Page images
PDF
EPUB

xiii. 33), will cause mind, soul, and strength of all to be pervaded with heavenly motives of action.

The priest who lives in the world as a secular has many very different and almost contradictory duties to perform. Not only the spiritual guidance of his flock, his own advancement in study, and in all virtues, but also the material work of building up churches, schools, and the surroundings of a parish, fall upon him, a task for which his previous education in no way fits him. In such multiplied work the chief wonder is that many more do not fail. Few, comparatively speaking, who have been zealous and sincere have come to grief. The priest is also in our country isolated, in many cases far from any other clergymen. Now, unless he be endowed with the "spirit from on high," and view all things in the light of eternity, and with reference to the salvation of souls, his own and those of his flock, he is little likely to persevere. He is a man like others, and if piety and zeal, a love of study and inclination thereto, do not form a part of his very frame and power of thinking, and unless these be, at least, virtually never absent from his mind, he will surely fail, for he is not imbued with the spirit of his Lord. If mere material prosperity, the building of large edifices (well thatched with mortgages to be borne and paid for by posterity), if temporal matters take the upper hand, we may fairly conclude that the pastor is merged and destroyed by the mere business man, "implicans sese negotiis sæcularibus" (2 Epist. Tim. ii. 4),—which is not the vocation of the priest. For his work is exactly that for which the Son of God came into the world, and nothing could be further removed from secular employment. If the priest be "alter Christus" as St. John Chrysostom says, if the work be divine, if it consist in the application of the benefits of the atoning blood through the Sacraments by his hands, how can any other thought intrude upon, much less take the place of the work of salvation whereto he is called? Should the mere animal life of eating and drinking hold the chief place in his mind, he will not withstand the many occasions of fall daily and hourly presenting themselves. We know this from past experience, and can with ease and certainty point out the cause of lapse in each special case. Hence, the minds of youth must be formed in and inclined towards piety in the sense of the Apostle (1 Timothy iv. 8): "Quae ad omnia utilis est."

In the next place, it is simply a truism that unless the mind be cultivated when young, it can with great difficulty be brought in after years to severe studies. The name of priest in former times was, as it always should be, a synonym for learning, even among outsiders. Now, if this is to continue, greater care must be exercised in choosing out those who are to be admitted to the

sacred ranks of the priesthood, where learning, should have honorable home. It might do little good, or possibly be productive of much evil, were we to speak of the utter superficiality of many of the younger members of the clergy. It is thoroughly true that they have an immense field of hard study before them which requires constant application, and they are no sooner ordained than they are obliged to take upon themselves, in many cases, all the onerous duties of attending, perhaps, several missions; but there can be no excuse for the prevalent neglect of study, which is at once occasion and cause of numerous evils.

We are prepared to assert that whatever there be of scholarship n Latin and Greek culture, may be found in our colleges and seminaries, but we could wish that the latter study were more rigidly insisted upon, as well as mathematics and science. This can hardly in every instance be urged and, in point of fact, has not been absolutely demanded. Cases may occur in which the candidate, although lacking a full classical training, will be a very efficient and devout clergyman; but for us, at least, the time has arrived when it should be required of each student to be able to meet the keen adversaries of our faith with their own weapons. The age demands that we should keep pace with whatever is good. in progress, and this has always been the mind of the Church, of which our holy father Leo XIII. is the exponent. When his firm teaching shall have thoroughly imbued all superiors we shall by no means be the losers in comparison with those who have gone before us; nor shall we suffer, as we do now frequently, because some ignorant men, to whom no institution ever accorded a diploma, make a false pretence of learning to the detriment of the good name and fair character of the sacerdotal office.

It should, therefore, be the bounden duty of the bishop and his advisers, to choose out select youths, not many in number, but excellent in quality and disposition, and place them under guidance suitable for developing their vocation. This is the mind of the Council of Trent, that only a few, comparatively (according to the wants of each diocese), are to be taken. These should be thoroughly educated, examined, and sifted, until it be evident, humanly speaking, that the right choice has been made.

SOCIALISM AT THE PRESENT DAY.

German Socialism in America. North American Review, for April and May, 1879.

De l'Etat Actuel de la Science Sociale. Claudio Jannet; Correspondant; 10 et 25 Sept., 1878.

Les Naturalistes Philosophes. Professeur A. Proost. Revue des Questions Scientifiques, Janvier et Juillet, 1879.

A

FTER the extravagant attempt of the St. Simonians in France had failed, and the phalansterian system of Charles Fourier had been proved impracticable in France, England, and the United States, social science, as it is called, fell back into the simple political economy of Adam Smith, but was tainted more or less with socialism, and even with communism. This must be treated of somewhat in detail.

The French economists of the last century were at this time altogether forgotten, and no one thought of bringing again into notice the theories of Turgot, Quesnay, and Mirabeau the elder who called himself l'ami des hommes. But new speculators soon arose, particularly in England and Germany, who turned their attention to the well-known doctrines of the English philosophers of the previous century, who had flourished about the same time as the French. Adam Smith's followers set aside all consideration of the moral law and never attempted to influence the politics of the nation. They limited their theories to the production and distribution of material wealth. Morality did not appear to them to be a factor in the social system, as they conceived it; and, in fact, of all social questions they meddled only with those of labor and money. They never even dreamt of discussing those of the family, marriage, religion, or anything connected with politics and government. They seemed consequently to leave intact all the bases on which human society rests, and thus seemingly were not antiChristian. Their social science was, therefore, very incomplete, yet not strictly of a disorganizing nature, neither religiously nor politically. The only great moral defect in their views, consequent upon their doctrinal indifference, consisted in setting aside all considerations of individual welfare, and never asking themselves the question, how the condition of the masses, the toilers, the producers, would be improved by their speculations?

Those first English economists thought, therefore, much less of the comfort and happiness of human beings than of wealth itself as an abstraction. They could not embrace humanity, with its won

derful social activity, all ordained for a great end, and this the last and supreme end of human life, and consequently connected with a hereafter. As on one side, owing to their materialistic philosophy, they did not take account of man's immortality, so, likewise, on the other, they were so full of the importance of their theories that they regarded the era which had preceded the introduction of their system as darkness itself. Thus it seemed to them idle to examine if man had, before their time, any conception of social ideas. They were, in fact, men of only one idea-wealth and how to procure and increase it. Their rules seemed to them perfectly, infallibly certain with regard to that supreme end; but they were only the iron rules of supply and demand, of capital and labor, of distribution and circulation. What did it signify if, meanwhile, a great part of mankind was made or left even more wretched than it had ever been before, provided wealth were on the whole increased?

As was just said, this supposed a complete ignoring of human history. It was idle, in their opinion, to interrogate the past, and inquire if nations had not previously reached a high degree of prosperity and happiness without regard to their rules. It did not even strike them that it would be proper to ask themselves what would become of society in case their projects succeeded, and their views were generally admitted among mankind. Undoubtedly it would become as they thought--the golden age! What a splendid spectacle would be offered to the philosopher if the whole world were converted into a huge commercial firm, and every capitalist became enormously rich! When this took place it would be worth while to write and read history; as things were it was needless trouble.

Still, long before the era of Christianity even, some philosophers had gone deeply into the study of human nature, to deduce from it firm and unchangeable principles of social science. Aristotle in particular had spoken on the subject with all the authority of reaBut the religion of Christ, more effectually than any philosophy, had established on firmest basis the principles of social life among men, and thereby placed the European family at the head of the human race. All this was entirely ignored by the English

son.

economists.

Nevertheless, they could not long remain in this ignorance, which, at first, distinguished their theories from all others. Voices had been lately heard which could not be forever hushed. They had come, it is true, from unhallowed lips, which spoke irreverently of almost everything sacred. Still, they had, at least, proclaimed that wealth is only a means, not an end; that it must be used ra

tionally to be of any value; and that even the lowest classes of society must have a share of it. This was, after all, in substance the principle advocated by the Fathers of the Church and the mediaval schoolmen, re-echoed by Bossuet when he said that "La vraie fin de la politique est de rendre la vie commode et les peuples heureux." This was the occasion for introducing new principles into the old political economy, and for dividing this school into several very distinct branches.

The first of these branches truly worthy of being examined is composed of those who have been called the Manchester men. The ideas of Mr. Cobden, the head of the party, will suffice to explain their programme. Free trade, the spread of liberal ideas over the whole world, and the promotion of universal peace among nations were the chief planks of Mr. Cob len's platform. In his opinion previous axioms of political economy must be brought to agree with these three saving measures. But, by the necessity of the case, Adam Smith's axioms could not but be greatly modified by the new principles of the Manchester school. It would be, in fact, a complete revolution; for Cobden's three great measures were all derived from the apparent desire to improve the condition of the people, whilst Adam Smith had never troubled himself on that point. Nay, to adopt this new view every detail of the old scheme would have to be changed, for its great radical defect was that everything, according to it, must be organized in favor of capital and against labor, while under the new theory it was the interests of the laborer, or prolétaire, that were to be consulted. Mr. Cobden had been born poor, and of an extremely poor family, it seems. He could not but take up with warmth, on all occasions, the cause of the suffering classes, particularly of the operatives in factories. He had deeply studied previous theories of political economists in England, and whilst remaining faithful to them as far as it was possible under the circumstances, he was bound to give them a new turn. The branch of which he became the founder could not remain indifferent to the welfare of individuals, as was the case before among all the old English economists. Much less could it rest satisfied with the accumulation of wealth in general; the intention now was to make it profitable, particularly to the poor, and to open new channels for its distribution.

But the chief trait of difference between the new and the old, was that political agitation was henceforth to be the means of spreading the new ideas. Free trade, liberal views, and universal peace could not at that time be advocated in England without violent political commotion. It is well known that free trade itself met at first with a fierce opposition at the hands of Sir Robert Peel, and that the whole of England was shaken to its centre by the

« PreviousContinue »