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)