FRANCIS

A GRAIL PUBLICATION





THE GENTLEMANLY PRIEST



V>
*



TIdIdM

pmiBST

By

FRANCIS J. CONNELL, C. SS. R.

Price fifteen cents.

A GRAIL PUBLICATION

St. Meinrad Indiana



Imprimi potest:

John M. Frawley, C.SS.R., Provincial.

Brooklyn, Sept. 25, 1947.

Nihil obstat:

Joseph G. Kempf, Ph.D.

Censor lihrorum

Imprimatur:

Paul C. Schulte

Archbishop of Indianapolis

Feast of St. Luke

October 18, 1947

Copyrighted 1947 by

St. Meinrad’s Abbey, Inc.



INTRODUCTION

This brochure had its origin in a paper presented

at the annual meeting of the National Catholic Edu-

cational Association held at Chicago, The members

of the major seminary section, before whom it was

read, honored me by requesting that it be extended to

greater proportions, and enhanced with more de-

tailed information on the subject of proper deport-

ment, I feel therefore that this pamphlet ‘is not

merely a statement of my own convictions rega/rding

the observance of the norms of good manners by

priests, but also expresses the sentiments of a group

of intelligent ahid cultured priests engaged in the

sublime work of preparing young men for the priest-

hood, Necessarily, I had to limit myself to a sum-

mary presentation of the rules of etiquette; so that

this little work is not intended to supplant the more

complete works on the subject of the manners ex-

pected of the priest, such as CLERICAL COURTE-

SY by the Rev. Albert Rung, or the secular treatises

on general etiquette. But I think that I have touched

on the principal points of the courtesy that the priest

must manifest; and particularly, I have emphasized

the reason^ why the priest must exemplify in speech

and in action the highest type of politeness. If this

lesson is conveyed to the priests and to the semi-

narians who may read this booklet, I shall feel amply

repaid for the time and effort required for its com-

position.

Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.





CHAPTER I

MUST THE PRIEST BE A GENTLEMAN?

Should the Catholic priest be a gentleman, if

by '‘gentleman'' we mean a man who conforms

habitually to those rules which people of culture

regard as the standards of politeness? The

spontaneous reply of anyone imbued with an

appreciation of the exalted dignity of the priest-

ly office is an unqualified affirmation. Yet, I

could conceive of arguments to the contrary

—

arguments endowed with a certain measure of

plausibility. It could be contended that in striv-

ing to copy the usages of society the priest will

gradually develop the habit of making the super-

ficial conventionalities of the
,
world the chief

norm of his conduct rather than the supernatural

principles of Christ's teachings. Again, it might

be objected that the priest who shows himself

punctilious in observing the laws of etiquette

runs the risk of alienating himself from the less

cultured members of his fiock, who will be awed

by their pastor's elegant manners, so different

from their own simple and unpolished ways.

How can a priest who apes the studied manner-
isms of the proud and wealthy hope to reach the

hearts of the poor and lowly who constitute

perhaps the major portion of his parish?

- 5 -



However, a little thought will show that these

objections fail to prove their point. The polite-

ness that we believe should be practiced by every

priest is not that type of demeanor that is

limited to the externals of good manners. To the

ambassador of Christ etiquette should be the

application in daily life of the Master’s com-

mandment: ''Thou shalt love thy neighbor as

thyself.” True, the priest must know and prac-

tice the accepted canons of refinement; but for

him they must be the external manifestation of

a sincere respect and a genuine love for all his

fellow-creatures, firmly rooted in his soul. Nei-

ther will the priest’s conformity to the rules of

good breeding set a barrier between himself and

even the lowliest of his fiock; for true courtesy

demands that one so act that he does not cause

embarrassment to his less cultured companions,

even though at times this may entail the adop-

tion of some of their mannerisms. As Father

Arthur Barry O’Neil remarks: "If Father Pat-

rick, taking dinner with one of his parishioners

out in the country, conforms to the local custom

of drinking his coffee from his saucer and eating

his peas with his knife, his kindly motive de-

prives his action of all boorishness or bad form.”

However, Father O’Neil hastens to add: "But

he certainly should not acquire the habit of doing

so” {Clerical Colloquies, p. 37). The truth is, that

even those Catholics who are themselves neglect-

ful of the fine points of deportment expect good

manners from their priest, and are by no means

alienated from him because of his habitual cour-

tesy. On the contrary, they entertain little re-

spect for the cleric who mingles freely with

them, imitating their rough and uncouth deport-



merit. It is one instance of the general principle

that the people are raised by the priest who

remains above them, not by the priest who makes

himself a ‘'good fellow"' by descending to their

level.

The unique place that the priest holds in the

community in America furnishes him with a

potent motive for observing the laws of etiquette

on every occasion. I do not hesitate to assert

that in the United States at the present day most

educated and fair-minded persons, whatever be

their religious persuasions, are convinced that

Catholic priests as a body are superior to every

other class of men in intellectual and moral

qualities and in ability for leadership. Moreover,

the majority of our citizens are quite willing to

extend to every priest the respect and the defer-

ence that are consonant with this idea, provided

he measures up to their expectations. Now, pne

of the standards—I might even say the chief
standard—that people of the world use in judg-
ing the worth of the priest is his conformity or

non-conformity to the rules of good breeding.

If the priest can associate with the leading citi-

zens of a community and show himself fully

familiar with the social amenities, he is assured

of a permanent place of honor and influence. Let

it not be thought that this motive is identical

with ambition or personal pride. On the contrary,

it can be made a motive of a deeply supernatural

nature, because by acquiring and maintaining

the esteem of his fellow-citizens the priest pro-

motes the prestige of the Church.

Furthermore, culture and refinement certainly

add effectiveness to a priest's ministerial activi-

- 7 -



ties. Great numbers of our present-day Ameri-

can Catholics have had the advantage of a higher

education, one of the natural accompaniments of

which is an appreciation of the niceties of de-

portment. Undoubtedly, the gentlemanly priest

has a far greater influence over people of this

stamp than has the priest who lacks the flner

qualities of good breeding. In fact, the gentle

courtesy of pastor or curate has often led luke-

warm Catholics to resume the practice of their

religion—just as, unfortunately, it has some-
times happened that unjustiflable rudeness and

vulgarity on the part of a member of the clergy

has been the occasion for a Catholic to sever

himself from his Church.

Courtesy is an even greater asset when the

priest is dealing with non-Catholics. When a

person who is not of the household of the faith

meets a priest of reflnement, patently eager to

put* the stranger at ease, the favorable reaction

experienced by the non-Catholic may be the first

step toward the Catholic Church. We must never
forget that a concrete, living example of what

Catholicism can produce in the way of culture

and nobility of character may serve as a more

effective motivum credibilitatis, at least for the

start of a conversion, than the arguments found

in textbooks. On the contrary, the non-Catholic

coming into contact with a priest of uncouth

habits and repulsive demeanor is very liable to

contrast him unfavorably with the minister of

his own church, and decide to stay with the

latter. I fear that there are in our land today

not a few Protestants to whom the door of the

Catholic Church has been definitely closed by the

unfavorable impression of our religion they re-

- 8 -



ceived from priests who betrayed a lamentable

lack of affability and culture.

The most potent and most supernatural motive

of all for the priest to strive to be a gentleman

I would consider to be the example set by the

great High Priest, Jesus Christ. In Him whose

words and deeds should be the model of every

true priest we find the highest type of genuine

courtesy. Kindness and gentleness, sympathy for

the afflicted, compassion for the erring, forget-

fulness of self in His endeavor to provide for

the needs of others, deference to the laws and

customs of those with whom He lived—such
were the characteristics that made the Son of

God the most perfect gentleman that ever dwelt

on earth. And He was simply putting into prac-

tice in His daily life His own great command-

ment of love for His fellowmen.

Let me emphatically state that I have no

intention of implying that the technique of good

manners is on a par with those sublime virtues

that are the very heart and soul of the priestly

life—faith and hope and love for God and zeal
for souls and obedience and chastity and the

spirit of prayer. It is incomparably more im-

portant that the priest should observe the rubrics

of the Church at the altar than that he should

observe the rules of etiquette at the dinner table.

It is far better that he should know and practice

the art of conversing with God than that he

should be skilled in the phraseology and repartee

of fashionable conversation. A well-ordered
priestly soul is a much more desirable possession

than a well-groomed body. All this I willingly

admit—but why should we have to insist on such
comparisons? Is it impossible for a man to be

- 9 -



at the same time a pious priest and a polished

gentleman? Are the principles of priestly per-

fection incompatible with the requirements of

courtesy? There have indeed been holy priests,

and even canonized saints, who neglected—and
sometimes even appeared to despise—the ritual
of worldly etiquette, yet were universally es-

teemed and gained many souls for God. But in

their case the special outpouring of divine grace

made up for the lack of those qualities which

under ordinary circumstances would have been

necessary for them to win the favor and the

respect of those with whom they associated. The

average priest cannot expect such extraordinary

supernatural assistance, but must have recourse

to the normal means of gaining the good graces

of his fellowmen. And among such means is

surely to be accounted the habit of conducting

himself at all times as a gentleman.

- 10 -



CHAPTER I I

THE TRAINING SCHOOL OF THE

GENTLEMANLY PRIEST

The seminarian who would resolve to postpone

the study of philosophy and theology until he had

actually entered the ministry on the plea that he

would only then really need a knowledge of these

subjects would undoubtedly fail in his examina-

tions and accordingly be refused admittance to

the clerical state. In fact, if he even seriously

gave expression to such a principle, he would

probably be dismissed from the seminary as

being sadly deficient in judgment, if not positive-

ly unbalanced. Yet, a milder form of this mental

kink would show itself in the seminarian who

would resolve to wait until his entrance into the

ministry before beginning the study and the

practice of the rules of politeness. Even if an

individual of this type were to enter the ministry

with the firm resolution of living up to the re-

quirements of courtesy, it would be surprising

if he were successful in fulfilling it. His forma-

tive years have passed; and for him to become

suddenly a model of good manners after he had

consistently neglected the prescriptions of prop-

er deportment for many years would be almost

as extraordinary as that one who had been lax in

his studies during his seminary days should over

- 11 -



night become a skilled theologian at the very

inception of his priestly life. Just as the cleric

who aspires to be a learned priest must apply

himself diligently day after day to his ecclesias-

tical studies, so the seminarian who wishes to

become a gentlemanly priest must carefully learn

and constantly practice in all the circumstances

of daily life the requirements of good breeding.

The Catholic young man who enters the sem-

inary to study for the priesthood is familiar with

at least the more important elements of good

manners. In the majority of cases the sacerdo-

tal aspirant has come from a Catholic home the

daily life of which is permeated by the spirit of

mutual respect and sincere affection which is at

the same time the basis of genuine courtesy and

one of the natural fruits of the Christian re-

ligion. Moreover, in the Catholic college or
|

preparatory seminary the clerical candidate has
j

come in contact with priests or religious, whose i

cultural influence must have had some effect in

the moulding of his character. Furthermore, if

he is imbued with a sincere appreciation of the I

sublimity of the priesthood, he will strive to have

his deportment at all times conformable to the

dignity of the exalted office to which he is

aspiring.

At the same time, it is quite possible for the

young man entering the seminary to be deficient
i

in numerous details of etiquette. It may be that I

his home training did not include the finer points

of table deportment, the proper form of intro-

ductions, and other similar niceties of politeness.

Besides, for a number of years he has probably

associated with the same young men who are

now his seminary companions, and having grown

- 12 -



up with them from boyhood, he is liable to retain

in his social intercourse with them the unconven-

tional, and at times uncouth, manners that are

characteristic of the adolescent male in the com-

pany of his youthful friends. Moreover, the

seminarian is separated, for the greater part of

the year at least, from the companionship of his

mother and sisters—a companionship which un-
doubtedly exerts a very beneficial influence

toward the refinement of the growing youth.

Because of these several circumstances, the

young seminarian may be guilty of numerous

faults in the details of deportment; and unless

he makes earnest efforts to eradicate these

shortcomings during the years of preparation

for the priesthood, he will probably continue to

commit them the rest of his life. Adequate meas-

ures must therefore be taken in the seminary to

make the students gentlemen in the fullest sense

of the word.

On the part of the seminary authorities, in

their dealings with the students, two means

especially should be employed—instruction and
example. Instruction in correct deportment can

be given in the form of lectures or conferences,

accompanied by practical demonstrations of the

rules of etiquette. Points may be emphasized by

proposing in the form of cases various situations

in which a priest may find himself, and having

the students give a solution. This ‘‘case-method,”

somewhat similar to the casus conscientiae em-

ployed in the teaching of moral theology, is used

in the training of the West Point cadets, as can

be seen in their text-book Official Courtesy and

Customs of the Service, Even more effective than

group-instruction is the advice or admonition

- 13 -



given to the individual seminarian in private.

There is no reason why the director or superior

should not administer a timely and kindly rebuke

to the student who fails in some rule of etiquette,

just as he would reprove him for some breach of

the seminary rules. An admonition of this na-
ture, if properly given, will usually be well re-

ceived. I know of an experienced seminary head

who is accustomed to request any student who

is found to be neglectful about the tidiness of

his room to write him a note explaining his

attitude in this matter. This method, while free

from every trace of harshness, is found to be

most effective.

Not only the requirements of gentlemanly

conduct but also the reasons why the priest

should observe them should be included in the

course of instructions given to seminarians. No

serious-minded student can fail to be inspired

with the desire to become a gentlemanly priest if

he is frequently reminded that the dignity of the

sacerdotal state demands courteous deportment,

and that the ministry of a priest is rendered

much more effective if he is a perfect gentleman.

Above all, the duty of the priest to model his life

on that of Jesus Christ should be adduced as a

motive for constant kindness and consideration

for the feelings of others in word and in conduct.

As an accessory to the admonitions and in-

structions given by word to the seminarians,

some good books on etiquette should be available

to them, and they should be urged to become

thoroughly acquainted with their contents. A-

mong the authorities on priestly courtesy whose

works should be found in every seminary library

are Bishop Kelley, Father Arthur Barry O'Neil,

- 14 -



and Father Albert Rung, the author of Clerical

Courtesy. Nor. should works of a more general

character on the subject of politeness be neglect-

ed, such as the thorough treatise by Emily Post

entitled Etiquette.

However, since instruction without example is

of little avail, the authorities of the seminary

—

rector and director and professors—^must them-
selves meticulously conform to the norms of gen-

tlemanly conduct. In word and in deed the

seminary priest must constantly exemplify those

habits of courtesy and of refinement which he

wishes to inculcate on the students. Particularly

in his direct relations with the seminarians he

must always be careful to speak and act as a

gentleman should. Even a slight manifestation

of vulgarity or of crudeness in his cohversation

may neutralize all the good effect of a lecture on

courtesy. Nor does the fact that the students

are subject to him justify the seminary priest in

treating them in a supercilious manner or in

manifesting a gruff demeanor toward them. His

attitude toward every seminarian must be that

of one gentleman toward another.

But, however admirable may be the efforts of

the seminary authorities to teach by word and

example the art of good manners, the individual

seminarian will benefit little thereby unless he is

convinced of the importance of cultivating the

proprieties and of practicing them in his daily

life. They must become second nature to him

—

they must become so easy and natural that it will

be more irksome to be slipshod in his manners

than to be courteous. It is not necessary indeed

that he be familiar with all that is contained in

the books of etiquette. A man whose habitual

- 15 -



garb is a black suit and a Roman collar need not

know when a white tie is to be worn and when

a black, or on which occasions a tuxedo may be

used instead of a dress-coat. Moreover, there

are certain minutiae of the conventionalities

—

such as the precise details regarding the use of

visiting cards—the neglect of which by a priest
will not cause offense to sensible people because

they know that the priest is not a man of the

world. But there are a number of essential points

of etiquette which the priest—and accordingly
the seminarian, the priest in spe—must know
both theoretically and practically, if he wishes

to be recognized by persons of good breeding as

a gentleman. In the remaining chapters of this

booklet we shall present the chief features of the

deportment expected of the gentlemanly priest.

- 16 -



CHAPTER I I I

PERSONAL HABITS

The first essential of a gentleman is perfect

cleanliness of person. In former years, when the

living conditions of priests were often very prim-

itive, there could have been an excuse for one

who was somewhat lax in the observance of this

requirement
;
but nowadays, when sanitary facil-

ities are available to every one, there is no

justification for the priest who fails by defect in

the use of soap and water. Cleanliness postulates

the proper care of the teeth and the manicuring

of the nails. A gentleman will also shave as often
as it is necessary; he will have his hair cut at

suitable intervals, and keep it neatly combed. In

the intimacy of the family circle, the man or boy

who neglects these details of personal care will

probably be reminded of his failings by other

members of the household. But generally there

is no one sufficiently familiar—or perhaps suffi-
ciently courageous—to admonish a priest who is
deficient in such matters. It must therefore be a

subject of personal vigilance with him to keep

himself clean and tidy. He certainly has an ex-

alted supernatural motive for this in the fact

that he daily celebrates the holy sacrifice of the

Mass. Due respect for this august mystery de-

mands that he bring to the altar not only clean-

ness of soul but also cleanliness of body.

- 17 -



Neatness of attire is also one of the marks of

a gentleman. The priest is not expected to be a

fop or a fashion-plate—plain, inexpensive, even
well-worn clothing is not derogatory to the dig-

nity of his state. But it can always be neat and

clean. His trousers should be pressed; his shoes

should be polished
;
his linen, especially his collar,

should be clean. Any spots on his clothes should

be removed at once. They are especially noticea-

ble on black cloth, and on coat or vest they give

the impression that the wearer is not particularly

neat at table.

A due regard for the maintenance of neatness
in his room is also characteristic of the gentle-

manly priest. Usually the religious priest takes

care of this himself. The secular priest's room is

ordinarily swept and tidied by a servant; but this

fact should not make the priest careless. Rather

he should strive to make the task of the servant as

light as possible. His clothes should be hung in

the closet or on the rack, and not thrown on the

bed or on the chairs. His desk or table should

not be an unseemly jumble of papers and books.

The proper place for waste paper is the basket,

not the floor. If he is a smoker, he should be

careful to deposit the ashes in the proper recep-

tacle. In the bathroom the gentleman hangs up a

towel after using it, instead of throwing it into

the corner
;
and he puts his shaving material into

the cabinet, instead of leaving it exposed on the

wash-basin for the admiration of all who enter.

Especially when he is a guest in the house of

another priest or of a lay person must the priest

exhibit the virtue of neatness even in the small-

est details. For example, if on entering his room

he promptly deposits on the clean bed-spread the

^ 18 -



valise which has previously rested on the grimy

floor of a railroad smoking coach—^he will cer-
tainly incur the wrath of the housekeeper, and

perhaps even And himself no longer welcome in

that house. Let me note in passing that the

religious priest who fails against the proprieties

on the occasion of a visit is liable to drawn down

blame not only on himself individually but also

on his order.

A man's speech is an excellent criterion of
judging whether or not he is a gentleman. I do

not think it necessary m a treatise on clerical
etiquette to inveigh at length against the type of

stories that border on the obscene. Such speech

is disgraceful in the mouth of even a lay Catho-

lic; and if a priest were to descend to this kind

of language, it would be hard to believe that he

is really seriously convinced that his lips are

moistened by the precious Blood of Jesus Christ

morning after morning. There is also a type of

speech which, while perfectly innocent from the

moral standpoint, is decidedly vulgar, and this

manner of speech is unsuited to a gentleman, and

particularly a priest. Again, there are certain

topics which are discussed only when necessary,

and then only in the most euphemistic terms.

Certain occasions especially call for care in the

choice of a topic of conversation. The priest who

at the dinner table describes with a wealth of

detail the horrible cancer of the patient he at-

tended that morning may be a most zealous

minister of Christ, but his sense of propriety

is undeveloped.

The frequent use of slang expressions by a

priest is not * commendable. Such expressions

- 19 -



must particularly be avoided in the pulpit. In

familiar conversation the occasional use of a

slang word or phrase is justifiable; for it cannot

be denied that the English language as spoken in

America has been rendered more forceful and

colorful by many of the slang expressions that

have been added to it. However, this manner of

speech should never become habitual with the

priest. It is particularly deplorable when an edu-

cated man becomes so accustomed to slang that

he can no longer express his -ideas with facility

in correct words and phrases.

Mistakes in grammar and in the pronunciation

of ordinary words may be excusable in the boy

attending the grade school; but in a priest, who

has had the equivalent of a university education,

they are unpardonable. A cultured person is very
unfavorably impressed on meeting a priest who

fails in this respect—for example, by such ex-
pressions as ''We had went,'' "He don't," "They

ain't," "The book is laying on my table," or by
such pronunciations as "Toosdy" for "Tuesday,"

"filium" for "film," or by such misplacements of

accent as "ab-so-lo6t-ly" for "ab-so-lute-ly" or

"in-fiu-ence" for "in-flu-ence." On the other hand,

it is a fault to intersperse one's conversation

with studied expressions. Thus, according to

Emily Post {Etiquette, p. 62) simpler phrases,

such as "Let me help you," "I will find out" are

preferable from the standpoint of good manners

to more elaborate phrases, such as "Permit me to

assist you," "I will ascertain."

A gentleman tempers his speech so that his
auditors can hear him without difficulty, yet will

not be annoyed or embarrassed by his loudness of

- 20 -



tone. It is not edifying to hear a priest in a

public place, such as in a railroad coach, carrying

on a conversation with a companion in a voice

that can be heard by every one else in the

vicinity. Laughter may be hearty ; but it should

never be offensively boisterous. In general, any

conduct that fenders the individual conspicuous

in a public place is to be avoided. The priest may

be able to whistle in a way that would make a

canary envious; but if he gives vent to this

artistic ability by going along a public thorough-

fare whistling the latest popular song, his aes-

thetic urge is clouding his sense of proper de-

portment.

There is even a proper way for a gentleman to

walk, although of course too much mechanical

precision is not expected in this matter. But at

any rate, the gentleman does not stride along

like a contestant in a walking-match, nor does he

plant his feet with a thud that makes the floor or

the stairs tremble. When seated, a gentleman

does not sprawl out, with his feet shoved before

him so that the unwary are liable to be tripped.

Moreover, the custom that some have at table of

hooking their feet about the legs of the chair is

better adapted to the lunch counter than to a

dining room.

Certain habits, usually engendered by nervous-

ness, must be avoided by one who wishes to be

ranked as a gentleman. It is very unpleasant to

see a man vigorously scratching his head, and

even more offensive to see him picking his nose.

Coughing and spitting can usually be avoided in

company
;
and when they are necessary they

should be done as unobtrusively as possible. The

21 -



man who buries his hands in his pockets and

rhythmically jingles their contents, and . the man

who keeps his coat open and emphasizes the fact

that he is wearing suspenders by pulling them

forward with his thumbs—these are individuals
who will probably not be invited a second time

to the home of cultured people.

- 22 -



CHAPTER I V

COURTESY TOWARDS OTHERS

The basis of courtesy toward other human

beings from the supernatural standpoint—^which
is expected to be the predominant motive in a

priest—is the sublime truth that they all possess
immortal souls which are stamped with the im-

age of God and have been redeemed by the blood

of our Savior, and are at least potentially mem-

bers of the Mystical Body of Christ. The priest

who realizes the full import of this Catholic

principle will manifest some measure of respect

toward every one with whom he comes in contact,
whether it be child or adult, saint or sinner, rich

person or beggar. Naturally the degree of respect

and its outward manifestations vary with the

merits and office of the person concerned. Toward

those in high civil positions he should also be

most respectful, as befits a loyal citizen. The

gentlemanly priest will likewise be courteous

toward all his fellow-priests. The young priest

may regard his older confrere as an old fogy and

a crank; but even though this judgment may

have some basis in fact, he is not thereby justi-

fied in expressing disdain for his senior in speech

and in conduct. The elderly priest may vividly

remember his younger colleague as a little mis-

chievous boy who served his Mass only a few

- 23 -



years ago, but he should never forget that the

character of the eternal priesthood has now ele-

vated that little boy above every earthly poten-

tate. In their associations with one another

priests need not be stiff and stilted. Jest and

joviality are not forbidden. But no good priest,

conscious of his own exalted dignity and that of

his fellows, will ever go beyond that point where

wit and humor become insult and vulgarity. A-

bove all, anything bordering on ‘‘horse-play,’’

which may be tolerated in a preparatory-school

student, is banned to the mature cleric, whether

he be seminarian or priest.

However, in his dealings with others the priest

can fail by excessive obsequiousness as well as

by lack of respect. There is nothing praiseworthy

from the standpoint of humility or obedience or

courtesy in a bearing that betokens extreme

timidity. There is no reason why the priest,

elevated as he is by his sacred office, should

become frightened and non-plussed when he is in

the company of some eminent personage. The

truth of the matter is 'that the truly great are

very simple and unassuming, and wish to be

treated without excessive marks of deference. It

is only the man who lacks genuine greatness of

soul that is constantly solicitous that others do

not forget the position he happens to have at-

tained in civil or ecclesiastical circles.

Courtesy demands that 'the priest learn and

use the titles proper to dignitaries of church and

of state. Generally speaking, there are two sets

of titles—the formal, which is used in sermons,
addresses, or letters of an official character, and

the informal which is employed in familiar con-

versation. Thus, the formal title of a deacon or

- 24 -



subdeacon is ‘‘The Reverend John Brown'" or

“Reverend Sir"
;

the informal title, “Mister

Brown" or “Sir." The corresponding titles for a

priest, whether secular or religious, are “The

Reverend William Smith" or “Reverend Father"

and “Father Smith," or “Father." “Your Rever-

ence" although still employed by some of the

good old Irish stock as a tribute of their deep

reverence for the priest, cannot be regarded as

an ordinary title.*

A monsignor, of whatever rank, has the in-
formal title of “Monsignor"

;
but the formal title

varies
—

“Very Reverend Monsignor" for a papal

chamberlain, and “Right Reverend Monsignor"

for a domestic prelate or for a protonotary apos-

tolic. A bishop or archbishop in conversation is
addressed as “Your Excellency"—though if one is
quite familiar with him, “Bishop" or “Archbish-

op" is sometimes permissible. The formal title

of a bishop or archbishop is “Your Most Reverend

Excellency" (Acta Ap. Sedis, 1931, p. 22—A few
Monsignori also have the privilege of being

called “Most Reverend Excellency," as this de-

cision of the Ceremonial Congregation states.

However, these dignitaries are all members of

the Roman curia).

* Until comparatively recent times in England

and in America only religious priests received the

title “Father,^^ and secular priests were designated

as “Reverend MisteF' or “Reverend Sir." This dis-

tinction is still observed in some parts of Conti-

nental Europe. It was chiefly through the efforts of

Cardinal Manning that secular priests have received

the title “Father" in England (The Wilfrid Wards,

p. 209).

- 25 -



A cardinal is ‘'Your Eminence/' even in the
most familiar conversation. This same designa-

tion is frequently used as a formal mode of

address; but something more Avould seem to be

demanded. The correct salutation for formal oc-

casions ’would seem to be “Most Honored, Emi-

nent and Reverend Lord" (Ecclesiastical Review,

1912 I, p. 141). If this seems rather formidable,

one might compromise on “Most Eminent Lord

Cardinal." The Pope is “Your Holiness" or

“Most Holy Father," whether in private conver-

sation or on formal occasions.

The informal title for a mayor is “Mr. Mayor,"

the formal title “Your Honor." The respective

titles for a governor are “Governor Green" and

“Your Excellency." A Senator, -whether federal
or state, is called simply “Senator Dunn," in

both formal and informal address—never “Mr.
Senator" except by a servant or a subordinate.

However, a member of the President's cabinet is

“Mr. Secretary," and a member of the Supreme

Court is “Mr. Justice" or (the head of this body)

“Mr. Chief Justice." A congressman or a mem-
ber of a state legislature is plain “Mr. Ralston."

In writing to one of these officials one addresses

the letter “The Honorable John Smith" and then

appends the particular office the gentleman holds.

The chief executive of the United States is “Mr.

President," and a letter to him is addressed sim-

ply “The President, Washington, D.C." Similar-

ly, the Vice-President is “Mr. Vice-President,"

and his mail bears the address “The Vice-Presi-

dent, Washington, D.C." Army and navy officers,

are given their respective titles on formal occa-

sions—for example, in introductions—but in
familiar conversation only those above the rank

- 26 -



of lieutenant are designated by their official ca-

pacity, while a lieutenant, ensign, etc., is “Mister

Wilson/' (E. Post, Etiquette, p. 496).

In making an introduction, the lower in rank

or seniority is presented to the higher. The

simplest form of an introduction is merely to

repeat the names of the two persons, the more

worthy first—for example, “Monsignor Dalton,
Father Hunt." One may also say, “Monsignor

Dalton, may I present Father Hunt." It is not

considered good form to say: “Father Smith,

meet Father Jones" or “Father Smith, shake

hands with Father Jones." The general rule for

an introduction between a man and a woman is

that the former be presented to the latter; but

in the case of a church dignity—cardinal, bishop
or monsignor—^the reverse is followed. In fact,
according to the outstanding authority in eti-

quette, Mrs. Post, it is not incorrect to present a

woman to any priest (Etiquette, p. 5). I would

suggest as a solution that when the priest is

fulfilling his ministerial duties a woman be intro-

duced to him; but when there is question of a

mere social meeting he be presented to her. Thus,

when a pastor is inducting his new curate as

director of the sodality, and wishes to make him

acquainted with its president, he says: “Father

Newcome, Miss Harding." But when a priest

wishes a clerical confrere to meet his mother, he

says: “My mother. Father Temple."

The proper thing to say on being introduced

is: “How do you do?" When a man is introduced

to another man, they shake hands; when he is

introduced to a lady, he merely bows to her. If,

however, she offers her hand, he shakes hands

with her. The expression “Pleased to meet you"

- 27 -



on being introduced is not considered good form

;

though on occasions one may vary the ‘'How do

you do V* with such phrases as “I am very happy

to meet you’' or “This is a great pleasure”

—

supposing, of course, that there is some special

reason why this particular introduction is very

acceptable.

A gentleman, when meeting a lady of his ac-
quaintance on the street, or when meeting an-

other gentleman in the company of a lady raises

his hat and bows. It might be well to add that

the priest should draw no distinctions in this

matter based on financial or social ratings. His

greeting to the humble washerwoman trudging

along in her bonnet and shawl should be just as

courteous as to the banker’s wife riding by in

her stream-lined car. However, when the priest

is carrying the Blessed Sacrament all signs of

recognition should be avoided, as far as possible.

Perhaps a slight and fleeting bow to a non-

Catholic, who might otherwise be offended, might

be tolerated. But Catholics will sense the occa-

sion and readily understand why their priest is

giving them no sign of greeting.

It is essential for a gentleman to be a gentle

man. The priest especially, as another Christ,

must show forth in his words and conduct the

patience and the gentleness of Him Who said:

“Learn , of Me, for I am meek and humble of

heart.” Moreover, his kindness must be universal

in its scope. The priest who is courteous and

suave toward the exquisite members of the young

ladies’ sodality but grouchy and querulous

toward the old housekeeper whose charms have

long since departed does not show himself a very

- 28 -



apt pupil in learning the meekness of his Divine

Master.

Above all, the priest must be an irreproachable

gentleman when dealing with others in his minis-

terial capacity. There are times when he may

assume an informal manner of speech in the

pulpit—for example, in catechetical instructions
to the young, or in conferences to a small sodali-

ty. But ever and always any trace of buffoonery

or vulgarity is taboo, as unworthy of the ambas-

sador of Christ. Sometimes the priest may find

it necessary to condemn vice
;
and he can lawfully

imitate the vehemence and the frankness of our

Blessed Savior, but that does not mean that he

may indulge in biting sarcasm or bitter personal-

ities. Duty may demand that he treat of matters

concerning the sixth commandment; but on no

account may he descend to coarse expressions or

crude allusions.

In the confessional the patience of the priest

is often severely tried;* yet he should make every

effort to restrain the slightest manifestation of

temper, and to be kind and gentle even when he

must employ a certain measure of severity. It

must subsequently be a source of keen regret to

a priest if because of his ill humor and unguard-

ed language a penitent leaves the confessional

with the threat never to return. True, the peni-

tent is at fault for not receiving fhe rebuke with

the proper submission—but is the priest entirely
guiltless ?

Certain unpleasant mannerisms in his relations

with others must be avoided by every gentleman.

To monopolize the conversation—especially if one
has nothing very original or interesting to say

—

- 29 -



is an inexcusable breach of deportment. It is

equally blameworthy to stare long and fixedly at

a person, particularly when he has some external

peculiarity which makes him sensitive to such

close scrutiny. Similarly, it is discourteous to

direct the attention of one’s companion to a third

person by pointing the finger at this latter. If

a gentleman wishes to specify a certain individu-

al in a group, he describes him in words. For

example, at an entertainment in the parish-hall,

the pastor can tell his visiting brother-priest:

''The stout, bald gentleman coming down the

aisle is Senator Goodwin” or "The lady seated

in the second row and wearing a yellow hat with

a red feather gave $1000 for our new organ.”

- 30 -



CHAPTER V

THE ETIQUETTE OF THE TABLE

Eating is one of the functions common to man

and to beast. It therefore behooves man to show

himself superior to the beast by rendering the

act of taking food a human act. The first way

to do this is for man to conform his desires for

food and drink to the principles of Christian

temperance. Another way is to observe the laws

of etiquette prescribing in detail the manner in

which cultured people shall eat and drink. As is

evident, the purpose of the rules of table deport-

ment is to make the act of nourishing the body

aesthetic and free from disgusting features. The

priest at table should practice not only the virtue

of temperance enjoined by the divine law, but

also the rules of etiquette prescribed by social

usage.

The first and most important commandment of

table deportment is to do nothing that might

cause disgust or annoyance to those with whom
one is eating. A wide variety of faults in violation
of this rule can be imagined. Probably the most

flagrant offence is to chew one's food in such a

way that the process of mastication becomes

visible to the entire company. Another unpleas-

ant habit is to speak with the mouth full so that

the vicinity is generously sprayed with morsels.

- 31 -



When a person is spoken to at table, he should
not reply until he has swallowed what he has in

his mouth.

Other infringements of the etiquette of the

table are: to eat too rapidly, to stuff the mouth,

to bend down to within a few inches of the plate

when eating, to smack the lips, to drink soup or

other liquid with audible gusto, to tilt back the

head when drinking so that the glass or cup

becomes a kind of tent over the nose, to scru-

tinize the dish carefully and then, only after a

sufficient examination, to pick what is best.

Every one with a modicum of common sense will

realize that such habits are utterly unbecoming

a gentleman.

.
The napkin should be placed across the knees,

half or three-quarters way unfolded. Only chil-

dren are allowed the use of a napkin as a bib.

At most, a gentleman could tuck the edge of the

napkin between the lower buttons of his vest or

coat. It must be remembered that the chief pur-

pose of the napkin is to wipe the mouth, especial-

ly after drinking. The feet should be placed in

front of the chair—not underneath, and above
all, not curled around the legs of the chair in

lunch-counter fashion. The hands, when not em-

ployed, should rest in the lap; only when one is

actually eating are the forearms placed on the

edge of the table.

When the table has been properly set, there is

no doubt as to. the order in which the knives,

forks and spoons are to be used. One begins

with the utensil farthest from the plate and

works inward. One must not toy with the imple-

ments, nor wipe the plates with the napkin.

When a course is finished, the utensils are left

- 32 -



on the plate, to be removed by the waiter * The

knife and fork are laid side by side across the

plate, not crossed.

The spoon and the fork are grasped like a pen,

not held in the fist like a trowel. Whfen one is

taking soup or other liquid the spoon is pushed

away from the body; but the reverse process is

employed in taking solids, such as ice-cream.

Liquids are taken from the side of the spoon;

solids from the tip. When soup is served in a

cup, one takes about half with a spoon, and the

rest is drunk directly from the cup.

The cutting of meat is done with the fork in

the left, the knife in the right hand. There are

two ways of conveying it to the mouth—the
American or zig-zag method, in which the fork

is shifted to the right hand, and the European'

method in which the fork remains in the left

hand. Either way is permissible. In taking meat,

the prongs of the fork may be turned either up

or down. It is not proper to pile meat and

vegetables on the fork at the same time. Salad

is usually eaten only with a fork ; though the use

of a knife—but not the steel knife used for meat
—is not utterly forbidden.
When a large number of persons are dining,

the first to be served waits until several others

have been served, and then begins. However,

those who are served first should eat more slowly,

so that all may finish about the same time. When
the company is small—-four or five persons—it
is proper not to begin a course until all have

been served.

One should not reach too far for a dish

—

especially when for this purpose it is necessary

- 33 -



to rise from the chair. A person can always ask
his neighbor to pass what is beyond his own

reach. Above all, one should never reach for

something over another dish, with the probable

danger of dipping his sleeve into its contents.

Certain foods are eaten with the fingers—for
example, olives, radishes, artichokes, celery. Even

asparagus may be eaten in this way if the stalks

are not too long, in which case they should be cut

and eaten with a fork. Before eating celery, one

cuts oif the leafy portion. A banana should be
peeled and broken into smaller pieces before be-

ing conveyed to the mouth
;
or it can be eaten

with a fork.

The proper eating of bread and butter is an

important element of table manners. Unless there

• are individual butter-plates, a piece of butter

should first be transferred to one’s own plate

with the butter-knife. Then the bread should

be broken—not cut—into pieces, each large
enough for two or three bites, then buttered and

eaten. It is absolutely forbidden to butter a

whole slice and then proceed to demolish it,

leaving a dentist’s model .of the front teeth, as

the attack progresses. It seems hardly necessary

to state that one is never permitted to build a

skyscraper of bread, butter and jam. One who

would be guilty of such audacity would probably

not hesitate to lick his fingers after his magnifi-

cent structure had been consumed.

Parts of food that must be removed after

having been taken into the mouth—such as fish-
bones and fruit-pits—should be transferred to
the hand as unobtrusively as possible and laid on

the plate. They must never be spat out on the

plate directly.

- 34 -



The coffee-spoon should be removed from the

cup and placed in the saucer as soon as the

contents have been stirred. To drink with the

spoon in the cup is very inelegant, as well as

dangerous to the drinker's eye. The knife and

fork, when laid down, should never be propped

against the plate, but should be placed side by

side on it.

Accidents at table, whether to oneself or to

others, should be given as little notice as possible.

If a guest upsets a cup of coffee, h.e calmly puts

a napkin over the spot, or leaves the matter to

the care of the waiter. If a stout gentleman

drops spinach on his shirt-front, his neighbor

acts as if he were utterly unaware of the calami-

ty. If the waiter drops a trayful of dishes behind

a guest, he does not wink an eyelash, but keeps

on calmly with his eating pr talking. If he finds

a caterpillar in his salad, he does not hold it up

triumphantly and cry out: “See what I found";

but conducts the .innocent intruder tb a place of

privacy under a lettuce-leaf. Maurice Francis

Egan relates that a guest at a dinner deliberately

swallowed a caterpillar with his salad to save his

host from embarrassment. But such conduct

is heroic.

At a formal dinner a person may refuse a

course entirely, but at an informal dinner it is

well to partake of something from every course.

What about asking for a second helping? At a

formal dinner this is not done, but it is quite

permissible at a small home dinner—for example,
in a rectory where only the pastor and his assis-

tants are present. Every request at table, even

if it is only for a glass of water, is to be made

to the host, and not directly to the waiter. An

- 35 -



exception can be made at a large dinner, where

the waiter can be directly asked for bread, water,

a knife or fork, etc. A person thanks a waiter
for extra service, but not for the ordinary

service.

Doubtless the many details I have mentioned

in this chapter seem far-fetched and exaggerated

to some of my readers. Yet, I would beg all to
remember that often the influence of a priest

with people of the world will be considerably

lessened if he neglects these niceties. Further-

more, it is a splendid exercise in self-restraint

and mortification to observe punctiliously the

laws of table deportment. Whatever excuse a

priest may allege if he is guilty of poor table

manners, the underlying cause usually is selfish-

ness. He is not willing to undertake the restric-

tions and the self-denial entailed by a strict

conformity to the rules of etiquette. And it ill

behooves one who is the earthly representative

of Jesus Christ to conduct hin>self in a manner

that savors of selfishness.

- 36 -



CHAPTER V I

ADDITIONAL RULES OF GOOD MANNERS

This little treatise on priestly etiquette can

suitably be terminated by the brief exposition of

certain details of good breeding, not contained in

the foregoing chapters:

(1). Correspondence :—The first rule, both of
charity and of good manners, in regard to epis-

tolary correspondence is, ‘‘Every letter that de-

mands an answer should be answered as soon as

possible/’ There are certain letters which the

priest is undoubtedly obliged to answer—for ex-
ample, those which contain stipends for Masses,

those proposing moral or doctrinal questions, in-

vitations to preach, etc. Others certainly require

no reply, such as acknowledgments for some fa-

vor. Others again are of such a nature that

one may doubt whether or not an answer is called

for—for example, a letter of congratulation or
appreciation for an article the priest has written.

In case of doubt, it is always better to send a

reply. Letters of reply should always be brief,

simple, and to the point. A very commendable
resolution for the young priest at the commence-

ment of his ministry would be the firm determi-

nation to answer every letter requiring an answer

on the same day that he receives it.

- 37 -



One prefixes a letter with the name and ad-

dress of the one to whom it is being sent—^thus
*'Dr. Charles Clayton, Cleveland, Ohio.” Then,

''Dear Doctor Clayton.” A gentleman writing to
a lady with whom he is well acquainted address-
es her as "Dear Mrs. Elder,” but if he does not

know her intimately he begins, "My dear Mrs.
Elder.” The usual close of a letter is : "Sincerely

yours” or "Faithfully yours.” A letter to a
superioir is terminated by the phrase "Respect-

fully yours” or (especially in the case of a high

ecclesiastical or civil ruler) ‘'Your obedient serv-

ant.” The priest generally concludes his letters

to a brother priest with "Yours in Christ” or

"Yours in Domino.” Of course, letters to a near

relative or very close friend begin: "Dear John”

and end "Devotedly yours” or "Yours affection-

ately.” The priest does not prefix his signature

with "Reverend” unless he is writing to some

one who is unaware of his ministerial status, in

which case he puts "Rev.” in parentheses before

his name.

In the address on the envelope, and in the

superscription of the letter itself, one uses the

definite article when an adjective of distinction

is used, such as "Reverend” or "Honorable”—for
example, "The Reverend Francis Lydon,” "The

Honorable James Marshall.” A married woman
always retains her husband’s Christian name

"Mrs. Henry Weldon”—even though she is a
widow. A letter sent to a married couple is ad-
dressed "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith.” This is one

occasion when a man takes precedence over a

woman.

(2) Apologies :—The best form of brief apolo-
gy is: "Excuse me.” The phrase "Pardon me”

-38-



is one of those expressions that are not recog-

nized in polite society, like ‘‘Pleased to meet

you/' Another approved form of apology, which

can well be used when the incident involved is of

trifling import—as when one has inadvertently
jostled some one in a crowded street-car—is
“I'm sorry" or simply “Sorry." A true gentle-
man is always ready to apologize when some

untoward incident has occurred, even though he

feels that the other party has been principally

at fault.

(3). Smoking :—No one is scandalized nowa-
days at the priest who finds soothing comfort in

his pipe or cigar or cigarette. Yet, there are

times and places when courtesy demands that

the priest abstain from smoking. Sometimes,

when visiting a sick person he may feel inclined

to indulge; but if he has reason to believe that

the smoke may irritate the throat or lungs of

the patient, he should refrain. In the company

of ladies a gentleman always asks permission to

smoke, - unless they themselves have explicitly

invited him to do so.

;

Smokers should be careful that this habit

cause no disgust to others in the form of black-

: ened teeth, disagreeable breath, etc. If the priest

I

smokes immediately before entering the confes-

I

sional the use of a lozenge or of a mouth wash

would be appreciated by his penitents.

Should a priest smoke on the street ? I suppose

' there could be different opinions on this subject

;

and undoubtedly the solution would have to de-

ipend in great measure on local and personal

!

conditions. Father Rung, in his CLERICAL
COURTESY recommends the following theory of
a certain priest. “He believed that smoking was

- 39 -



an occupation of leisurCi Accordingly, he con-

cluded that to smoke on the street at times when

a priest might reasonably be considered at lei-

sure, as in the late afternoon or in the evening,

might be tolerated. Smoking however during so-

called working hours, he thought, might give

people occasion to judge the priest a man of

leisure at all times’' (p. 23). However, others

believe that the priest should never smoke on

the street.

In connection with smoking a word on the

chewing of gum may not be out of place. Of

course, there is nothing objectionable in this

habit if it is done privately; but certainly, this

should never be indulged in on the street or in

any public place. At most, it might be tolerated

on a train, when a person is taking a long trip

and can enjoy a certain measure of privacy be-

hind his book or paper.

(4). Tips :—The practice of tipping waiters,
taxi-drivers, etc. is an abuse

;
yet, it is a received

custom, and since employers expect gratuities to

be given to their employees, and diminish their

wages accordingly, we must conform to this

custom. The priest must, on the one hand, ex-

hibit generosity in tipping, for it would be detri-

mental to the dignity of the clerical state for him

to show himself parsimonious. Yet, on the other

hand, he must not be so liberal in his donations

as to give the impression that priests abound in

wealth. In general, a waiter or taxi-driver is

given a gratuity df 10% of the bill—but never
less than 10 cents. Twenty-five cents is given to

a porter for carrying an ordinary amount of

baggage an ordinary distance—for example,
from a station to a train. The Pullman car

- 40 -



porter is given from twenty-five to fifty cents

for a day trip, fifty cents to a dollar for a trip

by night. For a trip across the ocean in the first

cabin an individual passenger is expected to ex-

pend about twenty-five dollars in tips—for exam-
ple, five dollars to the room steward, five dollars

to the table steward, two dollars to the bath

steward, two dollars to the deck steward, etc.

(E. Post, p. 668

—

**Vogue/' p. 317—Rung, Cleri-
cal Courtesy,' p. 57).

- 41 -



CONCLUSION

The practice of good manners is simply the

application to the ordinary deeds of daily life of

the Master's great commandment: “Thou shalt

love thy neighbor as thyself." Certainly then,

the priest, bound in a special way to imitate the

Son of God, should be an outstanding exemplar

of courtesy. And it cannot be doubted that

to those priests who portray in their conduct the

dignified courtesy of their Divine Model as they

go about their mission of comforting the sick

and consoling the sorrowing and teaching the ig-

norant and raising up the sinner, and making

smooth the rough ways of life, there will be

granted a special aid from on high to bring to

their works abundant fruitfulness. Surely the

due appreciation of the sublime example of po-

liteness given by Him Who is the Alpha and the
Omega of the priestly life cannot fail to inspire

every earnest priest and seminarian with the

laudable ambition ever to be a gentlemanly priest

and a priestly gentleman.

- 42 -





1

1

i