The Catholic Family

Last in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by
 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

The Holy Family
Juan Simón Gutiérrez (1634-1718)

The ideal of the Catholic family has been only once fully realized. There have been many good examples, all more or less approaching the ideal. But all except one must be regarded as having failed, at least in some respects, to achieve the perfection of family life. That one, of course, is the Holy Family of Nazareth. Since, therefore, God has given us the ideal fully realized in the concrete, it is to that rather than the more remote symbols that we must go for our lessons as to what the Catholic family should be. The Word was made flesh to reveal to us the mind of the Eternal Father. In order, then, to learn the mind of the Eternal Father concerning the nature and end of the Catholic family life, we cannot do better than turn our thoughts to the little home at Nazareth.

The school of the Apostles was formed by Our Lord during the years of His public ministry. Then, having been organized by Him during His lifetime, it was fully promulgated and endowed with its special gifts after His death, by the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. The purpose of the Incarnation was the salvation of souls. The purpose of the Church was the salvation of souls. The purpose of the first Catholic Family was the salvation of souls. The first and foremost purpose, then, of every Catholic family is to obtain for its members the possession of everlasting life. The family does not exist merely for the sake of the love of husband and wife; nor for the love of parent and children; nor for the acquisition of worldly fortunes; nor for the promotion of the children in business; nor for the material prosperity of nations. All these are lawful and subordinate aims are subordinate to the final aim, which is to help immortal souls to get to heaven. This is the first and, in a sense, the only lesson to be learned from the Holy Family of Nazareth: the purpose of the Catholic family is the undoing of sin, the hindrance of sin, the propagation of those truths and virtues which lead to life eternal.

The child Jesus grew in wisdom and age and grace in the eyes of God and of men. Although possessing the Beatific Vision, and consequently all wisdom, knowledge, and grace, yet Jesus deemed it expedient to acquire an experimental knowledge of things, to learn from Joseph and Mary the great truths about religion, and how to apply them to the development of the spiritual life. Jesus was the foundation of all grace. He was knowledge itself; He was wisdom itself; but He chose that His wisdom and knowledge and grace should be manifested gradually. He chose to undergo that laborious education to set the example to all Christian families, to show them that it was only by constant teaching and learning that Christian character could be formed. The Christian mother, then, assiduously watches for the first dawn of conscience in her child. She knows, or ought to know, that first impressions are the most effective and most lasting. She delights to take her child on her knees and teach it to pray. Her pride is to show her friends how her little one can say the Our Father and the Hail Mary. At length, the time comes when the child must be sent to school. There must be no question about the character of the school, it must be Catholic.

The Catholic school will undoubtedly possess a Catholic atmosphere. The constant or frequent presence of priests or religious, the Catholic prayers, the statues and the fixtures, all tend to keep before the mind of the child the fact that he is a Catholic.

Now the Catholic home ought to be at least as Catholic as the Catholic school. There ought to be prominent signs about the house that it is the abode of a Catholic family. There is a feeling in some families, having pretensions to be up-to-date and fashionable, to regard a religious picture in the drawing-room as out of place. This feeling is generally the fruit of worldliness. It Is also, in a measure, due to the large number of inferior pictures which flood the market, those cheap lithographs of the Pope or the bishop, which are a compliment to neither. A zealous father of a Catholic family will make an endeavor to hang up one or two good and really artistic religious pictures. They give a tone to the house, impressing the faith on the minds of the members of the family, and expressing the faith of the family to visitors.

More important even than Catholic art is Catholic literature. These are days when everybody reads or, at least, is supposed to read. And it is notorious that Catholics do not buy books as they should. Our Holy Father has warned us that, unless we support a good Catholic press, it will be useless for us to build schools and churches. Now, the Catholic Church is not wanting either in excellent writers or in excellent publishers. Our book stores are rich in devotional, scientific, and recreational literature. The crying shame is that so little of this finds its way into the Catholic family. Heads of Catholic families, therefore, ought to see to it at once that there is a shelf for religious literature, that there is a regular subscription to some monthly or quarterly Catholic journal, and, especially among the working classes, a subscription to some Catholic weekly newspaper. It is chiefly through the press that the members of the family learn their relationship to other institutions in the world. The secular press keeps them provided with political news and so constantly reminds them of their civic duties. But the secular press is not an ideal medium for showing the Catholic his duty to the State.

Especially in the matter of education, the Catholic need to know the bearings between the mind of the Church and the mind of the State. And he ought to know this, not only on general principles, but also in the application of those principles to the particular circumstances of his country. He must know what the bishops have said, what the government has done to this or that particular school or college, and what the government proposes to do with schools and colleges in the future. In a word, he must be alive to his duties as a Catholic citizen. The family life is the foundation of true citizenship. Since, therefore, the Catholic press is the means by which the Catholic learns the bearings between the family, the Church, the State, the Catholic press ought to be an institution in every Catholic household.

And Jesus went down with them, and came to Nazareth and was subject unto them.

Order is said to be heaven's first command. If, on the other hand, love be said to be the first and final law of heaven, the statement must be qualified by making the love a well-ordered love. Even sin is only disordered love, the love of something contrary to the Divine Will. So also in the family life, love must be the ruling principle, but it must be a well-ordered love. Our Lord, therefore, in order to teach us this lesson, went down with His parents to Nazareth, and was subject unto them. Nowhere outside the bosom of the Blessed Trinity was a triple love so perfect as that love between Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. Yet St. Joseph was the head and ruler of the family. It was St. Joseph who was told to fear not, but take Mary to be his spouse. It was St. Joseph who was told by the angel to arise and take the Child and His mother and flee into Egypt. It was St. Joseph who was divinely commanded to return and take Mary and Jesus to Nazareth. Although Mary was so much spiritually exalted over Joseph, yet Joseph was to be the ruler of the family. And although Jesus was so much spiritually exalted over Joseph and Mary, yet in the family He was to be subject to both.

Here, then, is the rule for the Catholic family. The father is to be supreme ruler, the mother is to rule in her sphere under him, the children are to be subject to both. Moreover, the subjection of the children is not to be a slavish subjection, but a filial subjection. It must be informed by love rather than by fear. There must, of course, be a certain fear present in the children, but a reverential fear, a fear by which one is afraid of offending love, rather than a fear by which one is afraid of punishment. Further, the obedience of children is not unlimited. If parents command anything contrary to divine law the duty of the children is to disobey. In cases of doubt, however, the presumption is in favor of the parents. But wherever there is a question of family interest or domestic arrangements the will of the parents must be obeyed. It is not for children to say which school they shall go to, to say where the family shall take up its abode, to say at what hour the family shall dine, to say what time they shall come in at night. These are points upon which children frequently mistake their place in the family, points in which they are obviously subject to their parents.

There comes a time, too, when children grow up. The relationships between them and their parents then become somewhat modified. Nevertheless, there still remain the duties of reverence and love. The children are free to choose their own states of life. In this they are not bound to follow the wishes of their parents, but they are bound to consult their parents and to weigh the considerations which they put forth. Then, later, when the parents are overtaken with old age, the children are bound in cases of necessity to support them.

From the principles of order and superiority and subjection in the family there arises the duty of the parents, and especially of the father, of providing for the material well-being of the children. There is an impression prevalent that worldly success and Roman Catholicism are not compatible. And it is certainly true that in many Protestant communities the Catholic is at a disadvantage. That is only an extra reason why Catholics should make themselves more proficient in their respective trades and professions. If a Catholic lawyer, or doctor, or engineer excels in his own vocation, then Protestant, Jew, and Infidel will engage him in preference. And if he shines in his Catholicity as he does in his profession, then the cause of Catholicity will benefit in proportion.

The father of the Catholic family, therefore, must provide his children with a good secular education. The school must be Catholic, but it must likewise be efficient in its secular subjects. Piety must come before worldly success, but it need not be allowed to supplant it. We have schools in abundance, schools as efficient as any secular schools in the country. There is no need to go outside the Church, though there may be need to use discrimination within the Church. And this discrimination is the office of the parents of the family.

We may sum up, then, the principles of Catholic family life thus: The family is the foundation of the State, and the strength and purity of the State depend on the strength and purity of the family. The family, however, is not the foundation of the Church, but is rather the child of the Church, taking its instructions from the Church, and existing primarily for the same end as the Church, namely, the salvation of souls. It should, therefore, be Catholic in its faith, Catholic in its hope, and Catholic in its love. The Catholic faith will be fostered by ceaseless attention to the Sacraments, to Catholic education during youth, and Catholic instruction through the press during manhood. From Catholic faith and hope will spring Catholic love. This will be made ever more and more fruitful by being kept in order, the father and mother ruling by love, the children obeying through love. The endeavor must be made to carry these Catholic principles into the world of business and professions, and to show to the non-Catholic world that religion and intellectual efficiency are not incompatible; nay, to show that only by the observance of the law of religion can the family, and consequently the State, achieve the perfection which it desires.

(Photo: Dave Crenshaw)

Catholic Eduction

Twelfth in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

The science of education is still young. What is known as "method" in education has made its best development in comparatively recent years. And one of the chief characteristics of this new science is that the best teachers should be appointed to the youngest children. It used to be thought that any one who knew figures and letters could teach the same to a class of babies. But now it has been discovered that the teacher must not only know all about letters and figures, but also all about babies. He must be skilled in the psychology of the child mind. The young intellect may be made or marred forever, according as its first operations are well or ill directed. The boy is the father of the man. The results of child training reach out into youth, manhood, old age, and life eternal. Hence the greatest importance is to be attached to the education of children. Thus it is that educationists are realizing ever more and more the rich content of the principle, "Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it."

If this is true of education in general, it is eminently true of Catholic education in particular. The future of the Catholic Church in any country depends on the Catholic education of the children. "Give me the children of England and I will make England Catholic." That was one of the favorite sentiments of the late Cardinal Manning. And as so much concerning Catholic education pertains to family life, all Catholic parents ought to know the leading principles. In the field of politics, the education of the people plays a very important role. And in scarcely any country of the world does the Church have its full desire in the matter. It nevertheless continues to work for its ideal, a completely Catholic education for every Catholic child.

Education, in the best sense of the word, is the formation of habits. The formation of good habits is good education. The formation of bad habits is bad education. Education is not merely the acquisition of knowledge. The necessity of examination, especially competitive examinations, is largely responsible for the impression which equates erudition with education. Mere erudition, however, is only a small part of education. It pertains to the faculty of memory. Now, the memory must be trained, but not only the memory. All the powers of the child must be brought out to the highest perfection possible. Its intellect must be trained to perceive the truth. Its senses, internal and external, must be trained to perceive what is beautiful. And, above all, its will must be trained to do what is good. Moreover, since the soul, while in this life, depends on the body for its due operation, the body also must be so trained as to keep in a healthy condition. "A sound mind in a sound body" is an axiom as old as the hills. A training in the fundamental laws of hygiene, therefore, is ministrant to the training of the child's intellectual, aesthetical, and moral faculties.

Further, since man is destined to an eternal life and must attain that eternal life through a life of the spirit in this world, all his natural powers must be made ministrant to this spiritual life. His bodily health, his habits of memory, feeling, taste, intellect, and will must be so trained and directed as to bring forth the best possible fruits in the spiritual life. The supernatural is that which is built on the natural, not that which is built up in mid-air above - separated from the natural. The two merge, one into the other, in such a way that the natural becomes supernaturalized, the psychic becomes spiritualized. In modern parlance, the training of the natural faculties, without regard to their supernatural destiny, is called secular education. It is an education adapted merely to the affairs of this world. On the other hand, the training of the natural faculties with a view to their supernatural destiny, is called religious education. It is an education adapted to the life of the spirit both here and hereafter.

From the foregoing fact, certain principles follow which have an important bearing on presentday educational questions. If man is destined to an eternal life, then he cannot be satisfied with a merely secular education. If grace is ever playing around nature and spiritualizing it, then, under such circumstances, nature will not be satisfied with merely natural occupations and interests. Being spiritualized by a supernatural gift, it must seek a supernatural end and live a supernatural life. A father, then, who leaves a child to choose its own religion, and make its first efforts in spirituality, does the child a grievous wrong. What should we say of a father who only taught his child to walk and did not teach it to use its hands, on the assumption that it would learn that better in its age of discretion? Yet that, and something worse, is what the father does when he leaves the child to choose its own religion. He leaves its spiritual limbs undeveloped, rudimentary, useless. And since to the Catholic, the Catholic religion is the divinely appointed means by which the spiritual life is developed, the Catholic father does his child a grievous wrong if he does not provide it with the best Catholic education possible.

Again, if, on the one hand, secular education ought to be spiritualized by the Catholic faith, on the other hand Catholic education should avail itself of the advantages of secular subjects. The Catholic religion, being the revelation of Truth itself, must appeal to the faculty which has truth for its object. Being a reasonable religion, it must appeal to the reason. The more the reason is cultivated, therefore, the better is it able to apprehend the divine revelation. If, as some educationists hold, Euclid and Latin composition are the best means of making a boy think, then proficiency in Euclid and Latin composition must be a help in giving the boy a grasp of his religion.

Again, the Catholic religion is the religion of the highest morality. It is the religion which is marked out above all others by its fruitfulness in moral goodness, its production of Saints. It must, therefore, appeal to that faculty which has goodness for its object. It must appeal to the will as affording it the widest arena for its exercise and satisfaction, nothing less than the striving for the perfect imitation of Jesus Christ. It must appeal to the will also, as affording it the strength to arrive at moral perfection, the strength which comes through the grace of the seven Sacraments.

The stronger, then, a man's will is, the more perfectly it is exercised in the natural virtues, so much the more fitted is it to avail itself of the helps to supernatural action. Once more, the Catholic religion is a beautiful religion. It must, therefore, appeal to the faculty which has beauty for its object, the aesthetic sense. All sound training in the fine arts, therefore, whether in music, painting, or literature, may be used for the development of the finest and most difficult of all arts, the art of saintliness, the art which absorbs at once all the power of intellect, will, and feeling, the art which expresses the greatest inspirations of truth, goodness, and beauty.

Much too often do we hear people talk as if piety and intellectual proficiency were incompatible accomplishments. Ability in the arts and sciences is supposed to be an occasion of intellectual pride. So it is. The piety, however, which affects to despise these gifts of God is the occasion of a worse sin, the sin of spiritual pride. The natural as well as the supernatural is the creation of Almighty God. And if the Catholic school is to fulfill its mission, it must aim at proficiency in the natural as well as the supernatural, in the natural for the sake of the supernatural.

The high aim and nature of Catholic education postulates some important principles in its administration. We come now to consider, then, the relationships between the school and the family, the school and the Church, the school and the State. The schoolmaster, the parent, the bishop, and the statesman, all have something to say in the matter of the conduct of the Catholic school. The question is complicated, admits of different opinions as to details, and, therefore, cannot be solved off-hand or dogmatically. There are, however, certain leading principles about which the Catholic can have no doubt, and which he must keep clearly before his mind in his efforts to adjust the various claims.

The first and most important principle is that the children belong to the parent under God. They do not belong to the State. Certain States, or rather certain statesmen, claim this right of possession. The Catholic can never admit it. The parents are the authors of the child's body and the parents' wills are the occasion of the creation of the child's soul. The parents, therefore, have confided to their care the nourishment and the education of their children. The mother is fitted by nature for the bearing, the nursing, and the education of children in their earliest years. The father is fitted by nature for providing for the maintenance of all during these years, and providing for the continuance of the education in after years. The State has nothing whatever to do with the possession of the children.

The State exists for the welfare of the temporal interests of the nation. If, therefore, the temporal interests of the nation demand a certain standard of education in the youth of the nation, the State has the right to require such an education from the parents. And in default of the parents fulfilling this obligation, the State has a right to administer such education itself. In doing so, however, it must respect the higher interests of religion.

The children belong to the parents under God. The parents, therefore, have the right to dictate to the State as to the religion in which the children are to be brought up. The parents, moreover, if they are Catholics, have the duty of submitting to the guidance of the Church in the adjusting of the religious and secular claims.

The conditions of present-day society make it generally convenient that the State should provide at least the elementary, and, for the most part, the secondary and higher education of the country. The fact of the government being democratic or monarchical makes no difference to the Catholic principle. Both are compatible with it. Whether as a representative body carrying out the will of the people, or as an absolute monarch carrying out his own will, the ruling body has only the right to administer secular education in so far as it is compatible with the religious education of the children. So long as this principle is saved, there may be much give and take on both sides. The parents must reserve to themselves the right to say what religion shall be taught to the children.

The parents, however, are not absolute masters of their own children. The Power who created all men has the possession of all men. The parents, therefore, must educate their children according to the will of God. To the Catholic, this means that he must be guided by the Church. Governments, however, do not treat with individuals, but with representatives of all. Individual members of Parliament or Congress treat with individual Catholics at election time. That is the opportunity for the Catholic's action, but even then it must be according to the advice of the Bishop. But when it comes to a conference between the State as a body and the Church as a body, then the Bishops assume their right to say what are the Church's requirements. Catholic statesmen have no right whatever to make terms with governments, except with the consent and under the direction of the episcopate.

Owing to diversity of religions and diversity of races, nearly every country in the world holds a different arrangement between the Church and the State. So the Catholic teacher often finds it difficult to adjust the claims of the various parties which in different degrees he represents. He may be engaged directly by the parent, as in the case of a private tutor or governess; or by the State, as in the State schools of the United States; or by the Church, as in the parochial schools and colleges of higher education in this country; or by both State and Church combined, as in the denominational schools in England. And when he enters into his engagement, he is bound in honor to keep to the terms of his engagement.

In most cases, however, he is allowed a certain amount of freedom. It is the head teacher of the school who gives the tone to the school. It is well, then, that he should keep before his mind the ideal at which he ought to aim in so far as is consistent with the terms of his engagement. It is well that Catholics who have a vote in his appointment should have this ideal before their minds. And it is well that non-Catholics should have the Catholic ideal set before them.

Now, the chief characteristic of this ideal is that the teacher, whether he be paid by the parents or by the Church or by the State, is primarily and essentially continuing the work of the parents and not directly that of the Church or of the State. The very existence of the teacher depends only on the assumption of the parents not being able to carry out the work of education themselves. Of course, in so far as the parents are bound to act under the direction of the Church or the State, so is the teacher. But directly his ideal is to carry out the work which essentially belongs to the parents and which they cannot conveniently perform without him.

The Catholic school, therefore, since it is merely a continuation of the family life, and exists merely to help the family to fulfill its destiny, will have its spirit and tone and plans arranged accordingly. Its first principle will be to aim at training the children for future family life.

Schools taught by religious or clergy are not primarily schools for religious or priestly vocations. Doubtless, it is the duty of such religious and clergy to watch carefully for vocations, and to see that no hindrance is put In the way. But they must ever remember that a vocation is an extraordinary gift, whilst marriage is a Sacrament and intended for the generality of men. A school, therefore, whether fitted for elementary, middle, or higher education, whether taught by religious or laity, should be characterized by its likeness to family life. When St. Ignatius conceived and formulated his idea of Jesuit colleges, he did not intend those wonderful boarding establishments, such as Stonyhurst and Beaumont, Georgetown and Fordham. He wished to have day colleges so that the pupils should remain as much as possible under the direct influence of parents and home.

But boarding colleges and convent schools are now a necessity. There is, however, a more stringent obligation on them of approximating as nearly as possible to the family ideal. This is more especially necessary in the schools for girls. The prevailing spirit of these schools should be that of training the future mothers of Catholic families.

The mother is the priestess of the home. She it is who holds the home together. She is the all-important factor in developing the ideal of Catholic family life. Personal piety will be her first accomplishment. Then will come the ordinary school subjects, with "extras," according to the future social status of the child. Then she must be taught how to play. We have hardly yet begun to learn the gospel of Froebel: "Let us teach our children to play." Cricket and tennis and drill have their place, and so has the doll and the doll's house. Then, as the school years draw to an end there are the important subjects of cookery and housekeeping. The Catholic school that neglects these fails to grasp one of its grandest opportunities of furthering its noble aims; that is, of strengthening the family life, of making the nation more Catholic, of hastening the coming of the kingdom of God.

From the foregoing principles there follow some practical conclusions. Parents will first strive to realize that, since the education of children primarily belongs to them, and only by delegation to the teachers, they, the parents, have the obligation of seeking out the most suitable school for their children. The nearest school is not necessarily the most suitable. Nor is the cheapest. The school must first of all be Catholic. Then, in the case of elementary education, the school of the parish or mission will generally be found to be efficient. The elementary school of one's own parish, therefore, has the first claim upon a parent's consideration.

In the case of middle class or higher education, the parents will choose by preference a day high school or college. Then, if the circumstances of the family require a boarding-school or college, the idea of home life will receive the chief consideration. If the future circumstances of the children are such that they can dispense with examinations, then a school which is exempt from public examinations is better than one subject to them. The majority of children, however, require paper qualifications for their start in professional studies. The Catholic parent need have no fear whatever as to the proficiency of Catholic schools in securing excellent results at examinations.

Having used their utmost discretion in the choice of a school, the parents will do well not to meddle with the teacher. An obvious irregularity may arise, in which case it is the parents' duty to act. But, generally speaking, the head master or the head mistress of the school must be trusted to do what is best for the child. To change the school, even once, unnecessarily, is to set back the child's education. To be ever taking the child's part against the teacher is simply to ruin the child's character. Nevertheless the parent should exercise a supervision over the child's school career.

Lastly, if the children are to be educated by a private governess, then the parents must form the habit of mind, and the children and the governess herself must feel it, that she is, as a member of the family, strictly in loco parentis, entitled to deep respect and consideration. She is not called in as a household drudge, but as one even more qualified than the parents themselves to fulfill their high vocation of forming the characters of children, of making them Catholic in mind and in heart, of leading them to their eternal destiny.

The same principle of parental responsibility holds good with regard to ecclesiastical authorities, who undertake the burden of providing a Catholic education for Catholic families. If the State so far neglects its duty that the Church has to provide elementary schools, then the parents ought to support these schools generously. It is not right to allow the priest to go and beg, beg, beg, to support a work which is essentially the work of parents.

So, too, with the high schools and colleges. It ought to be quite unnecessary to say it, yet under the circumstances one must say it: parents ought to pay their school bills regularly and promptly. The work done by such schools and colleges is infinitely more valuable than the money outlay for their material support. It is the least that parents can do to see that the work is not hampered by what so frequently happens: the accumulation of bad debts. The work is God's work, and those who are primarily responsible for it are the parents of families. They have received the Sacrament of Marriage. They have received the graces to bear its burdens. It is not an easy state of life. But with the graces which the Sacrament confers, the married pair are made strong for all exigencies, temporal as well as spiritual.

Sexual Instruction for the Young

Eleventh in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

When the question is asked point blank whether children should be taught at least the chief facts of the sexual life, the answer is hard to give. Nearly everybody's instinct shrinks from saying, "Yes." All right-minded parents and teachers feel a reticence in speaking to children on a matter which from its very nature is so private. Yet, on the other hand, nearly everybody's reason declares that children should have such instruction. The great majority of young girls who go wrong do so simply out of ignorance of the tendencies, dangers, and responsibilities of the sexual life. Moral depravity in boys, too, arises chiefly from the fact that they acquire their first information from older boys already depraved. What must parents do in the face of this dilemma? A universal healthy instinct counsels silence, whilst a universal healthy reason counsels speech. Evidently there must be a compromise. And the compromise is this: there must be speech, but it must be reticent and discreet.

The mind and the senses, the brain and the nerves, are so related to each other that they act and react on each other. So intimate and organic is this relationship that conversation or reading about sexual matters tends to excite the sexual functions. Even though the conversation and the reading may be justified and done with a right Intention, it is, nevertheless, fraught with certain dangers. It emphasizes images in the imagination which may become temptations to sin, when the brain is tired or the mind off its guard.

There can, therefore, be only one reason for enlightening children with sexual knowledge. There can be only one reason for adults discussing sexual topics amongst themselves. There can be only one reason for the writing of this and similar chapters. And the reason is necessity.

In 1905, a conference on the subject was held at Mannheim. An almost unanimous vote declared that the chief laws of sex should be taught to boys in the higher classes of secondary schools. But the widest diversity of opinion was expressed as to the manner in which the instruction should be given; and also as to the extent of the matter; nor yet was there any unanimity as to who should give the instruction. In Germany, experiments have actually been made. But the result has not been satisfactory to the Catholic conscience. Complaints have been raised both as to the information given and the way of giving it. Indeed, very little reflection is wanted to show that, in a matter so personal and private, class instruction is not the desirable thing.

The first principle that may be laid down with safety is that the duty of giving the first instruction in these matters belongs to the parents of the children. Even in the more general parts of education, the school is but a supplement to the family. The school teacher is only supposed to do what the parents cannot efficiently do themselves. But the parent can teach the laws of sex, and ought to be able to do so even more efficiently than the school teacher. Moreover, the teacher has a right to presuppose such knowledge if in the course of his lessons questions involving sexual laws should incidentally arise.

It has been frequently said that the mother should teach the girls and the father the boys. This rule becomes more appropriate as the children grow older. Girls between the ages of thirteen and seventeen would more naturally turn to their mother, whilst boys of the same age would more naturally turn to their father. Parents may take this as a healthy instinct and use their judgment accordingly to direct it.

But questions begin to arise in the child mind long before the age of thirteen. As the mother is occupied almost entirely with the children during their earlier years, it is her duty rather than the father's to watch for the signs of awakening intelligence. Knowledge should never be thrust into the child's mind before it is asked for. The state of innocence or ignorance, whichever we like to call it, is better kept untouched as long as possible. If a boy or girl can be kept in a state of innocence, without fear of being smirched by other and more precocious children, say up to the age of thirteen or fourteen, he will be all the better for it both in health of mind and health of body. To put sexual images into a child's mind before due time is to start a tendency towards precocity and moral depravity. The arrival of a new baby is best explained by saying that it is a present from God, and has come in God's good way.

Together with this protection from the unripe fruit of knowledge there should be a corresponding observance of sexual hygiene. Irritation due to uncleanliness, or to tight and hot clothing, may easily cause undue sexual development and so become the source of moral difficulty in the future. If any signs of abnormal sexual development appear, a doctor should be consulted. Under no circumstances whatever should children be allowed the taste of alcohol. It leads both to drunkenness and impurity.

There comes at length a time when explicit knowledge is in order and must be given. The dawn of a more intelligent interest begins to glimmer. It comes so innocently, so naively, that it is just as likely to express itself in the presence of the mother as in the presence of other and older children. That is the mother's opportunity. Then, and not until then, may she give the information. If, as is frequently done, she silences the question by saying that it is one that ought not to be asked, or if she ignores it by talking of something else, then she has missed the opportunity given to her by God through nature. The child's interest has not been crushed, but has even been accentuated and probably directed into a dangerous channel. He will ask the question again, and perhaps when he does get an answer it will be adorned with the attractions of vice. The impression will come to him that somehow the facts of sex are very wicked, but at the same time very alluring.

No! When the right moment has arrived, when the mother judges that if she does not speak some one else will, then she must say the word solemnly and plainly. The fact of sex is something holy and mysterious. If the child wants to know anything about it, it must ask mother and not other people. Children grow in the mother's body and, when the time comes, they are born.

If the matter be thus solemnly but openly treated there will be no need to go too much into details. The child will make its own inferences, which will be substantially correct. At any rate, they will be enough for the time being. As the child grows older it will want to know more. Here, again, no exact rule can be laid down. The parents will be guided by their judgment, which will partake rather of the nature of an instinct. As more details are required, so will the mother speak to the girls, and the father to the boys. To the parents and not to the schoolmaster, nor still less to boys and girls, belongs the duty of explaining what is meant by being born.

This knowledge is sought for, and possessed, long before the knowledge of how children are begotten. The latter is one of the most difficult things to teach. Parents are inclined to be too reticent about it, with the result that children invariably get their first knowledge from undesirable sources. Let reason, then, decide that the parents shall say what is essential, and at the same time let instinct decide that they shall not say more than is essential.

There is no need, whatever, for a full and particular description of the sexual act. Much less is there need of diagrams and pictures of the human body.

The best way is to begin with the lower forms of life. The description of the fertilization of a plant is most admirable. The plant excites no harmful images in the imagination. The poultry yard, too, may be taken as a convenient object lesson. If plants and poultry are understood, then the parent may go further and say that in the higher animals and in human beings the young are produced in a similar way.

The manner of giving this information is more important than the matter. There must, on the one hand, be no tendency to laugh and joke about it, whilst there must, on the other, be no attempt to suppress it as if it were something wicked. The inquiring mind at this stage is alert and receptive. Moreover, it works in harmony with a natural instinct. Thus, of its own nature, it readily makes the right inferences and draws the necessary conclusions. The aim of the parent is to keep these conclusions as ideal as possible, and to prevent them from becoming topics of conversation and reading. The more they act on the senses so much the more likely are they to induce an indulgence of the senses, and thus lead to acts of impurity.

After the age of thirteen or fourteen, the boys will claim more particularly the attention of their father, and the girls that of their mother. Now is the time for explicit teaching on certain well-defined matters.

If the boy has been encouraged to look to his father rather than to his own playfellows for information of this kind, he will sooner or later ask in anxiety about the relief of nature in the night. He may be told that so long as this does not arise from any tampering with himself, it is perfectly natural and nothing to be distressed about. The father may also take the occasion to warn him against the sin of self-abuse. This sin is so prevalent amongst boys that the father need hardly be afraid of giving the warning too soon. Let it be said solemnly and plainly that the boy has certain powers given to him by God, for the purpose of begetting children in lawful marriage, and that if those powers are abused in boyhood they will be damaged for their function in manhood.

Strong motives will be required by the boy to keep him straight. At this age, natural motives are very powerful, but they are more powerful if spiritualized and raised to a supernatural plane. Tell the boy first, then, that this is a sin against God. The body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and sins against the body, therefore, have a special malice in them and bring after them a special punishment. The law of nature is broken and nature will exact a heavy toll. But what is the law of nature except a reflex of the divine mind? And what is the retribution of nature except a fulfillment of the divine Will? Tell the boy, then, that self-abuse impairs the brain and shatters the nerves, that it dulls the intelligence and weakens the will, and that these are the effects ordained by God to follow on the violation of His law.

As the boys get older, they may be warned against venereal disease. The terrible natural effects may be pointed out, but always these natural punishments should be associated with the divine law, and shown to be but a portion of the punishment due to such sins.

A proposal has been made, and in European countries partly put into practice, to enlighten young minds concerning the many extreme forms of sexual perversion. This instruction I hold to be decidedly pernicious. If the boy is warned against the more common sins, he will at once recognize the less common and more heinous ones if the temptation should arise. Whereas, if the idea is put into the boy's head unnecessarily, temptation is put in his way. Nay, I would go further and say that books dealing with the extreme forms of sexual perversion should not be read even by adults, unless their profession obliges them to deal with such cases. Obviously the doctor, the lawyer, and the priest should know all about these things. But the ordinary layman can only read them to his own disadvantage. And if this is true of scientific works, how much more true must it be of certain novels and pictures? The policy of reading and seeing all things is sure to work disaster on those who adopt it without sufficient reason. Where there is reason in this matter there is also grace.

Together with reverence for the divine law, there should be instilled into boys a profound reverence and respect for womankind. This will be directed, in the first instance, towards their own mother and sisters. The habit of mind and heart thus formed in early youth will be of the utmost service to them when in later years they have to associate with and move amongst women not of the family.

The mother will give corresponding instruction to the girls. Directions concerning the first signs of womanhood must be explicit. Our Lady's Virginity may well be taken as an occasion to explain the nature of virginity and its importance to young girls. There is a bodily virginity and a spiritual virginity. Bodily virginity is usually taken to be the sign of spiritual virginity. It is certainly a most important protection of the same, and as such must be guarded with the utmost care. Bodily virginity may be lost either through sin or through ignorance, or through accident, or through necessary surgical operation. Such a misfortune therefore may imply sin or it may not. And if it does not imply sin, it may give rise to needless distress and scruples. Mothers, therefore, can do much both to protect their daughters' chastity, and to preserve their peace of mind, by explaining to them clearly these circumstances of womanhood.

The question has been asked: Who is to instruct those children who have no parents, or whose parents are unfitted for the task? For those who have no parents, the duty devolves upon the guardian. For those whose parents are unfitted, the task may be undertaken by the schoolmaster or the priest. But, generally speaking, it is not advisable that children should associate such instruction with the priest. In the confessional, he never speaks of it unless he is asked or unless he has reason to suppose that there is something wrong. It is not right, therefore, for parents or guardians to relegate instruction to the confessional, for it is their duty to anticipate the wrong by giving instruction before the wrong has been done.

With regard to children at boarding schools, there should be some arrangement between parent and teacher. The parent will endeavor to take the lead either before the child is sent to school or during the holidays, and then communicate with the head teacher accordingly.

The time of going out from home to earn a living is an occasion for special warning. Again, there is no need to go into all the details of the dangers of the streets. It will be sufficient to say that grave dangers do exist and that the chief occasion of these dangers is the accepting of acquaintance with unknown men or women. If good relationships have already been established between mother and daughter, then the girl will willingly tell her mother of any new friendship she may have made.

Whenever there is a question of a girl leaving home for a distant town, and more especially for a foreign country, the mother may well inform her child of the existence of the White Slave Traffic. There are, though, I believe, large numbers of mothers even who do not know of its existence. Let it be said here then that this terrible business is spread all over the world. It consists of tricking young women into houses of ill fame under pretense of finding them situations. The two chief means of enticing girls away are chance acquaintanceships whilst traveling, and advertisements in the newspapers.

Provision has been made for the protection of Catholic girls by the International Catholic Society for Girls. Whenever, therefore, a girl thinks of taking a situation away from home, and especially if she be going to a foreign country, she should first put herself in communication with this society.

Between Parents and Children

Tenth in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by
 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

Since children have to remain with their parents for such a long time between being born and making a home for themselves, the mutual duties should be clearly defined. And the Church has defined them. Speaking generally, the parents owe their children love and education, whilst the children owe their parents love, reverence, and obedience.

The love which ought to exist between parents and children is founded on the fact of generation. That act is the earthly analogy of the divine act of creation. The relationship between Creator and creature - together with all its beautiful implications of redemption, preservation, providence, and so forth - is visualized for us in the invocation of the prayer of Christ: "Our Father who art in heaven." This is the archetype of the relationship which should exist between earthly parents and their children.

Parents are certainly superiors over their children. But this superiority does not, as many of them seem to suppose, give them a right to treat their children harshly and inconsiderately. If the first attribute of the heavenly Father towards His earthly children is that of love, then the first duty of earthly parents to their offspring is that of love. Their children are flesh from their flesh, and, as such, nothing under God should be dearer to them. In so far as the children are made to feel this, so much more will they be able to appreciate the tenderness of the Fatherhood of God.

The habit of mind by which parents love their children constitutes the special virtue of pietas or dutifulness. Consequently, offences against it are sins. Parents, then, out of consideration for their own souls as well as the souls of their children, will be ever on their guard against anger and loss of temper. This is difficult for mothers with large families. All the more reason why they should recognize the fact, and prepare for it by prayer and the Sacraments.

Again they will avoid the habit of always finding fault. "Go and see what Willie is doing and tell him he mustn't." The habit tends only to lessen the authority of, and respect and love due to parents. On the other hand, they will be careful not to spoil the children by giving them all they ask for. Such indulgence is a sin against the virtue of dutifulness.

Above all things, they will not show favoritism. It would be too much to expect absolute equality in all cases. A mother who has had seven girls and then one boy would naturally give the boy little preferences. But preferences ought to be only such as the other children would willingly approve of. So long as one in the family is made to feel that he or she is not in the same favor as the others, he or she will ever be the cause of disturbance, and the blame will lie chiefly with the parents.

Having first paid regard to their own family virtues, the parents will next attend to the corresponding virtues in the children.

Duties toward parents are, of course, of less importance than duties toward God, but, on the other hand, they are of more importance than duties toward one's neighbor. It is the title under which rights are held that gives the relative importance to the corresponding duties. God's rights come before a parent's rights, because we owe to Him more than to a parent. Nay, we owe to Him the very fact that we have parents, for God was under no obligation to create our ancestors in the first instance.

A parent's rights come before a neighbor's rights, because our parents gave us our very life, the dearest of all our possessions. Under this title, then, our parents have a right to our love, reverence, and obedience. Just as God is our Creator and demands our love, so our parents are our progenitors and demand our love. Just as God is infinitely higher than men in dignity and so requires a supreme reverence, so parents are relatively higher than their children in dignity and require a relative reverence. Just as God is supreme ruler of the world and has a right to enact an absolute obedience, so the parents are the rulers of the family, and thus, within the sphere of things pertaining to the family, have a right to exact obedience from the children.

The love due to parents is one of the primary instincts of our nature. The sensible affection of the parent for the offspring, and of the offspring for the parent, is evident through the whole of animal creation. Some animals will suffer death rather than give up or neglect their young. If, therefore, this is so in the lower creation, how much more ought it to be true in man, who is raised so much higher and is endowed with a free and intelligent will, by which to enjoy a more perfect love and affection. By this reason he is able to reflect on the infinite difference between being nothing and being something. He is able to know, and in some imperfect way to realize, what cares and responsibilities his parents have undertaken in bringing him into the world and tending him, until he should come to an age when he can look after himself.

Reflecting on these things the grave obligation, moreover an honorable and beautiful obligation, is at once apparent of making a willing offering to his parents of a great love. Ecclesiasticus, therefore, preaches both the natural and the divine law when he says:

Honor thy father and forget not the groanings of thy mother: Remember that thou hadst not been born but through them: and make a return to them as they have done for thee.

Likewise the holy Tobias when, being about to die, he spoke thus to his son:

When God shall take my soul, thou shalt bury my body: and thou shalt honor thy mother all the days of her life: For thou must be mindful what and how great perils she suffered for thee in her womb. And when she shall have ended the time of her life, bury her by me.

Indeed, God Himself sanctioned this commandment with a special promise of material prosperity, and caused it to be known ever afterward as the commandment of promise.

Honor thy father and thy mother that thou mayst be long-lived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.

Nay, more. If once the real motive of filial love be grasped and the consequent heartfelt affection be excited, there will be no need of forced outward deference, which even in times of annoyance and dissatisfaction must be observed. All will flow naturally, or rather supernaturally; for with a person whose heart is right, all his actions, however natural, easy, and pleasant they are, are spiritualized and clothed with divine charity.

The superiority of parents involves reverence on the part of children. It is not the reverence due from an equal to an equal, nor yet is it that of a slave to a master. But it is that special kind of affectionate regard which is known as filial reverence. It is begotten only by a certain attitude of mind. It cannot exist merely as an external show. It cannot exist from any purely philosophical motive. Unless there is an inward acknowledgment to one's self of the parent's superiority under God, there cannot be true filial reverence. This duty, therefore, must have its foundation laid in the heart and mind. The habit of mind must be cultivated of regarding parents as representative in some way of the superiority of God. The reverential fear of God is the root motive of filial reverence of parents.

He that feareth the Lord honoreth his parents and will serve them as his masters, that brought him into the world.

From the inward habit of mind and affection there will flow forth the external reverence of words and deeds.

It may happen, it often does happen, that a parent does things which tend to disturb that inward reverence. Here, however, we are concemed with the duties of children, and particularly with the duty of reverence on occasions when the parent has failed in his or her duty. The child is never justified in offering to a parent irreverence. To attempt to justify such conduct on the grounds that the parent has forfeited the reverence due to him is to have missed the chief meaning of reverence to parents. We do not owe them this reverence simply because they are good and kind and affectionate. Doubtless those qualities do impose an extra claim on us. But the foundation reason of our reverence is the bare fact that they are our parents and that under God they are our superiors.

And no amount of subsequent neglect of duty on their part can undo this fact. Of course, our inward feelings are not always under our control. Still, in such circumstances we can and ought to maintain at least an outward reverence of word and deed. Then this outward behavior will react on the inward soul and will tend to fasten the due inward reverence. The exercise of control over our outward actions will strengthen our inward patience, and the effect of this inward patience will make itself felt in the parent and thus be the means, perhaps, of making him reflect on his duty.

Honor thy father in work and word and all patience, that, a blessing may come upon thee from him, and his blessing may remain in the latter end.

We come next to the question of obedience. The obedience of children toward parents has its reason in the idea of family government. The family is the foundation of the community and of the State. If, therefore, men are bound to obey the laws of the country in which they live, and if they are bound to observe the by-laws of their community, much more are they bound to attend to the commands of parents in all matters pertaining to the well-being of the household. The very existence of a State is dependent on the due observance of its laws. So also is the very existence of family life dependent on the due respect for parental authority. Anarchy in the family tends to anarchy in the community, and anarchy in the State. Filial obedience, therefore, is an exigency of the law of nature.

It is an exigency also of the divine law. "Children," says St. Paul, "obey your parents in the Lord, for this is just." Nay, the parents have a sanction given them to enforce obedience if need be. They must avoid arbitrary and harsh treatment, yet at the same time they must be firm in maintaining their rights and insisting on parental authority. "And you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and correction of the Lord." Therefore it is that St. Paul says again: "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord."

Perhaps, however, the children may ask: "Is there no limit to this parental authority? Surely the time must come when I must think and act for myself!" Yes, there are limits which it is well to know. But first let us be clear as to the extent before we speak about the limits. First, it is manifest that parents have supreme authority in the management of the household. The children have not the right to choose the kind of house, the quality of the food, the hours of the meals. Secondly, the parents have charge of the children's manners and education, and therefore they have the right and duty of demanding obedience in behavior about the house. Thirdly, they have the right and the duty of looking after the spiritual welfare of the children. Consequently, they are entitled to say who are fitting companions, what are permissible amusements, whether it is good to go to this dance or to that theatre. Further, on account of this spiritual oversight, they have a right to warn the children when the time draws near for the Sacraments, or when there is any other religious duty to be performed. Again, it is the right and duty of the parents to see to the proper education of their children in fitting them for the battle of life in temporal matters. Consequently, there is a corresponding duty on the part of the children of corresponding with the means provided, of careful attendance at the school chosen, of availing themselves of all the opportunities for the improvement of mind and body which a thoughtful parent has afforded.

Now we may consider the limits of parental authority. First let us recall the root principle of this authority: the parents, in the exercise of it, are only supposed to be carrying out the work of God. If, therefore, any of their commandments are manifestly contrary to the law of God, then the parents have gone beyond the limits of their jurisdiction. In such cases it is not only lawful but of obligation to lay aside the command of the parent. Such a course of action is not disobedience, but rather obedience to a higher law. But notice that this is only allowable when the thing commanded is manifestly against the law of God. If there is any doubt the presumption is always in favor of the parent; for a wayward child might easily persuade itself that it was following out God's will, while it was in reality only following out its own perverse will. Conscience certainly is supreme, but there is need to guard against a false conscience, and the only practical rule is to obey the parent in case of doubt.

Among the several kinds of cases in which the rights of God, the rights of parents, and the rights of children seem to clash, there are two which are constantly arising, and concerning which the Church has made definite arrangements. The question concerns the choice of a state of life. Is the child bound to obey its parents in choosing whether to get married, or to become a priest or a religious?

We are here dealing with what is called a vocation. Now a vocation is a call from God. It is known by certain signs which are recognized by the Church, and with which spiritual directors are well acquainted. If, therefore, those signs are present, if the vocation is sufficiently manifest, then clearly the child is perfectly justified in obeying the call of God, and in setting aside the command of the parent who interferes with the call of God. And the principle works both ways. If the child is called to any given state of life, then it is wrong for the parent to interfere with that call.

If, on the other hand, the child is not called to a given state, then it is wrong for the parent to urge the child, either directly or indirectly, to enter that state. Whether the case be one of entering upon matrimony, or the priesthood, or religion, God's call goes before the wishes of a parent. To ignore the wishes of parents in such a matter is no dishonor to them. Our Lord indeed rebuked the Pharisees, because under the pretense of honoring religion they taught men to withdraw the honor due to parents. The virtues by which God is honored and by which parents are honored are quite distinct from each other, but they are not at variance. Each virtue is limited by circumstances. Virtue carried beyond this limit is no longer a virtue but a vice. Thus, the virtue of dutifulness to parents is limited by the virtue of religion, or the worship of God. It can be no honor, therefore, to a parent to render him obedience when obedience to God demands some contrary action.

Thus, whenever it comes to a choice between the service of man and the service of God, the service of God must prevail. Hence those plain words of Christ:

He that loveth father and mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

These words apply more particularly to the priestly and religious states, though there is an equally strong sanction as regards the matrimonial state. Christ Himself said:

Have ye not read that he who made man from the beginning made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

On the other hand, there are circumstances when the claims of the parents would seem to prevail. It is not so in reality, for in these circumstances the call of God is not manifest. It is when the parents are so very poor that they cannot live without the support of their children. God does not wish children to leave their parents in such plight under the pretense of leading a higher life. The highest life in such circumstances is to stay at home and take care of the parent who may be poor, sick, or aged.

There are four chief signs of a religious vocation, namely: constant desire; fitness for the order as to health, ability, and character; acceptance by the order; the absence of any obligation of supporting parents in need. If, therefore, the candidate for religious life found that, in order to enter religion, he must leave his parent in destitution, that would be a clear sign that he had no vocation. That one fact would mark the limits of the virtue of religion. God could not possibly be honored by the entrance of one into religion under such circumstances. To act thus would be to turn the virtue of religion into a vice. Hence the duty to parents and the duty to God cannot clash, for the limits of the one are outside the limits of the other. If in any given case they seem to clash, if a child wishes to marry, or to become a nun, or a priest, or a monk, contrary to the wishes of its parents, then the practical thing to do is to consult one's spiritual director. He is trained in the theology of the subject, he knows something of human nature, he knows the disasters that are in store, either for forcing a vocation where there is none, or for destroying a vocation where there is one. He knows also the blessings that are in store for the true vocation faithfully followed.

By virtue of this division of labor it comes about that in addition to the love, reverence, and obedience which children owe to their parents, there is also a love, reverence, and obedience due to spiritual superiors. The priest is God's servant through whose ministry God's graces are conveyed to the soul. He is our spiritual father, and therefore in all matters spiritual is entitled to the obedience of the spiritual children committed to his care. And by the same title of spiritual fatherhood he has also a claim on their reverence and their love.

Sometimes it is necessary for both parents and pastors to get others to help them in their work of temporal and spiritual education. This help is represented in modern times by a vast system of scholastic and collegiate institutions. The schoolmaster, the schoolmistress, the professor, the master of the apprentice - all these, too, have in their own measure a claim on the love, reverence, and obedience of the children committed to their care. The teacher stands in place of the parent or pastor. It is his duty to recognize in himself an instrument in the hand of God, for the education and improvement of those committed to his care. On this account, therefore, he is entitled to his share of love, reverence, and obedience. True, the love cannot equal the love of a parent. Still, in proportion as the schoolmaster takes upon himself the responsibility of training a child, he may lawfully expect from the child corresponding duties. The principle involved is the same. The teacher is doing the work of God. The child, therefore, in honoring the teacher thereby acknowledges its submission to God; and in doing so it does honor to itself, for It makes profession of its right place in the order of the world.

In these days there is a strong tendency among men to exaggerate their rights and to undervalue the rights of their superiors. In the family, and in the State and in religion, there is a strong force of opposition to law. It is well, then, for children to realize early the dignity of dutifulness to parents, spiritual pastors, and temporal masters. From a merely natural point of view, such dutifulness can only lead to the good of the children. But from a supernatural point of view, the thought is noble in the highest degree. We see that in serving our parents and those in authority for the sake of God, we are serving our own best interests; for we are thereby doing our best to place ourselves in that adjustment of the universe which God has ordained as the most perfect.

The saints have ever been eminent in this virtue. Let us take the Blessed Thomas More as a glorious example. Dutifulness toward his parents was one of the most beautiful traits of his life. From his earliest years, he showed the tenderest affection for them. Then, when in later life he came to occupy the high post of Lord Chancellor, the fondness and reverence for his parents increased rather than diminished. And the story is told of him how, when his father held a position in one of the lower courts, he used to be seen every morning to go and kneel and ask for the old man's blessing.

The law is clear, then, and so it remains for children to fulfill the commandment and to look forward confidently to the reward which will surely come to them in this life and in the next. For God has promised and He is faithful.

The Blessings of Many Children

Ninth in a Series on Catholic Marriage and Parenthood

 by

 Fr. Thomas J. Gerrard

When man and woman were first joined together in holy matrimony, a divine command was given unto them to increase and multiply and to replenish the earth. Adam alone was lonely, and lonely in more senses than one. Eve was given him to be his companion - not merely, however, for the sake of companionship, but also for the benefit of the race of which he was to be the father. She was to be the co-principle with him for the procreation of the great human family. She was to be his help in domestic life and also his help in the life of the race. The whole earth was to be replenished by their offspring.

This was one of the first and most peremptory laws of nature. And being such a fundamental law it has persevered until now, and must persevere until this world is exhausted, until there is no more use for the law, until we are safe in heaven, where we shall be as the angels, neither giving nor taking in marriage.

This natural law, moreover, has in the meantime been fortified by additional sanctions. The natural law is a reflection of the divine Mind. The new sanctions, therefore, do not alter, but emphasize the original law. Throughout the Jewish dispensation, therefore, we find that fruitfulness in child-bearing was ever regarded as a sign of divine predilection, as a fulfillment of God's promises of prosperity. And as fruitfulness was looked upon as a special sign of God's favor, so was barrenness looked upon as a sign of God's displeasure or forgetfulness.

Further, when the contract of marriage was raised by Christ to the dignity of a Sacrament, this same end of marriage remained as the chief: the procreation of children; but, at the same time, it was raised to a higher plane: the procreation of children both for this world and for the next. The mother who had done her duty in this matter had fulfilled her highest destiny. By bringing many children into the world, by bringing them into the Church through Baptism, by bringing them to their final salvation through her good example and zeal for Christian education, she had saved her own soul.

She shall be saved, however, through child-bearing, if she shall persevere in faith and love and holiness and sobriety.

Seeing, then, that this fruitfulness is according to God's will, it must be rewarded with God's blessing. And, indeed, it is first a blessing to the family, secondly a blessing to the State, and eventually a blessing to heaven itself.

Many children are a blessing to the family. First, they provide the opportunity for the exercise of one of the strongest instincts of nature, family affection, the love of parents toward children, of children toward parents, of children toward each other. No matter how many children a mother may have, her love for any one of them is not thereby diminished, but rather increased. If she had to part with any one of them, she could not make the choice. They are each dear to her, because they are her own, because they are the children of her husband, and because they are brothers and sisters to each other. The family love is so woven and interwoven that the greater the number of the threads, the more difficult it is to distinguish any one of them.

This may be the result of merely natural affection. When, however, the family love is intertwined with supernatural faith, supernatural hope, and supernatural love, then is the family bond made indefinitely stronger, and the family love more keen and more satisfying. The mother of the Maccabees did not love her children less, but indescribably more, when she had to lead them to be sacrificed for the sake of God's cause. And although her natural sorrow must have been one of the most poignant ever suffered by mother on account of children, yet her supernatural joy must have surpassed it in intensity and have produced in her maternal heart a satisfaction far exceeding the natural void caused by her bereavement.

Secondly, a large family is a means of developing character, both in the parents and in the children. In the case of the father, it is a question as to whether he will face the task of working and saving for the means of bringing up a large family. He certainly needs courage. He certainly needs self-denial and self-restraint. He certainly needs the help of Sacraments and other religious ordinances. But these are the very warp and woof of manly character. He is only a weakling, therefore, wanting in manhood and wanting in the stamina of a Christian, who shirks the duties of fatherhood merely because they involve a heavier burden.

In the case of the mother, it is a question as to whether she will face the illness and the anxieties incident to a large family of children, and possibly, which is the greatest trial of all, displeasure and neglect on the part of her husband. The burden of motherhood then acts against flimsy attractions of the world of pleasure. It concentrates her attention on the family. It gives her an interest than which nothing is more absorbing and satisfying outside heaven. In a word, it develops her womanhood. And, since she is of the gentler, as contrasted to the sterner, sex, her numerous anxieties will develop in her the quality of gentleness.

Further, if she is so unfortunate as to have a husband who is unkind or neglectful or difficult, then it will bring out her characteristic of tact. There are few husbands who do not need some "managing." And it is the glory of some wives that they know how to "manage" their husbands; how to get what they want without crying or quarreling for it. Surely, therefore, it must be an accomplishment worth cultivating, to be able to rule by tact and by persuasion, rather than by force or harshness.

Now, a large family implies many relations to be adjusted, many misunderstandings to be smoothed over, many arrangements for the mutual welfare of all. It is the mother of the family who has to do all this. It is by her instinctive tact and enduring patience that the family is held together. The more accomplished she is in this office, the brighter does she shine as an example of motherhood. And the greater will be her accomplishment in proportion as she has the greater number of children to care for.

In the case of the children, it is a question of generosity or selfishness. Who has not looked with dismay on the spoiled child, the only one of the family? Who has not observed the ugly self-consciousness, pride, and vanity of two children, the miserable two who have had no other companions but each other during the years when the foundation of their character was laid? And who has not seen the beautiful unselfishness and generosity of the children of a family of seven, or, better still, of a family of fourteen? Why, even their faults and their sins are due to excess of generosity, rather than to defect in It. The principle of give and take has been so often demanded of them and so often exercised, that it must have grown into a fixed habit by the time they come to separate and go their way in life apart. The boys have had their boyishness toned down by the gentle influence of the girls, while the girls have had their girlishness toned up by the strong influence of the boys.

Thirdly, a large family is a means of strengthening both the temporal and the eternal interests of the family. Even from a worldly point of view, a father is working against his own interests in setting limits to his family from motives of economical selfishness. His view must be a broad one, however. The law of nature pervades the organization of society, even as it does the organization of the physical universe, and none the less does it there reflect the mind of God. It is, therefore, both the law of nature and the law of God that children should support their parents in sickness and old age. When, however, there is only one child or two, and these have wives and families of their own to support, there is little opportunity of supporting aged parents. But where the burden is divided, among say seven or eight families, then the aged couple have some hope of ending their days in reasonable and frugal comfort.

Again, we must remember that, in most countries, the provision of free education is such as to leave no room whatever for the excuse of economy. If the father has the pretension to go further, and to leave his two children enough inheritance to save them from the necessity of working for a living, then he is doing an injustice both to his children and to society. Drones are a nuisance in every line. In all stages of society, the work of bringing up a family of children is a burden both to the father and to the mother. It is a burden, however, which is followed by a handsome reward if only it is generously accepted.

The children, too, must profit by their larger number. The world is so wide, trades and professions are so manifold, as to leave practically little difference in the difficulty of finding situations for eight and that of finding situations for two. Nay, if we look around we shall find that it is the only boy rather who fails to make a good beginning, and the only girl rather who fails to secure a husband or a vocation. Owing to the absence of fraternal influence and education, they have not got the grit in them to make them attractive to others. Then again, later in life, the many are a help to each other in time of difficulty. They do not all meet with adversity at the same time. If one is low down in business or low down in health, his brothers and sisters are there to help him, each knowing that he or she may likewise depend on the others whenever the hour of distress shall overtake them.

This mutual support extends also to the sphere of faith and morality. How often has not a father been kept to his religion, and a mother been saved from temptation, by the thought of the children! It is curious how parents who have given up the practice of religion themselves have often insisted on their children being taught religion and brought up in a good moral atmosphere, and eventually, through the children, have been brought back again to God. Holy marriage is a Sacrament and as such is a means of grace. It is an instrument of the Holy Spirit, and no one can tell the multitudinous ways and times and places in which the Holy Spirit uses this instrument.

The family being the foundation of the State, its life must produce an effect on the life of the State. If fruitfulness in child-bearing is a blessing to the family, it is likewise a blessing to the State. A man has reached a high state of natural virtue if he can be so unselfish as to take the interests of the State as a motive for his own right conduct. Human nature being what it is, such a motive can hardly be expected to work as the predominant one. It can, however, act, and act effectively, as a supplementary one. It is a motive, too, which goes a long way in the formation of public opinion which reacts on private opinion.

When the abuses of family life were first propagated, they were propagated ostensibly with a view to promoting the nation's welfare. The country was said to be overpopulated, and these abuses were introduced to reduce the population. The nations, however, which have allowed themselves to submit to these abuses have found out to their heavy cost the great mistake which they have made. Statesmen, with no pretensions to high morals or a godly life, have discovered that this abuse is a canker eating away the vitals of the nation.

France stands out pre-eminently as the worst sinner of all. This last year [1911] her death rate exceeded her birth rate. Germany is wide awake to the evil, and a movement has been set on foot to counteract the growing practice. Otherwise prepared for emergencies in the case of war, this would be her weakest point. England has to lament her decadence due to practices introduced from France. And in America the sermon preached by President Roosevelt on the burden and duties of the married state tells of the prevalence of the evil, and emphasizes the fact that the evil is a curse to any nation. It weakens its power of production; it weakens its power of defense; it weakens its power of intelligence and morality; it weakens the very life blood of the limited offspring which actually is born, for such offspring must come from a principle which is already marked by weakness, softness, and decadence.

The Christian family, however, was not made for the State as for its final destiny. It was made for the glory of God. Fruitfulness in child-bearing tells eventually for the greater glory of God. The mutual happiness of the persons of the blessed Trinity is all sufficient for the intrinsic glory of God. God, however, has chosen to surround Himself with an extrinsic glory. He has created creatures to give Him honor and praise. And the greatest honor and praise of this kind which can be given Him is that of man. It adds nothing to God's internal happiness, but is rather the expression and diffusion of God's love and goodness outside Himself.

God, therefore, having provided this great happiness for His creatures, He wishes as many as possible to avail themselves of it. In this way, He obtains His greatest external glory. The greater the number of souls that are added to the number of the elect, so much the richer is the music of nature's hymn of praise. That this is the mind of the Church may be seen from the enormous care which she takes for the happiness of infants. Her priests are bound to undergo the gravest inconveniences in order that they may apply the baptismal water to any child in urgent need of it. Why is this? It is because Christ has died for and purchased these children. It is because God has chosen for Himself a number of elect souls, a great number which we cannot count, but which we must do our best to make up, presuming or rather knowing that to do so will require all our spiritual efforts.

To hinder the course of nature, therefore, is to interfere with God's plans. It is to pull down His work in the Church Militant, and to lessen His glory in the Church Triumphant. A diminution of the number in the children of the Church is a diminution of the Church's collective faith, and love, and holiness. It is a diminution, too, which reacts on the parents; for, since they have willfully lessened the number of subjects of faith and love and holiness, they have willfully lessened their own faith and love and holiness. They have lessened the chances of their own salvation. But letting nature have its way, they contribute to their own eternal welfare, they contribute to the collective eternal welfare of the race, they contribute to the greater glory of God.

Some apology is needed for even venturing to speak of the abuse of matrimony, and the apology which is offered is the only permissible one, namely, absolute necessity. The evil is widespread and is still growing. If it is to be counteracted, it must be counteracted, both by the private good living of individuals and by the formation of a good public opinion. Non-Catholics now speak openly and without any sense of shame of their small families and of their intention of having only small families. Advertisements of the most pernicious nature are flaunted openly in the newspapers. Books are published, the aim of which is to propagate and to make the evil as easily accessible as possible.

Seeing, then, the high ideal of matrimony which the Catholic Church sets before the world, she must of necessity look with special horror on an abuse which does away with the primary end for which matrimony was instituted. Therefore it is that her preachers have to speak out when they would fain keep silence. And, therefore, it is that every Catholic should set his face against all approval or toleration of the abuse.

A few practical suggestions, then, are offered which may serve to indicate the attitude which Catholics ought to assume when questions concerning this matter arise. The first is to keep clearly before one's mind the fact that the law of nature, the law of God, and the law of the Church all condemn any willful interference with the due course of nature. A second is to protest vigorously against any opinions approving of such when proposed in conversation. A third is to boycott all newspapers, books, and business houses which make a trade in providing the means for the pernicious practice. A fourth is to take a holy pride in a large family of well-brought-up Catholic children. Natural motives as well as supernatural motives may be used for this end. Natural as well as supernatural motives have been proposed in this consideration. But natural motives alone will not suffice. A premium provided by the State for every seventh child will not hinder the decrease of population. Christian principles must be made the foundation of society life - that is, the family life must be governed by Catholic faith and Catholic morality. And if natural motives are offered and used, it is only that they may be added to the strictly supernatural ones and that they may be directed to a supernatural end, and thus become themselves supernaturalized.