Chapter III: The Care of the Body

1. THE CARE OF THE BODY IN GENERAL.—If the corporeal life of man is of such great importance for his eternal destiny, it follows that he must take good care of his body.

The desire to live (instinct of self-preservation) and to enjoy perfect health of mind and body is implanted by nature in every human being. "No man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it," says St. Paul.¹ Hence it is a natural duty to preserve life and health and to acquire and employ the means by which they may be prolonged and fostered.

¹ Eph. V, 29.

Since, however, in consequence of the fall of our first parents, the sensual delight which men take in life and its pleasures easily degenerates into sinful enjoyment, the care of the body must be regulated by the precepts of Christian morality.

"By eating and drinking," says St. Augustine, addressing God, "we repair the daily ruins of the body until Thou destroy both the food and the belly (I Cor. VI, 13).... This Thou hast taught me, that I should come to take nourishment as I take medicine. But while I am passing from the uneasiness of hunger to the satisfaction of satiety, the snare of concupiscence lieth in wait for me; for the very passage itself is a pleasure, and there is no other way to pass but this, to which necessity obliges me. And thus, whereas health is the cause of eating and drinking, a dangerous delight comes in as an attendant, and for the most part endeavors to go before, that for its sake I should do what I pretend and desire to do only for the sake of health. Nor are both of these content with the same allowance: for what is sufficient for health is too little for delight, and many times it becomes uncertain whether it be the necessary care of the body that requires a further supply, or the voluptuous deceit of concupiscence that calls for this allowance. And the unhappy soul grows glad of this uncertainty, and prepares therein the protection of an excuse, being pleased that it does not appear what is exactly proportioned for the maintenance of health, that under the cloak of health she may indulge her pleasure. These temptations I daily strive to resist, and I invoke Thy right hand to my assistance, and refer my anxieties to Thee, for I have yet to seek for counsel in this matter."²

² Cfr. St. Augustine, Confess., l. X, c. 31, n. 34–44: "We repair the daily decay of the body by eating and drinking, until Thou destroyest both food and the belly (1 Cor. VI, 13).... This Thou hast taught me: that I should approach the taking of food as I do the taking of medicine. But while I pass from the discomfort of want to the repose of satiety, in the very passage the snare of concupiscence lies in wait for me. For that passage itself is pleasure, and there is no other way through which necessity compels me to pass. And although health is the cause of eating and drinking, a dangerous delight joins itself as a handmaid and generally tries to go before, so that what I say or will that I do for the sake of health may be done for its sake. Nor is the measure of each the same, for what is enough for health is too little for pleasure. And it is often uncertain whether the necessary care of the body is still asking support or the deceit of pleasure is supplying its service. The unhappy soul rejoices in this uncertainty and in it prepares the defense of an excuse, glad that what is enough for the moderation of health is not apparent, so that under the pretext of health it may obscure the business of pleasure. I strive daily to resist these temptations, and I invoke Thy right hand for my salvation, and refer my agitations to Thee, because my counsel on this matter is not yet settled." (Migne, P. L., XXXII, 797).

Whatever God has created is good, and, broadly speaking, there are no material objects which man is per se obliged to renounce. St. Paul's assurance, "All things are yours," ³ is addressed to the faithful. Nevertheless the proposition is true only in a general way. The right of the individual to enjoy the good things of nature is limited in various ways.

³ 1 Cor. III, 22; cfr. 1 Tim. IV, 3–5.

1. It is limited, above all, by the particular needs of each. These needs are manifold and far exceed the essential requirements of life and health. They are measured by the personal necessities, bodily and spiritual, of each individual, by the degree of culture he has attained, by his position in society, the nature of his vocational duties, the climate, social environment, and many other factors.

2. The right of the individual to enjoy the good things of life is limited further by the social demands of the community in which he lives. Every member of society has a right to enjoy the things God has provided for the race as a whole. To waste or destroy them is against the law of nature, and to do so wantonly, without a just and sufficient cause, would betray a brutal disposition and be a crime against nature. To waste the means of subsistence, on the proper distribution of which the welfare of entire classes depends, involves an injustice against God and men.⁴

⁴ Is. LXV, 8; Luke XVI, 19 sqq.; John VI, 13.

3. A third limitation arises from the purpose for which the good things of nature were created. The body must be nourished and fostered, not for its own sake, but that it may efficiently serve as the organ and companion of the soul. "We live not to eat, but we eat to live," says the wise Socrates. Only in so far as the good things of nature serve this higher purpose, is their use permitted. "I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the life more than the meat, and the body more than the raiment?"⁵ "Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences."⁶ "Let not then our good be evil spoken of, for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink, but justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."⁷

⁵ Matt. VI, 25; cfr. Matt. X, 39.

⁶ Rom. XIII, 14.

⁷ Rom. XIV, 16 sqq. —Cfr. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., IV, c. 26 (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 490); Juvenal, Sat., X, 356: "One must pray that there be a sound mind in a sound body; ask for a courageous spirit."

Good health is a necessary condition for the development of talent. Those who are sickly depend on others, whereas robust men have courage to dare and do. Therefore suitable provision for the preservation of health is an essential part of character training.⁸

⁸ W. L. Pyle, Personal Hygiene, Philadelphia, 1917.

2. VARIOUS MEANS OF CARING FOR THE BODY.—The ordinary means of keeping the body efficient may be grouped together in two classes: those by which health is preserved and fostered, and those by which harmful and disturbing influences are warded off.

1. FOOD AND DRINK. —The chief means of preserving health are food and drink. a) Mankind as such has unlimited control of the resources of nature. The Old Testament distinction between clean and unclean foods was purely disciplinary and ceremonial, and is no longer enforced under the New Law.⁹ "I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus," says St. Paul, "that nothing is unclean of itself."¹⁰ This includes animal as well as vegetable foods, for Christ Himself teaches that not what enters into the mouth, i. e., food and drink as such, but the inordinate use thereof defiles man.¹¹

⁹ Gen. VII, 8; Lev. XI, 8; Matt. XV, 11; Mark VII, 15; Acts X, 15.

¹⁰ Rom. XIV, 14; cfr. Col. II, 16.

¹¹ Cfr. Matt. XV, 17-20; Mark VII, 15–23; Tit. I, 15.

There is no moral objection to the common practice of making food more palatable by artificial means, because to enjoy one's meals is not to indulge in sensuality or sybaritism. Man is in duty bound to take wholesome food and to be moderate in its use, i. e., to eat neither too little nor too much for his physical well-being. b) The use of food is limited by the needs of each individual, which differ according to age, climate, constitution, occupation, etc. Every man is allowed to take as much food as he requires to maintain himself mentally and physically efficient, and all are in duty bound to avoid excess because it disturbs the equilibrium of soul and body and makes the former the servant of the latter, whereas it ought to be its master.¹² Following the example of Christ and the Apostles, therefore, we should take our daily nourishment temperately and with gratitude to God, begin each meal with a blessing (benedictio mensae) and never forget to give thanks after eating.¹³

¹² Cfr. Rom. XIII, 14; XIV, 17; cfr. Eccles. X, 17.

¹³ Matt. XIV, 19; XV, 36; XXVI, 27; Mark XIV, 23; Luke XXII, 17; John VI, 11; Acts XXVII, 35; Rom. XIV, 6; 1 Cor. X, 31; 1 Tim. IV, 3–5.

To eat or drink to satiety for mere pleasure (ob solam voluptatem) is morally illicit, even though it may not result in direct injury to the health.¹⁴ In the long run intemperance invariably revenges itself upon its victims.

¹⁴ Prop. Damnat. sub Innocentio XI, prop. 8: "To eat and drink even to satiety for pleasure alone is not a sin, provided it does not harm health, because (some) natural appetite may lawfully enjoy its own acts." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1158).

On the sin of drunkenness in particular see Vol. II of this Handbook, pp. 79 sq. On the duty of self-denial, infra, pp. 72 sq.

Some believe that men were originally vegetarians and received permission to eat flesh meat only after the Flood. This opinion may be true or false, but we believe it has no basis in Holy Writ.

2. CLOTHING. —Another important means of preserving the health and warding off disease and other harmful influences is clothing. a) Clothes are worn for a fivefold purpose: to protect the body against the inclemencies of the weather or climate, to adorn it, to cover nakedness and preserve modesty, to distinguish the sexes, and to mark differences in office, occupation, or social rank.¹⁵ b) In the choice of his garments the individual is to a considerable extent limited by season, climate, temperature, custom, fashion, and other factors.

¹⁵ Gen. III, 7–11, 21; 1 Cor. VII, 34; XII, 23 sq. —Chas. S. Devas, Political Economy, pp. 153 sqq.

Custom should not be disregarded entirely, and even erratic Dame Fashion may be followed to a certain reasonable extent.¹⁶ A person may dress well without being on that account guilty of vanity. For a man to dress like a woman, or vice versa, may be sinful or not, according to motives and circumstances. If done as a matter of necessity, or for any other good and sufficient cause, it is permissible; if the intention be venially sinful, it is a venial, if grievously sinful, a mortal sin.¹⁷

¹⁶ W. T. Kane, S.J., "The Psychology of Fashion", in America, N. Y., 7 July, 1923, Vol. XXIX, No. 12, pp. 269 sq.

¹⁷ C. 6, D. 30 (Concil. Gangr. a. 355, can. 18): “If any woman, judging it useful by deliberate choice that she use male clothing, for this reason imitates the dress of a man, let her be anathema.” (Decretum Gratiani, ed. Friedberg, Leipsic, 1879, p. 107). —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 169, art. 2, ad 3; 1a 2ae, qu. 102, art. 6, ad 6. —H. Busembaum, S. J., Medulla Theol. Mor., Tournai, 1876, l. II, tr. 3, c. 2, dub. 5, a. 2: "If a woman uses male clothing, or conversely, merely from levity without a depraved intention or danger of scandal and lust, it will be venial only; otherwise mortal; but no sin if from necessity."

The Church condemns vanity, wastefulness, carelessness, uncleanness as well as indecency in regard to clothing.¹⁸

¹⁸ Cfr. St. Jerome, Epist., LII, n. 9: "Adornment and squalor are to be avoided in equal measure, because the one savors of luxury and the other of vainglory." (Migne, P. L., XXII, 535).—St. Augustine, De Serm. Dom. in Monte, l. II, c. 12, n. 41: "It must especially be observed that ostentation can exist not only in the splendor and display of material things, but even in mournful squalor itself, and is the more dangerous insofar as it deceives under the name of service to God. Therefore, one who shines forth in immoderate care of body and clothing or in the splendor of other things is easily convicted by those very things of being a follower of the pomps of the world and deceives no one by a false appearance of holiness; but one who, in the profession of Christianity, directs men’s attentive eyes upon himself by unusual squalor and filth, when he does this voluntarily and does not suffer it from necessity, can be judged from his other works whether he does this from contempt of superfluous refinement or from some ambition." (P. L., XXXIV, 1287).— On wastefulness in the matter of dress and adornments, which is so conspicuous a fault of western nations, especially since the Industrial Revolution, Charles S. Devas (Political Economy, p. 154) says from the standpoint of the economist, that it is a source of "frequent ruin." The following remark of the author deserves reproduction also in a handbook of Moral Theology: "In many modern countries, by the disorganization of family life, notably by the absence of the housewife from home and by the want of training in household work, the proper care or repair of clothes has been neglected (as well as of the house-linen and household utensils): such neglect being no trifle; for since clothing will last twice as long if properly mended and cared for, the neglect of such care will compel a man, if he is to be clad as well as before, to spend on clothing nearly twice as much." The scarcity and high price of clothing consequent upon the Great War have checked this "depraved consumption" of clothing and household utensils, and it is to be hoped that the lesson will not soon be forgotten.

For women to employ the arts of the toilet (cultus muliebris) out of vanity is not a mortal sin, but to do so in order to tempt men is grievously sinful.¹⁹

¹⁹ Cfr. Prov. VII, 10; 1 Cor. VII, 34; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 169, art. 2; Ovid, Remed. Amor., 342 sq.

It should never be forgotten that the highest purpose for which clothes are worn is the preservation of modesty.^* The moralist has no right to inveigh against the vagaries of fashion unless they endanger modesty or health or unless people spend more money on clothes than they can reasonably afford.

^* Cfr. A. Vermeersch, S.J., De Castitate, Bruges, 1919, pp. 19 sq.

In some countries custom prescribes a definite attire for people according to profession, occupation, or social rank. Where such a custom exists, it should be respected. The clergy, in particular, have a prescribed dress (habitus clericalis), which is regulated partly by the general laws of the Church and partly by diocesan ordinances, which should be conscientiously observed.²⁰

²⁰ Conc. Trid., Sess. XIV, c. 6, de Ref.; Sess. XXIII, c. 6, de Ref.; Codex Iuris Can., can. 136; Chas. Augustine [Bachofen], O. S. B., Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. II, pp. 84 sq.; Irish Eccles. Record, 5th Series, Vol. XI (1918), No. 606, pp. 475 sqq.

Clement of Alexandria says that woman with her clothes puts off her modesty,²¹ but this sentiment, though quoted frequently in the writings of the Fathers,²² did not originate with Christian authors; it has been traced to Herodotus.²³

²¹ When women take off their clothes, together with their tunic they also take off their modesty.

²² See, for instance, St. Cyprian, De Habitu Virg., c. 19: "There all modesty is cast off; at the same time as the clothing is removed, the body's honor and decency are laid aside." (Corpus Script. Eccles. Lat. Vindobon., Vol. III, p. 201).

²³ Herodotus, Hist., I, 8. —Cfr. St. Jerome, Adv. Jovinian., l. I, n. 48: "Herodotus writes that a woman puts off her modesty along with her garment." (Migne, P. L., XXIII, 279).

3. HOUSING. —The dwellings in which men live have a powerful influence upon them, either for good or evil. Improper housing conditions injure the family and social life in general. a) A text-book of Moral Theology is not the place to discuss the intimate connection existing between housing conditions on the one hand and the death rate and public morality on the other. The moral degeneration of the poor, especially among industrial workers crowded together in our city slums, is largely owing to lack of decent and comfortable lodgings. The workingman who does not feel at his ease at home is often led to frequent saloons and other even more objectionable places that supply the physical comforts for which he craves. b) Of late years efforts have been made in practically all civilized countries to provide adequate dwellings for the laboring classes. These efforts deserve to be encouraged, but it would be still more praiseworthy if measures were taken to enable each individual laborer to acquire a home of his own. Leo XIII lays it down as one of the chief conditions of a satisfactory settlement of the labor question that the State induce as many as possible of the humbler class to become property owners.²⁴

²⁴ The Pope and the People, Select Letters and Addresses on Social Questions by Leo XIII, London, 1912, p. 208.

"The family that has a home, 'be it ever so humble/ " says a modern American writer, "has an interest in common, an aspiration for life and good citizenship, which those cannot have who pay some one else to provide a roof under which they may sleep and eat, and who pack up and move to another place on the slightest pretext.... Whatever conveniences the best apartment house may afford, it can never possess the spirit and sentiment that are associated with the old cottage in the Green Mountain village or even the little home in West Philadelphia, where every house looks like the next one. Stephen C. Foster's melodies and John Howard Payne's 'Home, Sweet Home' reach every heart where the English language is known. But who could get sentimental about Apartment 10, on the sixth floor of 408 West 130th Street?”²⁵

²⁵ R. O. Hughes, Community Civics, Boston, 1917, pp. 86 sqq.; F. X. Doyle, S.J., The Home World, N. Y., 1922.

The ideal is, says Devas, "that each family should be in the secure possession of a house neither unhealthy nor overcrowded, nor overcharged, and that adequate garden ground should surround it to enable the housewife and young children to find, with the plants, the animals, and the domestic industries, occupation and amusement at home." Every industrious workingman should be enabled to purchase a decent home at a moderate price on easy time payments. In the big industrial centres cheap lodging houses should be provided for working people of both sexes to discourage the lodging of unmarried persons in small homes, which is a prolific source of physical disease and moral corruption. Adequate provisions of this kind are all the more necessary as the steadily increasing migration from country to city makes housing conditions among the city poor more unsatisfactory from year to year. The physical and moral evils arising from urban congestion should be counteracted by adequate legal measures, such as the careful inspection of new buildings, strict enforcement of State and municipal ordinances, etc. Unsanitary and inadequate dwelling houses ought to be promptly condemned and the owners compelled either to make them fit for human habitation or devote them to some other purpose.²⁶

²⁶ Devas, Political Economy, p. 147. Literature: ID., Political Economy, pp. 146-152; New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, New York, 1908; Sykes, Public Health and Housing, London, 1901; G. Haw, No Room to Live, London, 1900; Jacob A. Riis, The Peril and Preservation of the Home, New York, 1903; James Cornes, Modern Housing in Town and Country, London, 1905; Dorothea Proud, Welfare Work, New York, 1916; J. E. Hutton, Welfare and Housing, London, 1918; Leslie Toke, The Housing Problem, London, 1916; Herbert Lucas, S.J., in The Month, London, 1918, Vol. CXXXII, No. 652, pp. 241 sqq.; J. Robertson, The Housing Question, London, 1919; E. E. Wood, The Housing of the Unskilled Wage-Earner, N. Y., 1919; C. Aronovici, Housing and the Housing Problem, Chicago, 1921.

To adorn one's home and furnish it with all the comforts and conveniences within one's means, is morally licit and socially desirable, provided, of course, the important truth is not lost sight of, that man has no lasting habitation here below, but must "seek one that is to come."

Surely if St. Bernard could return and see the luxury with which some people surround themselves, he would repeat his famous dictum: "Talia decent cives non exules." c) Besides providing suitable dwellings for the poor, the municipal governments should see to it that the streets are cleaned regularly and in a sanitary manner,²⁷ that there is an abundant supply of pure drinking water, and that the air is kept free from contaminating smoke, gas, and other deleterious substances. Refuse should be collected and disposed of regularly and promptly and so as not to endanger the health of the community. Trees, shrubs, and flowers along the streets and in open places, and ample breathing space in the form of public parks and playgrounds, not only beautify a town or city, but likewise make it more healthful and its inhabitants more contented.²⁸

²⁷ On street cleaning see R. O. Hughes, Community Civics, pp. 45 sqq. The author justly says: "When we see children playing in some of our streets—the only playgrounds some of them have, poor things!—we wonder not that disease is common among them, but how they keep well at all."

²⁸ Cfr. Hughes, op. cit., pp. 64 sqq., 99 sqq.

Railroads, street cars, and other public conveyances demand careful supervision on the part of the authorities, both as regards the sanitary condition of the cars, barns, etc., and the welfare of the employees.²⁹

²⁹ The trouble with many of our street car companies is that they are handicapped by past crookedness of management. "A very serious and common evil has been the issuing of 'watered' stock —that is, stock that does not represent actual money invested in the business. When a company tries to pay interest on a great deal of watered stock and keep its service up to date in addition, the task is not easy" (Hughes, I.e., pp. 60 sq.), and, we may add, the employees are often made to suffer. —On the moral aspects of "stockwatering" see Thos. Slater, S.J., Questions of Moral Theology, New York, 1915, pp. 159 sqq.

Industrial hygiene offers another vast field for communal supervision, to which we can refer only in a general way. The health of factory workers should be safeguarded in every possible manner, —the shops and workrooms should be properly aired, lighted, and heated, all dangerous machinery equipped with mechanical guards, the production of health-destroying articles, such as white phosphor matches, prohibited, and so forth.

Among the means that have been suggested, and to some extent applied, for the solution of the housing problem is the so-called garden city plan, which aims at organizing industrial communities in the suburbs or country, where, with many of the advantages of the city, healthful and more or less model factories and other forms of business may be conducted, and where the workers can occupy inexpensive but attractive, hygienic and comfortable homes, each with its little garden, and all surrounded, if possible, by a belt of agriculture, so as to combine as many as possible of the advantages of the city with those of the country.³⁰

³⁰ Bliss, New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, pp. 532 sq.; Wm. Webb, Garden First in Land Development, London, 1919.

Other suggested means of housing improvement are the various schemes of taxation reform, especially the so-called Single Tax, to be levied on the value of land irrespective of improvements, and a heavy tax on all unearned increments on the value of building sites. These two schemes must not be confounded. While the Single Tax is unfair and impracticable,³¹ the unearned increment tax has many arguments in its favor and is being widely tested at present.³²

³¹ See Arthur Preuss, The Fundamental Fallacy of Socialism, St. Louis, 1908 (contains an account of the famous McGlynn case); the New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, pp. 1114-19; C. B. Fillebrown, The Principles of Natural Taxation, Chicago, 1917; Young, The Single Tax Movement in the United States, Princeton, 1916; J. A. Ryan, Distributive Justice, New York, 1916, pp. 117 sqq.

³² Dr. Michael Cronin thus explains the rationale of the unearned increment tax (Science of Ethics, Vol. II, Dublin, 1917, pp. 290 sq.): "It is evident that unearned increments on land are not to be regarded as unlawful in any way. They are increments in value due to increased demand, and they are just as lawful as increases in the value of any other commodities due to increased demand. What is wrong about them is that they are so often excessive.... There is a just price which ought not to be exceeded by the seller, and this price, even after increment occurs, always bears some proportion to the original value of the article. On the other hand, in the case of building sites, the price demanded is often a hundred times greater than the original value, and often no limit in the price demanded is observed except the limits imposed by the necessities of the buyers. This is altogether unreasonable and wrong. Though, therefore, what is spoken of as unearned increment in land is not unlawful, still in dealing with, and imposing taxes on, increments in the values of building sites, government ought to be given a very free hand. For, first, a good deal of money would thus accrue to the community; and, secondly, such a tax, particularly if it is made progressive, would help to prevent the extortions which at present are only too common in cities, extortions which go very far to prevent the erection of useful and necessary buildings of various kinds, and, as common sense will show us, the burden of which has in the long run to be borne for the most part by the poorer classes, in the increased rents they have to pay, increased food prices, and their diminished weekly wage." —An instructive discussion of the unearned increment tax by a Catholic author is found in Distributive Justice, by the Rev. John A. Ryan, D.D., Professor of Political Science at the Catholic University of America, who is both an economist and a moralist (New York, 1916, pp. 102-117). Dr. Ryan says that "the morality of this proceeding must be determined by the same criterion that is applied to every other method or rule of distribution; namely, social and individual consequences. No principle, title, or practice of ownership," he holds, "nor any canon of taxation, has intrinsic or metaphysical value. All are to be evaluated with reference to human welfare. Since the right of property is not an end in itself, but only a means of human welfare, its just prerogatives and limitations are determined by their conduciveness to the welfare of human beings. By human welfare is meant not merely the good of society as a whole, but the good of all individuals and classes of individuals. For society is made up of individuals, all of whom are of equal worth and importance, and have equal claims to consideration in the matter of livelihood, material goods, and property. In general, then, any method of distribution, any modification of property rights, any form of taxation is morally lawful which promotes the interests of the whole community, without causing undue inconvenience to any individual."

4. RECREATION. —Another means of keeping the body healthy and strong is recreation. a) Rest and recreation answer to a natural demand, the gratification of which cannot per se be illicit.³³ "lucundi acti labores," says an ancient proverb, which we may render by, "It is pleasant to rest after work." Both body and mind at regular intervals need rest and recreation, which must, of course, be taken in accordance with the laws of reason and revelation. As bodily rest can be lifted into a higher sphere and made supernaturally meritorious by prayer, so, too, mental recreation can be supernaturalized by a good motive, moderation, proper regard for vocation, time, place, charity, modesty, and morality.³⁴

³³ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 168, art. 2; Horace, Carmina, II, 10, 17; Ovid, Ex Ponto, I, 4, 21 sq.

³⁴ Eccles. III, 1, 4; Phil. IV, 4; St. Ambrose, De Officiis, l. I, c. 20, n. 85.

A good Christian will gladly sacrifice pleasure and amusement for the sake of higher blessings. b) Most men obtain the rest and relaxation they require by social intercourse with their fellowmen. The means of sociability or entertainment are innumerable. Some of them are predominantly material in character, e. g., banquets, games, sports, excursions, dances, balls, gymnastic exercises, etc.; whereas others are mainly spiritual, as, e. g., the enjoyment of beautiful scenery or works of art, travelling, music, shows, etc. All amusements have an ethical bearing. Enjoyed at the proper time and in moderation, they are licit, but they become illicit if sought or indulged in inordinately, especially if they endanger morality, injure health or are sought entirely for their own sake. Inordinate fondness for amusement is contrary to the spirit of Christian mortification and injurious both to the temporal and the eternal welfare of man.

Needless to say, not all kinds of entertainment are suitable for all. Thus ecclesiastical custom and the canon law limit the amusements permitted to clerics so as to safeguard their honor and virtue, for, as the Council of Trent says, "Not all things are equally suitable for everyone." ³⁵

³⁵ Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, De Ref., c. 1; cfr. St. Propertius, Elegia, IV, 9, 7. —Canon 138 of the New Code commands clerics to abstain from all things which are unbecoming to their state. It then proceeds to mention in detail what these things are: "They should not engage in unbecoming trades or occupations; they should not take part in games of chance when played for money; they should not carry arms unless there is just cause for fear; they should not indulge in hunting, and in that form of it which is called clamorosa, they should never engage; they should not enter public houses and other similar places without necessity or some other just cause approved by the Ordinary of the place." The occupations which are prohibited as unbecoming the clerical state are those which are commonly regarded as mean or sordid or which cannot be engaged in without serious danger of sin. In this connection canonists usually state that clerics are forbidden to be clowns, jesters, or actors in public theaters or in unbecoming plays. These are merely examples. The prohibition in regard to games of chance embraces only such as are entirely dependent on chance, e.g., dicing (cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., III, n. 900). Canonists and theologians are, however, agreed that clerics are not guilty of a grave sin in this matter unless they play very frequently (cfr. Sabetti-Barrett, Comp. Theol. Mor., n. 587 sqq.). As to card-playing, Dr. J. Kinane says in a commentary on can. 138 in the Irish Eccles. Record, Vol. XI, No. 6, p. 478: "Games which are dependent entirely or almost entirely on skill, and those which are dependent partly on skill and partly on chance, do not come within the scope of this prohibition. Most games of cards belong to this latter category, and, consequently, are not directly forbidden. It is hardly necessary to point out, however, that card-playing on the part of clerics may sometimes result indirectly in a serious violation of the natural law itself, if it leads them to neglect their duties, or gives scandal to others, or produces some other evil effect of that kind. Local legislation, too, may sometimes prohibit it directly." The regulation in regard to the carrying of arms must also be interpreted in the light of the old legislation on this matter, which was regarded by canonists as prohibiting only military arms intended for use against man. (Palmieri, Opus Theol. Mor., IV, p. 335: "Arma scilicet militaria quae publice more laicorum gerantur."). Regarding hunting, the quiet form of it (venatio quieta) is sinful for clerics only in so far as time is wasted, duties neglected, or scandal given in the indulgence of it. (Cfr. J. Kinane, l. c., p. 479, and Chas. Augustine, O. S. B., Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Vol. II, pp. 86 sqq.)

Children will play, and it belongs first of all to the parents, local group, neighborhood or parish, and secondarily to the community or State, to see that their playing is directed properly and that facilities are afforded for it. The Church, too, has a mission in this matter. She cannot be content with merely giving instruction, but must aim at the development of character. Character comes through self-expressive activity, and it is mainly in play that the child expresses his personality and his strongest interests. "The task of the teacher in either sphere [mental and moral as well as physical]," says a recent American writer, "is that of so controlling and modifying the environment of the child as to call forth those reactions that are likely to form the desired habits of thought and conduct. In this training the reactions that are of greatest value are those that are most genuinely and completely self-expressive and, with children and youth at least, these are most readily discovered in the play life. Here we touch the springs of interest, and we may utilize that interest as a powerful factor in the accomplishment of our purpose. Play furnishes the teacher or parent the most immediate point of contact with child life.”³⁶ These and many other considerations, into which we cannot enter here, show the possibilities of wisely directed play as an influence in Christian training. As the same writer justly says, "the responsibility for providing adequate and proper play for the children and youth of any community is a moral duty that cannot be lightly evaded, and the Church must take at least an intelligent interest therein." ³⁷ Both body and mind from time to time require recreation, in order that they may not be overtaxed and thereby lose their efficiency. Bodily recreation has a wholesome influence on the mind as well. Practically every mental exertion involves a strain on the body because the mind works through the bodily organs, and therefore recreation eases both body and mind, and produces pleasure, joy, and comfort. No man can exist without some sort of sensible pleasure, and the contention of the Stoics that pleasure is unworthy of human nature must be rejected as radically false. While it is true that recreation or pleasure may become sinful by inordinate indulgence, it is equally true that complete abstention from all pleasure is apt to make men dull and morose and a burden to one another.

³⁶ H. W. Gates, Recreation and the Church, Chicago, 1917, p. 11; cfr. H. S. Curtis, Education through Play, New York, 1915; Jos. Lee, Play in Education, New York, 1915.

³⁷ Gates, op. cit., p. 20. —Mr. Gates shows how certain churches have interested themselves with good results in the matter of providing play facilities for children and youth. See also Hy. A. Atkinson, The Church and the People's Play, Pilgrim Press, 1915.

Social intercourse is a postulate of reason and a demand of nature, and if properly regulated, has a high ethical value. In itself social intercourse has its advantages as well as disadvantages, just like solitude, which, if observed according to the rules of ascetic theology, may be termed “the garden of the interior life.”³⁸

³⁸ Cfr. Mich. VII, 6; Eccles. IV, 10, 12; Prov. XVIII, 24; XXVII, 17; Matt. X, 36; Luke IV, 42; V, 16; IX, 18.—St. Bernard, Serm. in Cant., LXIV, n. 4: "How many who were fervent in spirit has the solitude of the desert received from monasteries and either vomited out after they had grown lukewarm, or kept in violation of the law of the desert—not merely remiss, but even dissolute! Thus it appeared that the little fox had been present where so great a devastation of the vineyard had occurred, that is, injury to the man’s life and conscience. He thought that if he lived alone he would perceive far more abundant fruits of the spirit, since he had experienced so much spiritual grace in common life. His thought seemed good to him, but the outcome showed that this very thought had rather been for him the fox that destroyed the vineyard." (Migne, P. L., CLXXXIII, 1085).—Thomas a Kempis, Lib. Spirit. Exercitii, c. 4 (ed. Pohl, II, 336): "Solitude is the mother of devotion, but a crowd disturbs. Christ, who could not be hindered by a crowd, withdrew from the crowd. A solitary life is pleasing to God and the angels, always a friend of peace."

An important place among social pleasures belongs to those of the table. Significantly enough Jesus Christ represents the joys of Heaven under the figure of a banquet.³⁹ In the parable of the prodigal son He expressly mentions the meal which the father prepared in honor of his son's return.⁴⁰ He often accepts invitations to dinner, ⁴¹ takes part with His Blessed Mother in the wedding feast of Cana,⁴² and institutes a banquet of love to serve as a memorial of His passion.⁴³ In the agape the Church recognized the ethical value of the common meal.⁴⁴ To partake of food in the company of others is therefore a morally good act, which becomes illicit only by abuse. Luxurious feasting leads to sins against temperance and purity.⁴⁵

³⁹ Matt. VIII, 11; Luke XIV, 15 sqq.

⁴⁰ Luke XV, 23.

⁴¹ Luke VII, 36 sqq.

⁴² John II, 1 sqq.

⁴³ 1 Cor. XI, 23 sqq.

⁴⁴ 1 Cor. XI, 20-34; cfr. F. X. Funk, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. III, Paderborn, 1907, pp. 1 sqq.; H. Leclercq in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. I, pp. 200 sqq.; Keating, The Agape and the Eucharist in the Early Church, London, 1901; P. Batiffol, Etudes d'Histoire et de Theologie Positive, Paris, 1902, pp. 277-311.

⁴⁵ 1 Cor. X, 5-8; cfr. St. Jerome, Epist., LIV (al. X), n. 10: "Nothing so inflames bodies and excites the genital members as undigested food and convulsive belching." (Migne, P. L., XXII, 555). Thomas a Kempis, De Imit. Christi, l. I, c. 19 (ed. Pohl, II, 34): "Bridle your appetite, and you will more easily bridle every inclination of the flesh."

Games and plays may be divided into two classes: those which require skill and talent, and those in which chance plays the leading part. To the former class belong chess, billiards, and tenpins; to the latter, dice and cards. In themselves both species of games are morally licit, even though played for money; for in many cases it is only by playing for stakes that sufficient interest can be maintained. But when playing degenerates into gambling, and is carried on purely for the sake of gain, it involves moral danger.

That gambling may not be illicit, theologians commonly require four conditions, which Father Slater states as follows: (1) What is staked must belong to the gambler and must be at his free disposal; (2) the gambler must act freely without unjust compulsion; (3) there must be no fraud in the transaction, although the usual ruses may be allowed; and, finally (4), there must be some sort of equality between the parties to make the contract equitable. If any of these conditions be wanting, gambling becomes more or less wrong. Besides, there is in all gambling an element of danger which is sufficient to account for the bad name it has acquired. In most people gambling arouses keen excitement and quickly develops into a passion which is difficult to control. If indulged to excess it leads to loss of time and usually of money, to an idle and useless life spent in bad company and unwholesome surroundings, and to scandal, which is an occasion of sin and a source of ruin to others.⁴⁶

⁴⁶ Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, p. 375.—Cfr. Conc. Trid., Sess. XXII, de Ref., c. 1; Sess. XXIV, de Ref., c. 12; St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 168, art. 1-4; Funk, op. cit. (see note 44), Vol. II, pp. 209 sqq.

Dancing holds in social life a place that cannot be ignored. It appeals strongly to the desire to express in rhythmical motion the exuberant spirit and vitality of youth, and gratifies the craving for society and companionship. If indulged for the sake of recreation and social fellowship, it is, in the words of St. Francis de Sales, morally indifferent, i. e., neither good nor bad in itself; but as now commonly practiced, it tends to evil and entails many dangers. The best dances are not above suspicion, and therefore dancing should be indulged but rarely and for a short time. Though the danger involved is often great,⁴⁷ it would nevertheless be wrong to condemn dancing absolutely. This form of amusement may be tolerated under the following conditions: (a) All sinful intention must be excluded, and the participants must be earnestly resolved to render the danger of sin remote, and have a certainty, based upon experience, that they will be able to avoid sin; (b) Young people attending a dance or ball should be accompanied by their parents or other reliable chaperons, and avoid being alone with persons of the other sex; (c) They should dress modestly, and (d) The dances must not be indecent or objectionable in themselves.⁴⁸

⁴⁷ Cfr. Eccles. IX, 4. —St. Augustine, In Ps.t XXXII, s. i, n. 6: "Observe the Sabbath day, not carnally, not with the delights of the Jews, who abuse leisure for wickedness. It would surely be better for them to dig all day than to dance all day." (Migne, P. L., XXXVI, 281).—IDEM, ibid., XCI, n. 2: "For it is better to plow [on the Sabbath day] than to dance." (P. L., XXXVII, 1172).—IDEM, Serm., IX, n. 3: "Not as the Jews observed the Sabbath with carnal idleness; for they wish to be at leisure for their trifles and luxuries. A Jew would do better to perform some useful work in his field than to be riotous in the theater; and their women would do better to work wool on the Sabbath day than to dance immodestly all day on their balconies." (P. L., XXXVIII, 77).— Cfr. IDEM, Tr. in Ioan., III, n. 19 (P. L., XXXV, 1404).

⁴⁸ A. Lehmkuhl, S. J., Casus Conscientiae, Vol. I, 3rd ed., n. 411–414; C. L. Souvay, C.M., in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 618 sq.; C. J. Sharp and A. P. Oppe, The Dance: A Historical Survey of Dancing in Europe, London, 1924.

Systematic bodily exercise not only benefits health, but also occupies the mind in a useful manner, and hence the various forms of wholesome sport, e. g., walking, riding, swimming, hunting, fencing, boxing, sleighing, skating, etc., are in themselves morally licit and often exert a wholesome influence upon the mind. They become reprehensible only when they exceed the right measure or are made the object of sinful desire or the occasion of sensual excitement, effeminacy, or dissoluteness, or are indulged in to the detriment of vocational duties or of health. A sportsman who is not satisfied with amusing himself and benefitting his health, but wishes to triumph and be admired at any price, may easily fall into sin.⁴⁹

⁴⁹ Cfr. H. W. Gates, Recreation and the Church, p. 51.

As regards football and other more arduous athletic sports, such as hockey, "track events," etc., their liceity must, of course, be gauged in each instance by the general principles of the moral code. In its early development in England football, for one, seems to have been decidedly brutal, if we can trust its characterization by a British writer of that day, Sir Thomas Elyot (1531), to wit, that it was "nothing but beastely fury and extreme violence, whereof proceedeth hurte and consequently rancor and malice to remayne with thym that be wounded, wherefore it is to be put in perpetual silence."⁵⁰ As to the present-day much improved status of this and other athletic sports, their all but universal adoption by reputable Catholic institutions everywhere would seem to relieve the individual devotee of athletics of fruitless scruples. Not so simple a matter, however, is the problem of the relation of athletics to morality as it confronts the authorities of educational institutions who have to decide upon a policy for all their subjects. A careful reading of the paper on "The Ethical Influence of College Athletics," by the Rev. Charles Macksey, S. J., in the Report of the Catholic Educational Association for 1906⁵¹ and the articles of Dr. James J. Walsh in America ⁵² will no doubt prove instructive.

⁵⁰ Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed., Vol. X, p. 617, s. v. "Football." Fifty years later, another writer, Stubbes, in his Anatomie of Abuses (1583) even claims that "brawling, murther, homicide, and great effusion of blood" are not unusual experiences as a result of the game. (Encyc. Brit., ibid.).

⁵¹ Columbus, O., pp. 101 sqq.

⁵² "Athletics and Character," America, Vol. XIII, No. 8, p. 195: "Athletics and Health," ibid., No. 7, p. 169; "Athletics in our Schools," ibid., No. 6, p. 142; "Athletics and Scholarship," ibid., No. 10, p. 245; "Why Have Competitive Athletics?" ibid., No. 12, p. 293. —Against Walsh, R. E. Shortall, "Competitive Athletics," ibid., Vol. XIII, No. 24, p. 586. —On athletics in general, W. Camp, Athletes All: Training, Organisation, and Play, N. Y., 1919.

The early Christians condemned and avoided the dissolute diversions of their pagan contemporaries and followed the advice of the Apostle, "Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice." ⁵³ This did not, however, prevent them from indulging in suitable recreations. Clement of Alexandria admonishes his hearers to hunt or fish, to play ball, and to try their hand at boxing, and adds: "To exert one's strength in the right way and for the benefit of one's health, is commendable and manly." ⁵⁴ The late Pope Pius X repeatedly admonished the young people of Rome to engage in gymnastic exercises, which, if carried on with moderation, he said, "promote not only the health of the body, but likewise the welfare of the soul.”⁵⁵

⁵³ Phil. IV, 4.

⁵⁴ Paedag., III, 16; cfr. K. Ernesti, Die Ethik des Klemens von Alexandrien, pp. 110 sqq.

⁵⁵ Athletics, may be made a means of self-discipline and progress in virtue. "I knew one young man in college who used to pray regularly and earnestly for grace to control his temper when playing football, and who definitely recognized success in this respect as a victory in his own struggle for Christian living." (H. W. Gates, Recreation and the Church, Chicago, 1917, p. 19).

Besides the pleasures of the body there are intellectual and aesthetic pleasures which tend to refresh the entire human organism and inspire the mind with noble thoughts and impulses. "If thy heart were right," says Thomas a Kempis, "then every creature would be to thee a mirror of life and a book of holy doctrine. There is no creature so little and contemptible as not to manifest the goodness of God." ⁵⁶ The public library is not only a great educational factor, but an important element in the recreational life of a community. Some of these institutions not only furnish abundant supplies of juvenile literature, but pay special attention to the wants of children by conducting "story hours" and other recreational features. Catholics should watch these features in order to prevent irreligious or immoral reading matter from getting into the hands of children and see to it that the public library authorities do not ignore Catholic literature or treat its productions in niggardly fashion. Good Catholic books, especially such reference works as the "Catholic Encyclopedia," ought to be placed on the shelves of every public library, and after putting them there, the organizations which have discharged this duty (local K. of C. councils, etc.) should duly advertise the fact and take care that the books are taken out and read. Many a librarian has started in with a will to do justice to Catholic literature, but lost his zeal when he observed that Catholic books gathered dust upon the shelves.⁵⁷

⁵⁶ De Imit. Christi, l. II, c. 4 (ed. Pohl, II, 66): "If your heart were right, then every creature would be a mirror of life and a book of holy doctrine. There is no creature so small and lowly that it does not represent the goodness of God."

⁵⁷ Cfr. Recreation and the Church, Chicago, 1917, pp. 46 sqq.; "One Aspect of Our Public Libraries" in "Your Neighbor and You," by the Rev. Edw. F. Garesche, S. J., 2nd ed., New York, 1919, pp. 200–210.

Modern art, unfortunately, overemphasizes the sensual element; but the moralist cannot content himself with warning against its extravagances, because, next to religion, art is undoubtedly the most effective means of influencing people for good. "Both religion and art," says Hettinger, "have come forth from God, the highest ideal; and although their field is different, both must necessarily lead back to God if the religion is true and if art has not departed from its ideal. As all else that serves the truth serves God, art also must serve Him in representing beauty; for beauty comes from God and leads back to Him." ⁵⁸ Those who extol "art for art's sake" would confine its practice and enjoyment to a select group of intellectuals. This is not the Catholic idea. From the beginning of Christianity, art was employed for the edification of the common people, and the most eminent philosophers, ancient and modern, have declared it to be an important factor in the service of morality. It is, therefore, false to say that art has no object beyond itself. Morality, whilst not the goal of art, should be its standard and loadstar. The artist need not preach goodness, but neither should he attack it. His highest endeavor should be to use his talents for the honor of God and the edification of his fellowmen.

⁵⁸ Hettinger-Stepka, Timothy, p. 203, St. Louis, 1902; cfr. J. Maritain, The Philosophy of Art, tr. by J. O'Connor, Sussex, 1924.

Modern aestheticians maintain that the representation of the nude is the highest ideal and triumph of art. This contention is opposed to the Christian view. The Church has never regarded the naked body in itself as unchaste, but she has always insisted on the great dangers involved in its representation, and consistently disapproved of the freedom and promiscuity with which nude sculptures and paintings are publicly exhibited.⁵⁹ The real lover of art will derive from its true ideals ever fresh impulses for the battle against pseudo-art. His slogan will be: Away with filth and obscenity, but all honor to the productions of genuine art! Msgr. Hettinger, while rather austere in his attitude, is no doubt right in saying that the nude statues of antiquity belong to the time of the decline of art, and that the decline of morality was its companion. The more carnal man is, the more carnal his art.⁶⁰

⁵⁹ "It is readily conceded that the human body is honorable and beautiful in itself, but that it is nevertheless capable of exciting sexual feeling in others." (Noldin, De Sexto Praecepto, 11th ed., Innsbruck, 1913, p. 62.) —Cfr. D. A. Sertillanges, Kunst und Moral, Strasbourg, 1905, pp. 9 sq., 59 sq.; see also J. Jungmann, S. J., Aesthetik, 3rd ed., Freiburg 1886.

⁶⁰ Hettinger-Stepka, Timothy, p. 227; on "the ethics of art" see W. S. Lilly, Right and Wrong, 3rd ed., London, 1892, Ch. X.

A popular way of taking a vacation is to go traveling. Pleasure trips taken for recreation or with a view to broadening one's education or gathering knowledge, are morally licit, and have this special advantage that they often cause people to appreciate their home better.

The theatre has been a bone of contention from the earliest times. The Church justly condemned the idolatrous and lascivious stage performances common in the first centuries of her history as "pompa diaboli." The Quakers and the Jansenists regarded the theatre as immoral because of its essential untruth. It is "a counterfeit of life," they said. Others, on the contrary, extolled the stage as a school of morality and an educational agency of the highest importance fit to supplant church and pulpit. Both views are extreme. The theatre can be no substitute for religion because its primary purpose is entertainment, though secondarily, of course, it may be turned into an educational and civilizing agency. Morality and miracle plays flourished in the Middle Ages. To-day, unfortunately, the stage, in all its forms, has sunk to an intellectual and moral level not far above that of pagan antiquity, and therefore cannot be approved unreservedly. Innocent plays may be recommended for the sake of lawful pleasure or recreation. But, as Noldin notes, "present-day theatrical representations are of such a nature that they nearly always constitute a more or less proximate occasion of sin, both against purity and against the faith." If the occasion of sin is merely remote, one may witness such plays for a reasonable cause; but if it is proximate, attendance at them is forbidden under pain of mortal sin, except for a very grave cause and with due safeguards. A sufficient cause for attending an objectionable play, according to the same eminent author, would be indignation on the part of a husband or parent in case of refusal to attend, but not a mere command or loss of the money paid for admission, nor (at least ordinarily) the good purpose for which the proceeds of the performance are destined, because to contribute to a good cause one need not attend an immoral performance; besides, the good end cannot justify the illicit means.⁶¹

⁶¹ On the attitude of the primitive Church see St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, passim; K. J. Hefele, Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I, pp. 28 sqq.; P. Wolf, Die Stellung der Christen zu den Schauspielen nach Tertullians Schrift De Spectaculis, Vienna, 1897.—On the later attitude of Catholic theologians, St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 168, art. 3, ad 3; A. v. Berger, Ueber Drama und Theater, 3rd ed., Leipsic, 1900; J. T. Smith, The Catholic Theatre, New York, 1917. —On the Catholic origin of the modern theatre, cfr. M. Sepet, Origines Catholiques du Theatre Moderne, Paris, 1901; E. Michael, S.J., Geschichte des deutschen Volkes im Mittelalter, Vol. IV, Freiburg, 1906, pp. 400 sqq.; G. Crosse, The Religious Drama, London, 1913; Brother Azarias, Philosophy of Literature, N. Y., 1890, pp. 108 sqq.; Card. Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation; P. Kirwan, The Dawn of the English Drama, London, 1920. — Noldin's teaching in his Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, 11th ed., Innsbruck, 1914, pp. 512 sqq.; Cfr. Gury, Compend. Theol. Mor., Lyons and Paris, 1850, Vol. I, n. 233.

Needless to add, actors, and a fortiori managers, who produce obscene plays or such as notably excite the passions or offend against religion, give scandal and are guilty of grievous sin.

The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages fostered and encouraged the drama. Even Luther favored theatrical entertainments in the schools. But the Calvinists, the Puritans, and other strait-laced Protestant sects condemned the stage, as did the Jansenists. The abuses and dangers connected with the theatre caused many Catholics to adopt the same unreasonable attitude.⁶² The attacks of writers like Juan Mariana and Bossuet were one-sided and extreme. As Father Baumgartner has pointed out, the Catholic courts of Europe in the sixteenth century and later continued to foster the drama, and the Jesuits produced many plays in their schools and colleges. The same eminent writer adds: "In view of the present condition of the stage, theatregoing cannot be generally and unreservedly recommended; yet it would be far more advisable and more fruitful to restore the theatre to its rightful purpose by diligent cooperation, than to take a merely hostile attitude, and by a policy of abstinence to prevent some of the most flagrant abuses of dramatic art, while leaving the theatre itself in the control of our adversaries." ⁶³ In connection with the theatre it behooves us to say a few words about its even more widely spread and more thoroughly commercialized step-daughter, the motion-picture show. The fact that three-fourths of our school children attend the "movies" —at least half of that number as often as once a week —and that statistics from several cities show the average weekly attendance to be equivalent to, or more than, the entire population of the respective city, gives some indication of the magnitude of the problem. Mr. Ellis P. Oberholtzer, the secretary of the Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, estimates that the number of moving picture houses throughout the United States is at least 15,000 and states that most of the films shown in these theatres are highly objectionable and becoming more so from year to year. Seventy-five per cent, of all the pictures shown, according to the same competent authority, are devoted to violence and crime and twenty per cent, to vulgar comedy. Accordingly but five per cent, of the films manufactured and put on exhibition are good, yet all of them are being viewed every day by hundreds of thousands of people, including many children."⁶⁴ In view of the evil thus caused many careful and conscientious students of the problem have come to the conclusion that a remedy must be found and that "there is no effective remedy to exclude the evils from the motion picture business except impartial pre-publicity inspection, and this means legal censorship." ⁶⁵ The U. S. Supreme Court in the case of the Mutual Film Corporation vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio ⁶⁶ has declared that such a censorship is neither unreasonable nor a mere wanton interference with personal liberty. The self-constituted National Board of Censorship (now called National Board of Review) was created by, and is a tool in the hands of, the film manufacturers. A number of cities in the United States now have local censorship of moving pictures, the most notable being Chicago, where the censorship has worked effectively in spite of many difficulties.⁶⁷ State Censorship laws are in operation in Ohio, Kansas, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. In no city or State where the legal censorship of motion pictures has been tried has it been abandoned, and the number of cities and States exercising such control is constantly growing.⁶⁸ Whether legal censorship is the only, or the most effective, means of counteracting the evils incident to the moving picture business is a question we can not undertake to decide. No doubt censorship has its drawbacks and, as even such an ardent advocate of it as Mr. Oberholtzer admits, it does not reach all objectionable films. But it eliminates what is absolutely indecent and directly suggestive of the immoral, and that is pure gain. Next to an official censorship with power to enforce its decrees and proper legal safeguards against abuses of that power, the best protection against the universal "cinema peril" is a strong public opinion ready to resent every infringement of morality or good taste. To this end it is recommended that the clergy and prominent citizens should frequent the "movies" as a matter of duty and give a lead in denouncing whatever may be wrong.⁶⁹

⁶² How this attitude has gradually changed can be seen, e. g., from the writings of Father John Talbot Smith. We will also quote a characteristic passage from Herbert Wright Gates's Recreation and the Church, Chicago, 1917, pp. 67 sq.: "In almost any of the arguments against the theater, written twenty-five years or so ago, one finds the statement that clean and respectable plays cannot be made profitable, therefore stage managers will not present them. The same argument is occasionally used today as an excuse by managers who prefer to present the unwholesome type. Granted that the argument was true twenty-five years ago; who was to blame? Was it alone the people who patronized the immoral play, or the manager who presented it, or may not some share be justly borne by those who, through indiscriminate condemnation of the theatre as a whole and through their refusal to support the better type of plays, helped to make the statement true? But what is the condition of affairs to-day? By degrees we have come to see that the stage may not be all bad, and Christian people and cultivated men and women are lending their support to its elevation. As a result the person who says that the good play cannot be made financially successful is either indulging in a deliberate falsehood or is ignorant of the facts. The truth is that the plays which meet with the largest and most enduring success are those that have genuine merit, and many of them are of very high educational and moral value." And he concludes with the pertinent question: "What would be the further result if all those who have the culture essential to good taste and the character requisite to courageous action were actively to demand and support the best and resolutely refuse to tolerate the shady and suggestive performance?" Here is where good people often commit a grievous sin of omission.

⁶³ Alex. Baumgartner, S.J., in the Staatslexikon, 2nd ed., Vol. V, pp. 680 sq.

⁶⁴ Cfr. the Catholic Fortnightly Review, St. Louis, Mo., Vol. XXV (1918), No. 12, p. 177.

⁶⁵ Edward V. P. Schneiderhahn, Motion Pictures: Influence, Benefit, Evils, Censorship, St. Louis, 1917, pp. 1 sq.

⁶⁶ 236 U. S. 230; reproduced by Schneiderhahn, op. cit., pp. 58 sqq.

⁶⁷ Cfr. Fortnightly Review, St. Louis, XXV, 14, p. 209.

⁶⁸ Cfr. Schneiderhahn, Motion Pictures, p. 40.

⁶⁹ Besides Schneiderhahn's pamphlet, already quoted (see note 65), and the reports and lists of films censored by the National Board of Review, and those of the various State boards, especially that of Pennsylvania, the student may consult E. P. Oberholtzer, The Morals of the Movies, Phila., 1922; O. G. Cocks, "Applying Standards to Motion-Picture Films," Survey, Vol. XXXII (1914), pp. 337 sqq.; J. Collier, "Censorship in Action," ibid. Vol. XXXIV (1915), pp. 423 sqq.; Dorothy Hurlbert, "Moving Pictures," Library Notes and News, published by the Minnesota Public Library Commission, Vol. IV (Dec., 1914), pp. 132 sqq.; F. R. Willard, "The Motion-Picture and the Child," Education, Vol. XXXV (Feb., 1915), pp. 350 sqq.; "The 'Movie' Problem" Fortnightly Review, St. Louis, 1919, Vol. XXVI, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, 11 sqq. —On "The Cinema Peril" in Great Britain and Ireland see the paper by John Ryan in Studies, Dublin, Vol. VII (1918), pp. 112 sqq. Mr. Ryan inter alia adverts (pp. 116 sq.) to the view of that considerable body of men and women (mostly non-Catholics) who hold that films depicting plots that hinge mainly on sins against the Sixth Commandment and upon matters to which decent men would not venture to allude in the presence of ladies, are quite permissible for grown-up people and that it is only necessary to exclude children when they are shown. "This," he says, "is not the Catholic view, nor is it the view of High-Church Anglicans, nor is it the view of the bulk of evangelical Christians that sin can be depicted for the delectation of even grown-up people. Religious-minded folk of all denominations are aware that men and women have but a brief lease of life, and that lease given them for the elevation of their minds and souls. This is the idea underlying Herrick's beautiful lyric to Daffodils: Stay, stay Until the hasting day Has run But to the even-song; And, having prayed together, we Will go with you along. We have short time to stay, as you; We have as short a spring; As quick a growth to meet decay As you or any thing. You cannot touch pitch without being defiled, and if you dally with sin, you will not remain untainted. ... Life is full of ghastly spectacles, of sad sights and painful remembrances. Why should the picture house add to them? Every high-minded man strives after higher things, for human life is but a film rushing through the cinematograph of time. It is each man's business to see that this film of his will stand examination by the Censor at the last public enquiry. "Who shall ascend into the mountain of the Lord, or who shall stand in His holy place? He who is innocent in hands and clean of heart!" On a recent Catholic attempt at self-help in the matter of the "movie" problem see Anthony Matré in the Fortnightly Review, St. Louis, Mo., Vol. XXVI, No. 13, p. 199.

A word about public dance halls may not be amiss here. Reports from various American cities (as summarized by Mr. Gates)⁷⁰ show a wide range of conditions. In most places the dance halls are now under a fair degree of supervision, but almost every city has some where moral conditions are bad and certain to work harm. In judging of the moral character of a dance hall the important questions to be asked are these: What is the general character of the place? Is it connected with a bar-room, or is liquor sold on the premises? If not, are pass-out checks given, and are these used for the purpose of visiting nearby bar-rooms, as is usually the case? What is the character of the attendance? Do girls and young women come alone and do they leave alone? Are parents or chaperons present? Is there police supervision, and if so, of what character? Is there evidence of dancing without introduction or acquaintance? Are there any evidences of drinking or intoxication? What is the conduct of the dancers as to boisterousness, close holding, immodest attitudes and actions? What hours are observed? ⁷¹

⁷⁰ Op. cit., see note 53.

⁷¹ A subtle influence that must not be overlooked is exercised by long hours of dancing in a close, overheated atmosphere. This means fatigue, and fatigue means weakened powers of self-control. (H. W. Gates, Recreation and the Church, p. 48).

Public playgrounds, of adequate size and properly equipped,⁷² are a factor for good, but adequate supervision is necessary if the facilities provided are to serve their full purpose and abuses are to be prevented. "The Church will often find one of its most fruitful fields of service in the task of educating public opinion to the point at which it will duly appreciate the value of recreational work for its children, and not only justify but demand the expenditure of adequate funds for public playgrounds and their proper equipment." ⁷³ As the individual and the family require their hours of recreation and pleasure, so the people as a whole demand community festivals and entertainments. Here, too, nature and reason draw certain lines which must not be overstepped, either with regard to number or kind. Ours is a pleasure-seeking generation, and a goodly number of the amusements offered to the public furnish occasions for sin and crime and thus prove a serious injury to the welfare of the family as well as the nation at large.

⁷² Ibid., pp. 52 sqq.; cfr. Arthur Leland, Playground Technique and Playcraft, New York, 1908.

⁷³ Gates, op. cit., p. 57.

A good rule with regard to amusements of all kinds is that laid down by Don Bosco: "When you play or otherwise divert your mind and recreate your body, occasionally raise your soul to God and offer up to Him all your joys and pleasures for His greater honor and glory.”⁷⁴

⁷⁴ See Salesianische Nachrichten, Trent, 1906, p. 241.

5. RECOVERY OF HEALTH IN SICKNESS.—The duty of caring for the body entails the obligation of restoring it to health in case of sickness. This means that a sick man must employ natural medicaments or engage the services of a competent physician and obey his orders.⁷⁵ Besides employing these natural means of recovery, the devout Christian will pray to God, confide in His help, suffer patiently, and employ the days of his illness for the improvement of his character and in the practice of the virtues peculiarly indicated by his condition, and, finally, if necessary, ask for the holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction, which are specially instituted for the benefit of the sick.⁷⁶

⁷⁵ Is. XXXVIII, 9 sqq.; Ecclus. XVIII, 20 sq.; XXXVIII, 1 sqq.; 2 Chr. XVI, 12; on the teaching of the Fathers on this point see Harnack in Texte und Untersuchungen, Vol. VIII, 56, Leipsic, 1892.

⁷⁶ Jas. V, 14–15; Luke XVII, 15–18; John V, 14; cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., St. Louis, 1918, pp. 1-51.

For the rest, it is well to recall to mind frequently the words of Thomas a Kempis: " Whilst thou art in health, thou canst do much good; but I know not what thou wilt be able to do when ailing. There are few who mend their ways in sickness, just as those who go much on pilgrimage seldom become holy.”⁷⁷

⁷⁷ De Imit. Christi, l. I, c. 23 (ed. Pohl, II, 46): "You can perform many good works while you are healthy; but when you are sick, I do not know what you will be able to do. Few are made better by sickness; likewise, those who travel much are rarely sanctified."

6. MAN'S RELATION TO BEASTS. —This is an appropriate place to add a few words regarding man's relation to brute beasts. a) The irrational brute, so far as man is concerned, does not differ essentially from other created objects, for, like them, it does not carry its purpose within itself, but is ordained for the benefit of man, who is "the crown of the visible creation." The brutes have been given to man by God as a means which he may employ according to his good pleasure, though never in opposition to the precepts of the moral law of nature, as re-inforced by Sacred Scripture.

God gave man "dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts of the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth," ⁷⁸ permitting him to use them all as "meat for himself." ⁷⁹ But He also instructed man to treat the dumb beasts with consideration. "The seventh day thou shalt cease [to work], that thy ox and thy ass may rest." ⁸⁰ And He expressly forbade cruelty to animals. "Thou shalt not boil a kid in the milk of his dam." ⁸¹ "Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out thy corn on the floor."⁸² The Lord Himself "giveth to beasts their food," ⁸³ and "provideth food for the raven when her young ones cry to Him and wander about because they have no meat." ⁸⁴ In His mercy, when sparing Ninive, He thinks also of the innocent beasts.⁸⁵ Jesus Christ illustrates the loving care which the Heavenly Father takes of man by pointing out how He provides for the birds of the air, "for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Father feedeth them."⁸⁶ "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?" He says, "and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father." ⁸⁷ And again He asks: "What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep, and if the same shall fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?"⁸⁸ b) Under the natural as well as the positive divine law, man in his relation to the brute beasts has first of all the duty of treating them mercifully and in accordance with the dictates of reason. From the fact that these creatures, though lacking intellect and consciousness, have sensual perception and feeling, arises the further duty to treat them with sympathy and not to hurt them more than necessary.

⁷⁸ Gen. I, 26 sqq.

⁷⁹ Gen. IX, 3.

⁸⁰ Ex. XXIII, 12, 19.

⁸¹ Ex. XXXIV, 26; Lev. XXII, 27 sq.; Deut. XIV, 21.

⁸² Deut. XXV, 4; 1 Cor. IX, 9.

⁸³ Ps. CXLVI, 9.

⁸⁴ Job XXXVIII, 41.

⁸⁵ Jon. IV, 11.

⁸⁶ Matt. VI, 26.

⁸⁷ Matt. X, 29.

⁸⁸ Matt. XII, 11; cfr. Luke XIII, 15; XIV, 5.

It is no sin for man to kill dumb animals. For, as St. Thomas shows, "by the natural order of divine providence they are referred to the use of man, and hence man may employ them without injustice, either by killing them or in any other way. God said to Noé: ‘As green herbs have I given you all flesh' (Gen. IX, 3). Wherever in Holy Scripture there are found warnings against cruelty to dumb animals, as in the prohibition of killing the mother-bird with its young (Deut. XXII, 6, 7), the object is either to turn man's mind away from practicing cruelty on his fellowmen, lest from practicing cruelties on dumb animals he should proceed to do the like to them, or because harm done to animals turns to the temporal loss of man, whether the author of the harm or some one else; or for some ulterior meaning, as the Apostle expounds the precept of not muzzling the treading ox." ⁸⁹ Hence it is cruel and immoral to kill, vex, or in any wise torment dumb animals without a reasonable cause, or more than is necessary for the attainment of a legitimate purpose. Cruelty to animals is a sin against God and man, especially if indulged in habitually, for the reasons mentioned in the above-quoted passage from St. Thomas. As a rule one who has no heart for dumb animals will not pity his fellowmen, as the annals of crime abundantly testify.

⁸⁹ St. Thomas, Contra Gent., l. III, c. 112. (The Pauline passage referred to is 1 Cor. IX, 9). Cfr. E. Wasmann, S.J., Instinct and Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom, St. Louis, 1903; M. de Rambures, L’Eglise et la Pitié envers les Animaux, 2nd ed., Paris, 1903.

On the other hand, sentimentalism (indigna affectatio) with regard to brutes, e. g., surrounding dogs, cats, birds, etc., with luxuries and treating them with the affection due only to human beings, is opposed to Christian ethics and positively pagan whenever it savors of zoolatry (brute worship).⁹⁰

⁹⁰ Cfr. Pastor Bonus, Treves, 1895, pp. 199 sqq.; 1897, pp. 82 sqq.

The various societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals have a laudable purpose, but unfortunately too much of their literature and work is permeated by the false notion that the brute beast is substantially the equal of man. To say, as some of the advocates of this movement do, that "every living being has a right to exist and be happy," is not in conformity with Catholic theology. Strictly speaking, only rational beings endowed with personality have rights. Man's duty to avoid unnecessary cruelty to animals is not based on any right of the latter, but on the will of God forbidding us to torture his irrational creatures, on the property rights of our fellowmen, which we must respect, and on our own rational nature, which commands us to abstain from anger, cruelty, and similar vices.⁹¹

⁹¹ See C. Gutberlet, Der Kosmos, Paderborn, 1908, p. 521.

The last-mentioned consideration is of special importance, because, as we have said before, a man who mistreats dumb animals will, as a rule, also abuse his fellowmen. The brutality of many a ruffian may be traced to acts of cruelty to dumb animals practiced in youth.

Bull-fights are a favorite diversion of Spaniards and Latin Americans. The Church authorities formerly condemned these exhibitions, ⁹² but the prohibition is no longer in force. The modern bull-fight, as described by Father Ramon Ruiz Amado, S.J., in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," ⁹³ as a rule does not involve the shedding of human blood, and is no more, in fact is less brutal than our prize-fights.⁹⁴ In consequence most present-day moralists, following the famous "Doctor Navarrus," Martin de Azpilcueta, who stood alone in his day,⁹⁵ now hold that bull-fights, as held in Spain, are not forbidden by the natural law.⁹⁶ But clergymen and religious may not attend them.⁹⁷ c) Dumb animals were created for the service of man and hence he may kill them for food, deprive them of their liberty for the sake of profit or pleasure, tame or train them, and inflict pain upon them for the purposes of scientific experimentation.⁹⁸ There can be no reasonable doubt that vivisection, i. e., the dissection of living animals for the observation of, and experimentation on, normal or morbid physiological processes, is morally licit if it serves a good purpose, inflicts no more pain than absolutely necessary, and is confined to proper limits, preferably within medical or hygienic institutes. "By the natural order of divine providence," says St. Thomas, "the dumb animals are destined for the use of man, and hence man without injustice uses them, either by killing them or in any other way."⁹⁹ Experts are all but unanimous in holding that vivisection is very useful, nay under certain conditions, absolutely necessary for the progress of science. True, in using brutes for his own benefit, man cannot avoid hurting them, but neither does nature spare them the pains of hunger and cold or preserve all of them from a cruel death.¹⁰⁰

⁹² See esp. the Const. of Pius V, "De Salute," Nov. 1, 1567.

⁹³ Vol. III, p. 52.

⁹⁴ An influential American newspaper said a few years ago, apropos of some criticisms of the bull-fights held in Madrid in honor of King Alfonso's coronation, a month or two before the Fitzsimmons-Jeffries prize-fight at San Francisco, Cal.: "The killing of bulls by trained toreadors is not the pleasantest spectacle in the world, although it calls for courage, dexterity and endurance, and has, besides, the mercy of the coup de grace, but it is certainly more decent than a fight to the finish between two bruisers, to see which a boxing club in any city of the United States can pack the biggest hall in the place with men who have paid $10 for a seat at the brutal show. Let us not be hypocrites. Hypocrisy is worse than brutality. And when it comes to a test of brutality, with our burning of negroes, our lynchings, and our prize-fights, we Americans need not throw any stones."

⁹⁵ On Azpilcueta see Vol. I, p. 62, of this Manual. The reference is to his Enchiridion sive Manuale Confessariorum et Paenitentium, Würzburg, 1586, ch. XV, pp. 334 sqq. —Cfr. Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, 1903, No. 7, pp. 244 sqq., "Urteile über Stiergefechte."

⁹⁶ Cfr. Gury-Ferreres, Compendium Theol. Mor., Barcelona, 1906, Vol. II, n. 56.

⁹⁷ Cfr. Ferreres, Comp. Theol. Mor., 9th ed., 1919, Vol. II, n. 110; Plenary Council of Spanish America, n. 650. On the whole subject see P. Amado's excellent article in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. III, pp. 51 sq.

⁹⁸ Cfr. Gen. IX, 3; Deut. IV, 19; Ps. VIII, 8; 1 Cor. III, 22; Jas. III, 7. —St. Jerome, Adv. Iovinian., l. II, c. 5–6 (Migne, P. L., XXIII, 290).

⁹⁹ Contra Gent., l. III, c. 112, 7: "By this is excluded the error of those who maintain that it is a sin for man to kill brute animals; for by divine providence they are ordered in the natural order to man’s use, whence man uses them without injustice by killing them or in any other way."

¹⁰⁰ The literature on vivisection has grown to vast proportions. A brief and instructive treatise is that by Dr. L. Senfelder, "Vivisection (Moral Aspects of)," in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XV, pp. 494-496. —See also, against vivisection, Tait, The Uselessness of Vivisection upon Animals as a Method of Scientific Research (1883); for vivisection, Heidenhain, Die Vivisektion (1884), an exhaustive and valuable treatise.

Many believe that parrots learn to "talk" more easily if their tongues are loosened. This is a cruel mistake against which these birds ought to be protected.

All birds with but few exceptions deserve to be protected by law, first because they are useful and secondly because they beautify and enliven nature.¹⁰¹

¹⁰¹ Cfr. M. Hiesemann, Lösung der Vogelschutzfrage, Leipsic, 1907.

Where agriculture, fishing or hunting is endangered by the multiplication of noxious birds or mammals, man has a right to kill them, but he should not completely exterminate any species, because to do so would be to contravene the laws of nature and to violate the demands of humanity. In the economy of nature beasts of prey have a well-defined purpose, viz.: to destroy other animals which are sick or weakly and therefore unsuited for the propagation of their kind.¹⁰²

¹⁰² Cfr. Natur und Offenbarung, 1910, pp. 5 sqq.

7. LUXURY. —We must not leave this part of our subject without briefly considering the cognate topic of luxury.

"Luxury," says Professor de Laveleye in his classic work,¹⁰³ "consists in the consumption of what has cost great labor to produce, for the satisfaction of spurious needs." After so defining luxury, he condemns it unreservedly, saying: "Luxury is pernicious to the individual and fatal to society. Primitive Christianity reproved it in the name of charity and humility; political economy condemns it in the name of utility, and justice condemns it in the name of equity."

¹⁰³ Emile de Laveleye, Le Luxe, Verviers, 1887.

This view has been re-echoed by not a few modern writers, but it is extreme and cannot be adopted by the Catholic moralist without some decided reservations. a) To acquire and use the good things of nature over and above one's necessary requirements is not in itself sinful. On the contrary, as civilization advances, man produces more and is entitled to use more than in the primitive stages of society. That political economy condemns all luxury in the name of utility is not true. Luxury may be distinctly advantageous to society because lavish expenditures on the part of the rich usually benefit the poor, by furnishing employment, developing arts and sciences, and elevating the educational status of the nation. From the standpoint of the moralist, also, not every luxury must be regarded as extravagance, because ethical considerations may refine and ennoble a pleasure which would otherwise be purely physical. Every man has a right to enjoy the comforts and luxuries proper to his state of life, provided he can reasonably afford them. On the other hand there is such a thing as indulging in luxuries beyond one's means, or in a manner unbecoming to one's station in life, or beyond the bounds of reasonableness, or for the mere love of pleasure, or to shine and excite envy in others. To indulge in luxury in this sense is immoral and contrary to social justice and progress, for it deprives society of good things without sense or reason, gives a bad example to others, provokes concupiscence and discontent, excites envy and hatred in the hearts of the poor, and, finally, is often a means of, or an occasion for, sins of vanity, impurity, and dishonesty. b) Hence we must distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable luxury (extravagance). To live according to one's station in life and one's means is not reproved by the Gospel, which, though it extols voluntary poverty, does not impose it as a duty on all, but merely counsels it to those who feel called to relinquish earthly pleasures and comforts for the sake of the higher treasures of the spiritual life. On the other hand it is immoral to be extravagant, i. e., to use the good things of life without stint or measure, without benefiting any one, nay with detriment to the important and necessary duties of one's state, or in the service of sensuality and for the emancipation of the flesh.¹⁰⁴ Such immoral extravagance is only too common among the wealthy now-a-days and often assumes the proportions of a grievous sin that cries to Heaven for vengeance. There is no denying the fact that even the poorer classes not infrequently live beyond their means.¹⁰⁵ The desire to shine and impress others is not only silly in itself, but a source of economic hardship and unhappiness. How many families of the middle class sacrifice health and comfort in order to be able to look down upon their neighbors from the cushions of an expensive limousine! How many stint themselves to "keep up appearances"! Such conduct is worse than foolish, it is wrong and anti-social.¹⁰⁶

¹⁰⁴ W. D. P. Bliss and R. M. Binder, The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, New York, 1908, pp. 736 sq. —As practical tests of extravagance, Msgr. H. Parkinson proposes these two questions: (1) Whether the expenditure is out of proportion to income; (2) whether it is out of keeping with the person's condition in life, or with his office, or the circumstances of time, place, or custom. If so, we have extravagance. Thus a simple luxury for one may be an extravagance for another, and a simple luxury at one time may assume the character of an extravagance at another. (A Primer of Social Science, American edition, by T. J. Shealy, S.J., New York 1913, p. 198).

¹⁰⁵ Cfr. Prov. XIII, 7; Seneca, Ep., XCIV, 27: "That saying of Cato: Buy not what is wanted, but what is necessary. What is not wanted is dear at a penny." —Poor Richard somewhere says that if a man constantly buys what he does not need, he will soon have to sell that which he needs.

¹⁰⁶ Cfr. 1 Tim. II, 9; Tit. I, 3; 1 Pet. III, 3 sqq. —On the economic aspects of extravagance see Parkinson, A Primer of Social Science, pp. 199 sq.

Opposed to decent comfort and a reasonable measure of luxury corresponding to one's state of life and means are, on the one hand, parsimony, i. e., undue sparingness in the expenditure of money, and, on the other, ostentatiousness and pomp.

Frugality or thrift is called by Sam Smiles the daughter of wisdom, the sister of temperance, and the mother of liberty. An ancient proverb says that "thrift is in itself a good income," and another, that it is "the philosopher's stone." Roscher, the famous German economist, makes bold to assert that "he who has begun to save is no longer a proletarian."

The Catholic Church is not opposed to luxury in the sense of reasonable comfort. On the contrary, cleanliness, nourishing food, comfortable dwellings, neat clothes, are necessities which she demands for the poor as well as the rich, and nations that live in conformity with the moral law will always find ample means to satisfy these needs. What the Church reprobates and combats is that extravagance which withdraws many of the good things of life from those who need them, to satisfy the "spurious needs of the idle rich." ¹⁰⁷ As long as there is inequality of possessions, the Church will continue to insist on the difference between various states of life and recommend to the poor a wise economy in the gratification of demands that are not strictly necessary.¹⁰⁸

¹⁰⁷ See Laveleye's definition of luxury, supra, p. 64.

¹⁰⁸ C. S. Devas, Political Economy, pp. 133 sqq.; P. Norrenberg, Frauenarbeit und Arbeiterinnenerziehung, Cologne, 1880, pp. 68 sq.

3. VIRTUES TO BE PRACTICED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CARE OF THE BODY.—The virtues that should be practiced in connection with the care of the body are mainly three, viz.: cleanliness, modesty, and temperance.

1. Cleanliness is not merely a natural and necessary function and a conventional custom; it is likewise a moral duty, the performance of which, in accord with reason and the moral law, may become a virtue. A clean body, clean clothing, and a clean domicile are fundamental requisites of good health and constitute, as it were, the lowest rungs on the ladder of civilization. Bodily cleanliness should be the reflex and symbol of interior or spiritual purity. Its conscious disregard is a moral defect, first, because it denotes carelessness and neglect, and second because it sets aside due regard for the necessities of social intercourse.

Cleanliness has been practiced more or less at all times. Even the "dark" Middle Ages had their public bathing houses and it was regarded as a work of mercy to erect free baths for the poor. If cultivated to excess, cleanliness may degenerate into effeminacy. It was a reaction against the immorality connected with frequent washings of the body that led to the disregard for cleanliness shown by some medieval ascetics, even saints, whose conduct must consequently not be condemned as a reversion to barbarism. Abstention from the ordinary means of cleansing the body was with them not an end in itself, but merely a means to an end, namely, to purge man from his sinful inclinations.¹⁰⁹ It was in this sense that Pope Nicholas I declared that bathing is never allowed as a means of sensual indulgence, but as a bodily necessity may be practiced at any time.¹¹⁰

¹⁰⁹ Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 276.

¹¹⁰ Responsa ad Consulta Bulgarorum, n. 6: "We do not deny this, while of course observing this distinction: if anyone desires to bathe for indulgence of spirit and pleasure, we do not grant that this be done on any other day either; but if for bodily necessity, we do not forbid it even on Wednesday or Friday." (Mansi, Conc. Coll., XV, 405).

2. Modesty is a decent reserve or propriety of manner and regard for the rules of taste and good breeding. It differs according to person, time, place, and social environment, and is not necessarily identical with moral goodness.

As a Christian virtue modesty consists in the habitual avoidance of whatever is apt to arouse the sexual passion, either in oneself or in others. There is a natural chastity, or unconscious innocence, which, in connection with inborn modesty, constitutes a powerful vehicle for the most beautiful of all virtues, i. e., physical and interior purity.

Needless to add, the duty of modesty, e. g., in regard to participation in social amusements, theatrical performances, etc., does not bind all men in the same way, but differs according to state and profession.

Politeness is not strictly a virtue, though the lack of it often indicates a moral defect. As a rule the more polite a man is, the more truly amiable will he be. He who lacks tact and politeness is offensive to persons of good breeding and delicate taste.¹¹¹ However, being but a natural instinct or a by-product of careful training, politeness to be supernaturally meritorious, must be hallowed in the spirit of the Gospel and accompanied by humility, obedience, and charity. It goes without saying that a truly noble character will not stoop to untruth or affectation.¹¹²

¹¹¹ Cfr. W. Wundt, Ethik, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 188 sqq.

¹¹² Cf. Seneca, De Ira, l. II, c. 28: "Either he slipped through the charm of courteousness, or he did something not in order to harm us, but because he himself could not attain his object unless he thrust us aside. Flattery often offends while it caresses."

Our books of etiquette contain many useful rules and cautions; but true politeness is spontaneous. "There is a politeness of the heart," says Goethe, "which is akin to charity and inspires good conduct."

Newman's definition of a gentleman may be quoted here: " It is almost a definition of a gentleman to say that he is one who never inflicts pain.... He is mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him; and he concurs with their movements rather than takes the initiative himself.... The true gentleman in like manner carefully avoids whatever may cause a jar or jolt in the minds of those with whom he is cast.... He is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the distant, and merciful towards the absurd; he can recollect to whom he is speaking; he guards against unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate; he is seldom prominent in conversation, and never wearisome. He makes light of favors while he does them, and seems to be receiving when he is conferring," etc.¹¹³ In connection with this oft-quoted passage Father Arthur Barry O'Neill, C.S.C., points out a fact that is frequently overlooked, —namely, that Cardinal Newman never intended his portrait of a gentleman to be that of a Christian gentleman. The Christian gentleman, says Father O'Neill, is of a different and far more perfect type. His essential qualities are interior —they spring from faith and love of God. The exterior qualities which Newman enumerates are transient, unless they are permeated with the charity of Christ.¹¹⁴

¹¹³ Idea of a University, London ed. of 1893, pp. 208 sqq.

¹¹⁴ Clerical Colloquies, New York, 1917; cfr. the Catholic Fortnightly Review, St. Louis, Mo., Vol. XXIV, No. 6, pp. 83 sq.

3. Temperance may be defined as rational self-control, especially in the use of food and drink. The brute beast blindly follows instinct in satisfying its desire for nourishment, but man is able to control and regulate his appetite according to the dictates of reason and law. The preservation of life and health, not sensual pleasure, is the motive which should govern a Christian in the use of food and drink. Guided by this motive, he will choose the food best adapted for that purpose and never notably exceed the quantity necessary for its attainment. Temperance or wise moderation in the use of material things, especially food and drink, keeps the body in good health, strengthens the mind and will, and protects man from the evil effects, moral as well as social, of overindulgence. An important rule with regard to the virtue of temperance is: " Deny yourself something licit now and then, in order that you may be able to abstain from the things which are forbidden." ¹¹⁵ "Temperance is not inborn, but must be acquired by practice," says Father Cathrein, "whence it follows that every man is in duty bound to practice self-denial now and then, so that the senses may get accustomed to the control of reason. If you allow a horse free rein at all times, you will have no control over him in the hour of peril. Sensuality in this respect resembles a horse. He who has never learned to deny his flesh the pleasures for which it craves, will sooner or later succumb to its whims. Self-denial —at least to a certain extent —is not a specifically Christian virtue, but a postulate of pure reason. 'Sustine et abstine' was a maxim of the ancient pagan philosophers." ¹¹⁶ READINGS. —Besides the works mentioned in the foot-notes see A Christian Social Crusade, published by the Catholic Social Guild, Oxford, 1919; J. Mausbach, Kath. Moraltheologie, Vol. III, pp. 35 sqq., 3rd ed., Münster, i. W. 1920; Fr. Walter, Der Leib und sein Recht im Christentum, Munich, 1910.

¹¹⁵ Cfr. St. Gregory the Great, Moralia, l. V, c. 11: "Often those who have power over themselves, because they do not know how to restrain themselves from lawful things, slip into unlawful and restless deeds. For only he does not fall into unlawful things who sometimes cautiously restrains himself even from lawful things." (Migne, P. L., LXXV, 688).

¹¹⁶ Victor Cathrein, S.J., Moralphilosophie, Vol. II, 4th ed., p. 54. —Cfr. Epicteti Fragmenta, n. 179: "Accordingly, he [Epictetus] says, if anyone keeps these two words in his heart and takes care to command and observe them for himself, he will be for the most part without fault and will live a most tranquil life. These were the two words he used to say: endure and abstain."