 Chapter 50 Keeping the Lord's Day Holy The Third Commandment bids us to sanctify the Lord's Day, but in what that sanctification shall consist it does not say. It is certain, however, that it is only by worship of one kind or another that the day can be properly kept holy to the Lord, and since interior worship is prescribed by the First Commandment, exterior and public worship must be what is called for. Then there are many modes of worship. There is no end to the means man may devise of offering homage to the Creator. The first element of worship is abstention from profane labor. Rest is the first condition of keeping the Sabbath. The word Sabbath itself means cessation of work. You cannot do two things at the same time. You cannot serve God and Mammon. Our everyday occupations are not of their nature, a public homage of fidelity to God. If any homage is to be offered as a preliminary, work must cease. This interruption of the ordinary business of life alone makes it possible to enter seriously into the more important business of God's service. And in this sense it is a negative worship. Yet there is also something positive about it. For the simple fact of desisting from toil contains an element of direct homage. Six days are ours for ourselves. What accrues from our activity on those days is our profit. To God we sacrifice one day, and all it might bring to us, we pay to Him a tithe of our time, labor, and earnings. By directing a right our intentions, therefore, our rest assumes the higher dignity of explicit emphatic religion and reverence. And in a fuller manner sanctifies the day that is the Lord's. We should, however, guard ourselves against the mistaken notion that sloth and idleness are synonymous of rest. It is not all activity, but the ordinary activity of common life that is forbidden. It were a sacrilegious mockery to make God the author of a law that fosters laziness and favors the sluggard. Another extreme that common sense condemns is that the physical man should suffer martyrdom, while the soul thus communes with God. That promonades and recreation should be abolished, and social amenities ignored. The dryness, gloom, morose-ness, and severity are the proper conditions of sabbatical observance. In this respect our Puritan ancestors were the true children of Phariseeism, and their blue laws more properly belonged to Talmud than in the Constitution of an American Commonwealth. God loves a cheerful giver. And would you not judge from appearances that religion was painful to these pious witch-burners and everything for God most grudgingly done? Size, grimaces, groans, and wails. This is the homage the devils in hell offer to the justice of God. There is no more place for them in the religion of earth than in the religion of heaven. Co-relative with the obligation of rest is that of purely positive worship, and here is the difficulty of deciding just what is the correct thing in religious worship. The Jews had their institutions, but Christ abolished them. The pagans had their way, sacrifice. Protestants have their preaching and hymn singing. Catholics offer a sacrifice too, but an unbloody one. Later on, we shall hear the church speak out on the subject. She exercised the right to change the day itself. She claims naturally the right to say how it should be observed because the day belongs to her. And she will impose upon her children the obligation to attend mass. But here the precepts of the church are out of the question. The obligation, however, to participate in some act of worship is plain. The first commandment charges every man to offer an exterior homage of one kind or another, at some time or another. The third sets aside a day for the worship of the divinity. Thus the general command of the first precept is specified. This is the time, or there is no time. With the third commandment before him, man cannot arbitrarily choose for himself the time for his worship. He must do it on Sunday. Public worship being established in all Christian communities, every Christian who cannot approve upon what is offered and who is convinced that a certain mode of worship is the best and true, is bound by the law to participate therein. The obligation may be greater if he ignores the principles of religion and cannot get information and instruction outside the temple of religion. For Catholics there is only one true mode of public worship, and that is the sacrifice of the mass. No layman is sufficient unto himself to provide such an act of religion. He has therefore no choice. He must assist at that sacrifice. If he would fulfill the obligation, he is under of Sunday worship. Chapter 51 of Explanation of Catholic Morals. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Larry Wilson. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton. Worship of Sacrifice. We Catholics contend, and our contention is based on the law of nature, that we glean from the history of man, that sacrifice is the soul of religion, that there never was a universally and permanently accepted religion, and that there cannot be any such religion without an altar, a victim, a priest, and a sacrifice. We claim that reason and experience would bear us out in this contention, even without the example in teaching and express commands of Jesus Christ, who in founding anew and the only true religion, himself offered sacrifice and left a sacrifice to be perpetually offered to his religion, and that sacrifice constitutes the high worship we owe to the Creator. It is our conviction that when man came into the presence of the Almighty, his first impulse was to speak to him, and his first word was an act of adoration. But human language is a feeble medium of communication with the Almighty. Man talks to man. To talk to God, he sought out another language, and as is the case of Adam's sons, he discovered in sacrifice a better and stronger mode of expressing his religious feelings. He therefore offered sacrifice, and sacrifice became the language of man in his relations with the deity. In its simplest definition, sacrifice is the offering to God of a victim, by one authorized for that task. It supposes essentially the destruction of the victim, and the act is an eloquent acknowledgement in language that is as plain as it possibly can be made, that God is the Supreme Lord of life and death, that all things that exist come from him and revert to him as to their natural end. The philosophy of sacrifice is that man, in some manner or other, had incurred the wrath of the Almighty. The pagan could not tell in just what his offence consisted, but there is nothing planer than the fact that he considered himself under the ban of God's displeasure, and that sin had something to do with it, and he feared the deity accordingly. We know that original sin was the curse under which he labored. Whatever the offence was it was in the flesh, the result of weakness rather than malice. There was something in his nature that inclined to evil and was responsible for sin. The better part tried to serve, but the inferior man revolted. Flesh, therefore, was wicked and sinful, and since all offence must be atoned for, the flesh should pay the penalty of evil. The wrath of God could be appeased, and sacrifice was the thing that could do it. Another thing most remarkable among those who worshipped by sacrifice in the early times is that they believed firmly in the reversibility of merit, that is, that the innocent could atone for the wicked. Somehow they acquired the notion that stainless victims were more agreeable to God than others. God sanctioned this belief among the Jews and most strikingly on the hill of Calvary. This being the case man being guilty and not having the right to inflict the supreme penalty upon himself, the natural thing to do was to substitute a victim for himself, to put the flesh of another in the place of his own and to visit upon it the punishment that was due to himself. And he offered to God this vicarious atonement. His actions spoke in this wise. My God, I am a sinner and deserve thy wrath. But look upon this victim as though it were myself. My sins and offenses I lay upon its shoulders. This knife shall be the bolt of thy vengeance, and it shall make atonement in blood. This is the language of sacrifice. As we have said it supposes the necessity of atonement and belief in the reversibility of merit. Now if we find in history, as we certainly do find, that all peoples offered sacrifice of this kind, we do not think we would be far from the truth if we deduce therefrom a law of nature. And if it is a law of nature, it is a law of God. If there is no religion of antiquity that did not offer sacrifice, then it would seem that the Almighty had traced a path along which man naturally trod and which his natural instinct showed him. We believe in the axiom of St. Augustine. Securus dugeset orbes terrarum, a universally accepted judgment, can be safely followed. Especially do we feel secure with the history of the chosen people of God before us, and its sacrifice ordained by law, with the sanction of Christ's sacrifice in our mind, and the practice of the divinely inspired church which makes sacrifice the soul of her worship. The victim we have is Jesus Christ himself, and none other than he. He gave us his flesh and blood to consume, with the command to consume. Our sacrifice therefore consists in the offering up of this victim to God, and the consuming of it. Upon the victim of the altar as upon the victim of the cross we lay our sins and offenses, and in one case as in the other the sacred blood, in God's eyes washes our equity away. Of course it requires faith to believe, but religion is nothing if it is not whole and entire a matter of faith. The less faith you have, the more you try to simplify matters. Waning faith began by eliminating authority and sacrifice and the unwritten word. Now the written word is going the same way. Pretty soon we shall hear of the Decalogues being subjected to this same eliminating process. After all, when one gets started in that direction, what reason is there that he should ever stop? Morals by John H. Stapleton Chapter 52 Worship of Rest Participation in public worship is the positive obligation flowing from the Third Commandment. Abstention from labor is what is negatively enjoined. Now works differ as widely in their nature as differ in form and dimension, the pebbles on the seashore. There are works of God and works of the devil, and works which as regards spirituality are totally indifferent. Profane works as distinguished from sacred and sinful works. And these latter may be corporal or intellectual or both. Work or labor or toil in itself is a spending of energy, an exercise of activity. It covers a deal of ground, and since the law simply says to abstain from work it falls thus to determine just what works are meant, for it is certain that all works, that is, all that come under the general head of work, do not profane the Lord's day. The legislation of the church, which is the custodian of the Sunday, on this head commends itself to all thoughtful men. While for those who recognize the church as the true one, that legislation is authority. The church distinguishes three kinds of profane works, that is, works that are neither sacred nor iniquitous of their nature. There is one kind which requires labor of the mind rather than of the body. These works tend directly to the culture or exercise of the mind, and are called liberal works, because under the Romans, freemen or liberi almost exclusively were engaged therein, such as reading, writing, studying, music, drawing, in general, mental occupations in whole, or more mental than corporal. These works the church does not consider the law includes in its prohibition, and they are consequently not forbidden. It is impossible here to enumerate all that enters into this class of works. A customer has something to say in determining what is liberal in our works, and in investigating we must apply to each case the general principle. The labor in question may be gratuitous or well-paid. It may cause fatigue or afford recreation. All this is not the point. The question is, outside the danger of omitting divine service, scandal, or circumstances that might lead to the annoyances and distraction of others, the question is, does this work call for exercise of the mind more than that of the body? If the answer is affirmative, then the work is liberal, and as such it is not forbidden on Sunday. It is not considered a profanation of the Lord's day. On the other extreme are what go by the name of Servile Works, which call forth principally bodily effort and tend directly to the advantage of the body. They are known also as works of manual labor. Before the days of Christianity slaves alone were thus employed, and from the word Servile, or slaves they are called Servile Works. Here again it is the nature of the work that makes it Servile. It may be remunerative or not, recreative or not, fatiguing or not. It may be a regular occupation, or just taken up for the moment. It may be outside cases of necessity for the glory of God, or for the good of the neighbor. If it is true that the body has more part therein than the mind, then it is a Servile work, and it is forbidden. Of course there are serious reasons that dispense us from our obligation to this law, but we are not talking about that just at present. The reason of the prescription is not that such works are evil, but that they interfere with the intention we should give to the worship we owe to God, and that without this secession of labor our bodily health would be impaired. These are the two modus of the law. But even if it happened in an individual case that these inconveniences were removed, that neither God's reverence nor one's health suffered from such occupations as the law condemns, the obligation would still remain to abstain there from, for it is general and absolute. And when there is a question of obeying a law, the subject has a right to examine the law, but not the modus of the law. We shall later see that there are other works called common, which require activity of the mind and of the body, in about an equal measure, of which enter into the common necessities of life. These are not forbidden in themselves, although in certain contingencies they may be a judged unlawful. But in the manner of Servile works nothing but necessity, the greater glory of God, or the good of the neighbor, can allow us to consider the law non-binding. To break it is a sin, slight or grievous, according to the nature of the offense. End of Chapter 52 Worship of Rest Chapter 53 Of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recorded by Sylvia M. B. in Washington State. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton Chapter 53 Servile Works But if servile works are prohibited on the Lord's Day, it must be remembered that the Sabbath Day was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. That for certain good and sufficient reasons the law seizes to oblige, and in these circumstances works of a purely servile nature are no longer unlawful. This is a truth Christ made very clear to the straight-laced Pharisees of the old dispensation who interpreted too rigorously the divine prohibition, and certain Pharisees of the new dispensation who are supposed assiduously to read the Bible, should jog their memories on the point in order to save themselves from the ridicule that surrounds the memory of their ancestors of blue law fame. The church enters into the spirit of her divine founder and recognizes cases in which labor on Sunday may be, and is, more agreeable to God and more meritorious to ourselves than rest from labor. The law certainly does not intend to forbid a kind of works, specifically servile in themselves, connected with divine worship, required by the necessities of public religion, or needed to give to that worship all the solemnity and pomp which it deserves, provided of course such things could not well be done on another day. All God's laws are for His greater glory, and to assert that works necessary for the honoring of God are forbidden by His law is to be guilty of a contradiction in terms. All things therefore are needed for the preparation and becoming celebration of the rites of religion, even though of a servile nature are lawful and do not come under the head of this prohibition. The law seizes likewise to bind when its observance would prevent an active charity towards the neighbor in distress, necessity, or pressing need. If the necessity is real and true charity demands it, it matters not what work, not intrinsically evil, is to be done on what day or for how long a time it is to be done. Charity overrides every law, for it is itself, the first law of God. Thus, if the neighbor is in danger of suffering, or actually suffers, any injury, damage, or ill, God requires that we give our services to that neighbor rather than to himself. As a matter of fact, in thus serving the neighbor, we serve God in the best possible way. Finally, necessity, public as well as personal, dispenses from obligation to the law. In time of war, all things required for its carrying on are illicit. It is lawful to fight the elements when they threaten destruction, to save crops in an interval of fine weather, when delay would mean a risk, to cater to public conveniences which custom adjudges necessary, and by custom we mean that which has at least the implicit sanction of authority, such as public conveyances, pharmacies, hotels, etc. Certain industries run by steam power require that their fires should not be put out altogether, and the labor necessary to keep them going is not considered illicit. In general, all servile work that is necessary to ensure against serious loss is lawful. As for the individual, it is easier to allow him to toil on Sunday, that is, a less serious reason is required if he assists at divine worship than in the contrary event. One can be justified in omitting both obligations only in the event of inability otherwise to provide for self and family. He whose occupation demands Sunday labor need not consider himself guilty so long as he is unable to secure a position with something like the same emuluments. But it is his duty to regret the necessity that prevents him from fulfilling the law, and to make efforts to better his condition from a spiritual point of view, even if the change does not, to any appreciable extent, better it financially, a pursuit equally available should be preferred. Neglect and seeking out such an amelioration of the situation would cause the necessity of it to seize, and make the delinquent responsible for habitual breach of the law. If it is always a sin to engage without necessity in servile work on Sunday, it is not equally sinful to labor little or labor much. Common sense tells us that all our failings are not in the same measure offensive to God, for they do not all contain the same amount of malice and contempt of authority. A person who resolves to break the law and persists in working all day long is of a certainty more guilty than he who, after attending divine service, fails so far as to labor an hour. The question, therefore, is how long must one work on Sunday to be guilty of a mortal sin? The answer to this question is a notable time. But that does not throw a very great abundance of light on the subject, but surely a fourth of the whole is a notable part. Now, considering that a day's work is not 24 hours, but 10 hours, very rarely 12, frequently only eight, it will be seen to follow that two hours work would be considered a notable breach of the law of rest. And this is the decision of competent authority, not but that less might make us grievously guilty, but we may take it as certain that he who works during two full hours at a labor considered servile without sufficient reason commits a mortal sin. Chapter 54 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. There is a third sort of works to be considered in relation to Sunday observance, which, being of their nature neither liberal nor servile, go by the specific name of common works. This class embraces works of two kinds, in other words, those which enter into the common daily inevitable necessities of life, and those in which the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the mind of the life and those in which the mind and body are exerted in an equal measure. The former are not considered servile because they are necessary, not in certain circumstances, but at all times, for all persons in all conditions of life. Activity of this kind, so universally and imperiously demanded, does not require dispensation from the law, as in the case of necessary servile works properly so called, but it stands outside all legislation and is a law unto itself. These works are usually domestic occupations, as cooking and the preparation of victuals, the keeping of the house and becoming tidiness, the proper care of children, of beasts of burden, and domestic animals. People must eat, the body must be fed, life requires attention on Sunday as well as on the other six days, and in no circumstances can this labor be dispensed with. Sometimes, eatables for Sunday consumption may be prepared on the previous day. If this is not done, whether through forgetfulness, neglect, or indifference, it is lawful on Sunday to prepare a good table, even one more sumptuous than on ordinary days. For Sunday is a day of festival, and without enthusing over the fact, we must concede that the words feast and festival are synonymous in human language, and that the ordinary and favorite place for human rejoicing is the table. And in this man differs not from the other animals of creation. This may not be aesthetic, but it is true. In walking, riding, games, et cetera, the physical and mental forces of man are called into play in about equal proportion, or at least these occupations can be called neither liberal arts nor manual labor. All manners of persons engaged therein without respect to condition or profession. These are also called common works, and to them may be added hunting and fishing, when custom, rightly understood, does not forbid them, and in this region custom most uniformly does so forbid. These occupations are looked upon as innocent pastime, affording relief to the body and mind, and in this respect should be likened to the taking of food, for it is certain that sanitary conditions often as imperiously demand recreation as nourishment, especially is the case with persons given to sedentary pursuits, confined during the week to shops, factories, and stores, and whose only opportunity this is to shake off the dull monotony of work, and to give the bodies and minds necessary relaxation and distraction. It is not physical rest that such people require so much as healthy movement of a pleasing kind, an activity that will draw their attention from habitual channels, and thus break the strain that fatigues them. Under these conditions common works are not only allowed but they are to be encouraged. But it must not be lost sight of that these pursuits are permitted as long as they remain common works, that is, as long as they do not accidentally become servile works, or go contrary to the end for which they are allowed. This may occur in three different manners, and when it does occur, the works known as common are forbidden as servile works. 1. They must not expose to us the danger of omitting divine service. The obligation to positively sanctify the day remains intact. Sin may be committed, slight or gravest, according as the danger to which we expose ourselves, by indulging in these pursuits of missing public worship is more or less remote, more or less probable. 2. These works become illicit when they are excessive, when too much time is given to them, when the body receives too large a share of the exercise, when accompanied by over much application, show or fatigue. In these cases the purpose of the law is defeated, the works are considered no longer common and fall under the veto that affects servile works, and aggravating circumstance is that of working for the sole purpose of gain, as in the case of professional baseball, etc. 3. Lastly, there are exterior circumstances that make these occupations a desecration of the Lord's day, and as such evidently they cannot be tolerated. They must not be boisterous to the extent of disturbing the neighbor's rest and quiet, or detracting from the reverence due the Sabbath. They must not entice others away from a respectful observance of the Lord's day, or offer an opportunity or occasion for sin, cursing, blasphemy, and foul language, contention, and drunkenness. They must not be a scandal for the community. Outside these contingencies of disorder, the Sabbath rest is not broken by indulgence in works classified as common works. Such activity, in all common sense and reason, is compatible with the reverence that God claims as His due on His day. 5. Parental Dignity We have done with the three commandments that refer directly to God. The second table of the law contains seven precepts that concern themselves with our relations to God, indirectly through the creature. They treat of our duties and obligations toward the neighbor, as God may be honored, so he may be dishonored through the works of his hand. One may offend us effectively by disregard for the law that binds us to God's creatures, as for that which binds us to the Creator Himself. Since parents are those of God's creatures that stand to near us to us, the fourth commandment immediately orders us to honor them as the authors of our being and the representatives of divine authority, and it prescribes the homage we owe to them in their capacity of parents. But that which applies to fathers and mothers applies in a certain degree to all who have any right or authority to command. Consequently, this law also regulates the duties of superiors and infigures, in general to one another. The honor we owe to our parents consists in four things—respect for their dignity, love for their beneficence, obedience to their authority, and assistance in their needs. Whoever fails in one of these requirements breaks the law, offends God and sins. His sin may be mortal if the quality of the offense and the malice of the offender be such as to constitute a serious breach of the law. It is the great fault of our age to underrate parental dignity. In the easygoing world, preference is given to profligate celibacy over honorable wedlock. Marriage itself is degraded to the level of a purely natural contract. Its bond has lost its character of indissolubility, and its obligations are shirked to meet the demands of fashion and convenience. When parents, unworthy ones, do not appreciate their own dignity, how will others, their children, appreciate it, and parenthood will never be esteemed while its true nature and sanctity are ignored and condemned? There is no dignity where the idea of God is excluded. After God had created man, he left him to work out his destiny in a natural way, and immediately man assumed towards his offspring the relation that God first held towards himself. He assumed the prerogatives of paternity and of authority. All paternity belongs to God and to him alone, yet man is delegated to that lofty, quasi-divine function. God alone can create, yet so near does the parental office approach to the power of creation, that we call it pro-creation. To his true this privilege man holds in common with the rest of animated nature, but with this difference that the fruit of his loins is a child of God, with an immortal soul and heir to heaven where its destiny is to glorify the eternal during all eternity. And thus man in his function of parent is as far differentiated from the rest of animal nature as the act by which God created man is superior to all his other creative acts. If the tempter, when working out his plan for the fall of our first parents, had simply and unconditionally said, ye shall be gods, his utterance would have in it more truth than he intended, for the mantle of parenthood that was soon to fall upon them made them like unto God. The children that romped around them looked up to them even almost as they were accustomed to look up to the Creator, and little wonder since to their parents they owed their very existence. As depositories of authority there is no human station, however exalted, comparable to theirs. Children are not merely subjects, they belong to their parents. Church and state under God may see to it that that authority is not abused, but within the bounds of right they are held to respect it, and their acts that go contrary to the exercise of parental authority are, by the fact of such opposition, null and void. Before the state or church the family was, its natural rights transcend theirs, and this bowing as it were of all constituted human authority before the dominion of parents is evidence enough of their dignity. God could not be everywhere, therefore he made parents, fathers, and mothers. That is how the pagans used to put it. However, theologically unsound this proposition may appear, it is a beautiful attempt at a great truth. In other words, that parents, towards us, stand in God's stead, in consequence of this eminent dignity that is theirs, they deserve our respect, they not only deserve it, but God so ordains it. End of Chapter 55 Chapter 56 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recorded by Sylvia M.B. in Washington State. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton. Chapter 56. Fillial Respect Worthy of honor are they whom the Lord sees fit to honor. In the exalted station to which they have been called, and in the express command made by the Lord to honor them, we see evidence of the dignity of parents. And the honor we owe them for this dignity is the honor of respect. By respect we mean the recognition of their superiority, the reverence, veneration, and awe all well-born men instinctively feel for natural worth that transcends their own, the deference in tone, manner, and deportment that naturally belongs to such worth. It is much easier to say in what respect does not consist than to define the term itself. If it really exists in the heart, and there it must exist to be at all, it will find expression in a thousand different ways, and will never be at a loss to express itself. Books will give you the laws of etiquette, and will tell you how to be polite. But the laws that govern respect are graven on the heart, and he whose heart is in the right place never fails to read and interpret them correctly. Towards all, at all times and in all places, he will conform the details of his life with the suggestions of his inner consciousness. This is respect. Respect has no substitute. Neither assistance nor obedience nor love can supply it or take its place. It may happen that children are no longer obliged to help their parents. They may be justified in not obeying them. The circumstances may be such that they no longer have love or affection for them, but respect can never be wanting without serious guilt. The reason is simple, because it is due injustice, because it is founded on natural rights that can never be forfeited, even when parents themselves lose the sense of their own dignity. Sinful, wicked, and scandalous parents there have been are and will be. But just as they do not owe the excellence to any deed of their own, but to the free choice of the Almighty, so it depends not on themselves to forfeit it. God made them parents without respect for their personal worth. He is the custodian of their dignity. Good or bad they are parents and remain parents. Woe unto those who despise the author of their days. Respect overlooks an innocent joke at the expense of a parent, when absolutely no malice is intended, when on both sides it is looked upon as a matter of good-natured pleasantry. It works humor. Not all familiarity breeds contempt. But contempt, which is directly opposed to respect, is a sin that is never anything but mortal. It refuses honor, belittles dignity, and considers parents beneath esteem. It is contempt to laugh at, to mock, to jibe, and insult parents. It is contempt to call them vile apogria's names, to tell of their faults. It is contempt and the height of contempt to defy them, to curse them, or to strike them. It is bad enough when this sort of thing is directed against an equal. But when parents are made the objects of contempt, it acquires a dignity that is infernal. The malediction of heaven, the almighty wrath of God, follows him or her who despises parents. We are repeatedly told in holy writ that such offenders shall die the death. Scorn of parents is looked upon as a crime almost on par with hatred of God. Pagans frequently punished it with death. Among Christians it is left to the avenging wrath of God, who is pledged to defend the dignity of his delegated paternity. It is not a rare occurrence to see just retribution visited upon parents, who in their day were undutiful, unworthy, and unnatural children. The justice of heaven often permits it to be done unto us, as we do unto others. Our children will treat us as we shall have treated our parents. Their hands will be raised against us, and will smite us on the cheek to avenge the grand sire's dishonor and tears, and to make us atone in shame for our sins against our parents. If we respect others they will respect us. If we respect our parents our children will respect us. Fillial love. He who has a heart, and has it properly located, will not fail to love that which is good. He will have no difficulty in so doing, and will require neither command nor persuasion to make him do so. If he proves refractory to this law of nature, it is because he is not like the rest of mortals, because he is inhuman, and his abnormal condition is due not to nature's mistakes, but to his own. And no consideration under heaven will be equal to the task of instilling affection into a stone, or a chunk of putty, that is good which is desirable, or which is the source of what is desirable. God alone is absolutely good, that is to say, good in himself, and the cause of all good. Created things are good, in the proportion of their furnishing us with things desirable, and are for that reason called relatively good. They confer benefits on one and not perhaps on another. When I say this or that is good, I mean that it is useful to me, and is productive, a comfort, happiness, and other desirable things. Because we are naturally selfish, our appreciation of what is good depends on what we get out of it. Therefore, it is that a child's first, best, and strongest love should be for its parents. For the greatest good it enjoys, the thing of all others to be desired, the essential condition of all else, namely its existence, it owes to its parents. Life is the boon we receive from them, not only the giving, but the saving in more than one instance, the fostering and preserving and sustaining during long years of helplessness, and the adorning of it with all the advantages we possess. Nor does this take into account the intimate cost, the sufferings and labors, the cares and anxieties, the trouble and worryment that are the lot of devoted parenthood. It is life spent and given for life. Flesh and blood, substance, health and comfort, strength of body and peace of soul, lavished with unstinted generosity out of the fullness of parental affection. These are things that can never be repaid in kind. They are repaid with the coin of filial piety and love, or they remain dead debts. Failure to meet these obligations brands one a reprobate. There is not in all creation, bird or beast, but fields and shows instinctive affection toward those to whom it owes its being. He therefore, who closes his heart to the promptings of filial love, has the consolation of knowing that not only does he not belong to the order of human beings, but he places himself outside the pale of animal nature itself, and exists in a world of his own creation which no human language is able to properly qualify. The love we owe to our parents is next in quality to that which we owe to God and to ourselves. Love has a way of identifying its object and its subject. The lover and the beloved become one. Their interests are common, their purpose alike. The dutiful child therefore looks upon its parents as another self, and remains indifferent to nothing that for a wheel or for a woe affects the parent. Love consists in this community of feeling, concern and interest, when the demon of selfishness drives gratitude out of the heart, and the ties of natural sympathy become strained, and love begins to wane when they are snapped asunder. Love is dead. The love of God, of course, primes all other love. He who loves father or mother more than me, said the Saviour, is not worthy of me. Filial love therefore must not conflict with that which we owe to God. It must yield, for it draws its force from the latter and has no meaning without it. In normal conditions, this conflict never occurs. It can occur only in the event of parents overriding the law that governs their station in life, to make divine love wait on the humanist criminal. It may, and no doubt does, happen that parents become unlovable beings through disregard for the moral law. And because love is not a commodity that is made to order, children may be found who justify on these grounds their absence of affection, or even their positive hatred for such parents. A drunken parent, one who attacks the life, virtue, or reputation of his offspring, is a low brute who has neither honor nor affection, and whose office it is to make home a living hell. Such a one can hardly be loved. But pity is a form of love, and just as we may never despise a fallen parent, just so do we owe him or her, even in the depths of his or her degradation, a mead of pity and commiseration. There is no airing soul but may be reclaimed. Every soul is worth the price of its redemption. And there is no unfortunate be ever so low, but deserves for the sake of his soul a tribute of sympathy and a prayer for his betterment. And the child that refuses this, however just the cause of his aversion, offends against the law of nature, of charity, and of God. End of Chapter 57 Chapter 58 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recorded by Sylvia M. B. in Washington State. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton Chapter 58 Authority and Obedience Authority means the right to command. To command is to exact obedience, and obedience is submission of one's will to that of another. Will is a faculty that adores its own independence, is ambitious of rule and dominion, and can hardly bear to serve. It is made free and may not bend. It is proud and hates to bend. Some will add it is the dominant faculty in man and therefore should not bend. Every man for himself, we are born free. All men are equal and no one has the right to impose his will upon another. We are directly responsible to God and go-betweens are repudiated by the common sense of mankind. This is good Protestant theory. And it is most convenient and acceptable to the unregenerate heart of man. We naturally like that kind of talk. It appeals to us instinctively. It is a theory that possesses many merits besides that of being true in a sense in which only one takes it out of fifty who advocate it. But these advocates are careful, and the reason of their solicitude is anything but clear. To keep within the religious lines, and they never dare to carry their theory into the domain of political society, their hard common sense forbids. And they are likewise careful to prevent their children from practicing the doctrine within the realm of paternal authority, that is, if they have any children. Society calls it anarchy, and parents call it unnatural cussedness. In religion it is freedom of the children of God. If there is authority, there must be obedience. If one has the right to command, there arises in others the correlative duty and obligation to submit. There is no question of how this will suit us. It simply does not, and will not suit us. It is hard, painful, and humiliating. But it is a fact, and that is sufficient. Likewise, it is a fact that if authority was ever given by God to man, it was given to the parent. All men, Protestants, and anarchists alike, admit this. The social being and the religious being may reject and repudiate a law, but the child is subject to its parents. It must obey. Failing in this, it sins. Disobedience is always a sin. If it is disobedience, that is, a refusal to submit in things that are just to the express command of paternal authority, the sin may be slight or grievous, the quality of its malice depending on the character of the refusal, of the things commanded, and of the command itself. In order that the offense may be mortal, the refusal must be deliberate, containing an element of contempt, as all malicious disobedience does. The command must be express, parentery, absolute, and nothing must be commanded done that may not reasonably be accomplished, or is not within the sphere of parental jurisdiction, or is contrary to the law of God. An order that is unreasonable or unlawful is invalid. Not only it may, but it should be disregarded. It is not sufficient for a parent wishing to oblige under pain of grievous sin that he ask a thing done, that he express his mind on the matter. He must order it and leave no room to doubt that he means what he says. There may be disobedience without this parenteriness of command, but it cannot be a serious fault. It is well also to make certain allowance for the levity and thoughtlessness of youth, especially in matters whose importance is beyond their comprehension. It is generally admitted that parental authority, exercised in things that concern good morals and the salvation of the soul, can scarcely ever be ignored without mortal offending. This means that besides the sin committed, if the prohibition touches matters of sin, there is a sin specifically different and aggrievous one of disobedience. By reason of the parental prohibition, there are two sins instead of one. This should be remembered by those who, against the express command of their parents, frequent bad companions, remain on the street at night, neglect their religious duty, etc. Parents have nothing to say in the choice their children make of a state in life, that is, they may suggest, but must not coerce. This is a matter that depends on personal tastes and the inner voicings of this spirit. Having come to the age of manhood or womanhood, the party interested knows best what walk of life will make him or her happy and salvation easier. It is therefore for them to choose, and their choice must be respected. In this they are not bound to obey the will of their parents, and if disinclined to do so, should not. End of Chapter 58 Chapter 59 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Chapter 59 Should We Help Our Parents There are few things more evident to natural reason than the obligation children are under to assist their parents when necessity knocks at their door, and finding them unable to meet its harsh demands presses them with the goad of misery and want. Old age is weak and has to lean on strength and youth for support. Like childhood, it is helpless. Accidentally, misfortune may render a parent dependent and needy. In such contingencies, it is not for neighbors, friends, or relatives to come in and lend a helping hand. This duty devolves on the offspring, on them first, and on them alone. Charity is not alone to prescribe this office of piety. A stronger law than charity has a claim in the matter, and that is the law of justice. Justice demands a quid pro quo. It exacts a just compensation for services rendered. Even though there be no agreement between parents and offspring, and the former gave without a thought of return, nature records a contract, by the terms of which parents in want are entitled to the same support from their children as the latter received from them in the days of their helplessness. Those who do not live up to the terms of this natural contract stand amenable to the justice of heaven. The obligation follows them during life, wherever they go, and they can no more shirk it than they can efface the characters that declare it, graven on their hearts. Nothing but sheer impossibility can dispense them. So sacred and inviolable is this obligation, that it passes before that of assisting wife and children, the necessity being equal. Four filial obligations enjoy the distinction of priority. Not even engagements contracted before God hold against the duty of relieving parental distress and want, for vows are of counsel and must yield to the dictates of natural and divine law. Of course, the gravity of this obligation is proportionate to the stress of necessity under which parents labour. To constitute a mortal sin of neglect, it is not necessary that a parent be in the extreme of privation and beggary. It is not easy to draw the line between slight and grievous offending in this matter. But if some young men and women examine their conscience as carefully as they do their new spring suits and hats, they would find material for confession the avowal of which might be necessary to confessional integrity. It has become the fashion with certain of the rising generation, after draining the family extractor for some 16 or 18 years, to emancipate themselves as soon as their wages cover the cost of living, with a little surplus. They pay their board, that is to say, they stand towards their parents as a stranger would, and for getting the debt their younger years have piled up against them, they hand over a miserable pittance, just enough to cover the expenses of bed and board. This might, and possibly does, make them feel big, but that feeling is a false one, and the bigness experienced is certainly not in their moral worth. In many cases, such conduct is a prevarication against the law of God. This applies with equal force to young women, whose vanity overrides the claims of charity and justice, and who are said to put all their earnings on their backs, while they eat the bread that another earns. Frequently, children leave home, and leave all their obligations to their parents behind them at home. If their letters are rare, enclosed checks are still rarer. They like to keep the old folks informed of the fact that it costs a good deal to live away from home. They sometimes come home on a visit, but these are visits, and visitors, even if they do stay quite a while, do not pay board. But pecuniary assistance is not all. It is occasionally care and attention an aged parent requires, the presence of a daughter who prefers the gaiety of the city to the quiet of the old homestead that is imperiously demanded. If the parent be feeble or sick, the undudiful child is criminally negligent. The crime is still greater if there be danger through that absence of the parents dying without religious consolation. I have said nothing of that unnatural specimen of humanity, sometimes called a loafer, and by still more ignoble names, who, to use a vulgar term, grubs on his parents, drinks what he earns, and befouls the home he robs, with his loathsome presence and scandalous living. The least said of him the better. He exists. Tis already too much said. Vol. 60 Disinterested Love in Parents Love seems to resume all the obligations of parents toward their offspring. Certainly, it directs all their actions, and they fulfill these obligations ill or well according to the quality of that love. But love is not sufficient. Love is of two kinds, the right and the wrong. Nothing good comes of an affection that is not properly ordered. In itself, parental love is natural, instinctive. Therefore, it is not meritorious to any high degree. But there is much merit in the proper kind of parental affection, because it requires sacrifice. There may be too little love to the neglect and misfortune of children. There may be too much to their spoiling and utter perversion. Again, there may be affection that is partial, that singles out one for caresses and favors to the exclusion of the others. Hence, discord and dissensions in the family. The first two forms of inordinate affection are equally bad, while the last combines both, and contains the double evil thereof. It is hard to say which is the worse off, the child that receives too much, or the one that receives too little of that love which, to be correct, should avoid extremes. Parents are apt, under the sway of natural affection, to overlook the fact that God has rights over the children, and that the welfare and interests of the children must not be left outside all consideration. Herein lies the root of all the evil that befalls the family through degenerate love. What is commonly but improperly called love is either a pagan fondness or a Simon-pure egotism and self-love. When a vain person looks into a mirror, she, if it be a she, will immediately fall in love with the image, because it is an image of herself, and a selfish parent sees in his child not another being, but himself, and he loves it for himself. His affection is not an act of generosity as it should be, but an act of self-indulgence. He does not seek to please another, he seeks to please himself. His love, therefore, is nothing but concentrated vanity, and that is the wrong kind. Such a parent will neglect a less favored child, and he will so far dot on the corporal and physical object of his devotion as to forget there is a soul within. He will account all things good that flatter his conceit, and all things evil that disturb the voluptuousness of his attachment. He owns that child, and he is going to make it the object of his eternal delights, God's rights and the child's own interests to the contrary notwithstanding. This fellow is not a parent. He is a pure animal, and the cub will one day make good returns for services rendered. A parent with a growing up family, carefully reared and expensively educated, will often lay clever plans and dream elaborate dreams of a golden future from which it would almost be cruelty to awaken. He sees his pains and toils requited a thousandfold, his disbursements yielding a high rate of interest, and the name his children bear, his name, respected and honored. In all this there is scarcely anything blame worthy, but the trouble comes when the views of the Almighty fail to square with the parental views. Symptoms of the malady then reveal themselves. Misfortunes are met with complaints and murmurings against providence and the manner in which it runs the cosmic machine. Being usually self-righteous, such parents bring up the old discussion as to the justice of the divine plan by which the good suffer and the wicked prosper in this world. Sorrow in bereavement is legitimate and sacred, but when wounded love vents its wrath on the Almighty, the limit is passed, and then we say, Such love is love only in name. Love must respect the rights of God. If it does not, it is something else. The Almighty never intended children to be a paying investment. It belongs to him to call children to himself, as well as parents themselves, when he feels like it. Parents who ignore this do not give their children the love, the latter have a right to expect. Intelligent and Christian parents, therefore, need to understand the true status of the offspring, and should make careful allowance for children's own interests, both material and spiritual, and for the all supreme rights of God in the premises. Since true love seeks to do good, in parents it should first never lose sight of the child's soul and the means to help him save it. Without this all else is labor lost. God frowns on such un-Christian affection, and he usually sees to it that even in this world the reaping be according to the sowing. The rearing of a child is the making or un-making of a man or woman. Love is the motive power behind this enterprise. That is why we insist on the disinterestedness of parental love, before touching on the all-important question of education. End of Chapter 60, Recording by Brian Keenan Chapter 61 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Brian Keenan Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton Chapter 61 Educate the Children Before reaching the age of reason, the child's needs are purely animal. It requires to be fed, clothed, and provided with the general necessities of life. Every child has a natural right that its young life be fostered and protected. The giver must preserve his gift, otherwise his gift is vain. To neglect this duty is a sin, not precisely against the Fourth, but rather against the Fifth Commandment, which treats of killing and kindred acts. When the mind begins to open, and the reasoning faculties to develop, the duty of educating the child becomes incumbent on the parent. As it's physical, so its intellectual being must be trained and nourished. And by education is here meant the training of the young mind, the bringing out of its mental powers, and the acquisition of useful knowledge, without reference to anything moral or religious. This latter feature, the most important of all, deserves a special attention. Concerning the culture of the mind, it is a fact, recognized by all, that in this era of popular rights and liberties, no man can expect to make anything but a meager success of life, if he does that much, without at least a modicum of knowledge and intellectual training. This is an age in which brains are at a high premium. And although brains are by no means the monopoly of the cultured class, they must be considered as non-existent if they are not brought out by education. Knowledge is what counts nowadays. Even in the most common walks of life advancement is impossible without it. This is one reason why parents, who have at heart the future success and well-being of their children, should strive to give them as good an education as their means allow. Their happiness here is also concerned. If he be ignorant and untaught, a man will be frowned at, laughed at, and be made in many ways, in contact with his fellow man, to feel the overwhelming inferiority of his position. He will be made unhappy, unless he chooses to keep out of the way of those who know something and associate with those who know nothing, in which case he is very liable to feel lonesome. He is more over-deprived of the positive comforts and happiness that education affords. Neither books nor public questions will interest him. His leisure moments will be a time of idleness and unbearable tedium. A whole world, the world of the mind, will be closed to him, with its joys, pleasures, and comforts, which are many. Add to this the fact that the maker never intended that the noble faculty of the intelligence should remain an inert element in the life of his creature, that this precious talent should remain buried in the flesh of animal nature. Intelligence alone distinguishes us from the brute. We are under obligation to perfect our humanity. And since education is a means of doing this, we owe it to our nature, that we educate ourselves, and have educated those who are under our care. How long should the child be kept at school? The law provides that every child attends school until it reaches the age of fourteen. This law appears to be reasonable and just, and we think that in ordinary circumstances, it has the power to bind in conscience. The parent, therefore, who neglects to keep children at school, we account guilty of sin, and of grievous sin, if the neglect be notable. Outside this provision of the law, we think children should be kept at school as long as it is possible and prudent to do so. This depends, of course, on the means and resources of the parents. They are under no obligation to give to their children an education above what their means allow. Then the aptitudes physical and mental of the child are a factor to be considered. Poor health or inherited weakness may forbid a too-close application to studies, while it may be a pure waste of time and money to keep at school a child that will not profit by the advantage offered. It is better to put such a child at work as soon as possible. As says the philosopher of Archie Road, you may lead a young man to the university, but you cannot make him learn. Outside these contingencies, we think every child has a right to a common school education, such as is given in our system under the high school, whether it be fourteen years of age or over. Reading and writing, grammar and arithmetic, history and geography, these are the fundamental and essential elements of a common school education. And in our time and country, a modicum of information on these subjects is necessary for the future well-being, success, and happiness of our children. And since parents are bound to care for the future of their children, we consider them likewise bound to give them such an education as will ensure these blessings. End of Chapter 61. Recording by Brian Keenan Chapter 62 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Brian Keenan. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton Chapter 62. Educational Extravagance Our public educational system is made up of a grammar and a high school course, the latter consisting of a four years term of studies, devoted in part to a more thorough grounding in the essentials of education. The other part, by far the more considerable, according to the consensus of opinion, is expended on educational frills and vanities. These trimmings are given gratis, the public bearing the burden of expense, which puts up to a very respectable total. For a certain class of people, the people of means, this sort of a thing has not many disadvantages. It is in a line with the future occupation or profession of their offspring. But for the bulk of the children who attend our free schools, and on whose parents educational taxes are levied, it has serious inconveniences, is not in line with their future occupation or profession, is not only superfluous, but detrimental. It is for them so much time lost, precious time, that we're better spent learning a trade, or otherwise fitting themselves for their life work. Herein, therefore, we discover a double extravagance, that of parents who provide unwisely for their children's future, and that of the municipality which offers as popular an education that is anything but popular, since only the few can enjoy it, while all must bear the burden alike. There is much in getting a start in life, in beginning early. A delay is often a handicap, hard to overcome. With very few exceptions, our children gain their livelihood with their hands, and eyes, and ears, and not solely with their brains. They therefore require the most practical education imaginable. They need intellectual tools to work with, and not a smattering of science, botany, drawing, and political philosophy to forget as soon as possible. Pure culture studies are not a practical gain for them, while the time consumed in pursuing these is so much taken away from a thorough training in the essentials. Lectures on science, elementary experiments in chemistry, kindergarten instructions in watercolor painting. These are as much in their place in the education of the average child as an ivory-handled gold pen in the hand that wields the pickaxe. A boy is better off learning a trade than cramming his head full of culture fads. He is then doing something useful and profitable, on which the happiness and success of his life will depend. By the time his companions have done dabbling in science, and have come to the conclusion that they are simply being shown how ignorant they are, not a very consoling conclusion after all, he will have already laid the foundation of his career and be earning enough to settle down in life. He may not be able to talk on an infinity of subjects about which he knows nothing at all, but he will be able to earn his own living, which is something worthwhile. If the free high school were more of a business school, people would get better returns for their money. True, some would then be obliged to pay for the expensive fads that would be done away with. But since they alone enjoy these things, why should others be made to pay for them who cannot enjoy them? Why should the poor be taxed to educate the rich? Why not give the poor full value for their share of the burden? Why not provide them with intellectual tools that suit their condition, just as the rich are being provided for in the present system? The parochial high school has, in several places we know of, been made to serve as a protest against such evils, and as an example that has already been followed in more than one instance by the public schools. Intelligent and energetic pastors, knowing full well the conditions and needs of their people, offer the children a course in business methods as being more suitable, more profitable, and less extravagant than four years spent in acquiring a smattering of what they will never possess thoroughly and never need in their callings in life. It is better to fill young minds with the useful than with the agreeable, when it is impossible to furnish both. Results already bespeak the wisdom of this plan and reflect no small honor on its originators. Parents, therefore, should see to it that their children get the kind of education they need, the kind that will serve them best in afterlife. They should not allow the precious time of youth to be wild away in trifles and vanities. Children have a right to be educated in a manner in keeping with their conditions in life, and it is criminal in parents to neglect the real needs of their children while trying to fit them for positions they will never occupy. In the meantime, let them protest against the extravagance of educational enthusiasts and excessive state paternalism. Let them ask that the burden of culture studies be put where it belongs, that is, on the shoulders of those who are the sole beneficiaries, and that free popular education be made popular, that is, for all, and not for an elite of society. The public school system was called into existence to do one work, namely, to educate the masses. It was never intended to furnish a college education for the benefit of the rich men's sons at the expense of the poor. As it stands today, it is an unadulterated extravagance. The other defect, respecting education, as found in the public schools of the land, is that it leaves the soul out of all consideration and relegates the idea of God to a background of silent contempt. On this subject, we can do no better than quote wisdom from the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore. Few, if any, will deny that a sound civilization must depend upon sound popular education. But education, in order to be sound and to produce beneficial results, must develop what is best in man and make him not only clever, but good. A one-sided education will develop a one-sided life, and such a life will surely topple over, and so will every social system that is built up of such lives. True civilization requires that not only the physical and intellectual, but also the moral and religious well-being of the people should be improved, and at least with equal care. It cannot be desirable or advantageous that religion should be excluded from the school. On the contrary, it ought to be there one of the chief agencies for molding the young life to all that is true and virtuous and holy. To shut religion out of the school and keep it for home and the church is, logically, to train up a generation that will consider religion good for home and the church, but not for the practical business of real life. A life is not dwarfed but ennobled by being lived in the presence of God. The avowed enemies of Christianity in some European countries are banishing religion from the schools—they have done it since—in order to eliminate it gradually from among the people. In this, they are logical. Take away religion from the school and you take it away from the people. Take it away from the people and morality will soon follow. Morality gone, even their physical condition will earlong degenerate into corruption which breeds decrepitude, while their intellectual attainments would only serve as a light to guide them to deeper depths of vice and ruin. A civilization without religion would be a civilization of the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest, in which cunning and strength would become the substitutes for principle, virtue, conscience, and duty. One of the things the Catholic Church fears least in this country is Protestantism. She considers it harmless, more abundant, in the throes of disintegration. It never has, cannot, and never will thrive long where it has to depend on something other than wealth and political power. It has unchurched millions, is still unchurching at a tremendous rate, and will end by unchurching itself. The Godless School has done its work for Protestantism and done it well. Its dearest enemy could not wish for better results. Popular education comes more and more to mean popularized ear-religion. The future struggles of the Church will be with agnosticism and infidelity, the product of the Godless public school. And without pretending to be prophets or sons of prophets, we Catholics can foresee the day when Godless education, after making bad Christians, will make bad citizens. And because no civilization worthy of the name has ever subsisted, or can subsist, without religion, the maintenance of this system of popular and free government will devolve on the product of Christian education, and its perpetuity will depend upon the generations turned out of the religious school. The most substantial protest the Catholic Church offers against Godless education is the system of her parochial schools. And this alone is sufficient to give an idea of the importance of this question. From headquarters comes the order to erect Catholic schools in every parish in this land, as soon as the thing can be done. This means a tremendous amount of work, and a tremendous expense. It means a competition on educational grounds with the greatest, richest, and most powerful nation in the world. The game must be worth the candle. There must be some proportion between the end and the means. The Catholic Church has the wisdom of ages to learn from. And when she embarks on an enterprise of this kind, even her bitterest enemies can afford to take it for granted that there is something behind it. And there is. There is her very life, which depends on the fidelity of her children. And her children are lost to her and to God, unless she fosters religion in her young. Let parents share the solicitude of the Church for the little ones, and beware of the dangers of the Godless school. Chapter 64 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton, Chapter 64, Catholic Schools The Catholic school system all over this land has been erected and stands dedicated to the principle that no child can be properly, thoroughly, and profitably, for itself educated, whose soul is not fed with religion and morality, while its intelligence is being stocked with learning and knowledge. It is intended and made to avoid the two defects under which our public school system labors, the one accidental, the other fundamental, namely extravagance and godlessness. The child is taught the things that are necessary for it to know. Catechism and religion take the place of fads and costly frills. The Catholic school does not lay claim to superiority over another on purely secular lines, although in many cases its superiority is a very patent fact. It repudiates and denies charges to the effect that it is inferior, although this may be found in some cases to be true. It contends that it is equal to, as good as, any other, and there is no evidence why this should not be so. But it does pretend to give a more thorough education in the true sense of the word, if education really means a bringing about of that which is best in our nature. Neither do we hold that such a training as our schools provide will assure the faith and salvation of the children confided to our care. Neither church nor religion nor prayer nor grace nor God himself will do this alone. The child's fidelity to God and its ultimate reward depends on that child's efforts and will, which nothing can supply. But what we do guarantee is that the child will be furnished with what is necessary to keep the faith and save its soul, that there will be no one to blame but itself if it fails, and that such security it will not find outside the Catholic school. It is for just such work that the school is equipped, that is the only reason for its existence, and we are not by any means prepared to confess that our system is a failure in that feature which is its essential one. That every Catholic child has an inherent right to such a training, it is not for one moment permitted to doubt. There is nothing outside the very bread that keeps its body and soul together, to which it has a better right. Intellectual training is a very secondary matter when the immortal soul is concerned. And if the child has this right, there is a corresponding duty in the parent to provide it with such, and since that right is inalienable, that duty is of the gravest. Hence it follows that parents who neglect the opportunity they enjoy of providing their offspring with the sound religious and moral training in youth, and expose them unprepared to the attacks, covert and open of modern indifferentism, while pursuing secular studies, display a woeful ignorance of their obligations and responsibilities. This natural right of the child to a religious education, and the authority of the church which speaks in no uncertain accents on the subject, go to make a general law that imposes a moral obligation upon parents to send their children to Catholic schools. Parents who fail in this simply do wrong, and in many cases cannot be excused from mortal offending. And it requires, according to the general opinion, a very serious reason to justify non-compliance with this law. Exaggeration of course never serves any purpose, but when we consider the personal rights of children to have their spiritual life well nurtured, and the general evils against which this system of education has been judged necessary to make the church secure, it will be easily seen that there is little fear of overestimating the importance of the question, and the gravity of the obligations under which parents are placed. Moreover, disregard for this general law on the part of parents involves contempt of authority, which contempt, by reason of its being public, cannot escape the malice of scandal. Even when the early religious education of the child is safeguarded by excellent home training, an example, and no evil effects of purely secular education are to be feared, the fact of open resistance to the direction of church authority is an evil in itself, and may be the cause of leading others in the same path of revolt. Others who have not liked circumstances in their favor. About the only person I know who might be justified in not sending his children to Catholic schools is the crank, that creature of mulish propensities who box and kicks and will not be persuaded to move by any method of reasoning so far discovered. He usually knows all that is to be learned on the school question, which is a lie, and having compared the parochial and the public school systems in an intelligent and disinterested manner, which is another, he finds that the Catholic school is not the place for his children. If his children are like himself, his conclusion is wisely formed, albeit drawn from false premises. In him, three things are on a par, his conceit, his ignorance, and his determination. From these three ingredients results a high quality of assininity which in moral theology is called invincible ignorance, and is said to render one immune in matters of sin. May his tribe decrease. Chapter 65 of Explanation of Catholic Morals This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H Stapleton Chapter 65 Some weak points in the Catholic school system Some parents claim that their children do not learn anything in the Catholic school. It is good policy always to accept this statement as true in all its parts. It may be true and it is never good to deny the truth. All are not equally endowed with brains in this world. If a child has it dinned into his ears that the school he attends is inferior, he will come to be convinced of the fact, and being convinced he will set to work verifying it in his case at least. Heredity may have something to do with it, children are sometimes chips of the old block, a great misfortune in many cases, handicapping them in the race of life. It is well therefore not to claim too much for our schools. We can see the point. Another parent thinks that because he won through the public schools and kept the faith in his day, his children may be trusted to do the same. This subjection has a serious front to it. It does seem strange that children should not walk in the footsteps of their worthy parents. But the fact is, and facts are stubborn things, the fact is that they do not always act thus, and they might tell you to justify their unseemly conduct. That the conditions that obtained in life in olden days are not the same as at present. That there were no parochial schools then to offer a choice in matters of education, and that kind providence might have taken this into consideration. That it was the custom in those days for children to imitate the rugged virtues of their parents, struggling against necessity on one hand and bigotry on the other. But that through the powerful influence of money, the progeny of the persecuted may now hobnob with the progeny of the bigot, and the association is not always the best thing in the world for the faith and religious convictions of the former, unless these convictions are well grounded in youth. The parent therefore who kept the faith with less had a very considerable advantage over his child, who apparently has more privileges, but also more temptations and dangers. The objection does not look so serious now. Of course there is the question of social standing, a very important matter with some parents of the nouveau riche type. A fob will gauge a man's worth by the size of his purse, or the style and cut of the coat he wears. There are parents who would not mind their children's sitting beside a little darky, but who do object most strenuously to their occupying the same bench with a dirty little Irish child. A calico dress or a coat frayed at the edges are certainly not badges of high social standing, but they are not incompatible with honesty, purity, industry, and respect for God, which things create a wholesome atmosphere to live in and make the world better in every sense of the word. There is no refinement in these little ones, to speak of, not even the refinement of vice. There is something in the air they breathe that kills the germ of vice. The discipline considers sin a worse evil than ignorance of social amenities and virtue and goodness as far superior to etiquette and distinction of manners. If a different appreciation of things is entertained, we grant the inferiority of our schools. But then it is so very un-American, you know, to maintain separate schools in opposition to an institution so intensely American as our public school system. This state of affairs fosters creed prejudices that it is the duty of every true American to help destroy. The age of religious differences is past, and the parochial school is a perpetual reminder of things of the past that were best forgotten. We deny that the system that stands for no religious or moral training is intensely American. This is a Christian land. If our denial cannot be sustained, we consider such a system radically wrong and detrimental to the best interests of the country, and we protest against it, just as some of us protest against imperialism, high tariff, and monometalism. It is wrong, bad, therefore un-American. We also claim that the Protestant propaganda that is being carried on under the guise of non-sectarian education is unspeakably unjust and outrageous. Protestantism is not a state institution in this country. A stranger might think so by the way public shekels are made to serve the purpose of proselytism, but to make the claim, in theory, or in practice, is to go counter to the laws of this land and is un-American to a degree. That is another un-Americanism we protest against. We teach truth, not creed prejudices. We train our children to have and always maintain a strong prejudice for religious truth, and that kind of prejudice is the rockbed of all that is good and holy and worth living for. We teach dogma. We do not believe in religion without dogma any more than religion without truth. That kind of religion has not been invented, but it will come in when we have good men without convictions, parties without principles, and geometry without theories. If there is anything un-American in all this, it is because the term is misunderstood and misapplied. We are sorry if others find us at odds on religious grounds. The fact of our existence will always be a reminder of our differences with them in the past, but we are not willing to cease to exist on that account. End of chapter 65. Recording by Nathan Kinja. Chapter 66 of Explanation of Catholic Morals. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton. Chapter 66. Correction. Among the many things that are good for children and that parents are in duty bound to supply is the rod. This may sound old-fashioned, and it unfortunately is. There is a new school of home discipline in vogue nowadays. Slippers have outgrown their usefulness as implements of persuasion, being now employed exclusively as foot gear. The Lissum birch thrives ungarnored in the thicket, where grace and gentleness supply the wilom vigor of its sway. The unyielding barrel stave that formerly occupied a place of honor and convenience in the household is now relegated, a harmless thing, to a forgotten corner of the cellar, and no longer points a moral but adorns a woodpile. Disciplinary applications of the old type have fallen into innocuous desuitude. The penny now tempts, the sugar candy soothes, and sugar-coated promises entice when the rod should quell and blister. Meanwhile, the refractory urchin, with no fear to stimulate his sluggish conscience, chuckles, rejoices and is glad, and be thinks himself of some uninvented methods of devilment. Yes, it is old-fashioned in these days to smite with the retan, as did the mighty of Yor. The custom certainly lived a long time. The author of the proverb spoke of the practice to the parents of his generation, and there is no mistaking the meaning of his words. He spoke with authority, too. If we mistake not, it was the Holy Ghost that inspired his utterances. Here are a few of his old-fashioned sayings. Spare the rod and spoil the child. He who loves his child spares not the rod. Correction gives judgment to the child who ordinarily is incapable of reflection. If the child be not chastised, it will bring down shame and disgrace upon the head of its parent. It is our opinion that authority of this sort should redeem the defect of antiquity under which the teaching itself labours. There are some things ever ancient, ever new. This is one of them. The philosophy of correction may be found in the doctrine of original sin. Every child of Adam has a nature that is corrupted. It is a soil in which pride in all its forms and with all its cortege of vices take strong and ready root. This growth crops out into stubbornness, selfishness, a horror of restraint, effort, and self-denial, mischief, and a spirit of rebellion and destruction. In its native state, untouched by the rod of discipline, the child is wild. Now, you must force a crooked tree to grow straight, you must break a wild colt to domesticate it, and you must whip a wild boy to make him fit for the company of civilized people. Being self-willed, he will seek to follow the bent of his own inclinations, without intelligence or experience, and by nature prone to evil, he will follow the wrong path. And the habits acquired in youth, the faults developed, he will carry through life to his own and the misery of others. He therefore requires training and a substitute for judgment, and according to the Holy Ghost, the rod furnishes both. In the majority of cases, nothing can supply it. This theory has held good in all the ages of the world, and unless the species has evolved by extraordinary leaps and bounds within the last 50 years, it holds good today, modern nursery milk and honey discipline to the contrary, notwithstanding. It may be hard on the youngster, it was hard on us, but the difficulty is only temporary, and difficulty, some genius has said, is the nurse of greatness, a harsh nurse who roughly rocks her foster children into strength and athletic proportions. The great point is that this treatment be given in time, when it is possible to administer it with success and fruit. The ordinary child does not need oft-repeated doses, a firm hand and a vigorous application go a long way in most cases. Half-hearted milk and water castigation, like physics, should be thrown to the dogs. Long-threatening spoil the operation. They betray weakness, which the child is the first to discover. And without being brutal, it is well that the chastisement be such as will linger somewhat longer in the memory than in the sensibility. The defects that deserve this corrective especially are insubordination, sulkiness and sulleness. It is good to stir up the lazy, it is necessary to instill in the child's mind a saving sense of its own inferiority and to inculcate lessons of humility, self-effacement and self-denial. It should scourge dishonesty and lying. The bear licks its cub into shape, let the parent go to the bear, inquire of its ways and be wise. His children will then have a moral shape and a form of character that will stand them in good stead in afterlife. And they will give thanks in proportion to the pain inflicted during the process of formation. End of chapter 66, recording by Nathan Kinja, chapter 67 of explanation of Catholic morals. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton, chapter 67. Justice is a virtue by which we render unto every man that which to him is due. Among equals it is called commutative justice. The which alone is here in question. It protects us in the enjoyment of our own rights and imposes upon us the obligation of respecting the rights of our fellow men. This, of course, supposes that we have certain rights and that we know what a right is. But what is a right? The word itself may be clearer in the minds of many than its definition. Few ignore what a right is, and fewer still perhaps could say clearly and correctly what they mean by the word. A right is not something that you can see and feel and smell. It is a moral faculty, that is, a recognized, inviolable power or liberty to do something, to hold or obtain possession of something. Where the right of property is concerned, it supposes a certain relation or connection between a person and an object. This may be a relation of natural possession, as in the case of life or reputation, a relation of lawful acquisition, as that of the goods of life, etc. Out of this relation springs a title, just and proper, by which I may call that object mine, or you, yours. Ownership is thereby established of the object and conceded to the party in question. This party is therefore said to have a right to the object, and the right is good, whether he is in possession or not thereof. Justice respects this right, respects the just claims and titles of the owner, and forbids every act injurious thereto. All this presupposes the idea of God, and without that idea there can be no justice and no rights, properly so called. Justice is based on the conformity of all things with the will of God. The will of God is that we attain to everlasting happiness in the next world, through the means of an established order of things in this life. The world is so ruled, and our nature is such, that certain means are either absolutely or relatively necessary for the attaining of that end. For example, life, reputation, liberty, the pursuit of happiness in the measure of our lawful capacity. The obligation therefore to reach that end gives us the right to use these means, and God places in every soul the virtue of justice, so that this right may be respected. But it must be understood that the rights of God towards us transcend all other rights that we may have towards our fellow men. Ours we enjoy under the high dominion of him who grants all rights. Consequently, in the pursuit of justice for ourselves, our rights cease the moment they come into antagonism with the superior rights of God as found in his law. No man has a right to do what is evil, not even to preserve that most inalienable and sacred of all rights, his right to life. To deny this is to destroy the very notion of justice. The restrictions of our rights are more sacred than those rights themselves. Violation of rights among equals is called injustice. This sin has a triple malice. It attacks the liberty of fellow men and destroys it. It attacks the order of the world and the basis of society. It attacks the decree and mandate of the Almighty who wills that this world shall be run on the plan of justice. Injustice is therefore directly a sin against man and indirectly a crime against God. So jealous is God of the rights of his creatures that he never remains satisfied until full justice is done for every act of injustice. Charity may be wounded and the fault condoned, but only reparation in kind will satisfy justice. Whatever is mine is mine, and mine it will ever remain. Wherever in this world another may have been taken himself with it. As long as it exists, it will appeal to me as to its master and owner. If justice is not done in this world, then it will appeal to the justice of heaven for vengeance. The sixth last commandment is treat of the rights of man and condemn injustice. We are told to respect the life, the virtue, the goods, and the reputation of our fellow men. We are commanded to do so not only in act, but also in thought and desire. Life is protected by the fifth, virtue by the sixth and ninth, property by the seventh and tenth, and reputation by the eighth. To sin against any of these commandments is to sin against justice in one form or another. The claims, however, of violated justice are not such as to exact the impossible in order to repair an injury done. A dead man cannot be brought back to life. A penniless thief cannot make restitution unless he steals from somebody else, etc. etc. But he who finds himself thus physically incapable of undoing the wrongs committed must have at least the will and intention of so doing. To revoke such intention would be to commit a fresh sin of injustice. The alternative is to do penance, either willingly in this life or forcibly in the purging flames of the suffering church in the next. In that way, sometime or other, justice according to the plan of God will be done, but he will never be satisfied until it is done. Explanation of Catholic Morals by John H. Stapleton, Chapter 68 To kill is to take life, human or animal. It was once thought by a sect of crazy fanatics that the fifth commandment applied to the killing of animals as well as of men. When a man slays a man, he slays an equal. When he kills an animal, he kills a creature made to serve him and to be his food. And raw meat is not always palatable, and to cook is to kill. Everything that moves and lives, says Holyrit, shall be unto you as food. The killing therefore here in question is the taking of human life or homicide. There can be no doubt but that life is man's best and most precious possession, and that he has an inborn right to live as long as nature's laws operate in his favor. But man is not master of that gift of life, either in himself or in others. God, who alone can give, alone may take it away. Soul master of life, he deals it out to his creatures as it pleases him. And whoever tampers with human life intrudes upon the domain of the Divinity, violating at the same time the first right of his fellow man. We have an instinctive horror of blood, human blood. For the ordinary individual, the mosaic enactment that forbids murder is almost superfluous, so deeply has nature graven on our hearts the letter of that law. Murder is abominable, for the very reason that life is precious. And no reasonable being, civilized or savage, dealing death unjustly unto a fellow man, can have any other conviction in his soul than that he is committing a crime and incurring the almighty wrath of the deity. If such killing is done by a responsible agent and against the right of the victim, the crime committed is murder or unjustifiable homicide, which supposes that there is a kind of homicide that is justifiable, in seeming contradiction of the general law of God and nature, which specifies no exception. But there is a question here less of exception than of distinction. The law is a general one of vast comprehension. Is all killing prohibited? Evidently no. It is limited to human beings in the first place, to responsible agents in the next, and thirdly involves a question of injustice. What is forbidden is the voluntary and unjust killing of a human being. Having thus specified according to the rules of right reasoning, we find we have a considerable margin left for the taking of life that is justifiable, and the records of divine revelation will approve the findings of right reason. We find God in the Old Law while upholding his fifth precept, commanding capital punishment and sanctioning the slaughter of war. He not only approved the slaying of certain persons, but there are instances of his giving authority to kill. By so doing, he delegated his supreme right over life to his creatures. Whoever sheds human blood, let his blood be shed. In the New Testament, the officer of the law is called the minister of God, and is said not without cause to carry the sword, and the sword is the symbol of the power to inflict death. The presence of such laws as that of capital punishment, of war and of self-defense, in all the written codes of civilized peoples, as well as in the unwritten codes of savage tribes, can be accounted for only by a direct or indirect commission from the deity. A legal tradition so universal and so constant is a natural law, and consequently a divine law. In a matter of such importance, all mankind could not have aired. If it has, it is perfectly safe to be with it in its error. These exceptions, if we may call them exceptions, suppose the victim to have forfeited his right to live, to have placed himself in a position of unjust aggression, which aggression gives to the party attacked the right to repel it, to protect his own life even at the cost of the life of the unjust aggressor. This is an individual privilege in only one instance, that of self-defense. In all others, it is invested in the body politic, or society, which alone can declare war and inflict death on a capital offender. Of course, it may be said that in moral matters, like does not cure like, that to permit killing is a strange manner of discouraging the same, but this measure acts as a deterrent. It is not a cure for the offender, or rather it is, and a radical one. It is intended to instill a salutary dread into the hearts of those who may be inclined to play too freely with human life. This is the only argument assassins understand. It is therefore the only one we can use against them. Chapter 69 of Explanation of Catholic Morals. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Chapter 69 Is Suicide a Sin. Most people no doubt remember how, a short time previous to his death, Colonel Robert Ingersoldy, the agnostic lecturer, gave out a thesis with the above title, Offering a Negative Conclusion. Some discussion ensued in public print, the question was debated hotly, and whole columns of pros and cons were inflicted on the suffering public by the theologues who had taken the matter seriously. We recall too how, in the height of the discussion, a poor devil of an unfortunate was found in one of the parks of the metropolis, with an empty pistol in his clenched fist, a bullet in his head, and in his pocket a copy of the thesis, is suicide a sin. To a Christian, this theorizing and speculation was laughable enough, but when one was brought face to face with the reality of the thing, a grim humor was added to the situation. Comedy is dangerous that leads to tragedy. The witty part of the matter was this. Ingersoldy spoke of sin. Now what kind of an intelligible thing could sin be in the mind of a blasphemous agnostic? What meaning could it have for any man who professes not to know, or to care, who or what God is? If there is no legislator, there is no law. If no law, then no violation of the law. If God does not exist, there can be no offending him. Eliminate the notion of God, and there is no such thing as sin. Sin therefore had no meaning for Ingersoldy. His thesis had no meaning, nothing he said had any meaning. Yet people took him seriously, and at least one poor wretch was willing to test the truth of the assertion and run his chances. Some people, less speculative, contend that the fact of suicide is sufficient evidence of irresponsibility, as no man in his right senses would take his own life. This position is both charitable and consoling. Unfortunately, certain facts of pre-meditation and clear-mindedness militates so strongly against such a general theory that one can easily afford to doubt its soundness. That this is true in many cases, perhaps in the majority of cases, all will admit. In all cases, few will admit it. However, the question here is one of principle and not of fact. The prime evil at the bottom of all killing is that of injustice, but in self-destruction, where the culprit and the victim are one and the same person, there can be no question of injustice. A kintu and a substitute for the law of justice is that of charity, by which we are bound to love ourselves and do ourselves no harm or injury. The saying, charity begins at home, means that we ourselves are the first objects of our charity. If therefore we must respect the life of our neighbor, the obligation is still greater to respect our own. Then there is the supreme law of justice that reposes in God. We should remember that God is the supreme and soul master of life. Man has a lease of life, but it does not belong to him to destroy at his own will. He did not give it to himself, and he cannot take it away. Destruction supposes an authority and dominion that does not belong to any man where life is concerned. And he who assumes such a prerogative commits an act of unquestionable injustice against him whose authority is usurped. By indirect killing we mean the placing of an act, good, or at least morally indifferent, from which may result a benefit that is intended, but also an evil, death, which is not intended, but simply suffered to occur. In this event there is no sin, provided there be sufficient reason for permitting said evil effect. The act may be an operation, the benefit intended a cure, the evil risked death. The misery of ill health is a sufficient reason for risking the evil of death in the hope of regaining strength and health. To escape shared death, to escape from grave danger or ills, to preserve one's virtue, to save another's life, to assure a great public benefit, etc. These are reasons proportionate to the evil of risking life. And in these and similar cases, if death results, it is indirect suicide and is in no wise criminal. The same cannot be said of death that results from abuses or excesses of any kind, such as dissipation or debauchery, from risks that are taken in a spirit of bravado or with a view to winning fame or lucre. For a still better reason, this cannot be said of those who undergo criminal operations. It is never permitted to do what is intrinsically evil that good may come therefrom. All this applies to self mutilation, as well as to self destruction. As parts of the whole, one's limbs should be the objects of one's charity, and God's law demands that we preserve them as well as the body itself. It is lawful to submit to the maiming process, only when the utility of the whole body demands it, otherwise it is criminal. One word more. What about those who call upon and desire death? To desire evil is sinful, yes, but death is a moral evil when its mode is contrary to the laws of God and of nature, thus with perfect acquiescence to order of divine providence. If one desires death in order to be at rest with God, that one desires a good and meritorious thing and with perfect regularity. It is less meritorious to desire death with the sole view of escaping the ills and troubles of life. It would even be difficult to convict one of mortal offending if he desired death for a slight and futile reason, if there be due respect for the will of God. The sin of such desires consists in rebellion against the divine will and opposition to the providence of God. In such cases, the sin is never anything but grievous. End of chapter 69. Recording by Nathan Kinja