Nevertheless, it must be admitted that to a certain extent the race suffers numerically from an inst.i.tution that fosters abstention from marriage. To what extent, is an entirely different question. Not all laymen marry. It is safe to say that the vast majority of religious men, vow or no vow, would never wed; so that the vow is not really to blame for their state, and the consequences thereof. As for women, statistics show it to be impossible for all to marry since their number exceeds that of men.

Now, marriage with the fair s.e.x, is very often a matter of compet.i.tion.

Talent, beauty, character, disposition and accomplishments play a very active role in the acquisition of a husband. Considering that the chances of those who seek refuge under the veil are not of the poorest, since they are the fairest and best endowed of our daughters, it would seem to follow that their act is a charity extended to their less fortunate sisters who are thereby aided to success, instead of being doomed to failure by the insufficiency of their own qualifications.

Be this as it may, what we most strenuously object to, is that vows be held responsible for the sins of others. In some countries and sections of countries, the population is almost stationary in marked contrast to that of others. Looking for the cause for this unnatural phenomenon, there are who see it in the spread of monasticism, with its vow of chast.i.ty. They fail to remark that not numerous, but large families are the best sign of vigor in a nation. Impurity, not chast.i.ty, is the enemy of the race. Instead of warring against those whose lives are pure, why not destroy that monster that is gnawing at the very vitals of the race, sapping its strength at the very font of life, that modern Moloch, to whom fashionable society offers sacrifice more abominable than the hecatombs of Carthage. This iniquity, rampant wherever the sense of G.o.d is absent, and none other, is the cause which some people do not see because they have good reasons for not wanting to see. It is very convenient to have someone handy to accuse of one's own faults. It is too bad that the now almost extinct race of Puritans did not have a few monks around to blame for the phenomenon of their failure to keep abreast of the race.

If celibacy, therefore, means untrammeled vice, and marriage degenerates into New Englandism, the world will get along better with less of both. Vows, if they have no other merit, respect at least the law of G.o.d, and this world is run according to that law.

CHAPTER XLV.

BLASPHEMY.

TO blaspheme is to speak ill of G.o.d; blasphemy is an utterance derogatory to the respect and honor due to G.o.d. Primarily, it is a sin of the tongue; but, like all other sins, it draws its malice from the heart. Thus, a thought may be blasphemous, even though the blasphemy remain unexpressed; and a gesture, oftentimes more expressive than a word, may contain all the malice of blasphemy. This impiety therefore may be committed in thought, in word and in deed.

Blasphemy addresses itself directly to G.o.d, to His attributes and perfections which are denied, or ridiculed; to Jesus Christ and the Blessed Sacrament; indirectly, through His Mother and His saints, through Holy Scripture and religion, through the Church and her ministers in their quality of ministers,--all of which, being intimately and inseparably connected with the idea of G.o.d, cannot be vilified without the honor of G.o.d being affected; and, consequently, all contempt and irreverence addressed to them, takes on the nature of blasphemy. An indirect sin of blasphemy is less enormous than a direct offense, but the difference is in degree, not in kind.

All error that affects G.o.d directly, or indirectly through sacred things, is blasphemy whether the error consist in a denial of what is true, or an attribution of what is false. Contempt, ridicule, scoffing and sneering, where are concerned the Holy and things holy, are blasphemous. He also blasphemes who attributes to a creature what belongs to G.o.d alone, or can be said only of holy things, who drags down the sacred to the level of the profane.

Revilings against G.o.d are happily rare; when met with, they are invariably the mouthings of self-styled atheists or infidels whose sanity is not always a patent fact. Heretics are usually blasphemous when they treat of anything outside Jesus Christ and the Bible; and not even Christ and Scripture escape, for often their ideas and utterances concerning both are as injurious to G.o.d as they are false and erroneous. Finally, despair and anger not infrequently find satisfaction in abusing G.o.d and all that pertains to Him.

Nothing more abominable can be conceived than this evil, since it attacks, and is in opposition to, G.o.d Himself. And nothing shows up its malice so much as the fact that blasphemy is the natural product and offspring of hate; it goes to the limit of human power in revolt against the Maker. It is, however, a consolation to know that, in the majority of cases, blasphemy is found where faith is wanting or responsibility absent, for it may charitably be taken for granted that if the blasphemer really knew what he was saying, he would rather cut out his tongue than repeat it. So true is it that the salvation of many depends almost as much on their own ignorance as on the grace of G.o.d.

There is a species of blasphemy, not without its degree of malice, found sometimes in people who are otherwise G.o.d-fearing and religious.

When He visits them with affliction and adversity, their self-conscious righteousness goes out and seeks Comparison with prosperous unG.o.dliness, and forthwith comments on strange fact of the deserving suffering while the undeserving are spared. They remark to themselves that the wicked always succeed, and entertain a strong suspicion that if they were as bad as others certain things would not happen.

All this smacks dangerously of revolt against the Providence of G.o.d.

Job's problem is one that can be solved only by faith and a strong spiritual sense. He who has it not is liable to get on the wrong side in the discussion; and it is difficult to go very far on that side without finding Providence at fault and thus becoming guilty of blasphemy. For, to mention partiality in the same breath with G.o.d's care of the universe, is to deny Him.

The daily papers, a few years ago, gave public notoriety to two instances of blasphemy, and their very remarkable punishment, for it is impossible not to see the hand of G.o.d in what followed so close upon the offending. A desperate gambler called upon the Almighty to strike him dumb, if in the next deal a certain card turned up. It did turn up, and at the last accounts the man had not yet spoken. Another cast from his door a vendor of images and crucifixes with a curse and the remark that he would rather have the devil in his house than a crucifix. The very next day, he became the father of what came as near being the devil as anything the doctors of that vicinity ever saw. These are not Sunday-school stories invented to frighten children; the facts occurred, and were heralded broadcast throughout the land.

Despair urged the first unfortunate to defy the Almighty. In the other 'twas hatred for the Church that honors the image of Christ crucified as one honors the portrait of a mother. The blasphemy in the second case reached G.o.d as effectively as in the first, and the outrage contained in both is of an order that human language is incapable of qualifying.

CHAPTER XLVI.

CURSING.

TO bless one is not merely to wish that one well, but also to invoke good fortune upon his head, to recommend him to the Giver of all goods.

So, too, cursing, d.a.m.ning, imprecation, malediction--synonymous terms-- is stronger than evil wishing and desiring. He who acts thus invokes a spirit of evil, asks G.o.d to visit His wrath upon the object cursed, to inflict death, d.a.m.nation, or other ills. There is consequently in such language at least an implicit calling upon G.o.d, for the evil invoked is invoked of G.o.d, either directly or indirectly. And that is why the Second Commandment concerns itself with cursing.

Thus it will be seen that this abuse of language offends against religion and charity as well. To the malice of calling down evil upon a brother's head is added the impiety of calling upon G.o.d to do it, to curse when He should be prayed to bless.

Of course all depends on what is the object of our imprecations. One species of this vice contains blasphemy pure and simple, that is, a curse which attains something that refers to G.o.d in an especial manner, and as such is cursed. The idea of G.o.d cannot be separated from that of the soul, of faith, of the Church, etc. Malediction addressed to them reaches G.o.d, and contains all the malice of blasphemy.

When the malediction falls on creatures, without any reference to their relationship to G.o.d, we have cursing in its proper form with a special malice of its own. Directly, charity alone is violated, but charity has obligations which are binding under pain of mortal sin. No man can sin against himself or against his neighbor without offending G.o.d.

A curse may be, and frequently is, emphasized with a vow or an oath.

One may solemnly promise G.o.d in certain contingencies that he will d.a.m.n another to h.e.l.l; or he may call upon G.o.d to witness his execrations.

The malice of two specific sins is here acc.u.mulated, the offense is double in this one abominable utterance; nothing can be conceived more horrible, unless it be the indifferent frequency with which it is perpetrated.

The guilt incurred by those who thus curse and d.a.m.n, leaving aside the scandal which is thereby nearly always given, is naturally measured by the degree of advertence possessed by such persons. Supposing full deliberation, to curse a fellow-man or self, if the evil invoked be of a serious nature, is a mortal sin.

Pa.s.sion or habit may excuse, if the movement is what is called "a first movement," that is, a mechanical utterance without reflection or volition; also, if the habit has been retracted and is in process of reform. If neither d.a.m.nation nor death nor infamy nor any major evil is invoked, the sin may be less grievous, but sin it always is. If the object anathematized is an animal, a thing, a vice, etc., there may be a slight sin or no sin at all. Some things deserved to be cursed. In d.a.m.ning others, there may be disorder enough to const.i.tute a venial sin, without any greater malice.

Considering the case of a man who, far removed from human hearing, should discover too late, his forgetfulness to leave the way clear between a block and a fast-descending and ponderous ax, and, in a fit of acute discomfort and uncontrollable feeling consequential to such forgetfulness, should consign block, ax, and various objects in the immediate vicinity to the nethermost depths of Stygian darkness: in such a case, we do not think there would be sin.

On the other hand, they in whose favor such attenuating circ.u.mstances do not militate, do the office of the demons. These latter can do nothing but curse and heap maledictions upon all who do not share their lot. To d.a.m.n is the office of the d.a.m.ned. It is therefore fitting that those who cease not to d.a.m.n while on earth be condemned to d.a.m.n eternally and be d.a.m.ned in the next life. And if it is true that "the mouth speaks out of the abundance of the heart," to what but to h.e.l.l can be compared the inner soul of him whose delight consists in vomiting forth curses and imprecations upon his fellow-men?

CHAPTER XLVII.

PROFANITY.

PROFANITY is not a specific sin. Under this general head come all blasphemy, false, rash, unjust and unnecessary oaths, rash and violated vows, and cursing:--called profanity, because in each case the name of G.o.d is profaned, that is to say, is made less holy, by its application to unworthy objects and in unbecoming circ.u.mstances; profanity, because it has to do with the Holy Name, and not profanation, which looks to sacred things. Although language lends itself to many devices and is well nigh inexhaustible in its resources, this category of sins of profanity embraces about all modes of offending against the Holy Name, and consequently against the Second Commandment.

We have already examined the different species of profanity. But it is not always easy to cla.s.sify certain utterances and expressions that savour of profanity, to determine the specific nature of their malice, especially the guilt incurred by the speaker. First of all, the terms used are often distorted from their original signification, or require that words left understood be supplied; as they stand, they are often as meaningless to the speaker as to the general uninitiated public. To get at the formal malice of such utterances is still more difficult, for it becomes necessary to interpret the intentions of the speaker.

Thus, in one case, words that contain no evident insult to G.o.d may be used with all the vehemence of profanity, to which guilt is certainly attached; in another, the most unholy language may be employed in ignorance of its meaning, with no evil intent, the only danger of malice being from habit, pa.s.sion or scandal.

This brings us to consider certain ejaculatory or exclamatory expressions such as: G.o.d! good G.o.d! Lord! etc., employed by persons of very different spiritual complexion. Evidently, these words may be employed in good and in evil part; whether in one or the other, depends on the circ.u.mstances of their using. They may proceed from piety and true devotion of the heart, out of the abundance of which the mouth speaks. Far from being wrong, this is positively good and meritorious.

If this is done through force of habit, or is the result of levity, without the least interior devotion or affection, it is a mitigated form of profanity. To say the least, no honor accrues to G.o.d from such language and such use of His name; and where He is concerned, not to honor Him is dangerously near dishonoring Him. If contempt of G.o.d or scandal result from such language, the offense may easily be mortal.

Finally, excited feelings of pa.s.sion or wrath vent themselves in this manner, and here it is still more easy to make it a grievous offending.

About the only thing that can excuse from fault is absolute indeliberation.

Again, without implying any malediction, prescinding altogether from the supernatural character of what they represent, as e.j.a.c.u.l.a.t.i.o.ns only, we come across the use of such words as h.e.l.l, devil, d.a.m.nation, etc. Good ethics condemn such terms in conversation; hearing them used people may be scandalized, especially the young; if one uses them with the mistaken idea that they contain blasphemy, then that one is formally guilty of blasphemy; finally, it is vulgar, coa.r.s.e and unmannerly to do so. But all this being admitted, we do not see any more moral iniquity in the mention of these words than of their equivalents: eternal fire, Satan, perdition, etc. We do not advise or encourage the use of such terms, but it sometimes jars one's sense of propriety to see people hold up their hands in holy horror at the sound of these words, as if their mention were something unspeakably wicked, while they themselves would look fornication, for instance, straight in the face without a shudder or a blush.

Profanity is certainly a sin, sometimes a grievous sin; but in our humble opinion, the fiat of self-righteous Pharisaism to the contrary notwithstanding, it is a few hundred times oftener no sin at all, or a very white sin, than the awful crime some people see in it. If a fellow could quote cla.s.sical "Mehercule," and Shakespearean cuss-words, he would not perhaps be so vulgar as to say "h.e.l.l." But not having such language at his command, and being filled with strong feelings that clamor for a good substantial expression, if he looks around and finds these the strongest and only available ones, and uses them,--it is necessity and human nature, we wot, more than sacrilegious profanity.

It were better if his speech were aye, aye and nay, nay; but it does not make it look any better to convict him of the blackest sin on the calendar just because he mentioned a place that really exists, if it is hot, and which it is well to have ever before our eyes against the temptations of life.

CHAPTER XLVIII.

THIRD COMMANDMENT THE LAW OF REST.

THE last of the three Commandments that refer directly to G.o.d, prescribes a rest from toil, and profane works; and in commemoration of the mystical repose of the Lord after the six days' creation, designates the Sabbath or seventh day as a day that shall be set apart and made sacred to G.o.d. The peculiarity of the commandment is that it interferes with the occupations of man, intrudes upon his individual affairs and claims a worship of works. The others do not go thus far, and are satisfied with a worship of the heart and tongue, of affections and language.

Leaving aside for the moment the special designation of a day devoted to this worship, the law of rest itself deserves attention. Whether the Sat.u.r.day or Sunday be observed, whether the rest be long or brief, a day or an hour, depends entirely on the positive will of G.o.d. More than this must be said of the command of rest; that law grows out of our relations with G.o.d, is founded in nature, is according to the natural order of things.

This repose means abstention from bodily activity.. The law does not go so far as to prescribe stagnation and sloth, but it is satisfied with such abstention as is compatible with the reasonable needs of man. Of its nature, it const.i.tutes an exterior, public act of religion. The question is: Does the nature of our relations with G.o.d demand this sort of worship? Evidently, yes. Else G.o.d, who created the whole man, would not receive a perfect worship. If G.o.d made man, man belongs to Him; if from that possession flows a natural obligation to worship with heart and tongue, why not also of the body? G.o.d has a Maker's right over us, and without some acknowledgment on the part of the body of this right, there would be no evidence that such a right existed. There is no doubt but that the law of our being requires of us an interior worship. Now, if that spirit of homage within us is sincere, it will naturally seek to exteriorize itself; if it is to be preserved, it must "out." We are not here speaking of certain peculiarly ordered individuals, but of the bulk of common humanity. Experience teaches that what does not come out either never existed or is not a.s.sured of a prolonged existence. Just as the mind must go out of itself for the substance of its thoughts, so must the heart go out to get relief from the pressure of its feelings.

G.o.d commanded this external worship because it alone could preserve internal affections.

Again, there are many things which the ordinary man ignores concerning G.o.d, which it is necessary for him to know, and which do not come by intuition. In other words, he must be taught a host of truths that he is incapable of finding out by himself. Education and instruction in religious matters are outside the sphere of his usual occupations.

Where will he ever get this necessary information, if he is not taught?

And how can he be taught, if he does not lay aside occupations that are incompatible with the acquisition of intellectual truths? He is therefore forced by the law of his being, and the obligation he owes his Maker, to rest from his every-day labors, once in awhile, in order to learn his full duty, if for nothing else.

Pagans, who never knew the law of Moses, serve neither Sat.u.r.day nor Sunday; neither do they give an entire day, at fixed intervals to the exterior worship of the Deity, as we do. But a case will not be found where they did not on certain occasions rest from work in order to offer the homage of their fidelity to their G.o.ds, and to listen, to instruction and exhortation from their holy men. These pagans follow the natural law written in their souls, and it is there they discover the obligation they are under to honor G.o.d by rest from labor and to make holy unto Him a certain s.p.a.ce of time.