Chapter II: Applications

Summary : The restraint imposed upon the father of a family.—Prudent tolerance of Christian parents towards an erring child.—Assertion of rights to education of children.—Resistance to official interference.—Duties of tutors and educators.—Duties of masters and employers.—Preference shown to honest persons and friends of religion.—Relations with non-Catholics.— Attitude in religious controversies, and towards writers suspected of heterodoxy.

Hitherto we have dealt with private tolerance as practised among our fellow-citizens, but in private life we have to consider also the family, where the father’s authority is sacred. The father of a family is bound to watch over his children as over himself, and is responsible for all that takes place under his roof; and however indulgent he may be to the errors and faults of others, he has no excuse for admitting persons or opinions that he considers mischievous or pernicious. Since there are intellectual and moral perversions as well as organic corruptions, since the soul may be poisoned as well as the body, it is a father’s duty to take the same care of the morals of his family as of their bodily health. This obligation, however, is often sadly neglected by timid or injudicious parents. Who can say how much harm is done by this lamentable indifference ? But, on the other hand, the obligation is often per-fectly understood and scrupulously observed in our country, where parental affection quickens the sense of duty. Hitherto public opinion has always respected and encouraged this prudent severity in the heads of families, for the boldest critic cannot find fault with a wisdom which, while encouraging the utmost freedom of familiar intercourse in the home, is always on guard against danger from without.

Parents, without being considered intolerant, are allowed in the interests of religion to be judiciously strict in the proscription of books and newspapers which endanger the purity of the home, to watch for the first germs of corruption, and, in short, to establish a sort of domestic index or inquisition.

But the most assiduous vigilance is often frustrated. Man’s will is always free, and always accessible to temptation, and sometimes even the most carefully brought up children declare for evil. What a period of sorrow and anxiety begins when Christian parents see one of their children lose his faith or fall into evil ways ! Their hearts bleed at the sight, and their minds are tortured with anxiety to find a way, while condemning the evil, to bring back the erring one, and preserve the innocent members of the family from corruption. And this trouble may often recur, and sometimes last even during their whole lives. Their Christian profession forbids parents to -connive at scandalous conduct ;¹ Christian charity discourages excessive severity, but Christian prudence condemns any toleration of immorality. The guilty person is a son who has a right to his father’s affection and support. If unfortunate, he is to be pitied ; but if he is perverse, he deserves punishment; and if he becomes dangerous to others, he must be rendered incapable of doing mischief. What, then, should be the father’s ruling principle ? When in doubt, he seeks refuge in prayer, that he may have wisdom to do all that duty requires without exasperating the offender. In this analysis of what may be a most cruel trial to a Christian parent, there is nothing to suggest anything like fanatical intolerance ; on the contrary, all his actions are prompted by kindness and affection.

¹ Especially such things as debauchery and concubinage, even when they are not condemned by the Civil Law, or even when they receive a legal sanction, as in the case of civil marriage after divorce.

Nor can a father be reasonably charged with intolerance because he offers a determined resistance to the invader of his home who attempts to corrupt his children by deceit, threats, or seduction. In an age which boasts of its liberty, attempts have been made, as in the republics of ancient Greece, to claim children in the name of the State, the law, or national unity, and the public funds have been used for the purpose. The parents who dared to assert their independence or their authority, and deny to the State all authority over the soul, or to the human law all power to interfere with the sacred right of a father, were not intolerant, but were resisting the intolerance of others ; and in rejecting offers of money, they simply refused to degrade themselves by a shameful bargain.¹

¹ It is too much, indeed, that, after all the discussions and all the disclosures that have taken place, an attempt should still be made to delude the public as to the meaning of neutral education, secular education, compulsory education. Neutrality is a myth, and secularism means atheism ; compulsory education with neutrality and secularism is simple tyranny. There is no such thing really as neutral education, because various branches of study do not lend themselves to neutral treatment, and the great object of education is to elevate and form the mind. Neutral education so-called can only be sceptical, indifferent, and in plain contradiction to religious duties. Secularism closes the school to all supernatural or Divine influence. The compulsory neutral school is an institution forced upon Catholic fathers, the acceptance of which obliges them— the poor especially—to do violence to their consciences. The existence of the free unsubsidized school, supposing it to be tolerated, does not remove the grievance. What would be said of a State which compelled its subjects to attend either a Christian Church or a masonic lodge at their own choice, and which contented itself with building masonic lodges, leaving the people to build churches for themselves ? Would it be fair to say that the State was bound to build only a lodge in order to show its impartiality to the different Christian bodies ? Would it prove its impartiality by allowing the discontented to build themselves a church ? The masonic lodge and the neutral school are as much alike as mother and daughter : their morality is the same. In refusing to build or subsidize any but neutral schools, the Government declares indifference to be the religion of the State. Cicero was very clear-sighted when he congratulated the Roman Republic on having escaped from official teaching and the uniformity of systems of education (De Republica, iv. 3).

The principles by which enlightened parents regulate and measure their tolerance should also guide those who are called upon to take their place or share their authority, such as tutors and instructors. No consideration for the weakness of others should ever make them forget their high and holy mission of keeping safe and sound the souls committed to their charge, in whom they are bound to foster a love of truth and justice. Similarly, it is the duty of persons who have the administration of affairs or the direction of great business undertakings to exercise a vigilant charity. The influence and authority of masters and employers, though not so sacred as the authority of a parent, are not mere words, and it is right that the servants, even of full age, who submit to that authority, should feel the benefit of it. It is unjustifiable, under pretence of tolerance, to permit in our homes, our offices, or our workshops, language and habits which make these places dangerous for the persons employed therein, while charity obliges us to protect and encourage virtue.

These considerations seem enough to distinguish between the wholesome and the vicious tolerance as practised by superiors to inferiors in private life.

Tolerance among equals, however simple the rules appear, is liable to be misunderstood, and is sometimes called for out of season, for tolerance can never interfere with the demands of charity. Who will blame me for preferring a fellow-countryman to a foreigner ? The preference of one involves no hatred or ill-will to the other. Shall we be considered intolerant if we offer help and relief to our comrades in arms before others, especially such help and relief as, if given to our adversaries, would be used to the detriment of religion and virtue ? If Catholics unite together to give their patronage or custom to honest people recommended by their religion, is there any reason for calling them intolerant ? And are we narrow-minded or bigoted if we take precautions for the future use of our property, to prevent it from being squandered, or used for the purposes of a war against the faith ? We speak here of property which forms our own patrimony, but it is possible that we may be en-trusted with the administration of other property. The Catholic statesman is forbidden by his conscience to deal with the funds of the State with the same freedom as if they were his own, or to dispose of public offices as if they were posts in his own household. His appointments and subsidies will be regulated by prudent and impartial justice, according to the government and constitution of the society. The Catholic statesman will take care not to be exclusive, but he must take care also not to be imposed upon. On the contrary, he should be so firm that the fear of reprisals may act as a check on anti-Catholic administrations, and compel them to have some regard for administrative justice and equitable moderation.

If we leave the economic order, and raise our thoughts to consider the interests of religion and morality, we remark that prudence requires each man to show for himself the same care and circumspection that a father exercises over his family. Consideration for others which makes us careless of ourselves, outward indulgence of others which may do us infinite harm, are the result of a vicious tolerance which is not virtue, but weakness of character, cowardice in the face of duty. Let our relations even with those who reject our faith and despise our moral codes be always correct, and even cordial; let our demeanour be always marked by Christian charity. So far, so good ; but how frequent and how intimate should these relations be, and is there any reason for their existence at all ? These questions remain to be answered, for we cannot visit everyone, or be on terms of intimate friendship with the whole world. The true solution is in taking good advice, and endeavouring to fulfil the great Christian commandment : “ Be good thyself, and spread all the good thou canst around thee.”

It is a delicate question, how we ought to behave in the philosophic or religious controversies in which we take part, and the problem becomes extremely perplexing when our adversary declares that he shares the faith for which we write or speak. This embarrassing subject requires some remarks which will fitly conclude the first part of this work.

A man may err in good faith, or he may make profession of belief without sincerity. Ambiguous or obscure language may be used to conceal a clever trap, or may be the result of ignorance or carelessness. The profession of religious faith reveals the inmost soul, but a false profession of faith may be made to cover the most insidious designs. Freemasonry formerly numbered priests among its members, and not half a century ago it filled the confraternities of Brazil. About 1850 at Brussels it was able to command religious services. If it is wicked to calumniate, or disseminate unjust suspicions, it is necessary at times to have the sense and courage to cry “ Wolf!” before it is too late.

A private individual has no right to accuse another of being in error—by which is meant religious error—except after mature deliberation. He has no right to speak in the name of the Church. He is not infallible, and cannot without presumption claim for himself any special orthodoxy. He must avoid the self-conceit which sometimes disguises itself as religious zeal, the attachment to his own opinions which may be the motive of his ardour in preaching submission. Does it not seem sometimes—in the case of the condemnation of a published work, for example—as if the writer cared less about being on the side of authority than having authority on his side ? On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the decisions of the Church or the Holy See lay down directions which must not be exaggerated or overstrained, but which a loyal Catholic will refuse to evade by quibbles or minimizing interpretations.

In the perplexities which arise in such circumstances, how useful it is to listen to the counsels of toleration ! Be just, they say to each of us, and see if the man or the work in which you detect errors does not show too much Catholicism to fall under suspicion. Be equitable, and in case of doubt give your brethren the benefit of that presumption of correctness which is laid down in the oldest laws, and of which St. Ignatius writes in these express terms in the beginning of his spiritual exercises : “ Every good Christian is more eager to justify than to condemn a statement of his neighbour ; and if he cannot justify it, he asks the author for an explanation. If the author explains it ill, he corrects him with charity; and when that is not enough, he endeavours to the best of his power to find an acceptable meaning which will save the proposition.” History itself attests the opportuneness of this caution : rigorous judgments, though long accepted, are reviewed by the light of fresh study. A more careful examination sometimes shows that time- honoured imputations of heresy rest on expressions badly used, badly understood, or badly trans-lated.¹ Be kind ; do not seek the malicious satisfaction of having discovered an additional enemy to the Church. The bitterness of some men’s writing is very exasperating, and irritation will sometimes bring down a tottering structure which a little kindness might have saved. What would have become of Abelard without the gentleness of Peter the Venerable ?² Charity has good, not evil, for its object ; it would rather win hearts by gentleness than humiliate them by an assumption of superiority. Be courteous; in the fight against error treat your adversary with deference. And, above all, be scrupulously truthful.³ To all, friends and foes alike, give that serious attention which does not misrepresent any opinion, does not distort any statement, does not mutilate any quotation.

¹ See, for example, the doctoral dissertation of Professor Lebon on certain Monophysites (Le Monophysisme Severien, Louvain, 1909). The panegyric dedicated by St. Gregory Nazianzen to St. Athanasius is worth reading. The holy doctor relates how, in the fourth century, the whole world was nearly rent in twain by a quarrel over syllables : the Easterns drew a distinction between substance and hypostasis, while the Westerns used the same word for the two ideas. The dispute was carried on with great bitterness, but St. Athanasius calmly weighed what each side had to say, and showed at the Synod of 362 that both sides were perfectly agreed on the main point. And “ at this time of disputes and controversies,” said St. Gregory, “ it would be a great pity not to draw attention to an example, which our contemporaries would do well to follow ” (M.P.G., t. 35, cols. 1125, 1126).

² See, in the dictionary of Vacant-Mangenot, the article “ Abelard,” by Father Portalié, S.J.

³ “ Be truthful in all things ; be scrupulously sincere. You will deserve to be faithful on important occasions, if you have been faithful in things that seem unimportant, [sincere children of God]. The love of truth is a great grace, only obtained by fervent prayer” (Ruinart, Abridgment of the Life of Dom. J. Mabillon, 1709, p. 392).

We need not fear to serve the cause of Christ less efficiently by putting on His spirit. In our own day especially, when men love to make a show of sincerity, and when so many honest but mistaken souls are yearning for the truth, let us count Christian loyalty as one of the most powerful influences to induce men to accept the gift of faith. Defective arguments weaken sound propositions ; false statements embitter disputes, perpetuate controversies, multiply misunderstandings, and give an opening for crushing rejoinders. An arrogant and uncompromising tone in an author makes men reluctant to listen to his arguments, and anxious to see him proved to be wrong. We do not establish a truth by showing that there is little evidence to support it; we cannot eradicate error by making it look like truth ; and we cannot hope to persuade a reader if we begin by exciting his antipathy. There is much sound sense as well as humour in the words of St. Augustine : “ Wolves sometimes disguise themselves in sheep’s clothing, but that is no reason why sheep should change their skins.”¹ Those victories alone give glory to Christ which are won by the weapons of Christ, for these are the weapons of justice.² To wish for no other victory, we need great self-control, perfect confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth, zeal untainted by unworthy motives ; and this self-control, this confidence, this zeal, enhance the private virtue of tolerance, and invite the admiration of all men.

¹ De Sermone Dei in Monte, l. 1, chap. ii., n. 41 (M.P.L., t. 34, col. 1287).

² Per arma justitiæ—By the armour of justice, on the right hand and on the left (2 Cor. vi. 7).