seem, a far more realistic approach to and appreciation of the added dimension of sacramental confession. In conclusion it may be stated that while Mowrer is on safer ground in the Protestant and psychological areas of discussion, his "Catholic" remarks, the foregoing criticism notwithstanding, are not to be lightly dismissed. Moreover, the seemingly liberal character of Mowrer's Protestantism50 makes this book all the more remarkable.51 It makes all the more empirical his re-discovery of both the unchanging nature of man and the laws which govern him, makes all the more impressive his re-discovery of personal responsibility, sin, conscience, values, virtue and character, makes all the more urgent his re-discovery of confession, penance, and continuing expiation. And although the concept of original sin is dismissed in a footnote (48), Mowrer's re-appraisal of it is fondly to be hoped. Here may prove to be the key to a higher synthesis, a resolution of the remaining insolvents in the sin-psychopathology relationship, the seeds of a profound re-thinking of Rudolph Allers' eminently Christian characterization of neurosis. And Mowrer's fine perceptive insights that have led him to this appreciation of the natural good of the confessional may yet, with the grace of God, lead him to the eminently greater treasure beyond the pardon and peace of Sacramental Confession, where he will learn the greater gift, far from detracting from the lesser, does but inestimably enhance it. The Catholic University of America 50 E.g. cf. p. 125. JEROME F. WILKERSON 51 Mowrer's rediscoveries and the attention paid to them are reminiscent of veteran Yale Professor William Ernest Hocking's 1944 book, Science and the Idea of God (Chapel Hill: U. of N. Carolina Press, 1944), esp. Chapter II, "Psychology and the Cure of Souls," pp. 27-49. THE PRIESTS' TOTAL ABSTINENCE LEAGUE The Priests' Total Abstinence League is one of the units of the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America. This organization is now ninety-one years old. The C.T.A.U. is not a prohibition movement. It is not trying to put the 18th Amendment back into the Constitution. It is not trying to make America dry again, nor to put Local Option across in any state or county. It is not trying to make total abstainers of all Catholics even-nor of all priests. And there is one point that I should like to make especially clear, and that is that the C.T.A.U. does not make war on the liquor industry. We have no room for fanatics or holier-than-thou's. We are not a joblot of Carrie Nations or Harry Nations going around with hatchets wrecking taverns, or picketing and padlocking breweries and distilleries. The manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages is a perfectly legitimate and by no means dishonorable way of earning a living. In one of the many doctrinal pamphlets of the Knights of Columbus published in St. Louis, there is an article dealing with the morality of drinking. It has a rather picturesque title: "Don't Blame the Bottle. Blame the Drinker." The excessive drinker, they mean. That is the policy of the C.T.A.U., also, for it does not presume to be more Catholic or more Christian than the Church. The Roman Catholic Church has always taught that the moderate use of alcoholic beverages is morally unobjectionable. The Holy Scriptures teach the same. See, Psalm 103:14-15; Proverbs 31:6-7; and I Timothy 5:23. Our Lord Himself drank wine. And He ordained that this particular beverage should be one of the elements of the Holy Eucharist. Thus, there can be absolutely nothing wrong with the practice of moderate drinking. I should also state that the total abstainer is not ipso facto a better man than the moderate drinker. The objective of the C.T.A.U. is to try to combat abuse and excess in the matter of alcoholic beverages among the general public by the voluntary practice of total abstinence among ourselves. In other words, we are trying to promote temperance and moderation on the part of the majority by the example of total abstinence on the part of a minority. Our method is peaceful persuasion, not pressure. We give non-abstainers the reasons why it would be ad ton. The book is entitled, What About Your Drinking (New York: Paulist Press, 754). The pamphlet is: Shall I Start To Drink? Decide For Yourself (St. Louis: The Queen's Work Press, 10¢). Another excellent pamphlet along these lines is: I Can Take It Or Leave It Alone (St. Louis: The Queen's Work Press, 10) by the late Rev. Daniel A. Lord, S.J. Every priest should have copies of these works. Father Ford refutes the charge that total abstinence is puritanical or jansenistic. I would also point to the fact that the Total Abstinence Movement in Ireland-The Pioneers-numbers 500,000 members; also to the fact that the Movement in Canada, or more precisely Quebec, has between 150,000 and 200,000 members. And so, the total abstainer is not a freak, nor a "Man From Mars," nor a rara avis, after all. Lastly, I should state that the Total Abstinence Movements have the encouragement and blessing of the Church, of the Popes. Membership is richly rewarded in spiritual benefits. If there were anything heterodox about these movements, they would be officially banned by the Church, and placed in the category of forbidden societies. I submit that it would be a fine thing if more priests would become total abstainers. I would present three motives for their doing so: (1) personal sanctification; (2) the good example that would be given to our Catholic people; and (3) a source of edification to the sincere and devout Protestant and a means of interesting him in the Roman Catholic Church. As an introduction to these topics, I shall point to the obligation that was imposed on the ancient Jewish Priesthood. That Priesthood was divided into twenty-four "courses" or clans or companies. (Lk. 1:5; I Par. 24:1-19). At the time of Our Lord, one of those companies would be on duty in the Temple at Jerusalem for a week at a time. This arrangement would put each company by itself on ceremonies twice a year. But on the Feast of Tabernacles, all twenty-four "courses" would be on duty. Thus, each company would be functioning three times a year altogether, for a week each time. During these weeks, the priests on duty were forbidden the use of wine certainly (Es. 44:21) and most probably the use of other alcoholic beverages also. The legislation goes back originally to Leviticus 10:8-9-"The Lord also said to Aaron: You shall not drink wine nor any thing that may make you drunk, thou nor thy sons, when you enter into the tabernacle of the testimony, lest you die because it is an everlasting precept through your generations." If the ancient Jewish Sacrifices were types of the ineffable Sacrifice that was to come (Heb. 10:1; Mal. 1:11), then the Jewish priests who attended the old altar in the Temple (Heb. 7:13; I Cor. 9:13) were types of the priests who would attend on the new altar (Heb. 13:10) on which the Clean Oblation of Malachias is offered (I Cor. 11:26). And if it was "vere dignum et justum, aequum et salutare" that the ancient Jewish priests be total abstainers during the weeks in which they were in attendance at the old altar, then it should be far more "dignum et justum et aequum et salutare" that the Christian-Catholic priest, who offers to God every day at the new altar the Clean Oblation of Malachias, be a total abstainer all his life. It certainly is an ideal to be held before the eyes of the clergy, even though they should choose not to make it their aim-and that is their privilege. No one is going to think any less of them if they so choose. Some priest may say that for him the virtue here lies in moderation, in temperance-following the principle, "Virtue lies in the mean.” This means that virtue lies between excess and deficiency. But before you can establish what "the mean" is, you must first know what excess really is and what deficiency really is. For instance, conjugal chastity is a virtue. It involves temperancemoderation of the sex appetite. But perfect chastity is also a virtue. In fact, it is the higher virtue. It means total abstinence from sex pleasure. Thus, it certainly does not mean over-indulgence, i.e., excess. It does not mean the legitimate indulgence of married life. But there is nothing defective or private about it either. It definitely is a positive virtue. I personally do not consider total abstinence, even when observed for a lifetime, an act or exemplification of heroic virtue. However, I submit that per se it can be classified as a higher virtue than moderate drinking. As I said already, the total abstainer is not ipso facto a better man than the moderate drinker. But all other things being equal, the total abstainer is a better man than the moderate drinker for he is practicing more self-denial and mortification. If moderate drinking were the more virtuous way, then there would be some kind of an obligation, either moral or ascetical, on all men, especially priests, to be moderate drinkers. But as I said vantageous for them to join up with us. If one chooses not to do so-from then on, we mind our own business. Let him go his way. "We go our way. Let us now look at the dark side of the drinking habits of the American people. The drinking situation in this country has gotten somewhat out of hand. Prohibition was undoubtedly a failure, but Repeal has not been a success, either. There are in the United States at least 4,000,000 alcoholics; probably 6,000,000; and possibly 8,000,000. Of these, certainly 1,000,000 are women. Over and above the number of these definite alcoholics, the number of addicts -heavy, problem drinkers-is very great. I should stress, however, that the primary work of the C.T.A.U. is not cure and rehabilitation, but rather prevention. Of course, we would gladly welcome to our ranks any person who would want to try to rid himself of the affliction and curse of excessive drinking. But, as I said, our main work is prevention-especially among youth. Here is a situation in which an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We hope soon to embark on an intensive memberip campaign, concentrating especially on our youth. We would ke to see as many of them as possible take the Total Abstinence pledge until they are twenty-one years of age. I should add that normally we would advise an alcoholic seeking to join the C.T.A.U., to affiliate with the Alcoholics Anonymous and to take their :reatment first. The AA's are doing an excellent and a noble work. Then the C.T.A.U. can take up from where the AA's leave off. There are three kinds of alcoholics. Of these I am concerned with only one, the chemical alcoholic. Such a person is born with we kind of a bio-chemical allergy which causes his system to Cave alcohol, once he starts drinking. It is sometimes called "the unknown factor X." No one knows when he starts to drink whether or not he has within him this "unknown factor X." And everyone who starts drinking is taking a chance. Of course, that ano reason for imposing a moral obligation on everybody never to ake a drink. But, there is no moral obligation on a man to start ng, either. Therefore, the safest thing for many people to do to start drinking at all—especially if alcoholism runs in tion to the alcoholic and the problem (heavy) drinker, e habitual social drinker. Of course, this person does |