S43 PRICE TWOPENCE

THE SOCIAL SENSE:

ITS DECAY AND REVIVAL

BY

PM4
ALEXANDER P. MOONEY, M.D.

[CATHOLIC SOCIAL GUILD PAMPHLETS, No. 14.]

NINTH THOUSAND

LONDON

CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY'

69 SOUTHWARK BRIDGE ROAD, S.E. 1

15 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C. 2 (Retail)



A BOOK FOR SOCIAL STUDENTS

Eighth Thousand, Demy 1 6mo, pp. 1 1 4, Price Sixpence.

SOCIAL QUESTIONS AND

THE DUTY OF CATHOLICS

BY

CHARLES STANTON DEVAS, M.A.
i

With Preface by the

RIGHT REV. MGR. CANON PARKINSON, D.D.

I. The Political Economy of Leo XIII.

II. Is Socialism Right after All?

“ This booklet is occupied with the foundations and general

structure of the Christian Social State. The Family and Divorce,

Property and Small Holdings, Christian Democracy and State

Socialism, Equality, Rank, Progress and the respective duties

of employers and employed, are all discussed in the light of

Christian principles. . . . The grand pronouncements of Leo

XIII, which were addressed for the most part to the learned,

are here adapted to the education and conditions of the general

reader. This adaptation is not intended as a manual of practical

social work, but forms a systematic code of Christian principles

covering the entire field of social life, and leaving particular

applications and adaptations to circumstances of race, legislation

and locality.”—Extract from Preface .

CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY

69 SOUTHWARK BRIDGE ROAD, LONDON, S.E. 1



THE SOCIAL SENSE:

ITS DECAY AND ITS REVIVAL

By ALEXANDER P. MOONEY, M.D.

What do we mean by the Social Sense?

The expression is not so common or so generally under-

stood as to allow me to take it for granted that in using it

I can be sure that my readers will assign the meaning to it

that I intend.

Something in the nature of a definition, therefore, will

have at least this use, that in what I am going to say my

readers will, whether they agree with me or not, know

exactly what I wish to convey when I use the expression

and when I endeavour to discuss what caused the decay of

the Social Sense, and to what we owe its revival.

The Social Sense, as I understand it, is compounded of

several elements. It is a consciousness of the needs of

Society and of its members. It is a sense of responsibility

to Society for the condition in which it finds itself
;

it is the

recognition of an obligation on the part of the individual

to contribute in whatever way he can to the well-being of

Society. It is, in practice, the service by the individual of

Society in its members. Urged by the possession of the

Social Sense, a man looks not only to his own well-being,

he looks to the well-being of others and makes that his aim.

It is quite obvious that this Social Sense is not a uni-

versal possession. Unfortunately there are only too many

who never realize any sense of responsibility in regard to

others, whose creed is like that maliciously assigned to the

Yorkshireman
—

“ Do nowt for nowt, or if tha does, do it



2 The Social Sense :

for thi sel ”
;
who never, therefore, look beyond their own

immediate interests
;
a great many more—and very good

people, too—whose sense of obligation begins and ends
with the alms they distribute, or the personal suffering or

needs which they charitably relieve, whose attention is

fastened on the fact of suffering, ignoring altogether its

cause, who feel some responsibility for the individual, but

none for the conditions that are so largely effective in

making the individual what he is.

On the other hand, fortunately for the Commonwealth,

people are to be found who are keenly conscious of the

defects of Society, who devote themselves in many fields to

the removal of these defects, who do not spare themselves

and who try to influence others in order to secure the best

conditions of life for all. In other words, there are people

in whom the Socjal Sense is keen and works keenly, who

realize that many social evils arise out of inefficient

organization and are therefore preventable.

Now where does this “ Social Sense ” come from ? How

is it that some people seem to be without it, or are only

feebly animated by it, whilst in others it seems so strong ?

Can we account for this—and if so, how do we account for
its existence in some and for its decay or absence in others ?

These are questions to which I want to call attention.

It will simplify what I want to say, and it will make my

meaning clearer, if I set out my principal conclusions before

I attempt to establish them. As regards these conclusions,

it must be remarked that because they depend to a large

extent upon historical evidence, it will be impossible to do

more than suggest the nature and sources of the facts which

justify them. My contention is that the Social Sense

as I have defined it is the direct product of Christianity,

the direct outcome of Christian principles
;
that it came

into being with Christian teaching, that it was embodied

in Christian practice, that it was cultivated in the early

Christian Church, that it grew and flourished with the

spread of Christianity until it reached its highest develop-

ment when the influence of undivided Christendom was at



3its Decay and its Revival

its height. I say also that its comparative decay dates

from the break-up of Christian unity by the movement

known as the Reformation, and I urge that the modern

revival of this sense, expressing itself in the effort for social

betterment, is a legacy from Catholic Christendom
;
that

the passion for justice and the compassion for the poor

which find a modern outpouring in so many diverse forms

have their origin in the Catholic spirit, even when they

disguise themselves as Humanitarianism and indignantly

repudiate a religious inspiration.

Lastly, and as a consequence, I maintain that the one

body which has never lost the Social Sense, the one

organization which has kept that sense alive through all

the social and political mutations that the world has under-

gone during the growth and development of modern

civilization, is the Catholic Church.

Now, there is a preliminary* point to be settled before

the main argument is reached. We must have clear

notions about the mode of action of Christianity upon

social life. The kingdom of Christ is not a political

kingdom, the empire of Christ has no territorial limits.

Christianity has not worked by merely political enterprise

nor by means of revolution, nor with the power of armies

behind it, nor like a parliamentary code forcing people to

do certain things or to adopt a particular form of organization.

Christianity is a moral power, and though it does and

must influence political and economic changes, it does so

only because politics and economics have a moral side,

because they raise problems which not unfrequently are in

their ultimate analysis problems of morality.

Thus the Christian Church has always worked in what-

ever social medium it found itself
;

it has never sought to

establish directly a new social origination. It brought

Christian principles to bear upon things as it found them
;

and though this resulted in mighty changes, these changes

grew, not out of any formal, preconceived design, but out

of the new light and the new spirit which were introduced,

rendering unsupportable whatever existing social relations



4 The Social Sense:

were repugnant to Divine law or in express contradiction

to it.

We see this fact illustrated in the first-fruits of Christian

teaching as they affected Roman civilization. This civiliza-

tion, I must content myself with reminding you, rested,

until the Church of Christ -came into being, almost com-

pletely upon a basis of slave-labour. The population of

the great cities of the Empire divided themselves sharply

into two classes—the slaves and their owners. Most of

the labour was done by these slaves, and work was held in

contempt as being the function of a degraded being—one
whose nature differed from that of his master and belonged

to an altogether lower order.

The idea of the essential dignity and equality of man, the

recognition of inalienable human rights, did not, except in

a narrow and limited sense, then exist. The nature of

property was that of absolute ownership—all rights and no
duties. It included not only the possession and use of that

which was owned, but the absolute and unrestricted disposal

of it. And from this conception of property even human

beings were not excluded, and the huge numbers of slaves

were chattels in just the same sense as the beasts of the field

or the implements of domestic service. A slave was a being

without rights, without a personality. The owner of a slave

was not embarrassed by any duties to his property; the life

of a slave was as completely at his master’s disposal as his

labour.

Now, an ideal of property such as this, a social organiza-

tion of this kind, were entirely incompatible with the

existence of a Social Sense. And, as a matter of fact,

outside those political engagements which were necessary

for the stability of Society, and those family arrangements

which were suggested by the ties of kindred, the citizen of

the Roman Empire neither felt nor showed any sense of

obligation with regard * to his fellow-citizens. At our

Saviour’s birth the Social Sense, as I have defined it, did

not exist.

Into a world thus morally defective came the teachers of



5its Decay and its Revival

a new religion with principles that were not only astound-

ingly novel, but also in direct contradiction to the most

firmly established social beliefs. The opening words of

the Lord’s Prayer were the charter of liberty for the human

race. The Our Father was the proclamation of the brother-

hood of man. All men, Christianity taught, were born with

an equal destiny. They were all creatures of God
;
the

message of salvation was for all, without exception
;

for

the slave as well as for the emperor
;

for the common man

equally with the noble. The slave was born to the same

high purpose as his master. His being was of a nobility

equal to his owner’s.

The most novel, and the most repugnant aspect of

Christianity to the Roman pagan, as we can well imagine,

was this exaltation of the miserable chattel to the level of

his master. We can well understand how the Christians

came to be regarded as the subverters of Society. They

were so, indeed, for the brotherhood of man in Christ and

the fatherhood of God was a doctrine that had of necessity

to sweep away the very foundations upon which pagan

Society rested.

Again, the founder of Christianity was “the son of a

carpenter.” Labour was dignified in the very fact of

Christ’s social position. His followers taught the necessity

of labour as part of the scheme of human life. “ He that

will not work,” wrote St. Paul, “ neither let him eat.” And

St. Paul meant it. The Apostles were working-men
;

St.

Paul practised the calling of a tent-maker, “ labouring with

the work of his hands.”^ Cicero had written 'lhat the labour

of artisans was ignoble. Christianity said that it was noble

and necessary.

The pagan notion of property was, furthermore, pro-

foundly assailed by the new teachings. Property ceased to

be a matter of rights only, it became a matter also of duties

and obligations. Property had not only a use, but a right

use. Thus from the very outset two principles were taught

by Christianity that were destined to revolutionize the

organization of Society, and to lay the foundation of a



6 The Social Sense

:

new civilization. These were the far-reaching doctrines of

justice and charity, which introduced an entirely new

conception of the relations between men in Society. They

created a whole series of obligations, the sense of which

was destined to saturate the social organism, to take shape

in civil law, and to fructify in a universal machinery of

social help, as totally foreign to the pagan conception as

the ideals were which gave it birth. Thus was the soil

prepared in which the Social Sense sank and grew. It was

thus that the idea of social obligations entered into human

thought, and became the source whence has sprung every

effort at social betterment that the world has witnessed since.

There was, moreover, a second stimulus to its growth.

Along with the slow permeation of Christian teachings in

the minds of men, along with the gradual acceptance of

Christian morality in theory, there grew up an astounding

organization of Christian work. The principles of social

responsibility took shape in practical effort. Christian

Society from the start recognized the duty of coming to the

help of the weak and distressed. From the earliest days of

the Church, provision was made for the sharing of wealth,

so that the superfluities of the wTell-to-do supplied the

necessities of the poor. I need not recall the first begin-

ning of this work, which is recounted with convincing

simplicity in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of

St. Paul. And, as we follow the history of the infant

Church, we are met at every step by this close alliance of

practical application with the social principles established

by our Lord’s
r

teachings. Even in the first century each

separate Christian congregation had its organized machinery

of social help, and a document of this date 1 is remarkable

as showing not only the fact that this machinery was at

work, but the common-sense spirit in which its functions

were discharged. Speaking of the stranger coming to the

local Church it says, “ If he has no craft, according to your

wisdom provide how he shall live as a Christian amongst

you, but not in idleness. If he will not do this he is

1
The Didache of the Apostles.



7its Decay and its Revival

trafficking in Christ. Beware of such men.” Moreover,

at this early period provision was made for the support of

the clergy, for assistance to widows and orphans, to the

destitute, the aged, the sick, and the imprisoned (often in

those days a large number), and decent burial was given to

the neglected dead. 1 Lecky, in his History of European

Morahy bears witness to the same fact, saying, “A vast

organization of charity, presided over by bishops, and

actively directed by deacons, soon ramified ov.?r Christen-

dom, till the bond of charity became the bond of unity,

and the most distant sections of the Church corresponded

by the interchange of mercy.” 2 When Christianity became,

under Constantine, the official religion of the Empire, the

social problems facing the Church grew enormously in

extent. It must not be imagined that a Christian emperor

meant a Christian people
;
but it meant that the Church,

being freed from the terror of persecution, could now

advance to the full measure of its opportunities, and

pursue its mission in some sort of peace : and so we find

a rapid development, not only of its missionary enterprise

and ecclesiastical organization, but also of its social effort.

The care of the unfortunate became the occasion of a more

elaborate and detailed system of charity. A definite

portion of the Church’s revenues were set aside for the

relief of the needy. The bishop’s house became a centre

of charitable work
;
there was a special office for the work,

an officer (<xconomus ), who was one of his priests, in charge ;

there were deacons, subdeacons, and deaconesses to assist,

and thus the poor, the aged, and the sick were known and

cared for. Special institutions
(
xenodochia

)
came into

being. Originally intended as hospitals for strangers, they

gradually developed in usefulness and took upon themselves

the care of the sick, the homeless poor, widows, abandoned

children, and other helpless classes. By the time of

Gregory the Great (c. a.d. 540-604) .these institutions

1
See Catholic Encyclopaedia

,
vol. iii, p. 595: Charity/’ by

John A. Ryan.

2 History of European Morals, vol. ii (3rd edit.), pp. 79-80.



8 The Social Sense: \

were to be found in nearly every city of the Empire.

Besides this there is evidence of the existence of maternity

institutions, of special care of the blind and the dumb, the

ransoming of prisoners of war, and even the provision of

dowries for poor girls. At this period the writings and

homilies of the Fathers of the Church furnish abundant

evidence of the keen sense of social injustice which had

long since become an integral part of Christian sentiment.

“The bishops,” says Professor Ryan, 1 “ protested strongly

against the excessive taxes and the harsh methods of

collecting them, against the landowner’s oppression of his

tenants, and the extortion practised by the usurer
;
against

the forcible enslavement of freemen, the tyranny of civil

officials, and the injustice of the courts, against the in-

human treatment of slaves, and in favour of emancipation.”

A new factor in the social work of the Church came

into being in these early centuries, with the spread of

the monastic system in Europe and the foundation of

monasteries
(
c. a.d. 500). These were destined to play

a great part not only in the spiritual development of the

Christian work, but also in its material progress. From

their very beginning they were centres of labour as well as

of piety. The monks set an example of Christian perfec-

tion in their lives and a model of Christian industry in their

occupations. These occupations, at first mainly manual,

grew with the necessities of the communities in which they

lived so that very soon they “ supplied physicians for the

sick of the neighbourhood, maintained hospitals for all

classes of the distressed, reared and educated the young,

and during the fifth century were about the only places of

refuge for persons whose homes lay in the track of the

devastating barbarians.” 2

Cunningham, in his Western Civilization,3 says of the

monks that they “ helped to diffuse a better appreciation

of the duties and dignity of labour, their manual activity

1 Ryan, Catholic Encyclopedia
,

vol. iii, p. 597.
2
Loc. cit.

} p. 596.

3 Vol. ii, p. 35.



9its Decay and its Revival

had great influence as an element in material progress, and

they did not a little to disseminate the industrial arts, to

improve agriculture, and to develop more regular commercial

intercourse.” “ They preserved the knowledge of manual

arts,”
1 often in danger of being lost in the wild and

unsettled periods between the break-up of the Roman

Empire and the comparative calm that followed the

settlement of Charlemagne (circa a.d. 800).

The legislation of that monarch bears evidence of the

Church’s influence upon the social standards of the time.

He re-established a regular machinery for the needs of the

poor so that “ every form of genuine distress was to be

relieved
;

but idlers,
x
vagabonds and beggars were to

be turned away and compelled to work.” 2

At a later period the extent to which the sense of social

obligation had imbued the mediaeval mind is obvious upon

the most superficial survey of the institutions to be seen in

operation. It is seen in the work of the Church and its

organizations, it is seen in municipal activities, it is seen in

trade organization, it is seen in the form which economic

discussion assumed.

Every country that had embraced Christianity had a

wonderfully complete system of institutions for the relief

of distress of all kinds—hospitals, almshouses, guest-
houses, orphanages were everywhere to be found, whilst

special communities of religious men and women devoted

themselves to their administration. Every fresh need of the

time was met by a special provision. Leprosy, far example,

which was terribly common, occasioned, according to

Matthew Paris, the erection throughout Europe of no less

than 19,000 special hospitals.

Even road-making and bridge-building were made the

care of a religious organization
;

whilst the ransoming

of captives from the Moors gave occasion to many for the

display of Christian charity amounting to heroism. But

social endeavour was not confined to the religious. The

municipalities of the free towns and cities took much
1 Page 38. 2 Ryan, loc . «V., p. 597.



IO The Social Sense

:

charitable work upon themselves and built and maintained

hospitals and other institutions for the help of those in need.

In their further and fuller development in the Middle

Ages monasteries fulfilled many other social functions.

They provided very largely for education—secular as
well as religious

;
they reclaimed waste lands, they supplied

the necessities of the poor, they were model landlords.

But perhaps the most striking evidence of how completely

the sense of social responsibility had taken possession of

the mediaeval mind is to be found in the economic views

and the economic organization of the trades in the

thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. The Trade

Guilds were a really remarkable phenomenon. Their

activities included provision for the sick, for widows and

orphans, for disability, for old age; they did more for

the help of their members in time of distress than the

most successful and best-managed trade ui\ion in the

twentieth century. But what I think is most significant

in their work was the fact that they secured a living

wage for their workers by fixing the prices of commodities.

Of course, at this day, when the principle of competition

has become such an ingrained element in commercial

relations, it is the fashion to ridicule the methods of the

Middle Ages. But as Cunningham observes, “the ethical

standpoint which they took is well worth examination, and

the practical measures which they recommended appear to

have been highly beneficial in the circumstances with which

they had to deal.” 1

The difference between the modern and mediaeval

method of determining the price of an article is just the

difference between the modern and mediaeval conception

of human dignity. At this moment prices are settled by

competition, and the workman receives that portion of the

price which is left when the other elements in the cost of

production are satisfied. But the masters of the mediaeval

guild took wages as the basis of productive cost. The

man’s needs were the prime element in cost of production,

1 Western Civilization
, p. 78.



IIits Decay and its Revival

and prices were based on the consideration that the

labourer was entitled to a living wage for his work. He

got his living wage in pursuance of a principle. Nowa-

days the workman gets it (when he does get it) more or less

as the result of an accident. The principle of finding

a just price for an article, such just price being determined

by the “common estimation,” may be open to the criticism

of political economists, but it is a sound principle of

morality. And this “ common estimation,” according to

Professor Cunningham, “ expressed itself in the'deliberate

opinion of the good men of the craft, who understood the

conditions of production, the expenses of materials and the

cost of labour, and who could thus calculate a reasonable

price for one group of commodities.” In short, it may be

said that prices were determined by men who had a social

sense as part of their moraPequipment in the Middle Ages,

just as it may be said that prices to-day are determined by

the utterly unmoral and frequently immoral methods of

competition.

The effect of the Church’s teaching and example upon

human thought and action in regard to social relations has

been excellently summed up by a modern authority already

frequently quoted, Professor Cunningham :

—

“ Mediaeval Society was permeated with moral conceptions which

had been entirely strange to the ancient world
;
the institutions of the

Middle Ages had been gradually formed under the influence of religious

principles which the old world would have explicitly denied. There

was first of all a keen sense of personal responsibility in the employ-

ment of secular power of every kind
;

the responsibility of rulers

to God for the exercise of their power over their subjects was strongly

insisted upon, as well as the fact that the rich man must render

account of the use he had made of his wealth
;

it had been entrusted to

him by God and he must use it for God. There was an extraordinary

contrast between the spirit of the Roman like Cato, whose only sense

of duty was to become richer, and that of the mediaeval proprietor who

had learned that he was merely a trustee and responsible for the manner

in which he used his money. . . . The main contribution of mediaeval

society to the economic progress of mankind lay in its success in

moralizing industrial and commercial conceptions and institutions.” 1

1 Western Civilization
, p. 104, sqq.



12 The Social Sense

:

The enormous and evil working change from the

condition thus set forth by Professor Cunningham to the

conditions which were to be found at the commencement

of the new industrial organization that came into being

from the end of the eighteenth century is worthy of some

further reflection.

I have said that this change is the product of the so-

called Reformation.

The Reformation did two definite things : it established

the principle of Individualism in religion,
<c
emancipating

”

the human conscience from what is called “bondage to

authority” and starting the movement towards what is

with unconscious humour styled “ free" thought,” whilst by

its doctrine of “justification by faith alone” it discouraged

charitable activity. The corporate idea of social organiza-

tion, which is the essence of the Catholic doctrine, the

responsibility of one man for another, the solidarity

of human interests where humanity is a family with God

for the father and Christ for its king and elder brother,

crumbled away in the selfish disruptive individualism

of Protestantism.

Luther taught that good works were not only not neces-

sary to salvation, they were not even useful to salvation.

And as this doctrine gained ground works of charity

diminished, whilst it afforded a convenient justification for

many acts of plunder. In the countries where the reformed

religion was established, the goods of the Church, the

possessions of the monks, the charitable foundations of

pious benefactors were confiscated by the State, and for

the most part fell into the hands of greedy laymen to be

turned to private uses. The history of tlje Poor Law

in this country is very instructive upon this point. The

patrimony of the poor having disappeared, with it dis-

appeared for many a long day that sense of duty towards

the poor that is characteristic of a Catholic civilization.

Yet it is interesting to notice that during the centuries that

followed the religious upheaval the old vigorous growth of

/charitable activity, however hampered by unfavourable



13its Decay and its Revival

conditions, never ceased in the Catholic Church. The

mediaeval framework was shattered, but the spirit that gave

it birth survived.

One after another fresh religious communities devoted to

social work, appositely called the “Active” Orders, came

into being and spread over the world their beneficent

activities The care of the sick, the upbringing of the

orphan, the education of children, the care of the blind,

the deaf, and the mentally deficient, the need of the aged

were undertaken by the numerous religious organizations

that had their origin in France, Spain, and other Catholic

countries, some of them local in their activities, but others

like the Sisters of Charity, the Brothers of the Christian

Schools, the Little Sisters of the Poor exercising their

mission of mercy in all parts of the world. Whilst the

political economy that grew out of the materialism of the

free-thinkers of the eighteenth century was establishing

the pernicious idea of unrestricted freedom in commercial

activity, and paving the way for the laissez-faire of the

Manchester school, the Catholic mind worked in its un-

varying spirit of social help and combated by an example

of self-sacrifice and a recognition of social responsibility the

cruel Spirit of selfishness and avarice that disgraced the

industrial organization of the early nineteenth century.

Evil brings in some degree its own remedy. There are

limits even to what the natural man will stand, and the

state of affairs at that period at last caused a reaction.

The condition of the worker was so appalling that, partly

by means of his own spasmodic revolting and partly owing

to the promptings of humanitarian feelings not altogether

deadened, efforts began to be made for the reform of con-

ditions that had become intolerable. With the new power

that political reorganization and education conferred upon

the people, social organization became the work of

democracy.

To that degree, then, there was a revival of the Social

Sense. But this modern development differed in essential

characters from its prototype. In the first place it had its



The Social Sense14

origin in self-interest, and it expressed itself in legislative

forms. The attempt to bring about more tolerable con-

ditions of life for the masses that industry had herded

together in huge communities was largely a response to

the threatenings of a spirit of revolt. It no longer sprang

spontaneously from the sense of Christian solidarity. It

strove by the exercise of political influence to wrest from

the privileged classes some share in the improved con-

ditions of life. It was no longer the willing service of the

whole community to those in need
;

it was the reconquer-

ing of a lost position by force, sometimes by physical force,

by revolutionary violence, so strong was the entrenchment

of wealth and power in its selfish isolation, and so oblivious

of the claims of justice and charity. The Factory Acts,

the right of workmen to associate, the regulation of the

hours and conditions of labour—elementary concessions of
this sort—were won only after long and arduous fighting.
The principle of Individualism was dislodged only after

many years and -much suffering.

I think it is true to say that the only philosophy that

underlay this struggle of the democracy was the philosophy

of necessity. It was only later that definite principles of

social organization—ideals to be worked for and led up to
—made their appearance, and these ideals moved on two
definite but widely diverging lines. One line was that of

revolutionary change, with Marx and his fellow-workers as

its spokesmen. The other was a return to Christian ideals,

and was practically the work of Bishop Ketteier, of Mainz,

and those who worked with him. To-day these two ideals

are struggling for supremacy. Socialism, in many respects

very much modified from the original teachings of its

founders, seeks to re-establish relations of justice between

the members of the community by establishing the com-

munal ownership of the means of production. It would

reorganize society upon an economic basis. The Catholic

school also seeks a return to a corporate idea of social

organization, but looks for its inspiration to the ideal of

justice and charity which the Catholic Church has always



i5its Decay and its Revival

taught, and which had such a profound influence in shaping

the organization and spirit of mediaeval society. Socialism

in its revolt against Individualism would impose fetters

upon the individual that must subordinate him too greatly

to the community. The Catholic ideal seeks to enlarge the

privileges of the individual by making the organization of

the community subservient to his legitimate needs and his

natural dignity. Christianity says, “The State for the

Man,” because the man is immortal
;
Socialism says, “The

Man for the State,” for it ignores eternal life.-

Both systems demand a large and widely diffused Social

Sense for their success. But in an ultimate analysis it will

be seen that Socialism has no higher motive to appeal to

for the development of this Social Sense than self-interest,

and no more compelling force behind it than a motiveless

altruism. Catholicity, on the other hand, relies as ever

upon the undeniable and effective motive of the will of

God, the teachings of Christ, and the sanctions of reward

and punishment made known by Revelation. It is unfor-

tunately only too true that one of the worst social evils of

the Reformation was the disastrous effect of its principles

not only upon the economic ideas of the communities who

adopted it, but also upon the Catholic mind in general,

which, whilst it rejected it in theory, could not yet in

practice escape its contagion. The poison of Individualism

so permeated industrial life, its false morality was so gener-

ally accepted, that Catholics as well as others took its

validity for granted. Nor could a keen sense of civic

responsibility be easily developed in those who were long

denied the status of citizens. It is thus we find in England,

for example, that outside the definitely charitable social

work undertaken by religious organizations, the social ideals

of the Catholic community are almost as much in need of

reconstruction as the ideals of non-Catholics.

The Social Sense of the Catholic, in spite of his right

principles being checked by persecution and misled by

example, also fell a victim to the decay that was prevalent

in his non-Catholic environment.



i6 The Social Sense

This variety of the Social Sense, therefore, in spite of all

that has been done in the past few years, is very nearly as

much in need of revival amongst Catholics as amongst

others. But it is of special importance that Catholics

should recognize the mode in~which the Social Sense has

been lost, for there is a special need that in its recovery

Catholic ideals of social responsibility and duty should be

brought and kept before the world. There is some danger

that, owing to ignorance of history and ignorance of the

traditional social teachings of the Church, many Catholics

may be involved in the dangers and errors that beset the

secular and humanitarian ideals so much in vogue.

It is our business to promote with enthusiasm the revival

of the spirit of social responsibility, but it is also very much

our duty to aim at basing that responsibility upon immov-

able Catholic principles. When all is said and done

everything good in the social spirit takes its origin in the

Christian virtues of justice and charity.^ To be really

lastingly effective these virtues must work in a community

of convinced Christians, must be expounded with authority,

and obeyed and practised from a supernatural motive.

Without such a motive all social reform is beating the air

;

it can lead to nothing better than a coercive effort to

secure some sort of equality in conditions that from its very

nature can only bring out more virulently the very vices it

seeks to combat. For us Catholics the nature of social

reconstruction is set forth with most absolute certainty

in the great truth : “ Unless the Lord build the house, they

labour in vain who build it.”

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE CATHOLIC TRUTH SOCIETY, LONDON.

U —Jan., 1912.



c

Wrapper, Crown 8vo, 2s. net.

THE POPE AND THE
PEOPLE

Select Letters and Addresses on Social Questions by Pope Leo XIII.

NEW AND REVISED EDITION

With Introduction by Mgr. Canon Parkinson, D.D*

In this edition the various social pronouncements of Leo XIII

have been restored to their chronological order, thus showing the

steady advance which, as Canon Parkinson points out, “ seems

to disclose a preconceived plan of embracing the grand lines

of Catholic teaching on the individual, the family, the state,

and the economic order. . . . These letters are a sacred

treasury of our Catholic principles. They have stirred the

Catholic world to activity, and they have been reinforced by

the authority of Pope Pius X. They form therefore an in-

dispensable manual which the Catholic student will read and

to which he will frequently refer.”

CONTENTS

The Evils Affecting Modern Society.

Concerning Modern Errors, Socialism, &c.

Christian Marriage.

Working Men’s Clubs and Associations.

The Christian Constitution of States.

Human Liberty.
The Right Ordering of Christian Life*,

The Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens.

*The Condition of the Working Classes.

The Reunion of Christendom.

Christian Democracy.

* This Encyclical (Rerum Novarum
)
can also be had separately, price 6d.

Catholic Truth Society, 69 Southwark Bridge Rd., London, S.E. i.



Subscription price, 2s. 6d. per annum, post free.

Catholic Book Notes
Edited by JAMES BRITTEN, K.C.S.G.

Hon. Secretary
,

Catholic Truth Society .

CATHOLIC BOOK NOTES, published every alternate
month, is a record of Current Lkerature, either written by or of

special interest to Catholics. The reviews, although necessarily

brief, are sufficient to indicate the nature and value (or the

reverse) of the books noticed, and are undertaken by competent

authorities in various branches of Literature. The List of New

Publications written by Catholics, or dealing with subjects in

which Catholics are specially interested, is a feature of the

magazine.

“ We have known ‘ C.B.N.’ for a number of years, and would never willingly

miss a number. It is, as far as we know, the sole Catholic • bibliographical

journal in English, and is well worth the price charged tor ft. The reviews,

though brief, are searching, scholarly, and helpful, without bias, and without

favour for well-known names, and, generally speaking, the most reliable of any

Catholic magazine with which we are acquainted.”

—

Austral Light.

“ It is to be hoped that we are all passably honest
;
but an acquaintance from

the beginning with the always interesting Catholic Book Notes enables one

to say that its editor and reviewers specially deserve the character given to

the Irish by the great old Sam (and Cham of literature) : ‘ They are a fair

people,’”

—

Missionary Record. %

“ Among the few purely critical literary reviews that we Catholics have in

English, it is far and away the best. Its book notices are judicious and sanely

critical. . . . The reviews published in Catholic Book Notes can be depended

upon.”

—

Fortnightly Review (U.S.A.),

“Catholic Book Notes, issued by the Catholic Truth Society, and edited

by Mr. James] Britten, is an admirable record of current literature, and a model of

scholarly and thoroughly honest reviewing.”

—

Catholic Encyclopaedia.

“ Quite the most racy of all English periodicals devoted to literature.”

—

Down-

side Review.

Catholic Truth Society, 69 Southwark Bridge Road, London, S.E. i.