repro 
bation  it  receives  in  this  world — and  in  the  next. 

To  lie  outright,  deliberately  and  with  malice 
aforethought,  in  traducing  a  fellow-man,  is  slander 
in  its  direct  form;  but  such  conditions  are  not 
required  to  constitute  a  real  fault  of  calumny.  It 
is  not  necessary  to  be  certain  that  what  you  allege 
against  your  neighbor  be  false ;  it  is  sufficient  that  you 
be  uncertain  if  it  be  true.  An  unsubstantiated  charge 
or  accusation,  a  mere  rumor  given  out  as  worthy  of 
belief,  a  suspicion  or  doubt  clothed  so  as  to  appear 
a  certainty,  these  contain  all  the  malice  and  all  the 
elements  of  slander  clearly  characterized.  Chanty, 
justice  and  truth  alike  are  violated,  guilt  is  there  in 
unquestioned  evidence.  Whatever  subterfuge,  equiv 
ocation  or  other  crooked  proceeding  be  resorted  to,  if 
mendacity  in  any  form  is  a  feature  of  the  aspersions 
we  cast  upon  the  neighbor,  we  sin  by  calumny,  purely 
a-nd  simply. 

Some  excuse  themselves  on  the  plea  that  what 
they  say,  they  give  out  for  what  it  is  worth;  they 
heard  it  from  others,  and  take  no  responsibility  as  to 
its  truth  or  falsehood.  But  here  we  must  consider 
the  credulity  of  the  hearers.  Will  they  believe  it; 
whether  you  do  or  not?  Are  they  likely  to  receive 


CALUMNY.  28l 

it  as  truth,  either  because  they  are  looking  for 
just  such  reports,  or  because  they  know  no  better? 
And  whether  they  believe  it  or  not,  will  they,  on  your 
authority,  have  sufficient  reason  for  giving  credence  to 
your  words  ?  May  it  not  happen  that  the  very  fact  of 
your  mentioning  what  you  did  is  a  sufficient  mark  of 
credibility  for  others?  And  by  so  doing,  you  con 
tribute  to  their  knowledge  of  what  is  false,  or  what 
is  not  proven  true,  concerning  the  reputation  of  a 
neighbor. 

For  it  must  be  remembered  that  all  imprudence  is 
not  guiltless,  all  thoughtlessness  is  not  innocent  of 
wrong.  It  is  easy  to  calumniate  a  person  by  qualifying 
him  in  an  off-hand  way  as  a  thief,  a  blackleg,  a  fast- 
liver,  etc.  It  is  easy,  by  adding  an  invented  detail  to 
a  statement,  to  give  it  an  altogether  different  color 
and  turn  truth  into  falsehood.  But  the  easiest  way  is 
to  interpret  a  man's  intentions  according  to  a  dislike, 
and,  by  stringing  in  such  fancies  with  a  lot  of  facts, 
pass  them  on  unsuspecting  credulity  that  takes  all  or 
none.  If  you  do  not  think  well  of  another,  and  the 
occasion  demand  it,  speak  it  out;  but  make  it  known 
that  it  is  your  individual  judgment  and  give  your 
reasons  for  thus  opining. 

The  desperate  character  of  calumny  is  that,  while 
it  must  be  repaired,  as  we  shall  see  later,  the  thing  is 
difficult,  often  impossible ;  frequently  the  reparation 
increases  the  evil  instead  of  diminishing  it.  The 
slogan  of  unrighteousness  is:  "Calumniate,  calum 
niate,  some  of  it  will  stick !"  He  who  slanders,  lies ; 
he  who  lies  once  may  lie  again,  a  liar  is  never  worthy 
of  belief,  whether  he  tells  the  truth  or  not,  for  there 
is  no  knowing  when  he  is  telling  the  truth.  One  has 
the  right  to  disbelieve  the  calumniator  when  he  does 
wrong  or  when  he  tries  to  undo  it.  And  human 
nature  is  so  constructed  that  it  prefers  to  believe  in 
the  first  instance  and  to  disbelieve  in  the  second. 

You  may  slander  a  community,  a  class  as  well  as 
an  individual.  It  is  not  necessary  to  charge  all  with 


282  MORAL    B&IEFS. 

crime  ;  it  is  sufficient  so  to  manipulate  your  words 
that  suspicion  may  fall  on  any  one  of  said  class  or 
community.  If  the  charge  be  particularly  heinous,  or 
if  the  body  of  men  be  such  that  all  its  usefulness 
depends  on  its  reputation,  as  is  the  case  especially 
with  religious  bodies,  the  malice  of  such  slander 
acquires  a  dignity  far  above  the  ordinary. 

The  Church  of  God  has  suffered  more  in  the  long 
centuries  of  her  existence  from  the  tongue  of  slander 
than  from  sword  and  flame  and  chains  combined.  In 
the  mind  of  her  enemies,  any  weapon  is  lawful  with 
which  to  smite  her,  and  the  climax  of  infamy  is  reached 
when  they  affirm,  to  justify  their  dishonesty,  that  they 
turn  Rome's  weapons  against  her.  There  is  only  one 
answer  to  this,  and  that  is  the  silence  of  contempt. 
Slander  and  dollars  are  the  wheels  on  which  moves  the 
propaganda  that  would  substitute  Gospel  Christianity 
for  the  superstitions  of  Rome.  It  is  slander  that  vilifies 
in  convention  and  synod  the  friars  who  did  more  for 
pure  Christianity  in  the  Philippines  in  a  hundred 
years  than  the  whole  nest  of  their  revilers  will  do  in 
ten  thousand.  It  is  slander  that  holds  up  to  public 
ridicule  the  congregations  that  suffer  persecution  and 
exile  in  France  in  the  name  of  liberty,  fraternity,  etc. 
It  is  slander  that  the  long-tailed  missionary  with  the 
sanctimonious  face  brings  back  from  the  countries  of 
the  South  with  which  to  regale  the  minds  of  those  who 
furnish  the  Bibles  and  shekels.  And  who  will  measure 
the  slander  triat  grows  out  of  the  dunghill  of  Protestant 
ignorance  of  what  Catholics  really  believe! 


CHAPTER  XCI. 
RASH  JUDGMENT. 

THE  Eighth  Commandment  is  based  on  the  natural 
right  every  fellow-man  has  to  our  good  opinion,  unless 
he  forfeits  it  justly  and  publicly.  It  forbids  all  injury 
to  his  reputation,  first,  in  the  estimation  of  others, 
which  is  done  by  calumny  and  detraction;  secondly, 
in  our  own  estimation,  and  this  is  done  by  rash  judg 
ment,  by  hastily  and  without  sufficient  grounds  think 
ing  evil  of  him,  forming  a  bad  opinion  of  him.  He 
may  be,  as  he  has  a  right  to  be,  anxious  to  sta-nd  well 
in  our  esteem  as  well  as  in  the  esteem  of  others. 

A  judgment,  rash  or  otherwise,  is  not  a  doubt, 
neither  is  it  a  suspicion.  Everybody  knows  what  a 
doubt  is.  When  I  doubt  if  another  is  doing  or  has 
done  wrong,  the  idea  of  his  or  her  guilt  simply  enters 
my  mind,  occurs  to  me  and  I  turn  it  over  and  around, 
from  one  side  to  another,  without  being  satisfied  to 
accept  or  reject  it.  I  do  not  say:  yes,  it  is  true; 
neither  do  I  say:  no,  it  is  not  true.  I  say  nothing,  I 
pass  no  judgment;  I  suspend  for  the  moment  all 
judgment,  I  doubt. 

A  doubt  is  not  evil  unless  there  be  absolutely  no 
reason  for  doubting,  and  then  the  doubt  is  born  of 
passion  and  malice.  And  the  evil,  whatever  there  is 
of  it,  is  not  in  the  doubt's  entering  our  mind — 
something  beyond  our  control ;  but  in  our  entertaining 
the  doubt,  in  our  making  the  doubt  personal,  which 
supposes  an  act  of  the  will. 

Stronger  than  doubt  is  suspicion.  When  I  suspect 
one,  I  do  not  keep  the  balance  perfectly  even  between 
yes  and  no,  as  in  the  case  of  doubt;  I  lean  mentally 
to  one  side,  but  do  not  go  so  far  as  to  assent  one  way 


284  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

or  the  other.  Having  before  me  a  person  who  excites 
my  suspicion,  I  am  inclined  to  think  him  guilty  on 
certain  evidence,  but  I  fear  to  judge  lest  I  should  be 
in  error,  because  there  is  evidence  also  of  innocence. 
If  my  suspicion  is  based  on  good  grounds,  it  is  natural 
and  lawful;  otherwise  it  is  rash  and  sinful;  it  is 
uncharitable  and  unjust  to  the  person  suspected.  A 
suspicion  often  hurts  more  than  an  accusation. 

Doubt  and  suspicion,  when  rash,  are  sinful;  but 
the  malice  thereof  is  not  grave  unless  they  are  so 
utterly  unfounded  as  to  betoken  deep-seated  antipathy 
and  aversion  and  a  perverse  will ;  or  unless  in  peculiar 
circumstances  the  position  of  the  person  is  such  as  to 
make  the  suspicion  gravely  injurious  and  not  easily 
condoned.  There  is  guilt  in  keeping  that  suspicion 
to  oneself;  to  give  it  out  in  words  is  calumny, 
whether  it  be  true  or  not,  simply  because  it  is 
unfounded. 

In  a  judgment  there  is  neither  doubt  nor 
suspicion;  I  make  my  own  the  idea  presented  to  my 
mind.  The  balance  of  assenta  in  which  is  weighed, 
the  evidence  for  and^  against,  is  not  kept  even,  nor  is 
it  partially  inclined ;  it  goes  down  with  its  full  weight, 
and  the  party  under  consideration  stands  convicted 
before  the  tribunal  of  my  judgment.  I  do  not  say,  I 
wonder  if  he  is  guilty;  nor  he  most  likely  is  guilty; 
but:  he  is  guilty — here  is  a  deliberate  judgment. 
Henceforth  my  esteem  ceases  for  such  a  person. 
Translated  in  words  such  a.  Judgment  is  not  calumny 
because  it  is  supposedly  founded  in  reason;  but  it  is 
detraction,  because  it  is  injurious. 

Such  a  judgment,  without  any  exterior  expression, 
is  sinful  if  it  is  rash.  And  what  makes  it  rash?  The 
insufficiency  of  motive  on  which  it  is  based.  And 
whence  comes  the  knowledge  of  such  sufficiency  or 
insufficiency  of  motive?  From  the  intelligence,  but 
mostly  from  the  conscience.  That  is  why  many 
unintelligent  people  judge  rashly  and  sin  not,  because 
they  know  no  better.  But  conscience  nearly  always 


RASH  JUDGMENT.  285 

supplies  intelligence  in  such  matters  and  ignorance 
does  not  always  save  us  from  guilt.  An  instinct,  the 
wee  voice  of  God  in  the  soul,  tells  us  to  withhold 
our  judgment  even  when  the  intelligence  fails  to  weigh 
the  motives  aright.  To  contemn  this  voice  is  to  sin 
and  be  guilty  of  rash  judgment. 

In  the  language  of  ordinary  folks,  not  always 
precise  and  exact  in  their  terms,  an  opinion  is 
frequently  a  judgment,  to  think  this  or  that  of  another 
is  often  to  judge  him  accordingly.  The  suspicions  of 
suspicious  people  are  at  times  more  than  suspicions 
and  are  clearly  characterized  judgments.  To  render 
a  verdict  on  the  neighbor's  character  is  a  judgment, 
by  whatever  other  name  it  is  called;  all  that  is 
necessary  is  to  come  to  a  definite  conclusion  and  to 
give  the  assent  of  the  will  to  that  conclusion. 

When  the  conduct  of  the  neighbor  is  plainly  open 
to  interpretation,  if  we  may  not  judge  immediately 
against  him,  neither  are  we  bound  to  give  him  the 
benefit  of  the  doubt;  we  may  simply  suspend  all 
judgment  and  await  further  evidence.  In  our  exterior 
dealings  this  suspicion  should  not  affect  our  conduct, 
for  every  man  has  a  right  to  be  treated  as  an  honest 
man  and  does  not  forfeit  that  right  on  the  ground  of  a 
mere  probability.  This,  however,  does  not  prevent 
us  from  taking  a  cue  from  our  suspicion  and  acting 
guardedly  towards  him.  This  does  not  mean  that  we 
adjudge  him  dishonest,  but  that  we  deem  him  capable 
of  being  dishonest,  which  is  true  and  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  of  prudence. 

Neither  are  we  bound  to  overlook  all  evidence 
that  points  to  a  man's  guilt  through  fear  of  judging 
him  unfavorably.  It  is  not  wrong  to  judge  a  man 
according  to  his  merits,  to  have  a  right  opinion  of  him, 
even  when  that  opinion  is  not  to  his  credit.  All  that 
is  necessary  is  that  we  have  good  reason  on  which  to 
base  that  opinion.  If  a  neighbor  does  evil  in  our 
presence  or  to  our  knowledge  he  forfeits,  and  justly, 
our  good  opinion ;  he  is  to  blame,  and  not  we.  We 


286  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

are  not  obliged  to  close  our  eyes  to  the  truth  of  facts, 
and  it  is  on  facts  that  our  judgments  are  formed. 


CHAPTER  XCIL 
MENDACITY. 

To  LIE  is  to  utter  an  untruth,  with  full  knowledge 
that  it  is  an  untruth.  The  untruth  may  be  expressed 
by  any  conventional  sign,  by  word,  deed,  gesture,  or 
even  by  silence.  Its  malice  and  disorder  consists  in 
the  opposition  that  exists  between  our  idea  and  the 
expression  we  give  to  it ;  our  words  convey  a  meaning 
contrary  to  what  is  in  our  mind;  we  say  one  thing 
and  mean  another.  If  we  unwittingly  utter  what  is 
contrary  to  fact,  that  is  error;  if  we  so  clumsily 
translate  our  thoughts  as  to  give  a  false  impression 
of  what  we  mean,  and  we  do  the  best  we  can,  that  is 
a  blunder ;  if  in  a  moment  of  listlessness  and  inattention 
we  speak  in  a  manner  that  conflicts  with  our  state  of 
mind,  that  is  temporary  mental  aberration.  But  if  we 
knowingly  give  out  as  truth  what  we  know  is  not 
the  truth,  we  lie  purely  and  simply. 

In  misrepresentations  of  this  kind  it  is  not 
required  that  there  be  a  plainly  formulated  purpose 
of  deceiving  another;  an  implicit  intention,  a 
disposition  to  allow  our  words  to  run  their  natural 
course,  is  sufficient  to  give  such  utterances  a  character 
of  mendacity.  For,  independently  of  our  mental 
attitude,  it  is  in  the  nature  of  a  lie  to  deceive;  an 
intention,  or  rather  a  pretense  to  the  contrary,  does 
not  affect  that  nature.  The  fact  of  lying  presupposes 
that  we  intend  in  some  manner  to  practise  deception ; 
if  we  did  not  have  such  a.  purpose  we  would  not  resort 
to  lying.  If  you  stick  a  knife  into  a  man,  you  may 


MENDACITY.  287 

pretend  what  you  like,  but  you  did  certainly  intend  to 
hurt  him  and  make  him  feel  badly. 

Nor  has  any  ulterior  motive  we  may  have  in  telling 
an  untruth  the  power  to  change  its  nature;  a  lie  is  a 
lie,  no  matter  what  prompted  it.  Whether  it  serves 
the  purpose  of  amusement,  as  a  jocose  lie ;  or  helps  to 
gain  us  an  advantage  or  get  us  out  of  trouble,  as  an 
officious  lie;  or  injures  another  in  any  way,  as  a 
pernicious  lie:  mendacity  is  the  character  of  our 
utterances,  the  guilt  of  willful  falsehood  is  on  our 
soul.  A  restriction  should,  however,  be  made  in  favor 
of  the  jocose  lie ;  it  ceases  to  be  a  lie  when  the  mind 
of  the  speaker  is  open  to  all  who  listen  and  his 
narration  or  statement  may  be  likened  to  those  fables 
and  myths  and  fairy  tales  in  which  is  exemplified  the 
charm  of  figurative  language.  When  a  person  says 
what  is  false  and  is  convinced  that  all  who  hear  him 
know  it  is  false,  the  contradiction  between  his  mind 
and  its  expression  is  said  to  be  material,  and  not 
formal ;  and  in  this  the  essence  of  a  lie  does  not  consist. 

A  lie  is  always  a  sin;  it  is  what  is  called  an 
intrinsic  evil  and  is  therefore  always  wrong.  And 
why  is  this?  Because  speech  was  given  us  to  express 
our  thoughts;  to  use  this  faculty  therefore  for  a 
contrary  purpose  is  against  its  nature,  against  a  la.w 
of  our  being,  and  this  is  evil.  The  obnoxious 
consequences  of  falsehood,  as  it  is  patent  to  all,  consti 
tute  an  evil  for  which  falsehood  is  responsible.  But 
deception,  one  of  those  consequences,  is  not  in  itself 
and  essentially,  a  moral  fault.  Deception,  if  not 
practised  by  lying  and  therefore  not  intended  but 
simply  suffered  to  occur,  and  if  there  be  grave  reason 
for  resorting  to  this  means  of  defense,  cannot  be  put 
down  as  a  thing  offensive  to  God  or  unjustly 
prejudicial  to  the  neighbor.  But  wHen  deception  is 
the  effect  of  mendacity,  it  assumes  a  character  of  malice 
that  deserves  the  reprobation  of  man  as  it  is  condemned 
by  God.  And  this  is  another  reason  why  lying  is 
essentially  an  evil  thing,  and  can  never,  under  any 
circumstances  be  allowed  or  justified. 


288  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

This  does  not  mean  that  lying  is  always  a  mortal 
sin.  In  fact,  it  is  oftener  venial  than  mortal.  It 
becomes  a  serious  fault  only  in  the  event  of  another 
malice  being  added  to  it.  Thus,  if  I  lie  to  one  who 
has  a  right  to  know  the  truth  and  for  grave  reasons ; 
if  the  mendacious  information  I  impart  is  of  a  nature 
to  mislead  one  into  injury  or  loss,  and  this  thing  I 
do  maliciously ;  or  if  my  lying  is  directly  disparaging 


my  sin  is  not  a  serious  offense. 

This  is  a  vice  that  certainly  deserves  to  be  fought 
against  and  punished  always  and  in  all  places, 
especially  in  the  young  who  are  so  prone  thereto,  first 
because  it  is  a  sin;  and  again,  because  of  the  social 
evils  that  it  gives  rise  to.  There  is  no  gainsaying  the 
fact  that  in  the  code  of  purely  human  morals,  lying  is 
considered  a  very  heinous  offense  that  ostracizes  a 
man  when  robbery  on  a  large  scale,  adultery  and  other 
first-degree  misdemeanors  leave  him  perfectly 
honorable.  This  recalls  an  instance  of  a  recent  court 
room.  A  young  miscreant  thoroughly  imbued  with 
pharisaic  morals  met  with  a  bold  face,  without  a  blush 
or  a  flinch,  accusations  of  misconduct,  robbery  and 
murder ;  but  when  charged  with  being  a  liar,  he  sprang 
at  his  accuser  in  open  court  and  tried  fo  throttle  him. 
His  fine  indignation  got  the  best  of  him;  he  could 
not  stand  that. 

Among  pious-minded  people  two  extreme  errors 
are  not  infrequently  met  with.  The  one  is  that  a  lie 
is  not  wrong  unless  the  neighbor  suffers  thereby ;  the 
falsity  of  this  we  have  already  shown.  According  to 
the  other,  a  lie  is  such  an  evil  that  it  should  not  be 
tolerated,  not  one  lie,  even  if  all  the  souls  in  hell  were 
thereby  to  be  liberated.  To  this  we  answer  that  we 
would  like  to  get  such  a  chance  once;  we  fear  we 
would  tell  a  whopper.  It  would  be  wicked,  of  course ; 
but  we  might  expect  leniency  from  the  just  Judge 
under  the  circumstances. 


CHAPTER  XCIII. 
CONCEALING  THE  TRUTH. 

THE  duty  always  to  tell  the  truth  does  not  imply 
the  obligation  always  to  tell  all  you  know;  and 
falsehood  does  not  always  follow  as  a  result  of  not 
revealing  your  mind  to  the  first  inquisitive  person 
that  chooses  to  put  embarrassing  questions.  Alongside, 
but  not  contrary  to,  the  duty  of  veracity  is  the  right 
every  man  has  to  personal  and  professional  secrets. 
For  a  man's  mind  is  not  public  property;  there  may 
arise  at  times  circumstances  in  which  he  not  only 
may,  but  is  in  duty  bound  to  withold  information  that 
concerns  himself  intimately  or  touches  a  third  person ; 
and  there  must  be  a  means  to  protect  the  sacredness 
of  such  secrets  against  undue  curiosity  and  inquis- 
itiveness,  without  recourse  to  the  unlawful  method  of 
lying.  Silence  is  not  an  effective  resource,  for  it  not 
infrequently  gives  consent  one  or  the  other  way;  the 
question  may  be  put  in  such  a  manner  that  affirmation 
or  negation  will  betray  the  truth.  To  what  then  shall 
one  have  recourse? 

Let  us  remark  in  the  first  place  that  God  has 
endowed  human  intelligence  with  a*  native  wit, 
sharpness  and  cunning  that  has  its  legitimate  uses,  the 
exercise  of  this  faculty  is  evil  only  when  its  methods 
and  ends  are  evil.  Used  along  the  lines  of  moral 
rectitude  strategy  and  tact  for  profiting  by  circum 
stances  are  perfectly  in  order,  especially  when  one  acts 
in  the  defense  of  his  natural  rights.  And  if  this  talent 
is  employed  without  injustice  to  the  neighbor  or 
violence  to  the  law  of  God,  it  is  no  more  immoral  than 
the  plain  telling  of  truth ;  in  fact  it  is  sometimes  better 
than  telling  the  truth. 


29O  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

But  it  must  be  understood  that  such  practices 
must  be  justified  by  the  circumstances.  They  suppose 
in  him  who  resorts  thereto  a  right  to  withhold  informa 
tion  that  overrides  the  right  of  his  interrogator.  If 
the  right  of  the  latter  to  know  is  superior,  then  the 
hiding  of  truth  would  constitute  an  injustice,  which 
is  sinful,  and  this  is  considered  tantamount  to  lying. 
And  if  the  means  to  which  we  resort  is  not  lying,  as 
we  have  defined  it,  that  is,  does  not  show  a  contra 
diction  between  what  we  say  and  what  we  mean,  then 
there  can  be  no  fear  of  evil  on  any  side. 

Now,  suppose  that  instead  of  using  a  term 
whose  signification  is  contrary  to  what  my  mind 
conceives,  which  would  be  falsehood,  I  employ  a 
word  that  has  a  natural  double  meaning,  one  of 
which  is  conform  to  my  mind,  the  other  at  variance. 
In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  speak  against  my  mind; 
I  say  what  I  think ;  the  word  I  use  means  what  I  mean. 
But  the  other  fellow !  that  is  another  matter.  He  may 
take  his  choice  of  the  two  meanings.  If  he  guesses 
aright,  my  artifice  has  failed ;  if  he  is  deceived,  that  is 
his  loss.  I  do  him  no  injustice,  for  he  had  no  right 
to  question  me.  If  my  answer  embarrasses  him,  that 
is  just  what  I  intended,  and  I  am  guilty  of  no  evil  for 
that;  if  it  deceives  him,  that  I  did  not  intend  but 
willingly  suffer;  I  am  not  obliged  to  enter  into 
explanations  when  I  am  not  even  bound  to  answer  him. 
Of  the  deception,  he  alone  is  the  cause;  I  am  the 
occasion,  if  you  will,  but  the  circumstances  of  his 
inquisitiveness  made  that  occasion  necessary,  and  I 
am  not  responsible. 

This  artifice  is  called  equivocation  or  amphibology ; 
it  consists  in  the  use  of  words  that  have  a  natural 
double  meaning;  it  supposes  in  him  who  resorts  to  it 
the  right  to  conceal  the  truth,  a  right  superior  to  that 
of  the  tormentor  who  questions  him.  When  these 
conditions  are  fulfilled,  recourse  to  this  method  is 
perfectly  legitimate,  but  the  conditions  must  be 


CONCEALING   THE   TRUTH.  29! 

fulfilled.  This  is  not  a  weapon  for  convenience,  but 
for  necessity.  It  is  easy  to  deceive  oneself  when  it 
is  painful  to  tell  the  truth.  Therefore  it  should  be 
used  sparingly:  it  is  not  for  every-day  use,  only 
emergencies  of  a  serious  nature  can  justify  its  employ. 

Another  artifice,  still  more  delicate  and  dangerous, 
but  just  as  legitimate  when  certain  conditions  are 
fulfilled,  is  what  is  known  as  mental  restriction.  This 
too  consists  in  the  employ  of  words  of  double  meaning ; 
but  whereas  in  the  former  case,  both  meanings  are 
naturally  contained  in  the  word,  here  the  term 
employed  has  but  one  natural  signification,  the  other 
being  furnished  by  circumstances.  Its  legitimate  use 
supposes  that  he  to  whom  the  term  is  directed  should 
either  in  fact  know  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
that  have  this  peculiar  significance,  or  that  he  could 
and  should  know  them.  If  the  information  drawn 
from  the  answer  received  is  insufficient,  so  much  the 
better ;  if  he  is  misinformed,  the  fault  is  his  own,  since 
neither  genuine  falsehood  nor  evident  injustice  can  be 
attributed  to  the  other. 

An  example  will  illustrate  this  better  than 
anything  else.  Take  a  physician  or  lawyer,  the 
custodian  of  a  professional  secret,  or  a  priest  with 
knowledge  safeguarded  by  the  seal  of  the  confessional. 
These  men  either  may  not  or  should  not  reveal  to 
others  unconcerned  in  the  matter  the  knowledge  they 
possess.  There  is  no  one  but  should  be  aware  of  this, 
but  should  know  that  when  they  are  questioned,  they 
will  answer  as  laymen,  and  not  as  professionals.  They 
will  answer  according  to  outside  information,  yes  or 
no,  whether  on  not  such  conclusion  agree  with  the 
facts  they  obtained  under  promise  of  secrecy.  They 
simply  put  out  of  their  mind  as  unserviceable  all 
professional  knowledge,  and  respond  as  a  man  to  a 
man.  Their  standing  as  professional  men  puts  every 
questioner  on  his  guard  and  admonishes  him  that  no 
private  information  need  be  expected,  that  he  must 
take  the  answer  given  as  the  conclusion  of  outside 


292  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

evidence,  then  if  he  is  deceived  he  has  no  one  to  blame 
but  himself,  since  he  was  warned  and  took  no  heed  of 
the  warning. 

Again  we  repeat,  the  margin  between  mental 
restriction  and  falsehood  is  a  safe,  but  narrow  one, 
the  least  bungling  may  merge  one  into  the  other.  It 
requires  tact  and  judgment  to  know  when  it  is 
permissible  to  have  recourse  to  this  artifice  and  how 
to  practise  it  safely.  It  is  not  a  thing  to  be  trifled  with. 
In  only  rare  circumstances  can  it  be  employed,  and  only 
few  persons  have  the  right  to  employ  it. 


CHAPTER  XCIV. 
RESTITUTION. 

A  PECULIAR  feature  attaches  to  the  sins  we  have 
recently  treated,  against  the  Fifth,  Sixth,  Seventh,  and 
Eighth  commandments.  These  offenses  differ  from 
others  in  that  they  involve  an  injury,  an  injustice  to 
our  fellow-man.  Now,  the  condition  of  pardon  for 
sin  is  contrition;  this  contrition  contains  essentially 
a  firm  purpose  that  looks  to  the  future,  and  removes 
in  a  measure,  the  liability  to  fall  again.  But  with  the 
sins  here  in  question  that  firm  purpose  not  only  looks 
forward,  but  backward  as  well,  not  only  guarantees 
against  future  ill-doing,  but  also  repairs  the  wrong 
criminally  effected  in  the  past.  This  is  called 
restitution,  the  undoing  of  wrong  suffered  by  our 
neighbor  through  our  own  fault.  The  firm  purpose 
to  make  restitution  is  just  as  essential  to  contrition  as 
the  firm  purpose  to  sin  no  more;  in  fact,  the  former 
is  only  a  form  of  the  latter.  It  means  that  we  will 
not  sin  any  more  by  prolonging  a  culpable  injustice. 


RESTITUTION. 

And  the  person  who  overlooks  this  feature  when  he 
seeks  pardon  has  a  moral  constitution  and  make-up 
that  is  sadly  in  need  of  repairs;  and  of  such  persons 
there  are  not  a  few. 

Justice  that  has  failed  to  protect  a  man's  right 
becomes  restitution  when  the  deed  of  wrong  is  done. 
Restitution  therefore  that  is  based  on  the  natural  right 
every  main  has  to  have  and  to  hold  what  is  his,  to 
recover  it,  its  value  or  equivalent,  when  unduly 
dispossessed,  supposes  an  act  of  injustice,  that  is,  the 
violation  of  a  strict  right.  This  injustice,  in  turn, 
implies  a  moral  fault,  a  moral  responsibility,  direct  or 
indirect;  and  the  fault  must  be  grievous  in  order  to 
induce  a  grave  obligation.  Now,  it  matters  not  in  the 
least  what  we  do,  or  how  we  do  it,  if  the  neighbor 
suffer  through  a  fault  of  ours.  If  any  human  creature 
sustains  a  loss  to  life  or  limb,  damage  to  his  or  her 
social  or  financial  standing,  and  such  injury  can  be 
traced  to  a  moral  delinquency  on  our  part,  we  are  in 
conscience  bound  to  make  good  the  loss  and  repair 
the  damage  done.  To  do  evil  is  bad ;  to  perpetuate  it 
is  immeasurably  worse.  To  refuse  to  remove  the  evil 
is  to  refuse  to  remove  one's  guilt;  and  as  long  as  one 
persists  in  such  a  refusal,  that  one  remains  under  the 
wrath  of  God. 

Restitution  concerns  itself  with  things  done  or  left 
undone,  things  said  or  left  unsaid ;  it  does  not  enter 
the  domain  of  thought.  Consequently,  just  as  an 
accident  does  not  entail  the  necessity  of  repairing  the 
injury  that  another  sustains,  neither  does  the  deliberate 
thought  or  desire  to  perpetrate  an  injustice  entail  such 
a  consequence.  Even  if  a  person  does  all  in  his  power 
to  effect  an  evil  purpose,  and  fails,  he  is  not  held  to 
reparation,  for  there  is  nothing  to  repair.  As  we  have 
said  more  than  once,  the  will  is  the  source  of  all  malice 
in  the  sight  of  God ;  but  injustice  to  man  requires 
material  as  well  as  formal  malice;  sin  must  have  its 
complement  of  exterior  deed  before  it  can  be  called 
human  injustice. 


294  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

We  deem  it  unnecessary  to  dwell  upon  the 
gravity  of  the  obligation  to  make  restitution.  The 
balance  of  justice  must  be  maintained  exact  and 
impartial  in  this  world,  or  the  Almighty  will  see  that 
it  is  done  in  the  next.  The  idea  that  God  does  not 
stand  for  justice  destroys  the  idea  that  God  exists. 
And  if  the  precept  not  to  commit  injustice  leaves  the 
guilty  one  free  to  repair  or  not  to  repair,  that  precept 
is  self-contradictory  and  has  no  meaning  at  all.  If 
a  right  is  a  right,  it  is  not  extinguished  by  being 
violated  and  if  justice,  is  something  more  than  a  mere 
sound,  it  must  protect  all  rights  whether  sinned 
against  or  not. 

It  might  be  convenient  for  some  people  to  force 
upon  their  conscience  the  lie  that  restitution  is  of 
counsel  rather  than  of  precept,  under  the  plea  that  it  is 
enough  to  shoulder  the  responsibility  of  sin  without 
being  burdened  with  the  obligation  of  repairing  it,  but 
it  is  only  a  soul  well  steeped  in  malice  that  will  take 
seriously  such  a  contention.  Neither  is  restitution  a 
penance  imposed  upon  us  in  order  to  atone  for  our 
faults ;  it  is  no  more  penitential  in  its  nature  than  are 
the  efforts  we  make  to  avoid  the  faults  we  have  fallen 
into  in  the  past.  It  atones  for  nothing;  it  is  simply 
a  desisting  from  evil.  When  this  is  done  and  forgive 
ness  obtained,  then,  and  not  till  then,  is  it  time  to  think 
of  satisfying  for  the  temporal  punishment  due  to  sin. 

Naturally  it  is  much  more  easy  to  abstain  from 
committing  injustice  than  to  repair  it  after  it  is  done. 
It  is  often  very  difficult  and  very  painful  to  face  the 
consequences  of  our  evil  ways,  especially  when  all 
satisfaction  is  gone  and  nothing  remains  but  the  hard 
exigencies  of  duty.  And  duty  is  a  thing  that  it  costs 
very  little  to  shirk  when  one  is  already  hardened  by  a 
habit  of  injustice.  That  is  why  restitution  is  so  little 
heard  of  in  the  world.  It  is  a  fact  to  be  noted  that  the 
Catholic  Church  is  the  only  religious  body  that  dares 
to  enforce  strictly  the  law  of  reparation.  Others 
vaguely  hold  it,  but  rarely  teach  it,  and  then  only  in 


RESTITUTION. 

flagrant  cases  of  fraud.  But  she  allows  none  of  her 
children  to  approach  the  sacraments  who  has  not 
already  repaired,  or  who  does  not  promise  in  all 
sincerity  to  repair,  whatever  wrong  he  may  have  done 
to  the  neighbor.  Employers  of  Catholic  help  some 
times  feel  the  effects  of  this  uncompromising  attitude 
of  the  Church;  they  are  astonished,  edified  and 
grateful. 

We  recall  with  pleasure  an  incident  of  an  apostate 
going  about  warning  people  against  the  turpitudes  of 
Rome  and  especially  against  the  extortions  of  her 
priests  through  the  confessional.  He  explained  how 
the  benighted  papist  was  obliged  under  pain  of  eternal 
damnation  to  confess  his  sins  to  the  priest,  and  then 
was  charged  so  much  for  each  fault  he  had  been  guilty 
of.  An  incredulous  listener  wanted  to  know  if  he,  the 
speaker,  while  in  the  toils  of  Rome  had  ever  been 
obliged  thus  to  disgorge  in  the  confessional,  and  was 
answered  with  a  triumphant  affirmation.  At  which 
the  wag  hinted  that  it  would  be  a  good  thing  not  to 
be  too  outspoken  in  announcing  the  fact  as  his  reputa 
tion  for  honesty  would  be  likely  to  suffer  thereby,  for 
he  knew,  and  all  Catholics  knew,  who  were  those 
whose  purse  the  confessor  pries  open. 


CHAPTER  XCV. 
UNDOING  THE  EVIL. 

WHENEVER  a.  person,  through  a  spirit  of  malice 
or  grossly  culpable  negligence,  becomes  responsible 
for  serious  bodily  injury  sustained  by  another,  he  is 
bound,  as  far  as  in  him  lies/to  undo  the  wrong  and 
repair  the  injustice  committed.  The  law  of  personal 


296  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

rights  that  forbade  him  to  lay  violent  hands  on  another, 
now  commands  that  the  evil  be  removed  by  him  who 
placed  it.  True,  physical  pain  and  tortures  cannot 
be  repaired  in  kind;  physical  injury  and  disability  are 
not  always  susceptible  of  adequate  reparation.  But 
there  is  the  loss  incurred  as  a  result  of  such  disability, 
and  this  loss  may  affect,  not  one  alone,  but  many. 

Death,  too,  is  of  course  absolutely  irreparable. 
But  the  killing  of  the  victim  in  nowise  extinguishes 
the  obligation  of  reparation.  The  principal  object  is 
removed;  but  there  remain  the  loss  of  wages,  the 
expenses  necessitated  by  illness  and  death;  there  may 
be  a  family  dependent  on  the  daily  toil  of  the 
unfortunate  and  made  destitute  by  his  removal.  One 
must  be  blind  indeed  not  to  see  that  all  these  losses 
are  laid  at  the  door  of  the  criminal,  a  direct  result  of 
his  crime,  foreseen,  too,  at  least  confusedly,  since  there 
is  a  moral  fault ;  and  these  must  be  made  good,  as  far 
as  the  thing  is  possible,  otherwise  the  sin  will  not  be 
forgiven. 

Slander  must  be  retracted.  If  you  have  lied  about 
another  and  thereby  done  him  an  injury,  you  are  bound 
in  conscience  to  correct  your  false  statement^  to  correct 
it  in  such  a  manner  as  to  undeceive  all  whom  you 
may  have  misled.  This  retraction  must  really  retract, 
and  not  do  just  the  contrary,  make  the  last  state  of 
things  worse  than  the  first,  which  is  sometimes  the 
case.  Prudence  and  tact  should  suggest  means  to  do 
this  effectively:  when,  how  and  to  what  extent  it 
should  be  done,  in  order  that  the  best  results  of  repa 
ration  may  be  obtained.  But  in  one  way  or  another, 
justice  demands  that  the  slanderer  contradict  his  lying 
imputations  and  remove  by  so  doing  the  stain  that 
besmirches  the  character  of  his  victim. 

Of  course,  if  it  was  by  truth  and  not  falsehood, 
by  detraction  and  not  calumny,  that  you  assailed  and 
injured  the  reputation  of  another,  there  is  no  gain 
saying  the  truth ;  you  are  not  justified  in  lying  in  order 
to  make  truth  less  damaging.  The  harm  done  here  is 


UNDOING  THE   EVIL. 

well  nigh  irreparable.  But  there  is  such  a  thing  as 
trying  to  counteract  the  influence  of  evil  speech  by 
good  words,  by  mentioning  qualities  that  offset  defects, 
by  setting  merit  against  demerit ;  by  attenuating  as  far 
as  truth  will  allow  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  etc. 
This  will  place  your  victim  in  the  least  unfavorable 
light,  and  will,  in  some  measure,  repair  the  evil  of 
detraction. 

Scandal  must  be  repaired,  a  mightily  difficult 
task;  to  reclaim  a  soul  lost  to  evil  through  fatal 
inducements  to  sin  is  paramount,  almost,  to  raising 
from  the  dead.  It  is  hard,  desperately  hard,  to  ha.ve 
yourself  accepted  as  an  angel  of  light  by  those  for 
whom  you  have  long  been  a  demon  of  iniquity.  Good 
example!  Yes,  that  is  about  the  only  argument  you 
have.  You  are  handicapped,  but  if  you  wield  that 
argument  for  good  with  as  much  strength  and  intensity 
as  you  did  for  evil,  you  will  have  done  all  that  can  be 
expected  of  you,  and  something  may  come  of  it. 

The  wrong  of  bodily  contamination  is  a  deep  one. 
It  is  a  wrong,  and  therefore  unjust, when  it  is  effected 
through  undue  influence  that  either  annuls  consent,  or 
wrings  it  from  the  victim  by  cajolery,  threat,  or  false 
promise.  It  becomes  immeasurably  aggravated  when 
the  victim  is  abandoned  to  bear  alone  the  shame  and 
burdensome  consequences  of  such  injustice. 

Matrimony  is  the  ordinary  remedy;  the  civil  law 
will  force  it;  conscience  may  make  it  an  obligation, 
and  does  make  it,  unless,  in  rare  cases,  there  be  such 
absolute  incompatibility  as  to  make  such  a  contract 
an  ineffective  and  ridiculous  one,  an  inefficient  remedy, 
or  none  at  all.  When  such  is  the  case,  a  pecuniary 
compensation  is  the  only  alternative.  A  career  has 
been  blasted,  a  future  black  with  despair  stares  the  vic 
tim  in  the  face,  if  she  must  face  it  unaided ;  a  burden 
forced  upon  her  that  must  be  borne  for  years,  entailing 
considerable  expense.  The  man  responsible  for  such 
a  state  of  affairs,  if  he  expects  pardon  for  his  crime, 
must  shoulder  the  responsibility  in  a  manner  that  will 


298  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

repair  at  least  in  part  the  grave  injustice  under  which 
his  victim  labors. 

If  both  share  the  guilt,  then  both  must  share  the 
burden.  If  one  shirks,  the  other  must  assume  the 
whole.  The  great  victim  is  the  child.  That  child  must 
get  a  Christian  bringing-up,  or  some  one  will  suffer 
for  it;  its  faith  must  be  safeguarded.  If  this  cannot 
be  done  at  home,  then  it  must  be  placed  where  this 
can  be  done.  If  it  is  advantageous  for  the  parent  or 
parents  that  their  offspring  be  raised  in  ignorance  of 
its  origin,  it  is  far  more  advantageous  for  the  child 
itself.  Let  it  be  confided  to  good  hands,  but  let  the 
money  necessary  for  its  support  be  forthcoming,  since 
this  is  the  only  way  to  make  reparation  for  the  evil 
of  its  birth. 

I  would  add  a  word  in  regard  to  the  injustice, 
frequent  enough,  of  too  long  deferring  the  fulfilment  of 
marriage  promises.  For  one  party,  especially,  this 
period  of  waiting  is  precarious,  fraught  with  danger 
and  dangerous  possibilities.  Her  fidelity  makes  her 
sacrifice  all  other  opportunities,  and  makes  her  future 
happiness  depend  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise 
given.  Charms  do  not  last  forever;  attractions  fade 
with  the  years.  If  affection  cools,  she  is  helpless  to 
stir  up  the  embers  without  unmentionable  sacrifice. 
There  is  the  peril.  The  man  who  is  responsible  for  it, 
is  responsible  for  a  good  deal.  He  is  committing  an 
injustice;  there  is  danger  of  his  not  being  willing  to 
repair  it,  danger  that  he  may  not  be  able  to  repair  it. 
His  line  of  duty  is  clear.  Unless  for  reasons  of  the 
gravest  importance,  he  cannot  in  surety  of  conscience 
continue  in  a  line  of  conduct  that  is  repugnant  alike 
to  natural  reason  and  common  decency,  and  that 
smacks  of  moral  make-up  that  would  not  bear  the 
scrutiny  of  close  investigation. 


CHAPTER  XCVI. 
PAYING  BACK. 

A  MAN  who  has  stolen,  has  nothing  more  urgent 
and  imperative  to  perform,  on  this  side  of  eternity, 
than  the  duty  of  refunding  the  money  or  goods  unjustly 
acquired,  or  the  value  thereof.  He  may  possibly  con 
sider  something  else  more  important;  but  if  he  does, 
that  man  has  somehow  unlearned  the  first  principles  of 
natural  honesty,  ignores  the  fundamental  law  that 
governs  the  universe,  and  he  will  have  a  difficult  time 
convincing  the  Almighty  that  this  ignorance  of  his  is 
not  wholly  culpable.  The  best  and  only  thing  for  him 
to  do  is  to  make  up  his  mind  to  pay  up,  to  disgorge  his 
ill-gotten  goods,  to  make  good  the  losses  sustained 
by  his  neighbor  through  his  fault. 

He  may,  or  may  not,  have  profited  to  any  great 
extent  by  his  criminal  proceedings ;  but  there  is  no 
doubt  that  his  victim  suffered  injustice ;  and  that 
precisely  is  the  root  of  his  obligation.  The  stolen  goods 
may  have  perished  in  his  hands  and  he  have  nothing  to 
show ;  the  same  must  be  said  of  the  victim  the  moment 
his  possessions  disappeared ;  with  this  difference,  how 
ever,  that  justice  was  not  violated  in  one  case,  and  in 
the  other,  it  was.  The  lawful  owner  may  be  dead,  or 
unfindable  among  the  living ;  but  wherever  he  may  be, 
he  never  intended  that  the  thief  should  enjoy  the  fruit 
of  his  crime.  The  latter's  title,  vitiated  in  its  source, 
cannot  be  improved  by  any  circumstance  of  the  owner's 
whereabouts.  No  one  may  thrive  on  one's  own  dis 
honesty. 

You  say  this  is  hard ;  and  in  so  saying,  you  lend 
testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  axiom  that  honesty  is 
the  best  policy.  There  is  no  one  but  will  agree  with 


30O  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

you;  but  such  a  statement,  true  though  it  be,  helps 
matters  very  little.  It  is  always  hard  to  do  right; 
blame  Adam  and  Eve  for  it,  and  think  of  something 
more  practicable.  But  must  I  impoverish  myself? 
Not  to  the  extent  of  depriving  yourself  of  the 
necessaries  of  life.  But  you  must  deprive  yourself  to 
the  extent  of  settling  your  little  account,  even  if  you 
suffer  something  thereby.  But  how  shall  I  be  able  to 
refund  it  all !  You  may  never  be  able  to  refund  it  all ; 
but  you  may  start  in  immediately  and  do  the  best  you 
can ;  resolve  to  keep  at  it ;  never  revoke  your  purpose 
to  cancel  the  debt.  In  case  your  lease  of  life  expires 
before  full  justice  is  done,  the  Almighty  may  take  into 
consideration  your  motives  and  opportunities.  They 
do  say  that  hell  is  paved  with  good  intentions;  but 
these  intentions  are  of  the  sort  that  are  satisfied  with 
never  coming  to  a  state  of  realization. 

But  I  shall  lose  my  position,  be  disgraced, 
prosecuted  and  imprisoned.  This  might  happen  if  you 
were  to  write  out  a  brief  of  your  crime  and  send  the 
same,  signed  and  sworn  to,  to  your  employer.  But 
this  is  superfluous.  You  might  omit  the  details  and 
signature,  enclose  the  sum  and  trust  luck  for  the  rest. 
Or  you  might  consult  your  spiritual  adviser ;  he  might 
have  had  some  experience  in  this  line  of  business. 
The  essential  is  not  that  you  be  found  out,  but  that 
you  refund. 

It  may  happen  that  several  are  concerned  in  a 
theft.  In  this  case,  each  and  every  participant,  in 
the  measure  of  his  guilt,  is  bound  to  make  restitution. 
Guilt  is  the  object,  restitution  is  the  shadow;  the 
following  is  fatal.  To  order  or  advise  the  thing  done ; 
to  influence  efficaciously  its  doing ;  to  assist  in  the  deed 
or  to  profit  knowingly  thereby,  to  shield  criminally  the 
culprit,  etc.,  this  sort  of  co-operation  adds  to  the  guilt 
of  sin  the  burden  of  restitution.  Silence  or  inaction, 
when  plain  duty  would  call  for  words  and  deeds  to 
prevent  crime,  incriminates  as  well  as  active  participa 
tion,  and  creates  an  obligation  to  repair. 


PAYING  BACK.  30 1 

There  is  more.  Conspiracy  in  committing  an 
injustice  adds  an  especial  feature  to  the  burden  of 
restitution.  If  the  parties  to  the  crime  had  formed  a 
preconcerted  plan  and  worked  together  as  a  whole 
in  its  accomplishment,  every  individual  that  furnished 
efficient  energy  to  the  success  of  the  undertaking  is 
liable,  in  conscience,  not  for  a  share  of  the  loss,  but 
for  the  sum  total.  This  is  what  is  called  solidarity; 
solidarity  in  crime  begets  solidarity  in  reparation. 
It  means  that  the  injured  party  has  a  just  claim  for 
damages,  for  all  damages  sustained,  against  any  one 
of  the  culprits,  each  one  of  whom,  in  the  event  of  his 
making  good  the  whole  loss,  has  recourse  against  the 
others  for  their  share  of  the  obligation.  It  may  hap 
pen,  and  does,  that  one  or  several  abscond,  and  thus 
shirk  their  part  of  the  obligation ;  the  burden  of  resti- 
titution  may  thus  be  unevenly  distributed.  But  this  is 
one  of  the  risks  that  conspirators  in  sin  must  take ;  the 
injured  party  must  be  protected  first  and  in  preference 
to  all  others. 

No  Catholic  can  validly  receive  the  sacrament 
of  penance  who  refuses  to  assume  the  responsibility  of 
restitution  for  injustices  committed,  and  who  does  not 
at  least  promise  sincerely  to  acquit  himself  at  the  first 
favorable  opportunity  and  to  the  extent  of  his  capacity. 
This  means  that  only  on  these  conditions  can  the  sin 
be  forgiven  by  God.  That  man  is  not  disposed 
sufficiently  to  receive  absolution  who  continually 
neglects  opportunities  to  keep  his  promise ;  who  refuses 
to  pay  any,  because  he  cannot  pay  all ;  who  decides 
to  leave  the  burden  of  restitution  to  his  heirs,  even 
•with  the  wherewith  to  do  so.  It  is  better  not  to  go 
to  confession  at  all  than  to  go  with  these  dispositions ; 
it  is  better  to  wait  until  you  can  make  up  your  mind 


CHAPTER  XCVII. 
GETTING  RID  OF  ILL-GOTTEN  GOODS. 

IT  MAY  happen  that  a  person  discover  among  his 
legitimately  acquired  possessions  something  that  does 
not  in  reality  belong  to  him.  He  may  have  come  by  it 
through  purchase,  donation,  etc.;  he  kept  it  in  good 
faith,  thinking  that  he  had  a  dear  title  to  it  He  now 
finds  that  there  was  an  error  somewhere,  and  that  it 
is  the  property  of  some  one  else.  Of  course,  he  is  not 
the  lawful  owner,  and  does  not  become  such  by  virtue 
of  his  good  faith;  although,  in  certain  given  circum 
stances,  if  the  good  faith,  or  ignorance  of  error,  last 
long  enough,  a  title  may  be  acquired  by  prescription, 
and  the  possessor  become  the  lawful  owner.  But  we 
are  not  considering  the  question  of  prescription. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  our  friend  must  dispossess 
himself  in  favor  of  the  real  owner,  as  soon  as  the  latter 
comes  upon  the  scene  and  proves  his  claim.  But  the 
possessor  may  in  all  innocence  have  alienated  the 
goods,  destroyed  or  consumed  them ;  or  they  may  have 
perished  through  accident  or  fatality.  In  the  latter 
case,  nothing  remains  to  refund,  no  one  is  to  blame, 
and  the  owner  must  bear  the  loss.  Even  in  the  former 
case,  if  the  holder  can  say  in  conscience  that  he  in 
nowise  became  richer  by  the  possession  and  use  of  the 
goods  in  question,  he  is  not  bound  to  make  restitution. 
If,  however,  there  be  considerable  profits,  they  rightly 
belong  to  the  owner,  and  the  possessor  must  refund 
the  same. 

But  the  question  arises  as  to  how  the  holder  is  to 
be  compensated  for  the  expenditure  made  in  the 
beginning  and  in  good  faith  when  he  purchased  the 
goods  which  he  is  now  obliged  to  hand  over  to  another. 


GETTING   RID   OF   ILL-GOTTEN   GOODS.  303 

Impartial  justice  demands  that  when  the  rightful  owner 
claims  his  goods,  the  holder  relinquish  them,  and  he 
may  take  what  he  gets,  even  if  it  be  nothing.  He 
might  claim  a  compensation  if  he  purchased  what  he 
knew  to  be  another's  property,  acting  in  the  interests 
of  that  other  and  with  the  intention  of  returning  the 
same  to  its  owner.  Otherwise,  his  claim  is  against 
the  one  from  whom  he  obtained  the  article,  and  not 
against  him  to  whom  he  is  obliged  to  turn  it  over. 

He  may,  if  he  be  shrewd  enough,  anticipate  the 
serving  of  the  owner's  claim  and  secure  himself  against 
a  possible  loss  by  selling  back  for  a  consideration  the 
goods  in  question  to  the  one  from  whom  he  bought 
them.  But  this  cannot  be  done  after  the  claim  is 
presented;  besides,  this  proceeding  must  not  render  it 
impossible  for  the  owner  to  recover  his  property; 
and  he  must  be  notified  as  to  the  whereabouts  of  said 
property.  This  manoeuvre  works  injustice  unto  no 
one.  The  owner  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  his 
property  as  formerly;  the  subsequent  holder  assumes 
an  obligation  that  was  always  his,  to  refund  the  goods 
or  their  value,  with  recourse  against  the  antecedent 
seller. 

The  moment  a  person  shirks  the  responsibility  of 
refunding  the  possessions,  by  him  legitimately  acquired, 
but  belonging  rightfully  to  another,  that  person 
becomes  a  possessor  in  bad  faith  and  stands  towards 
the  rightful  owner  in  the  position  of  a  thief.  Not  in 
a  thousand  years  will  he  be  able  to  prescribe  a  just 
title  to  the  goods.  The  burden  of  restitution  will 
forever  remain  on  him ;  if  the  goods  perish,  no  matter 
how,  he  must  make  good  the  loss  to  the  owner.  He 
must  also  disburse  the  sum  total  of  profits  gathered 
from  the  illegal  use  of  said  goods.  If  values  fluctuate 
during  the  interval  of  criminal  possession,  he  must 
compute  the  amount  ol  his  debt  according  to  the  values 
that  prevailed  at  the  time  the  lawful  owner  would 
have  disposed  of  his  goods,  had  he  retained  possession. 


3O4  MORAL    BRIEFS. 

Finally,  there  may  be  a  doubt  as  to  whether  the 
object  I  possess  is  rightfully  mine  or  not.  I  must  do 
my  best  to  solve  that  doubt  and  clear  the  title  to 
ownership.  If  I  fail,  I  may  consider  the  object  mine 
and  may  use  it  as  such.  If  the  owner  turn  up  after 
the  prescribed  time,  so  much  the  worse  for  the  owner. 
An  uncertainty  may  exist,  not  as  to  my  proprietorship, 
but  as  to  whom  the  thing  does  belong.  If  my 
possession  began  in  good  faith  and  I  am  unable  to 
determine  the  ownership,  I  may  consider  myself  the 
owner  until  further  developments  shed  more  light  on 
the  matter. 

It  is  different  when  the  object  was  originally 
acquired  in  bad  faith.  In  such  a  case,  first,  the  ill- 
gotten  goods  can  never  be  mine;  then,  there  is  no 
sanction  in  reason,  conscience  or  law  for  the  conduct 
of  those  who  run  immediately  to  the  first  charitable 
institution  and  leave  there  their  conscience  money; 
or  who  have  masses  said  for  the  repose  of  the  souls 
of  those  who  have  been  defrauded,  before  they  are 
dead  at  all  perhaps.  My  first  care  must  be  to  locate 
the  victim ;  or,  if  he  be  certainly  deceased  or  evidently 
beyond  reach,  the  heirs  of  the  victim  of  my  fraud. 
When  all  means  fail  and  I  am  unable  to  find  either 
the  owner  or  his  heirs,  then,  and  not  till  then,  may  I 
dispose  of  the  goods  in  question.  I  must  assume  in 
such  a  contingency  as  this,  that  the  will  of  the  owner 
would  be  to  expend  the  sum  on  the  most  worthy  cause ; 
and  that  is  charity.  The  only  choice  then  that  remains 
with  me  is,  what  hospital,  asylum  or  other  enterprise 
of  charity  is  to  profit  by  my  sins,  since  I  myself  cannot 
be  a  gainer  in  the  premises. 

It  might  be  well  to  remark  here  that  one  is  not 
obliged  to  make  restitution  for  more  than  the  damages 
call  for.  Earnestness  is  a  good  sign,  but  it  should  not 
blind  us  or  drive  us  to  an  excess  of  zeal  'detrimental 
to  our  own  lawful  interests.  When  there  is  a  reasonable 
and  insolvable  doubt  as  to  the  amount  of  reparation 
to  be  made,  it  is  just  that  such  a  doubt  favor  us.  If 


GETTING   RID    OF   ILLGOTTEN   GOODS.  305 

we  are  not  sure  if  it  be  a  little  more  or  a  little  less, 
the  value  we  are  to  refund,  we  may  benefit  by  the 
uncertainty  and  make  the  burden  we  assume  as  light  as 
in  all  reason  it  can  be  made.  And  even  if  we  should 
happen  to  err  on  the  side  of  mercy  to  ourselves, 
without  our  fault,  justice  is  satisfied,  being  fallible  like 
all  things  human. 


CHAPTER  XCVIII. 
WHAT  EXCUSES  FROM  RESTITUTION. 

THOSE  who  do  not  obtain  full  justice  from  man 
in  this  world  will  obtain  it  in  the  next  from  God.  If 
we  do  not  meet  our  obligations  this  side  of  the  tribunal 
of  the  just  Judge,  He  will  see  to  it  that  our  accounts 
are  equitably  balanced  when  the  time  for  the  final 
reckoning  comes.  This  supposes,  naturally,  that  non- 
fulfilment  of  obligations  is  due  on  our  part  to 
unwillingness — a  positive  refusal,  or  its  equivalent, 
wilful  neglect,  to  undo  the  wrongs  committed.  For 
right  reason  and  God's  mercy  must  recognize  the 
existence  of  a  state  of  unfeigned  and  hopeless  disability, 
when  it  is  impossible  for  the  delinquent  to  furnish  the 
wherewithal  to  repair  the  evils  of  which  he  has  been 
guilty.  When  this  condition  is  permanent,  and  is 
beyond  all  remedy,  all  claims  are  extinguished  against 
the  culprit,  and  all  losses  incurred  must  be  ascribed 
to  "an  act  of  God,"  as  the  coroner  says.  For  no 
man  can  be  held  to  what  is  impossible. 

Chief  among  these  moral,  as  well  as  legal,  bank 
rupts  is  the  good-for-nothing  fellow  who  is  sorry  too 
late,  who  has  nothing,  has  no  hopes  of  ever  having 
anything,  and  who  therefore  can  give  nothing.  You 


306  MORAL   BRIEFS. 

cannot  extract  blood  from  a  beet,  nor  shekels  from  an 
empty  purse.  Then  a  man  may  lose  all  his  belongings 
in  a  catastrophe,  and  after  striving  by  labor  and 
economy  to  pay  off  his  debts,  may  see  himself  obliged 
to  give  up  the  task  through  sickness,  misfortune  or 
other  good  causes.  He  has  given  all  he  has,  he  cannot 
give  more.  Even  though  liabilities  were  stacked  up 
mountain-high  against  him,  he  cannot  be  held  morally 
responsible,  and  his  creditors  must  attribute  their 
losses  to  the  misfortune  of  life — a  rather  unsubstan 
tial  consolation,  but  as  good  a  one  as  the  poor  debtor 
has. 

There  are  other  cases  where  the  obligations  of 
restitution  are  not  annulled,  but  only  cancelled  for  the 
time  being,  until  such  a  time  as  circumstances  permit 
their  being  met  without  grave  disaster  to  the  debtor. 
The  latter  may  be  in  such  a  position  that  extreme,  or 
great,  want  would  stare  him  in  the  face,  if  he  parted 
with  what  he  possesses  to  make  restitution.  The 
difficulty  here  is  out  of  all  proportion  with  the  injustice 
committed  for,  after  all,  one  must  live,  and  charity 
begins  at  home,  our  first  duty  is  toward  ourselves. 
The  creditors  of  this  man  have  no  just  claim  against 
him  until  he  improves  his  circumstances ;  in  the  mean 
time,  the  burden  of  responsibility  is  lifted  from  his 
shoulders. 

The  same  must  be  said  when  the  paying  off  of  a 
debt  at  any  particular  time,  be  it  long  or  short,  would 
cripple  a  man's  finances,  wipe  out  his  earnings  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  make  him  fall  considerably  below 
his  present  position  in  life.  We  might  take  a  case 
during  the  late  coal  famine,  of  a  man  who,  in  order 
to  fill  his  contracts  of  coal  at  six  dollars  a  ton,  would 
be  obliged  to  buy  it  at  fifteen  and  twenty  dollars  a 
ton;  and  thereby  sacrifice  his  fortune.  The  thing 
could  not  be  expected,  it  is  preposterous.  His 
obligee  must  wait  and  hope  for  better  times. 

A  man's  family  is  a  part  of  himself.  Therefore 
the  payment  of  a  just  debt  may  be  deferred  in  order 


WHAT   EXCUSES  FROM  RESTITUTION.  307 

to  shield  from  want  parents,  wife,  children,  brothers 
or  sisters.  Life,  limb  and  reputation  are  greater 
possessions  than  riches;  consequently,  rather  than 
jeopardize  these,  one  may,  for  the  time,  put  aside  his 
obligations  to  make  restitution. 

All  this  supposes,  of  course,  that  during  the 
interval  of  delay  the  creditor  does  not  suffer  incon 
veniences  greater  than,  or  as  great  as,  those  the  debtor 
seeks  to  avoid.  The  latter's  right  to  defer  payment 
ceases  to  exist  the  moment  it  comes  into  conflict  with 
an  equal  right  of  the  former  to  said  payment.  It  is 
against  reason  to  expect  that,  after  suffering  a  first 
injustice,  the  victim  should  suffer  a  second  in  order 
to  spare  the  guilty  party  a  lesser  or  an  equal  injury. 
Preference  therefore  must  be  given  to  the  creditor 
over  the  debtor  when  the  necessity  for  sacrifice  is 
equal,  and  leniency  must  be  refused  when  it  becomes 
cruelty  to  the  former. 

Outside  these  circumstances,  which  are  rare 
indeed,  it  will  be  seen  at  once  that  the  creditor  may 
act  an  unjust  part  in  pressing  claims  that  accidentally 
and  temporarily  become  invalid.  He  has  a  right  to  his 
own,  but  he  is  not  justified  in  vindicating  that  right, 
if  in  so  doing,  he  inflicts  more  damage  than  equity 
calls  for.  The  culprit  has  a  right  not  to  suffer  more 
than  he  deserves,  and  it  is  mock  justice  that  does  not 
respect  that  right.  If  the  creditor  does  suffer  some 
loss  by  the  delay,  this  might  be  a  circumstance  to 
remember  at  the  final  settlement  but  for  the  present, 
there  is  an  impediment  to  the  working  of  justice, 
placed  by  the  fatal  order  of  things  and  it  is  beyond 
power  to  remove  it. 


CHAPTER  XCIX. 
DEBTS. 

BEFORE  closing  our  remarks,  necessarily  brief  and 
incomplete,  on  this  subject,  so  vast  and  comprehensive, 
we  desire  in  a  few  words  to  pay  our  respects  to  that 
particular  form  of  injustice,  more  common  perhaps 
than  all  others  combined,  which  is  known  as  criminal 
debt,  likewise,  to  its  agent,  the  most  brazen  impostor 
and  unconscionable  fraud  that  afflicts  society,  the  man 
who  owes  and  will  not  pay.  More  people  suffer  from 
bad  debts  than  from  stealing  and  destruction  of 
property.  It  is  easier  to  contract  a  debt,  or  to  borrow 
a  trifle,  than  to  steal  it  outright;  it  is  safer,  too. 
Imprudence  is  one  of  the  chief  characteristics  of  this 
genus  of  iniquity.  "I  would  sooner  owe  you  this  than 
cheat  you  out  of  it:"  this,  in  word  or  deed,  is  the 
highly  spiritual  consolation  they  offer  those  whom  they 
fleece  and  then  laugh  at. 

The  wilful  debtor  is,  first  of  all,  a  thief  and  a 
robber,  because  he  retains  unjustly  the  lawful 
possessions  of  another.  There  is  no  difference  between 
taking  and  keeping  what  belongs  to  the  neighbor.  The 
loss  is  the  same  to  a  man  whether  he  is  robbed  of  a 
certain  amount  or  sells  goods  for  which  he  gets 
nothing  in  return.  The  injustice  is  the  same  in  both 
cases,  the  malice  identical.  He  therefore  who  can  pay 
his  debts,  and  will  not,  must  be  branded  as  a  thief  and 
an  enemy  to  the  rights  of  property. 

The  debtor  is  guilty  of  a  second  crime,  of 
dishonesty  and  fraud  against  his  fellow-man,  by  reason 
of  his  breaking  a  contract,  entered  upon  with  a  party 
in  good  faith,  and  binding  in  conscience  until  cancelled 
by  fulfilment.  When  a  man  borrows  or  buys  or  runs 


DEBTS.  309 

an  account  on  credit,  he  agrees  to  return  a  quid  pro 
quo,  an  equivalent  for  value  received.  When  he  fails 
to  do  so,  he  violates  his  contract,  breaks  his  pledge 
of  honor,  obtains  goods  under  false  pretense.  Even  if 
he  is  sincere  at  the  time  of  the  making  of  the  contract, 
the  crime  is  perpetrated  the  moment  he  becomes  a 
guilty  debtor  by  repudiating,  in  one  way  or  another, 
his  just  debts.  Now,  to  injure  a  person  is  wrong;  to 
break  faith  with  him  at  one  and  the  same  time  is  to 
incur  guilt  of  a  double  dye. 

There  is  likewise  an  element  of  contumely  and 
outrage  in  such  dishonest  operations ;  the  affront 
offered  the  victim  is  contemptible.  Men  have  often 
been  heard  to  say,  after  being  victimized  by  imposture 
of  this  sort:  "I  do  not  mind  the  loss  so  much,  but  I 
do  object  to  being  treated  like  a  fool  and  a  monkey." 
One's  feelings  suffer  more  than  one's  purse.  Especially 
is  this  the  case  when  the  credit  is  given  or  a  loan  made 
as  a  favor  or  service,  intended  or  requested,  only  to  be 
requited  by  the  blackest  kind  of  ingratitude. 

And  let  us  not  forget  the  extent  of  damage 
wrought  unto  worthy  people  in  hard  circumstances 
who  are  shut  out  from  the  advantages  of  borrowing 
and  buying  on  credit  by  the  nefarious  practices  of 
dishonest  borrowers  and  buyers.  A  burnt  child  keeps 
away  from  the  fire.  A  man,  after  being  defrauded 
palpably  a  few  times,  acquires  the  habit  of  refusing 
all  credit ;  and  he  turns  down  many  who  deserve  better, 
because  of  the  persecution  to  which  he  is  subjected 
by  rogues  and  scoundrels.  Every  criminal  debtor 
contributes  to  that  state  of  affairs  and  shares  the 
responsibility  of  causing  honest  people  to  suffer  want 
through  inability  to  get  credit. 

And  who  are  the  persons  thus  guilty  of  a  manifold 
guilt?  They  are  those  who  borrow  and  buy  knowing 
full  well  they  will  not  pay,  pile  debt  upon  debt  know 
ing  full  well  they  cannot  pay.  Others,  who  do  not 
repudiate  openly  their  obligations,  put  off  paying 
indefinitely  for  futile  reasons:  hard  times,  that  last 


310  MORAL  BRIEFS. 

forever ;  ships  coming  in,  whose  fate  is  yet  unlearned ; 
windfalls  from  rich  relatives  that  are  not  yet  born,  etc. ; 
and  from  delay  to  delay  they  become  not  only  less 
able,  but  less  willing,  to  settle  their  accounts. 
Sometimes  you  meet  a  fellow  anxious  to  square  himself 
for  the  total  amount;  half  his  assets  is  negotiable,  the 
other  half  is  gall.  He  threatens  you  with  the 
alternative  of  half  or  none;  he  wants  you  to  accept 
his  impudence  at  the  same  figures  at  which  he  himself 
values  it.  And  this  schemer  usually  succeeds  in  his 
endeavor. 

Others  there  are  who  protest  their  determination 
to  pay  up,  even  to  the  last  cent;  their  dun-bills  are 
always  kept  in  sight,  lest  they  forget  their  obligations ; 
they  treasure  these  bills,  as  one  treasures  a  thing  of 
immense  value.  But  they  live  beyond  their  means  and 
income,  purchase  pleasure  and  luxury,  refuse  to  curtail 
frivolous  expenses  and  extravagant  outlay.  And  in  the 
meantime  their  debts  remain  in  statu  quo,  unredeemed 
and  less  and  less  redeemable,  their  determination  holds 
good,  apparently;  and  the  creditor  breaks  command 
ments  looking  on  and  hoping. 

Some  do  violence  to  their  thinking  faculty  by 
trying  to  find  justification,  somehow,  for  not  paying 
their  debts.  The  creditor  is  dead,  they  say ;  or  he  has 
plenty  and  can  well  afford  to  be  generous.  An  attempt 
is  often  made  at  establishing  a  case  of  occult  compen 
sation,  its  only  merit  being  its  ingenuity,  worthy  of  a 
better  cause.  All  such  lame  excuses  argue  a  deeper 
perversity  of  will,  a  malice  well-nigh  incurable;  but 
they  do  not  satisfy  justice,  because  they  are  not 
founded  on  truth. 

A  debt  has  a  character  of  sacredness,  like  all  moral 
obligations;  more  sacred  than  many  other  moral 
obligations,  because  this  quality  is  taken  directly  from 
the  eternal  prototype  of  justice,  which  is  God.  You 
cannet  wilfully  repudiate  it  therefore  without  repu 
diating  God.  You  must  respect  it  as  you  respect  Him. 
Your  sins  and  your  debts  will  follow  you  before  the 


DEBTS.  311 

throne  of  God.  God  alone  is  concerned  with  your  sins ; 
but  with  your  debts  a  third  party  is  concerned.  And 
if  God  may  easily  waive  His  claims  against  you  as  a 
sinner,  a  sterner  necessity  may  influence  His  judg 
ment  of  you  as  a  debtor,  through  respect  for  the 
inviolable  rights  of  that  third  party  who  does  not 
forgive  so  readily. 


THE  END. 


STANDARD  CATHOLIC  BOOKS 

PUBLISHED  BY 

BENZIGER  BROTHERS 

CINCINNATI:  NEW    YORK:  CHICAGO: 

343  MAIN  ST.  36-3S  BARCLAY  ST.  214-216  W.  MONROE  ST. 


Books  marked  net  are  such  where  ten  per  cent,  must  be  added  for  postage. 
Thus  a  book  advertised  as  net,  $1.00,  will  be  sent  postpaid  on  receipt  of  $1.10. 
Books  not  marked  net  will  be  sent  postpaid  on  receipt  of  advertised  price. 


MISCELLANEOUS  BOOKS 

ABANDONMENT  TO  DIVINE  PROVIDENCE.     CAUSSADE.  net,  0  50 

ADORATION  OF  THE  BLESSED  SACRAMENT.     TESNIERE.  net,  1  25 

ANECDOTES  AND  EXAMPLES  ILLUSTRATING  THE  CATH 
OLIC  CATECHISM.  SPIRAGO.  net,  1  50 
ANGELS  OF  THE  SANCTUARY.  MUSSER.  0  20 
ANNOUNCEMENT  BOOK  FOR  SUNDAY  MASSES.  net,  1  25 
ART  OF  PROFITING  BY  OUR  FAULTS.  TISSOT.  net,  0  50 
ASSERTIO  SEPTEM  SACRAMENTORUM  OR  DEFENCE  OF 

THE  SEVEN  SACRAMENTS,  BY  HENRY  VIII.    O'DOXOVAN.    net,  2  00 
AUTOBIOGRAPHY    OF    ST.    IGNATIUS.      O'CoNOR.  net,  1  25 

BEGINNINGS  OF  CHRISTIANITY,  THE.     SHAHAH.  net,  2  00 

BENEDICENDA.     SCHULTE.  net,  1  50 

BLESSED   SACRAMENT   BOOK.     LASANCE.     Cloth,    1.50;   Leather,  2  00 

BLOSSOMS  OF  THE  CROSS.     GIEHRL.  1  25 

BOOK  OF  THE  PROFESSED.     Vols.   I,   II,  III.     Each,  net,  0  75 

BOY-SAVER'S  GUIDE.     QUIN.  net,  1  35 

BUDS  AND    BLOSSOMS.      COLTON.  net,  1  25 

CASES   OF   CONSCIENCE.      SLATER.     2   vols.  net,  3  50 

CATECHISM    EXPLAINED.      SPIRAGO.  net,  2  50 

CATHOLIC  BELIEF.     FAA  DI  BRUNO.     Paper,  net,  0.10:  Cloth,  net,  0  35 

CATHOLIC  CEREMONIES.     DURAND.     Paper,  0.20;   Cloth,  0  50 

CATHOLIC  GIRL'S  GUIDE.     LASANCE.  1  25 

CATHOLIC  HOME  ANNUAL.  0  25 

CATHOLIC  PRACTICE  AT  CHURCH  AND  AT  HOME.     KLAUDER. 

Paper,  0.25;  Cloth,  0  60 

CEREMONIAL  FOR  ALTAR  BOYS.     BRITT.  net,  0  35 

CHARACTERISTICS  OF  TRUE  DEVOTION.     GROW.  net,  0  75 

CHILD     PREPARED     FOR     FIRST     COMMUNION.       ZULU*TA. 

Per  100,  net,  3  00 

CHRISTIAN  APOLOGETICS.      DEVIVIER.  net,  2  00 

CHRISTIAN  EDUCATION.      O'CONNELL.  net,  0  60 

CHRISTIAN  FATHER.     CRAMER.     Paper,  0.15;  Cloth,  0  35 

CHRISTIAN  MOTHER.     CRAMER.     Paper,  0.15;  Cloth,  0  35 

CHRISTIAN  MYSTERIES.     4  vols.      BONOMELLI-BYRNE.  net,  5  00 

CHRIST  IN  TYPE  AND  PROPHECY.    MAAS.    Vols.  I  and  II.    Each,  net,  2  00 
CHRIST'S  TEACHING  CONCERNING  DIVORCE.     GIGOT.  net,  1  50 

CHURCH    TREASURER'S   PEW    COLLECTION   AND    RECEIPT 

BOOK.  net,  1  00 

CLERGYMAN'S  HANDBOOK  OF  LAW.     SCANLAN.  net,  1  35 

COME,  LET  US  ADORE,      HAMMER.  0  75 

COMMANDMENTS  AND   SACRAMENTS,   INSTRUCTIONS   ON 

THE.     LIGUORI.     Paper,  0.15;  Cloth,  0  35 

COMPENDIUM   JURIS    CANONIC!.      SMITH.  net,  2  00 

COMPENDIUM    SACR.E  LITURGI^.     WAPELHORST.  net,  2  50 

COMPENDIUM  JURIS  REGULARIUM.     BACHOFEN.  net.  2  50 

CONCORDANCE  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURES.     WILLIAMS.  net,  3  50 

CONFESSIONAL,  THE.     Wirrn.  net,  1  00 

1 


CONSECRANDA.     SCHULTE.  net    \  50 

CORRECT  THING  FOR  CATHOLICS.     BUGG.  net    0  75 

COUNSELS  OF  ST.  ANGELA.  net    0  25 

DATA  OF  MODERN   ETHICS   EXAMINED.     MING.  net    2  00 

DEVOTIONS    TO    THE    SACRED    HEART    FOR    THE    FIRST 

FRIDAY  OF   EVERY  MONTH.     HUGUET.  net    0  40 

DEVOTION     TO    THE     SACRED    HEART    OF    JESUS,     THE. 

NOLDIN.  net,  1  25 

DIGNITY  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  PRIEST.     LIGUORI.  net,  1  50 

DIVINE  GRACE.     WIRTH.  net,  1  60 

DIVINE   OFFICE.     LIGUORI.  net    1  50 

DOGMATIC  THEOLOGY,  OUTLINES  OF.     HUNTER.     Vol.  I,  II, 

III.      Each,  net    1  50 

ECCLESIASTICAL  DICTIONARY.     THBIN.  net,  5  00 

EDUCATION   OF  OUR   GIRLS.     SHIELDS.  net    1  00 

ELEMENTS  OF  ECCLES.  LAW.  Vols.  I,  II,  III.  SMITH.  Each,  net,  2  50 
ENCYCLICAL  LETTERS  OF  POPE  LEO  XIII,  THE  GREAT.  net,  2  25 
EUCHARISTIC  CHRIST,  THE.  TESNIERE.  net,  1  25 

EUCHARISTIC  LILIES.     MAERY.  1  00 

EXPLANATION  OF  BIBLE  HISTORY.     NASH.  net,  1  60 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  COMMANDMENTS.     ROLFUS.  net,  1  00 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  CREED.  net,  1  00 

EXPLANATION    OF    THE    GOSPELS    AND    CATHOLIC   WOR 
SHIP.     LAMBERT.     Paper,  0.20;   Cloth,  0  50 
EXPLANATION  OF  THE  HOLY  SACRAMENTS.     ROLFUS.             net,  1  00 
EXPLANATION   OF  THE   MASS.     COCHEM.                                         net,  1  25 
EXPLANATION    OF    THE    OUR    FATHER    AND    THE   HAIL 

MARY.  net,  0  75 

EXPLANATION    OF  THE   PRAYERS   AND    CEREMONIES    OF 

THE  MASS.      LANSLOTS.  net,  1  25 

EXPLANATION  OF  THE  SALVE  REGINA.     LIGUORI.  net,  0  75 

EXTREME  UNCTION.  0  10 

FLOWERS  OF  THE  PASSION.  0  50 

FOR  FREQUENT  COMMUNICANTS.     Per   100,  3  00 

FOUR  LAST  THINGS.     COCHEM.  net.  0  75 

GENERAL  CONFESSION  MADE  EASY.     KONINGS.  0  15 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION   TO  THE  STUDY  OF   THE  HOLY 

SCRIPTURES.     GIGOT.  net.  2  50 

GENERAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  HOLY 

SCRIPTURES.     Abridged.     GIGOT.  net,  1  50 

GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  LIFE.  VBRHEYEN.  net,  0  30 
GENTLEMAN,  A.  EGAN.  net,  0  75 

GIFT  OF  THE  KING,  THE.  0  60 

GLORIES   OF  DIVINE  GRACE.     SCHEEBEN.  net,  1  60 

GLORIES  OF  MARY.     Vols.  I  and  II.     LIGUORI.     Each,  net,  1  50 

GLORIES  AND  TRIUMPHS  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  THE.  2  00 
GOD,  CHRIST  AND  THE  CHURCH.  HAMMER.  2  00 

GOFFINE'S  DEVOUT  INSTRUCTIONS.  .  '  1  00 

GOLDEN   SANDS.     3   vols.      Each,  net,  0  50 

GREAT  MEANS  OF  SALVATION.     LIGUORI.  net,  1  50 

GREAT  SUPPER,  THE.     COUBE.  net,  1  25 

GREETINGS  TO  THE  CHRIST  CHILD.  0  60 

GROWTH  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  SCHOOL 

SYSTEM  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES.     BURNS.  net,  1  75 

GUIDE  FOR  SACRISTANS.  net,  0  8! 

HARMONY  OF  THE  RELIGIOUS  LIFE.     HEUSER.  net.  1  25 

HELPS   TO   A   SPIRITUAL   LIFE.      SCHNEIDER.  net,  1  25 

HIDDEN  TREASURE.      BLESSED   LEONARD.     Paper,   0.15;   Cloth,  0  35 

HISTORY  OF  AMERICAN    COLLEGE.     BRANN.  net,  2  00 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.     ALZOG.     3  vols.  net,  8  00 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.  BRUECK.  2  vols.  net,  3  00 
HISTORY  OF  ECONOMICS.  DEWE.  net,  1  50 

HISTORY  OF  THE  MASS.     O'BRIEN.  net,  I  2 

HISTORY  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  REFORMATION.     COBBET       net,  0  75 
HOLY    EUCHARIST     AND     FREQUENT    AND     DAILY     COM 
MUNION.     O'CoNNELL.  net.  0  60 
HOLY  EUCHARIST.     LIGUORI.                                                                   net.  1  50 
HOLY  HOUR.     KKILEY.                                                                                 ^    0  10 

HOLY  SACSRiFICEGUOFTHE  MASS  WORTHILY  CELEBRATED,  ^ 

2 


HOLY   VIATICUM   OF   LIFE   AS   OF   DEATH.     DEVER.  net,  0  75 

HOMILIES  FOR  THE  WHOLE  YEAR.    6  vols.    BONOMELLI-BYRNE.  net,  7  50 
HOW   TO  COMFORT  THE  SICK.     KREBS.  net,  1   25 

HOW  TO  MAKE  THE  MISSION.  0  10 

INCARNATION,  BIRTH,  AND  INFANCY  OF  CHRIST.    LIGUORI.    net,  I  50 
INDEX   TO  LIGUORI  WORKS.  net,  0  10 

IN  HEAVEN  WE  KNOW  OUR  OWN.  net,  0  60 

INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  FIRST  COMMUNICANTS.     SCHMITT.          net,  0  60 
INSTRUCTIONS  ON  MARRIAGE,  POPULAR.     GIRARDEY.    Paper, 

0.15;   Cloth,  0  35 

INSTRUCTIONS  TO   PARENTS,    POPULAR.     GIRARDEY.     Paper, 

0.15;    Cloth,  035 

,   INSTRUCTIONS    ON    PRAYER,    POPULAR.      GIRARDEY.     Paper, 

0.15;  Cloth,  0  35 

INTERIOR  OF  JESUS  AND  MARY.     GROU.     2  vols.  net,  2  00 

JESUS  LIVING  IN  THE  PRIEST.     MILLER-BYRNE.  net,  2  00 

LADY,  A.     BUGG.  net,  0  75 

LAWS  OF  THE  SAVIOUR.  0  60 

LESSONS  OF  THE  SAVIOUR.  0  60 

LETTERS  OF  ST.  ALPHONSUS  LIGUORI.     5  vols.     Each,  net,  1  50 

LIFE  OF  THE  BLESSED  VIRGIN.     ROHNER-BRENNAN.  net,  1  25 

LIFE  OF  CHRIST.     BUSINGER-BRENNAN.  net.  10  00 

LIFE  OF  CHRIST.     COCHEM-HAMMER.  net,  1  25 

LIFE  OF  POPE  PIUS  X.  2  00 

LIFE  OF  ST.   CATHARINE  OF  SIENNA.  1  00 

LIFE  OF  SISTER  ANNE  KATHARJNE  EMMERICH.    McGowAN.    net,  1  75 
LIFE  OF  YEN.   CRESCENTIA  HOSS.  net,  1  25 

LIGHT  FOR  NEW  TIMES.     FLETCHER.  net,  0  60 

LIVES  OF  THE  SAINTS  FOR  CHILDREN.    RERTHOLD.  0  60 

LIVES  OF  THE  SAINTS,  PICTORIAL,     SHEA.  3  00 

LIVES  OF  THE  SAINTS,  SHORT.      DONNELLY.  0  60 

LIVES  OF  THE  SAINTS,  LITTLE  PICTORIAL.  1  25 

LOVER  OF  SOULS,   THE.     BRINKMEYER.  net,  1  00 

LOURDES.     CLARKE.  net,  1  00 

MANUAL  OF  MORAL  THEOLOGY.    SLATER.   Vols.  I  and  II.  Each,  net,  2  75 
MANUAL   OF  THEOLOGY   FOR   THE  LAITY,   A.     GEIERMANN. 

Paper,  0.25;  Cloth,  0  60 

MARRIAGE   DELEGATION   BLANKS  IN   BOOK   FORM.  net,  0  50 

MARRIAGE  NOTIFICATION  BLANKS  IN  BOOK  FORM.  net,  0  50 

MARY  THE  QUEEN.     RELIGIOUS   OF    THE  SOCIETY  OF   THE  HOLY 

CHILD  JESUS.  0  60 

MARY,  HELP  OF  CHRISTIANS.     HAMMER. 

MEANS  OF   GRACE.      ROLFUS-BRANDLE.  3  0(1 

MEDITATIONS  FOR  EVERY  DAY.     BAXTER.  net,  1  50 

MEDITATIONS  FOR  EVERY  DAY.     HAMON.     5  vols.  net,  5  00 

MEDITATIONS  FOR  EVERY  DAY.     VERCRUYSSE.     2  vols.  net,  3  50 

MEDITATIONS  FOR  EVERY  DAY  OF  MONTH.     NEPVEU-RYAN.  net,  0  7! 
MEDITATIONS  FOR  MONTHLY  RETREATS.  net,  I  00 

MEDITATIONS  FOR  RETREATS.     ST.  FR.  DE  SALES.  net,  0  75. 

MEDITATIONS  FOR  THE  USE   OF   THE   SECULAR   CLERGY. 

2  vols.     CHAIGNON.  net,  4  50 

MEDITATIONS   ON  THE  LIFE,   THE   TEACHINGS,   AND  THE 

PASSION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     ILG.     2  vols.  net,  3  50 

MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  MONTH  OF  OUR  LADY.     FERRAN.        net,  0  75 
MEDITATIONS  ON  THE  PASSION.  0  50 

MEDITATIONS   ON   THE  LAST   WORDS   OF  OUR   LORD  OX 

THE  CROSS.     PERRAUD.  net,  0  50 

MEDITATIONS    ON    THE    SUFFERINGS    OF   JESUS    CHRIST. 

PERINALDO.  *»**,  0 

MIDDLE  AGES.     SHAHAN.  ntt.  2  00 

MISCELLANY.     LIGUORI.  net.  1  50 

',  MOMENTS  BEFORE  THE  TABERNACLE.     RUSSELL.  net,  0  50 

MONTH,  LITTLE,   OF  THE  SOULS  IN   PURGATORY.  net,  0  25 

MONTH  OF  MAY,  LITTLE.  net,  0  25 

MONTH,  NEW,  OF  THE  HOLY  ANGELS.  net.  0  2 

MORAL  BRIEFS.    STAPLETON.  net,  I  25 

MORE  SPIRITUAL  READINGS.     MADAME  CECILIA.  net,  1  25 

MORES  CATHOLICI;  OR,  AGES  OF  FAITH.     H.  KENELM  DIGBY. 

4  vols  net,  25  CO 

MORAL  PRINCIPLES  AND  MEDICAL  PRACTICE.     COPPBNS.       net.  I  00 
MY   FIRST  COMMUNION.     BUCHMANN.  »*t,  0  75 

3 


50 
50 

75 


MY    PRAYER-BOOK:    HAPPINESS    IN    GOODNESS.     LASAHOB 

Cloth,    1.25;   Leather,  i    75 

NEW  TESTAMENT.     24mo.     Flexible  cloth,  net,  0.18;   Leather,         net,  0.50 
NEW  TESTAMENT.      Illustrated.  net    0  60 

NEW   TESTAMENT.      (India   Paper.) 

NEW  TESTAMENT.     12mo.     Cloth,  net,  0.75;   Leather,  net    1   50 

OFF  TO  JERUSALEM.     BENZIGEK.  net'  0  5 

OUR  OWN  WILL.     ALLEN. 

OUTLINES  OF  NEW  TESTAMENT  HISTORY.     GICOT.  net    1  50 

OUTLINES    OF    SERMONS   FOR   YOUNG   MEN   AND    YOUNG 

WOMEN.     SCHUEN.  net    2  00 

PARADISE  ON  EARTH.     NATALE.  net'  0  40 

PARISH   CENSUS  BOOK.  net    3  50 

PARISH   COMBINATION  RECORDS  FOR  SMALL  PARISHES,     net'  3  75 
PARISH  PRIEST  ON  DUTY,  THE.     HEUSER.  net    0  60 

PASSION  AND  DEATH  OF  JESUS  CHRIST.     LIGUORI.  net'  1  50 

PASTORAL  THEOLOGY.      STANG.  net'  I  SO 

PATRON   SAINTS.     Vols.  I,  II,  III.     MANNIX.     Each,  '  0  60 

PATRON  SAINTS.     MANNIX.     Each,  0  10 

St.  Agnes,  St.  Aloysius,  St.  Anne,  St.  Anthony,  St.  Blase,  St. 
Bernard,  St.  Bridget,  St.  Catherine,  St.  Cecilia,  St.  Charles  St 
Clare,  St.  Elizabeth,  St.  Francis  Xavier,  St.  Helena,  St.  Joseph, 
St.  Louis,  St.  Margaret,  St.  Martin  of  Tours,  St.  Michael,  St. 
Monica,  St.  Patrick,  St.  Philip  Neri,  St.  Rose  of  Lima,  St.  Teresa. 
PEARLS  FROM  FABER.  BRUNOWE.  net  0  50 

PERFECT  RELIGIOUS.     D'ORLEANS  DE  LA  MOTTE.  net    1  00 

PEW  COLLECTION  AND  RECEIPT  BOOK.  net,  1  00 

PHILOSOPHIA  MORALI,  DE.     Russo.  net    2  00 

POLITICAL  AND  MORAL  ESSAYS.     RICKABY.  net'  1  75 

PRACTICAL  CATHOLIC.     PALAU-RYAN.  0  60 

PRAXIS   SYNODALIS.  net    0  75 

PREACHING.     LIGUORI.  net, 

PREPARATION  FOR  DEATH.     LIGUORI.  net 

PRIEST  IN  THE  PULPIT.     SCHUECH.  net, 

PRINCIPLES,  ORIGIN  AND  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  CATH 
OLIC  SCHOOL  SYSTEM  IN  THE  U.  S.  BURNS.  net,  75 
PRIVATE  RETREAT  FOR  RELIGIOUS.  GEIERMANN.  net,  50 
PULPIT  SKETCHES.  LAMBERT.  net  25 
RIGHTS  OF  OUR  LITTLE  ONES.  CONWAY.  0  10 
QUEEN'S  FESTIVALS,  THE.  0  60 
REASONABLENESS  OF  CATHOLIC  CEREMONIES  AND  PRAC 
TICES.  BURKE.  Paper,  0.15;  Cloth,  035 
REGISTRUM  BAPTISMORUM.  net,  3  50 
REGISTRUM  CONFIRMATORUM.  net,  2  50 
REGISTRUM  DEFENDORUM.  net,  2  50 
REGISTRUM  MATRIMONIORUM.  net,  3  50 
REGISTRUM  NEO-COMMUNICANTIUM.  net,  2  50 
REGISTRUM,  SEU  LIBER  STATUS  ANIMARUM.  Large  edition,  net,  3  50 
Pocket  edition,  net,  0  25 
RELIGIOUS  STATE,  THE.  LiGuofci.  net,  0  50 
RETREATS  FOR  SISTERS,  TWO.  WIRTH.  net,  1  00 
RITUALE  COMPENDIOSUM.  net,  0  90 
ROSARY,  THE.  GARESCHE.  net,  0  50 
ROSARY,  THE  CROWN  OF  MARY,  THE.  0  10 
RULES  dF  LIFE  FOR  THE  PASTOR  OF  SOULS.  SLATER-RAUCH.  net,  1  25 
SACRAMENTALS.  LAMBING.  Paper,  0.20;  Cloth,  0  50 
SACRED  HEART  BOOK.  LASANCE.  0  75 
SACRED  HEART  STUDIED  IN  THE  SACRED  SCRIPTURES. 

SAINTRAIN.  net,  2  00 

ST.  ANTHONY.  ANECDOTES  AND  EXAMPLES.  KELLER.  net,  0  75 
ST.  ANTHONY,  THE  SAINT  OF  THE  WHOLE  WORLD.  WARD,  net,  0  75 
SAINT  FRANCES  OF  ASSISI:  SOCIAL  REFORMER.  DUBOIS.  net,  1  00 
SANCTUARY  BOYS'  ILLUSTRATED  MANUAL.  McCALLEN.  net,  0  50 
SECRET  OF  SANCTITY.  CRASSET.  net,  1  00 

SERMONS  FOR  CHILDREN  OF  MARY.     CAULERIO.  net.  1  50 

SERMONS  FOR  CHILDREN'S   MASSES.      FRASSINETTI.  net,  1   50 

SERMONS  FOR  SUNDAYS.     LIGUORI.  net,  1  50 

SERMONS  FOR  THE  SUNDAYS  AND  CHIEF  FESTIVALS  OF 

THE  ECCLES.  YEAR.     2  vols.     POTTGEISSER.  net,  3  00 

SERMONS  FROM  THE  LATINS.     BAXTER.  net.  2  00 

SERMONS,  FUNERAL.     WIRTH.     Vols.   I  and  II.     Each,  net,  1  00 

4 


SERMONS.  HUNOJ.T.  Complete  Edition.  12  vols.  Each,  2  50 

SERMONS,  LENTEN.  WIRTH.  net,  2  00 

SERMONS,  NEW  AND  OLD.  WIITH.  8  vols.  Each,  net.  2  00 

SERMONS  ON  THE  BLESSED  SACRAMENT.  SCHEURER-LASANCE.  net,  1  50 
SERMONS  ON  THE  DEVOTION  TO  THE  SACRED  HEART. 

Six.  BIERBAUM.  net,  0  75 

SERMONS,  SHORT,  FOR  LOW  MASSES.  SCHOUPPE.  net,  1  25 

SERMONS,  SHORT.  HUNOLT.  5  vols.  (WIRTH.)  Each,  net,  2  00 

SHORT  HISTORY  OF  MORAL  THEOLOGY.  SLATER.  net,  0  50 

SHORT  STORIES  ON  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.  net,  1  00 

SIMPLE  INSTRUCTIONS  FOR  FIRST  COMMUNION.  Per  100,  net,  3  00 
SOCIALISM  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  STANG.  net,  I  00 

SOCIALISM:  ITS  THEORETICAL  BASIS  AND  PRACTICAL 

APPLICATION.  CATHREIN.  net,  1  50 

SOCIALISM,  RELIGION  AND  CHARACTERISTICS  OF.  MING,  net,  1  50 
SOCIALISM,  MORALITY  OF  MODERN.  MING.  net,  I  SO 

SPECIAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  OLD 

TESTAMENT.  Part  I.  GIGOT.  net,  1  SO 

SPECIAL  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE  STUDY  OF  THE  OLD 

TESTAMENT.  Part  II.  GIGOT.  net,  2  00 

SPIRAGO'S  METHOD  OF  CHRISTIAN  DOCTRINE.  MESSMER.  net,  1  SO 
SPIRITUAL  CONSIDERATIONS.  BUCKLER.  net.  1  25 

SPIRITUAL  DESPONDENCY  AND  TEMPTATIONS.  MICHEL,  net,  1  25 
SPIRITUAL  EXERCISES  FOR  A  TEN  DAYS'  RETREAT. 

SMETANA.  net,  1  00 

SPIRITUAL  PEPPER  AND  SALT.  STANG.  Paper,  0.25;  Cloth,  0  60 

SPIRIT  OF  SACRIFICE  AND  THE  LIFE  OF  SACRIFICE  IN 

THE  RELIGIOUS  STATE.  GIRAUD-THURSTON.  net,  2  00 

SPOILING  THE  DIVINE  FEAST.  ZULUETA,  Per  100,  3  00 

STORIES  FOR  FIRST  COMMUNICANTS.  KELLER.  net,  0  50 

STORY  OF  THE  DIVINE  CHILD.  LINGS.  0  60 

STORIES  OF  THE  MIRACLES  OF  OUR  LORD,  THE.  0  60 

STRIVING  AFTER  PERFECTION.  BAYMA.  net.  1  00 

SUNDAY-SCHOOL  DIRECTOR'S  GUIDE.  SLOAN.  net.  0  50 

SUNDAY-SCHOOL  TEACHER'S  GUIDE.  SLOAN.  net,  0  50 

SURE  WAY  TO  A  HAPPY  MARRIAGE.  Paper,  0.15;  Cloth,  0  35 

TALKS  WITH  THE  LITTLE  ONE  ABOUT  THE  APOSTLES' 

CREED.  0  60 

THEORY  AND  PRACTICE  OF  THE  CONFESSIONAL.  SCHIELER- 

HEUSER.  net,  3  SO 

THOUGHTS  AND  AFFECTIONS  ON  THE  PASSION  OF  JESUS 

CHRIST  FOR  EVERY  DAY  IN  THE  YEAR.  BERGAMO.  net,  2  00 
THOUGHTS  AND  COUNSELS  FOR  CATHOLIC  YOUNG  MEN. 

WIRTH.  net,  I  25 

TRAINING  OF  CHILDREN.  MADAME  CECILIA.  net,  0  75 

TRUE  POLITENESS,  LETTERS  ON.  DEMORE.  net,  0  75 


TRUE  SPOUSE  OF  CHRIST.     LIGUORI.  net, 

TRUE  SPOUSE  OF  CHRIST.     Vols.  I  and  II.     LIGUORI.     Each,      net, 
VENERATION  OF  THE  BLESSED  VIRGIN.     ROHNER-BRENNAN.     net, 


VICTORIES  OF  THE  MARTYRS.     LIGUORI.  net, 
VISIT  TO  EUROPE  AND  THE  HOLY  LAND.     FAIRBANKS. 

VOCATIONS  EXPLAINED.  0  10 

WAY  OF  THE  CROSS.     Paper,  0  05 

WAY  OF  THE  CROSS.     EUCHARISTIC  METHOD.  0  10 

WAY  OF  THE  CROSS.     METHOD  OF  ST.  FRANCIS  ASSISI.  0  10 

WAY  OF  THE  CROSS.     METHOD  JESUIT  FATHER.  0  10 

WAY  OF  THE  CROSS.     METHOD  ST.  ALPHONSUS  LIGUORI.  0  10 

WAY  OF  SALVATION  AND  PERFECTION.     LIGUORI.  net,  1  50 

WAY  OF  INTERIOR  PEACE.     BRUCKER.  net,  I  50 
WHAT  CATHOLICS  HAVE  DONE  FOR  SCIENCE.     BRENNAN.       net,  1  25 

WHAT  THE  CHURCH  TEACHES.     DRURY.     Paper,  0.25;   Cloth,  0  60 

WHAT  TIMES!    WHAT  MORALS!    SEMPLE.     Paper,  net,  0  15 

WITH  CHRIST,  MY  FRIEND.     SLOAN.  net,  0  71 

WITH  GOD.     LASANCE.     Cloth,   1.25;  Leather,  1  75 

YOUNG  MAN'S  GUIDE.     LASANCE.     Cloth,  0.75;  Leather,  1  25 

NOVELS 

AGATHA'S    HARD    SAYING.      ROSA  MULHOLLAND.  1  25 

BACK  TO  THE  WORLD.     CHAMPOL.  net,  1  35 

S 


BIT  OF  OLD  IVORY.   A.  net    0  5 

BLACK  BROTHERHOOD.     GARROLD. 

BOND  AND  FREE.     CONNOR.  net    o  7 

BUT  THY  LOVE  AND  THY  GRACE.     FINN.  '  1  0 

CARROLL  DARE.     WAGGAMAN. 

CMICUS  RIDER'S  DAUGHTER.     BRACKEL. 

CONNOR  D'ARCY'S  STRUGGLES.     BERTHOLDS. 

CORINNE'S  VOW.     WAGGAMAN. 

DAUGHTER  OF  KINGS.     HINKSON. 

DION  AND  THE  SYBILS.     M.  KEON. 

DOUBLE  KNOT.  net    0  61 

FABIOLA.    WISEMAN.    12mo.    Illustrated  edition,  0.75;  Non-illustrated 

edition  0  51 

FABIOLA'S  SISTERS.     CLARKE.  1  21 

FATAL  BEACON.     BRACKED  1  2! 

FAUSTULA.     AYSCOUGH.  net    I  3' 

FORGIVE  AND  FORGET.     LINCEN.  1  5( 

FRIENDLY  LITTLE  HOUSE.  net,  0  5( 

HEARTS  OF  GOLD.     EDHOR.  1  2! 

HEIRESS  OF  CRONENSTEIN.     HAHN-HAHH.  1  2! 

HER  BLIND  FOLLY.     HOLT.  1  21 

HER  FATHER'S  DAUGHTER.     HINKSON.  1  2! 

IDOLS.     NAVERY.  1  2! 
IN  THE  DAYS  OF  KING  HAL.    TAGGART. 

IN  GOD'S  GOOD  TIME.     Ross.  net,  0  71 

"KIND  HEARTS  AND  CORONETS."     HARRISON.  1  21 

LADY  OF  THE  TOWER.  net,  0  5C 

LET  NO  MAN  PUT  ASUNDER.     MARIE.  1  OC 

LIGHT  OF  HIS  COUNTENANCE.     HAUTE.  net,  0  75 

LITTLE  CARDINAL.     PARR.  1  25 

LINKED  LIVES.     DOUGLAS.  1  SO 

MARCELLA  GRACE.     ROSA  MULHOLLAND.  1  25 

MARIAE  COROLLA.     HILL.  net,  1  25 

MELCHIOR  OF  BOSTON.    EARLS.  1  00 

MIGHTY  FRIEND.     L'ERMITE.  net,  1  50 

MIRROR  OF  SHALOTT.     BENSON.  1  50 

MISS   ERIN.     FRANCIS.  1  25 

MONK'S  PARDON.     NAVERY.  1  25 

MR.  BILLY  BUTTONS.     LECKY.  1  25 

MY   LADY   BEATRICE.     COOKE.  net,  0  75 

NOT  A  JUDGMENT.     KEON.  1  25 

ONE  AFTERNOON  AND  OTHER  STORIES.  net,  0  60 

OTHER  MISS  LISLE.     MARTIN.  net,  0  75 

OUT  OF  BONDAGE.     HOLT.  1  25 

OUTLAW  OF  CAMARGUE.     DE  LAMOTHB.  1  25 

PASSING  SHADOWS.     YORKE.  1  25 

PASSION  FLOWERS.     HILL.  net,  1  25 

PERE  MONNIER'S   WARD.     LECKY.  1  25 

PILKINGTON  HEIR.     SADLIER.  1  25 

PRISONER'S  YEARS.     CLARKE.  net,  1  35 

PRODIGAL'S  DAUGHTER.     BUGG.  1  00 

RED  INN  AT  ST.   LYPHAR.     SADLIER.  1  25 

ROAD  BEYOND  THE  TOWN.     EARLS.  1  25 

ROMANCE  OF  A  PLAYWRIGHT.     BORNIER.  1  00 

ROSE  OF  THE  WORLD.     MARTIN.  net,  0  75 

ROUND  TABLE  OF  GERMAN   CATHOLIC  NOVELISTS.  1  50 

ROUND  TABLE  OF  FRENCH   CATHOLIC  NOVELISTS.  1  50 

ROUND  TABLE  OF  AMERICAN   CATHOLIC   NOVELISTS.  1  50 
ROUND  TABLE  OF  IRISH  AND  ENGLISH  CATHOLIC  NOVELISTS  1  50 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  I.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  II.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  III.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  IV.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  V.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  VI.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  VII.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  VIII.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  IX.  1  00 

ROUND  THE  WORLD  SERIES.     Vol.  X.  1  00 
RULER  OF  THE  KINGDOM.     KEON. 

SECRET  OF  THE  GREEN  VASE.     COOK.  net,  0  75 

SENIOR  LIEUTENANT'S  WAGER.  ntt,  0  6« 

6 


SHADOW   OF   EVERSLEIGH.     LANSDOWNE.  net,  0  75 

SO  AS   BY   FIRE.     CONNOR.  net,  0  75 

SOGGARTH  AROON.     GUINAN.  1  25 

SON  OF  SIRO.     COPUS.  1  50 

SONGS  AND  SONNETS.     EGAN.  1  00 

STORY  OF  CECILIA.     HINKSON.  1  25 

STUORE.  EARLS.  1  00 
TEMPEST  OF  THE  HEART.  GRAY. 

TEST  OF  COURAGE.     Ross.  net,  0  75 

THAT   MAN'S   DAUGHTER.      Ross.  1  25 

THEIR  CHOICE.  SKINNER.  1  00 
THROUGH  THE  DESERT.  SIENKIEWICZ.  net,  1  35 

TRAIL  OF  THE  DRAGON.  1  00 

TRAINING  OF   SILAS.     DEVINE.  1  25 

TRUE  STORY  OF  MASTER  GERARD.  SADLIKR.  1  25 
TURN  OF  THE  TIDE.  GRAY.  net,  0  75 
UNBIDDEN  GUEST.  COOKE.  net,  0  75 
UNDER  THE  CEDARS  AND  STARS.  SHEEHAH.  net,  2  00 

UNRAVELLING  OF  A  TANGLE.  TAGGART.  1  25 
UP  IN  AR-DMUIRLAND.  BARRETT.  net,  1  25 

VOCATION  OF  EDWARD  CONWAY.     EGAN.  1  25 

WARGRAVE  TRUST.  REID.  1  25 
WAY  THAT  LED  BEYOND.  HARRISON. 

WEDDING  BELLS  OF  GLENDALOUGH.     EARLS,  net,  1  35 

WHEN  LOVE  IS  STRONG.     KEON.  1  25 

WOMAN  OF  FORTUNE.     REID.  1  25 

WORLD  WELL  LOST.     ROBERTSON.  0  75 

JUVENILES 

ALTHEA.     NIRDLINGER.  0  60 

ADVENTURE  WITH  THE  APACHES,  AN.     FERRY.  0  45 

AS  GOLD   IN   THE  FURNACE.     COPUS.  0  85 

AS  TRUE  AS  GOLD.     MANNIX.  0  45 

ARMORER  OF  SOLINGEN.     HERCHENBACH.  0  45 

BELL  FOUNDRY,  THE.     SCHACHING.  0  45 

BERKLEYS,  THE.     WIGHT.  0  45 

BEST  FOOT  FORWARD.     FINN.  0  85 

BETWEEN  FRIENDS.     AUMERLE.  0  85 

BLACK   LADY,    THE.     SCHMID.  0  25 

BISTOURI.     MELANDRI.  0  45 

BLISSYLVANIA  POST-OFFICE.    TAGCART.  0  45 

BOB-O'-LINK.     WAGGAMAN.  0  45 

BOYS  IN  THE  BLOCK.     EGAN.  0  25 

BROWNIE  AND  I.     AUMERLE.  0  85 

BUNT  AND  BILL.     C.  MULHOLLAND.  0  45 

BUZZER'S  CHRISTMAS.     WAGGAMAN.  0  25 

BY  BRANSCOME  RIVER.     TAGGART.  0  45 

CAKE,  THE,  AND  THE  EASTER  EGGS.     SCHMID.  0  25 

CANARY  BIRD,  THE,  AND  OTHER  TALES.     SCHMID.  0  45 

CAPTAIN   TED.     WAGGAMAN.  0  60 

CAVE  BY  THE  BEECH  FORK,  THE.     SPALDING.  0  85 

CHARLIE  CHITTYWICK.     BEARNE.  0  85 

CHILDREN  OF  CUPA.     MANNIX.  0  45 

CHILDREN  OF  THE  LOG  CABIN.     DELAWARE.  0  85 

CLARE  LORAINE.     "LEE."  0  85 

CLAUDE  LIGHTFOOT.    FINN.  0  85 

COLLEGE  BOY,  A.     YORKE.  0  85 

CUPA  REVISITED.     MANNIX.  0  45 

DADDY  DAN.     WAGGAMAN.  0  45 

DEAR  FRIENDS.     NIRDLINGER.  0  60 

DIMPLING'S  SUCCESS.     C.  MULHOLLAND.  0  45 

DOLLAR  HUNT,  THE.     E.  G.  MARTIN.  0  45 

ETHELRED  PRESTON.     FINN.  0  85 

EVERY-DAY  GIRL,  AN,     CROWLEY.  0  45 

FATAL  DIAMONDS.  THE.     DONNELLY.  0  25 

FIVE  O'CLOCK  STORIES.  0  7\ 

FLOWER  OF  THE  FLOCK.     EGAN.  0  85 

FOR  THE  WHITE  ROSE.     HINKSON.  0  45 

FREDDY  CARR'S  ADVENTURES.     GARROLD.  0  85 

7 


FREDDY  CARR  AND  HIS  FRIENDS.     GARROLD.  0  85 
FRED'S   LITTLE   DAUGHTER.     S.    T.   SMITH. 
GODFREY  THE  LITTLE  HERMIT.     SCHMID. 

GOLDEN  LILY,  THE.     HINKSON.  0  45 
GREAT  CAPTAIN,  THE.     HINKSON. 
GUILD  BOYS  OF  RIDINGDALE.     BEARNK. 

HALDEMAN   CHILDREN,   THE.     MANNIX.  0  45 
HARMONY  FLATS.     WHITMIRE. 
HARRY  DEE.     FINN. 

HARRY  RUSSELL.     COPUS.  0  8; 
HEIR  OF  DREAMS,  AN.     O'MALLEY. 

HIS  FIRST  AND  LAST  APPEARANCE.     FINN.  1  00 

HOP  BLOSSOMS,  THE.     SCHMID.  0  25 

HOSTAGE  OF  WAR.     BONESTEEL.  0  45 

HOW  THEY  WORKED  THEIR  WAY.     EGAN.  0  85 

IN  QUEST  OF  THE  GOLDEN   CHEST.     BARTON.  1  15 

INUNDATION,  THE,  AND  OTHER  TALES.     HERCHENBACH.  0  45 

"JACK."  0  45 

-ACK  HILDRETH  ON  THE  NILE.     TAGGART.  8  85 

rACK  O'LANTERN.     WAGGAMAN.  0  45 

UNIORS  OF  ST.  BEDE'S.     BRYSON.  0  85 

UVENILE  ROUND  TABLE.     First  Series.  1  00 

JUVENILE  ROUND  TABLE.     Second   Series.  1  00 

JUVENILE  ROUND  TABLE.     Third  Series.  1  00 

KLONDIKE  PICNIC,  A.     DONNELLY.  0  85 

LAMP  OF  THE  SANCTUARY.     WISEMAN.  0  25 
LEGENDS  AND  STORIES  OF  THE  CHILD  JESUS  FROM  MANY 

LANDS.     Luxz.  0  75 

LITTLE  APOSTLE  ON  CRUTCHES.     DELAMARE.  0  45 

LITTLE  GIRL  FROM  BACK  EAST.     ROBERTS.  0  45 

LITTLE  MISSY.     WAGCAMAN.  0  45 

LOYAL  BLUE  AND  ROYAL  SCARLET.    TAGGART.  0  85 

MADCAP  SET  AT  ST.  ANNE'S.     BRUNOWE.  0  45 

MAKING  OF  MORTLAKE.     COPUS.  0  85 

MARKS  OF  THE  BEAR  CLAWS.     SPALDINC.  0  85 

MARY  TRACY'S   FORTUNE.     SADLIER.  0  45 

MASTER  FRIDOLIN.     GIEHRL.  0  25 

MELOR  OF  THE  SILVER  HAND.     BEARNE.  0  85 

MILLY  AVELING.     S.  T.  SMITH.  0  85 

MORE  FIVE  O'CLOCK  STORIES.  0  75 

MOSTLY  BOYS.     FINN.  0  85 

MY  STRANGE  FRIEND.     FINN.  0  25 

MYSTERY  OF   CLEVERLY.     BARTOH.  0  85 

MYSTERIOUS  DOORWAY.     SADLIER.  0  45 

MYSTERY  OF  HORNBY  HALL.    SADLIER.  0  85 

NAN   NOBODY.     WAGGAMAN.  0  45 

NED   RIEDER.     WEHS.  0  85 

NEW  BOYS  AT  RIDINGDALE.     BEARNE.  0  85 

NEW  SCHOLAR  AT  ST.   ANNE'S.     BRUNOWE.  0  85 

OLD  CHARLMONT'S  SEED  BED.     S.  T.  SMITH.  0  45 

OLD  MILL  ON  THE  WITHROSE.     SPALDINQ.  0  85 

OLD  ROBBER'S  CASTLE.     SCHMID.  0  25 

OUR  LADY'S  LUTENIST.     BEARNE.  0  85 

OVERSEER  OF  MAHLBOURG.     SCHMID.  0  25 

PANCHO  AND  PANCHITA,     MANNIX.  0  45 

PAULINE  ARCHER.     SADLIER.  0  45 

PERIL  Of  DIONYSIO.    MANNIX.  0  45 
PERCY  WYNN.     FINN. 

PETRONILLA.     DONNELLY.  0  8! 
PICKLE  AND  PEPPER.     DORSEY. 
PILGRIM  FROM  IRELAND.     CARNOT. 
PLAYWATER  PLOT.     WAGGAMAH. 
POVERINA.     BUCKENHAM. 

QUEEN'S  PAGE.     HINKSON.  0  45 
QUEEN'S  PROMISE.     WAGGAMAN. 
RACE  FOR   COPPER  ISLAND.     SPALDING. 
RECRUIT  TOMMY  COLLINS.     BONESTEEL. 
RIDINGDALE  FLOWER  SHOW.     BEARNE. 
ROMANCE  OF  THE  SILVER  SHOON.     BEARK*. 
ROSE  BUSH,  THE.     SCHMID. 

SEA-GULLS  ROCK.     SANDEAU.  0  45 

8 


88 

0  45 


BJ  1249  .573  1904 
SMC 

STAPLETON,  JOHN  HENRY, 
1873- 

EXPLANATION  OF  CATHOLIC 
MORALS  :  A  CONCISE, 

AKC-6795  (MF)