Skip to main content

Full text of "American Ecclesiastical Review 1892-05: Vol 6 Iss 5"

See other formats


VoL. VI.—May, 1892.—No. 5. 


Osservaziont sopra la Storia Universale di Cesare Canti del P. 
Giuseppe Brunengo d. C. ad. G.: Roma, tipografia A. Befant, 
1891; Articoli estratti dalla Civilta Cattolica; pagg. 143. 

EVIEWING the tenth edition of the Universal History of 
Cesare Canti, Father Brunengo has issued from time to time 
various critical notices in the (ivi/ta Cattolica. These ‘‘ observa- 
tions’’ have been put together in the form of a pamphlet. Among 
the categories of topics treated by the eminent historical critic, we 
notice that the fifth is ‘‘ The Papacy and the Empire ; the Temporal 
Power.’’ As this last-mentioned subject is distinctly a vital topic 
to-day, and involves the question of the spiritual well-being of the 
Church by means of the Pope’s temporal independence, it invites 
no little consideration ; and I propose to dwell upon the two points 
which Fr. Brunengo touches in the pages of Canti. One is the 
general ascendancy of the Popes over the minds and the hearts of 
the men and the peoples who controlled the destinies of Italy and 
of Europe. It was the manner of exerting this ascendancy, ina 
way befitting their office as Vicars of Christ, which was assured and 
invested with proper conditions of freedom by means of a temporal 
sovereignty. Theother point for consideration is the bearing of this 
same Temporal Power on what is called the political development 
of Italy. 
Speaking of the Temporal Power in its origin, Cant expresses 
himself thus :—‘‘ When the Bishops had grown to be great person- 


ages in the kingdom, it was natural that their chief (the Pope) 
should acquire, in relation to the State, a position that was not of 
the essence of his mission, still was not at variance with that mis- 
sion. If already in the earliest times the Pope possessed rich es- 
tates, which were not only in keeping with his dignity, but also 
served to answer the demands of charity, or to build new churches 
and restore those in decay, it became proper to enlarge his re- 
sources when he stood at the head of persons (7. e. Bishops) exer- 
cising a dominant influence in the government. Pepin and Charle- 
magne thought it opportune to augment the possessions of the 
Holy See, as well for the purpose that the Lombards should not 
domineer over Italy, as also because they knew how much the 
Church could assist in restoring discipline and the reign of laws, 
now gone into disuse ; and therefore they saw how fitting for this 
purpose would be the possession and use of such wealth as alone 
was known then, that of territorial domain.” Moreover, the Pope 
was regarded as a judge and arbitrator, and Canti observes that 
this official character was appealed to for a very frequent discharge 
of its duties, when the extended monarchy of Charlemagne was fol- 
lowed by a number of little kingdoms, balancing one another in 
material power. The discharge of his office as judge or arbitrator 
was ‘‘a popular exercise of influence which averted wars, protected 
the weak, lent a hearing to the appeal of right as against the abuses 
of power. It is, in truth, a sublime conception, that of a priest un- 
armed, who himself, apart from earthly interests, defines the ques- 
tion of right in the contests of princes, or between princes and peo- 

Touching on the question of the relations between the Temporal 
Power and the political condition of Italy, Canttii says :—‘‘ Unfortu- 
nately, to maintain in requisite independence the spiritual power in 
times when material force prevailed, it was found necessary to at- 
tach them to a temporal principality, lest the Pontiff of the world 
should be reduced to the condition of chaplain to the king, within 
whose jurisdiction he lived. . . . Italy derived much profit in 
the line of its intellectual development, but it was hampered in its 
political evolution.” (Canti, V, 204; VII, 589.) 

How far these observations of Canta are correct, and how far 
they are inaccurate, will appear most readily from a cursory in- 
spection of the historical effects in the case; and such a sketch 
will suggest the logical inferences to be drawn. Another mode of 
treatment which would be more analytical, exhibiting the conditions 


of necessity and expediency, of justice and equity, in the Pontift’s 
possession of a Temporal Power, would offer precisely the same 
conclusions ; but one weighty reason for not undertaking that mode 
of demonstration here is the fact that it has just been expounded 
for Catholic enlightened readers, in a manner truly scientific and 
exhaustive. ! 

In the very first ages of Christianity, the different churches, 
and especially that of Rome, acquired, through the free oblations 
of the faithful, not only the means requisite for the proper perform- 
ance of divine worship and the support of the clergy, but also farms 
and estates, with the amplest revenues. When in his own person 
the Emperor Constantine had made the empire nominally Christian, 
he ordered the restoration of houses, possessions, fields, gardens, 
and everything’else which had once belonged to the Church. At 
the same time the ecclesiastical patrimony began to receive the most 
extensive additions. The Christian Emperors themselves were in the 
first rank of benefactors ; but, passing them over, ‘‘no one’’, says 
Thomassini,? ‘‘is such a stranger in matters of Church History as 
not to know that, in those times, almost countless numbers of noble- 
men, as soon as they accepted the Christian faith by receiving bap- 
tism, or entered the ranks of the clergy by ordination, or adopted 
the monastic profession, resigned immense patrimonies, distributed 
the proceeds to the poor, and looked upon themselves as truly rich, 
when they had left all these false and deceptive riches behind them. 
Now it was one and the same thing then to give to the poor and to 
give to the Church, that nourishes all the poor. For, as all the sub- 
stance of the Church was the patrimony of the poor, so whatever 
was dedicated to their use was wont to be consigned to the Church.”’ 

The annual revenues of the properties belonging to the churches 
of Rome alone, without counting the rich Basilica of Constantine, 
amounted in the time of the first Christian Emperor to $52,000 and 
more.* The basilica just mentioned, enjoyed a revenue of over ° 
$46,000. These sums are large indeed, considering the value of 
money then. The farms, plantations and estates generally, which 
were given or bequeathed for the use of the Pontiffs, and which 
carried with them the tillers and husbandmen attached to the 
soil, are computed by John the Deacon, in his Life of St. Gregory 

1In a pamphlet by Mgr. Schroeder, entitled American Catholics and the Roman Ques- 
tion.—Benziger Bros, 

2 Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae Disciplina, pars III, lib. I, c. 16, n. 5. 

3 Gosselin, Power of the Pope, vol. I, Introduction, nn. 73, 74. 


the Great, to have been in the time of that Pontiff, twenty-three 
‘‘patrimonies” ; nor did he include all in his calculation.) The 
Cottian Alps, comprising the city of Genoa and all the neighboring 
coasts to the frontiers of Gaul, were only one of these patrimonies. 
Others were distributed all over Italy. They were found in Sicily, 
Africa, Corsica, Gaul, Dalmatia. Those in Sicily and Calabria 
alone, which Leo the Isaurian confiscated, yielded an annual rev- 
enue of $80,000. 

With these possessions there was connected a proportionate 
administration. Multitudes of clerics, of the poor, of widows and 
consecrated virgins were provided with temporal necessities from 
these resources. One item of St. Gregory’s expenses was the sup- 
port of 3,000 nuns to whom he gave annuallya sum exceeding 
$15,000 ; and they needed it, if we may judge from his letter to the 
Princess Theoctista; for he speaks of nuns who had not wherewith 
to protect themselves “ from the piercing cold’’ of the winter nights. 
Writing to the Empress Constantina, the same Pontiff mentions 
incidentally various heads of expense. ‘‘ As in the territory of 
Ravenna, the solicitude of our masters has appointed a treasurer 
who provides the daily expenses to meet contingent needs, so in this 
city I am treasurer to meet the same needs. And yet this Church, 
which at one and the same time expends so much without intermis- 
sion on clerics, monasteries, the poor, the people and on the Lom- 
bards besides, is moreover weighed down by the affliction of all the 
churches. iy 

The title to all this property was that of ownership. It was a 
right vested in the Bishop, not held in the name of the State, or 
the Emperor of Constantinople ; nor was it a trust held for the ben- 
efit of others, except in the sense that the Christian charity of the 
Bishop always regarded it as such,—a trust held in behalf of the 
poor andthe suflering, of the orphan, the widow and the stranger, 
who were always at home under the shadow of God’s Church, and 
had never to fear destitution as long as there was a chalice left to 
melt down into money for food. For they are in truth God’s living 
temples, and their hearts are His altars, more so than the conse- 
crated stones on the marble altars, and the pillars of onyx and can- 
dlesticks of massive silver and walls lined with purest gold, which 
reflected a thousand lights to the eyes of kneeling worshippers. 
This was the organization of Christian beneficence, without taxation; 
it was not sterile philanthropy, but Christ’s own charity. 

1 Brunengo, Origini della Sovranita Temporale dei Papi, Parte I. capo 2. 


The very amplitude of such resources, dispensed in this manner, 
involved the Bishop in something like a civil administration. But 
there were many other circumstances, inseparable from his office, or 
at least inevitable in the condition of the times, which concurred to 
make a chief pastor nothing less than a civil magistrate. He became 
a judge in the fullest sense of that term. The very connection be- 
tween things temporal and spiritual, the confidence of the people in 
the ecclesiastical authority and their profound reverence for his per- 
son, made him necessarily a referee ; but besides all that, the legal 
codes of the Valentinians, of Honorius, Theodosius the Younger 
and Justinian, invested him with the fullest judicial capacity ; and 
what these enactments established, the successors of Justinian am- 
plified.! And, in the West this official competency of the Bishop, 
whether judicial or administrative, civil or military, advanced to a 
degree of almost unlimited control, according as the successes of 
barbarian invaders weakened ever more and more the bonds of pol- 
itical union between the West and Constantinople. In the light of 
this we can well understand St. Gregory’s complaint, in a letter to 
the Bishop Sebastian : ‘‘ At one and the same time to have charge 
of Bishops and clerics, of monasteries also and of the people at large, 
to keep a vigilant watch against the insidious attacks of the public 
enemy, to be always on the alert against the treachery and malice 
of the governors—what labor all this entails, and what pain it gives, 
your fraternal charity is the better qualified to divine, according as 
you bear a sincerer attachment to me who am the sufferer under 
these inflictions.”’ ? 

In the eighth century of the Christian era the force of so many 
concurrent agencies, operating in the very nature of the political 
crises which arose fast and intense, pressed the Roman Pon- 
tiffs forward to the full exercise and possession of a Sovereign 
power. As Cantii expresses it, ‘‘If any hope of a resurrection, or 
at least of some relief, still ‘remained to the Italians, there was no 
one on whom to rest such a hope except that Pontiff who, by his 
character, was called to be just and forbearing ; who still kept in 
honor among the nations that Roman name which on other accounts 
was held in contempt.’’* Governed by the Exarchs of Ravenna, in 
the name of the Greek Emperor, those parts of Italy, including the 
Roman ‘‘duchy,’’ which still acknowledged their dependency on 
Constantinople, were made to feel their subjection in two very 

x Gosselin, Introduction,  v, vi. 
2 Jungmann, Dissert. in Hist. Eccl. XIV, n. rr. 
31V, 556. 


sensitive ways ; first, in the wretchedness of a government which 
was utterly helpless against the attacks of the northern invaders ; 
secondly, in having to endure a tyrannical rule, which, in pro- 
portion to its helplessness without, signalized its power within 
by levying the heaviest taxes and drawing the last drop of blood 
still left in the hapless country. Not content with material op- 
pression, the civil power invaded the most sacred rights of con- 
science. Nominally Catholic, orthodox, and most devoted children 
of the Church, the Greek Emperors then, like so many others of 
the same kind since, would fain dictate to the Popes doctrinal de- 
crees and dogmatic formulas, order synods and prescribe canons, 
and force them to be accomplices and abettors in furthering all the 
novelties and heresies which took the fancy of the Emperors. 
Fortunately, when a bold warrior like Leo the Isaurian undertook 
to enforce his heresy with the edge of the sword, he was but helping 
to sever the last ties which kept the Roman Church in servitude. 
All Italy was up in arms, and the Pope alone kept them in their 
obedience. Hoping still for the conversion of the Emperor, he 
commanded the fidelity of the Italians to the cause of the true faith, 
but he bade them not to waver in their fidelity likewise to the Greek 

If it were a people’s choice that was to determine the complete 
emancipation of the Pope from any temporal jurisdiction, on whom 
was the choice of the Italian communities likely to fall, as between 
a Phocas and a St. Gregory the Great, between a Constans II and 
a St. Martin or Vitalian, between a Justinian II and St. Sergius, 
between a Leo the Isaurian or a Copronymus and Sts. Gregory II, 
Gregory III, Zachary and Paul I? However, it was not choice 
which settled the question of the Pope’s temporal sovereignty. The 
willing consent of the populations concerned was not wanting ; and 
every legitimate title of cession, of donation, of restitution, was 
formulated in the final establishment of his power. But that which 
has a right to be considered his fundamental title to an independent 
sovereignty is that which alone escapes the free disposition of men, 
and is manifestly the work of Divine Providence in the order of the 
world—the imperative necessity of self-preservation, the temporal 
salvation of a people, and, in the instance before us, the salvation 
likewise of faith and morality in the face of devastating hordes, 
which, if not repelled, would have hurried all to a common grave, 
nor have come themselves to the knowledge of Christian faith, 
morality and civilization. 


It was the era of the Lombards. They were a nation already 
largely Christian, but scarcely Catholic. For they had been an- 
ticipated in their belief by the frauds of Arianism. They had 
already laid a yoke of thirty-six ‘‘ duchies,’’ like a harness of iron, 
on the subjugated and despised Italians. Whole provinces were 
depopulated by the sword ; and, though Rome was a territory ex- 
empt as yet from their rule, the Romans themselves were not 
exempt, any more than the rest of Italy, from the slaughter of 
nobles and priests, the sacking of churches and the destruction of 
cities. The Roman territory at this time coincided pretty closely 
with what has been known in our day as the Patrimony of St. Peter, 
along with a part of Umbria and the Campagna of Rome. After 
many perilous crises, finally, in the year 739, while the Iconoclast 
Emperor Leo was carrying on his war of heresy against the Roman 
Church, Luitprand, king of the Lombards, carried fire and sword 
‘into the imperial exarchate of Ravenna, ravaged the patrimonies of 
the Holy See in those parts, and then turned to Rome. Nothing 
was spared on his way. And on the 16th of June he laid siege to 
the eternal city. 

A curious composition of humanity these Lombards were. The 
three kings who at this time figured successively on the stage of 
history, fulfilling in a remarkable way the designs of Providence 
with respect to the Roman See, were, we may take it, a fair speci- 
men of the rest of their kin and clans. Paul the Deacon, himself a 
Lombard, describes Luitprand as a man of much wisdom, sagacious, 
very pious and a lover of peace ; mighty in war, moderate, pure, 
modest and so forth ; not ignorant of letters, but a bit of a philoso- 
pher, etc. No doubt he was so, as long as the fit was on him, and 
spells of a different kind did not contro] him. Indeed, the reverence 
and docility which these semi-barbarians showed to one Pontiff 
after another is one of the marvels of history. In the full career of 
victory, at the moment they were reaching the goal of a long- 
cherished ambition, we find men like Luitprand humbly sacrificing 
all, at the word of the Vicar of Christ, and that while actually be- 
sieging the same Vicar of Christ in his own city! Hence we may 
appreciate how sincerely happy was a barbarian like this, when, 
after taking dinner with Pope Zachary at Pavia, he expressed his 
lively sense of the Pontift’s sweetness, and the air of sanctity which 
surrounded everything, by saying that “he did not remember 
having eaten so much in his life before!’’ 

His immediate successor Rachis was undoubtedly a valiant man, 


as much so as Luitprand, but he was endowed with a genuine piety 
and mildness of disposition ; and, on receiving a solemn legation 
from the Apostolic See, he signalized his love of peace by granting 
the Pope a peace of twenty years! All treaties of peace in those 
times regarded a limited time, and it was yet to be one of the 
achievements of the Bishops of the Church, by means of the pious 
and ingenious device of the ‘‘ truce of God,’’ to keep men from 
cutting one another's throats at least for a few days each week. 
But perhaps a twenty years’ peace in those times was quite as long- 
lived as a ‘‘ perpetual’’ one in these days of mildness and mutual 
benediction. In point of fact, this twenty-year peace lasted fully 
five years, and, after that long period of good behavior, we find 
him pouring his forces with great fury on the Roman territory. 
The saintly Pontiff Zachary went out to meet him at Perugia. The 
Roman forces were the same as usual ; they consisted of the Pontiff’s 
own personal sweetness, with the presence of some of his clergy, and 
considerable gifts. The immediate raising ot the siege of Perugia 
was not the only effect of this interview. With the Pope’s exhor- 
tations ringing in his ears, the good king a few days after abdicated 
his throne, and coming as a humble pilgrim to Rome, accompanied 
by his wife Tassia, and his daughter Ratrude, he begged the Pope 
to admit him into the ranks of the clergy. The Holy Father gave 
him the clerical tonsure and the Benedictine habit, and sent him to 
Monte Cassino, where Carloman, the eldest son of Charles Martel, 
was already a monk. Tassia and Ratrude became Benedictine 
nuns at Piumarola, not far from Cassino; no rare spectacle in those 
days, when, within the space of fifty years, England alone beheid 
five kings and one queen exchanging the crown of their own accord 
for a cowl or veil. 

The successor of Rachis seems to have been a villain, if ever 
man was. This was Astulph, the brother of Rachis. He was astute 
and ferocious, yea, the most ferocious of even the Lombards ; he 
was wicked, impious, atrocious ; the like had never been seen in 
the days of even the Lombards. So the various historians of the 
time agree in describing him. It was fortunate for Europe that he 
was so, and that Pepin was the king of France at the same time. 
Things never went better than when they went so badly, God arrang- 
ing all things for the good of His Church. But what was the end 
of this man, as soon as the excess of his wickedness had occasioned 
the inauguration of a new order of things, by the final and per- 
manent establishment of the Temporal Power? Stricken by the 


hand of God, “‘ the first example,’’ says Cesare Balbo, ‘‘ of what 
we have often witnessed since, that whoever in Italy revolts against 
the Pope is not far from his fall.’’! Astulph died in the arms of 
monks, whom he had always loved and fostered much during life. 
Under the spur of an insatiable ambition he had indeed been 
carrying on wars to the last extremity of violence and brutality 
against the Pope, but at the same time he had been building 
churches and splendid monasteries; and, with a refinement of 
devotion, which must have been exquisite according to a barbarian’s 
standard, he had robbed the churches which he was devastating 
round Rome of the bodies of the holy martyrs, but only to trans- 
port the sacred relics with every demonstration of honor to his new 
temples and altars at Pavia.? After all, it is quite conceivable that 
a passably honest barbarian, whose Christianity is just beginning to 
work outwardly from his heart, is as good as many an hereditary 
Christian whose religion, having exhausted itself within, is gradually 
disappearing without, like a fading complexion, the product of 
climate and environment. But to return to the order of events, as 
resulting in the establishment of the Papal Temporal Power. 

At the time that Luitprand was beginning his career of conquest 
in the exarchate of Ravenna, and pushing on into Italy against 
Rome, Leo, the Isaurian, was carrying on his war of persecution 
against the Church. Hesenta fleet against his own city of Ravenna 
which had rejected his impious heresy, and he ‘‘ expropriated ” the 
ancient patrimonies of the Holy See in Calabria and Sicily. This 
Emperor, as chief sovereign, was the natural protector of Rome. 
But, whereas his protectorate and that of his predecessots, had 
been distinguished for some centuries by a truly imperial freedom 
in the imposition of excessive taxes and an unremitting vigor in 
religious persecution, now, when the Lombard was at the gates of 
Rome, the natural protector kept at a safe distance, busily occupied 
in sacking churches and murdering Catholics. 

Many a time before the Roman Pontiffs had faced the storms 
which swept over Italy, and had saved the relics of civilization from 
the swords of Huns, Goths and Vandals. But never before had 
the moral ascendency which alone they could employ been so 
utterly without temporal aid, as when the tempest burst upon Rome 
from the side of Luitprand the Lombard. Pope Gregory III. knew 
not whither to turn for protection ; and therefore, looking beyond 

1 Brunengo, Origini, parte I, c. 10, 
2 Brunengo, Origini della Sovranité Temporale dei Papi, parte I, cc. 5-10, 


the Alps, he appealed to Charles Martel. The French warrior’s 
intervention seems to have turned Luitprand from his purpose, and 
Rome was left in peace. But the following year the exarchate ot 
Ravenna, still belonging to the Greek Emperor, was again made the 
scene of the Lombard’s depredations, and this time it was the 
Pope’s intervention in behalf of the feeble province which saved it 
for the Court of Constantinople. The prestige of Rome was 
mounting high ; to friends and strangers alike His Holiness was the 
one arbiter of the fortunes of Italy. This was in 743. But in 751 
the ferocious Astulph took possession of all the territory of Ravenna, 
captured the city itself, and put an end for ever to the dominion of 
Constantinople in northern Italy. Apparently neither «he people 
of the conquered country thought it worth their while any longer 
to dispute who should be their masters, nor did the Emperor 
Copronymus seem to think the loss of the western province worth 
a moment’s attention, his arms were too busy elsewhere propa- 
gating the iconoclastic heresy. 

Now it was Rome’s turn again to feel the invader’s sword. But 
here the history of Pepin begins, like an epic at the opening of 
medizval politics. We cannot follow him as he routs Astulph at 
Susa, and receives the pledges of his plighted faith under the 
walls of Pavia, nor pause to narrate how, when that faith was 
broken, and such scenes followed under the walls of Rome as 
make the blood run cold,! Pepin hurried once more over the 
Alps and brought the abject Astulph to terms. One thing only 
need be recorded, and that is the restoration of all properties 
to the Roman See, and the bestowal of the extinct exarchate 
of Ravenna on the Pontiff. Through the length and breadth of the 
exarchate, and of what was called the Pentapolis, Pepin received the 
formal and final surrender of every city ; and not one of them but 
was glad to be liberated for ever from all claims of the Greek empire 
over them and from the hated dominion of the Lombards. These 
Pepin conceded to Rome, because he considered they belonged to 
Rome. He ‘‘restored’’ them and all other properties, because as he 
said to the envoys of the Greek Emperor, he would be alienating 
them from St. Peter, if he acknowledged any other title to these 
domains. All were to remain under the exclusive and absolute 
temporal jurisdiction of Rome. And neither now, nor later when 
Charlemagne confirmed and enlarged the ‘‘donation,’’ was there 
any reserve of power or jurisdiction to themselves, as if they were 

1 Jungmaun, Dissert. in Hist. Eccl., XIV, n. 55. 


to be the suzerains of Rome. They were only its protectors, to be 
called on when the Pope thought fit. Thus every form of legality 
by public treaty was made to confirm the intrinsic legitimacy of the 
Papal Temporal Power. The city and its dependencies which had 
long been the Rome of the Popes, the ‘‘Sacred’’ Republic of the 
Romans, having for their legitimate prince, possessor and lord, St. 
Peter in his successors, now took a place of their own in the politi- 
cal relations of nations, just at the epoch when the nations were 
forming into that system of polity, known as modern Christendom. 

The divine philosophy underlying all this is thus sketched by 
Bellarmine.! ‘‘ Even if absolutely speaking it were perchance pre- 
ferable that Pontiffs should manage only spiritual things, and kings 
temporal affairs, still, on account of the wickedness of the times, 
experience openly proclaims that it was not only useful but neces- 
sary, in the divine arrangement of Providence, that some temporal 
principalities should be conferred on the Pope and other Bishops. 
For, if in Germany, Bishops had not been princes, there had been 
no Bishop remaining in hisSeeto our day. As therefore in the Old 
Testament there were for a long time Pontiffs who wielded no tem- 
poral power, and yet in the later ages religion could no longer 
maintain itself and be defended, unless the Pontiffs were also kings, 
viz., in the time of the Macchabees; in like manner we see in the 
affairs of the Church, that whereas in the first ages she did not need 
a temporal principality to defend her majesty, now she seems to 
require it as a necessity.” It was the difference between a state of 
infancy and adult age; between her being in an environment of 
political government, whereof she could not bea part, though she 
was in it, and being in quite another environment, which could not 
do without her as an integral part of Christian polity, and as the 
vivifying centre of law, morality and national life. 

From that time to this, in the enjoyment of an imprescriptible 
right and with accessions, neither slight nor dubious, made to their 
possessions by various Catholic Emperors and by the Countess 
Matilda, the Popes have presided over the moral welfare of Chris- 
tendom, and in particular, have made and preserved the fortune and 
heritage of Italy. If Cantii speaks of their ‘‘ having hampered the 
political development of the peninsula,’?’ he may have in mind 
those material interests which, broadly speaking, can be classed 
under the general head of the accumulation of mammon—an accu- 
mulation which we observe has taken place in a superlative degree 

1 De Rom. Pontifice, lib. V, c. 9. 


precisely there, where faith in the supernatural has been paralyzed 
by heresy, where morality has declined more rapidly than faith, and 
where misery and pauperism abound exactly in proportion to the 
apoplectic fulness of wealth. But, if the prime element in the 
political development of a people is social happiness as bound up 
with faith and morality, we find that the fortunes of Italy have been 
in the ascendant according as the Roman Pontiff has been in honor 
and power. Any other conception of the political well-being of 
Italy rests either on some gratuitous and revolutionary theory about 
the ‘‘rights of man,’’ or as far as it emphasizes some special inabil- 
ities as to constitutional change, the true conception of Italy’s high- 
est welfare was long ago expressed by M. Thiers in these terms: 
‘This interest” he said, speaking of the Pope’s Temporal Power, 
‘*is one of a superior order, which should overrule inferior interests, 
as, in a state, the public interest silences individual interests.’’ ! 
This is an elementary principle which has been applied, not only by 
Europe in neutralizing certain nations like Belgium or Switzerland, 
or in closing the Dardanelles, but also by the United States of 
America in practically disfranchising the District of Columbia, as 
being the honored seat of a higher government. 

The story of Italy’s prosperity or adversity as varying with the 
fortunes of the Roman Pontiffs, would form an apt commentary on 
this philosophical conception of the country’s history. And at the 
present moment when the Pope’s rights are forcibly withheld from 
him, a primacy has indeed been attained by the “constitutional ’’ 
policy which is in control of the peninsula. It is such a primacy as 
has nothing to equal it in the whole extent of Europe, but it is not 
exactly in the line of civilization and wealth. No, it is portentously 
in the line of taxes and debts, of financial depression and official 
tyranny, of destitution, depopulating a flourishing land and, more- 
over, of deeds of blood and social vices, all of which seem to be 
the distinguishing characteristics or results of God’s vengeance for 
a great national sin. ? 

Tuomas HuGueEs, S. J. 

1 Dupanloup, the Papal Sovereignty, ch. 4, 43. 
2 Consult the Civilia Cattolica Jan, 16, Feb. 7, 1892, L,'Italia dopo trent’ anni di Rivolu- 


PHILOSOPHY. (Conc usrons.) 

NDER the title, De Varia Aristotelis Fortuna an old Galli- 
can Doctor of Sorbonne, named Launoy, gave, better than 
two hundred years ago, a history, still read with interest, of the vi- 
cissitudes through which the works of Aristotle had passed during 
the Middle Ages. The scholastic Philosophy, so closely wedded to 
that of Aristotle, shared largely, as we have seen, its varying for- 
tunes. In our day we witness its recovery from the almost total 
neglect in which it had lain for a whole century. But the length 
and vigor of its new life must depend in a great measure on the 
manner in which it is henceforth set before the public mind and im- 
parted to the new generations which come up in succession for phil- 
osophical training. 

We propose in the present paper to state our personal concep- 
tions of what that training should be. We do so with a hope that, 
though many of our remarks may be already familiar to the reader, 
it will still be useful to express and to emphasize them. They will 
bear principally on three things : 

The ends to be kept in view ; 

The practical difficulties to be encountered ; 

The special requirements of each one of the branches of a philo- 
sophical course. 


Philosophy may be studied for a variety of purposes. All are 
not equally important, nor can all be fully compassed within the 
time usually allotted to such studies. It becomes consequently a 
duty for the teacher to ask himself at the outset, and to keep the 
question steadily before him: How can I be most serviceable to 
those whom it is my duty to teach ? What questions, what methods, 
what mental discipline will best fit them for the work of life as a 

1. The first object of a course of Philosophy is knowledge—tiech- 
nical knowledge. Philosophy, like all other sciences, means a body 
of notions, facts, problems, theories, doctrines, demonstrations. To 
become acquainted with at least what is principal in all these ; to 


have realized their true meaning, their mutual connection, their 
bearing on the most important issues of thought and life, is the di- 
rect and immediate object of systematic philosophical studies. Of 
this knowledge, as the necessary crowning of a liberal education, 
and as a necessary introduction to the study of Theology, enough 
has already been said in a previous article. 

2. The second object is mental discipline. All methodic teach- 
ing trains the mind, but such training is one of the main purposes 
of a course of Philosophy. 

The untrained mind is inaccurate: outside the commonest sub- 
jects it is easily darkened and confused. It stops at the surface of 
things ; it fails to see into their depths, to catch their connection. It 
grasps but feebly the higher objects of thought, and is an easy prey 
tosophism. To correct these deficiencies, nothing can compare 
with philosophical training, intelligently pursued. Thus, by the 
censtant use of rigorous definitions, it compels the mind to distinct- 
ness of conception and accuracy of statement, a schooling of the 
mind begun, it is true, much earlier, since all real knowledge, nay, 
all use of words, implies something of it. It is, in fact, one of the 
principal advantages to be found in the translation of ancient lan- 
guages, a process implying a clear discernment of the different 
shades of thought and of the corresponding propriety of words. 

But such exercise, however valuable in the hands of an intelligent 
teacher of Greek or Latin, lead to no scientific distinction, and ap- 
ply much more to the things of life than to those of abstract 
thought. Hence, the vagueness and confusion so noticeable in the 
ordinary student who takes up for the first time any philosophical 

The same may be said of all the other familiar processes of phil- 
osophical studies. To divide and classify properly requires the most 
close attention and careful analysis. To build up an argument, or 
even to realize its value, brings into play the faculties of abstraction 
and comparison. To follow out a series of deductions accustoms 
the mind to grasp and hold simultaneously many thoughts together. 
The daily thoughtful handling of books, ancient and modern, edu- 
cates of itself in that direction. 

To say nothing of others, Aristotle, the great master of defini- 
tions and distinctions, Plato reflecting in his dialogues the question- 
ing mind of Socrates and ever striving to get at the meaning of 
terms, can hardly be touched without imparting something of their 
nicety and depth of discernment. 


The third object of philosophical training is the development of 
mental power. It is meant to broaden the mind and enable it to 
take in the manifold aspects of things. It is meant to give depth of 
thought, to accustom the student to go to the very heart and root 
of things, to seek for and to find the underlying principle, the ulti- 
mate reason beyond which the mind feels neither the need nor the 
power to go. It is meant more still to impart that strength of intel- 
lect by which men test and try whatever comes up before them, to 
weigh the value of each statement, of each proof, to verify princi- 
ples and facts, admitting, rejecting or doubting, according to the 
amount and value of proof supplied. Finally it goes to form that 
healthy condition of mind known under the name of vigorous com- 
mon sense—a quickness to distinguish shams from realities, sound 
from sophistical argument, to take a steady view of things, to get a 
solid grasp of truth not to be easily shaken by unintellectual influ- 
ences from within or from without. 

Knowledge, discipline, power, such then are the main objects to 
be kept in view by teachers and students, by the former especially, 
whose duty it is to determine the methods and exercises by which 
they may be most effectively attained. The task is no small one ; 
in fact it is beset with difficulties. The principal of these it may be 
well to consider here, as on the manner of dealing with them the 
final result must entirely depend. 


1. The first difficulty the professor of Philosophy has to contend 
with is the unphilosophical cast of mind of some of his pupils. For, 
amongst those who may fairly aspire to a professional career, or to 
the priesthood, it is not at all unusual to find young men entirely 
unfitted for the ordinary exercises of the scholastic discipline. They 
are by no means devoid of intelligence ; they have derived a fair 
share of benefit from their previous liberal training ; they are sensi- 
ble, shrewd ; but speculation and formal argument are entirely be- 
yond them. Theirs is a sort of intuitive Philosophy. They see, 
but they cannot deduct or formulate. They are and perhaps will 
always remain, incapable of constructing a syllogism, but they 
somehow reach the right conclusions as often as others. They can- 
not tell you just where the fallacy lies in an unsound argument, but 
instinctively they feel it is there, and are not deceived by it. Do 
not expect from them the ordinary definitions and classifications of 
the human faculties, unless they speak from memory; but their 


knowledge of character may be equal to the best. Abstract princi- 
ples seem to be beyond them, yet the correctness with which they 
judge the things of life would prove that such principles are in some 
manner present to their minds. 

Such as they are, not much philosophical knowledge can be im- 
parted to them. The elementary notions, a statement of the essen- 
tial doctrines and proofs, is about all they can be expected to under- 
stand or toremember. To strive for more in that direction is only a 
waste oftime and labor. But much more may be done to discipline and 
strengthen such minds, either by eliciting personal effort in what 
they can compass, or merely by having them watch attentively the 
training of others, this being about the most improving part of their 

2. Asecond difficulty, of the most serious kind and common to 
all beginners, arises from the utter strangeness of the new field that 
is opened to their activity. In their previous studies, there was an 
even, steady advance from what was familiar to what was unknown. 
Each new form of knowledge began by what was most accessible, 
and the mind was led on by easy steps to what was most complex 
and highest, whilst the whole work was done through the medium 
of the native tongue, and of a vocabulary easily mastered. 

But for a beginner in scholastic Philosophy, all these facilities are 
missing. All is new and difficult—the notions, the terms, the 
methods and the language. He is suddenly introduced into a world 
of abstract ideas hitherto unknown. And then Latin, as a vehicle of 
thought, is unfamiliar to him. Even the old, well known truths 
assume strange, and, to him, unnatural forms, whilst the termin- 
ology of the schools is obscure and bewildering. He issoon lost, as 
in a fog, and if he continues to grope his way through the darkness, 
it is only because he is encouraged by the voice of his teacher and 
occasionally cheered by glimmerings of brightness from beyond 
which tell him of the region of light to which he is being led. Some 
never emerge from the gloom, and even those who do, always re- 
member it as the most trying period of their intellectual formation. 
Too often the teacher, to whom all has become familiar, fails to real- 
ize this condition of things, and proceeds serenely on his way, for- 
getting how hard it is to follow him. Yet his plain duty is to meas- 
ure accurately each one of those accumulated obstacles and to do 
what may be done to remove them. 

zst.—As regards the concepts of Philosophy, it is clear that the 


mind of the student has to be led on, as in mathematics and in every 
other department of knowledge, from what is simple and accessible 
to.what is farther removed from ordinary conceptions ; from the 
concrete to the abstract, from the familiar facts of psychological ex- 
perience to the higher laws and principles of thought. In this way 
he feels from the beginning the solid ground under his feet ; he can 
retrace his steps to the starting point at any time, and, at every 
stage of his course, he knows exactly where he stands and whither 
he moves. For this reason, among others, experimental psychol- 
ogy should come first in philosophical study. It is of easy access, 
attractive, and it prepares the mind naturally and logically for all 
that follows. 

2d.—This leads us to another remark relative to the sudileties and 
refinements of the schools on which so much time and intellectual 
power were frittered away during the Middle Ages. Although the 
scholastic Philosophy was confessedly encumbered and weakened 
by them, an attempt is positively made in our day to bring them 
back again. Ardent inquirers into the older Philosophy having 
been led to study them, gradually have come to enjoy them, and 
now they would persuade the world at large to share the enjoyment. 
That such nice discriminations and dissections of thought are gen- 
erally groundless or valueless, we would by no means imply ; that 
in the discussion of many curious and, for the modern mind, silly 
questions, a wonderful sagacity and penetration have been exhibited, 
no reader of the schoolmen will be tempted to question ; that even an 
acquaintance with all this is necessary for a thorough knowledge 
of medizeval Philosophy, we freely admit. But there it should rest. 
It has little or no business in our text books for beginners. They 
are too busy ; too many objects, solid and important, claim their 
attention to leave room for so much that was of interest to other 
ages. The numberless possible forms of the syllogism, the various 
degrees of the materia prima, the entities, entelechics and quiddities 
in which our forefathers reveled and lost themselves, may have been 
very well in their day, but their interest henceforth must remain 
largely of a purely historical and archeological kind.! 

1. It will be remembered how keenly it was felt, even as early as the XVIth century, 
that thesubtleties referred to above were a subject of reproach to the schools, and would 
have to be thrown overboard in order to save the cargo. The following passage from the 
celebrated work of Melchior Cano (de locis theol., lib. IX, c. 7), though somewhat radical, 
will prove interesting and probably comforting in its admissions to more than one of our 
readers: ‘‘ Nostri autem Theologi, importunis vel locis, longa de his oratione disserunt 

quae nec juvenes portare possunt, nec senes ferre. Quis enim ferre possit disputationes 
de universalibus, de nominum analogia, de primo cognito, de principio individuationis 


3a@.—The benificent excision of such excrescences, whilst reliev- 
ing scholastic Philosophy from a reproach not unmerited in the 
past, will remedy in some measure the inconvenience arising from 
the use of the scholastic vocabulary, but enough still remains to 
create a serious difficulty. To understand it, we have only to re- 
member that among the causes which contributed most to the diffu- 
sion of the Cartesian Philosophy was the fact that its author and 
followers took up and dealt with the highest questions in the 
language of every-day life. All technical terms were discarded, 
so that educated persons could, without any special training, 
follow the developments and discussions to which the new system 
gave birth. Since then Philosophy has ceased to be scholastic in 
the original sense of the word ; that is, confined to the schools. In 
its various shapes it has gone abroad and impressed itself on the 
literature of the day. It has formed the conceptions and the lan- 
guage of society, and thus already has been taught in some manner 
to those who have not yet entered on its technical study. Now 
this study, when pursued on the lines of scholasticism, introduces 
them, not only to objects entirely new, but to a new conception of 
things already familiar. Thus the intellectual processes are differ- 
ently analyzed and described, the powers of the soul distinguished and 
classified after a different plan. Again, the old terms of the school 
which had fallen into disuse, brought into prominence anew, convey 
at first no distinct meaning; some of them, expressive of concep- 
tions foreign to the modern mind, have no equivalents in our 
language, and are spoken of only in their original Latin form. 
Others, such as Matter, Form, Cause, Motion, Accident, etc., are 
taken in a technical sense more or less at variance with their ordi- 
nary meaning. Hence that painful condition of obscurity and con- 
fusion so common in beginners, and lasting unhappily in some to 
the very end. The teacher cannot be too much concerned to dispel 
it as speedily and as thoroughly as possible. No real work is done 
as long as it lasts. The student commits to memory and recites, 
when required, a set form of words, definitions, theses, proofs ; he 

(sic enim inscribunt), de distinctione quantitatis a re quanta, de maximo et minimo, de in- 
tensione et remissione. . . . deque aliis hujusmodi sexcentis, quae ego etiam, cum nec 
essem ingenio nimistardo, nec his intelligendis parum temporis et diligentiae adhibuissem, 
animo vel informare-non poteram? Puderet me dicere non intelligere, si ipsi intelligerent 
qui haec tractarunt. Quid vero illas quaestiones nunc referamus? Num Deus materiam 
possit facere sine forma, num plures angelos ejusdem speciei condere, num continuum in 
omnes suas partes dividere, num relationem a subjecto separare, aliasque multo vaniores 
quas scribere hic nec libet, nec decet, ne qui in hunc forte 'ocum inciderint, ex quorum- 
dam ingenio omnes schole auctores aestiment,”’ 


answers objections in the prescribed form, but with only the 
haziest notions of what it is all about. Ask him to state the same 
things in other terms, or to put in plain English what he so glibly 
throws off in Latin ; he is powerless to do it. Clearly he knows 
nothing, and is learning nothing but words. 

gih.—The evil is far from being lessened by the Use of Latin, as 
the medium of philosophical instruction. No language, it is true, 
is better fitted for the expression of any Philosophy than that in 
which it developed originally and reached its perfection, and if the 
student’s knowledge was to be strictly confined to medizval Phil- 
osophy, and if the Latin tongue was familiar to him, there would be 
no reason to go outside it. But neither supposition corresponds to 
the facts. It is well known that most aspirants to the priesthood in 
this country enter the Philosophy course with far less knowledge of 
Latin than is found elsewhere in students similarly situated. And 
then they come to learn, not only what was thought in past ages, 
but also what modern investigation has added to the treasure of 
philosophical knowledge, and even the courses which men’s minds 
have followed when they wandered from the truth, for how else can 
they be won back to it? 

We may be permitted in this connection to repeat what was 
written several years ago by Dr. Kavanagh, senator of the Royal 
Irish University (Study of Mental Philosophy). ‘‘ Shall Catholic 
teaching be confined exclusively to scholastic Philosophy in its an- 
cient forms, or shall the Professors of Philosophy in Catholic Col- 
leges be required to expand and develop the principles of St. 
Thomas, and apply them to the wants of modern discussion ? Shall 
we ignore the living present, and direct our teaching exclusively to 
the dead past? Shall we teach our students to refute errors unheard 
of for centuries, except in scholastic disputations, and to ignore 
errors which are in active operation around us and are eating into 
the very vitals of Christian faith and Christian moral teaching? For 
the answer to this question, I appeal to St. Thomas himself, ever 
busy with the errors of his day, and to our Holy Father, Leo XIII. 
ollie To me it would seem more rational to strike out of the 
cur.iculum all the discoveries of science since the days of Descartes, 
than all the developments of Philosophy since the days of St. 
Thomas. A Catholic gentleman can get on fairly without a knowl- 
edge of higher Mathematics, as of the recent advances in Physical 
Science ; but how can he mix in society without peril to his faith, 


if he is ignorant of the facts and views of modern Philosophy which 
are discussed at every dinner table? . . . . In England, Phil- 
osophy is a favorite study with the educated classes, and no one 
can share in their discussions who is not familiar with its more 
prominent systems and has not mastered the questions which divide 
the various schools. If then Philosophy is taught at all, it should 
not be taught exclusively in a language unintelligible, except to the 
disciples of a particular school. . . . . Wemust not send the 
young Catholic into society to do battle for his faith, to unmask 
error and to defend truth, using a language which would require an 
interpreter, and trained only on a system which unfits him to take 
part in modern intellectual conflicts.’’ 

All this is, to say the least, as true of aspirants to the priesthood 
in this country as of the young Catholic laity of Europe. It entails 
on the professor of Philosophy an arduous task. 

He has, in the first place, to translate for his pupils all that is new 
or unusual in the conceptions or vocabulary of the schools into 
the language of ordinary thought. Hecan be sure to reach the 
minds of many of them only through the medium of their mother 
tongue. Text books, recitations, occasional essays, all in Latin, 
are a practical necessity in view of the subsequent study of Theology 
and of the important place which the Latin language occupies in 
the intellectual and devotional life of a priest. But it has been the 
experience of the writer for many years that, of those who have 
been taught Philosophy, and especially scholastic Philosophy, only 
in Latin, not more than one in half a dozen had brought away with 
him much more than a set of formulas, with only a very imperfect 
notion of their meaning, though not unfrequently accompanied by a 
strong determination to cling to them all, indiscriminately and at 
any cost. 

Hence the most experienced professors, whilst using Latin as the 
ordinary vehicle of their teaching, do not fail, in their classes or in 
private conference, to appeal to the vernacular whenever it is 
necessary to convey the full and true meaning of things to the 
minds of their hearers. To the student himself, nothing of what he 
learns is of any value unless he is thus taught to realize it and make 
it his own. Thus only will it help him to further truth, or will he 
be able to speak of it in an easy, intelligible manner, and with that 
completeness and naturalness of conviction with which he speaks of 
any ordinary matter. Short of this, he will be afraid to wander 
beyond the limits of the technical phraseology which he has learnt, 


and a stiff, awkward, dogmatism will take the place of a living and 
communicative conviction. ! 

5th.—But such a discipline, it will be said, bringing home to the 
mind of the student every notion and every truth, requires more 
time than is practically available. Why then recommend it? 

This brings us to the last, but not the least, of the many difficul- 
ties which a professor of Philosophy has to contend with. 

The fact upon which it rests is unquestionable. It is with the 
mind as with the body. Just as some forms of nutriment are 
promptly absorbed into the system, whilst others are of slow assim- 
ilation, so certain forms of knowledge can be acquired continuously 
and rapidly, whilst for others more time is essential. Literature, 
Art, Philosophy belong to the latter class. They can not be taught 
or learned at the same time quickly and effectively. Like the 
beneficent rain, they need to fall on the mind softly and gently in 
order to sink into its depths. An able professor can deal with most 
questions of Philosophy in a single year’s course, and his work, if 
he gives it to the public, will read well. But if you look for it in 
the minds of his auditors, what remains? Definitions, statements, 
proofs, committed to memory, and still retained, perhaps, but how 
little realized? The conscious growth of power, the mental elation, 
the craving for more, which invariably follow on all genuine increase 
of knowledge, are painfully absent, except from a few. In other 
words, a full course of Philosophy, such as it is generally under- 
stood, especially when combined with other important matters of 
study, cannot be given with advantage in a single academic year. 
Either it has to be limited in matter or extended in time. Even 
though, by increasing the number of classes, the whole ground may 
be covered, the other ends above mentioned—discipline and power 
—are necessarily lost sight of. 

And yet they are more essential than mere knowledge, because 
through them the best sort of knowledge becomes accessible, and, 
in a measure far beyond, and of a kind far above, what comes by 
mere teaching. In fact when the time is so inadequate to all pur- 
poses, the best method would, perhaps, be to consider Philosophy 
principally as a means of mental discipline and mental vigor. In 
this way the professor would be less concerned to introduce his 

1 In this connection, the Stonyhurst Series: Manuals of Catholic Philosophy, recently 
published in English, will be found very serviceable to professors and students. We 
would also mention an Elementary Philosophy, by Mr. James Wilcox, of Philadelphia, 
which seems to be less known than it deserves. 


auditors to a large number of questions, than to fit them to under- 
stand and to be interested in all. 

That abiding interest in philosophical questions is one of the most 
valuable results of a judicious training, and it can be secured far 
better by an occasional momentary lifting of the veil, giving an 
impression of the vast extent and beauty of what lies beyond, than 
by rushing right through it all, and reaching the end with a notion 
that all has been seen. A student, unless devoid of the philosoph- 
ical faculty, who cares not to go back and look more intently and 
see more, gives proof that he has seen very little indeed, it may be 
because little has been rightly shown him. 


The views which we have expressed in these pages apply to every 
part of a philosophical course. Each principal section would require 
to be considered at length, but here we have room only for a few 
general observations. 

rst.—Experimental psychology, as already remarked, we con- 
sider the best to begin with. As a distinct branch of the science, it 
has grown rapidly within the last century in interest and popularity. 
Its most recent developments in connection with physiology have 
made it one of the most engrossing subjects of the day. Its data, 
old and new, are the starting point of some of the gravest problems 
of mind and life. Yet, strange to say, in most of our scholastic 
manuals, it obtains only the faintest recognition, appearing, if at all, 
only for a moment and in its antiquated form and garb. The stu- 
dent lays down the book knowing nothing of the human soul, its 
powers, its laws, its mechanism and working, nothing of the action, 
normal and abnormal, on it of the nervous system, beyond what 
any one may know without special study. Surely there is here a 
considerable lacuna which demands imperatively to be filled by 
author or professor. 

2d.—Logic comes next. Properly taught, it is a splendid train- 
ing school for the mind, and can be made as interesting and enjoy- 
able as it is too often disheartening and dreary. The operations of 
the mind are, after all, not difficult to understand, and the forms 
and laws of argument, whilst offering in their endless varieties a 
very healthy exercise for the mind, if time could be spared for them, 
may be indefinitely shortened and simplified with little positive 


There are two other exercises on which the time commonly given 
them would be better spent. The first is the practice of analysis, 
by which students might be required to take up a page, carefully 
selected, and point out the statements and arguments which it con- 
tains; the statements to be set forth separately, the arguments 
reduced to syllogistic form by expressing the implied premises. The 
second is a critical dissection of some chapter of book or passage of 
discourse, in which a weak or sophistical line of argument would 
have to be detected and refuted. The time-honored Disputations 
should not be put aside, but they require a judicious guidance, 
much drilling, and are really accessible only to a chosen few. 

All these exercises accustom the mind to close attention, to re- 
flection, to accurate thought. They give a growing sense of power 
which leads on of itself to greater efforts. 

3a. A new branch of study, often connected with logic in the early 
part of the century, deals with the groundwork and laws of Human 
certitude. In the general healthy condition of mind during the 
Middle Ages, it was little needed, but its importance in a period, 
such as the present, of widespread scepticism, can scarcely be ex- 
aggerated. On all sides we meet men highly gifted, yet unsettled in 
almost all their convictions ‘‘ knowing everything,’’ as has been 
said of them, ‘‘and believing nothing.’’ It is part of the sacerdo- 
tal calling to bring them back to natural as well as to supernatural 
belief. But the disease is hard to cure, and it is contagious. The 
matter consequently requires to be handled with great caution and 
tact. We must confine ourselves here to observe briefly. a@. That 
far from allowing the basis of certitude to be narrowed, as was done 
by Descartes, Kant and so many others, it should be maintained, in 
conformity with the wisest schools of Philosophy ancient and 
modern, on the broad foundation on which nature herself has placed 
it. 6. This is the only service that Philosophy can render in such 
matters, for neither the system of Aristotle nor any other can add 
to the natural, primitive, indestructible fact of human trust in the 
human faculties. c. Certitude is strengthened in all, but especially 
in young men by habitual contact with those whose minds dwell in 
the regions of serene conviction. St. Thomas is admirable in this 
regard. He works his way through the most intricate questions 
with the same security as a mathematician works out a problem. 
One feels that he walks in the light.’ 

1 A homage of a more general kind to the Angelic Doctor from the pen of a Protestant 
bishop will be welcome to our readers. ‘If penetration of thought, comprehension of 


d.—To be too trustful is as perilous to certitude as to be too 
diffident. To find weakness where none was originally suspected 
produces a reaction leading to the opposite extreme. The mind is 
best balanced when it recognizes the true value of the grounds upon 
which theories and systems are built. 

4th.—Of metaphysics, still more than of the other branches, there 
is so much to say that a whole article would scarcely suffice to con- 
vey it. We must confine ourselves here to respectfully recommend, 
first, that the section of ontology, or general metaphysics, should 
not be made unnecessarily obscure or dry. It need not be either. 
It is not desirable that everything should be made easy, or dropped 
where it becomes difficult. The very difficulties become positively 
attractive and exciting when the mind is properly led up to them. 

Secondly, that in view of the modern condition of minds, the 
section of natural Theology, especially the proofs of the existence 
of God, should be developed as fully as possible. 

Thirdly, that in consideration of the universal prevalence of the 
inductive methods, they should be freely employed by the professor 
to establish the necessary principles of demonstration when not self- 
evident. A happy illustration of this will be found in an article of 
Rev. J. Vaughan, of the Existence of God, in the Dublin Review, 
of January, 1892. 

5sth.—The course of ethics has to be drawn out for clerical 
students with a constant reference to their subsequent studies of 
Moral Theology. There are several fundamental questions, purely 
philosophical, which have assumed such importance in our day and 
in this country that they have to be dealt with thoroughlv at some 
time or another. 

6th.—We will conclude by observing that our age being both 
literary and historical, the philosophical training of our clerical 
youth, to be practical and effective, should share in that twofold 
character. They should be taught not only to think, but to give a 
free, forcible and happy expression to their thoughts. The success 
of Platonism, Cartesianism, Malebranchism, in the past, of all forms 

views, exactness the most minute, an ardor of inquiry the most keen, a patience of pur- 
suit the most unwearied are among the merits of the philosopher, then may Aquinas dis- 
pute the first place among the candidates for the supremacy in speculative science. 
Dr. Hampden, Bishop of Hereford, England, art. Thomas Aquinas in the Metropolitan 


of agnosticism in the present, has been and is largely due to the 
literary ability of their supporters. 

Finally, as far as time permits, the theories, systems and truths 
taught should be exhibited to students not in abstract isolation, but 
as they emerged from the minds of men andjdeveloped and spread in 
the course of ages. It is only by this living presentation of them 
that they can be clearly understood.’ 

A thorough knowledge of the history of ideas is essential to the 
professor. He has to make himself familiar with the great origina- 
tors of thought, Plato, Aristotle, S. Augustine, S. Thomas, Bacon, 
Descartes, etc., as well as with the vicissitudes of their systems. In 
possession of this knowledge, he will find it both easy and help- 
ful to introduce it into his teaching and still more to show his hearers 
the bearing of ancient abstract speculations on the living issues of 
the day. It would be desirable, and we believe possible, that students 
themselves should go back occasionally to the sources. One of 
Aristotle’s shorter treatises, a few dialogues of Plato, something of 
the medizeval, modern, and contemporary writers, would give them 
a more vivid sense than aught else of the true meaning and spirit of 
philosophical systems and be a powerful inducement to pursue in 
after-life studies thus made attractive from the beginning, and sure 

to prove elevating and strengthening to the end. 

J. HoGan. 


HERE is no instinct in the human heart which the Catholic 
religion does not convert into nobler aspirations than those 

which earth can supply. Every one understands why the soldier is 
proud of the ensign which betokens his military rank, why the 
statesman displays his ribbon, or the collegian the medal of his 
graduation. These things derive worth, not from their intrinsic 
value nor simply as being rewards of victory and honorable achiev- 
ment, but much more because they supply the wearer with an ideal ; 

1 Abbe Vallet whose Manual of Scholastic Philosophy, specially recommended by Leo XIII, 
has become the most popular book of the kind in France, gives in his History of Philosophy 
a very full and interesting account of scholasticism. Stoeckl’s History is also very valu. 
able. Paul Yanet has recently given to the public a most useful volume in which the his- 
tory of each subject is pursued separately and consecutively. It is in this form that the 
history of Philosophy is most helpful to students. 


because they bind him to a purpose which has its sanction from a 
source far above his own conscious sense of merit. 

Such is the meaning of a badge or medal in Catholic devotions. 
As the soldier proclaims silently his allegiance to the sovereign, the 
uniform of whose service he wears, as the student recognizes in his 
badge of honor a pledge which binds him to the ideals placed before 
him in his Alma Mater, so the Catholic who wears a medal of our 
Blessed Lady, not only attests thereby his willing allegiance to the 
principles of the Catholic faith, but he emphasizes his admiration of 
the high ideal which this token represents, and with it he expresses 
silently, but constantly, his wish to imitate, as far as may be, the 
noble qualities which raised the modest Virgin of Nazareth to the 
high dignity of Mother of our Redeemer. To youth and maiden, 
to spouse and parent the ideal of the Immaculate Mother of Christ 
appeals alike with ennobling tendency. 

With a similar, only a more emphatic purpose do Catholics don the 
Scapular of our Blessed Lady. It is an ensign which stands for the 
uniform chosen by the legions of the fair Queen of heaven whom all 
Christians love to serve and honor, because she is the Blessed Mother 
of our Saviour. This fact cannot be sufficiently dwelt upon, because 
it is often lost sight of ; for external habits of devotion may become 
mechanical, and in a case like the present they foster a sort of super- 
stition which is as unwholesome to the soul as it is unreasonable. 

When, some years ago, the Holy See announced that it would 
be requisite hereafter to inscribe in the registers of the different 
confraternities, the names of those who are invested with the Scap- 
ulars, the restriction aroused in many, even of the clergy, a sense of 
uneasiness as though this new measure would result in a loss of 
good to the faithful generally. Yet there was a strong reason for 
the restriction which was likely to produce greater good in the end. 
The universal custom of wearing the Scapulars had made it, in 
many cases, a mere perfunctory and outward act of devotion. Some 
looked upon the little garment as a sort of charm which would ward 
off all manner of ills irrespective of the disposition and moral life of 
the wearer. This view is apt to foster superstition rather than de- 
votion. In reality the Scapulars represent a religious dress; those 
who assume it become affiliated to a religious order ; and whilst 
they participate in the spiritual advantages and privileges of this 
community of which they become members, it is but just that their 
initiation, equivalent to a religious profession, should be marked by 
some solemnity or formality, and their names be duly enrolled in 



the catalogue of the order. In this way the obligations implied by 
the assumption of the Scapular are emphasized and apt to become 
more fruitful by influencing the practical life of each member. Even 
though the mere assumption of the Scapular implies veneration for 
and a desire to cultivate the high ideal represented by it, which thus 
becomes a source of grace and protection in spite of our frailty, yet 
it is nevertheless true that “the dress does not make the monk.’’ 
The neglect to inscribe the names may lessen the number of those 
who participate in the good work of the religious communities rep- 
resented by the various Scapulars, but the obligation of doing so in- 
tensifies, on the other hand, the intelligent devotion of those who, 
going to the trouble of a formality which is entirely reasonable and 
just, realize the duty which they assume thereby and lead more 
worthy Christian lives. 

But, whilst it is of the nature of every reform that it causes many 
to fall off because the zeal of the few serves as a chastisement to 
their indolence, the ingenious mercy of God ever invents new ways 
of drawing within its circle the weak and the slow. Every new de- 
votion or old devotions newly revived seem to imply a wider con- 
cession to human frailty. Such it appears to us, is the devotion 
of the Blue Scapular, which for several reasons recommends itself 
to Catholics at this time, and to American Catholics in particular. 


Among the different Scapulars in use, is that of the Immaculate 
Conception, commonly called the Blue Scapular. Up to recent 
years, few, except pilgrims to Lourdes and the members of the 
Theatine Order had devoted themselves to its special propagation. ' 

It is noteworthy that the Blue Scapular dees not represent any 
religious order and hence does not require that the names of those 
who are invested with tt, be inscribed in any register. The Superior 
of the Theatines in Rome has the primary faculty of blessing these 
Scapulars and of delegating others todo so. Some of our Bishops, 
we understand, have received the same faculty from the Propaganda. 


In 1583 Ursula Benincasa, the daughter of an old Neapolitan 
family formed a society composed of devout maidens whose object 

1 The fact that there were zealous hearts at work in our own midst in behalf of this 
beautiful devotion, was brought to our immediate attention through a paper which ap- 
peared in a recent number of the Ave Maria entitled ‘“‘A Devotion for American 
Catholics.”’ (March 5, 1892.) 


was to lead a life of purity, prayer, labor and charity, in close imita- 
tion of the life of the Blessed Mother of Christ. The number ofassoci- 
ates was originally limited to 66in honor of the years which, according 
to Catholic tradition, the Blessed Virgin Mary spent on earth. 
Later another similar institute was formed under the title of 
‘‘Immacolata” which allowed affiliation of lay persons. These 
religious wore a white woolen dress, blue Scapulars and blue mantle. 
The community was placed under the direction of the Theatine 
Fathers who still retain its patronage, although the order founded 
by the devout Ursula has, as a religious community, ceased to exist. 
Her beautiful example, her broad charity and generous spirit of 
self-sacrifice had given her a wonderful influence over all classes of 
people, and utilizing, for the honor and glory of God, this admira- 
tion of her personal gifts, she led the willing crowds who sought her 
intercession, to follow the path of virtuous living by giving them a 
memento—a pledge of affiliation and fidelity, in the small token of 
a Blue Scapular which they were to wear night and day as reminders 
of purity, charity and self sacrifice. This is the origin of the Blue 

The death of this holy woman occurred in 1618. So great was 
the reputation for sanctity and the power for good which she had 
among her countrymen that when it was rumored that she was going 
to die, the leading citizens of Naples assembled around her bed mak- 
ing a solemn request that she would continue in heaven the patron- 
age which she had exercised in their midst during life for the reform 
of morals and the cultivation of public and private virtue.! 


The general objects which the wearers of the Blue Scapular have 
in view are: 

I. Tohonor the Blessed Mother of Christ, in her special prerogative 
of the Immaculate Conception, by purity of life and the cultivation 
of other Christian virtues expressed in the model of womanhood. 

II. To pray and labor for the conversion of those in error and 

When we apply the purpose which the saintly Ursula had pro- 
posed to herself in establishing the devotion of the Blue Scapular, 
to our conditions and country, there seems to be in it a particular 

1 The process of her canonization was inaugurated under Pius VI, by a decree dated 
Aug. 7, 1793. Clement X, by Brief of Jan. 30, 1671, Clement XI, by Brief of May 12, 
1710, and Pius IX, by Rescript, Sept. 19, 1851, have sanctioned the devotion of the Blue 
Scapular as originated by the Venerable Ursula Benincasa. 


aptitude and a separate appeal for its cultivation among American 

The United States have been placed under the special Protector- 
ate of the Immaculate Queen of heaven. The title of Immaculate 
Conception is a national one, in the religious sense of the word. 
As clients of this august Patroness it is most fitting that we should 
don the uniform which is used in a special way to designate the 
members of the militia of our heavenly Protectress. That there is 
a warfare impending which demands our united efforts, no one who 
marks the signs of the times can doubt. Indeed, there are many 
dangers actually present and at work in our midst. The writer in 
the Ave Maria, to whom we referred above, points this out in the 
following words: 

The dangers that threaten our country are insidious and powerful. True 
religion and Catholic morality are held and observed by only a small pro- 
portion of its inhabitants—one-sixth at the largest showing. Moreover 
the air is full of evil influences tending to undermine them,—moral evils 
which assail us all, and errors in doctrine to which five-sixths of the people 
are a prey, and which are not without peril even to the faithful. We have 
but to name a few of these evils to appreciate their danger: Intemperance, 
divorce, political corruption and business dishonesty, social evils, pauper- 
ism and crime, godless education, infidel literature, agnosticism and 
heresies, worldliness and greed of riches, enmities and strife between 
capital and labor, speculation, gambling and extravagance. There are, 
besides, dangers arising from conditions unfavorable to the growth of tra- 
ditions of piety and purity,—conditions brought on by constantly shifting 
populations, indiscriminate immigration, and the necessity of letting our 
young people drift out into the world alone and unprotected to seek their 
fortunes. Many of these evils we share in common with all peoples, but 
many arise from our peculiar circumstances and temptations. They are 
American evils, or at least are felt here with exceptional force. 

Blue is the color of our national army. It won the victory for 
freedom in behalf of an enslaved race. Although we are not fight- 
ing ‘“the gray,’’ who are our brothers in this warfare against com- 
mon evils, we may make the blue our national color on double 
grounds. It speaks to us of the freedom that reaches beyond the 
fair vaults of heaven or the azure expanse of mountain and sea. 
The color of sapphire and turquoise reflects from the gates of 
heaven and adorns the mantle of our Queen. Knights and maids of 
honor, we wear her ribbon as tokens of our allegiance to the august 
Sovereign whose virtues we strive to imitate. We bend our knees 
for her blessing and ask her to make use of our service to defend 


the walls of Sion in this New World, the interests of our American 
Church, and under her guidance we may hope to carry on success- 
fully the crusade against the false doctrines and lax morals of our 

‘*Cunctas haereses sola interemisti in universo mundo.”’ 


There are but few requisites as conditions for the proper recep- 
tion of the Blue Scapular. 

1. It is to be made of woolen cloth, blue in color. There is 
usually a picture of the Jmmaculata on one side of the Scapular, but 
this is not essential. The strings may be of any color and material. 

2 The Scapular is to be blessed. This requires a special faculty. 
If Priests ask their Bishops for it they will obtain it. Otherwise the 
General of the Theatines (at Sax Andrea Della Valle), in Rome, 
will grant the same and send all necessary instructions. 

3. There is zo inscribing of names. 

4. No special forms of prayer or devotional practices are essential. 
Any pious work may be offered to God with the intention men- 
tioned above as the particular object of the devotion. The wear- 
ing of the Scapular is, of course, necessary, and it acts as a help 
and reminder, morning and night, of our resolution to cultivate the 
virtues expressed by the symbol. 

5. There are numerous spiritual advantages and indulgences to 
be obtained under the usual conditions by Catholics who sincerely 
repent of their sins and pledge their good will to lead pure lives. 
(See Analecta : Privileges of the Blue Scapular.) 

6. Every mass said for a deceased person who has during life worn 
the Blue Scapular enjoys the privilegium alfaris, no matter on what 
altar or by whom the mass is celebrated. 


The month of May gives to devout Catholics a special impulse and 
inspiration to’do something in honor of our Blessed Lady. It also 
offers more numerous opportunities than other seasons, for inculca- 
ting whatever zeal and charity may suggest to a faithful priest for 
benefiting his people. 

A very efficient way to accomplish both these ends is to explain 
the meaning and to; recommend the wearing of the Blue Scapular. 
This will be an opportunity all the more desirable, if we should have 
been either the, conscious or the innocent cause of neglect to have 


the names of persons whom we have invested with other Scapulars 
inscribed and who consequently lose the privileges of affiliation to the 
congregations which the Scapulars, requiring enrolment, represent. 
Here we have a method of making reparation. 

Thus we may increase our forces for good, and aid in the promo- 
tion of true prosperity amid our people in this land of the free, so 
full of temporal blessings yet so full of dangers on that very account. 
Let the fair blue mantle of our spotless Queen touch every child of 
the Catholic Church in America, proud that we may wear the beau- 
tiful emblem of her Immaculate Conception, an omen of blessings 
for us and our country. 

Et sic in Sion firmata sum, et in civitate sanctificata similiter re- 
guievi et in Jerusalem potestas mea ! 


he series of articles contributed to the REVIEW on the subject of 
clerical studies by the Rev. J. Hogan, D. D., of the Catholic 
University, shall furnish the present writer both with a text and with 
an apology for venturing to discuss in these pages the position which 
music should hold in the curriculum. We desire to makea plea for 
more attention to vocal culture, and to the history and theory of 
ecclesiastical music, ancient and modern, than is ordinarily given to 
these subjects in Catholic seminaries. Of course, a general argu- 
ment for broadening the course of studies might be found in the 
fact that the Church should still keep, in this ‘‘ age of the electric 
light,’’ that wonderful pre-eminence of hers which eighteen centuries 
of our Christian civilization have attested with an unvarying and 
most impressive emphasis. For Z7rivium and Quadrivium shall no 
more be the measure of intellectual training. The ‘‘ encyclo- 
peedia’’ is made vastly more ample in our times than the éyzdzdtos 
zsatdsta of the Greeks, the “ovrdbis doctrinae’’ of Seneca. 
Steam and electricity have canopied our minds with ever-widening 
horizons of intellectual progress ; so that, alas, even by jealous 
hoarding and specialization of energy the brief span of life can fur- 
nish us but grudgingly the alms of a partial and short-lived success. 
The purely theological studies of our curriculum could alone baffle 
the mental energies of a life-time. In them, too, the spirit of spe- 
cialization has been at work, and has indicated various particular 
lines of thought still leading the despairing inquirer to an emdbarras 

de richesse. Nevertheless, we are here contending for a multiplica- 
tion of studies in the Seminary ; and from the pleas of general and 
special culture we are striving to draw arguments for broadening the 
course in music. Let it be granted that we cannot attain to a tithe 
of the wide intellectual riches that mock our very avarice—what 
then? Shall we embrace the sad doctrines of an ‘‘ optimistic pes- 
simism,” as the philosophy of Horace has been rather paradoxi- 
cally termed, and, crying out with that pagan poet, 

Quid brevi fortes jaculamur aevo 

forthwith make the Horatian inference, 

Laetus in praesens animus quod ultra est 

Oderit curare ? 

Begging the reader’s kind indulgence for this rather lengthy pre- 
face—meant, however, to anticipate the on-multa-sed-mulium ob- 
jection urged so untiringly and so successfully against the multipli- 
cation of studies in our seminaries—we proceed to make a plea for 
greater breadth as well as greater depth in the subject of ecclesiasti- 
cal music. 

(Le beau est aussi utile que l’utile,-plus, peut-étre.) 
Victor Hugo. 

Perhaps a sufficient answer to the objection we have just stated 
would bea clear appreciation of the position of the time-honored 
‘‘learned professions ’’ in relation to this modern intellectual hurry 
and bustle. If at any time the man of one book is to be feared, it 
surely is at the present day. But this gentleman is most to be feared 
because he is not sufficiently fearful. He is too apt to construct a 
little heaven and earth of hisown; and his philosophy too often 
dreams not of the ‘‘ more things” hidden in the larger earth his 
feet tread so lightly, and in the wider heaven which ‘‘ baffles him 
forever.’’ We fear him, not because he knows his specialty so well, 
but because he knows it so imperfectly. Principle rubs against prin- 
ple in the machinery of science : the more we know, the less, as a 
rule, shall any single principle be urged in its widest extent. The 
dogmatism of the present day is the dogmatism ofthe ‘‘ specialist.”’ 
Says Matthew Arnold—correct here, at least—in his New Age : 

Bards make new poems ; 
Thinkers new schools ; 

Statesmen new systems ; 
Critics new rules ; 


All things begin again 
Life is their prize ; 
Earth with their deeds they fill— 
Fill with their cries. 

In an age which finds a separate sphere of activity for every faculty 
of body and mind, which isso apt to educate hand at the expense of 
head, and head at the expense of heart, it isa refreshing thing to meet 
the man whose culture is the product of education in its primary 
meaning—of a harmonious blending of his physical, mental and 
spiritual powers. There is, in all our ‘‘ push and go,”’ in all the 
utilitarian heresy of the times, room still for the man of ‘‘ general ”’ 
culture. His temperate judgments, his world-wide sympathies, his 
appreciation of the good, the true, the beautiful, in whatever forms 
they assume, his well-rounded scholarship — all will prove an in- 
structive object-lesson to the New Age: 

Thundering and bursting 
In torrents, in waves, 
Carrolling and shouting, 
Over tombs, amid graves ; 
See on the cumbered plain, 
Clearing a stage, 
Scattering the past about, 
Comes the New Age. 

Now we might quote endless testimony of the highest authority 
in asserting the prerogatives of music in the culture of head, and 
heart, and hand. ‘‘ Plato and Aristotle agree in thinking that the 
rhythm and harmony of music inspire the soul with the love of 
order, with harmoniousness, regularity, and a soothing of the pas- 
sions.’’' ‘‘Is it not, then,’’ says Plato in his Republic, ‘‘ on these 
accounts that we attach such supreme importance to a musical edu- 
cation, because rhythm and harmony sink most deeply into the 
recesses of the soul, bringing gracefulness in their train, and making 
a man graceful if he be rightly nurtured; but if not, the re- 
verse?’ . . . . .* We might show at length how this precious 
heirloom has come down to us through the guadrivium of the 
Middle Ages, in which it held an honored place. We might trace 
the religious pedigree of music from our own day, back through the 
Ages of Faith to the time when it brought sweetest tears to the eyes 
of St. Augustine, back through the apostolic ages till we find 
‘‘ great David’s greater Son” singing the hymn with His disciples 
before going out to Mount Olivet, back to the Second Temple, in 

1. Compayré: History of Pedagogy, p. 20. 2. Version of Vaughan and Davies. 


whose chanting, doubtless, the same Divine Master joined, ‘‘ to 
ulfill all justice,’’ back to the splendid service of the First Temple, 
back to the canticle of Moses on the banks of the Red Sea, back to 
the morning hymn of creation, ‘‘ when all the sons of God madea 
joyful melody.’’ But music, the first-born of the arts, does not, or 
should not, need any recommendation either of pedagogy or of 
liturgies in these latter days.’ 

Nevertheless, while the culturing power of music is generally ad- 
mitted, and the necessity of some familiarity with its genius and 
laws cheerfully conceded in theory, the utilitarian character of the 
age we live in has virtually, if not formally, constituted a new 
‘*specialty’’—has branded it with a trade-mark, and made of it 
almost as distinct a profession as law or medicine ; so that any one 
who for the sake of personal improvement essays acquiring a be- 
coming mediocrity in the science or art of music is weighed, not in 
the balance of general culture, but in that of trade skill, and is 
forthwith dubbed an ‘‘ amateur.” That this tendency, from a peda- 
gogical point of view, seems to be false and misleading, we should 
not be required to prove. But we call attention to the tendency 

1. Acertain Dr. Hanchett, a musician, wrote an article for the November number, 1590, 
of the Voice Magazine, on ‘‘ The Mission of Music.’’ The editor sent a list of questions to 
various prominent authors and educators, inviting criticism of the article. In justice let 
it be said that the opinions passed on the position of music in the “‘ fine arts,” its power for 
good in training the character, its value as a mental discipline, etc., ran through the 
whole range of favorable and adverse criticism. Whilst no question was put as to its posi- 
tion in the curriculum of colleges, some of the correspondents chose to allude to that 
phase of the subject. We beg indulgence for a few extracts. Julian Hawthorne says: 
‘* Music differs from all other arts or sciences. Its objects and effects are distinct. For that 
reason music is the most valuable single element in our present scheme of education.’ T. W. 
Higginson, the historian, ranks music ‘‘ higher than any art except the highest poetry.” 
President Low, of Columbia College, says: ‘‘It is a refining, civilizing art. It tunes my 
mind up, often a whole octave. It lifts me into the altitudes of my soul. It pushes all life 
and pettiness and humdrum cares out of sight.” President Hall, of Clark University, 
ranks music “ very high.’”’ President Bashford, Ohio Wesleyan University : ‘‘ Our present 
education is too purely mental. Education should develop the mental, physical and moral 
power of thestudent . . Music tends to develop both the imaginative and emotional facul- 
ties, but these faculties are generally neglected by the ordinary school curriculum. I 
would, therefore, rank music as worthy of insertion in the school and college curriculum, 
because it cultivates the imaginative and emotional faculties, and thus contributes to 
that well-rounded development which should be the object of all education. President 
Grose, University of S. Dakota: He seems tothink that the study of music alone should 
yield all of character. As well decry the study of mathematics because it does not make 
one a good grammarian or kindly in disposition. Music is one factor in “ character- 
building.’’ Heranks music ‘“‘as one of the chief educators of the aesthetic faculty, which 
must be developed if a symmetrical character is to be obtained.’’ May we give a Shak- 
sperian turn to the discussion ? 

‘The man that hath no music in himself, 
And is not moved with concord of sweet sounds, 
Is fit for treasons, strategems, and spoils.” 
Merchant of Venice. Act V, Sc. I. 


here because there is reason to fear that it has made some progress 
even in the conservative atmosphere of the Catholic seminary, and 
that it is in some measure responsible for the present peculiarly de- 
generate state of church music—a state for the bettering of which 
so many able and pious and energetic musicians now labor in vain. 

We began to plead the cause of music from the stand-point of 
general culture, and we find ourselves unconsciously shifting to the 
vantage-ground of a utilitarian argument. This latter, indeed, it 
was our main intent to occupy, albeit we leave with regret the splen- 
did array of argument which the former would present for winning 
attention to 

The higher things 
Lost with base gain of raiment, food and roof. 

Without yielding the point that a sufficient vindication of the 
high offices of music may be found in the personal advantages 
gained by its faithful wooers, we shall borrow wisdom from the 
methods of the present age, and shall make a plea from the rostrum 
not of the more real, but of the more obvious utility of the study of 

** Gratefully use what to thee is given.”’ 
Omar Khayyam. 

What are the uses to which music, the universal heirloom of man- 
kind, should be put? What golden threads of musical culture 
should give strength and beauty to the texture of ecclesiastical 
education ? 

We spoke of the present degraded status of church music. It is 
a status that has called forth much comment in public and private. 
Reasoning, and wit, and satire have exhausted themselves to little 
purpose. After all, if any reform is to be made in the present state 
of affairs, should it not be championed, inaugurated, and carried on 
by the great body of the priesthood? Councils and synods may 
preach the higher things, and point the way to their attainment—a 
sign-post shall never bring the listless traveler to his destination. 
The desideratum seems to be: first, an intelligent appreciation of 
what church-music should be, and what it really is, at present ; and 
secondly, the ability to enter into an intelligent discussion of the 
means proper for restoring the service of our temples to a position 
in the musical proprieties demanded by its very nature. But does 
the seminary aim at imparting any instruction in these matters to 
its alumni as a body? Is the study of the history and characteris- 


tics ofsacred music an integral and necessary part ofthe curriculum ? 
On the contrary, does not the possession of any musical ability by a 
student constitute him a sfecia/ist, and not, as it should, merely an 
abler man amongst his musically-educated fellows? The use which 
a priest has for a knowledge of geometry, of history, of Latin me- 
tres, nay of Canon Law and General Liturgy, cannot be shown to 
be of more practical moment in his official duties, than the many 
uses which he has for a knowledge of music. To pass over, for a 
moment, the imperative function of music in all the solemn offices 
of the liturgy, we need but instance the practical questions which 
are at this time clamoring for solution—what kind of music should 
be considered sacred ? what kind may be tolerated by the priest, 
meliora sperante, for the present ? what kind he may not brook fora 
moment ? what are the possibilities and advantages of congregational 
singing ? what those of Cecilian music? what those of Gregorian 
chant? how shall we encourage and properly direct vocal music in 
the school ? how shall we train up the young to an appreciation, as 
well as a recognition, of the higher music which refines the taste, as 
opposed to the lighter, more trivial, more sensuous, which may 
lower the moral as well as the mental tone of the younger folk? 
How shall the personnel of the choir be regulated—by ability purely, 
or zeal purely, or piety as well as ability ? and soon to the end of the 
chapter. However reasonable this comparison between music and the 
other branches of instruction cited by way of example may be, the 
fact still remains that at the end of his course in the Catholic semin- 
ary the student that showed special aptitude for any of these latter 
studies does not find himself, and is not considered, a specialist ; 
but he does find a companion, not brighter in musical knowledge 
than he himself was in Latin or Canon Law, the varissima avis of a 

In estimating the comparative utility of music, we said we should 
pass over, fora moment, the zmerative functions of music in the 
solemn offices of the liturgy. Here, of course, the strongest argu- 
ment might be made for a thorough training within, at least, the 
limits of the Gregorian Chant. Specialization must stop its ravages 
in the face of the stubborn fact that for the celebrant and the min- 
isters at the altar, no vicarious fulfillment of legal prescription shall 
be tolerated, Liturgically speaking, they mus¢sing. And so, coun- 
cils and synods have provided some place in the curriculum for 
plain chant. It has the same reason for existence in such a place, 
as the study of Rubrics and General Liturgy. But having said this, 


we have not said all—we have not said enough. The strange 
fatality which has been pursuing music has made this common gift 
of nature—a gift practically co-extensive with that of voice and 
language—a rare enough specialty in seminaries, even within the 
province of liturgical necessity. The stubborn facts seem to. be 
not only that plain chant has lost caste, but that it has well nigh 
sunk out of recognition. No itching of the fingers shall succeed in 
diverting us into a rhapsody on the subject of Gregorian music. 
We wil/ not say that its ‘‘heavenly melodies’? must have ap- 
proached the dignity of inspiration; we will not quote any of the 
striking testimonies of musicians friendly and inimical to the Church, 
as to the inherent majesty and power of the liturgical song, or the 
peculiar fitness of traditional use, its venerable antiquity, its 
freedom from all worldiness, vanity, or sensual suggestiveness, have 
given it for clothing the words of the sacred text in becoming 
drapery. This has been already said, and well said, and often said. 
And if we should dare to repeat any of that glowing eulogy, it 
would be for the purpose of calling attention to the incredulous 
smile, perhaps the undisguised sneer we should provoke. Caste 
has been lost for it, surely, in the musical world. Of that we do 
not propose to speak ; nor indeed, of the amount of clerical humor, 
too, expended on the subject. But worthy of note is the fact that 
it has lost caste even in the sisterhood of the ecclesiastical sciences. 
Possessing as eminent a right to recognition as General Liturgy, the 
tacit understanding amongst all seems to be that while the details of 
ceremonial should be carefully attended to, any kind of rendition 
of plain chant will suffice. The man who tries to sing the melody 
as indicated—in the missal, even—is doing the chant “ honor over- 
much.’’ The fatuity which gives birth to such a principle of action 
is another remarkable element in the downward path of Gregorian 
chant. A first principle in the ceremonies is that decorum be ob- 
served—for may not the infinite detail of the rubricists be reduced, 
in the last analysis, to the most decorous way of doing something 
which is a necessary part of theliturgy? And thence, we conceive, 
comes the unwritten law of making a mistake in ‘‘ceremonies’’ as 
gracefully as possible—“so that no one will be the wiser?’”’ 
Strange fatuity! We are punctilious in observing the directions of 
the rubricists—a matter in which many years’ study cannot give us 
more than a mediocre success, and a subject peculiarly foreign to 
the knowledge, and so often, alas! to the interest of the faithtul— 
and all the while we care little or nothing for decorum in the singing, 


a thing which is as common a possession as language ; a subject in 
which the} very children of the congregation may play the part of 
judges. The seminarian who is in sacred orders will wax warm in 
defence of the exact degree of profundity in his reverences to the 
celebrant, and will make merry sport of his weirdly original /e 
missa est. Nevertheless, while the faithful may not be proficient 
in geometry or rubrics, they may be depended upon to have a pair 
of ordinary ears and so all the beauty of ceremonial will be lost in 
the echoes, both in and out of the church, of ourlast cacophony. Let 
us not be understood as speaking in any slighting way of the least 
of the ceremonies of the Church. We should heartily deprecate 
such a suspicion, even if the assurance of St. Theresa that she 
would lay down her life willingly for the observance of each of them 
were not ringing in ourears. Nay, rather, for the very sake of 
reverence are we insisting on a decorous performance of one por- 
tion of the liturgical service. Do we “ despise the small things ’’ 
in lifting up from the dust the greater? But we must be careful 
lest, while conscientiously tithing mint and anise and cummin, we 
leave the weightier things of the liturgical law. 

We venture therefore to submit that such a state of affairs as we 
have described, is, to say the least, one-sided and intelicitous. It is 
also, we think, pedagogicaily erroneous. Viewed from the stand- 
point even of a rigid and narrow utilitarianism, it is a sad neglect 
of the ‘‘ practical’’ advantages of education. If we should seek a 
reason for this neglect, we should doubtless find the double excuse 
given of ‘‘no time for musical instruction,’’ and ‘‘those that have 
‘ears’ don’t need it, and those that have not ‘ ears’ couldn’t profit 
by it.’” The answer to the former might be that in education the 
evolutionary formula of ‘‘ survival of the fittest,’’ should, perhaps, 
be a potent factor in the determination of what few branches shall 
be selected for the curriculum out of the one hundred and one that 
clamor for some recognition. But such a principle may well be 
modified by the other, that ‘‘ the weak have rights which the strong 
are bound to respect.’’ The question, then, cannot be peremptorily 
settled by a final triumphant appeal to the paramount importance 
of theologics and philosophics, and liturgics e¢ id genus omune. 
Again we fear the man of one book! Ai scientific pedagogy will 
regard the usefulness of any special branch of education as a func- 
tion (to borrow a geometric term) of the results gained divided by 
the time spert in gaining these results. If we apply this formula 
to the various branches of study in the clerical curriculum, we shall 


not find music the lowest in the scale of utility. We do not pro- 
pose to enter upon a laborious calculation of the w/t/ities, but shall 
at once proceed to point out some of the synchronous results ot 
musical instruction. These may be divided into physical, mental 
and esthetic, if we regard vocal music merely as a factor in what 
is primarily meant by “‘ education.” Of the function of music in 
‘*instruction,’’ which is too often the latter-day meaning of educa- 
tion, we may speak further on. 

It is a patent fact that the long and necessarily severe course of 
preparation for the high dignity of the priesthood is too apt to 
strengthen the spiritual at the expense of the animal and vegetative 
faculties of students. The dark embers give a weird emphasis to 
the inner fire they can feed no longer. The necessities of our poor 
clay are humiliating, certainly, but they are stern facts; and a well- 
rounded culture dare not despise them. Juvenal’s proverb about 
the mens sana is nevertheless more remarkable for the endless and 
universal indifference shown by mankind towards its great lesson, 
than either for its happy truth, or its venerable antiquity. We 
are forever killing the hen that lays the golden eggs. The school- 
room and the school curriculum have come down to us through the 
misty ages as one unmistakable object-lesson of how-not-to-do-it. 
Seminaries have not been worse off in this respect than other 
schools, but their very lengthy course has served to emphasize the 
principle better. The protests of physicians are, however, at last 
listened to with some respect, and have resulted in better lighted 
and better ventilated halls, and various systems of calisthenics for the 
lower schools, and in the many athletic associations of the colleges 
and universities. But one very thoughtful recommendation has 
not been listened to with much deference, or at least, with much re- 
sult—we mean the introduction into schools of vocal practice. In 
another place’ we have pointed to the fact that ‘‘the benefit to the 
physical nature, in developing and strengthening the lungs by deep 
respirations, places it on a level with calisthenics. Without claiming 
for it all the ‘innumerable advantages’ described by physicians of 
various ages, we may simply note here the comparatively recent 
testimony of Colombat de I’Isére, who believed it to be a great 
guard against epidemic diseases. But we may not omit the striking 
testimony of an eminent English authority of the present day, 
Gordon Holmes, whose position as physician to the Edinburgh 
Municipal Throat and Ear Infirmary, and of chef-de-clinique at the 

1 Course of Study for the Philadelphia Parochial Schools. 


Hospital for Diseases of the Throat, entitled his opinion to special 
consideration. Hesays: ‘The general well-being of the consti- 
tution is promoted by voice-practice, because the wider chest move- 
ments accelerate the circulation of the blood, at the same time that 
they cause a more ample flow of fresh air in and out of the lungs 

. . And, moreover, these effects have a certain permanency 
on account of the gains to the thoracic capacity derived from the 
habitual increase of lung expansion necessitated by constant vocal 

> 991 

But while other physical exercises develop and strengthen par- 

ticular muscles and sinews, and contribute therefore only generally 
to the well-being of the body, vocal exercise directly develops the 
power of voice-production, and therefore directly strengthens that 
organ of the body which in a priest is too often the weakest and 
yet the most necessary in his public ministry. This thought opens 
out wide vistas of demonstration of its utility which, however, we 
may not enter upon now. 

The purely physical value of singing places it, therefore, on a 
level with calisthenics. But besides this, music has what calis- 
thenics has not, the concomitant element of a strong mental stimu- 
lus and disciplinary power. A writer in the Normal Review has 
pointed out that ‘‘ Music, when rightly studied, becomes a means 
of mental discipline over which mathematics, with all its boasted 
glory, can claim no superiority. Any one who sings will acknowl- 
edge at once that no problem in arithmetic calls for a keener use 
of the perceptive faculties than does the singing, at sight, of a diffi- 
cult piece of music.’’ We shall not discuss the esthetic gains result- 
ing from vocal culture. We have already, in the first part of this 
essay, hinted at some of them. But we may note here that not a 
little of the difficulty that stands at present in the way of congrega- 
tional singing would be removed, as the priest would then be in 
fact, what he is in theory, the natural exponent and teacher of 
ecclesiastical music. 

We should, then, recommend a course of instruction in vocal 
music, extending throughout the whole of the seminary course, and 
if possible, through the whole of the preparatory collegiate course. 
Fifteen minutes’ daily practice would soon demonstrate, better than 
many words, the justice of our plea. Indeed, under a competent 
teacher, a few months of such practice would yield, even in the most 
obdurate cases, little short of musical miracles. And here we glance 

1 A Treatise on Vocal Physiology and Hygiene, etc., p. 217. 


for a moment at the second objection urged against spending time 
in the study of music, viz., that instruction and practice are quite 
unnecessary for any one who has a ‘‘voice’’ and an ‘‘ ear,” and 
hopelessly useless for any one who has not. We need scarcely say 
that such a plea can have currency only where the stock of musical 
information is of the scantiest kind. The limits of our essay will not 
admit a proof of the statement; nor, indeed, as we are not address- 
ing novices in music or in educational matters, is there any neces- 
sity for proof. But from the double fact that good voices and good 
ears require culture, and that defective ones can by culture be 
vastly improved, we beg to insist again on what we conceive to be 
a first requisite in any musical course in our seminaries, namely, 
daily voice-practice. By this, intonation could be made correct and 
secure ; volume could be marvellously improved ; the timére could 
be made much more pleasing. We should then have a demonstra- 
tion that the rarest of the /usus naturae is an absolute lack of re- 
sponsiveness to melody—the dZ¢e noir of a bad ear. In his own ex- 
perience in the class-room the present writer has found ample 
demonstration of the power which even scant vocal practice has for 
improving volume and intonation and ¢#imére. He has found classes 
bashful, listless, discouraged ; he has left them hopeful, energetic, 
and filled with a pleasing sense of security in their ability to sing. 
Singing, like swimming, is a natural operation ; but, like it, requires 
some courage for the first plunge. He has found the patient drill- 
ing of a few lessons changing what sounded at first like the confused 
murmur of distant seas into a rich, round, decided, choral unison. 
Defective ears, slovenly intonation, and harsh voices, together with 
listlessness and vocal mannerisms, were responsible for the former ; 
a little effort and patient practice for the latter. 

While the class could be made to join ultimately in the exercises 
as a whole, sufficient time should be given to individual voice practice 
first of all. This is, indeed, the most important part of the training. 
In a Catholic seminary there should be no class of “ incurables ”’— 
to borrow a word from the Rev. Arthur Ryan. Too often, alas! we 
charge to nature the results of our own carelessness and physical 
improvidence. The eve of ordination is hardly the proper time for 
beginning to realize the fact that the liturgical offices generally re- 
quire singing as a sine gua non of their performance, and that both 
ear and voice declare their utter unfitness for the task. Shall we say 
that nature has played the step-mother to us? That noone can 
remedy a congenital defect ? 


Side by side with voice culture should begin some instruction in 
the elementary theory of music, the conventional modes, ancient 
and modern, of representing sounds to the eye, the nature of inter- 
vals, etc. The history of church music would furnish occasional 
variety and give interest to a subject which is, however, by no 
means a dry one. Some odzter dicta in the Pastoral Theology of 
Church-music, some suggestions about ‘‘ our choir,’’ ‘‘ our organ- 
ists,’’ ‘‘our solo-music,’’ might not be amiss; and if they were 
made in the spirit of their subject could not fail to provoke a healthy 
laughter. In fine, the class might be constantly reminded of the 
words of St. Bernard: “ Sunt quidam voce dissoluti, qui vocis suae 
modulatione gloriantur, nec tantum gaudent de dono gratiae, sed 
etiam alios spernunt. Tumentes elatione aliud cantant, quam libri 
habeant, tanta est levitas vocis, forsitan et mentis. Cantant ut 
placeant populo magis quam Deo.’’ Insistence should be made on 
singing the exact melodies of the chant, on the ground that beauty 
unadorned is, especially in plain chant, adorned the most. Thus on 
the basis of nature might be built a decent superstructure of a knowl- 
edge of ancient and modern tonalities—the former necessary for the 
priest in his sacred functions, and the latter able to clothe, with 
other than merely official authority, his supervision of the music 
performed in his church. 



()** of the most striking features of theso-called Reformation, is 

its gross inconsistency. When Luther separated from the o/d 
Church, he found it necessary to have a body of doctrine, and he 
forthwith excogitated that famous watchword of the zew religion, 
“ Faith alone justifies.’ He lived to repent the folly of attempting 
to improve upon the Church of God.- The dictum Cvrede firmiter 
sed pecca fortiter, was disastrous to morality, which is intimately 
connected with dogma, and we have the testimony of the German 
monk himself, that the people were much worse in point of morals 
in his time, than they had been under the Popes. 

Whilst ‘‘Creeds not deeds’’ was the peon of the Reformers, 
Protestantism of to-day has veered completely around, and made it 
“Deeds not creeds.’”’ Such is the fate of error : it is by its nature 


inconsistent. Similarly great changes have taken place in regard to 
other dogmas of the Christian faith. We find ministers of the gos- 
pel, denying the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation—two of 
the fundamental dogmas of the Christian religion. Under such cir- 
cumstances sincere Protestants turn to the Catholic Church for a 
solution of questions of the soul which hinge upon facts of revealed 
truth. It will not then be deemed an idle speculation if we turn to 
one of the fundamental subjects of this kind— namely, the Person- 
ality of Christ, and trace it briefly in its dogmatic bearing. 

Our exposition of the dogma will consist of a summary of what the 
best theologians have written on the subject. 

Person is distinguishable but not separable from xaiure, for no 
person is really conceivable as existing without a nature; and though 
human as well as divine nature is distinguishable from person, yet 
neither is conceivable as existing without person or personality. 
The human nature of Christ is not human nature divested of person- 
ality ; it is a human nature as much as is the human nature of Peter 
or John, but its person is divine, not human. Hence Christ is two 
distinct natures in one person, which divine person is God or the 
Second Person of the ever-adorable Trinity. Human nature cannot 
exist without a personality, and the human nature of Christ was not, 
and could not have been generated without His divine personality. 
As our soul united to our body makes but one person, so the Son of 
God united to the soul and body which He assumed, makes also but 
one person. Christas God has a Father but no mother; and as 
man he has a Mother and no father. Christ as God has a Father 
because He is the only begotten Son of the Eternal Father. As man 
He has no father, because He was conceived by the operation of the 
Holy Ghost. The Blessed Virgin, then, is really the Mother of God, 
because the Son of God took in her womb a body and soul like ours. 
Mary really conceived and brought forth the Man-God. The body 
of the Son of God was formed of the substance of Mary. All this is 
of faith. The Church is ever on the alert to condemn any error, 
however slight, regarding the Incarnation, for she knows that on 
this dogma rests the whole scheme of Christianity. Destroy the In- 
carnation and all religion becomes a mere name. Grace and Re- 
demption are out of the question. 

In the Incarnation it is not the divine nature that loses its person- 
ality, but the human nature that gains, instead of its own, the divine 
personality. God retains in the Incarnation His own divine person, 
as the one person of the two ever-distinct natures, and is no more 


under a finite form as incarnated, than He is as not incarnated. He 
loses, He gains nothing ; it is the human nature assumed that gains. 
It is modified and singularly elevated by receiving a divine instead 
of a human personality ; but God the divine person remains un- 
changed, unaffected, immutable in all the fulness, majesty and glory 
of His own eternaland incommunicable divinity. In the Incarnation, 
the divine nature is not incarnated, but the divine person, that is the 
Second Person of the Blessed Trinity ; and the Incarnation is notin 
the divine person becoming subject to the limitation of the human 
person, but in taking human nature up to Himself, and giving it the 
dignity of His own person. 

Christ is one person, supposttum hypostasts or subsistence, and in 
this one person subsist, forever distinct and inseparable, two natures, 
the human and divine. So that He is not two persons or two sub- 
sistences, but two natures subsisting in one person. The divine 
nature is common to each of the three persons, all and entire, un- 
divided, indivisible, indistinguished, under each one of them, but 
the three persons in their personality are distinct from one another, 
and one can never be another. Person is incommunicable. This is 
a philosophical axiom. "It is an error to suppose that the doctrine 
of two distinct natures, subsisting in one person of Christ, necessarily 
implies that of two subsistences ; for two natures may without im- 
plying any contradiction have only one subsistence. The word per- 
son does not express the limitation or circumscription of rational 
nature in its completeness or supreme dignity, and therefore may 
apply to God as well as to man. And since God is unlimited and 
infinite, person may be infinite as well as finite. It cannot be said 
that the divine nature is changed after the Incarnation. When we 
say that God became man, the becoming or change is on the part of 
the nature assumed, not on the part of the person assuming. There 
is not and cannot be the least impropriety in predicating all that we 
predicate of God or the divine nature. 

Christ as God is, at the same time, the suppositum of the human 
nature assumed, and as that nature loses nothing, but gains in _per- 
fection by being assumed, or having a divine instead of a human 
suppositum, there can be just as little impropriety of predicating of 
Him all that belongs to a perfect man. Human and divine things 
are predicable of Christ not in a figurative or representative sense, 
but really and truly, and in the strictest sense of the words ; because 
He is in the strictest sense both God and man, not in the blending, 
intermingling, or confusion of the two natures, but in their distinct- 
iveness as the only simple suppositum of the two. 


Nature to do or to suffer must be concrete, must have its suppo- 
situm, and the doing or suffering, though impossible without nature, 
is predicable solely of the nature in its suppositum. As the suppo- 
situm in Christ is the same for both natures, whatever is done or 
suffered by Him is done and suffered by one and the same supposi- 
tum. He is God because He is a divine person or suppositum, and 
in Christ the suppositum or person is not separable from the divine 
nature. He is a man because He has a perfect human nature, and 
is in His one person its person. The whole mystery of the Incarna- 
tion is precisely here. Christ is one Christ, one person, and there 
is no divine Christ distinguishable from the human and vice versa. 
The humanity of Christ has no suppositum, never had any supposi- 
tum separate and distinct from the divine suppositum of the Word 
made flesh. The Word did not assume a human person, but a 
human nature. But this does not dissolve the person of Christ. 
Nor can it be said that God was born in His divinity, nor that He 
died in His divine nature; for He was before all worlds, from all 
eternity, immortal and impassible. This is predicated by His hu- 
man nature, which from the moment of the Incarnation was as truly 
His as was the divine nature. Now, as person and nature are insep- 
arable, though distinct, we can say it was truly God that suffered 
and died for us. 

All this is beautifully explained in the Athanasian Creed from 
which we quote. ‘‘Furthermore it is necessary for salvation that 
we believe rightly the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. For 
the right faith is that we believe and confess that Our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God, is God and man: God of the substance of 
the Father begotten before worlds; and nian of the substance of 
His Mother born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a 
reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father 
as touching His God-head; and inferior to the Father as touching 
His manhood. Who, although He be God and man, yet is not two, 
but one Christ. One not by conversion of the God-head into flesh, 
but by the taking of the manhood into God. One altogether, not 
by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. 

‘For as the rational soul and body is one man, so God and man is 
one Christ who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose 
again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, He 
sitteth at the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from which 
He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming 
all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account 


of their works. And they that have done good shall go into life 
everlasting, and they that shall have done evil into everlasting fire. 
This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully he 
cannot be saved.”’ 



UI bono? This question has doubtless been asked by many, 
interested in the present school controversy, who have read 
a somewhat lengthy Associated Press despatch from Berlin, which 
came to light some time ago in Baltimore,’ and was reproduced not 
only in the secular press throughout the country, but also in some 
Catholic journals. Its object was ostensibly ‘‘ to give a review of the 
policy of the Church towards State schools and of the present con- 
dition of the school question in the principal countries of Europe,’’ 
and its author was said to be ‘‘a Catholic prelate deep!y interested 
in the subject of public education.”’ 

The despatch might have been forgotten or passed over if a cer- 
tain importance, as well as a wider circulation among Catholics, had 
not been recently given it by the fact that Dr. Bouquillon introduced 
it into the last installment of his well-known pamphlet : Education : 
to whom does it belong ?? The author makes some comments on the 
despatch which, despite his former protest of dealing only with 
‘* theoretical principles,’’ are very suggestive of definite practical 

As ‘‘the facts’’ of the despatch are not quite true and as the de- 
ductions actually drawn from it are seriously misleading, we deem 
it an honored duty and a service done to American Catholics to set 
forth the actual facts, and to point out the legitimate conclusions 
following upon them so far as they can be of any use to us in the 
struggle for maintaining a right position on the subject of popular 

The facts stated in the despatch must for clearness’ sake be briefly 
repeated. They are substantially as follows: In Prussia, ‘‘ the 
programme of the deputies and of the bishops does not propose that 
the Church shall have free (parochial) schools over which the State 
isto have norights . . . . the Church in no wise denies the 

1 Baltimore, Sun., Dec. 23. 2A Rejoinder to the Civilta Cattolica. Appendix pp. 35-41. 


” 66 

right of the State over the schools ; a similar policy has been 
adopted by the Church in Ausésia ;’’ in France the Catholics ‘‘ with- 
out ceasing to adhere to the new system (of ‘ gratuitous and com- 
pulsory education’) sought to secure the right of both Church and 
State’? . . . . certain bishops ‘‘ employed the official teachers 
(of neutral schools) to give catechism lessons outside of school 
premises’’ and ‘‘ have carefully abstained from issuing any edicts 
depriving of the sacraments those parents who send their children to 
neutral (non-sectarian) schools ; in Belgium “the Holy See obliged 
the Belgian episcopate to assume the same position with regard to 
M. Frére-Orban’s law on non-sectarian education ; in /taly ‘‘a con- 
certed effort is everywhere being made to promote religious instruc- 
tion in the public and obligatory schools by a prudent compliance 
with circumstances.” 

From ‘‘these facts’’ the sender of the despatch ‘draws the follow- 
ing conclusions for the benefit of American Catholics: ‘‘ First, 
that the Catholic Church does not practically contest the right of 
the State over the primary schools, and that this implied recognition 
is especially admitted in German-speaking countries ; second, that 
the Church everywhere strives to have religious instruction given in 
the public schools by adapting itself to the existing laws; ¢hird, 
that the Church never condemns to deprivation of the sacraments 
those who send children to public schools in which there is no imme- 
diate and certain danger to faith and morals; fourth, that the State 
school in which religious instruction is given seems to be the prac- 
tical tdeaél of the Catholic parties of the Continent.” 

Let us examine the ‘‘facts’’ and in doing so keep in mind the 
avowed object of the despatch which was: to show the attitude of 
European Catholics towards neutral schools and the principles 
defended by them in regard to the “‘direct’’ and ‘‘ proper” right 
or mission of the Sfate to educate and to establish compulsory 


For the better understanding of the present state of school legis- 
lation in Europe it will be necessary to make a brief historical 

Up to the Reformation, State schools, as well as compulsory edu- 
cation, were wholly unknown in Europe. The Church had entire 
control of the school. Janssen, in his learned work,! bears out the 

1 See the chapter on ‘‘ Popular Schools” before the Reformation, I, 2. 


assertion that the Church was never more active in the matter of 
popular education than precisely in the XVth century, and this 
particularly in Germany. In the articles of the peace of Westphalia 
(Art. 32) the school is mentioned as the ‘‘annexum religionis,”’ 
and it is stipulated that all things connected with Church and school 
should be left to the management of each denomination. This same 
stipulation was formally renewed in 1803 for the then German 
Empire.! Luther and Melanchthon had earnestly recommended 
that the secular princes, as supreme masters temporal and spiritual 
of their realms, should have control of the schools. It was an effi- 
cient measure for carrying into practice the principle: Cujus regio 
ejus et religio. 

The same principle obtained in France through the Revolution. 
According to Danton the children belonged to the State first and 
then to the parents. The Universzté, that is to say, the central 
board of education for the whole of France, established by Napo- 
leon I, although it introduced once more religious instruction into 
the schools, was, in point of fact, imbued with the ideas of State- 
absolutism. This spirit has prevailed in France up to the present 
day. It was in truth French influence which introduced State edu- 
cation in several of the states of Germany, whilst at the same time 
the influence of the Church was being constantly weakened by the 
spoliation of her possessions. Prussia’s Protestant government 
hastened to proclaim in its Landrecht (public right), 1794, Feb. 6, 
the following principle, which has been and still jis a part of the 
so-called ‘‘ Prussian traditions:’’ ‘‘ All public institutions for 
instruction and education are under the control of the State, and 
are at all times subject to the examination and visitation of the State 
authorities.?, In the same right the popular schools are distinctly 
declared to be ‘‘ Institutions of the State.”* In Catholic Bavaria 
compulsory education was introduced by Minister Montgelas, a 
freemason. Josephinism willingly aided the work of the secret 
societies in Austria by promoting State education. Liberalism, 
under the deceitful motto, ‘‘instruction laique, gratuite et obliga- 
toire,’’ is to-day in all European States the heir and promoter of 
the principles of 1789 in general, and of compulsory State education 
and school monopoly in particular. 

1 Decree of the Deputies, Feb. 25, 1803. 

2 ‘ Alle offentlichen Uterrichts-und Erziehungsanstalten stehen unter der Aufsicht des 

Staates und mussen sich den Prufungen und Visitationen desselben zu allen Zeiten unter- 

3 Veranstaltungen des Staates. 



Only one-third of the population of Prussia is Catholic. Their 
representatives, the illustrious Deputies of the Centre, must of neces- 
sity be, and remain, a minority in the Prussian Landtag,! which in- 
cludes the House of Representatives (Abgeordnetenhaus) and the 
Senate (Herrenhaus). The majority in both Houses is composed 
of the Conservatives, almost all Protestants, and of the different 
parties of Liberals, who are bound together by a common tie— 
hostility towards the Catholic Church. As the King of Prussia is 
at the same time the Summus Episcopus of the Protestant Church, 
it has never happened, within the last forty years,that any loyal 
Catholic was chosen to be member of the ministry. The Minister 
of Public Worship especially has, always been a Protestant. The 
Government, Conservatives and Liberals unanimously declare, that 
all schools are ‘‘ institutions of the State,’’ that the State must have 
supreme control over all teaching, including religious doctrine. 
Under such circumstances’ it is manifestly futile to expect that the 
Government or Parliament would ever recognize the full rights of 
the Church in the matter of education. Never. Nay, this very 
Government and this majority consider themselves justified in mak- 
ing laws concerning the internal management of the Catholic as well 
as of the Protestant Church. They have done so, and many of these 
laws are still in force. It is true that many of them, as v. g. those 
concerning the administration of Church property, have been ‘‘ rec- 
ognized’’ by the Catholic body, that is, the Catholics have ‘‘ adap- 
ted’’ themselves to the circumstances, and this with the approba- 
tion of the Pope and the Bishops. Every pastor in Prussia (we speak 
from experience !) knows what a vexation such measures are ; but 
he must accept them and comply with them if he is to remain a 
‘* possibility.” As long as Prussia exists, the Catholic pastors wi Il 
have to besatisfied with this ‘‘ practical ideal.’” These measures 
form in Prussia a part of the ‘‘ religious-political legislation of the 
State,’’ they guarantee what is called ‘‘ the obligatory State control 
over the administration of parishes.” The Bishops do not protest 
against them, neither does the Centre party ; it may be truly said 
that ‘‘ the programme of the Deputies and of the Bishops does not 

1 It throws acurious light on the information of the Berlin correspondent whosent the 
above mentioned despatch that he repeatedly mentions the ‘‘ Reichstag” in connection 
with the school-law of Prussia. The Reichstag or Imperial Parliament has nothing to do 
with the school-legislation of Prussia, which is within the exclusive province of the 
‘‘Landtag ”’ or legislative body of that kingdom. 


propose that the Church shall have free” administration of the 
parishes ‘‘ over which the State is to have no rights ;” they do not 
‘*claim’’ independence of this administration ; they ‘‘ do not prac- 
tically contest such rights of the State’’—but this passive though 
express compliance with the existing laws and conditions is far from 
‘‘implying ” that the Catholics of Prussia recognize the management 
of schools as the proper and special ‘‘ right of the State.’’ And to 
propose such a condition of things as the practical deal for Ameri- 
can Catholics is in reality an insult to the Catholic episcopate of 
America as to that of Prussia which would be far from sanctioning 
such an ideal if it were not a practical necessity. 

he Catholic Centre party of Germany has become remarkable 
throughout the world for two things: Its unfailing adherence to 
Catholic teaching as well as loyalty to the authority of the Church, 
and the prudent diplomatic discernment of its leaders. In all ques- 
tions of moment it has acted according to the well known princi- 
ple of Montalembert : en politique zl n’y a de légitime que ce qui est 
possible. And this has been its deportment in the school question. 
It has never yielded in its political programme even the smallest 
right of the Church; but, on the other hand, it has had the saga- 
city not to advocate in that programme certain propositions 
of the syllabus, although it has always manfully defended the sylla- 
bus in all of its propositions, not excepting those regarding educa- 
tion, whenever there was occasion for doing so. That only is Jossz- 
éle for the Centre in Prussia, for which it can*obtain the consent of 
the Government and of at least a part of the majority of the House. 
For this reason it has never combatted compulsory education ; it 
recognizes the present situation and ‘‘ has always maintained’”’ con- 
jointly with the Conservatives, ‘‘that Church and State should co- 
operate peaceably and harmoniously in the management of secular 
and religious instruction.’’ It supports with all its power the re- 
ligious tendency of the Prussian Government, which always recog- 
nized the necessity of religious instruction, and which could never 
be induced by the Liberals to make the State schools non-denomi- 
national or neutral, not even during the Culturkampf. Hence the 
despatch is at fault when it says that the Catholics protested, because 
‘funder the Falk ministry the priest and Catholic instruction were 
excluded from the primary schools.’’ The Falk school laws were 
strenuously opposed by the Catholics because they distinctly and 
openly asserted the principle that the schools belong to the State 
alone, that the State has the control over a// branches of instruction, 


over all teachers, those of religion included, not only in the ele- 
mentary schools but in seminaries as well ; the Catholics were op- 
posed to the Falk Laws because they removed many priests—not all 
—from the position of provincial or local inspectors of schools, and 
by a system of ‘‘simultaneous’’ or ‘‘ mixed” schools made it im- 
possible in many places—-not everywhere—for the clergy to teach 
or manage or even visit the schools. It sounds almost like irony, 
when the despatch, after thus misleading its readers, adds: “ what 
was claimed, however, by the Catholics in all protests and petitions 
(against the Falk Laws) was not freedom of education.’’ Every 
one knows that the era of the Falk Laws was a time when the State 
more than ever oppressed the Church, when many Bishops and 
priests were imprisoned or exiled, when it was forbidden to say Mass 
without the permission of the State. It was a time then when Catho- 
lics did not think of seeking vindication of the rights of education, 
because they had not even the liberty to ve and dite as Catholics ! 

What course did the Centre pursue in the school question when 
the Government ceased open hostility, and was forced to call religion 
to its aid in its onslaught upon Socialism? In the words of the 
dying Emperor, William I., whose life the assassin Nobling had 
attempted, it proclaimed aloud: “ Religion must be given back to 
the people.’’ Hence the State school must again be made denomi- 
national everywhere, and the minister of religion must be allowed 
free access to the school! This was at the time not only the most 
necessary measure, but also the only possible one. The Government 
and the majority of the Houses upheld the ‘‘ principle of the State’s 
control over all schools ;’’ the Protestant minister, Stoecker, one 
of the leaders of the Conservatives, declared solemnly, as late as 
1889, that ‘‘ it would never be permitted in Prussia to teach this 
principle.’ On this account Dr. Kopp, Bishop of Breslau—who is 
also a member of Herrenhaus,—declared, as the despatch says, 
‘‘that the State school principle should not be discussed.” On 
this account Windthorst said expressly in the Abgeordnetenhaus : 
‘* We demand only what we can and must demand ; we acknow- 
ledge the constitution, because it guarantees religious instruction, 
and we will support it; we ask only for the abolition of the State 
control established by the Falk Law and the acknowledgment of the 
principle that the Church alone has power to direct (leiten) religious 
instruction.’’ Even in 1889 the principle was not recognized by 
the majority in Parliament, and Windthorst’s proposition was 
defeated. The despatch says: “In order to reach a thorough 


understanding of this campaign, which was begun some time ago 
by Herr Windthorst, one should remember that the Church in no 
wise denies the right of the State over the school, but does deny 
the right of the State to exclude the co-operation of the Church.’’ 
But we would also call to mind the fact that neither in Prussia nor 
anywhere else has the Church ever affirmed the inherent, special and 
proper right of the State over the schools. As far as the practical 
side of the question is concerned we know that the Church 
does not actually contest the right over primary education which 
Prussia and all the States mentioned assume. This is simply recog- 
nizing a condition of affairs which the Church could not prevent, 
however much she might wish to do so, and her prudent compli- 
ance with circumstances by no means involves any recognition of 
the right as inherent in the State. Thinking only of the salvation 
of souls, she adapts herself to the existing laws. Not being able 
to struggle against brute force, she demands that the souls, so dear 
to our Divine Saviour, may not be taken away from her entirely, 
and that some place may be left to her ministers in the State 
schools ; and when a modern State, like Prussia, from motives of 
self-preservation, opens the doors of its schools to religious teach- 
ing, she accepts, even with gratitude, what she might otherwise 
demand in strict justice. But surely this is not a normal situation. 
Nor is it befitting the divine mission of the Church and its right 
and duty of teaching all nations in virtue of the divine ‘‘ ergo’’ 
(data est mihi omnis potestas, euntes evxgo docete. . .) indepen- 
dent of every earthly power. There can be but two motives for 
the action of the Church in such cases as those mentioned: the 
arrogance of the modern State and her own love of souls. The 
Centre party in Prussia follows faithfully this attitude of the Church. 
Instead of generalizing the fact and of deducting from it his favored 
conclusion for the American public, the author of the despatch 
“from Berlin’? would have done better to study the fact and the 
question zz Berlin itself, ‘‘in order to reach a ¢horough understand- 
ing of this campaign.’’ If he had consulted the heirs of the great 
Windthorst’s policy in this matter, he would have learned the follow- 
ing facts : 

Ist.—That compulsory education (Schulzwang) as it exists in 
Prussia, is compulsory education inthe State school (Zwangsschule) ; 
that the Catholics are not allowed to establish their own schools; 
that they demanded in vain for many years the permission to estab- 


lish at least a Catholic University which the Government refused in 
so categorical a manner, that they entirely abandoned the project. 

2d.—That the Centre party never affirmed in its programme that 
the State as such had the mission to educate. 

3rd.—That the Catholic Deputies considering the question from 
their own practical standpoint did not, do not, and will not protest 
against compulsory education: a, because such protestation would 
be fruitless in view of the ‘‘ Prussian traditions;’’ 4, because by it, 
as proposed, religious instruction is also secured to Catholic 
children; c, because the establishment of parochial schools would be 
actually impossible in many parishes without the aid of the State ; 
that therefore they claim only the abolition of the ‘‘ Zwangsschule,”’ 
and demand the liberty to have free schools or at least private 

4th.—That the ‘‘ practical ideal’’ of the German Catholics was 
expressed in the meeting of all the Bishops of Germany (not only 
of Prussia,) held in Wiirzburg, November 14, 1848, in the follow- 
ing words: “ The Church claims nowas it ever did, the unrestricted 
liberty of instruction and education, the establishment and direc- 
tion of her own institutions for instruction and education in the 
widest sense.’’ ‘‘We must reject,’’ said they, ‘‘every measure 
which encroaches on this domain as incompatible with the just 
claims of the Catholics of Germany.’’ 

5th.—That “in order to foster among the Catholic people the 
true principles concerning education” and to “ prevent the loss of 
correct views on the school question by the autocratic ruling of the 
State,’’ a society, the ‘‘ Canisiusverein,’’ was founded during the 
Culturkampf with the express purpose of keeping the people en- 
lightened in this matter; that the most prominent Catholics and 
Catholic writers on pedagogy are at the head of this association;! 
that the first pamphlets published in the name of this society bear 
the title: “‘ State education as a principle is to be rejected,’’ “ State 
education in its consequences is pernicious;’’ that the same _princi- 
ples were developed again and again almost every year in the great 

1 To wit: Dr. Haffner, Bishop of Mayence; Dr. Knecht, Dr. Schulte, Dr, Kleinheidt, 
etc. On the committee are among others Baron de Loé, Dr. Schaefler, Dr.' Dasbach, De- 
puties of the Centre party. 


Catholic Congresses of Germany and explained by many Catholic 
writers besides those mentioned of that country.! All the works of 
the ‘‘ Canisiusverein’’ are written in the same spirit ; not in one of 
them a natural right over education is attributed to the State. The 
Deputy Dasbach, well known as one of the most scholarly and 
worthy priests of Germany, an editor of several journals learnedly 
defends the thesis: “The State has neither an innate nor an in- 
herited nor an acquired right over the education of youth; it has 
only such right as it took for itself and which Liberalism every- 
where claims for it, which is but a constitutional or legal right.” 
This throws some light upon the statement of the despatch that 
‘*compulsory education is dear to the German heart at this very 
time in Germany!’’ The views of the German Catholics must not 
be confounded with those of their non-Catholic compatriots, espec- 
ially when one wishes to prove that the right of the State over edu- 
cation is ‘‘ The Catholic principle.’? We should certainly not cavil 
with a Catholic writer for using his liberty in defending the advan- 
tages of compulsory education; we also know that there are among 
German Catholics those who strongly advocate it, but we protest 
against the statement that such is or has been the attitude of the 
‘Catholics of Germany ’’ or of their leaders, the Bishops and the 
Centre party. It might be said that militarism also is ‘‘ dear to ”’ 
certain. ‘‘German hearts,’’ even to some ‘* Catholic hearts.’’ Why? 
Because the bureaucratic atmosphere in which they have habitually 
lived has made the people become accustomed to it and to lose sight 
of the principles of natural liberty. ‘‘ We have for several decades 
been accustomed,’’ says the Bishop of Mayence, ‘‘ to a State mon- 
opoly and compulsory education. We are much like children who 
having been violently torn away in their infancy from their home, 
have almost forgotten it and look upon their captors as their right- 
ful parents.’’? 
To the foregoing facts we add that, 

6th.—As is well known, the present Government of Prussia, the 
Emperor and his Chancellor Caprivi at its head, is profoundly con- 
vinced of the necessity of religious instruction in the popular schools. 

1 ‘“ Die Staatserziehung ist im Princip verwerflich; ’’ ‘‘ Die Staatserziehung ist in ihren 
Folgen verderblich,’’ by the celebrated Dr. Knecht. See also Lucas ‘‘ der Schulzwang ein 
Stack moderner Tyrannei;’’ Annuarius Osseg (Pachtler); ‘‘ Die geistige Knechtung der 
Volker durch das Schulmonopol des modernen Staates.”’ 

2 The Rt. Rev. Dr. Haffner, address before the Catholic Congress of Mayence, Septem- 
ber, 1875, 


The principal object of the law proposed by the Government a few 
weeks ago was to suppress all simultaneous or mixed schools and to 
establish definitively and everywhere denominational schools. What 
we have said above about the parliamentary parties in Prussia 
makes it evident that such a law can pass only with the co-opera- 
tion of the Conservatives and the Centre. Even in the law as 
originally proposed by the Government there are two points which 
evidently recall the “‘ Prussian traditions.’’ It declared, 1st, that the 
schools are ‘‘an institution of the State :’’ 2d, ‘‘ that the teachers of 
religion are appointed by the school-board.”' The Centre party 
immediately declared that it neither could or would ever accept the 
62/7 with these features, and ¢hat it would rather sacrifice all the ad- 
vantages to be derived from the new law than depart in the least from 
its Catholic principle. Dr. Hermes, in a pamphlet just published in 
Germany, explains the Catholic standpoint very clearly. Hesays: 
‘‘ The fundamental idea of the law is absolutely incorrect. Why? 
It is certainly the province of the popular school to educate. But 
it is not the office of the State, as such, to educate; this only comes 
immediately within its sphere ; its primary office, above all else, is 
lo protect the rights of its citizens. The State is not father, but only 
the chief protector of right zz foro externo.’’ * 

Another fact is still more eloquent. In the report of the Com- 
mission instituted last February to examine the law of instruction, 
the following phrase was found : ‘‘ The public school (Oeffentliche 
Volksschule) is an institution of the State and is under its control.’’* 
Both the Conservative and Liberal members of the Commission 
voted in concert for this clause, but the members of the Centre 
voted with equal unanimity agaznst it. 

It is well known how, through the combined agency of atheistic 
socialists and liberalists, the bill has had to be withdrawn. But 
this very fact goes to show with what hostile elements the Catholics 
in Prussia have to contend even in their most just claims, and how 
handicapped they are in shaping what has been miscalled their 
‘‘ practical ideal !’’ No, indeed; Prussia is not the land to give 
birth to such ideals—nor to any which could serve as a model for 
free-born Americans. Ideals assuredly can and must be modelled 
according to existing circumstances, but one of the’ most essential 

1 ‘Die Lehrer werden von der Schulbehdérde mit der Ertheilung des Religionsunter- 
richts betraut.”” Begrandung des Entewurfs’ J. 17, par. 18. 

2 Der Katholische Standpunkt in Bezug auf den Entewurf des Volksschulgeszetes 
wahrheitsgetreu dargelegt von Dr. Hermes. Cologne, 1892. 

3 Die Oeffentliche Schule ist eine Veranstaltung des Staates und steht unter seiner Aufsicht, 


conditions of their growth and thriving is an atmosphere of genuine 
liberty ! 


After Prussia the despatch next deals with Austria. ‘‘ A similar 
policy has been adopted by the Church of Austria. The Austrian 
Catholics . . . . . have constantly acknowledged the same 
principle and defended the same doctrine.’’ (Italics ours.) ‘‘ They 
have ever been unanimous in demanding that the Government 
should show due respect to the rights of the Church, though xever 
questioning the State’s own rights.’ Quite recently the Episcopate 
‘proclaimed this policy of adaptation to the present system of 
obligatory State schools.’’—As a matter of fact we would state that, 

1. The ‘‘Church of Austria” follows no other principles in 
the question of education than does the universal Catholic Church. 
The Austrian Episcopate and Austrian Catholics no more defend 

‘the so-called rights of the State in education as a principle or doc- 
trine than did the Catholic party in Prussia. 

2. Unfortunately Liberalism has had controling influence in the 
ministry of Austria as well as in its Parliament, for years. Since 
1866, when the Protestant Chancellor, Herr von Beust and the min- 
istry of Plener & Co. came into power, the Liberal majority intro- 
duced non-denominational schools into a country almost exclusively 
Catholic, and sought to eliminate religion in every way from public 
instruction. These liberal schools have been most detrimental to 
the religion and morals of the country, and have moreover under- 
mined the traditional Austrian patriotism. True to its programme, 
Liberalism looks upon the schools as obligatory State institutions. 
The so-called reaction, under the undecided ministry of Count Taafe, 
did not bring about any essential change in this respect. The Catho- 
lics, as a Parliamentary party, have not the unity and therefore not 
the strength and influence of the Centre in Prussia. On this account 
the system which the ‘‘ Catholic Prelate’’ of the despatch calls the 
‘* practical ideal’’ is forced upon the Austrian Bishops by circum- 
stances ; they openly lament the present situation and point out the 
harmful effect of the State schools both to Church and Government; 
they insist upoh the necessity of religious doctrine as the principal 
branch of instruction, and upon the right of the Church to control 
the religious part of education. 

3. Thus the Catholics of Austria are simply forced to adapt them- 
selves to the present system in as far as their religious convictions 


will allow. ‘“ This adaptation,’’ as the despatch correctly states, 
‘‘ is a part of their programme ; but the author confounds two very 
distinct ideas and contradicts himself when he represents the una- 
voidable ‘‘adaptation to a system ’’ as equivalent to a defence of 
the ‘‘ principles’’ and of the ‘‘ doctrine’’ on which that system is 

4. Again, if the Catholics in their practical programme have “never 
questioned the State’s right’’ in the matter of education, circum- 
stances show quite plainly that the maxim “ qui tacet consentire 
videtur’’ can find no application here. 

5. Asmall district in Austria has its own constitution, it is the 
entirely Catholic Vorarlberg, next neighbor to the Catholic Tyrol, 
both being subject to the same administration. Liberalism has no 
home here and Catholics can freely harmonize their practical ideal 
with their religious convictions. This they have done by a law 
passed in the Legislature of Vorarlberg in the year 1876. The first 
paragraph of that law under the heading : Principles for the organiz- 
ation of the Catholic elementary school system, reads thus : 

I. “ The entire, corporal as well as spiritual education of the 
child is by the law of nature a duty, and hence an inviolable right of 

the family. 

II. ‘‘Itis the duty of the Catholic family to give the child a Catho- 
lic education. The family cannot give the child a Catholic education 
without the Church. The Church, therefore, by reason of the right 
of the family, by reason of her own divine mission, has for her prov- 
ince the education of the child, by imparting knowledge in the mat- 
ters of faith and morals, by dispensing the Sacraments and by 
supervising all other instruction, so that it may remain in harmony 
with her educational method. 

III. ‘‘ Itis the office of the State to Arofect the rights of the family 
and also of the Church in education.’’? 

Such is the language of the Catholic people of Austria! This is 
the true doctrine of the Church, these the principles of natural law, 
clearly evincing the proper conception of the State’s office. 


‘‘In France,’’ says the despatch, ‘legislation has entirely ban- 
ished religious instruction from the public schools which are non- 

1 See Osseg. L. c. p. 117. 


sectarian, gratuitous and compulsory.” One should think that 
American Catholics had but little to learn from such a state of things. 
Yet the author seems to judge otherwise. The French hadno choice 
but to follow out certain well-known principles, sufficiently known to 
every Catholic in the United States, but the application of which 
everywhere and at all times is justified only by actual necessity. 
The despatch apparently wants to convey a different view, as isplain 
from the portions which Dr. Bouquillon italicizes. ‘‘ The Deputy 
Brun suggested,’’ it says, ‘‘the following modification: ‘Upon the 
request of parents the ministers of certain creeds or persons deputed 
by them, shad/ be allowed to impart religious instruction on the scthool- 
premises and outside of class hours;’’’ and ‘‘ the Bishops employed 
the official teachers fo give catechism lessons outside of the school- 
premises.’’ This harmonizes excellently with the plan adopted in 
Minnesota and the authors of the latter thus find their justification 
in the fact that it is practised in France. 

But the despatch forgets to add that the Bishops mentioned, viz., 
Guilbert, Dounet, Bonnechose and Freppel did not propose to sur- 
render to the State any schools over which they had actual control 
and which were Catholic, and thus barter the religious for a neutral 
school, proclaiming that they would be satisfied with “ outside’’ 
religious instruction. 

In their last letter the French Cardinals expressed in most 
emphatic terms their indignation in view of the fact that the French 
youth should have been given over to the neutral State schools 
and they confess their regrets that they cannot remedy the evil by 
instituting free parochial schools. The renowned theologian, de 
Margerie, Professor at the Catholic University at Lille, describes 
in the ‘‘ Revue de Lille’’ the evil which the godless schools have 
brought upon his country, and concludes with the remark that a 
people who defend State schools under such circumstances sign 
their own death warrant or ‘‘ commit suicide.’’ Listen to the judg- 
ment which experience and observation has forced from some im- 
partial French Liberals, who have not sacrificed their convictions 
to anti-religious sects : 

‘‘We no longer live in a time,’’ said Laboulaye, ‘‘ when a minis- 
ter can appear before the Chamber and say that public instruction 
and education belong to the State and are subject to the supreme 
directions of the Government. The hand by which the State tries to 
control the spirit of the rising generation, and the right which is 
claimed for the State power to form young according to its own 



fashion, are to-day rejected by all parties whatsoever. We simply 
demand of the Government to guarantee us general security and 
private liberty, we refuse to grant the State the right to take the 
place of the family and the individual." 

‘* Neutral instruction,’ declares Jules Simon, ‘‘ zs o instruction.” 
‘‘ The State,’’ says the famous academician, as early as 1863, ‘‘ is 
obliged to prepare for its own resignation” (in the matter of educa- 

And Guizot : ‘‘ II faut que l’instruction soit profondement religi- 
euse, pour qu’elle soit vraiment bonne et socialement utile. Et je 
n’entends pas seulement par 1a que |’enseignement religieux y doit 
tenir sa place, et que les pratiques de la religion y doivent étre, 
observées ; un peuple n’est pas élevé a de si petites et siméchaniques 
conditions : 2/ faut gue f éducation populaire soit donnée et regue dans 
une atmosphere religieuse, que les impressions et les habitudes religt- 
euses y pénétrent de tout part. La religion n'est pas une étude ou 
un exercice auguel on assigne son lieu et son heure; c est une lot quit 
doit se faire sentir constamment et partout, el qui n’exerce qu’a ce 
prix, sur l’ dme et la vie, toute sa salutaire action. C'est &@ dire que 
dans les écoles primaires, l’influence religieuse doit étre habituelle- 
ment présente.’’ (Mémoires, tome III, pp. 68-69.) 


We shall not dwell on the official State-schools of modern Italy ; 
but merely intend to mention the two facts emphasized by the des- 
patch, namely, that the ‘‘ public school is obligatory,’’ and that ‘‘a 
concerted effort is everywhere being made (by the Catholics) to 
promote religious instruction in the public schools by a prudent com- 
pliance with circumstances.’’ We patiently wait for another des- 
patch to tell us wherein the ‘‘ prudent compliance with circum- 
stances’’ consists, and, above all, what Catholics are to gain by it! 
In the meantime it suffices for us to know what the despatch itself 
concedes, viz., that practically the Italian school-law ‘‘is very 

1 ‘‘ Nous ne sommes plus en temps ot un ministre (Royer-Collard) pouvait dire a la 
chambre que l’instruction et 1’ éducation publique appartiennent a l'état et sont sous 
la directions supréme du gouvernement. Cette main mise sur l’esprit des générations 
nouvelles, ce droit reconnu A la puissance publique de faconner 4 saguise la jeunesse, 
sont aujourd’hui repoussés par tous les parties, sans distinction d’opinion. Nous ne de- 
mandons plus au gouvernement que de guarantir la sécurité générale et la liberté privée, 
nous refusons 4 l’état de se substituer a la famille et a individu.” (See Verhaeghen, 
“Etat hors del’ Ecole,” p. 22.) 

2 L’enseignement neutre est un enseignement nul; ‘‘I,’Etat est obligé de préparer sa 
destitution,’’ (en matiére d’instruction.) Ibid. p. 51. 


troublesome and prejudicial.” The practical conclusion for us is to 
be found in the example of the Holy Father himself, who ‘‘ has 
founded many free schools in Rome,’’ the more so, because we 
know that free Catholic schools are the practical ideal of Leo XIII. 
for all countries in which they are possible. ! 


What the despatch tells of Belgium surprised us most of all. 
The report is incomplete as well as inexact ; far from giving even 
an approximately correct conception of the Belgian situation in 
regard to schools, it is designed to create a false impression con- 
cerning it. Yet Belgium, of all countries in the world, is the one 
that might teach American Catholics a most salutary lesson by the 
stand it has taken inthe school question. The reason is: 1st. Be- 
cause Belgium is, by virtue of its constitution, the freest country of 
Europe. 2d. In no other country, particularly during the past 
fifteen years, has the school question been treated more thoroughly 
by Catholics in the Legislature or spoken and written about more 
exhaustively. 3d. Nowhere did Catholics have a better opportu- 
nity of giving full expression to the Catholic principles on instruc- 
tion and education both theoretically and practically. 4th. No- 
where were the divinely appointed teachers of the people—the 
Bishops—more free and independent in upholding the principles of 
the Church ; nowhere were these principles carried out with greater 
determination and unanimity. 5th. For many years the Catholics 
of Belgium were in the same situation with regard to schools as 
. Americans are, for all the State schools were declared neutral. 
Lastly—6th. The Catholics were given an opportunity of express- 
ing their views regarding religious instruction outside of school 
hours, which the State allowed and urged. 

Our despatch says nothing about the principle or the doctrine 
which the Catholics of Belgium defended in this question. It tells 
us nothing about their practical ideal, much less does it make men- 
tion of the great struggle for free parochial schools, a struggle in 
which the Belgian Catholics were really ‘‘a spectacle unto angels 
and men.’’ At all this the ‘‘ interested prelate’’ does not even hint, 
but rather leaves the reader,unacquainted with the circumstances and 
under the impression that the Belgian episcopate was foremost in 
urging the compromise in favor of the neutral school and as though 

I See Letter of Leo XIII. to the Bishops of England, Nov., 18386, 


this were done by order of the Pope himself! The following is the 
entire report, italics included, upon Belgium. 

In 1879 the Holy See obliged the Belgian episcopate to assume 
the same position (as the French Catholics) with regard to M. 
Frére-Orban’s law on non-sectarian education. It is true that in the 
beginning the Bishops of Belgium refused to authorize the State 
school teachers to teach the catechism. But the instructions given by 
the Cardinal of Mechlin, June 14, 1880, which in accordance with 
the Pope’s demand, considerably modified those previously issued, 
simply forbade the teachers to presume to teach the catechism 
‘‘ without having obtained from ecclesiastical authority explicit per- 
mission to do so, which permission, for certain special reasons, may 
be granted them.’’ In 1879 Monsg. Vannutelli wrote, by order of 
the Pope, to the Cardinal of Mechlin: ‘‘I find the principle under 
consideration very just and very much in accordance with the 
decisions of the Roman congregations, viz.: That those schools 
alone deserve condemnation in which there ts a true and real danger 
to the faith or morals of the pupils. Hence if, notwithstanding the 
new law, this or that school, under whatsoever management it may 
be, offers no real danger to the faith and morals of the pupils, said 
school is to be exempted from the general condemnation, and chil- 
dren cannot be torbidden to attend such schools.”’ 

Does it not seem from this report as if the Belgian Bishops could 
teach us better how to hide the Catholic standard instead of openly 
unfurling it as they actually had done? Surely the solution of the 
school question for us Catholics does not consist in merely making 
concessions to the arrogant claims of others. To the honor of Bel- 
gium and for the sake of truth, let us correct these misstatements 
and briefly relate the true condition of things in that land of valiant 
Catholics. We do this not without a glow of enthusiasm, for we 
were privileged to witness in person what we believe to be the 
grandest success in the effort to settle the school problem which 
our century has thus far seen. 

I. The following is a summary of the political programme of the 
Belgian Catholics on ‘‘ the rights of the State :’’ 

a.—The representatives of the Belgian Catholics in the Legisla- 
tive Chambers have not at any time defended compulsory State 
instruction or education, they never admitted State compulsion of 
any kind; on the contrary, they always rejected it explicitly both 
as a principle and asa practical measure, and they still reject it vig- 
orously to this day. 


5.—The Belgian Catholics, in their programmes or in the laws 
which they enacted, never recognized the so-called ‘‘ State’s own 
rights,” viz. : any ‘‘ proper” and ‘‘special’’ right of the State over 
education, but they emphatically denied the existence of any such 
proper right. 

c.—Parochial schools, free and independent of the State, were 
and are even now the practical ideal of Belgian Catholics. Accord- 
ing to their view the part of the State in the solution ot the school 
question is none other than that it should guarantee the freedom of 
the family in the matter of education. The only purpose of the 
public schools is, according to the Catholic view, to supplement the 
efforts of the family and the individual. When this is necessary, 
then and only then the State may exercise authority in the field of 

d.—As regards the neutral public schools the Belgian Catholics in 
and outside of the legislative body have publicly condemned them. 
They persistently vefused a proffered compromise of the Liberals 
respecting religious instruction outside of the school hours as irrecon- 
cilable with the dignity of the Church and of religion. The Belgian 
Constitution itse/f is an irrefutable proof of this. It was framed in 
the year 1830, when Belgium, after the revolution against the King 
of Holland, William I, had declared its independence. Catholics 
were ina great majority in the constitutional congress. The Con- 
stitution itself was the outcome of a union with the Liberals (who at 
that time were not so fanatical as later on) on the basis of freedom. 
Art. 14 of this fundamental act guarantees ‘‘ liberty of worship.” 
Art. 17 reads thus : ‘‘ Instruction is free ; every prohibitory measure 
is forbidden. The repression of misdemeanors is regulated only by 
law. Public instruction at the expense of the State is also regulated 
by law.’” 

Hence there were to be no obligatory State schools whether de- 
nominational or neutral. Nay the Constitution does not even ex- 
press the obligation of the State to organize public or official State 
schools; it can do so in a case of necessity, viz. when parents, though 
they enjoy perfect liberty, are unable to provide for the instruction 
of their children. ? 

1 “L’enseignement est libre ; toute mesure préventive est interdite ; la répression des dé- 
lits n’est réglée que par la loi. L’instruction publique donnée aux frais de l’Etat est égale- 
ment réglée par la loi.”’ 

2 ‘* Cela (l’article 17 de la Constitution) veut-il dire que cet enseignement ce 1’Etat, cet 
enseignement public sera organise de droit, que ce soit un ensetgnement national? Non, 
jamais on n’a pu admettre cette interprétation. L’enseignement de l’Etat vient remplir la 

lacune laissée par l’enseignement libre, et l’enseignement de I’Ktat ne doit exister que 
lorsque cette lacune se présente.’’ Senator Baron Surmont de Volsbeghe, Feb. 5, 1892. 


Let us hear the words of one of the many framers of the Constitu- 
tion. Nothomb explaining the spirit and the meaning of the Consti- 
tution declared in 1836: “The maintenance of public order lies 
within the domain of the Government. Outside of this the State is 
powerless. Jntellectual religious and moral direction ts not within the 
sphere of politics. Our society has thought itself strong, upright 
enough, to maintain its own direction jn matters of intelligence, 
religion and morality. 7hzs 7s what especially distinguishes Belgium ; 
we might sum up the articles of the Constitution thus: 2o interven- 
tion on the part of the Government in the intellectual, moral and 
religious direction of the country.’” 

This Constitution has its full force as the fundamental Belgian law 
to this day. Just at this moment the Chambers are preparing them- 
selves for the first time to revise certain articles therein, but as re- 
gards the article on instruction not even a motion was made to 
change it in any way. 

The Liberal party, which during the last twenty years has openly 
shown its hostility against religion, does not conceal that liberty of 
instruction is a stumbling-block in its way. In Belgium as well as 
elsewhere they want to de-Christianize the country through the 
State, and one of the wishes they would have realized is compulsory 
instruction. At the time when they were in power, of which we 
shall speak directly, they openly proclaimed the device of the Revo- 
lution, ‘‘Secular instruction, gratuitous and obligatory.’’ But in 
Belgium a change in the Constitution requires a two-thirds ma- 
jority. The Liberals cannot expect this much, least of all at pres- 
ent. If, however, the above article were changed to-day with the 
consent of Catholics, 7¢ would certainly not be in favor of the advo- 
cates of State schools. The intervention of the State would prob- 
ably be still more restricted, perhaps entirely excluded. Even 
during the school struggle, 1879-1884, the watchword with many 
Catholics was ‘‘ L’ Etat hors de l’école.’’ The State has no business 
in the school! Minister Malou declared in 1879 that ‘‘ this sum- 
mary way of solving the question hada great many adherents among 
the Catholics of the Parliament ;’’ that ‘‘it is the best and most glo- 
rious solution of the school question.’”’ 

t Verhaeghen op. cit. pag. 28. See also ibid.the declarations of other prominent mem- 
bers of the Constitutional Congress. 

2 La premiere des solutions, celle qui compte de nombreux partisansidansjnos rangs a 
ete formulee : ‘“‘1'Etathorsdel’ecole!” c.a.d. abdication completedes!pouvoirs publics, 
Etat, provinces, communes ; une confiance absolue dans I’action de la liberte seule. Au point 
de vue de la force de la nation, de la liberte, de l’energie qui doivent exister dans tous les 


Before him Minister Dechamps, brother of the late Cardinal, had 
declared ‘‘free concurrence’’ to be the system which suited Cath- 
olics best.! The following fact is very significant. Two months 
ago, on February 5, 1892, the school question was again touched 
upon during a discussion on the budget of the Interior, the leader 
of the Catholic party in the Senate, Mr. Lammens, clearly and 
unequivocally laid down the principal ‘‘ 7’ efat hors de l ecole’’ as the 
practical ideal of Belgian Catholics, and declared that in the whole 
of Belgium ‘‘ Catholic parents feel a deep aversion for the State 
schools.’’? Inthe same session Baron Orban de Xivey styled this 
solution of the school question : ‘‘ 7he desire of all those who have 
the welfare of society at heart,’ “ The traditional principle which 
ts a distinctive character of the Belgian nation.’* Baron Lurmont 
de Volsberghe closed his brilliant speech, on that same day, with 
the words, ‘‘ the true principle is ‘away with the State out of the 
school,’ and, I repeat, I hope that I myself shall see it realized.’’* 

The reader will now understand the reason why the defenders of 
compulsory education and of the rights of the State over education 
could not appeal to Belgium. This explains perhaps the laconism 
or rather the dead silence of the despatch upon the real point in 
question. But it, furthermore, fails to give us correct information 
concerning the position of Catholics regarding meutra/ schools. 
This becomes plain when we consider : 

Il.— The position of the Belgian Episcopate and the Belgian Cath- 
olics towards neutral schools. 

Belgian Catholics were not satisfied to defend the principle of 
freedom of instruction. They evinced a constant and untiring zeal 
for its practical accomplishment. Immediately after the year 1830 
they began under the leadership of the Bishops, among whom Mgr. 

elements d’une nation libre, c’etait certainement la meilleure solution et c’eut ete la plus 

Malou also adds the reason why the Belgian Catholics did not realize by Jegislation this 
practical ideal: namely, because the Liberals could not endure Catholic concurrence in the 
establishment of freeschools. He says: “ Si elle (cette solution) ne peut pas se realister, 
ce n’est pas notre faute, c’est bien la votre. Nous avons fait notre grande et large part dans 
cette oeuvre sociale de la diffusion de l’enseignement populaire. Nons serious en droit 
de vous dire aujourd ’hui: Nous avons fait notre part, faites la votre.” 

1 See Verhaegen, p. 43. 

2 ‘* Je prends acte de ces faits pour justifier /a repulsion que les peres de familles _Catho- 
liques eprouvent pour |’ enseignement officiel. 

3 “Le réve de tous les gens qui ont a coeur Il’avenir de la société,” ‘Le principe tradi- 
tionnel qui est le caractere particulier de la nation belge.”’ 

4 ‘Le principe vrai, c’est l’Etat hors del’école, et, je le répéte, j'espéreen voir un jour la 


van Bommel, Bp. of Liége, a famous educator, deserves special men- 
tion, to erect free schools, without any and every State intervention. 
The Liberals, as aliberal paper openly confessed, were unable to 
cope with this kind of courageous self-sacrifice. Therefore, they 
desired State aid and asked that it be conceded by law. The Catho- 
lics met them with that magnanimity which is characteristic of the 
defenders of truth. They declared that they could do very well 
without the aid of the State, but admitted it out of consideration 
for their adversaries. However, they put the condition that the re- 
ligious character of the schools to be erected by the State should 
not be interfered with. Thus the school law of 1842 was brought 
about, which Dechamps very correctly characterized as a ‘‘ trans- 
action ’’ ora ‘‘concordat’’ when he said: ‘‘We admitted State 
instruction; they (the Liberals) granted legal religious instruction ; 
this was our concordat.”' 

The law reads thus: Art. VI, ‘‘ Primary instruction necessarily 
embraces the teaching of religion and morals. . . . . Instruction 
in religion and morals is under the direction of the ministers of the 
creed professed by the majority of the pupils in the schools.’’ 
Art. VII, ‘‘ The superintendence of the schools. ... .asre 
gards instruction in religion and morals is to be exercised by the 
delegates of the heads of the various creeds.’’ ‘‘The ministers of 
creeds or their delegates will at all times have the right to in- 
spect the school.’’? 

At that time one of the leaders of the Liberals, Minister Lebau, 
could still say: ‘‘I would consider an anti-religious school-master 
a real pest.” * 

But the anti-religious evolution of Liberalism worked itself out in 
Belgium as elsewhere. The cry: ‘‘2/ faut arracher les ames & 

1 ‘* Voici ce qui s’est passé en 1842, l’opinion libérale se rattachait plut6ét aux tdees fran- 
caises, elle demandait qu’on fortifiat /’action du gouvernement. I, opinion catholique 
se rattachait plutét a1’ tdee anglaise, au systeme de libre concurrence. . . . Quelle fut la 
transaction? .. ..Nous cédions l’enseignement de 1’ Etat, on cédait l’enseignement 
religieux légal. Voila quel futce concordat.” (Verhaegen p. 43-44.) ; 

See also the masterly exposition of Catholic principles in reference to this law in the 
“Exposé des vrais principes sur 1’éducation publique, par Mgr. van Bommel, évéque de 
Liege,” particularly p. 86-87. 

2 Art. 6, L’instruction primaire comprend nécessairement l’enseignement de la religion 
et dela morale... .l’enseignement de la religion et de la morale est donné sous la direc- 
tion des ministres du culte professé par la majorité des éléves de 1’école.”’ 

Art. 7, “‘ La surveillance des écoles. . . quant a l’enseignement de la religion et de la 
morale sera exercée par les délégués des chefs des cultes, Les ministres des;,cultes et les 
délégués du culte:auront, en toutitemps, le droit d’inspecter l’école.” 

3“Je n’hésite pas a répondre que je regarderais un institutur primaire anti-religieux 
comme une véritable peste.’’ (Verhaegen, p. 31.) 


Z’église’’ by and by became its open motto, and when the ministry 
of Frere-Bara-Vanhumbeeck came to the helm, in 1878, it immedi- 
ately manifested its purpose to abrogate the law of 1842, and—of 
course in the interest of “liberty of conscience’’ and ‘national 
education ’’—to establish State schools, and neutral State schools at 
that, for all communities alike. As soon as this intention became 
manifest a common Pastoral from the six Belgian Bishops appeared, 
in which they condemned with apostolic fearlessness the neutral 
schools and prepared Catholics for the approaching contest. 

But the resolve of the Loges to de-christianize Belgium, small 
in territory but strong as a bulwark of the Church, did not abate. 
A new law, entirely contrary to the spirit and even the letter of the 
Constitution was passed by the Chambers, (by a majority of one 
vote in the Senate). The fundamental article of this law, which is 
of special interest to us here, reads : 

Art. IV. ‘‘ Religious instruction in the public schools is hence- 
forth to be left to the care of families and to the ministers of the 
various creeds,” 

‘*A room in the school-building is to be at the disposal of the 
ministers of the various creeds to give religious instruction to the 
children of their denomination before or after school hours.’’® 

It is important to note the tactics of the Freemasons when waging 
war against religion in a Catholic country. The hypocrisy of the 
second paragraph is engrafted upon the impiety of the one preced- 
ing ; first, religion is entirely banished from the school, then it is 
re-admitted theoretically whilst practically it is proscribed. Impiety 
begot the law, hypocrisy was its external garb. A further Pastoral 
of the Bishops, published immediately after the promulgation of 
this law, (June 1879) again condemned it and expressly prohibited 
parents and teachers from aiding to carry outthesame. The words 
of the Bishops re-echoed in the hearts of all the people. A formi- 
dable opposition was organized and the most prominent Catholic 
Deputies as leaders of the people stood firmly by the Bishops. The 
Liberals were not prepared for so decisive an opposition, hence the 
Ministry tried by addresses and circulars to the people to 
win them to the persuasion that “nothing was changed,” (‘‘ rien 
n’est changé!") that “la religion du peuple,” ‘‘la religion de 

1 ‘‘ Lettre Pastorale,’’ Dec. 7, 1878. 

2“ L/enseignement religieux est laissée aux soins des familles et des ministres des divers 
cultes.’’ ‘‘Un local dans l’école est mis a la disposition des ministres des cultes pour y 

donner soit avant, soit aprés l’heure des classes, l’enseignement religieuxZaux enfants de 
leur communion fréquentant 1’école.’’ 


nos péres’’ is still held in honor and that it is only intended more 
distinctly to guard liberty of conscience etc. Vanhumbeeck went 
so far as to allow teachers to impart religious instruction even 
during school hours “ as it was formerly done.’’ The people were 
only by degrees to be made familiar with ‘‘the principle’’ that the 
school belongs to the State alone and is in no wise under ecclesiasti- 
cal supervision. We have to keep all these circumstances, in mind, 
the better to understand and appreciate the energetic measures 
which the Bishops eventually took. They first of all appealed to 
Catholic doctrine and the express decisions of the Holy See 
especially to the decree of Pius IX, for the Uniied States, 24 Nov. 
1875, thus to ‘‘ reprove and condemn ”’ the neutral schools, which 
‘ by their very nature, and precisely on account of their neutrality 
are dangerous and harmful, an attack upon faith, upon piety, and 
the religious rights of the Belgian people.’’ In their instructions 
they put as a general principle : ‘‘ eas (scholas publicas ex se malas 
et nocivas) nec frequentare, nec instiluere, nec regere licet.’’ Ex- 
ceptions, (si causam gravem habent et praeterea occasio proxima 
fit remota) for parents as well as for teachers were of course pro- 
vided for. One item of the instructions of Sept. 1, 1879, which 
concerns us here in a special manner, lay in the fact that the Bishops 

withdrew from all teachers of the State schools the mzsszo canonica, 
forbade all of them without exception to give religious instruction 
upon the ground that the Church ‘‘ cannot allow that Catholic doc- 
trine be taught zz her name in schools which arein themselves objec- 
tionable, opposed to the tenets of Catholic belief, and established to 


the injury of religion. 

The Bishops thought it necessary in the beginning of the strug- 
gle not to allow a single exception to this rule, in order at the out- 
set not to imperil the erection of free Catholic schools, and play 
into the hands of the Government which only allowed religious in- 
struction for the purpose of retaining the children in the State 
schools. They stated expressly in the first instruction that this gen- 
eral prohibition was necessary ‘‘in circumstantiis in quibus nunc 
patria nostra versatur.’’ After the Pastorals had effected their pur- 
pose and had sufficiently convinced the people of the dangerous 
character of neutral schools, they could, without in the least deny- 
ing the principle, allow exceptions in particular cases ; hence it is 
said in the resolutions of June 14, 1880, which the despatch men- 
tions, that ‘‘ teachers are not permitted to explain the catechism in 

1 Instructiones practicae pro confessariis, Sept. 1, 1879. 


State schools sine expressa auctoritatis ecclesiasticae licentia quae 
ob peculiares rationes concedi poterit.' But let us not torget that the 
Belgian Bishops never authorized the clergy or teachers to give re- 
ligious instruction according to the intention of the Government in 
the department set aside in the school, outside of school hours. 
‘* You are not so simple,’’ they said, addressing the faithful, ‘‘ as to 
allow yourselves to be deceived, and thereby second the true inten- 
tions of our adversaries. The school is not a building, four walls 
and the floor and ceiling of a class-room ; the school is the teacher 
imparting his lessons to his assembled pupils. Religion taught in 
the school is religious instruction as it is imparted by the teacher or 
with his assistance during class and as a class matter, under the 
guidance of the Church.” 

The grand result which the Belgian Bishops achieved is the 
best proof of the wisdom of their measures. ‘ We shall make the 
earth produce millions, that we may combat this /oz de malheur, the 
écoles sans Dieu and erect a Catholic school in the shadow of every 
Church.’’ These words of the Parliamentary leader ofthe Catholics, 
Mr. Malou, were literally verified. In less than four years more 
than 3000 Catholic schools were erected in that little country with 
its small population of only six millions, while official State schools 
were more and more deserted, and especially country school teachers 
had often to face empty benches. 

In 1884 the country freed itself from the Masonic yoke in the 
memorable elections which have been truly styled ‘‘ le suffrage de 
l’indignation universelle.”” A Catholic Ministry came into power 
and is holding it to this day supported by a majority greater than 
which no party ever had in the Belgian Parliament. The true reason 
of this triumph was the ‘‘caractére traditionel” of the Belgians, 
alluded to above, the ‘‘aversion ’’ which the Catholics of the coun- 
try felt against the Liberal tyranny of conscience. The Catholic 

1 A Belgian Bishop, who took a prominent part in the strnggle, writing to us on the sub- 
ject, says: ‘‘ When the Belgian Bishops in the beginning of the school struggle refused to 
allow the catechism to be taught in all the State schools it was evidently not because they 
held this unlimited prohibition to be prescribed by their principles ; but they thought 
this provision necessary 1n order that the country might not be deceived by the notorious 
formula ‘‘ rien n’est changé,”’ in order that in a Catholic country a law might not be ac- 
climatized, which was the more criminal because it combined with malicious impiety a 
most perfidious hypocrisy. We did not chooseto go into the trap which the Freemasons 
had set for us; we did not want to permit the faithful to be deceived and look upon a 
school system as lawful which the Church severely and justly condemned. Later when we 
had accomplished this, nothing stood in the way of allowing the missio canonica under 
certain circumstances to those who deserved it. 

2 Pastoral letter Jan. 31, 1879. 


Ministry of Malou-Jacobs naturally did away with the Masonic law 
and substituted in its stead a school law which above all else 
breathes the spirit of constitutional freedom and which excludes 
State compulsion in every form. 

After these facts there remains but little to say regarding the state- 
ments which the despatch makes. We have only to add that— 

1. It is mot ¢rue ‘‘ that in 1879 the Holy See obliged the Belgian 
episcopate to assume the same position (as the French Bishops) 
with regard to Frére-Orban’s school law on non-sectarian educa- 
tion.” The Holy See never did this, neither in 1879 nor at any 
other time. The conditions in Belgium were not at all the same 
as those in France. 

2. As to the pretended ‘ ‘considerable modification ’’ of the epis- 
copal instructions, the reader will judge for himself from what has 
been said. 

3. It is true that the Nuncio to Belgium, Mgr. Vannutelli, wrote 
to the Cardinal of Mechlin in the alleged manner, but it is of true 
that he did so ‘‘ dy order of the Pope.’ A moral theologian will 
know that the general principle contained in the utterances of the 
Nuncio was speculatively correct, and the Belgian Bishops never 
denied it. According to the maxim ‘‘ consilium tenemur non con- 
temnere, non vero sequi,” they, in consideration of the peculiar 
situation of the Belgian Catholics, have always maintained their 
own practical application of the advice given by the Nuncio. Their 
regulations, therefore, ‘‘de frequentandis scholis publicis,’’ have 
always remained the same, and they were alsoapproved of at Rome. 

4. From the despatch it appears that there was a difference of 
opinion between the Holy See and the Belgian Bishops. The 
reader unacquainted with the circumstances would so conclude. 
Yet it is not the case. On the contrary, the Holy See publicly and 
solemnly approved of the stand which the Belgian Bishops and 
Catholics had taken ; and all this in spite of a Masonic Government, 
which in a manner coerced the Nuncio to obtain from Rome a 
declaration opposed to the Bishops. To accomplish this Frére- 
Orban employed diplomatic intrigues as well as bold impertinence ; 
the most abject and despicable means which he used against the 
Holy Father was the threat to dismiss the Nuncio and to break off 
all diplomatic relations with the Holy See in case of refusal. If we 
consider the humiliation which such a threat implied and must have 
caused the august prisoner of the Vatican we find it doubly regret- 
ful that his situation should have been made the background of a 



discussion about the Belgian school law. The Holy Father himself 
wrote twice to the King of the Belgians, asking him to repeal this 
law. Cardinal Nina, Secretary of State, sent one despatch after 
another to the Nuncio and the Ministry in answer to the infamous 
reproaches of Frére. The Vatican did not wish to leave any means 
untried in order to prevent a break with the Government of a 
Catholic land. But Frére was not satisfied ; he recalled the Belgian 
Minister from Rome and banished the Papal Nuncio. 

And, what conclusion are we to draw from the various documents 
regarding the school question which at that time were sent from 
Rome to Brussels? The Curia has published these documents and 
clearly indicated the inference which is just and natural. They are 
a splendid vindication of the Holy See and of the Belgian episco- 
pate.! Weshall have to omit giving even a brief extract from the 
documents which lie before us. It is enough to allude to the Allo- 
cution of August 20, 1880, in which the Holy Father makes known 
to the whole world his judgment concerning the action of the Bishops 
and people of Belgium. 

‘“ We have,’’ says the Sovereign Pontiff, ‘‘ repeatedly condemned 
the Belgium school law, and reprove and condemn it again’’ 

‘‘ The Belgian Bishops understood perfectly what the circum- 
stances and their duty demanded from them ; they employed all 
their energy in order to keep from such schools the youth entrusted 
to their care, and for this reason they erected Catholic schools.’’ 

‘It isa great honor for the Belgians that they devoted 
themselves so willingly to this eminently opportune work.’’ 

‘*In order not to be the occasion of increased hostility, we in 
the spirit of Christian charity advised the Bishops to proceed mild- 
ly in carrying out their prescribed regulations, and to use clemency 
in the application of the penalties of theirlaws.’’ . . . ‘‘ But all 
this did not satisfy the Belgian Ministers. They wanted us to re- 
buke the Belgian Bishops who most energetically fulfilled their duty, 
to find fault with conduct which merits naught but praise. We 
constantly and spontaneously rejected such exactions.’’ . . ‘‘The 
same odious and gratuitous pretexts were employed to banish our 

1 “ Collection des documents publiés par le Saint-Siége relatifs 4 la question del’in- 
struction primaire en Belgique et 4 la cessation des rapports diplomatiques entre le gou- 
vernement belge et le Saint-Siége,’’ Malines, I880 The following quotations contain the 
the gist of the whole: ‘‘ Les évéques belges, en s’opposant a* la nouvelle loi, afin dela 
rendre moins funeste aux fidéles dan son application, ont obéi a un devoir sacré de leur 
ministére, et n’ont jamais pu étre désapprouvés eu cela par le Saint-Siége,” p. 13. ‘‘C’est 

sans aucun fondement et méme par une insinuation malveillante qu ’on a voulu accréditer 
le bruit d’un désaccord sur cette question centre le Saint-Siegé et l’Episcopat Belge,’’ p. 16. 


Nuncio; it is evident that the dismissal was made solely because we 
refused to be traitorously false to our duty, because we would in no 
wise separate ourselves from our venerable brethren, the Bishops of 
Belgium, with whom we are of one accord as we had previously 


In conclusion we may be permitted to make the following brief 

1.—What is the real school question for American Catholics ? 
Is it not, first of all, by what schools and methods shall we most 
surely save the souls of our children? Where shall we find the des¢ 
guarantees for the preservation of their faith and their virtue? In 
what schools are the dangers, by which both are menaced, warded 
off most effectually? 

The answer need not come from ourselves. Competent judges, 
representatives of the authority of the Church, have already given 
their opinion and their instructions, and that in the most solemn 
manner, in our Plenary Councils. 

Our Bishops legislating on the subject were not ignorant of 
the laws or of the conduct of European Catholics in regard to 
them ; and it would be absurd and unjust to say that they were not 
familiar with the “ theoretical principles,’’ either theological or philo- 
sophical, of this important matter. Now, our Bishops say not a 
word about inducing Catholic writers to defend what is called the 
special mission or the particular rights of the State over education. 
They nowhere intimate that Catholics injure their own cause by 
denying or not defending these rights and this mission. Indeed 
some influential members of our hierarchy have more recently 
endeavored to remove all doubts upon this subject from our minds 
by declaring in an unequivocal manner that in their opinion the 
principle of State right in this matter belongs as little to Catholic 
discipline as to American tradition. 

But we find something more than this in the solemn utterances of 
the assembled Fathers in Plenary Council. In taking up the grave 
problem of education the Council fixes at the outset upon a very 
positive programme, which indicates the attitude which all Catholics 
ought to hold. It may be summed up in these words: The de- 
fence of the rights of the Church in the school, against the encroach- 
ments of the modern State. To begin with, the Council shows its 


realization of the present needs by declaring inthe very opening 
sentence that it faces the school question as a serious conflict with the 
spirit of our own difficult time in which the State seeks supreme 
control. ‘ Siudlo unguam tempore, certo haec hac nostra aetate E-c- 
clesia Dei et spivitus saeculi mirando quodam et acerrimo conflixere 

It adds immediately after : ‘‘ Homines enim spiritu mundano pent- 
dus imbuti iam multis ab annis, nullum non movent lapidem, ut Ec- 
clesiae, quod ipsa a Christo accepit, Catholicam tuventutem docendi 
munus eripiant et in manus soctetatis civilis tradant vel subdant gub- 
ernii saecularis potestatt.’’ 

From this declaration, so grave and formal, and from the expla- 
nation of it given by the Council, logic and Catholic instinct deduce 
the following conclusions : 

a.—It is the solemn duty of American Catholics, especially in our 
days, to defend the principle that ‘‘ the Church has received from 
Christ the mission of educating the young.’’ 

4.—It is their duty to combat the tendency which teaches “ that 
this mission should be conferred upon the State,’’ or that it “‘ should 
be subordinated to the power of the State.’’ 

All the principles announced by the Council accord perfectly with 
the doctrine which denies the pretended mission of the State, while 
the advocates of that mission will search in vain for the least sup- 
port of their theories in the authentic teaching of the American 

2.—Do the authorities of the Catholic Church at present exag- 
gerate the dangers of the neutral or secular school ? 

The Council has sketched those dangers in plain words and they 
are evidently true : 

Inter eos qui hanc educationem mere secularem strenue advocant, 
non pauci guidem inveniuntur, qui nec religioni ullum detrimentum 
afferre nec tuventuti pericula parare velint. Attamen ex ipsa ret 
natura sequitur, et tristissima etiam experientia comprobatur, educa- 
tionem mere secularem paulatim ita degenerare, ut fiat irreligiosa et 
impia, adolescentium fidei et moribus maxima berniciosa. (Cap. 1.) 

Hence the conclusion of the Council in harmony with that of the 
Holy See: The erection of Catholic schools is ‘‘ the best and only 
means’’ of assuring the good education of our children (Optimum, 
immo unicum quod superest medium,) and in the solution of the 
school question ‘‘ nothing is more necessary than the foundation of 
Catholic schools.’’ (Omnium consensu nil tam necessarium.) 


Under such circumstances can any one believe that he renders a 
service to the cause of Catholic education in America by emphasiz- 
ing the advantages of European State schools ? 

The Council obliges the priests and the faithful in the most solemn 
manner | (consctentias sacerdotum et fidelium . . . Strictissime 
oneramus) to found Catholic schools, even at the cost of great sac- 
rifices. It is useless to insist here on the difficulties with which the 
enlightened zeal and the generous devotion of Catholics often come 
in contact. It is on that account that the Council devotes so much 
space to the consideration of this subject (six pages, )’ of how best 
to promote the erection of parish schools. Surely the recent agi- 
tation in favor of State control and the message of “ the Berlin pre- 
late,’ which is evidently a part of it, has shown itself to be out of 
harmony with the Catholic spirit of our country. 

We affirm, without fear of contradiction,from any quarter, that 
this whole latest controversy so recklessly provoked among Catho- 
lics by the advocates of State control has not helped to construct a 
single school. God grant that it may have been equally ineffectual 
in preventing or destroying any ! 


1 De wits et medtts scholas parochtales quam maxime promovendt. 


Ad Perpetuam Rei Memoriam. 

Consensus mutuus, unde matrimonia iusta nascuntur, non verbis dum- 
taxat sed aliis quoque signis exterioribus patefieri ac declarari potest. 
Quamobrem Alexander III,* Innocentius III,t+ et Gregorius IX,t deces- 
sores Nostri, merito decreverunt ut carnalis copula, si sponsalia de futuro 
certa ac valida praecessissent, cum in iudicio tum extra iudicium pro vero 
coniugio haberetur, nisi impedimentum canonicum obstitisset. Et in hac 
iuris praesumptione tantum roboris inesse voluerunt, ut firmum ipsa stat- 
ueret sanciretque ius nec probationem contrariam ullam admitteret. 
Deinde very matrimonia clandestina, id est non praesente Parocho et duo- 
bus tribusve testibus inita, quum Concilium Tridentinum @ irrita infectaque 
esse iussisset, ius illud priscum, ut erat necesse, valere desiit ubicumque 
promulgata vel moribus usuque recepta Tridentina lex. Quibus autem illa 
locis non viget, in iis semper Apostolicae Sedis iudicium fuit, canones, 
quos indicavimus, ratos atque firmos permansisse. Sed aetatum decursu, 
ex conscientia et cognitione christianorum sensim effluxere. Plures enim 
Episcopi ex iis regionibus, in quibus matrimonia clandestina contra fas 
quidem inita, sed tamen valida iudicantur, haud ita pridem rogati quid 
populus ea de re sentire videretur, plane retulerunt, canonicam de coniu- 
giis praesumptis disciplinam passim exolevisse desuetudine atque obliv- 
ione deletam : propterea vix aut ne vix quidem contingere ut copula inter 
sponsos affectu maritali nec fornicario habeatur: eamque non matrimonii 
legitimi usum sed fornicationis peccatum communi hominum opinione 
existimari: imo vix persuaderi populo posse, sponsalia de futuro per coni- 
unctionem carnalem in matrimonium transire. 

His igitur rebus et causis, de consilio Venerabilium Fratrum Nostrorum 
S. R. E. Cardinalium in rebus fidei Inquisitorum generalium, supra mem- 
oratos canones et alias quascumque iuris canonici ea de re dispositiones, 
etiam speciali mentione dignas, per hoc Decretum Nostrum abrogamus et 
abolemus, et pro abolitis et abrogatis, ac si nunquam prodiissent, haberi 

* Cap. Ventens, de Sponsal. + Cap. Tuainos, eodem tit. { Cap. Js guz fidem, eodem tit. 
# Sess. XXIV. Cap. Ide Reform. matrim. 


Simul per has litteras Nostras decernimus ac mandamus ut deinceps illis 
in locis in quibus coniugia clandestina pro validis habentur, a quibusvis 
ijudicibus ecclesiasticis, in quorum foro causas eiusmodi matrimoniales 
agitari et iudicari contingeret, copula carnalis sponsalibus superveniens non 
amplius ex iuris praesumptione coniugalis contractus censeatur, nec pro 
legitimo matrimonio agnoscatur seu declaretur. Huius tamen auctoritate 
Decreti induci nolumus necessitatem formae Tridentinae servandae ad 
matrimonii validitatem uhi illa forma modo non vigent. 

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum die 15 Februarii, MDCCCLXXXXII, 
Pontificatus Nostri anno decimo quarto. 




According to a Rescript of Pius IX, 7th June, 1850, the indulgences of 
the Blue Scapular may, without exception, be applied to the Poor Souls in 
Purgatory. The usual conditions for gaining the Indulgences are Confes- 
sion, Communion and Prayer according to the intention of the Sovereign 

Plenary Indulgences. 

. On the day of investiture. 

. For a priest on the day of his First Mass. 

. At the hour of death. 

. At the Annual Retreat. 

. On the first Sunday of every month. 

. On Saturdays in Lent. 

. On Passion Sunday and Friday of Passion week. 

. On Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of Holy Week. 

g- On Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Pentecost and Trinity 


10. On the feasts of the Immaculate Conception, the Nativity, Purifica- 
tion, Annunciation and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 

11. On the principal feasts of the Theatine Order, viz. : St. Joseph (19th 
March), Bl. Joseph Mary Thomasio (24th March), Finding of the Holy 
Cross (3d May), Bl. Paul Buralis (17th Jure), St. John Baptist (24th June), 
SS. Peter and Paul (29th June), on the last Sunday of July, on Portiuncula 
(2d Aug.), St. Cajetan (7th Aug.), St. Augustine (28th Aug.), Exaltation of 
the Holy Cross (14th Sept.), St. Michael Arch. (29th Sept.), Gardian Angels 
(2d Oct.), St. Teresa (15th Oct.), All Saints (1st Nov.), St. Andrew Avellino 
(oth Nov.), Bl. John Marinonio (13th Dec.). 

12. On the first and last days of a Novena for Christmas.—At the Forty 
Hours’ Devotion once a year.—On the 12th April.—On one day of the year 
chosen by the wearer of the Scapular. 


Besides the above, there are Plenary Indulgences attached to the visits 
made to any church of the Theatines, to the Holy Land, to the church of 
the Portiuncula, to that of St. James of Compostella, and to any of the 
Seven Station churches in Rome. 

Partial Indulgences. 

1. An hour’s meditation (60 yrs.). 

2. Visiting the sick in order to relieve them spiritually or corporally, or, 
if prevented from doing so, by reciting the Pater, Ave and Gloria five 
times (20 yrs.). 

3. On the Octaves of the feasts of Our Lord, and on the principal 
patron-feasts of the Augustinian, Dominican, Carmelite, Trinitarian and 
Servite Orders (20 yrs.). 

4. On all feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, after receiving the sacra- 
ments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist ; on accompanying the Blessed 
Sacrament when carried to the sick ; on saying seven times the Pater, Ave 
and Gloria for the sick who have received the Blessed Sacrament ; on visit- 
ing a church of the Theatines on any feast of the year; on reciting the 
Salve Regina at Vespers for the triumph of holy Church; on any day from 
Septuagesima to Palm Sunday, after receiving holy Communion or reciting 
seven timesthe Pater, Ave and Gloria for the triumph of holy Church ; on 
the feasts of the Finding and Exaltation of the Holy Cross, after bestow- 
ing some alms; on three Fridays of every month after receiving holy Com- 
munion ; on seven days during a Novena for Christmas ; on every Monday 
upon visiting the Blessed Sacrament (7 yrs. and 7 quarant.). 

5. Visiting a church and reciting five times the Pater, Ave and Gloria 
(5 yrs. and 5 quarant.). 

6. Every day during the Octave of Pentecost (300 days). 

7. Each time in attending the preaching of God’s word (200 days). 

8. On performing any work of piety (60 days). 

g- On devoutly invoking the holy names of Jesus and Mary— reciting 
one Pater, Ave and Gloria for the living and the dead, in some church (50 



Liberatore, S.J. Translated by Edward Heneage Dering. 
—London: Artand Book Company. New York: Ben- 
ziger & Co., 1891., 8v., pp. XXIV, 295. 

‘This book is not addressed to the learned. That would have required 
greater powers and more knowledge. It is meant for aspirants and 
novices. Virginibus puerisque Canto. \ could have wished for more time 
to write it in; but my advanced age of nearly eighty years forbade me to 
expect that.’’ Thus Father Liberatore, after well nigh sixty years spent 
in the field of Catholic Philosophy, introduced his ‘‘ Principles of Political 
Economy”’ to the world. With a modesty characteristic of a great mind 
he tells why he wrote ‘‘this little work.’”’ ‘‘On the one hand,”’ he says, 
‘*T saw that our young men, not only laymen, but clerics also, had need of 
initiation in economic science, because it is interwoven with almost all the 
affairs of civil life; whilst, on the other, I found no course of instruction 
fitted to be a safe guide for them. The earlier writers on Political 
Economy had their minds mislead by the sensistic philosophy of their 
time ; and philosophy, when bad, infects, being the root of them, all the 
other sciences. Those who came after, foliowed their predecessors 
blindly, or if they differed from them, wrote nevertheless under the influ- 
ence of modern liberalism. Now, modern liberalism is like a blue bottle 
fly. Wherever it settles it leaves a germ of corruption and a bad smell. 
My intention, therefore, was to prepare something like a compendium of 
sound principles that would suffice to put young men on the right road, 
along which they might proceed safely. In carrying out this idea I have 
availed myself of the theories taught by the best professors, but not without 
freely discussing their doctrines and refuting their errors.’ 

The work therefore embodies what its author aimed at—an exposition 
of the radical principles which run up from Ethics and pervade Economics 
—showing the way in which pudlic wealth must be produced, distributed and 
consumed, so as to keep in harmony with man’s nature, moral environment 
and destiny. It is needless to say that these principles Fr. Liberatore has 
firmly grasped, that he sets them forth in steady light and in their just 
bearing on the matter of economic science. The path of his teaching lies, 
as he says, between the Scylla of liberalism and the Charybdis of socialism. 
‘*Liberalism boasted of having introduced into the economic world two 
grand ideas, freedom and property ; but to say the truth, instead of intro- 
ducing it falsified them, desiring freedom without any restraint, and 
property unguarded by the duties of its possessor.’’ He attacks both 
these errors, and shows ‘‘that unlimited competition is bad, and that the 
rich are bound to give their surplus to the poor. Socialism mainly rests 

a rae ~te 

ere ne 


on the following assumptions: Firstly, that labor is the only source of 
wealth. Secondly, that the right of having property is dependent on the 
State. Thirdly, that the State, therefore, has a right to alter the founda- 
tions of it and make it collective, instead of individual.’’ He shows first, 
‘that the principal factors of wealth are natural agents, which are incor- 
porated in matter, and are an object of appropriation ; secondly, that the 
right of the individual man to have property is a natural right independent 
of the State; and thirdly, that the State cannot touch its essence. Private 
property cannot be justly abolished, even by agreement of all the States 

These it will be noticed are the lines of the recent Encyclical of Leo 
XIII. on the labor problem. The book is therefore most timely as giving 
a scientific development to the truths sent out to the world in that great 

The extracts we have given show that the translator has put the original 
in a neat English dress. There is just the faintest foreign color about the 
style, which, if anything, makes it more attractive. In two ways the 
version might have been made more useful: 1. by making it bear more on 
recent kindred English literature—though, of course this would have 
changed considerably the form of the matter and the compass of the 
volume ; 2. by translating the Latin, French, etc., citations. This would 
have made the work more extensively available. 

By Mgr. Jos. Schroeder, D. D., Ph. D., Prof. of Dogm. 
Theol. in the Cath. University of America.—New York, 
Cincinnati, Chicago: Benziger Bros., 1892. 

The well-written defence by Mgr. Schroeder, of the just claims of the 
Holy See for independence, which appeared in a recent number of the 
American Catholic Quarterly Review, has called forth much favorable com- 
ment. The question is one that is frequently misunderstood, even by 
Catholics, not because there is a lack of reason for a categorical answer to 
it, but through a false notion of historical facts and through impressions 
which are imbibed from popular reading and superficial reasoning. ‘‘I 
can easily understand,’ says Fr. Edmund O’Reilly, whose papers on the 
Relations of the Church to Society have just been republished, ‘‘ a well-mean- 
ing, intelligent, educated Catholic replying, that as to the necessity (of the 
Temporal Power) there is none, and in his judgment, things would be better 
otherwise, not exactly as they have been since 1870, but with a different 
arrangement, still excluding the Temporal Power. I can understand, I say, 
a reply of this kind being given through want of accurate knowledge, and 
through impressions made by reading or hearing false statements and 
superficial sophistry ; but I cannot understand its being innocently perse- 
vered in after even a brief explanation of how matters really stand.’’ Such 
and similar reasons have induced the learned apologist of our American 
Catholic University to issue, in separate book formjand considerably en- 
larged as to detail, the article on the ‘‘ Roman Question”’ in the Quarterly. 

£ LS 


What recommends the present publication in addition to its merits of 
style, thoroughness, erudition and the transparent spirit of loyal attach- 
ment to the Holy See which breathes from every page, is an analysis of 
the entire subject at the beginning of the treatise. This puts the reader 
from the outset into possession of the line of thought and argument and 
allows him to impress on his mind the various phases which ought to be 
emphasized in explaining or discussing the subject of the Temporal 

We hail these tokens from the Catholic University as signals which 
mark it as the central watchtower whence the standard of truth and 
doctrinal unity may ever be recognized by American Catholics and their 
unprejudiced brethren. 

VIRGIN. From the French. By Rev. Thos. F. Ward, 
Church of St. Charles, Brooklyn, N. Y.—Benziger Bros., 

What the careful translator claims in his Preface, namely, that these 
Instructions ‘‘ are flowing with a spirit of piety, eminently practical, and 
especially free from all sentimentalism,”’ is true. Not much more praise 
could be bestowed’on a book, which as a rule, is always in demand by the 
clergy and of much utility to the laity. 

ESSAYS. By Brother Azarias.—The ‘Ave Maria,” 
Notre Dame, Ind. 

‘“‘A handful of wayside flowers’’ from the garden of Notre Dame, 
planted there by an ardent lover, and offered in bright blue binding to Mary’s 
children far and wide—such is this little book. There is so much of the 
Faberian grace in the flow of Brother Azarias’ pen when he touches the 
theme of our Blessed Lady, that we wish he sang of her in all the intervals 
of grateful tranquillity which his serious tasks of discoursing on philoso- 
phical themes allow him. Spread the pretty volume ye Fathers in Christ 
and Children of Mary ! 


GUIDE TO LATIN CONVERSATION, containing a collection of 
useful words, a list of comparatives and of superlatives, the principal 
irregular verbs, familiar expressions and phrases, dialogue, etc., etc, 
By a Father of the Society of Jesus. Translated from the French of the 
seventh edition, by Prof. S. W. Wilby,;Epiphany Apost. College.—Bal- 

timore : John Murphy & Co. 1892, 


IGNAZ VON DOLLINGER. Eine Charakteristik von Dr. Emil Michael 
S. J., Prof. d. Kirchengeschichte, Innsbruck. II Edit. Mit einem. 
Portrat Déllingers.—Innsbruck: Fel. Rauch. 1892. 

tutiones et Apostolice Litterae.—-Augustae Taurinorum : Typ. Pontif. et 
Archiep. Equ. Petri Marietti. 1892. 

MARTYROLOGIUM ROMANUM cum novissimis additamentis,— 
Turin: Petrus Marietti. 1892. (This is a very handy edition.) 

LE ZELE SACERDOTAL. Par Le R. P. de Laage, S. J.—Paris : Téqui, 
Libraire Edit. 1892. 

Deidier, Miss. du Sacré-Coeur—Paris: Téqui, Libraire Edit. 1892. 

KNOWLEDGE. By Mervin-Marie Snell.—Washington, ). C. Pub- 
lished by the Author. 1891. 

A WORLD'S AFFAIR. A Comedy for Little Girls, written for the 
XXXVIth Annual Commencement of St. Mary’s Academy, Notre Dame, 
Indiana. By a member of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy 
Cross.—Notre Dame, Ind. Office of the ‘‘ Ave Maria.”’ 

GERTRUDE’S EXPERIENCE. From the French, by Mrs. Mary C. 
Monroe—New York, Cincinnati, Chicago: Benziger Bros. (Our Young 
Folk’s Library.) 

OLIVE AND THE LITTLE CAKES. From the French. Benziger 
Bros. (Our Young Folk’s Library.) 

port of the Agency of Philadelphia. Office of the Messenger of the 
Sacred Heart, 114 S. Third street, Philadelphia, Pa. 

T. & B., with organ and orchestra accompaniment. Composed by B. 
Hamma. J. Fischer Bros., New York. 1892. 

UITS. By the Rev. Thomas Hughes S. J. New York: Charles 
Scribner’s Sons. 1892. (‘‘The Great Educators ”’ Series.)