T

IT

THE CLERGY AND THE SOCIAL PROBLEM.

is a common thing in these days to regard "the priest in politics" as a patent anomaly. Protestantism has established a complete divorce between things secular and spiritual, temporal and eternal. The intense contrast between the puritanical Sabbath with its almost ghostly solemnity and the thrifty workdays of the week, exemplifies the principle in point. Owing to the further logical development of "individualism" in faith, we find public religion rendered impracticable to a large extent through multiplied subdivisions of belief and authors, and gradually committed to private enterprise, until it comes to be a matter which the State abstracts from and ignores. As far as the people or rulers retain Christian principles, religion will indirectly and informally affect politics to a certain extent. A man who, in his heart, believes in the sanctity of marriage will not vote for measures which weaken the marriage bond. His religion influences his politics because he has got a conscience. If the majority are of his mind, it is as clear a case of religion entering into politics as when a mediæval Pope put down his foot and forbade a measure hostile to Catholic morality. The difference is that in the latter case the authority of religion was publicly recognized. It is perfectly evident to those who believe in liberty of conscience that the clergy of all denominations are bound in conscience, as professing to be God's ambassadors, to use their whole influence in the interest of what they hold to be right. Indeed, this is the duty of every man, and of the clergy only in a greater degree. Furthermore, if they use their influence to the advantage of their own sect, provided it be without injury to others, they are no more to be censured than the representatives of any other interest in the country. The limits of this due interference in political matters is reached only when the matter is one which in no way bears on morals or religion. But those who think at all deeply, will recognize how easily questions which at the first proposing seem purely secular and indifferent, ramify in their consequences, and entangle themselves with supernatural interests. Hence he must needs be a man of very bounded horizon who would content himself with pulpit platitudinizing and prefers a calm indifference to questions which affect the morality of millions. No doubt many such are to be found in every denomination, but one can hardly view them as ideals of the Christian priest, who by profes

sion should be a man, not merely of public but of catholic and cosmopolitan spirit.

Least of all to the Catholic priest is such an attitude of supine apathy becoming-to him who is the inheritor of that grand conception which reached its fuller development in the middle ages, of a marriage between an universal church and an universal empire; a conception which, perhaps, has yet to come to a fuller maturity as the social and political problems which are now crushing us to earth find their solution in a truer and nobler brotherhood of nations than Charlemagne ever dreamt of. Body and soul, members and head, wife and husband, these and similar are the analogues of secular and spiritual, State and Church-" a free Church in a free State" understanding by freedom, not mutual indifference but the greatest possible facility for healthy development which is secured by mutual aid and co-operation. Both alike, in the Catholic conception, have for their end man's happiness here and hereafter. Their separation, much more their hostility, cannot but be disastrous. The miserable past may teach us that the terms and conditions of their union and harmonious working is a problem yet to be solved, seeing that those former solutions have been fatal to the liberty, now of one, now of the other. That the very nature of things postulates imperatively their co-operation is a truth which the experience of godless politics is making daily more evident. Every plantation that the heavenly Father has not planted shall be uprooted, and the violent, unnatural divorces of religion from politics cannot but lead to unnatural issues. "Quos Deus conjuxit, homo non separet."

Urged by these considerations, we contend that the priest ought to have, as he always has had and will have, his voice in politics; that, in the way his profession allows, or rather invokes, he should use his whole influence for what he conceives to be the greatest possible happiness of the greatest possible number. The anti-clerical and the secularist may strive to exterminate the cleric, but while he is to the fore he has no moral option but to cry aloud and spare not where the interests of truth are concerned.

Now, if the priest has his part to play in politics, still more is he bound to interest himself in the social question which bears so much more directly on the ethical and religious development of mankind. Let us assume for the present, against certain liberal optimists, that there is an urgent social problem pressing for solution, a problem touching the rights of the laborer, that is, of the numerical majority in every civilized community. Granting this, is it possible or tolerable that the Catholic priesthood should maintain an attitude of apathy and indifference? Waiving the question as to whether there is or is not an injustice to the poor

crying to heaven for vengeance, or an extreme of misery crying to charity for succor, the very fact that there are so many who assert the existence of such evils is reason enough to make indifference in the clergy inexcusable. Were it but the cry of a few fanatics or interested partisans here and there, prudence might disregard it, but the clamor of a multitude is not without cause, and is always worth attending to.

It is hardly needful to insist on the truth that a concern for the temporal necessities of the poor, quite apart from their spiritual well-being, is an essential part of Christian charity. Not merely as a bait or allurement to higher things, but for its own sake, the alleviation of pain, hunger, misery, ignorance, degradation, iš a good work which Christ counts as done to himself. There is a pseudo-charity which has no real feeling for these ills, but condescends to them in the spirit of bribery, and regards their relief as a fair means to a good end: Not so Christ, who rebuked those who followed him only for the sake of the loaves and fishes, and on another occasion pitied the starving crowds who had listened to Him for three days, and were about to return, weary and fasting. Doubtless, the tender commiseration He showed for their sickness and want moved them to hear Him as one who really loved them, and had a keen interest in their entire welfare. But this is not to follow Him for the sake of loaves and fishes. True charity is the quickest road to influence; but true charity does kind deeds for kindness' sake, and not merely for some other end, however high and holy.

Therefore, the mere alleviation of the necessities of the poor, apart from all spiritual considerations, is a duty binding on all Christians, and more especially on the clergy. May we not even say that, in order of time and urgency, it is a principal duty, though not in order of dignity and necessity? This principle is involved in St. John's argument: "If a man love not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?" which seems to mean, if a man is not moved by what is natural, sensible, evident, how can he pretend to be moved by what is remote, spiritual, inferential; if he is indifferent to starvation and bodily suffering which should appeal to his very first and most fundamental instincts of benevolence, with what face can he go about distributing tracts and good advice? For the higher rests on and grows out of the lower, and grace presupposes nature. There is much of this pseudo-spirituality abroad which refuses to admit that any mere temporal evil, as such, is worthy of a Christian's compassion, which is eminently calm and philosophical in contemplating the sufferings of others, and armed with trite consolations as to the inestimable moral advantages and chastening

effects of transitory afflictions. No Christian can deny these advantages, but they do not in any way lessen, however they may compensate for the inherent bitterness of the chastisement. It is a mistake to be wiser than God or more spiritual than Jesus Christ. If He afflicts us for our good it is always unwillingly; and the slightest twinge of pain or throb of heartache finds in Him. a tender compassion beyond all measure of human sympathy.

A zeal for souls which does not presuppose an affection of pity for the poor human body and human heart is a delusion not far removed from hypocrisy. Therefore we conclude that, viewed merely as a question concerning the existence of a great deal of unnecessary human suffering and injustice,, the social problem is one demanding the close attention and keen interest of the Church and the clergy. Certainly no one who knows the history of Catholic Christianity can fail to see the great stress it has always laid on what are called the "corporal" as opposed to the "spiritual " works of mercy. Whole orders and congregations have existed who have made the temporal sufferings of mankind their principal care, and if they have made use of the resulting opportunities of doing spiritual good as well, yet this is something incidental and by the way. Nor does the Church interpret the words: "I was hungry and you fed me" and the rest, as directly signifying the satisfaction of spiritual cravings, but first of all in their natural sense of bodily hunger, thirst, and all manner of want and misery.

Now, if a compassion for this or that individual case of distress is an outcome of charity, a wider-seeing charity will inspire a zeal for the relief of the collective misery of the masses where such exists. When Christians were yet "a feeble folk," a little leaven hid in a great mass, almsgiving was necessarily left to private enterprise and unsystematic, but when greater powers were put at the Church's disposal, and she rose in secular influence, her care for the poor became universal and organized. The precept of charity binds the Christian State and its legislators as stringently as it does the individual. All those wonderful means which a divinely directed progress has put into the hands of modern governments for the prevention and relief of destitution, and for the moral elevation of the people, give that precept a width and depth of meaning hardly suspected in by-gone days. One must not undervalue individual efforts in behalf of the distressed, which will always be a necessary supplement to public measures, and which are so invaluable to the giver as means of drawing out all that is best in the human heart. But as things are in modern society, which, though professedly non-Christian, is still dominated by much Christian sentiment, it would be criminal negligence in a Catholic priest, or a minister of any denomination, to use anything

less than his whole influence in favor of universal and public remedies so far as they are feasible and expedient.

The priest is one destined to the service of man, and of the whole man, body and soul. Nor is his ministry merely to individuals singly, but to all collectively, to society, to the State. He differs from other public men in that he views secular problems explicitly in their bearing on morals and religion from a higher standpoint; and in the methods which he uses, which are, as a rule, individual and confined to the category of moral, rather than of political or material power. When, however, we consider the social problem in the light of those spiritual interests which are the priest's highest, if not always his most immediate concern, indifference to it becomes still less excusable. We have already noticed the fact that although it is repugnant to Christianity to use works of mercy simply as a bait or bribe to allure men into an outward conformity with religion, yet when such works are evidently done out of genuine kindness, and would as evidently be done apart from any ulterior result, they cannot fail to dispose men to lend a willing ear to their well-workers. It is hopeless to persuade a hungry man to come to a mission if one shows a calm and philosophical indifference to the emptiness of his stomach. He will naturally be skeptical about one's tender interest in his spiritual welfare. Nor will it mend matters very much if he is relieved in such a way as to imply a contract of "do ut des." So with regard to the masses. If the clergy in any locality are indifferent to their needs, or if their interest is inspired solely by some other motive than sympathy, however high and holy, they will perhaps not undeservedly lose that loving, loyal trust and affection which is a sine qua non for their spiritual influence. Wherever, on the contrary, they display (as in Ireland) a genuine sympathy and fellowship with the sufferings of their flocks, there they are followed as Christ was followed by the crowds, who, seeing His love for their bodies, could well believe in his love for their souls. Here, of course, we assume that the masses must be at all times the Church's principal care. Pauperes semper habetis vobiscum." Whatever exaggeration there may be in Lasalle's estimate, which represents the laborers as 90 per cent. of the population of Germany in his time, or in Henry George's, who allows a similar percentage to England at the present day, it is hardly an exaggeration when applied to the 200,000,000 of the Catholic Church. Were we dealing with a secular society, we might maintain that a numerical minority was in point of ability and worth a true majority, and deserving of prior consideration. But here the Church is essentially individualist, her ultimate end being the salvation of souls, and no man, from this point of view,