• Who Changed The Sabbath?

• Whafs Wrong With Bingo?

• Why Blame The Bottle Instead
Of The Man

• The False Alarm About The

"Roman Hierarchy"

• Divorce Granted

• Don't Marry A Catholic!

• "Brother, Are You Saved?"

• Don't We All Worship The Same God

• Pomp . . . But Not Pompous

• Is It True That Catholic Countries

Are Backward?

No 15



Sp cc

Ca pavv\

WAf the Knights of Cofumhus

Advertise Catholic Faith

The reason is simple. We Catho-

lics wantour non-Catholic friends

and neighbors to know us as we

really are and not as we are some

times mistakenly represented.

We are confident that when

our religious Faith is better un-

derstood by those who do not

share it, mutual understanding

will promote the good-will which

is so necessary in a predominant-

ly Christian country whose gov-

ernment is designed to serve all

the people—no matter how much

their religious convictions may

diflFer.

American Catholics are con-

vinced that as the teachings of

Christ widely and firmly take

hold of the hearts and conduct

of our people, we shall remain

free in the sense that Christ

promised (John VIII, 31-38),

and in the manner planned by

the Founding Fathers of this

republic.

Despite the plainly stated will

of the Good Shepherd that there

be "one fold and one shepherd,”

the differences in the understand-

ing of Christ’s teaching are

plainly evident. It has rightfully

been called "the scandal of a

divided Christianity.”

If there is anything which will

gather together the scattered

flock of Christ, it is the nation-

wide understanding of the

Savior, what He did and how He

intended mankind to benefit by

the Redemption.

To this end, we wish our

fellow-Americans to become ac-

quainted with the teachings of

Christ as the Catholic Church

has faithfully presented them,

since the day the apostles in-

vaded the nations of the world

in willing and courageous obedi-

ence to Christ’s command: "Go,

therefore, and make disciples of

all nations .
.

(Matt. XXVIII,

19).

SUPREME COUNCIL

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD. ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

© Knights of Columbus 1949



WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?

There is a great deal of

confused talk about “the

Sabbath.” This confusion

has been exploited by some

to the extent that they have

founded new religions bas-

ed almost exclusively on

this single issue. A vastly
greater number of sincere

persons have been pro-

foundly disturbed by it.

Obviously, the question needs

reasonable discussion.

It is said, for instance, that

Catholics ( and most Protestants as

well) do not observe the Sabbath

as instituted by God and recorded

in the Ten Commandments (Ex.

XX: 8-11). This happens to be

true—the Jewish day of rest was
never an obligation for Christians.

The Explanation

It is also asserted that the Cath-

olic Church changed the official

day of divine worship from Sat-

urday to Sunday. In one sense,

this is also true, but it needs to be

carefully explained. (It is, inci-

dentally, a remarkable inconsist-

ency that many non-Catholics who

reject the authority of the Catholic

Church, follow her lead in this im-

portant matter.)

Finally, we are told that in

settling upon Sunday as the day

sM

of worship in preference to

Saturday, the Catholic

Church has changed the

law of God. This is utterly

false.

To understand the Third

Commandment (the Fourth,

as numbered by most

Protestants), we must first

ask: What are the Ten

Commandments? This is

an important question, as there

are some who believe that Chris-

tians are no longer bound by the

Ten Commandments. The element

of truth in this belief must be

properly understood.

The Faw of Moses, as we read

in the Book of Exodus, was re-

vealed to the Hebrew people by

God. It was given to them be-

cause they were God’s chosen

people, and from them He was to

bring forth the promised Redeem-

er of the human race. The Law

laid down for them the religion

with which they were to worship

God. In particular, it impressed

upon their consciousness, the fact

of sin, the need of redemption,

and the importance of pleasing

God. Probably a major part of

these rules that we find scattered

throughout the first books of the

Old Testament already had been

1



long practiced among the Jews be-

fore the time of Moses. Some of

the laws were undoubtedly di-

rectly revealed at Sinai for the

first time, but the rest were in all

likelihood existing laws and cus-

toms that God merely confirmed.

The Precepts

The full number of the Law’s

precepts is counted in the hun-

dreds. They gire principally as fol-

lows: The Ten Commandments

(two versions — Ex. XX: 2-17;
Deut. V: 6-21)

;
the “Book of the

Covenant” (Ex. XX: 20 — XXIII:
33) ; the “Deuteronomic Code”

(the entire book of Deuterono-

my)
;
the “Law of Holiness,” (Lev.

XVIl-XXVI)
;
the “Priests’ Code”

(the rest of Leviticus, the Book of

Numbers, and part of Exodus)

.

In brief, the entire Law takes up

the four books of Exodus, Levit-

icus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

Obviously, the Ten Command-

ments form but a tiny portion

of the entire Law.

The precepts fall into several

types — for example, some are
ceremonial, some moral, some

dietary (the distinction of foods).

Some are merely the natural laws

of human reason — it is to these
that St. Paul refers when he says

that “the Gentiles, who have no

law, do by nature what the Law

prescribes” (Rom. 11:14). Man’s

very reason tells him that it is

wrong to lie, to steal, to murder,

and the like. These laws oblige all

men of all times. They would have

been God’s law even if He had not

seen fit to confirm them solemnly

on Sinai.

The laws that existed simply

for the Jews, however, were tem-

porary. They were a preparation

for Christ, who was to free men

from the burden of sin and the

Law which reminded men of sin.

Christ came not to destroy, but to

fulfill the Law. God’s unchanging

Law — the purpose to which the
Jewish observances pointed — He
did not destroy. But the prophetic

precepts of the Law — rules for
ceremonies, feasts and rites, for

diet — all these were fulfilled in
Christ. Having been fulfilled, they

had no further meaning. They

pointed to the coming of Christ;

but after Christ’s coming, they

could no longer point.

Mosaic Law Ended

The New Testament makes it

abundantly clear that the Mosaic

Law no longer obliges. St. Paul’s

Epistles, notably Romans, Galati-

ans, and Hebrews, emphasize this

over and over again. St. Peter was

vouchsafed a special vision in

which God drove the point home

to him (Acts X: 9-16)
;
and at the

first Church Council held by the

Apostles in Jerusalem, he insisted

that Christ’s followers were no

longer under the “yoke which

neither we nor our fathers have

been able to bear.” Rather, he

said, “we are saved through the

grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts

XV: 10-11).

Where did this leave the Ten

Commandments? They no longer

remained as precepts of the Mosa-

ic Law, for the Mosaic Law was

2



gone. Only to the extent that they

contained part of the Law that men

recognize “by nature,” as St. Paul

explained it, and only to the ex-

tent that they had been incorpor-

ated by Christ into His own com-

mandments, did they continue to

express the will of God for man-

kind.

Of the Ten Commandments, all

but one express the natural law.

All men of reason, whether they

accept Biblical revelation or not,

acknowledge that it is wrong to

steal, to lie, to murder, to worship

false gods, to treat sacred things

irreverently, to commit adultery,

to be avaricious, to dishonor one’s

parents. Further, they will ac-

knowledge that it is a duty to

worship God. But reason tells us

of no special day to keep sacred

to the Lord. God Himself would

have to tell us this—just as He
told the Jews to rest on Saturday.

Day of Rest

The Sabbath rule alone of the

Ten Commandments was not part

of God’s natural law. It had been

fulfilled and thus it passed away

like the laws against eating pork,

or the laws commanding ritual

circumcision.

It is well to bear in mind also

that this Sabbath law for the Jews

had been purely negative. It set

Saturday aside not as a day of

special worship but as a day of

rest. It was mentioned thus in

every case (Ex. XX; 10; XVI:

22-30; XXXV :3; Num. XV:32-
36, and the very “Sabbath” (He-

brew, Sabbath) means “rest.”

“Sanctification of the Sabbath”

according to the Jewish Law mere-

ly meant that no one did work. It

did not prescribe any special reli-

gious worship. It is true, as we

read in the life of Christ, the Jews

later had special synagogue serv-

ices on the Sabbath. But these

were developed by Jewish tradi-

tions, and were not contained in

the Law. The synagogues them-

selves are Jewish traditions. The

worship prescribed in the Law of

the Bible — the sacrifices — were
to be held every day, and in the

one Temple.

Christ and Sabbath

Christ Himself observed the

Jewish Sabbath. He observed this

law as He did that of ritual cir-

cumcision — not that He was
bound by it, but that He wanted

to give men an example of obedi-

ence to authority. Until He had

proclaimed the end of the Mosaic

dispensation, men were under this

Law. Again, in preaching to the

crowds in the synagogues on the

Sabbath, He had the best oppor-

tunity to address large multitudes.

The Apostles, too, observed the

Sabbath, as did most of the Jewish

converts to Christianity. Although

they were no longer obliged by the

law, by observing it they found it

much easier to win Jewish converts

to Christianity. For the same

reason, St. Paul circumcised Tim-

othy (Acts XVI: 3). The Gentile

converts had no such problems,

and they of course did not observe

the Jewish customs in any way.

In Acts XX: 7, for example, and

3



I Cor. XVI : 2, we see that their

meeting day for Christian worship

had already become the first of

the week, Sunday.

St. Paul on Sabbath

And even though St. Paul and

other Jewish Christians kept vari-

ous parts of the Mosaic law, in-

cluding the Sabbath, they were

quick to deny that there was any

obligation to, do so. St. Paul, in

fact, rebuked the Galatians pre-

cisely for tending to the observ-

ance of Jewish “days and months

and seasons and years” (Gal. IV:

10). To the Collossians he not

only emphasized that the Jewish

Sabbath no longer obliged, but he

gave the very fundamental reason:

that it ivas part of the prophetic

law that had been fulfilled in

Christ and had no further pur-

pose. “Let no one, then, call you

to account for what you eat or

drink or in regard to a festival or

a new moon or a Sabbath. These

are a shadow of things to come,

but the substance is of Christ”

(Col. II: 16-17).

Thus Saturday as the Jewish

day of rest was never a law im-

posed on Christians. As for devot-

ing Saturday to special ceremonies

and acts of worship, this never

had been the law of God anyway,

but merely a custom. It remained

for Christians to establish their

own customs.

Sunday probably became the

day of Christian worship, quite

naturally. In the earliest days, the

Jewish Christians gathered after

the synagogue service Saturday

evening to hold their own Chris-

tian worship. These services last-

ed into the early morning hours,

and thus the first day of the week

became associated with Christian

worship. As more and more Gen-

tiles became Christians, the earlier

attendance at the synagogue serv-

ice disappeared, leaving only the

Christian Sunday worship.

Sunday was also a logical day,

as it was on Sunday that Christ

arose from the dead, sealing our

redemption, and on Pentecost

Sunday the Church was estab-

lished. There are numerous refer-

ences, both in the Acts and in the

Epistles, to show that the first day

of the week was being observed

by the Christians. By the end of

the first century, as we learn from

later writings: the “Teaching of

the Twelve” (A.D. 90), the “Epis-

tle of Barnabas” (A.D. 75-96), the

epistles of Ignatius of Antioch

(died A.D. 107), Sunday had so

far replaced Saturday that the lat-

ter was no longer observed by any

Christian.

Day of Rest

Only gradually did Christians

begin to observe Sunday as a day

of rest. In the beginning it was

characterized not by rest but by

rejoicing and special acts of wor-

ship. In the third century, as we

learn from Tertullian, many Chris-

tians had begun to keep Sunday as

a day of rest to some extent. And

in the next century (A.D. 370)

the Council of Laodicea decreed:

“It is not right that Christians

should imitate the Jews and rest

4



on the Sabbath day, but on that

day they should work: preferring

however the day of the Lord, they

should rest if they can.”

The real need of Sunday as a

day of rest as well as worship

came much later, in the sixth

century. It became necessary, in

view of a changing society and

the vast number of laboring peo-

ple, to set aside holidays to allow

for the opportunity to assist at

Mass and keep Sunday fittingly

as a day of worship. Thus Sunday

finally became a day of rest and

cessation from work as well as the

day of Christian worship.

No One Changed Sabbath

As Christians, therefore, we do

not observe the Jewish Sabbath.

No one has changed the Sabbath.

The Sabbath has simply ceased to

exist. We observe neither the Sat-
urday “rest” as it was laid down

in the Mosaic Law, nor the Satur-

day “worship” that Jewish tradi-

tion devised for the synagogues.

The Church has changed the

day of worship. Actually, the

“change” consists merely in es-

tablishing Sunday as a day of wor-

ship and of rest. The Church did

not do away with an existing Sab-

bath, for the Sabbath no longer

existed.

The Bible records no “change”

of the Sabbath. It records, how-

ever, the abolition of the Sabbath

as part of the Mosaic Law, and it

records the beginning of the cus-

tom of Sunday obeervance which

later became Catholic law.

And although they do not ob-

lige us as part of the Mosaic Law,

the Ten Commandments form a

convenient summary of the princi-

pal precepts of the laws by which

we are obliged. Under the head-

ings of the various command-

ments, it is easy to sum up the

obligations we have either from

God’s natural law, from the re-

vealed law of Christ, or from the

just laws of constituted authority.

It is in this way that we continue

to observe the Ten Command-

ments. It is in this sense that we

quote the various precepts. And

thus we observe the Third Com-

mandment — abiding not by a
rule from whose yoke Christ died

to set us free, but following the

lead of the Apostles and adhering

to the law of Christ’s Church.

5



WHAT’S WRONG WITH “BINGO?”

Some people are opposed

to gambling ‘‘on principle.”

In their code of conduct,

it simply has no place. No

one, of course, will ques-

tion their right to feel as

they do. Every man must

determine the principles

according to which he will

regulate his life, and these

principles are his own bus-

iness and of his own conscience.

Others, however, will go a bit

further. They say that gambling is

“sinful” and “wrong” — wrong,
not merely for themselves, but

for everybody. Now this is a dif-

ferent question altogether. It is

one thing to follow our own con-

victions, and quite another to tell

society what it may and may not

lawfully do. Before attempting

this, one must be absolutely sure

of his position.

And those who call gambling a

sin are usually hard pressed to

tell us why.

What Is Gambling?

Exaggeration always hurts any

cause, however good it may be.

There are many abuses connected

with gambling, particularly organ-

ized gambling. These, of course,

must be condemned. But we can-

not right a wrong by committing

another. And it does no

good for instance, to call

gambling “stealing,” which

it certainly is not. Theft is

the taking of another’s

rightful goods against that

person’s will. Nor is it cor-

rect to say that Christ con-

demned gambling when He

cast the money-changers

from the Temple. The

money-changers were not gam-

bling; they were desecrating a

holy place by turning it into a

place of business.

On the question of gambling,

there are three guiding principles

to bear in mind . . . which apply

equally to gambling and many

other activities. The first is most

important. That is: what may be

in itself and in its proper circum-

stances perfectly all right, may in

other circumstances be altogether

wrong. Bathing, for example, is

a commendable practice — but it
would be wrong for a man to take

his bath in a public park. He

would find himself in jail if he

did so.

Obedience to Law

In the second place, we know

that some things which offend no

law of morality may be in con-

flict with civil law. The just laws

6



of a nation, state, or city should

be obeyed. Yet a man is not

called immoral if he wilfully runs

through red traffic lights, even

though he is a law violater all the

same.

Finally, there are things which

may be opposed to no law what-

ever, but which should not be

done regardless. They offend

against what we call “fittingness.”

As St. Paul said: “All things are

lawful for me, but not all things

are expedient” (I Cor. VI: 12).

Now let’s take a look at gam-

bling.

Gambling in itself is not wrong

or sinful. It is opposed to no law

of God. This can be better recog-

nized by examining the different

kinds of gambling.

The dictionary defines “gam-

ble” as “1.—To play or game for
money or other stakes. 2.—To
hazard, wager.” Basically, five

types of activity fall within the

limits of this definition. We may,
therefore, classify five types of

gambling

:

Betting. As on a race, or sim-

ply on any uncertain fact concern-

ing which someone wishes to back

his conviction with a wager.

Games of chance. These may

involve pure chance or perhaps

include a certain amount of skill.

An example of the first would be

a throw of dice, and of the sec-

ond, certain types of card games.

Lotteries. Here the money of a

number of people is pooled togeth-

er and the total or at least some

portion of it is allotted by chance

to one or several of the partici-

pants.

Insurance. For a cash consider-

ation a person or an association

will agree to pay a set sum on the

chance of an accident or other

event. This is only one type of

insurance, of course. Some insur-

ance is nothing but a simple sav-

ings account, while other insur-

ance is out-and-out betting.

Speculation. Here one gambles

on the rise and fall of various

stocks, wagering his investment on

the chance of gain.

La^vful Betting

Taking these in order, we can

say, first, that betting will be law-

ful under certain conditions. It

must never be an inducement to

tempt someone to do wrong. A
wager of this type would actually

be nothing more than a bribe. It

must be honest on both sides. It

would be wrong, in other words,

for someone to bet on a “sure

thing” while the other person had

no way of knowing he could not

win. And each must be able to

pay in the event that he loses. The

money that is bet must be one’s

own, money that he can afford to

use for this purpose and that he is

not under obligation to spend oth-

erwise.

Thus no one could reasonably

call another to task for making an

honest wager among friends. This

is our own business. But it must

be stated that the betting habit is

subject to dangers. It can easily

lead to real evils and, like every*

thing else, it must be kept within

7



bounds of moderation.

Games of chance will be law-

ful if, again, one is using his own

money that he can afford to spend

in this way. There must be no

fraud. The use of any trickery in

the game would mean simple ex-

tortion. There must be an equal

chance for all, as far as the ele-

ment of chance is concerned.

Professional Gambling

Now here it is in order to point

out that there is a vast difference

between a family game of bridge

for small stakes and the gaming

in a professional gambling house.

What may be all right in itself,

as was previously noted, can be-

come quite wrong because of cir-

cumstances.

Professional gambling houses,

and organized gambling in gener-

al, encourage the desire of “some-

thing for nothing” that can be-

come a consuming passion. They

encourage gamblers to spend be-

yond their means, and they are

responsible for many other evil

results that usually follow in the

wake of large-scale gambling. The

professional gambler is in busi-

ness to profit, furthermore, and

the ordinary rules of chance are

not always allowed to apply. Any-

one who has ever seen a police ex-

hibit of confiscated gambling de-

vices knows that in a gambling

house or in playing with profes-

sional gamblers the amateur play-

er has little chance to win. In de-

fending the right of our neighbor

to enliven his game with a stake,

therefore, we do not attempt to

justify the often heartless profes-

sion of gambling.

A Fair Chance

Lotteries can be considered

lawful provided they are conduct-

ed fairly and provided there is a

real, though admittedly small,

chance for each participant.

It already has been said that

what may offend no moral princi-

ple may, however, be forbidden by

a law of the city or state. When
laws of this kind exist, they should

be obeyed. They are instituted by

lawful authority for a good pur-

pose, and the law-abiding citizen

will abide by them. True, some-

times there may be so-called “blue

laws” in force, but normally such

regulations are necessary.

No law will ordinarily forbid a

private wager or private game of

chance, nor should it. It will gen-

erally provide, however, that gam-

bling debts cannot be collected

legally—that is, with the assist-
ance of the courts. Lotteries are

frequently forbidden because by

their nature they require a large

number of participants and are

therefore easily subject to abuse.

The purpose of anti-gambling

laws is to protect the citizen from

being victimized and also to avoid

the evil consequences of organ-

ized gambling. This is the reason

for the prohibition of gambling

houses and restrictions on betting

on horse racing.

Stock-Market Gambling

Insurance and stock-market

speculation are taken so much for

8



granted that it is hardly necessary

to say that they are lawful in

themselves. Unfortunately, how-

ever, those who condemn the man

who plays a game of chance for

honest recreation will often be

the first to acclaim the successful

speculator as a public benefactor

and “a captain of industry.” They

say that a few dollars won with a

throw of dice is tainted, but a few

thousands or millions from a suc-

cessful gamble in stock is legiti-

mate business. These last two

forms of gambling, can also be

abused and become sinful viola-

tions of justice. The man who

falsifies the conditions under

which insurance is written is sim-

ply stealing. And speculation with

someone else’s money, or with

public funds, can be a greater sin

than for a husband to squander

the rent money on pinochle.

Finally, we should repeat: what

is lawful may not be expedient.

Not Evil

Charitable causes, lodges, fra-

ternities, churches, and other or-

ganizations frequently raise funds

with games of chance, lotteries,

bingo and the like. Many of us

may feel that worthy causes should

not be forced to raise money in

this way. And while such devices

may offend the taste of some, this

does not make such activities evil

in themselves.

If they are forbidden by the

law, they should not be tolerated.

No one should presume on the

law simply because the cause is a

good one. Ordinarily, however, the

law does not act against them.

They are not subject to the abuses

which have necessitated the law.

They are small and not profes-

sional. Frequently, therefore, they

are specifically exempted from

what may be forbidden under the

term “gambling.”

Regardless of one’s tastes, there-

fore, only a hypocritical con-

science can be scandalized and

call such harmless pleasures sin-

ful. The same conscience would

probably see nothing wrong if the

organization floated an issue of

stock and invited the public to

take a chance in this way. They

would call this legitimate business.

But though lawful, such things

may be carried beyond reason.

When this happens, the scandal

will not always be hypocritical.

If they are not really necessary,

if they are carried out on a huge

scale, if advantage is taken of the

law’s leniency in regard to a good

cause — above all, if encourage-
ment is given to the “gambling

fever” of even the relatively few

—

sometimes the line between help-

ing a good cause and gambling

professionally becomes quite thin.

It is definitely not fitting that a

church, a fraternal order, or a

veterans’ association, should, for

all practical purposes, be in com-

petition with the professionals.

It may still be lawful, but it will

certainly not be expedient.

9



WHY BLAME THE BOTTLE
INSTEAD OF THE MAN?

“Napoleon ‘met his Water-

loo,’ ” says a little leaflet

—

“because Marshall Ney,-

his right-hand man, was

one day late in arriving at

Waterloo because of a

drunken army.”

“When the soldiers of

Germany entered into

France,” it continues, “they

conquered France for one

reason.” You have probably

guessed the reason, and you are

right: “. . . the excessive con-

sumption of alcohol by the French

soldiers.” Another little known

fact of history is revealed about

the first World War. One of the

deciding factors bringing about

its conclusion, it seems, was that

the German armies, after reach-

ing the wine-cellars of France,

became so drunk that they had to

surrender

!

Leaflets like this were formerly

more prevalent than now, before

the “noble experiment” of prohibi-

tion. They still remain, however,

to some extent. And all of them

read in much the same way. Tear-

ful tales are told of homes and

families wrecked by drunken hus-

bands, of youth blighted by

drunkenness and evil companions,

of children delinquent because of

drunken parents. The pub-

lishers of such leaflets then

proclaim the totally illog-

ical conclusion that all

drinking is sinful, all liquor

is an evil, every man who

takes a drink is rapping at

the gates of hell.

Most of this “anti-liquor”

pamphleteering is done

from religious motives and

Scripture quotations sometimes

play a part in it. This is part of

the same bad logic. The Bible

condemns drunkenness — as does
anyone of good sense. The Bible

warns against the dangers of

drinking. And, like Calvin

Coolidge’s preacher, the Bible is

against sin. But the Bible also

takes the reasonable use of liquor

for granted, which these critics

conveniently overlook.

No one will deny that pamphlets

like the one quoted are often the

product of well-intentioned and

sincere people. These persons

really want to help others. But

that does not make their methods

any less misguided and dangerous.

On the individual level they com-

mit the same mistakes that pro-

hibition made nationally. They

resemble the type of individual

who is willing to discard the rights

10



of free speech to combat Com-

munism.

What Is Right?

The comparison is very apt.

Communism is an abuse of one

liberty just as drunkenness is an

abuse of another. But in con-

demning the abuse, we must not

deny the liberty. Only the hyster-

ical and unthinking will brand as

a “Communist” the man who in-

sists on the rights of all to free

speech. And similarly, when some-

one raises his voice to defend the

right to drink, it does not neces-

sarily mean that he is in the hire

of the liquor industry, that he

favors the open saloon, or that he

is anxious for anyone to go down

to a drunkard’s grave.

A defense of the right to drink
is not a defense of drinking. A
Protestant defends his Catholic

neighbor’s religious rights, and

the Catholic does the same for the

Protestant. But this does not im-

ply that either of them approves

of the other’s religion.

Further, there may be a great

difference in what one chooses for

the principles of his own conduct

and what he grants his neighbors

the right to do. The confirmed

bachelor may have no inclination

whatever to enjoy wedded bliss,

but he does not look upon his mar-

ried friends as guilty of mis-

conduct.

Right and Wrong

Also, we must act as responsi-

ble men in designating things as

wrong, sinful, or criminal. Merely

because we may not like some-

thing ourselves, does not make it

wrong. When we say that it is

sinful, we are trying to force our

personal views on others. We are
saying that not only can we not

do this thing morally, but neither

can anyone else. If we are going

to try to regulate the lives of oth-

ers we should at least be sure that

we are laying down just rules.

Blame The Man

Now the things of God’s crea-

tion are not evil. Wrong consists

in the misuse of these things, in

the violation of their rightful use.

There is nothing that cannot be

misused — but by the same token,
if misuse made a thing wrong

there would be nothing good in

the world. One of the greatest

American advocates of “temper-

ance” — by which he meant pro-
hibition — is said to have died
of over-eating. He was guilty of

the same sin that he professed to

combat. But food is not an evil

because of this. Automobiles and

pistols do not become evil simply

because a person misuses them in

taking an innocent man’s life.

Some may think it necessary to

labor such a point. But it is in

forgetting this that many who de-

plore the curse of liquor have done

untold harm. They have actually

encouraged drunkenness. By put-

ting the blame on the bottle in-

stead of the man, by telling him

that it is impossible to use liquor

moderately and reasonably, they

have given all the justification

needed by the weak-willed sot who

11



blames society for not forcing him

to remain sober. No one is ever

going to “reform” alcohol, shot-

guns, or automobiles — but there
is a good chance of reforming men

if the problem is approached with

intelligence.

Drunkenness is a serious sin. A

person who begins to drink with

the intention of getting drunk or

with the knowledge that he will

get drunk, is guilty of this sin. He

deprives himself of his responsi-

bility and the use of his free will.

He puts his own passing pleasure

before his dignity as a human be-

ing. Thus he acts in a most un-

reasonable way and does great

wrong ... to say nothing of the

harm and wrong that may result

from his drunkenness.

But even if a man does not be-

come drunk, he does wrong if he

drinks immoderately. He lessens

his sense of responsibility, puts

himself in danger of drunkenness

or other evils, and misuses drink

by consuming too much of it.

Temperance a Virtue

Under certain conditions, it can

be very wrong for a man to take

even a single drink. There are

those so prone to intemperance

that they cannot content them-

selves with drink in moderation.

For them, total abstinence will

therefore be a solemn obligation.

Temperance is a virtue required

of all. Total abstinence is a safe-

guard required of many.

There is danger in strong drink.

No one should minimize this fact.

Neither should anyone minimize

the abuses that are frequently as-

sociated with drinking, with tav-

erns and “cocktail parlors.” The

misuse of liquor has left behind it

a trail of almost every evil known

to man. We must recognize these

facts. But we must place the

blame where it belongs — with the
individual. Only by working with

the individual can we hope to

check the evil that he causes.

Our Responsibility

And we must defend a man’s

right to serve liquor in his home,

to buy it, to sell it, and to drink it

in moderation. He should not lose

his right because others abuse

theirs. Along with his right he

has obligations, of course, to him-

self as well as to others. He must

develop an adult attitude toward

liquor; he must act as a responsi-

ble person in this as in everything

else. There should be no place

among us for the hypocrite who

“votes dry and drinks wet.” This

is the adolescent excuse of those

who lack a sense of responsibility

of their own and call on the law as

a nursemaid to keep them out of

trouble.

What has been said of drink

can be said also of smoking
—

though with far less necessity. To-

bacco is ordinarily not credited

with the broken homes and crimes

of “alcohol.” Those who abuse

tobacco as a “sinful habit” usual-

ly at the worst ascribe to it bad

breath and such personal evils as

the deterioration of health . . .

some of which are possibly veri-

fied, most of which are probably

12



not. Many doctors in fact will
not condemn moderate smoking.

It can be safely said — all ad-
vertisements to the contrary not-

withstanding — that no one is
adding years to his life by smok-
ing a pipe, a cigar, or a cigarette.

He may be adding to his peace of
mind, however, as many smokers
win maintain. Smoking may he
classified simply as a not always
useless, and sometimes expen-
sive, pleasure. But it violates no
moral law.

Catholic piety makes frequent

reference to the “counsels of

Christ.” By this name we refer to

what is a praiseworthy and meri-

torious deed, yet which is not a

general obligation for all Chris-

tians. Christ expressed such a

counsel in His words to the rich

young man: “Go, sell whatever

thou hast, and give to the poor”

(Mark X:21). While all are ob-

liged to have their treasure in

heaven, rather than on earth —
while all must use the things of

the world not for their own sake

but as helps in living their life

for the love of God—not all are
obliged literally to divest them-

selves of worldly possessions. If,

however, one should do just this,

he would be following one of

Christ’s counsels.

Spirit of Sacrifice

Thus many Catholics willingly

give up their goods and follow a

life of poverty. Many forego mar-
riage in order to serve God more

completely and with undivided at-

tention. Many deny themselves
legitimate pleasures — certain

foods, drink, tobacco, and other

luxuries. The virtues of giving up

these things consists precisely in

the fact that they are in themselves

good and lawful — otherwise
there would be a simple obligation

on all. The love of God moves
men in many ways, and not all
express their love in the same man-

ner. To anyone who has, for the
love of God, denied himself any

creature pleasure, the true Catho-

lic should have nothing but praise.

But what must be avoided is the

attitude of the Pharisee. The old

Pharisees arbitrarily and of their

own authority made many refine-
ments on the Law of God. In be-
ing formally obedient to these,

they considered themselves right-

eous, while regarding all other men
outside the pale. The modern phar-

isee has no less arbitrarily and of

his own authority refined the Law
of Christ. Confusing his own

prejudices with the divine Will, he

has made the touchstone of Chris-

tianity to consist in abstinence

from liquor, from tobacco, and

from various types of recreation.

Anyone indulging in such pleas-

ures, he says, is not a Christian

—

even though he may have the char-
ity to give all his goods to feed

the poor.

This is a far cry from the spir-

it of charity and generosity which

alone can make renunciation

worthwhile. It is, rather, an echo

of the man who went up to the
Temple to pray, who gave thanks

to God that he was not as other

men . . . and went away unjus-
tified.

13



The False Alarm About

The "ROMAN HIERARCHY”

Perhaps you may recall

the native-Fascist gang

known as the “Black Le-

gion.” Quite similar to the

Ku Klux Klan, it was

formed in a northern in-

dustrial city to spread mur-

der and arson against

negroes, Jews, Catholics,

the foreign-born, and oth-

er minorities. Part of its

blood-curdling oath was directed

against “the Roman Hierarchy.”

It is quite safe to say that none

of the members had the vaguest

idea of what the Roman Hier-

archy is, but they were quite sure

it is something pretty bad.

Perfectly innocent words can

frequently be so consistently

abused that their real meaning is

forgotten. “Propaganda,” is one

of these. Originally, this word

meant “to spread information.”

But now, when someone speaks of

“your propaganda,” he ordinarily

does not have to explain that he

means “your lying misinforma-

tion.” (His own material he will

call “publicity” or “documenta-

tion!”)

Sacred Order

What is a hierarchy? The word

has been used since at least the

sixth century, and means, literal-

ly, “sacred rule” or “sacred

order.” While originally it

was used to refer only to

Church government, it al-

so frequently has been ex-

tended in modern speech

as a general word to sig-

nify relative importance —
as when we speak of a

“hierarchy of values.” The

word itself, of course, is

not important. The Church had

a hierarchy long before it was

given this name. Likewise, most

other religious organizations have

a hierarchy though they may pre-

fer to call it by other names. Some

of those who rebel the loudest at

the notion of a hierarchy are

merely distinguishing between

“your propaganda” and “our

publicity.”

Actually, there are two hierarch-

ies in the Catholic Church — the
hierarchy oj order and the hier-

archy of jurisdiction. The hier-

archy of order or of ministry is

simply the clergy, those who have

received ordination and who are

thus distinct from the laity. The

clergy presides at public worship

and administers the sacraments.

This hierarchy is composed of the

orders of bishops, priests, and

deacons which are of divine ori-

14



gin, instituted by Christ and His

Apostles.

However, it is in reference to

jurisdiction that the word “hier-

archy” is more commonly known

and used both by Catholics and

non-Catholics. The hierarchy of

jurisdiction is the governing body

of the Catholic Church — the
Pope and the other bishops

throughout the world. Together

they form the succession from the

Apostles, possessing the power to

make laws, to sit in judgment, and

to fix spiritual penalties when

necessary. In general speech,

though somewhat improperly, the

bishops of a particular country

are known as that country’s “hier-

archy.”

The Church Organization

The nature of the hierarchy will

be easier understood by looking

briefly at the Church’s visible or-

ganization.

The basic unit of the Catholic

Church is the parish — a word
derived from the Greek, meaning

“dwelling around,” that is, those

who dwell around a definite house
or church. What the family is to

society at large, as a small society

in itself and a “cell” of the polit-

ical body, the parish is to the

Church. The parish is a union of

Catholics under a parish priest

(pastor), who may or may not
have assistant priests. The ideal

parish will have its own school,
and it will be the center for the

religious life of the people who
make it up. As the father is head
of the family, the pastor is head

of the local church. Because of

this spiritual fatherhood it became

the custom to call the parish

priest “father,” and this title is

now generally applied to all
priests in the countries with which

we are familiar.

The parishes of a given region

unite to form a diocese. This is

another Greek word which may be
translated roughly as “a union of

households.” Each diocese is head-

ed by a bishop who is the spiritual

leader both of the clergy and laity

of the district. The word “bishop”

means “overseer,” that is, a super-

vising priest. Some more impor-

tant dioceses are known as arch-

dioceses (“chief dioceses”) and

are headed by archbishops. The

clergy of the diocese, for the pur-

pose of assisting in the conduct of

diocesan affairs, meet together

with their bishop in councils which

are known as synods.

Successors of Apostles

The bishop of each diocese is

appointed by the chief bishop of

the Church, the Pope, but each

bishop becomes a successor of the

Apostles in his own right. He is

not merely the Pope’s delegate as

head of his diocese. Several dio-

ceses are usually associated to-

gether with an archdiocese to form

what is known as a province. This

association is merely for mutual

cooperation, however, as each

diocese is an independent unit.

Thus, to take an example, the

Province of St. Louis consists of

the Archdiocese of St. Louis and

the following dioceses : Kansas

15



City-St. Joseph, Missouri; Jeffer-

son City, Missouri; Springfield-

Cape Girardeau, Missouri.

When the clergy of a province

gather to discuss matters perti-

nent to the Church, it is known

as a provincial council. When the

meeting is on a national basis, we

have a plenary council. In the

United States, there is also the

National Catholic Welfare Con-

ference (it is not called a coun-

cil,” because councils are always

temporary, and the NCWC is

permanent) . This is a voluntary

association of the bishops of the

country, who meet together at

stated intervals to discuss
the

position and problems of the

Church in the United States.

Through its headquarters the

NCWC coordinates the work of

the Church. It operates through

departments (for example, the

Department of Education, of

Youth, of Social Action) which

are divided into bureaus
(for

example, under the Department

of Social Action are such
bu-

reaus as those ofFamily Life, and

Rural Life) . In carrying out
this

work, the specialized
services

and training of both clergy and

laity are utilized.

Chief Bishop

The ehief bishop of the Church

is the Pope, the Bishop of Rome.

He designates the other bishops

and has responsibility for the

whole Church. To assist him in

his administration there are
vari-

ous agencies called
Congrega-

tions (“bureaus”) which are

headed by Cardinals and which

draw on the best talent in the

Church for the specialties with

which they deal. Each Congrega-

tion is in charge of some speci-

fied matter (such as Sacraments,

Rites, the Propagation of the

Faith). The Cardinals (together

called the “College”) serve col-

lectively as the Pope’s advisors.

Many Cardinals, however, are

bishops of dioceses and are not

stationed in Rome.

Catholics In U. S.

In most countries, there is an

Apostolic Delegate, the official

representative of the Pope. He

has no diocese nor does he have

control over the dioceses of the

bishops of the country. He is

present merely to provide a more

convenient administration of the

Church’s affairs as delegated to

act for the Pope. In those coun-

tries, however, where there is a

diplomatie relationship between

the civil government and Vati-

can City, he may also represent

the latter and be known as the

Nuncio (“ambassador”).

For those interested in statis-

tics, it might here be noted
that

in 1960, the Catholic Church
in

the United States possessed
26

Arehdioeeses ; 114 dioeeses;
5

cardinals ; 32 archbishops ;
190

bishops; 53,796 priests; 16,896

parishes. The total number of

Ameriean Catholics, according

to the best available figures,
was

40,871,302.

Non-Catholies frequently ask

about the title “Monsignor”
that

is given to certain priests.
This is

purely an honorary distinction

16



conferring no additional author-

ity. It is bestowed on priests for

long years of service or for some

special work for the Church.

The modern complaint frequent-

ly raised against the Catholic hier-

archy is that it makes the Church

an undemocratic institution. In a

sense, this is of course quite true.

But those who see something to

condemn in this simply do not

recognize the meaning of religion.

They are confusing religion with

politics, or with a social club. Re-

ligion is not a matter of polls or

of votes. Religion is what God has

divinely revealed for our accept-

ance — not what we will make up
for ourselves at our own pleasure.

We have no right to take the

Church and make it over accord-

ing to what the prevailing polit-

ical philosophy may be. We take

the Church as we find it; we eith-

er accept it as it is, or we do not

accept it at all.

Need for Authority

Some of those who are critical

of the Church say: “We are not

against the Catholic people; we

are merely against the hierarchy.”

Now the hierarchical structure of

Catholicism is Catholicism itself.

To change this would be to do the

impossible, to destroy the Catho-

lic Church. The Church was

founded by Christ as a religious

authority, to protect His truths

and to teach them in every age.

To insure this. He sent the Holy

Spirit. And over the Church He

set His Apostles, whose successors

are the bishops of the Catholic

Church. This is the Church. No

one is coerced against his will to

become a Catholic or to remain a

Catholic. Faith is an absolutely

free thing. But every Catholic who

accepts the Catholic Church as

Christ’s authentic revelation ac-

cepts along with it its principles

of authority and of government.

He is perfectly at liberty to choose

whatever political principles he

will in the conduct of secular af-

fairs, but in the conduct of reli-

gion, he chooses what Christ has

ordained. Either he accepts the

hierarchical Church as he finds it,

or he makes a “hierarchy” of his

own—or of himself—of his own
whims and wishes.

But in a far broader sense the

Catholic Church is the most demo-

cratic order in the world. It is

democratic in the sense that the

word is used even more common-

ly than in reference to govern-

ment. When we call a man “dem-

ocratic” and of “democratic prin-

ciples,” we mean that he recog-

nizes the dignity of man, his

worth as an individual, and his

right to be judged on his own

merits. And such a spirit has al-

ways prevailed in the Church, be-

cause such a spirit is, in the very

best sense, Christian. It is accord-

ing to this spirit, which is part of

the Church’s constitution, that the

Church is, in God’s providence,

governed by those whom He has

called to administer authority.

This spirit has prevailed in a world

that has known hundreds of

changing political philosophies.

There is no governing “class”

17



in the Catholic Church. No par-

ish is dominated by the wishes of

a local “aristocracy.” The parish

priest or the bishop or the Pope

himself may have come from the

poorest family of the diocese. And

all Catholics, whether rich or poor,

professional man or common

laborer, kneel together at the

common Communion rail in the

same church, side by side. Pope,

priest, bishop, layman, nun —
they are all Catholics together.

Though they may be responsible

for the conduct of the Church in

various ways, they are all bound

by the same rules, and they

acknowledge the same divine

authority.

Each year, thousands of men and

women walk out of American

courtrooms with these words ring-

ing in their ears. And they may

be quite convinced that their mar-

riages actually have been dis-

solved. But the Catholic Church

cannot agree.

The Catholic Church insists that

marriages cannot be dissolved by

any civil decree . . . that there is,

in fact, no such thing as divorce.

The Catholic conscience simply

cannot concur with any law that

maintains the possibility of di-

vorce and remarriage. For which

shall we acknowledge supreme

—

a law laid down by men ... or

the laws laid down by the Son of

God, Who decreed: ‘‘What there-

fore God has joined together, let

no man put asunder’’ (Matt.

XIX :7) ? In matters of this na-

ture, we can only conclude with

St. Peter: “We must obey God

rather than men” (Acts V : 29)

.

In discussing the Catholic teach-

ing on marriage, it is best to make

a few points clear from the very

beginning. There is considerable

confusion about this question —
a confusion, we might add, that

has not been helped by many who

have taken it upon themselves to

“explain” it to others.

And the first thing that can be

made clear is this: every marriage

is sacred and holy — whether
those who marry realize this or

not, and whether or not they are

even particularly concerned about

the matter. It is not they who are

responsible for the institution of

marriage, but God, Who has or-

18



dained it for a high and noble pur-

pose. As long as they intend to

enter a true marriage, therefore,

they take all its consequences.

They receive all its obligations

along with all its privileges.

We should point out also that

the Catholic Church distinguishes

only two types of valid marriage

—

sacramental and non-sacramental.

A sacramental marriage is that
which is contracted by baptized

persons — between two Catholics,
between a Catholic and a baptized

Protestant, or between two bap-

tized Protestants. A non-sacra-
mental marriage is that contracted

by the unbaptized, or between one

baptized and one unbaptized per-

son.

The Sacramental Aspect

Both types of marriage are holy.

Both confer the privileges and ob-

ligations of marriage. In addi-

tion, however, marriage between

baptized persons is an instrument

of divine help for the Christian

life. For a fuller understanding of

what is meant by the sacramental

aspect of marriage, the reader is

referred to our free pamphlet en-

titled Christas Seven Sacraments.

Finally, it should be noted that

a marriage is brought into exist-

ence by two contracting parties,

through the promise that they

mutually exchange. They have the

power, however, to bring marriage

into existence only as it exists as

an institution ordained by God’s

law. Thus baptized persons,

whether or not they know that

marriage is a sacrament for the

baptized, will enter into sacrament-

al marriage when they contract

marriage. And in the case of all

who have really intended to enter

marriage, the marriage they con-

tract will not be subject to di-

vorce, whatever private thoughts

the participants may have on the

matter.

Marriage By Priest

Just as the state lays down cer-

tain formalities that must be ob-

served before a marriage will have

legal standing, so the Church im-

poses upon her own members cer-

tain laws that must be observed

before the marriage, whether sac-

ramental or non-sacramental, will

be considered valid. Principally,

she insists that the marriage of

any Catholic must be contracted

in the presence of a duly author-

ized Catholic priest, who stands as

the Church’s official witness. This

law obliges a Catholic whether he

is marrying another Catholic or a

non-Catholic. When, however, the

marriage is between two non-Cath-

olics, it is not governed by the laws

of the Catholic Church. No mat-

ter under what formalities the non-

Catholic marriage has taken place,

then, and whether it be sacra-

mental or non-sacramentl, the

Church will consider it valid.

In reference to the known atti-

tude of the Catholic Church re-

garding divorce, certain critics

will be heard to say: “Yes, but

what about annulments? Why does
the Catholic Church sometimes an-

nul a marriage and later permit

those involved to contract a sec-

19



ond marriage in the Church —
and to a different person? Isn’t

annulment just another word for

divorce?”

There is all the difference in

the world between a divorce and

an annulment. A divorce, as has
been stated, is the pretended dis-

solution of a true marriage. An

annulment in the Catholic Church

—more properly called “a decree
of nullity” — is a declaration that
there was not a true marriage

from the beginning, even though

it may have had all the outward

appearances of being one.

If a man were to marry his

first cousin in Illinois ... or if a

girl were to be married to her

foster father in Massachusetts . . .

those involved might consider

themselves to be truly married.

They might be entirely ignorant,

even, of the fact that such mar-

riages are forbidden by state law.

But in both cases these unions

would be declared null by the

state. They would be treated as

events which had never occurred.

Divorce would not enter into the

question at all.

Not A True Marriage

That is what an annulment

means in the Catholic Church. It

is simply a declaration, upoil in-

vestigation, that a true marriage

was not contracted in the begin-

ning.

How can this happen? In four

ways. (1) An invalidating law,

such as the two civil prohibition

mentioned above, might have

made the marriage null. (2) The

parties themselves might invali-

date the marriage by placing upon

it an impossible condition — for
example, making it a “trial” mar-

riage. (3) One or both of the

parties might have been forced to

go through a marriage ceremony

against his will. (4) If at least

one of the parties is a Catholic,

the marriage would be null if not

contracted before a Catholic priest.

Proof Required

It is evident, merely from read-

ing this list, that in some cases, it

would be a simple matter to show

that the marriage was null, where-

as in others there would be the

need of involved proof. As in all

law, once an apparently valid mar-

riage ceremony has taken place, it

is presumed valid until proved

otherwise. Thus, if a couple

should later insist that they were

forced to go through a marriage

ceremony against their will, it

would require a court trial with

witnesses and incontestable proof

before their word could be taken

to cause the Church to declare the

marriage null.

There is, therefore, a somewhat

complicated system of laws in the

Church that govern marriages and

marriage “cases,” a complication

that can hardly be avoided in any

matter governing human relation-

ships. However, the marriage

laws of the Church are fewer than

in any single American State or

foreign country. The entire series

of Church laws on marriage con-

sists of 131 canons in the Church’s

official Code of Canon Law, and

20



the canons on marriage trials are

only 32 . (Each “canon” or law,

takes up about a small paragraph.)

When the nullity of a marriage

is easily demonstrable, it may be

so declared by the parties’ own

bishop, after he has weighed the

evidence. Thus, if it can be proved,

through authentic and incontest-

able documents, that at least one

of the parties was a Catholic and

that the marriage did not take

place in the presence of a duly

authorized priest, the bishop needs

merely make certain of this and

then declare the marriage null.

The same is true with many of the

invalidating laws. The number of

these is thirteen, and most of

them involve matters such as those

mentioned above — blood rela-
tionship or legal relationship. If

a relationship of this kind can be

shown to have existed at the time

of the marriage, then the marriage

will be declared null by the bishop.

He will hear the testimony of the

two sides, examine the proofs, and

then render his judgment.

Court Procedure

In every Church court examin-

ing marriage cases, there is one

priest skilled in the law who has

been appointed to act as “De-

fender of the Marriage Bond.” In

the cases of nullity mentioned

above, it is his duty to examine the

evidence upon which the bishop

has made his judgment. If he be-

lieves that the bishop has declared

the marriage null without sufficient

evidence, it is his duty to appeal

the case to a higher court. Here

the evidence will be thoroughly

examined, and judgment will be

made either in favor of the bish-

op’s decision, or against it. If it

is decided that the bishop did not

have sufficient grounds to declare

the marriage null, then the higher

court will command a regular

trial to be carried out to decide

the question.

Court Trial

The cases just mentioned are

the “simple” ones. In the case of

those that are not “simple,” a

court trial must always be held.

Several of the invalidating laws

will of necessity demand involved

proof. For example, if a man has

carried off a woman against her

will for the purpose of marrying

her, there is an invalidating law

against any marriage during this

time. If a marriage should have

taken place under these circum-

stances, it would be null. But it

would have to be shown in a court

of law that such an abduction

actually took place. Likewise,

where it is claimed that the parties

never really intended to enter a

true marriage, or that one or both

were forced into the marriage,

these matters will have to be

proved to the satisfaction of train-

ed lawyers and judges. And it is

hardly necessary to say that this

proof is usually very hard to es-

tablish.

The trials that take place in

Church courts are similar to the

court-room procedure with which

most of us are familiar. Witness-

es are called, testimony is taken.

21



and it is the Defender of the

Bond’s duty to attack the evidence

with all his skill. Unless it can be

shown without doubt that the mar-

riage was null for one of the

stated reasons, the marriage will

still be considered valid and true.

And even when the court has final-

ly pronounced judgment, the case

is not yet ended.

If the court should decide that

the marriage is null, the Defender

of the Bond must appeal to the

higher court, where the whole case

will be reviewed once more. If

the court, on the other hand, de-

cides that the marriage was valid,

the parties may appeal to have the

higher court re-try the case, if they

wish. The judgment of this sec-

ond court is rather important. If

it agrees that the marriage was

null, the judgment will be allowed

to stand, unless the Defender of

the Bond is still not satisfied, in

which case he will appeal still

higher. If it agrees that the mar-

riage was valid, however, it is still

the privilege of the interested

parties to appeal to the highest

court.

The Sacred Rota

The court of last appeal is the

Sacred Roman Rota in Rome. It

is the final court of judgment in

all these involved cases. From

what has been said, it will be easy

to see why it actually issues few

decrees of nullity. Long before the

case reaches the Rota, it will usual-

ly have been seen either that the

marriage was obviously invalid, or

that its nullity is incapable of

proof. Thus less than half of the

cases that come before the Rota

are ever granted in favor of the

plaintiffs.

From some will now come the

inevitable question: “Why is it

that the annulments we read about

in the papers are usually granted

only to Catholics with a lot of

money or those with political or

social position? These annulments

must cost plenty.”

Court Costs

Court procedure does cost mon-

ey — as anyone knows who has
ever had a case tried in the civil

courts. But the Church does not

use her courts to gain money. The

expenses involved are only the in-

evitable ones. Neither does the

Church grant annulments only to

the wealthy or powerful and deny

them to the poor. Unfortunately,

it is only about the wealthy and

powerful that we ordinarily read

in our daily newspapers, while

with the lives of the poor we are

familiar only accidentally.

Among the cases of nullity usu-

ally cited by those who cannot

believe that the Church has made

up her laws for all, you will in-

variably find two. The first of

these was the case of Marconi-

O’Brien, where it was proved that

the couple had never intended to

enter a true marriage, having

agreed beforehand to call off the

union whenever it suited their

convenience. The second is that

of Marlborough-Vanderbilt, where

it was proved from the testimony

of the girl’s own mother, relatives,

22



and friends, that she had been

forced to go through a ceremony

against her will.

As for costs, we might take the

second case mentioned, that of the

Duke of Marlborough. The first

trial was held at Southwark, Eng-

land. It lasted three months and

the expenses were $40. The retrial

in Rome lasted six months. Sworn

testimony had to be collected all

over again from England and

America. Yet the total court costs

were $200 . . . not very much for

the parties in question.

Prince Denied Decree

It was not many years ago that

the Catholic Church denied the

annulment appeal of the Italian

Prince Ludovico Potenzianni, a

man of great prestige who could

have “bought and sold” the Duke

of Marlborough many times over.

The appeal of Princess Charlotte

of Monaco was refused though her

father. Prince Louis, made a

special trip to Rome for this pur-

pose. History tells of far greater

instances where power and wealth

were never able to influence the

matrimonial courts of the Catho-

lic Church.

Neither do the poor suffer in

Church courts. In the ten years

from 1937 to 1947, 833 separate

appeals for annulment were sub-

mitted to the supreme matrimonial

tribunal of the Catholic Church.

Of these cases, 478 were denied.

Of the 355 granted, 185 — more
than half — were handled entire-
ly free of charge, as they involved

poor people who were unable to

pay the costs of the extensive in-

vestigation and three strict trials.

In the year 1958, cases before the

Rota numbered 232. Of these,

113 were denied and 119 of the

marriages were declared null.

More than one-third of the total

number of cases had been han-

dled without any costs whatever.

There may sometimes be fear

that wealth or influence can vary

the justice of civil courts. But not

those of the Catholic Church.

Apparently it is the idea of

some that the Church bends every

effort and manufactures technical-

ities to declare a marriage null

for her members. On the contrary,

there are thousands of persons liv-

ing today in this country alone

who would be Catholics tomorrow

but for the Church’s strict laws.

They are involved in “bad” second

marriages, having been previous-

ly joined in unions which the

Church simply cannot declare null.

These people are unwilling to give

up the person to whom they are

civilly married, and thus they re-

main outside the Church. Any

parish priest can tell you from his

own experiences of these cases.

The same priest may also be work-

ing on a number of cases that have

been before the first court for

months or years . . . but which

cannot be decided because the evi-

dence is simply not sufficient.

Proof Is Demanded

If a marriage was null and cart

be proved such, then it is the duty

of the Church to declare it so. If

this cannot be proved, however,

23



then the Church will defend the

marriage as valid, without com-

promise. The marriage tribunals

of the Church, said the Holy See,

are not “a kind of clinic for

unhappy marriages, where the

judges are bound to adjust sit-

uations at all costs.”

A few words might also be
said with regard to the Pauline

Privilege. This is a somewhat

different thing, though it is fre-

quently thought by non-Catho-

lics to be the same as a decree

of nullity.

This privilege was first pro-

mulgated by St. Paul. In writing

to the Corinthians, having first

insisted that no divorce might

be tolerated, he added: “To the

others I say, not the Lord : If any

brother has an unbelieving wife

and she consents to live with

him, let him not put her away.

And if any woman has an un-
believing husband and he con-

sents to live with her, let her not

put away her husband. But if the

unbeliever departs, let him de-

part. For a brother or sister is

not under bondage in such cases,

but God has called us to peace”

(I Cor. VII: 12-15).

Limited Conditions

Thus, for the good of the

Christian Faith, such a privilege

can take place under limited con-

ditions. First, there must be the

case of a non-sacramental mar-

riage that has taken place between

two unbaptized persons. One of

the parties later becomes baptized.

If the unbaptized party refuses to

continue the marriage in peace and

harmony, the baptized person can

proceed to contract a second, and

sacramental marriage. This is the

one exception made to the divine

rule that marriage cannot be dis-

solved.

This privilege was recognized in

the ancient Church and so inter-

preted. It was explained precisely

in this way by Justin Martyr, who

died about A.D. 163 {Apologia^

11, n. 2), and Tertullian, who died

around 222 A.D. {Ad JJxorem, 1.

2, c. 2).

The use of the Pauline Priv-

ilege does not mean that the previ-

ous non-sacramental marriage was

invalid in any way. If both parties

had remained unbaptized, no pow-

er on earth could dissolve it. In

practice, of course, the Privilege

is almost always used by one who

has entered the Church after the

previous marriage has broken up.

But in every, case the unbaptized

person must be questioned as to

his desires. If he wishes to con-

tinue the marriage, respecting the

other partner’s religious liberties,

even though he remains unbap-

tized himself, the marriage must

continue and is not subject to the

Pauline privilege.

24



The best advice that can

be received by any non-

Catholic who is contem-

plating marriage with a

Catholic is . . . dont do

it. This advice is given

both by the Catholic

Church and other religious

organizations which adopt

a responsible attitude

toward the problem of

mixed marriages. The reasons

given by both will be pretty much

the same.

If you are a non-Catholic mar-

rying a Catholic in the Catholic

Church, you must make an agree-

ment — binding you as a person
of honor—never to interfere with
your partner’s Catholic religion . .

.

and to have all your children bap-

tized and educated exclusively in

the Catholic Faith. This promise

you must undertake to keep even

if your Catholic spouse should die.

What It Means

Your marriage can be contract-

ed only in the form prescribed by

the Catholic Church — before a
priest — and you could have no
service of your own religion, if

you belong to one. You will con-

tract to live your married life ac-

cording to the laws of the Cath-

olic Church.

Your family — religious-
ly speaking — will be di-
vided from the start. It

will be you against all the

rest. Even if you decide to

attend the Catholic Church

with them, it will be as an

outsider. Your children

will, at an early age, be

confused. They will ask

you questions you cannot answer.

They will not understand. There

will be inevitable conflicts between

your personal desires and Catho-

lic laws and practices. In a mar-

riage union in which there should

be perfect unity, there will always

be the one all-important matter

upon which unity will be impos-

sible.

Suppose you try to avoid these

results by signing the mixed-mar-

riage agreement with no intention

of keeping it. You will be begin-

ning your married life with a lie

. . . bartering your soul and future

happiness for the sake of a cere-

mony. Suppose you persuade the

Catholic to marry you “outside

the Church.” You have entered a

union which the Catholic Church

does not even recognize. Perhaps

this means nothing to you . . .

but it will, at least eventually, to

25



your Catholic partner. Later it

will be a life-long source of re-

proach and sorrow. It will mean

much to the Catholic’s family, rel-

atives, friends. And through neith-

er of these expedients, wrong as

they are in themselves, have you

any assurance that the problems

of a mixed marriage will be solved

in any way.

Danger to Faith

Any religious organization —
or any individual — who places
a value both on marriage and re-

ligion, cannot be blind to the

dangers of mixed marriages. In

particular, the Catholic Church

sees in mixed marriage a danger

to the faith of the Catholic party

. . . the probability of domestic

discord ... a danger to the faith

of the children . . . and great dif-

ficulties in their upbringing and

education.

In the early part of 1949, the

Christian Century, an undenom-

inational Protestant weekly, re-

corded a survey conducted under

the auspices of 22 churches in “a

middle class, densely occupied

community in a large American

city.” The purpose of this survey

was to see how mixed marriages

there had worked out, not only

with regard to the married couple,

but also with reference to the chil-

dren. The results were far from

encouraging.

“If religion has any vital mean-

ing for a person,” one of the arti-

cles pointed out, “it will affect his

ways of thinking and behaving.

In spite of the rosy optimism of

young people who are sure their

affection will bridge any differ-

ences between them, divergent re-

ligious attachments if they are

taken seriously generally consti-

tute a basis of conflict, especially

after the advent of children. Only

a few instances of homes broken

because of religious diversity were

discovered through this study, but

in numerous families, the tension

continued to be acute, even after

20 years of marriage.”

A Protestant Survey

The study showed how, in the

greatest number of cases, family

unity had been preserved only

through sacrifice of religion, or

unity itself had disappeared. Chil-

dren were exposed to religious

conflict, and too frequently they

were brought up in no religion at

all. It concluded: “It is abundant-

ly clear that interfaith marriages

have unfortunate results for organ-

ized religion. Often both husband

and wife drop their earlier allegi-

ance. When they do persist in it,

there is confusion for the children

and perhaps conflict in the home.”

One other remark is of inter-

est. In speaking of the mixed-

marriage agreement required by

the Catholic Church, the author

said: “In the majority of cases

interviewed, where such an agree-

ment had been signed, both part-

ners felt bound by it.” This leads

us to explain the reasons for the

mixed-marriage contract.

In the face of these sober facts

which cannot leave a religious per-

son unconcerned. Catholics can

26



be thankful that the Church has

taken some steps to regulate the

problem of mixed marriages.

These steps, it is true, will not

appeal to many non-Catholics, and

by some they are bitterly resent-

ed. They represent, however, the

Catholic conscience in regard to

mixed marriage. And even though

a non-Catholic may disagree with

the Catholic Church on one or

many points, he should be grate-

ful that the Church attempts to

guarantee the faith of the children

in at least some definite religion.

Only the most bigoted would

prefer their children to grow up

in infidelity rather than as Cath-

olics.

A Mixed Marriage

A Catholic once said, rather

whimsically : “The Church gives

permission for a mixed marriage,

and then stands by sadly shaking

her head.” This contains a great

deal of truth. The Church has

many misgivings. She is eager to

be agreeably surprised if this par-

ticular marriage should be one of

the happy mixed marriages which

do occur. But meanwhile, she sees

the dangers from long experi-

ence, and she tries to anticipate

them as much as possible. Every

item in the agreement which she

insists upon is necessary. They

represent problems that must even-

tually be faced . . . and it is far

better to settle them in advance

rather than later on.

For reasons which should be

obvious, the Church forbids mixed

marriages — the marriages of

Catholics with those not of the

Catholic Faith. This prohibition,

however, for good and weighty

reasons in an individual case, can

be dispensed (set aside). That is

to say, the Church tries in every

case to do the best possible good

by her laws and regulations. She

has laid down the law to avoid

mixed marriages as much as pos-

sible. But she realizes that, be-

cause of special circumstances, it

will sometimes be better to permit

such a marriage in a given case.

For this reason, she will dispense

with the law.

Bishops of individual dioceses

themselves lay down the condi-

tions under which mixed marri-

ages will be celebrated. It is up

to them, for example, to decide

whether the use of the church

building will be permitted. Usually

they will insist that the non-Cath-

olic partner receive at least six

hours of instruction in the Catho-

lic Faith, to know better what

obligations he is taking upon him-

self in marrying a Catholic. But

in every case, the mixed-marriage

agreement is required. This will

read somewhat as follows:

The Agreement

“I, the undersigned, not a mem-

ber of the Catholic Church, wish-

ing to contract marriage with

, a member of the Catholic

Church, propose to do so with the

understanding that the marriage

tie is indissoluble, except by death,

and promise on my word of honor
that shall enjoy the free

exercise of religion according to

27



his/her belief, and that all children

of either sex born of this marriage

shall be baptized and educated ex-

clusively in the faith and according

to the teachings of the Roman

Catholic Church; and furthermore,

that no other marriage ceremony

than that before the Catholic

priest shall take place.”

Solid Reasons

This agreement thus safeguards

in advance the faith of the Catho-

lic partner. It safeguards the prop-

er marriage ceremony for a

Catholic, and the true idea of the

marriage that they are entering.

It safeguards the religious faith

of the children. The Catholic

partner also signs a similar agree-

ment, with the addition that he

will pray and make sacrifices for

the conversion of the non-Catholic,

if this should be God’s will.

It is particularly with the agree-

ment as to the education of the

children that most resentment is

shown. “Why should I sign away

my children’s rights?” is the

strange question often asked. But,

we ask, what right is involved?

—

the right to believe nothing, to be

brought up a pagan? Without

such an agreement — as is the
case in far too many mixed mar-

riages—the child may be brought
up with no religious beliefs at all.

“Let him wait until he is old

enough to make his own decisions”

is a principle that will be applied

in no other matter, though of far

less importance. You will not let

the child decide if he is to go to

school, if he is to brush his teeth,

if he is to avoid playing with

matches. Is he to be kept in ig-

norance as to the necessity of sav-

ing his soul?

No convinced Catholic could

allow his children to be educated

in any religion other than that

which he believes to be the true

one. The Catholic believes in bap-

tism as a sacrament necessary for

salvation, and in the utter neces-

sity of true faith and worship. He

could not, therefore, begin mar-

riage with any plans other than

these. The mixed-marriage agree-

ment anticipates the problems that

will arise later, and settles them in

advance. That others may disagree

with the Catholic belief is a recog-

nized fact; but we must act on

our own principles, not on theirs.

Bitter Critics

One Protestant leaflet on mixed

marriage is entitled: “Look Before

You Leap Into the Roman Mar-

riage Contract.” This is good ad-

vice. The mixed-marriage agree-

ment has been upheld by the

courts of our States as a legal

contract. “Would you sign away

your right as a parent to prevent

your child from becoming a thief,

an adulterer, or a murderer?” the

leaflet goes on to ask. “Then how

can you sign away your right to

prevent your children from pray-

ing to the Virgin Mary and thus

becoming idolaters?”

The leaflet, which denounces

the Catholic agreement as “intol-

erant,” also asserts that: “The

Pope of Rome is the Antichrist.”

While we do not commend a type

28



of mind that places the Com-

munion of Saints on a level with

murder, adultery, and theft . . .

the fundamental assumption is

sound: if it violates your con-

science to sign such an agreement,

then in heaven’s name do not do

so.

Most non-Catholics, however,

find nothing in the mixed-marriage

agreement that violates their con-

science. Most do not believe in

the exclusive truth of any partic-

ular religious faith, including

their own. Most believe that there

is some truth in all religions, that

religious distinctions are not too

important, and most do not think

of Catholic Faith and practice as

does the author of the leaflet. But

if you do—if your attitude toward
your own faith is such that the

Catholic agreement is contrary to

your conscience — then do not
sign. And, by the same token, do

not marry a Catholic . . . for a

Catholic cannot validly marry you

in any other way.

View Question Squarely

With another type of viewpoint

on mixed marriages and the agree-

ment we have less sympathy. A
widely-circulated pamphlet en-

titled, “To Sign or Not To Sign,”

maintains that “the non-Catholic,

deeply in love, is emotionally un-

able to evaluate properly the far-

reaching significance of his sign-

ing the contract. Love often makes

sober reflection impossible and

drives men to rash acts which they

regret ever after.”

This sort of attitude toward

marriage had better be left where

it belongs — in the worst kind of
“romantic” movie. If a person

is unable to evaluate properly the

far-reaching significance of the

mixed-marriage agreement, he is

certainly in no position to evalu-

ate the far greater significance of

marriage itself. He js surely not

prepared to bind himself for a

life of intimate union with anoth-

er person, a union that will pre-

sent daily trials and difficulties

long after the honeymoon is over.

Don’t Marry a Catholic!

Instead of encouraging young

people in the idea that it is quite

proper that they may be emotion-

ally unfit, incapable of sober re-

flection, and prone to rash acts

when on the threshold of their

most momentous step in life, the

pamphleteer could very well point

out the idiocy of any such frame

of mind.

We conclude as we began. To

the Catholic, it is necessary to say

little— he knows the attitude of
the Catholic Church on mixed mar-

riages. To the non-Catholic we

say—Don’t marry a Catholic. But
if you do, then do it in the right

way—in a marriage the Catholic
has been taught to recognize as

valid. To do this, you must be

prepared to sign the mixed-mar-

riage agreement. Don’t compro-

mise your conscience. If the agree-

ment is against your conscience,

then follow the advice of thought-

ful persons of all faiths who ad-

vise you against a Catholic mar-

riage.

29



A final warning. Don’t ever im-
agine that you can avoid all this

“red tape” and perhaps have a

more “showy” wedding simply by

becoming a Catholic. The Catho-

lic Church doesn’t want you un-

der these terms, and, if you value

your own soul, you do not want

the Catholic Church under these

terms. The Catholic Church awaits

with open arms anyone who de-

sires to enter her fold with true

faith — who believes in her as
the instrument of Christ’s redemp-

tion and who desires through her

help to save his soul. But she

wants no hypocrites. She would

far rather see a Catholic marry a

sincere non-Catholic than a “con-

vert-for-a-day.”

^'BROWER, ARE YOU SAVED?"

L

The judge of a civil court,

in response to a complaint,

gave judgment against a

well-meaning soul who was

standing on street-corners

asking people : “Brother,

are you saved?” This, said

the judge, was a violation

of another’s privacy which

could not be permitted in

the name of religious

liberty.

He might have added that the

question is one that could not be

answered. For only God can tell

whether any man will or will not
save his soul.

There are some, however, who

rely on their interpretation of cer-

tain passages of the Scripture for

the belief that they can have in-

fallible assurance of their salva-

tion. Having been “saved” them-

selves, it is their sincere purpose

to get others “saved,” too.

And thus it is quite com-

mon to hear their re-

proach: “I have never

known a Catholic friend

who could tell me that he

was saved.”

“Being saved,” as they

understand it, is a process

which can be described as

follows: The person is first

urged to acknowledge the

general fact that sin exists in the

world, that sin can send him to

hell, and that he cannot avoid sin

all by himself. He acknowledges,

in other words, that he needs sal-

vation—freedom from the power
of sin and the grace or favor of

God to enable him to lead a good

life and later to enjoy the happi-

ness which God has designed for

those who love Him. He is then

urged to acknowledge that Christ

30



has, through His sufferings and

death, redeemed the human race

and that each individual human

being may share in this redemption

through faith. Finally, the person

“accepts Christ as his personal

Savior” — he believes in Christ
as portrayed in the Gospels and

trusts in Christ to accept him as

one of His own. He then con-

cludes that, come what may, he is

now among the elect—he is saved.

System of Salvation

Obviously, there are some

truths here, very valuable ones.

Such a system of salvation — if
it is true — certainly has its sim-
plicity to recommend it. It cannot

be denied that religion of this type

has produced much good, even

though it is sometimes the kind

that “strains at the gnat and swal-

lows the camel.” This conviction

of salvation is supposed to carry

with it “conversion” — a change
of life, the resolution to avoid evil

conduct of all kind. Yet these per-

sons may strenuously deny that

good works must follow conver-

sion, for they are “signs of faith.”

And when they say, as they do,

that mere formal membership in

a Church is valueless without in-

ward acceptance of Christ, they

are quite correct.

But all of this is beside the

point. What must be answered is

this: Is this actually Christ’s way

of salvation? How it makes one

feel, matters very little. One’s feel-

ings are perhaps the easiest source

of self-deception. The results our

feelings may produce in our life

cannot serve as an ultimate proof.

There are many other ways of

life that produce equally good

and better results . . . and one

may do good things motivated by

principles that are erroneous. That

the plan is a simple one, proves

nothing. The question is: Is it

the right one? Conversion from

evil to good is necessary — but
the question remains : Does any-

one have the right to say on this

basis that he is “saved,” that he

has finally and once for all com-

plied with the conditions of sal-

vation?

He has no such right.

Those who assume they do base

their teaching on the fact that in

the Scripture salvation is attribut-

ed simply to faith. John V:24, for

example, quotes the words of the

Lord: “Amen, amen, I say to you,

he who hears my word, and be-

lieves Him who sent me, has life

everlasting, and does not come to

judgment, but has passed from

death to life.” And further on

:

“Amen, amen, I say to you, he

who believes in me has life ever-

lasting” (John VI:47). They have

faith, they argue, therefore they

are saved.

Good Works Too

But salvation is not attributed

in the Scripture exclusively to

faith. It is also attributed to good

works — even without the men-
tion of faith. “Life eternal indeed

he will give to those who by

patience in good works seek glory

and honor and immortality”

(Rom. 11:7). Our Lord is quoted

31



by St. John in his Apocalypse

(Revelation) as saying: “Behold,

I come quickly! And my reward
is with me, to render to each ac-

cording to his works” (XXII: 12).

And St. James expressly states that

“You see that by works a man is

justified, and not by faith only”

(Jas. 11:24).

Salvation is also attributed to

love (John XIV:23), to hope

(Rom. VIII :24), and to other

virtues and qualifications. Even if

we were supposed to take the

Scriptures alone as a sufficient

guide to salvation, we at least

would have to take them as a

whole. We could not content our-
selves with isolated verses and dis-

regard the rest.

The Christian Life

Christianity is not merely a fact

to be accepted. It is a life to be

lived. It consists not only in faith,

but in good works, in hope, in

love, in adherence to every com-

mand that Christ has given. We
are to be judged not on our faith

only, but in accordance with our

living the Christian life. Faith and

conversion start one on the road

to salvation — but it is a road
that one must travel throughout

life, with Christ’s help. And no

one can give himself assurance

that he will travel this road to the

end, and that he will persevere in

the good purpose he has under-

taken.

“But if the just man turn him-

self away from his justice, and do

iniquity according to all the

abominations which the wicked

man useth to work, shall he live?
All his justices which he hath done

shall not be remembered: in the

prevarication by which he hath

prevaricated, and in his sin, which

he hath committed, in them he

shall die” (Ezechiel XVIII :24).

“Whoever perseveres to the

end, he shall be saved,” our Lord

told His followers, having proph-

esied that “the charity of many

will grow cold” (Matt. XXIV:

12-13). St. Paul certainly had

great faith, but he did not assure

himself of salvation. Rather, he

said, “I chastise my body and
bring it into subjection, lest per-

haps after preaching to others I

myself should be rejected” (I Cor.

IX:27). And in the same Epistle,

he warned his readers: “Let him

who thinks he stands take heed

lest he fall” (X:12).

Performance Counts

“Work out your salvation with

fear and trembling,” he wrote to

the Philippians, “for it is God who

of His good pleasure works in you

both the will and the perform-

ance” (11:12-13). And on anoth-

er occasion he very graphically

stated the possibility of the loss of

salvation on the part of one who

had formerly sincerely believed in

Christ (Heb. VI:4-6), as, indeed,

did our Lord Himself (Matt. VII:

21 ).

Who, then, can assure hinxself

of salvation? Who can predict

with infallibility that he will per-

severe? Are we not free human

beings? Then we have the power

to lose our souls, if we so choose.

32



“Seek a church where the people

know they are saved,” admonish-

es a pamphlet. Seek if you will

. . . but do not expect to find. Or,

if you find such a church, look at

it closely — it is not the church
of St. Paul nor of his Lord.

Christ has not assured each of

us that we shall persevere to the

end, that we shall not fall away.

His promises are an assurance of

our salvation only if we do our

part. No other power can separ-

ate us from Christ, but we our-

selves can will this separation.

Way To Salvation

We can, however, have many

indications that we are on the road

of salvation. The true sign of our

love and faith in Christ is the

keeping of His commandments

(John XIV: 15). If we are truly

avoiding sin, we know that we are

persevering in the faith which we

have professed, for “whoever is

born of God does not commit sin,

because his seed abides in him

and he cannot sin, because he is

born of God. In this the children

of God and the children of the

devil are made known” (I John

111:9-10) . Upon such bases can we

place our well-founded hope of

eternal salvation.

We have not been placed in this

world to work out salvation on our

own terms . . . but on Christ’s.

We must be content with salvation

as it has been given to us, as a

free gift — we cannot refashion
it according to our own whims,

assuring ourselves of something

we have been given no grounds to

believe.

“For whatever things have been

written have been written for our

instruction, that through the pa-

tience and the consolation afford-

ed by the Scriptures we may have

hope. Now may the God of

hope fill you with all joy and

peace in believing, that you may

abound in hope and in the power

of the Holy Spirit” (Rom. XV

4, 13).

33



;W.V%VVVVVVVV^iVV-V«VVVVV%VVV^VVSiVVVVVVVVVWVWVVV^

ii DON'T WE ALL WORSHIP

ii
THE SAME GOD?

Swvw^-vwwwwvwvw
“Catholics tell us to in-

vestigate the Catholic reli-

gion,” some of our friends

will complain, “and they

invite us to come to church

with them. Yet Catholics

are not allowed to investi-

gate Protestantism or to

attend Protestant services.

This is one-sided. Is the

Catholic Church afraid

that Catholics might lose their

faith if they found out about

Protestanism?”

This complaint is familiar and

—according to Protestant princi-
ples — it is quite logical. Catho-
lics, however, act not according to

Protestant principles but accord-

ing to Catholic ones. And it is

Catholic principles that rule out

religious instruction from Prot-

estantism and participation in

Protestant worship.

When we invite Protestants to

investigate the Catholic Church, it

is only because of what these

Protestants themselves believe

about their religious duties. In a

very well-known Protestant bi-

weekly, a writer presents the

Protestant position as this: “We

are always re-examining the truth

of our own Protestant faith and

trying to think through its mean-

.wwys^wwywwwir
ing ... In a meeting ... I

said that among us many

and frequently the best

students asked whether the

doctrines of salvation by

faith alone and of the bond-

age of the will, etc., in all

their reformation hardness

were really fully in accord-

ance with God’s revela-

tion. . .”

Protestants who are represented

by such a statement obviously

have as their idea of religion that

it is a search for truth. If the

foundations of religion are con-

stantly to be re-examined, if it is

considered that truth is not yet

possessed in a definitive form,

then they may certainly be invited

to look into what the Catholic

Church teaches. It is only logical

that in the search for truth the

teaching of Catholicism should

not be ignored.

But this is not the Catholic posi-

tion on religion. In Catholic be-

lief, the Catholic religion is the

truth. The reasonable bases on

which the Catholic Faith rests can

be shown to the satisfaction of any

inquiring person. We do not con-
ceive of religion as a searching

for, but as a possession of the

truth. We are not seeking truth—

34



we have it. Hence we do not in-

vestigate what other religions

have to offer.

Some may he tempted to dis-

miss this as prejudice and nar-

row-mindedness. But we repeat,

the reasons for whatwe say of the

Church can he shown. A non-

Catholic may reply that these

reasons are not sufficient to con-

vince him. That is not the point;

for us they are sufficient. And,

incidentally, the non-Catholic

might ask himself the question:

Do I believe that there is the pos-

sibility—the real possibility—of

accepting any religion as the ab-

solute truth? In his honest an-

swer to this question he may well

find the reasons for his failure

to be convinced ... if indeed he

has ever truly investigated the

Catholic Church.

Catholic Truth

But do we mean that every

Catholic, of whatever education,

actually has gone through the

proofs for the Catholic Church,

so that he knows that he pos-

sesses the truth? No, of course

not. But he knows that such

proofs are possible and that they

exist. Possibly one man in a mil-

lion would be able to explain

scientifically the rotation of the

earth . . . the fission of the atom

... or the material composition

of the moon. But he knows the

facts, and he knows that they can

be proved by those competent to

do so. Thus he is reasonable in

accepting them as true.

Protestants and Catholicsmean

vastly different things when they

speak of “faith” and of “losing

faith.” They consequently place

vastly different values on its pos-

session and loss. Loss of faith to

some Protestants is not of major

consequence. If it does not matter

greatly what a man believes, then

it does not matter much more

whether he believes at all. Loss

of faith can be just as much “the

search for truth” as finding faith.

But faith to the Catholic means

the acceptance of truths, on God’s

word, which we must believe if

we shall save our souls. This ac-

ceptance is a reasonable act. But

it is precisely because not every

person is capable of demonstrat-

ing these reasons that the Church

safeguards faith in many ways

which seem repressive to the

Protestant.

A skilled debater might present

to an unlearned Catholic argu-

ments that he could not meet,

arguments that might shake his

faith. This does not mean that

the arguments cannot be answered

— they can. But that will do
no good for the person in ques-

tion. Meanwhile, faith is all im-

portant, and the Church cannot

stand idly by and see faith de-

stroyed in an individual simply

because he is a poor hand in an

argument. A Catholic who truly

believes in the Church will, there-

fore, heed her command to stay

away from non-Catholic religions.

In this sense, then, the Catho-

lic Church is afraid that Catholics

—some of them—might lose their
faith. Her fear arises merely from

her concern as to what might be

35



the eternal consequences of such a

loss. As a solicitous mother, she

cannot but do her best to prevent

any such occurrence. Sensible par-

ents will make no apology for

guarding their children’s moral

principles against the subtle argu-

ments of more worldly-wise indi-

viduals. Neither does the Church

apologize for guarding the faith

that she know^ to be true.

To put the matter briefly, then

—the ordinary non-Catholic does
not consider religious truth as

existing apart from the individual.

If he accepts a teaching, then as

far as he is concerned, that is his

religious truth. If he discards it,

it ceases to be the truth. But for

the Catholic, religious truth—like
moral truth, and any other truth

—

is a fact, no matter how many or

how few accept it. Thus no one

must be needlessly exposed to the

danger of losing his faith any

more than to the danger of losing

his morals.

But there is an even more im-

portant reason for Catholics to

avoid non-Catholic religious serv-

ices. It is a reason that goes be-

yond the mere conviction of pos-

sessing truth and acknowledging

no need to seek it elsewhere.

Neither is it simply a fear of dan-

ger to one’s faith. For there is

relatively little danger that a Cath-

olic’s faith will be shaken by a

Protestant religious service.

The reason is, rather, that wor-

ship is an act of religion. Wor-

ship is an expression of the faith

that prompts it. To a greater or

less degree, the worship of any re-

ligion is a reflection of the prin-

ciples according to which that re-

ligion exists. Episcopalians wor-

ship in one way — according to
the creeds and the prayer book of

the Episcopalian Church. Metho-

dists worship in their way, Quak-

ers in theirs, Unitarians in a third

way. And Catholics worship ac-

cording to the faith of the Cath-

olic Church.

Catholic Position

Catholics believe in one true

Church. They believe that that one

Church was set up for a great pur-

pose — to guide mankind through
its teaching authority and to safe-

guard Christ’s revelation in its

purity, to provide men with the

sacraments, the means of heavenly

grace, and to offer due worship to

God. We believe, therefore, that
the worship of the Catholic Church

is that which God has command-

ed of us and that God will be dis-

pleased if we attempt to offer Him

any other form of worship.

Do not misunderstand us. We
do not say that God refuses to

hear any sincere prayer. We do
not say that persons of other faiths

displease God when they worship

Him according to their conscience.

We know that many good people
are outside the Catholic Church

and that they are perfectly sincere

in their own beliefs. Their wor-

ship is likewise sincere. But their

worship would not be sincere if

offered by us. For we do not be-

lieve in it if we are consistent

Catholics.

We all worship God. But we

36



worship Him in many ways. And

the Catholic who believes in the

Catholic Church maintains that he

worships God in God’s way. If

God has revealed a true Church to

offer Him true worship, then it is

base ingratitude for a member of

this Church to attempt worship in

any other way.

Consistent with his own princi-

ples, the Protestant can seek in-

struction from Catholicism and

worship in the Catholic Church.

Consistent with his principles, the

Catholic can do neither of these

things. If a Protestant should,

however, adopt toward his own

religion the attitude that we adopt

towards ours, we should expect

him to take the position that we

take.

Meanwhile, while we make our

appeal to Protestants on their

principles sincerely held, we can

only insist that we have the right

to be judged according to our own

principles. It may not be possi-

ble for the non-Catholic to agree

with them; but he can understand

and respect them.

“Christ walked about the

countryside in simple

homespun clothing and

sandals. But the Pope is

carried about on men’s

shoulders and cardinals

wear red cloaks three yards

long.”

Criticisms like this are

heard from people who can-

not reconcile the humility

and simplicity of Christ with the

magnificent cathedrals and the

“pomp and ceremony” of the

Catholic Church. “What,” some of

them ask, “would the Apos-

tles say if they could see a

High Mass in St. Peter’s in

Rome?”

Perhaps there are a few

Catholics who enjoy cere-

mony just for its own

sake. But Catholics in gen-

eral are like other people

in that they usually have

some kind of a reason for

whatever they do. And there are

good and sound reasons for their

love of the ceremonies of their

Church.

37



We do not love something mere-
ly because it is surrounded with

ceremony, but we surround with

ceremony the things that we love.

No sane man or woman desires

marriage just for the sake of the

wedding ritual. But realizing the

importance of marriage, they will

insist that the ritual be appropri-

ately solemn and impressive.

To say that Catholics are at-

tracted to their Church simply be-

cause of her ceremonies is as

senseless as telling a man “You

love this woman merely be-

cause she is your wife.” Because

he first loved her, he made her his

wife. And because Catholics have

loved the Church and what it rep-

resents, they have enriched her

ministrations through the ages

with the dignity of ceremony. If

Catholics wanted ceremony merely

for its own sake, they could be-

long to any number of cults which

would provide them with more

lavish display than is to be found

in the Catholic Church.

Solemn Ceremonies

Ceremony is natural to man.

When he deems a thing important,

he is inclined to surround it with

a degree of solemnity. The taking

of an oath, commencement exer-

cises, inaugurations, the launch-

ing of a boat—whatever may be
the occasion—each has its appro-
priate ceremony and traditions.

And this is inevitable. Man is not

a spirit only, he is also a creature

of senses — he is composed of
body as well as soul. In what he

does he acts as a whole man, with

all man’s powers.

It is not different in religion.

Man worships God as a human be-
ing, with both body and soul.

Along with his mind and will, his

body, senses and feelings should

also find their own proper expres-

sion in worship. True, these ex-

ternal signs of worship without in-

ner conviction would be a sham

and pretense, mere hypocrisy. Our

worship must be of the spirit. But

if it truly represents a wholeheart-

ed devotion, it will naturally find

external expression.

External Signs

It is entirely unnatural, and ul-

timately harmful, to cast out the

externals of religion altogether.

Eventually this can only lead to a

religion that will be harsh and

artificial. It will cease to be real

because it is unnatural. The

Protestant critic, Ralph Adams

Cram, has written:

“From the outbreak of the

Protestant revolution, the old kin-

ship between beauty and religion

was deprecated and often forgot-

ten. Not only was there, amongst

the reformers and their adherents,

a definite hatred of beauty and a

determination to destroy it when

found; there was also a conscien-

tious elimination of everything of

the sort from the formularies,

services, and structures that ap-

plied to their new religion. This

unprecedented break between reli-

gion and beauty had a great deal

to do with that waning interest in

religion itself . . .

“Man is, by instinct, not only a

lover of beauty, he is also by na-

ture a ‘ritualist,’ that is to say, he

38



does, when left alone, desire form

and ceremony, if significant. If

this instinctive craving for cere-

monial is denied to man in reli-

gion, where it preeminently be-

longs, he takes it on for himself

in secular fields; elaborate ritual

in secret societies, in the fashion

of his dress, in the details of so-

cial custom. He also, in despera-

tion, invents new religions and

curious sects, working up for them

strange rituals. . .” (Religion and

Beauty.

)

Honorable Age

The Church’s ceremonies and

rituals were not thought up over

night and then impressed upon an

unwilling or merely passive laity.

It is the Catholic people through

the ages who are responsible for

them. They show the honorable

age of the Church. They show the

Church’s continued life, that she is

not some embalmed relic of the

past. She has received customs and

practices from those who were her

first members; others she found

in the age of the Fathers of the

first few centuries; still others in

the Middle Ages; and some even

in modern times.

Thus ceremony shows the hu-

man side of the Church just as an

unfailing teaching has shown the

divine side. The Church teaches as

she has ever taught and ever will,

for the Church is the voice of

Christ. But the Church is also a

society of human beings. She wor-

ships with the tongues and actions

of twenty centuries of Christian

men.

Ceremony also, in its variation

throughout the world — the dif-
ferent manners of expressing the

same solemnity — shows the uni-
versal character of the Church. As

Pope Benedict XV stated: “The
Church is not Latin, or Greek, or

Slav: it is Catholic.”

Exalting Christ

Our principle in using ceremon-

ies, decorating churches, and add-

ing dignity to Christian worship,

is this: “We exalt the Christ Who
humbled Himself.”

It is a poor excuse and a shabby

pretense to maintain that, since

Christ appeared among men as a

slave, we should imitate His ene-

mies by treating Him as one.

Christ, Who possessed all, fore-

went all to give us the example of

the spirit in which we should use

worldly goods. But to what bet-

ter use can we put worldly goods

than in giving them back to God?

And let us look closely at the

humble Christ. When the woman

anointed His feet with precious

ointment, did He draw back and

rebuke her? By no means . . . the

word of rebuke was administered

by Judas. Did He complain when

hailed by the populace of Jeru-

salem as the Messiah and conduct-

ed into the city in triumph? Rath-

er, He said that if the people had

remained silent, the very stones

would have cried out.

Christ Was Honored

Did He deny Thomas the priv-

ilege of falling at His feet and

hailing Him as Lord and God?

39



Did He condemn Herod’s Temple,

which was one of the wonders of

the world for pure lavishness? Or

did He not call it God’s house

and drive forth those who were

profaning it? Did He not sur-

round the working of His miracles

with ceremony — and were not
the miracles themselves external

signs of the spiritual works which

He performed?

Certainly He condemned vulgar

display that was sought for its

own sake. He would not be hailed

as a merely temporal king. But

He willingly accepted what was

offered in a true spirit of faith

and devotion. And this applies to

the work of man’s hands, to his

actions, to his whole being.

For every wealthy church in

this land, there are many poor

ones. Few people are heard to

complain because billions are spent

annually on pleasures, games, the

theatre, lodges, fortune-telling, and

the like. But when a fraction of

this goes to the glorification of

God’s religion, it is bitterly re-

sented — usually by those who are
least concerned and who have

never contributed to any religious

cause whatever.

Not Mere Vanity

In giving the leaders of the

Church signs and symbols of hon-

or, we do not extend homage to

them as individual creatures, but

to what they represent. No pope

or cardinal or bishop would be so

foolish as to attribute this honor

to his personal qualities, but to

the office which he holds.

In the armed forces, there is an

elaborate system of rank and re-

spect for rank. This is not to

glorify individuals, but to impress

upon all the respect that is due to

lawful authority. When we re-
ceive an ambassador, even though

his personal character may be re-

pugnant, we show him marked

honor. For he represents a gov-

ernment and a people. We do not
do less for those who have been

called to administer the conduct

of God’s Church.

Those who govern the Church,

it may be true, can be tempted to

forget that they are custodians,

not possessors. It is the tempta-

tion of all who are placed in

authority. They above all are con-

scious of how human they are.

But the very few who have suc-

cumbed to this temptation are as

nothing in the Church’s long his-

tory when compared with those

who always have given and who

continue to give in their lives the

exemplification of the Christian

ideal: to be in the world, but to

be not of the world.

Few men, for example, can leave

the world having been touched by

it as little as was Pope Pius X.

In 1914, having been surrounded

by the papal dignity for eleven

years, he could leave behind him

no personal possessions. He could

only petition in his will that his

successor might grant a small pen-

sion to his surviving relatives, his

two sisters. Few could write, as

he wrote: “I was born poor; I

have lived poor; and I wish to die

poor.”

40



Is It True That Catholic

Countries Are Backward?

“Look at the amazing

progress of Protestant

countries,” some people

say, “and the backward-

ness of Catholic nations.”

Referring to South Amer-

ica, a recent Protestant

article spoke of “an entire

continent to the south of

us . . . lying in spiritual

darkness greater even^

than Dark Africa.” Similar state-

ments are frequent, though they

are not always quite so crudely

put. “Missionaries” who make a

habit of this kind of pronounce-

ment, can scarcely call it “perse-

cution” and intolerance when these

countries accord them a cool re-

ception.

The first and really necessary

thing to be said about this type of

sneer — for it can be called noth-
ing else — is that it rests on an
entirely false assumption. It is the

snobbery that we expect of a child

who has not yet learned the rela-

tion of values. “My Dad is richer

than yours. My Dad is therefore

superior to yours.”

Standards of Society

In defining what we mean by

civilization, we can probably

agree that it signifies: an arrange-

ment of society in which the

equality of human nature

is recognized, and man’s

inalienable rights of life,

liberty, and the pursuit of

happiness are both enjoyed

and defended. Civilization

and culture are the record

of man’s effort in achiev-

ing the purpose for which

he was placed in this

world. Material progress, tech-

nology as it is called, and the

amassing of wealth are merely

one small aspect of this. To make

them the single basis for evaluat-

ing all civilizations is to make

them the whole purpose of exist-

ence. Such judgments are both

superficial and stupid. They be-

tray strictly earthly standards of

those who make them.

The same people do not bother

to define what are “Catholic coun-

tries” and “Protestant countries.”

A Catholic country would be, we

may suppose, one whose people

profess the Catholic religion, to

the virtual exclusion of all others.

Ireland, Spain, Italy, and Portu-

gal might fit such a definition.

By the same principle, Denmark,

Norway, Sweden, and Finland

might justly be called Protestant

countries.

41



But by what right may such

countries as Holland, say, or

Switzerland be called Protestant,

when roughly 40% of the popula-
tion of each is Catholic? As far

as simple majorities go, neither

Great Britain nor the United

States, for example, is either

Protestant or Catholic. The great-

er part of the citizens belong to

no church. ' Several countries

which are glibly called “Catholic”

or “Protestant” actually comprise

peoples which are largely only

nominal supporters of the respec-

tive faiths named.

Fair Judgment

And most important of all, the

person who is using “backward”

Catholic countries as a prop to

Protestantism forgets — honestly
or merely conveniently — any
fact other than that of the dom-

inant religion of the country. He

never seems to know any of the

country’s history, its difficulties,

the actions of other countries

against it, its natural resources

—

nothing, in fact, save that here

and now it is in such and such a

condition and that the majority

of its people are Catholic. And

sometimes he is misinformed

about either or both of these

points. Thus he will place himself

in the ludicrous position of blam-

ing tbe Catholic Church for her

“failure” in some country — Mex-
ico, for example — where, as a
matter of fact, an anti-Catholic

governing clique deprived the

Church of any influence for a

hundred years, closing her schools.

shutting down the churches, ex-

ecuting her clergy and driving her

underground.

One refreshing aspect about

these comparisons is how ridicu-

lous they often look in retrospect.

Take, for example, this excerpt

from a book written less than a

hundred years ago—a book which
was in high favor at the time;

Progress and Decline

“Look at the progress of (Eng-

land’s) population, wealth, indus-

try, and art, at the islands and

territories she has subdued and

settled, at her mastery of the seas,

and the diffusion of her race,

language, and religion through-

out the world. At the present rate

of progress in one century more,

the Protestants speaking the Eng-

lish tongue will exceed three hun-

dred millions, and outnumber the

present members of both Greek

and Romish churches; and what

is one century compared with the

eighteen preceding centuries?

Again, compare Italy, the an-

cient seat of arts and power, de-

pressed and degraded and impov-

erished under the Papal See for

twelve centuries, with the Protes-

tant States of Holland, won from

the sea, Germany, England, and

the United States, in which last the

Protestants stand as ten to one

compared with the Roman Catho-

lics.”

But how is the situation a cen-

tury later? The British Empire is

now a commonwealth of free na-

tions with the non-British in a

42



great majority. England’s ‘‘reli-

gion” — if this means the An-
glican Church — long has been a
small minority, even though it is

still the state church. Catholics

in England now outnumber An-

glicans. As for the “present rate

of progress” being sustained,

far from there being 300 mil-

lion English speaking Protes-

tants throughout the world,

there are not that many Protes-

tants all told, of every language

and race, and the combined Cath-

olic and Orthodox Churches

(“Greek and Romish Churches”)

throughout the world outnum-

ber Protestants over three to

one. (Statistics taken from the

1959 World Almanac, p. 715.)

Embarrassing History

No one has any desire to dis-

parage the British people in

their past heroic history and in

the sacrifices they are making

today. But, if material wealth

was a valid argument once for

her “Protestant civilization,”

would not her present economic

decline be equally valid against

it? And what of the might

of “Protestant Germany?”

Throughout the nineteenth cen-

tury, those who liked to identify

Protestantism and prosperity

used to refer to the “three great

Protestant Teutonic powers”

(Germany, England, and the

U.S.A.) whose destiny it was to

dominate the world. That re-

mains an embarrassing page of

history today.

Has England’s decline been

due to Protestantism? Was Ger-

many’s postwar degradation the

result of dominance of the Lu-

theran religion? Are the back-

ward areas of the United States

retarded because they are popu-

lated by Protestants? No one
would say yes to any of these

questions. Then why not use the

same common sense with Catho-

lic countries? This is not a

one-way rule that applies only

against Catholics. Spain, at the

height of her Catholic domi-

nance, was the ruler of the world,

culturally and politically. So was

it with Portugal, so with Italy.

Only when economic decline has

set in, was it suddenly discovered

that these countries were “de-

pressed and degraded and impov-

erished under the Papal See.”

The study of the rise and fall

of civilizations and of national

powers is a complex, not a sim-

ple one. Into it enter many fac-

tors, temporal, political, geo-

graphical, racial, personal, eco-

nomic, and psychological. There

is nothing in either Protestant-

ism or Catholicism that inspires

men to build armies, to conquer

foreign peoples, to colonize. Eng-

land became a power to supplant

Spain not because of Protestant-

ism, but because James II (a

Catholic, incidentally) laid the

foundations for the British navy

that gave her this dominance.

Church Of The Poor

In one sense, however, the

Catholic Church is delighted to

be associated with poverty. She is

the Church of the poor, and in

this fact she glories. She finds it

43



strange when some persons think

it a reproach in her that she

counts so many poor members.

They are not poor because they

are Catholics. If they became

Protestants, Mohammedans or in-

fidels they would not become rich

—but being poor, it is to the
Catholic Church that they adhere.

What the Catholic Church is, she

owes to her poor.

In this country, there are rela-

tively few wealthy Catholics.

Wealthy people do not naturally

gravitate toward Catholicism. Our

schools, churches, and hospitals

have been built through the sac-

rifices of ordinary people. Our

priests and Bishops have come

largely from the middle and low-

er income groups. Not long ago

it was verified that not a single

member of the Catholic hierarchy

in the United States had come

from a family that could afford a

college education. Countries too,

which are economically poor,

which have not benefited from

the resources that have made our

country wealthy, or which have

been exploited by wealthier coun-

tries, have remained faithful to

the Catholic Church.

Wealth is not the end-all of

human activity. Neither is it much

of a Christian criterion. If Christ

in His many teachings emphasized

anything at all, it is that material

goods are subordinate to the

spiritual. It was not the poor that

he implied would enter heaven

with difficulty. Countries, like in-

dividuals, are to be judged not on

what they have, but what they are.

It is true that material re-

sources go hand-in-hand with real

progress in other ways. They pro-

vide the means for scientific re-

search and for development of the

arts. But the painting, the sculp-

ture, the architecture, the music,

and the science that have poured

forth from the Catholic countries

of Christendom under ideal condi-

tions — works which in many
ways have never been equalled

since — have not shown Catholic
peoples slow to take advantage

of the opportunity when it has

been present.

Catholic Contributions

Civilization and culture can be

manifest also in the relative rec-

ords which various peoples have

made in similar endeavors under

similar circumstances. Take, for

example, the colonization of Amer-

ica by both the Protestant and the

Catholic peoples who came here.

American school children of the

United States, sad to say, are not

told too much about the early

history of this country. They learn

about the Pilgrims landing at Ply-

mouth in 1620 almost as though

that were the only significant date

following 1492. They hear very

little of the French and Spanish

missioners who travelled the length

and breadth of the New World es-

tablishing schools and missions for

the natives. In contrast to the

sturdy. God-fearing folk who laid

the foundation for our great Re-

public, they are given to under-

stand that the Conquistadores were

motivated only by greed for gold.

44



To top this off, the picture is

then drawn with the same old

lines . . . Look at the wealth of

North America, and the compar-

ative poverty of the South. It does

not seem to occur to any of them

that the wealth of North America

was exploited entirely by the in-

vaders for themselves. The In-

dians lost their land, their liber-

ties, and their lives in a series of

outright robberies, broken treaties,

and frauds which we now confess

with shame. Those who were not

exterminated were confined to ever

smaller reservations. There was

thus abundant wealth for the white

man. Only a tardy conscience has

restored some of the Indians’

rights.

A Strong Contrast

But how different was the story

in Catholic America. Here the

white man did not simply become

wealthy through the exploitation

of the Indian.

As the Protestant historian Sea-

man has written: “It should be

remembered, to the credit of the

Spanish and Portuguese colonists,

and the Catholic missionaries and

Catholic policy, that they have

been the means of changing the

habits of life, and of civilizing

more than twenty millions of

American Indians and mixed

breeds, while the Anglo-Saxon

and German colonists and peoples

have scarcely exerted any favor-

able influence upon the mind, the

character, or the habits of life of

more than one hundred and twen-

ty thousand of the descendants of

the aborigines of our country.

“The English, Scotch, and Ger-

man colonists to America had no

regard, and scarcely any feelings

of humanity, for the aborigines;

they treated the Indians as sav-

ages, whose condition was nearly

hopeless; as a race so degraded

that it was not profitable to have

much intercourse with them; in-

termarriage of the whites with

them has been generally regarded

as degrading, and in some of the

colonies and states prohibited by

law; and no efforts have been

made to subject them to law, to

incorporate them into the society

of the white people as laborers

and citizens, to restrain their va-

grant habits, and to teach them

industry by a system moderately

and humanely coercive, as the

youth of all civilized countries are

taught to labor.

Helped Aborigines

“The Catholic colonists and

states have pursued a very differ-

ent policy. They have regarded

the Indians as part of the human

family, as having capacities for

improvement as well as souls to

be saved; and hence they mingled

with the Indians, intermarried

with them, subjected them to their

laws as laborers and subjects, or

citizens; taught them many of the

useful arts, and how to work and

habits of industry; improved their

physical as well as their mental

condition; restrained them from

wars among themselves ; raised

them in the scale of civilization;

and converted them into peacable,

45



quiet, and reasonably industrious

citizens.” {Progress oj Nations.)

A Protestant paper, commenting

on these inescapable facts said

flippantly: “The Aztecs and Incas

were slaughtered before they had

a chance to learn how well they

were being treated.” This smug

statement comes with poor grace.

Some of the Indians, to be sure,

were “slaughtered.” The Spanish

were not ashamed, nor should we

be of them, to put a violent end

to the charming Aztec custom of

human sacrifice, tearing out the

hearts of living bodies — which
contemporaries estimated to ac-

count for 15 to 20 thousand lives

annually. There is, however, noth-

ing in Spanish-American history

to equal for sheer ferocity and

cold-bloodedness the spectacle of

the great New England preacher.

Increase Mather, who, in 1676,

after a wanton massacre of 600

virtually helpless Indians, could

enter the pulpit of the leading

Congregational church in Boston

and (in his own words) “thank

God that this day we have sent

600 heathen souls to hell.”

Less Race Discord

As a significant result of the

Catholic policy, the Latin Amer-

ican countries, like most Catholic

countries in general, are free from

that racial prejudice and the idea

of “superior” colors and races that

are all too prevalent in this coun-

try and in others — such as South
Africa — which have been sub-
jected at one time to a strong

Protestant domination.

Another claim used in trying to

prove superiority of “Protestant

countries” is the comparison of

illiteracy statistics. Most of the

figures frequently quoted are sim-

ply imaginary. Even where authen-

tic figures are available, however,

they usually provide no true basis

for comparison.

What About Illiteracy?

As the Encyclopedia Britatinica

points out (in the article, “Illit-

eracy”) : “Statistics on illiteracy

are not collected in a uniform

manner in various countries, nor

do given figures represent the

same age groups, so that much of

their value for comparative pur-

poses is lost.” In some countries,

the statistics have been estimated

on the basis of the number that

were able to sign their names in

marriage registers. In others, the

figure is set in proportion to the

literacy of army conscripts. Even

so, in the list of comparative fig-

ures in the Encyclopedia, such

countries as Belgium, Czechosla-

vakia, and France, were all about

in the same class together with

Esthonia, the United States, and

Canada. One country having the

least number of illiterates is

Switzerland, which is in a large

part entirely Catholic. Obviously,

then, if some Catholic countries

are educationally inferior, the

cause is to be sought elsewhere

than in the Catholic Faith.

A far better way to gauge the
attitude of a people to education

is to examine the available figures

on the actual schooling that is be-

46



ing provided and utilized. The

following figures have been taken

from the Annual of the Interna-

tional Bureau of Education and

Instruction (Geneva), for 1938.

In each case, we give the number

of children out of every 1,000 of

the total population who were re-

ceiving primary education in all

available schools: Argentina, 147;

Belgium, 116; Chile, 118; Czecho-

slovakia, 117; Denmark, 114;

Finland, 103; France, 126; Great

Britain, 131; Holland, 127; Ire-

land, 163; Italy, 111; Mexico,

111; Norway, 126; Poland, 145;

Spain, 92; Sweden, 105; Switzer-

land, 118; U.S., 172. This list is

not complete — some Catholic
countries have a poorer record, as

do some Protestant ones. But the

figures certainly bear out that ed-

ucation does not rise and fall sim-

ply in accordance with the preva-

lent religion.

In Argentina, the Annual says,

there are two primary school

teachers for every single soldier.

In the city of Buenos Aires alone,

there are 81 public libraries. The

Catholic tradition of education has

been secure, wherever it has been

allowed to exist without interfer-

ence. There were 12 universities

and 40 colleges founded in Latin

America before 1636, when Har-

vard, the first North American

college, was established. When the

anti - Catholic government of

France secularized French educa-

tion, it was at the expense of sup-

pressing 14,404 Catholic schools

between the years 1902-04. All

Catholic teaching orders were

driven from the country in 1904.

If the country suffered education-

ally — as it did — it was the
fault of the Church’s enemies, and

not of the Church.

What About Morals?

Morality is another basis on

which civilizations are evaluated.

There are many ignorant and cal-

umnious judgments passed on the

moral standards of certain coun-

tries, judgments that have been

based on nothing but assumption

and prejudice. The idea seems to

be—a poor people will always be
an immoral people. This is not

only an insult to the nations in

question; it is an insult to every

man who is poor. It is hard to

collect statistics on morality. Cer-

tain indications of moral stand-

ards, however, which are matters

of record, can be established. Let

us look, for example, at the latest

available illegitimacy statistics as

published in the Encyclopedia

Britannica. For every 1,000 births

in each of the following countries,

the number given represents those

which were illegitimate. England

and Wales, 43; Scotland, 68;

Denmark, 106; Finland, 89;

France, 90; Germany, 110; Italy,

47; New Zealand, 45; Ireland, 20;

Norway, 66; Sweden, 145; Swit-

zerland, 38; Australia, 47; Hol-

land, 19; U.S., 24. Illegitimacy,

as is evident from these figures,

does not run according to the ma-

terial standard of living or the

facility of education.

Far less do these figures reflect

against Catholic countries. The

47



European Catholic countries have

a far better record than do others.

The exception noted by the author

of the article in the Encyclopedia

is with regard to Austria, where

there was an illegitimacy record

three times as high as that of Eng-

land. But here there is also an

explanation. In Austria, the civil

law demanded conditions for a

legal marriag6 that were impossi-

ble for a great number of people.

Not only did one have to be able

to read, write, and cipher, but he

also had to possess a definite sum

of money. The result was that

thousands of people were actually

married, but not in marriages that

the state recognized. Still, in the

state records, the children of these

marriages would be classed as il-

legitimate. Church and State con-

flicts on marriage laws also have

resulted in some degree for the

high figures of illegitimacy quoted

from other countries.

Who Is To Blame?

Undoubtedly there are explana-

tions also for the extraordinary

number of illegitimate births in

the Scandinavian countries. No

one is charging Lutheranism with

the responsibility. There has been

no intention in these comparisons

of proving anything against Prot-

estantism. The points that have

been made are only those neces-

sary to correct certain erroneous

and unfounded impressions.

Anti-Catholics delight in seizing

upon some country, some city,

some province, which happens to

be Catholic, and which happens

to possess characteristics subject

to criticism. They can then say:

“See . . . this is what you may ex-

pect if the Roman Catholic Church

ever dominates.” This is done

particularly in matters of govern-

ment. From what has been said,

it should be obvious how fallaci-

ous this is. A nation’s civilization
and culture, material and other-

wise, are dependent on many

factors. In reference to many as-

pects of these, the religious factor

is undoubtedly the least important.

“The American Way!”

Culture is largely a matter of

taste. There are vast numbers of

people in the world who are not

hungering for what we are pleased

to call “the American way of life.”

Many things in our life are quite

admirable, but others are not so,

and these people want no part of

them.

An example of this may be seen

in a recent book whose author

holds up Catholic Quebec as the

ultimate horror in Catholic civil-

ization because, he says in shocked

amazement: “/^ has no divorce,

no birth control, and no public

schools.” No Catholic will hang

his head in shame because a Cath-

olic province lacks the “blessings”

of broken marriages and contra-

ception. As for the public schools

—the Catholic citizens of Quebec
attend Catholic schools. The Prot-

estants there have their own ex-

cellent school system. It never has

occurred to these people to con-

struct a third system of education

for non-existent students.

48



KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS - RELIGIOUS INFORMATION BUREAU

4422 Lindell Blvd., St. Louis 8, Missouri

List of pamphlets available at the above address. One title may be requested at a time free

of charge. Several titles, complete sets, and quantities of individual pamphlets may be ordered

at 7<t for each pamphlet, plus postage.

3. The Bible is a Catholic Book

5. Christ’s Seven Sacraments

6. The Holy Sacrifice — the Catholic
Mass

7. Why the Catholic Church says "Inves-
tigate” — Masons, Inquisition, Nuns

8. Speaking of Tolerance — Controver-
sial periods in history

9. These Men They Call "Knights”

10. Why Catholics Believe As They Do
— Existence of God, Immortality

11. A Short Story of the Popes

12. Let’s Stick to Moses — Ten Com-
mandments explained

13. But Can It Be Found in the Bible? —

Bible not sole rule of faith

14. What Happens After Death?

15. Yes ... I Condemned The Catholic

Church

16. What Do You Mean "Only One True
Church”?

17. But How Can Educated People Be
Catholics?

18. No . . . Belief in God is not Enough!

19. The Real Secret of Successful Mar-

riage

20. The Way to Everlasting Life . . . The
Catholic Church

21. Is the Catholic Church a Menace to

Democracy?

22. But Do You Really Understand the
Bible? — Rules for understanding

23. A Letter to Our Non-Catholic Neigh-
bors — Aspects of Catholic faith

24. Yes, the Mother of God Will Help
You!

25. What Makes a Woman Choose Such
a Life? — Life of a Catholic Nun

26. I’ll Tell You Why I Am a Catholic
27. Why So Many Decide to Become

Catholics — Convert stories

28. Let Us Judge Catholics by the Bible
— Prayer to Saints, unmarried priests

29. But Would Christ Call You A Chris-
tian?

30. But Do You Understand What God
Told Us? — Apostles’ Creed

31. Should Children Learn About God-
in School?

32. The Bible Is Not Our Sole Guide

33. This Was the Faith of Our Fathers

34. These Are Our Seven Deadly Enemies

— Seven capital sins explained
35. Let’s Test Catholic Loyalty — A Good

Catholic is a good citizen

36. Remember the Sabbath . . . Keep It

Holy — The "Sabbath Question”
37. I Am a Catholic Priest
38. But Why the Candles, Holy Water

and Beads ? — Sacramentals
39. The Reformation. Was It Reform or

Revolt?

40. Why I Had to Embrace the Catholic
Faith — Convert stories

41. Yes, Miracles Happened at Fatima

42. Does the Bible Contradict Itself? —

Peter the Rock, Faith and/or Works

43. I Was Warned About the Catholic
Church! — Religious Liberty

44. Why a Woman Needs the Catholic
Faith!

45. The Early Years of the Catholic

Church — First three centuries
46. Yes ... A Priest Can Forgive Your

Sins — Sacrament of Penance
47. But Why Don’t You Pray to the

Saints? — Communion of Saints
48. God’s Story of Creation — Genesis
49. Is the Catholic Church Out of Place

Here? — Catholicism and Loyalty
50. This Is the Catholic Church — Creed,

Sacraments, Mass, Commandments

51. Revelation ... A Divine Message of
Hope — Revelations or Apocalypse

52. Does It Pay to be a Catholic? — How
to be a Catholic

53. Think About Death and Start to Live

— Catholic attimde toward death
54. What Do You Find Wrong With

the Catholic Church?

55. His Name Shall Be Called God With

Us — Divinity of Christ
56. The Infallible Church, Truth or Trick-

ery? — Church of the Scriptures
57. Tell Us About God... Who Is He?

Existence and nature of God

58. The Word Was Made Flesh-
Humanity of Christ

59. Let Us Pray—Prayer

60. Gift of the Holy Spirit—Confirmation

61. The Church Says — Precepts of The
Church

62. "Upon this Rock . .
.”



Learn All About

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

By Mail ... At No Cost!

You can easily investigate Catholic faith and worship

in the privacy of your home.

Just send us your name and address and advise that

you desire to learn about the Church by mail.

We will send you an interesting course of instruc-
tion which is short, yet complete.

The book explaining Catholic faith and worship is

written in an easy-to-understand form, and there are

six tests sheets to be checked. There is no writing to

do, and nobody will call on you unless you request it.

You merely mail your marked test sheets to us. We
correct them and return them to you. This enables

you to determine how well you understand the book

and on what points further explanation by mail may

help you.

There is no cost to you, no obligation.

Wrife today to:

Supreme Council

KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
Religious Information Bureau

4422 LINDELL BLVD.

ST. LOUIS 8, MO.

Imprimatur:

JOSEPH E. RITTER

Archbishop of St. Louis

St. Louis, December, 1949

Published in United States of America

20th Reprinting, July, 1961