Union-and therefore unity-will not and cannot be the result of the present Inter-Church Movement. This statement involves a question of fact and of right. In facto.-Let us examine first the question of fact. Union, as now promoted, is either "co-operative" or "organic." Co-operative union ignores differences of creed or form of worship; organic union suppresses them or merges them into a neutral mixture.

Co-operative Union,-as a basis of religious unity affecting the religion of the individual, can be at once dismissed. For, what religious action,-i.e., action prompted and guided by a principle, a religious doctrine,-is possible without that principle, that doctrine? Moral action,-and Religion is at the same time the foundation and the highest expression of the moral order,-pre-supposes immutable and recognized principles. "The mental att.i.tude defined on paper as 'undenominational,' Miss M. Fletcher says rightly, has no existence in the human mind. Below all sustained enthusiasms lie strong convictions."-Therefore to ignore the directing principles of their various denominations in a common religious action, and yet to pretend to keep their denominational ident.i.ty, involves, on the part of the Churches, an absolute impossibility. Because doctrine is the very foundation, the "raison d'etre" of intelligent Christian action. Diversity of opinion is bound to bring, in religious matters, diversity of action; for, to be consequent one must act according to his belief. Baptism, for instance, is necessary or not necessary for salvation. On this doctrinal point will necessarily hinge a diversity of action in the mission field alloted to this or to that denomination. The position is quite different when common action is confined to merely social work. But "social service," stripped of all its Christian principles and reduced to pure philanthropy, is not Christianity; it is mere naturalism or neo-paganism.

The great majority of those for whom Christianity is yet a living reality understand the nefarious consequences of "co-operative-union." To protect themselves against this scheme of a perfidious neutrality, they advocate an "organic union." This even is to the fore in the Philadelphia plan of the "Inter-Church World Movement." "The plan of federal union will have this result, that after it shall have been in operation for a term of years, the importance of divisive names and creeds and methods will pa.s.s more and more into the dim background of the past and acquire, even in the particular denomination itself, a merely historical value, and the churches then will be ready for, and will demand, a more complete union; so that what was the 'United Churches of Christ in America' can become the 'United Church of Christ in America,' and a real ecclesiastical power, holding and administering ecclesiastical property and funds of such united church."

The promoters of "organic union" do not ignore the differences between creeds, but they are trying to reduce them. This union strikes at the very bed rock of Divine Revelation. For, the suppression of differences, or their limitation to a certain doctrinal minimum, implies a compromise, and a compromise, in matters of truth, is unacceptable. Truth is eternal and therefore does not change. If the Westminister and Augsburg Confessions were true yesterday, why should they not be also true to-day? If the 39 Articles were the rule of Faith for the Anglican Church in the past, why should they be to-day but "definitions of theological opinions of the time of the Reformation," as Anglican Bishop Farthing, of Montreal, recently stated.-"You change ... therefore you are not true," we may say, with Bossuet, to those Churches.

In jure.-This universal readiness to compromise should not astonish us when we know that the very fundamental principle of the Reformation is "private judgment" in matters of Faith. The divine message of Revelation is to be interpreted as each one sees best. This principle makes, "de jure," every Protestant independent in his religious belief, and opens the door to the most conflicting interpretations of the Divine Message. "The High Church clergyman to-day," writes A. Birrell, "is no theologian, he is an opportunist." Dogma degenerates into religious emotionalism. Doctrine becomes nothing but a "scheme of theological impressions." To tolerate every doctrine is, for a Church, to teach none. Doctrinal chaos, such as we now see outside of the Catholic Church, is the inevitable result of compromise. Winston Churchill's famous novel, "Inside of the Cup," is nothing but the diagnosis of this disintegration which Protestant Churches are now witnessing.

The history of Protestantism is but the history of its changes of religious belief. For "between authority and impressionism in matters of Revelation, there is no alternative." As Christianity is not the product of the human mind, but a Revelation from G.o.d, authority,-a divinely const.i.tuted infallible and living authority-is a necessity, and the only possible bond of unity.

This disintegrating principle of "private judgment" in matters of Divine Revelation has been at work since the inception of Protestantism. By the very force of its dissolving power the primary elements of a supernatural religion have fast disappeared from the various creeds. One by one the different Churches have drifted away from their Christian moorings and taken to the high seas of Rationalism. a.s.sailed by the storms of unbelief they are breaking on the rocks of religious indifference. Empty churches are the natural outcome of empty creeds. "The dominant tendencies are indeed increasingly identified with those currents of thought which are making way from the definiteness of the ancient Faith, toward Unitarian vagueness." If Bishop Kinsman, Anglican Bishop of Delaware, a recent convert to the Catholic Faith, gave this statement as one of the reasons for leaving the Anglican Creed, with how much more truth could it not be made of the kaleidoscopic tenets of other denominations?

This process of dissolution of doctrinal grounds is bound to continue. The fluid condition of the various churches testifies to the uncertainty of their actual position and forces them to seek the lowest doctrinal level. "Their standard is determined by the minimum, rather than by the maximum view tolerated, since their official position must be gauged, not by the most they allow, but by the least they insist on." (F. Kinsman.) The remnants of Christianity that were still to be found in their teachings are now looked upon as "obsolete dogmas" and, as such, obstacles to unity. The very fundamental mysteries of the Incarnation and the Redemption are fast growing dim in the minds and hearts of men.[3]

The Protestant Churches will never come back to their former position. In this Church-union movement they are burning their bridges behind them. The gospel of pure "humanitarianism," which is the absolute negation of a supernatural religion, will eventually be the last result of this present unity.

Destructive criticism, to be profitable, should be followed by constructive suggestions.

"That they may be all one!" This ideal of the Master, this supreme wish of His last hours, remains the ideal, the wish of His Church. But its realization cannot be at the expense of truth. Cardinal Gasparri outlined to the promoters of the "World Congress on Faith and Order" the view and position of the Catholic Church in this most important issue. "The Holy See has decided not to partic.i.p.ate in the Pan-Christian Congress which it is proposed to hold shortly, as the Catholic Church considering her dogmatic character, cannot join on an equal footing with the other Churches. The feeling at the Vatican is that all other Christian denominations have seceded from the Church of Rome, which descends directly from Christ. Rome cannot go to them; it is for them to return to her bosom.[4] The Pope is ready to receive the representatives of the dissenting churches with open arms, since the Roman Church has always longed for the unification of all Religious Christians. Pope Leo XIII. was deeply interested in this question and wrote two famous encyclicals on the subject of the unification of the Christian Churches."

The divine Founder of Christendom did not leave to several Churches the conservation and propagation of His doctrine. He founded only one Church and gave "unity" itself, as the supreme test of its divinity. Therefore the Church, that has remained "one" through time and s.p.a.ce, and has conquered those two great enemies of unity, bears the birth-mark of its divine origin. The Catholic Church alone makes that specific claim. History is there to substantiate it. Matthew Arnold himself could not help acknowledging this universal fact. "Catholicism is that form of Christianity which is the oldest, the largest, and most popular. It has been the great popular religion of Christendom. Who has seen the poor in other churches as they are seen in Catholic Churches? Catholicism envelopes human life, and Catholics in general feel themselves to have drawn not only their religion from their Church, but they feel themselves to have drawn from her, too, their art, poetry and culture. And if there is a thing specially alien to religion, it is division. If there is a thing specially native to religion it is peace and union. Hence the original attraction towards unity in Rome, and hence the great charm when that unity is once attained." The sharp contrast between the actual restlessness and uncertainty of the dissident Churches, and the calm a.s.surance and self-possession of the Catholic Church, is not that an abiding proof of the security of the Catholic position?

Father Palmieri, O.S.A., Ph.D., D.D., who has made the problem of Christian Unity a life-study, made, in a recent article, these pertinent remarks: "The reunion of Christianity in the Catholic sense is not a Babel-like confusion of different sects which oppose creed to creed, which proclaim their absolute indifference in the doctrinal field, which take the individual reason as a judge of Christian revelation or Christian discipline. It would be an absurdity to suppose for a moment that Catholicism or Catholic Theology would propose this hybrid confusion of concepts and human caprices under the name of unity. For Catholicism and Catholic Theology, the reunion of Christianity is the return of dissident Churches and of the non-Catholic sects to Christian unity, to the one Church of Jesus Christ, which not only teaches this unity theoretically but also puts it into practice, in its doctrine, in its government, in its dogmatic and moral teaching, in its principles of authority. By logical sequence the Church of Jesus is one. This unity is not broken by political barriers, by ethnic divisions, by opposing national aspirations. To tend therefore toward Christian unity signifies to tend toward the only Church of Jesus Christ, and to effect this unity is the same as to adhere to it."

Father Palmieri concludes his study with these words: "An impartial study of many years' duration has fully convinced us that the union of the dissident churches can be brought about only under the leadership of the Catholic Church. Outside of Rome there is a principle of dissolution which breaks up and disintegrates the most solid organisms and which will cause the breaking up even of the Orthodox Churches. It is therefore in the supreme interest of Christianity that the Catholic Church addresses its appeals for union to the dissident Churches, and it will never cease to exercise this, its n.o.ble mission. Its efforts have been crowned with success several times, and I am convinced that that day will come in which by means of prayer and action the aspiration of Christ's Vicar for union will be realized."

Our non-Catholic reader may say that the position we take tends to strengthen that exclusiveness, that narrowness, that aloofness with which he has always charged the Church of Rome. But we would ask our dissenting brethren, can it be otherwise? Truth is indivisible and unchangeable. Were the unity of the Church Universal to exist only in the Church of the future we would have to conclude that there was a time when the Church of Christ did not exist on earth. This would be absurd and would destroy Christianity in its very foundation. The true Church of Christ has a right to claim the monopoly of Christianity. The Church which, through a so-called spirit of broad-mindedness, accepts the conflicting claims of the various dissident bodies, and is ready to merge its ent.i.ty with other denominations, immediately, de facto, invalidates its claim to be "The Church of Christ." For, its position involves a contradiction and is in itself a self-condemnation.

Yet, the Catholic Church cannot feel indifferent toward this general and supreme effort of the various fragments of Christendom towards unity. Confidently she waits for the hour when all will return to her as to the only centre and source of permanent unity. Yet, we would say with the Bishop of Northampton, "If we may not compromise the very object of this remarkable movement towards unity by accepting the pressing invitations of our separated brethren to make common cause with them, neither can we rest content to be mere spectators of their perplexities like those who watch from the sh.o.r.e the efforts of distressed seamen to make their port." Let us hope that Divine Providence, always gentle and strong in its dealings with human liberty, will hasten the day when there will be but "One Fold and One Pastor." In the meantime the efforts made to const.i.tute unity of Christianity outside of its true centre will prove as futile as ploughing the sands of the desert.

[1] The withdrawal of the Northern Presbyterian and Northern Baptists and the failure of the financial drive have imperilled the existence of this ambitious project. Is it not a case of repeating with the Psalmist: "Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it?"-Ps. 126.

[2] In the last Lambeth Conference-1920-the Church of England has again reduced this minimum by implicitly recognizing the Nonconformist ministry and abandoning its claim to reunion through the absorption of all sects in the Anglican communion. It has so shifted from its former position that it has openly expressed in the Bishops' manifesto the desire to place itself on some "no man's land" where all the dissident Churches may safely meet and unite.

[3] Canon E. W. Barnes, of Westminster Abbey, in a sermon to the members of the British a.s.sociation, at their meeting at Cardiff, Aug. 29, 1920, declared that, to harmonize Christian Doctrine with modern science, particularly with the theory of evolution, he found it necessary to abandon the doctrine of the Fall of Man and arguments deduced from it by theologians, from St. Paul onward.

[4] Father Leslie Walker, S.J., in a recent work on "The Problem of Reunion," suggests we should enquire rather how we came to differ than what we differ about.

CHAPTER VI.

"THEM ALSO I MUST BRING"

(Jo. X, 16)

The Apostolate to Non-Catholics-Its Obligation. What have we done? What can we do?

The spiritual influence of a Christian is commensurate with his appreciation of responsibility. The breadth and depth of vision give to this moral feeling its field of action. The circle of our influence ceases with the limits of our spiritual outlook. The boundless and clear visions of all the Great Apostles in the Church of G.o.d give us the key to the generosity and artfulness of their zeal. Just as the narrowness of our views explains the restrictiveness of our charity and the limitations of its activities. This is particularly noticeable in our dealings with the spiritual needs of those outside the Fold. The claims of our non-Catholic brethren to our charity do not seem to affect us, because our spiritual outlook has not the proportions of that of the Master. With Him we do not stand on those heights from which we could see beyond our own green pastures, "Other sheep that are not of His Fold and which we must also bring." This explains how the claim-"Oportet" ... "We must bring"-awakens in us no sense of responsibility and meets with no answer in the ordinary activities of our life. Every one seems more or less contented with the lines of denominational demarcation as he finds them around him in the community. Not to discuss religion, not to busy oneself with the other man's belief, to be very frequently rather reticent about our own, is a policy generally accepted in the West. This habit of evasiveness is not Christian and often leads to the sacrifice of Catholic principles. Far from us be the idea of advocating rash obtrusiveness, of untimely aggressive and inconsiderate zeal. But between this excess and that of a "laissez faire" policy there is a golden mean. What is then wrong, our method or our zeal?

A right understanding and a deep conviction of our duties in the matter under consideration are of the greatest value for the Church in Western Canada. May we preface our chapter by asking the reader to keep before his mind the illuminating distinction of St. Augustine between the Body and Soul of the Church. Many souls outside of the visible Body of the Church are nevertheless within the beneficial influence of her invisible pale. This is a commonplace of theology, we all know, but evidently, very often forgotten.

Are we in conscience bound to spread the true faith among our non-Catholic brethren? Most undoubtedly we are. The examples and precepts of the Master, the canons of the Church, the love of G.o.d and our neighbour, are among the pressing motives which should appeal to a true Catholic and make him zealous within the sphere of his influence.

"Thy Kingdom Come!" That prayer of the Lord, which has become our morning and evening prayer, is vain, if in the ordinary course of life we do not try to extend the boundaries of that spiritual kingdom in the very souls of those with whom we come in daily contact. Is not the light of our life to shine out so that it may serve as a beacon to those outside the Fold? But nothing is more striking than the words of the Good Shepherd: "And other sheep I have that are not of this Fold; them also I must bring and they shall hear My voice" (Jo. X., 16). Who could explain the profound yearnings of the Divine Master's heart and the deep feeling of obligation that are summed up in these words: "Them also I must bring." The Divine Shepherd finds Himself responsible for the sheep that are not of His own Fold and His only ambition is to bring them in.

This recommendation of Our Lord, His Church understood when in her Canon-law She makes it a duty for all bishops and priests to look upon the non-Catholics residing within the boundaries of their jurisdiction as recommended to them by the Lord and placed in their charge. (Canon 1350, No. 1.)

The Plenary Council of Quebec, the authoritative voice of the Church in Canada, is most emphatic in its recommendation of our separated brethren to the zeal of all Catholics. (No. 331)

The obligation of conscience to come to the help of our non-Catholic neighbour is moreover founded on the precepts of Christian charity. If Christ will condemn to h.e.l.l those who did not give Him to eat and to drink in the person of the needy, what will He not say to those who neglect the spiritual works of mercy. The activities of Christian zeal, to one who rightly understands the spirit of the gospel and the economy of the redemption, have the same binding force as alms-giving, and fulfill in the spiritual world the part charity has to play in the scheme of Christian economics.

The obligation of alms-giving is complementary to the right of property. For, as St. Thomas says, "It is one thing to have a right to possess money and another to have a right to use money as one pleases." (II. a, II. ae, Q. x.x.xII., art. 5, ad 2.) This duty when conscientiously performed re-establishes that economic and social equilibrium which strict justice alone is not able to create. For, the inequitable distribution of wealth greatly depends on the inequality of power of production. This inequality of natural gifts in man remains an unchangeable fact which faith alone in a Divine Providence can explain, an ever renascent problem which Christian charity only can solve.

This mystery of Christian solidarity reveals itself also in the spiritual world. We may say of each Catholic what St. Ambrose said of the priesthood: "Nemo Catholicus sibi,"-no one is a Catholic for himself alone. By a mysterious law of Divine Providence the conservation and propagation of the faith are, after Divine Grace, largely dependent on the influence of man on man. We are all verily "Our brothers' keepers." We are commissioned by Christ not only to keep the faith but also to hand it down to others, not only to keep its fire burning in our hearts but to spread it, and to fan it into a conflagration. The gift of faith implies the charitable obligation of weaving our belief into our every day life and, through that life and its influence, into the lives of others. The plenitude of some make up for the penury of others. If St. John, to urge the precept of alms-giving, said: "He that hath the substance of this world and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of G.o.d abide in him?" (I. Jo. III, 17), with how much more truth cannot the condemnation of the Beloved Apostle be applied to one who, rich in Faith-"that substance of things unseen," makes no effort to help his brother who is deprived of it? Therefore charity, through its spiritual works of mercy, re-establishes the equilibrium in the spiritual realm and stands out as a vital factor in the economy of our religion. To understand rightly this principle and to reduce it to action, is to be a true and ardent apostle. Then, and then only, are we able to say in truth, with the martyr, St. Pacien, "Christian is my name, but Catholic is my surname."

How pressing is this obligation to be an apostle, to be truly Catholic, among our non-Catholic brethren? Why should we particularly turn the energies of our zeal to the conversion of non-Catholics? What special claim have they to our prayers?

The supernatural element of Faith, often the fruit of a valid baptism, which still lingers in the souls of many non-Catholics; the fact that numbers of them, because they are in good faith, belong thereby to the "Soul of the Church;" the rising tide of indifference and unbelief which is now burying under its water the last remnants of Christianity to be found among the conflicting creeds: these are the predominant motives which, according to the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas, should attract the preference of our zeal. For the order of the charity, says the Holy Doctor,[1] depends on the relations of those we love, to G.o.d and to ourselves, and on the urgency of their spiritual needs. By this doctrine, among those outside of the Church, those professing Christianity have the first claim to our apostleship. Therefore missions to non-Catholics, caeteris paribus, take precedence over foreign missions.

We all recognize the reality of this obligation and understand, vaguely perhaps, the burden of its responsibility. We all indeed, at times, say with the Divine Master: "There are other sheep that are not of this Fold; them also I must bring."-But, what have we done to bring them?

Outside of a few casual cases of conversion prompted often by marriage, and of some spasmodic efforts during a mission, are we not bound to admit that our policy in our relation with non-Catholics has been one of aloofness and waiting. This att.i.tude of aloofness may be traced to many causes. The certainty of his faith gives to the Catholic an a.s.surance which he carries with him into his every day life. A sense of superiority is its natural result. It gives him that self-confidence in religious matters which our separated brethren are so p.r.o.ne to call "Roman Pride."

There exists in the Catholic soul that feeling we might name "The timidity of faith." This sensitiveness is but the instinct of preservation. We have been impressed from our youth that faith is the greatest heirloom of our Christian heritage. To protect it against any influence that would endanger it, is always considered a sacred duty. This is particularly remarked among the ma.s.ses, whose chances of education finished with the grammar schools, and in countries or localities where Catholics are the minority.

The natural result of this att.i.tude and feeling is an estrangement from those of another faith, a bashful reluctance to meet them and to co-operate with them in social or civic matters, an unconscious tendency to see motives that do not exist and, at times, to refrain from the most elementary acts of charity and courtesy. "It often happens that we manifest towards the heretic the feeling which should be exclusively reserved for heresy." (Lord Morley.) That this is precisely the frame of mind of the ordinary non-Catholic in his dealings with us, is by no way an excuse for our own unkindness. Retaliation is not Christ-like. Does not our aloofness confirm our separated brethren in their false ideas, wrong impressions and bitter prejudices. We must not forget that centuries of strife and untold antagonism of misunderstandings and ignorance, stand as a granite wall between their souls and ours. The teachings and influence of their home, of their school, and of their church lie in their minds, strata upon strata, as the silent and lasting mementoes of the great religious upheaval of the Reformation. Only the influence of a genuine, frank, Catholic life, seen and felt in daily intercourse will gradually wear the barrier away. It is a long and slow process, we know, but one worth trying. Like the ever returning tide it eats its way into the most solid rock of prejudice and bigotry.

That this aloofness carries with it for the unguarded soul and untrained mind a great protection, is made evident by the too many examples of lukewarm Catholics, who by their continued a.s.sociation with those outside of the Fold have lost the right appreciation of their faith and are open to compromise. Principles in their lives often yield to a policy of so called broadmindedness and alleged charity. But those we have in mind, are the leaders, among the clergy and the laity. They are grounded in their belief, know its principles and should be prepared to throw off that aloofness which shades the light of their faith and prevents it from being seen by those who are bound to them, in the everyday life, by national, social, commercial, and often by family ties.

This quasi universal att.i.tude of aloofness has developed among us what we might call "The policy of waiting." The festive board of Christ's faith is ready, but the guests from another fold are wanting. Have we gone "by the highways and byways" and forced ourselves upon their attention by our pressing invitations ... "compelle intrare?" No, we stand at the door of the Banquet Hall, receiving politely and with joy, it is true, those who ask to come in; and there, for the most part, ends our apostolate. This naturally leads us to say frankly what we think could be done. For we believe that our methods of apostolate call for revision, need readjustment. The way to become like St. Paul, "All things to all men, that we may save them all," (I. Cor. I., 22) changes with the times.

In the great drama of life the stage-settings are ever shifting and the dramatis personae, changing. The success of the actor is to fit in as the play goes on. This he does by adopting ways and methods most appropriate to his surroundings. The problems we face are always the same, but to be efficient our methods of handling them must evolve and adjust themselves to the temper of the age. What should be then the characteristic features of our apostleship among non-Catholics? The neglect of readjustment of our methods in dealing with our separated brethren is the avowed cause of the tremendous waste of energy and the explanation of meagre results. "An enormous amount of energy," said Father Benson,-and he had the experience,-"has been expended uselessly in the past, a.s.saulting positions that are no longer held, and by lack of appreciation of present conditions." In this age of loose thinking and of rapid dissemination of ideas, aggressiveness, supported by active propaganda, characterizes every world-wide movement in government, industry, science and religion. Every doctrine, every theory comes into the open and makes a strong bid for our hearing, for our following. Why should not the true doctrine of Christ a.s.sume this new shining armour of sane aggressiveness, come more into the open, and throw down the gauntlet to unbelief and indifference everywhere rampant and openly defiant? For, if conviction is the father of devotion, if our belief in the mastery of ideas is genuine, we cannot help but be aggressive. Needless to say we are not asking for vulgar aggressiveness, we are not asking for cheap sneers and attacks on the ignorance and the illogical position of others. By aggressiveness, we mean coming out in defence of truth which it is our privilege and responsibility to possess. Never have times been more inviting for an aggressive Catholicism. The great war has been for Protestantism the acid test. The result is for the Anglican and Evangelical Churches a complete failure,[2] and, as the soldiers said "a wash-out." They have lost their grip on the ma.s.ses who are rapidly slipping into a religious chaos. The universal disintegration of creeds, strangely combined with a secret thirst for truth and unity now sweeps the English-speaking world. Are not these portentous events that manifest, as "The stirring of the waters," the movement of the Holy Spirit.

Our policy of aggressiveness, if it be true and resolute, will find expression in an intelligent, active and persevering propaganda. Propaganda is the dissemination of ideas, with the view of giving them a strong foothold in the mind. The gradual development of the message it carries and the recurrence of its lessons at stated intervals are the princ.i.p.al factors of this great force. To be efficient and successful our propaganda among our non-Catholic brethren will a.s.sume two distinct forms: The open and the silent form.

The silent propaganda is the spreading of Catholic ideas through the contact of our every day life with those who are not of our own Faith. Willingly or unwillingly we are bound to leave an impression of our belief in the business and social circles into which our life is cast. Our silence and abstention alone often militate against the Church. Let then the purity and spirituality of our lives, the honesty of our commercial relations, the sanct.i.ty of our home, bear witness to the sacredness of our religion and to the seriousness of its teachings.

A true Catholic life is in itself a living ant.i.thesis of the prevalent neo-pagan ideals, and stands as the best proof of our Faith's sincerity and of the depth of its conviction. "If life is the test of thought rather than thought the test of life," wrote Van d.y.k.e, "we should be able to get light on the real worth of a man's ideals by looking at the shape they would give to human existence if they were faithfully applied." For, as Cromwell said, "The mind is the man."

The partic.i.p.ation in civic, social and national activities will afford the occasion of meeting our non-Catholic neighbours. This personal and repeated contact, particularly with the leaders of the community, on occasions when the best brains can concentrate together without clash of principle, is, in our humble estimation, of the greatest value. The partic.i.p.ation of the Knights of Columbus in war activities and reconstruction work is a striking ill.u.s.tration of this point. Nothing has more helped the Church in the American Republic, in breaking down the barrier of anti-Catholic prejudice, than the stand its Catholic laity took during and after the Great War. Have we not in Western Canada been rather remiss in our partic.i.p.ation in public activities? If we have not had our share in public life, it has often been, we must confess, our own fault.

The strength of the silent propaganda lies in its persistency and consistency. A silent continuous and intelligent activity, and not a mere pa.s.sivity, on the part of Catholics, is what characterizes this tremendous force. Like the tide, it creeps from pebble to pebble, from rock to rock, submerging every thing under its conquering waters.

The logic of Catholic life lends its consistency to this silent force. Our life is indeed the best proof of our principles. No one on the contrary does more harm to the Church than a Catholic whose life is not in harmony with his belief. The non-Catholic points to his life, with a sneer, and says: "See, he is no better than others!" This reasoning, we know is false, but for the unthinking ma.s.ses, very often conclusive.

This silent drive is the necessary background of the open propaganda of which we would now say a few words.

The sincerely aggressive Catholicism of the laity cannot confine its activities to the home and narrow circle of friends, no more than that of the clergy can find its limit in the pulpit and the confessional. Let us go into the open. The sun of liberty is blazing bright for us all, under the blue skies of Canada. To witness at times, our cringing spirit, our childlike timidity, our cowardice, one would think that we were still under the penal laws and legal disabilities known by our fathers and forefathers. "What is there to check our dash forward?" we would ask with Father Vaughan. "Absolutely nothing, but ourselves, nothing but what we term prudence." Prudence! thin veneer, hardly able to conceal our apathy and unwarranted timidity.