Chapter I: Its Object, Value, and Conditions

Summary : The precise object of private tolerance, some evil which offends or annoys us.—The virtues exercised in this tolerance.—It is a source of light and progress for the person who practises it.—The words of St. Augustine.—The influence of Christianity on the practice, even the heroic practice of tolerance.— The example of missionary priests and nuns.—All outward tolerance is not virtuous, or even honourable. —The conditions of virtuous tolerance.

All tolerance is practised in respect of some evil, or some error ; but it is not every evil, or every intellectual error, or every kind of misconduct, that puts our tolerance to the test. There are evils that do not affect us, errors that we share, faults to which we give our consent or in which we participate. Such evils, such errors, such faults as these can neither hurt nor annoy us. If we remark their existence in others, they excite only our compassion ; in ourselves we regard them with complacency. Only those acts or conditions are the object of tolerance which affect us disagreeably, which cause us suffering, uneasiness, or displeasure. When we are contradicted in our opinions, opposed in our desires, thwarted in our plans, and, above all, when an adversary insolently attacks our most firmly established convictions, our most cherished beliefs, or the honour and reputation of which we are justly jealous, such conduct causes disgust, depression, fear, impatience, or anger ; and trials of this kind bring out the tolerance of a man who has control over his passions, and remains constant in his own goodness and justice.

Can we wonder that tolerance in individuals is so universally commended ? Self-control and moderation, which tell of strength and victory, are pleasing to all; and to us, as Christians, this tolerance presents itself with all the charms of three eminent virtues—justice, charity, and humility. It is justice because it respects the inviolable rights of man among his fellow-men : persuasion is the only way in which I can legitimately induce my neighbour to share my opinions. It is charity, for St. Paul tells us that that queen of virtues “ is patient, is kind . . . beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things ”1—that, in short, it inspires us with all those sentiments from which the most perfect tolerance springs as naturally as a flower from the branch that is created to bear it. Lastly, it is humility, for a prudent distrust of himself, the consciousness of his own liability to error, the knowledge of his own weakness, keep a man from showing contempt or irritation at the opinions of others.

In tolerance among our fellow-men we recognize a fruitful principle of light and progress. We may¹ 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 7. always derive instruction from listening to others, and by allowing them full freedom of speech we learn to know ourselves better, and to correct our own faults. St. Augustine was fully convinced of this when he wrote : “ My opinion is not expressed with such authority that it may not be contradicted. I admit that I endeavour to be among those who write in proportion as they progress, and progress as they write ; but if my prudence or my knowledge is at fault, and if capable judges subject me to criticism, whose justice I must sooner or later recognize if I progress, what is there to wonder at or complain of ? Pardon me rather, and congratulate me, not on having fallen into error, but on having my mistakes corrected.”1

¹ Ep. 143 (Migne, P.L., t. 33, cols. 585, 586).

This is what religion enables us to find in tolerance, practised, not as a means of exciting the empty admiration of others, but as a help to a consistent and honourable life. It helps us by the most express and touching exhortations to subject our whole life to the glorious and gentle rule of humble and charitable justice ; it forbids all hatred and pride ; it commands us to love all men, not excepting strangers and our enemies, and a fortiori not excepting the guilty—that is to say, the weak, and those who persist in error, that is to say, who have gone entirely astray.

This Christian law would neither approve of the massacre of pagans, nor allow us, like the Mahome- dans, to treat those who profess another religion as dogs. The great doctors of the Catholic Church teach us to be kind in our treatment of others, generous in our appreciation, ready to make allowances or excuses for them, always willing to help or befriend them ; and the best and truest Christians are most generous with their sympathy and their prayers and offers of service, which is the best proof of good-will; they are always ready to believe in the repentance of sinners, and rejoice over it. And how many good Christians sacrifice themselves entirely to their tolerant generosity ! In our own cities we see the nursing sisters at the bedsides of the most malignant enemies of their religion, of the most foul-mouthed infidels ; and everyone knows that in non-Christian countries the most bigoted Mahomedan is sure to receive the devoted attention of the admirable White Sisters.¹ What tolerance is required in a true Catholic missionary ! He refuses to use violence or compulsion ; he faces the most repulsive spectacles, making up his mind to endure them without irritation or complaint; no rebuffs wear out his patience or his courage ; and his hope of making converts does not arise from any desire for power.¹ His desire is to give, not to receive: he willingly gives up health, home, friends, even life itself to gain souls—that is, not to enslave them or exploit them for his own advantage, but to lead them to God, to truth, and happiness.

¹ Madame Marcelle Tinayre, a woman of letters, who does not profess to be a Catholic, was struck with the difference between the two religions (Christianity and Ma- homedanism). She was visiting a hospital in Constantinople shortly after the revolution of the Young Turks, and met with a young lady of good family, named Selika, who was attending some of the wounded from Thessalonica. Madame Tinayre asked her : “ Have you attended the reactionaries also ?” Selika’s beautiful black eyes grew hard as she answered : “ No. I had my choice, because I came as a volunteer. I do not nurse any but the good men.” “ Oh, my little Selika !” says Madame Tinayre, “ brave and charming as you are, you would be willing to die at once if your death could insure the triumph of the constitution. Little Selika, whom I admire so much, you have no idea what an abyss there is between us ! No Christian woman, even if she did not practise her religion, but if she were a Christian by birth and education, would stop to think that there are good and bad among the sick ” (Notes d’une Voyageuse en Turquie. Premiers jours d’un Nouveau Règne, p. 274, sixth edition).

¹ Among Mahomedans, as an impartial author remarks, “ the Holy War is intended not to bring about the conversion of unbelievers, but to destroy their political power. Whether the vanquished embrace Mahomedanism or not is their own affair. Sometimes even the Arab chiefs look with an unfavourable eye upon conversions ” (Chantepie de la Saussaye, Manuel d’histoire des religions, p. 284).

The Catholic thus finds in his religion all the principles of the best kind of tolerance. What more does he need to be really tolerant ? Balmes wisely remarks : “If we have a little experience of men, and are brought into contact with those who differ from us, we shall understand better the prejudices and illusions stored up in the human mind, and shall be less surprised at the resistance offered to faith ; we shall mistrust all such things as tempt us from the path of duty ; we shall appreciate the influence of environment on principles and action, knowing that, if we were in the unbelievers’ place, we should perhaps be more perverse and more sceptical than they ; and all these considerations will increase our gratitude to God, the giver of life and grace, and our compassion for the misfortunes of others.”

How well Salvian in the fifth century was able to put himself into the place of those in error, and in what modern language is his tolerance expressed ! Speaking of the ignorant Arians, the holy priest excuses them thus : “ They are heretics, but without knowing it; though heretics in our eyes, they are not so in intention ; they think they are such good Catholics that they can call us heretics. What they are in our eyes we are in theirs ; the truth is on our side, but they persuade themselves that it is on theirs; they are in error, but their error is accompanied by good faith ; what their punishment will be at the day of judgment the Supreme Judge alone can tell.”¹

¹ De Gubernatione Dei, l. 5, chap. ii. (M.P.L., t. 53, cols. 95, 96).

Are we to infer, from the universal praise bestowed on private tolerance and the Christian inspiration that we recognize in it, that all patience, all indulgence, all insusceptibility to injury from external things, is commendable ? No, for in its outward manifestation it is capable of a double explanation. The man who bears pain may be brave, or he may be under the influence of a drug ; ignorance of danger, as well as courage, may make a man face death calmly. The paralytic has no more thought of running away from the enemy than the bravest of soldiers. Similarly, in the moral and intellectual order there are various kinds of blindness and torpor, of paralysis and incapacity, which prevent a man from feeling anger and resentment. The man who does not think at all can never enter into any conflict of ideas with another, for there is no rivalry except between men of the same profession. What does tolerance cost a sceptic, or a man who takes no interest in any great cause ? There is a kind of tolerance, induced by weakness or vanity, which is merely a distaste for struggles and discussions ; for struggles require strength, and discussions expose a man to the risk of being beaten. In short, besides the tolerance which is commendable, there is a tolerance which is entirely vicious ; an affectation of good-nature assumed in order to conceal ignorance or carelessness, a selfish love of ease which leads to compromise with error, an indulgence which degenerates into complicity.¹

¹ Madame de Chantal showed magnanimity when she held at the baptismal font the child of the man who had unintentionally killed her husband ; so also did the noble widow of the Governor of Belgian Luxembourg, who, after the assassination of her husband, made her children pray first for the father whom they mourned, and then for the man who had made them orphans. Madame Zola displayed only a contempt for morality when, on the occasion of the marriage of an illegitimate daughter of the deceased novelist, she associated herself with the mother of the girl in issuing the invitations ; and certain newspapers only showed their stupidity by going into ecstasies over this deplorable and scandalous compliance, as if it had been an act of tolerance worthy of admiration. Why does a moral abyss separate the actions of the saint and her imitator from that of this other widow ? The two great Christian women overcame their own feelings of natural resentment, but they did not approve anything reprehensible. Madame Zola forgot that she represented the rights and the inviolability of the home, and her action ratified a long-continued and shameless contempt of those rights.

Before estimating tolerance at its true value, it is necessary to examine the reasons and motives for it, and even to see who practises it; for it is only in a man devoted to truth and justice that tolerance denotes strength, and may be a virtue ; and it will be a virtue when, inspired by noble motives, it displays a moderation that is free from fear or weakness, and placed under the prudent guidance of justice and charity.