p. 63Christian Training of Children

Training is practical education; or, in other words, it is education, by practice of the person taught. Children learn in the Catechism what they ought to know and what they ought to do in order to become perfect followers of Jesus Christ and attain the end of their being. This learning, however, is merely an exercise of the intellect and memory; and if it stop at this, it is of little account in the formation of a Christian life. It should then be looked on by parents, in the same light as we look on an architect’s paper-plan of a building. It is the ideal which is to be realized in the soul and character, and habits of the child and this work of realization is what I mean by training. Hence the work of training a child in the practice of religious and moral duty is far more important than the mere teaching spoken of in the last chapter. It should therefore be the chief study of parents; and I shall devote this chapter to showing them how it is to be done. I may in the course of it have to repeat some things that I have already written; or I may have to anticipate some things of which I shall have to write more fully hereafter; but I trust I shall be pardoned for these inconveniences on account of the vital importance of the subject.

First of all, then, the parents’ own good example is the grand lesson-book that is ever to be kept before the eyes of the child in the training school of home. The child can read in this book while it is still at its mother’s breast. Its appreciation and love of it and its instinctive leaning to follow its guidance and walk in its light, go on increasing day by day as it advances in years; and even when it has grown old, it is still improved by the memory of this hallowed teaching. As I have dwelt already on this subject, I shall say no more of it here than this, that I consider the essence of a parent’s relations and duties to his child to consist in giving it constantly and uniformly the example of a good, holy, Christian life.

The second means by which parents ought to train their children in religious and moral duty is direction. They ought to show them how to apply in their daily lives the truths and precepts taught in the catechism; and they ought to superintend and guide them in this application. To show more clearly what I understand by this direction, let me take the instance of a mother and child—the latter I will suppose to have arrived at the age of reason. The first duty of the day being prayer, the mother will see that her child says its prayers, punctually and uniformly, immediately after dressing. And it is not well that she should merely get it to kneel down and say what prayers it chooses: she should appoint the prayers to be said, the devotion and attention with which they ought to be said, and the length of time that should ordinarily be given to them. She will then show it the connexion between this simple action and the first commandment of God, telling it that every time it prays it pays to Him the divine worship enjoined by that commandment. She will also read for it, or get it to read the chapter on prayer in the catechism; so that it may understand why it has to go on its knees at certain times to pray. The young mind of a child feels a strong natural pleasure in discovering this conformity between its own actions and the principles of religion; and the discovery of it will have two beneficial effects upon its life: it will take a greater interest in its catechism in consequence of it, and it will not be likely to consider prayer, as some children do, a dull, tedious, mechanical work.

At meals also, and at night before going to bed, the mother will point out to her child how it is to perform this same duty of prayer; and she will see that it performs it regularly. She will caution it against the danger of routine and irreverent carelessness in praying, and impress upon it the heavy judgments of God inflicted upon the Jewish people, forasmuch as they drew near Him with their mouth, and with their lips glorified Him, but their heart was far from Him. (Isaias xxix. 13.)

I will suppose then, that this child spends the usual number of hours every day at school, away from the immediate supervision and control of its mother; or it is during these hours with a teacher at home, or it is sent to a boarding-school. In any of these cases, the mother ought to have an understanding with the teacher or principal under whose care her child is placed, that full and accurate information should be sent or given to her, at frequent intervals, of any vice or serious fault developed in its daily conduct. She must be prepared for finding at times this information unfavourable; and, perhaps, sometimes the source of painful disappointment, provided the whole truth be told her. Yet it is better that she should know the whole truth; and that teacher acts unfaithfully to his charge who suppresses the truth, and gives an uncandid, although flattering, report of the moral character and dispositions of his pupil. I wish that such unfaithful reports were less frequent than they are. Much after-sorrow would be saved to parents, and many vices in children would be weeded out before they had sunk their roots beneath the foundations of virtue and religious principle.

But a mother should not lose either patience or courage, because her child disappoints her. She should, on the contrary, pray fervently for both; and then take the first opportunity of speaking to it gently and gravely about its error, and the pain it gives her, but the much greater pain it is calculated to give the good God who died for it on the Cross. She might also with advantage refer to the particular chapter in the catechism, where the vice committed, or the opposite virtue is spoken of. Great prudence and charity, however, are required in correcting a child’s first serious fault, and it is very easy to err, on this occasion as well as on others, by too much “preaching.” Let the mother, then, show sorrow, if she will, but not anger; let her words be few and full of tenderness; and let them breathe more of the hope of amendment in the future, than of severe blame for the past.

The child’s time out of the hours of school, meals, prayers, and sleep, is generally occupied in the study of home lessons, in the performance of household business, in play, or in sitting by its mother, either prattling to her, or listening to what she says, or observing what she does. Here then are opportunities in plenty for moral training by direction and superintendence; and no good mother will fail to avail herself of them for the improvement of her young charge. With regard to household business of any useful kind, children are generally averse to it, and they shirk it when they can, or they do it in a slovenly manner, or they do it under protest, grumbling and murmuring the while. Thus, dislike of work, laziness, unfaithfulness to duty, together with disobedience, and disrespect of parental authority, are in danger of being developed, and of growing into confirmed habits from this one source alone. The mother then must be careful to teach her child how pleasing to God is labour well and faithfully done, no matter how mean, or trifling, or commonplace it be. She must show it how labour became a condition of life, in punishment of the first sin of disobedience; and she will do well to draw a picture of the Incarnate God, when He was a little child no older than her own, living in the simple cottage at Nazareth, obeying His earthly parents by doing the very same kind of work that she asks her own child to do. Indeed I would recommend this picture of the Child Jesus at work to be impressed with all possible vividness on every child’s imagination, and I would recommend frequent reference to be made to it until the lesson of obedience and humility and fidelity that it conveys is thoroughly learned, and taken to heart, and reduced to practice.

Again when the child is seated at its mother’s knee, a golden opportunity is offered for directing it in the practice of many virtues. If it be allowed to babble away freely, as it generally ought to be, it will probably develop some of the tendencies towards vice, that are sure to be latent in its character. Of these, untruthfulness, vanity, selfishness, and cruelty, are the most likely to appear; but I need not say that, no matter what the vice is, it ought to be corrected by the parent, and every effort used to make the opposite virtue look amiable and desirable to the child. Yet this should be done with great prudence, and gentleness, and love. It is a serious loss to one who directs children to forfeit their confidence by making them reserved and guarded in his presence; and they are always made so by harsh rebuke, or by constant captiousness as well as by “hauling” them up for every mistake they commit. Therefore the parent should be very prudent in this matter, not correcting every fault of theirs at once; and while he does correct each singly, showing, if possible, an increase of interest in the outpouring of their confidence. Untruthfulness, however, should never be overlooked in a child. It is generally deliberate, and there is always the consciousness of wrong-doing about it; and besides, there are more temptations to it, and more facilities to give way to it, than there are to most of the other faults of children. It should therefore be checked at once in its first manifestation, and checked severely, so that the child may conceive a horror of it from the beginning, as something detestable, not only in the sight of God who is the Truth, by essence, but also in the eyes of the world.

Correction is the third means, and the last I intend to propose, of training children in religion and morality. It is very intimately associated with the direction of which I have last spoken; but it is distinguished from it in this, that correction regards the prevention of faults, while direction has for its object the manner of practising virtue, and of acquiring virtuous habits. Having had occasion to refer to this third means when speaking on parental love, I shall not delay long on it here, but shall merely supplement the recommendations I then made regarding it. First of all, parents should never show any diversity of opinion among themselves about the correction of a child; and much less should one of them interfere with the correction of the other. Yet, in ordinary homes, such interference is very common. The father is too severe, and the mother too indulgent; or vice versa, the latter is for chastisement, the former for pardon, and each seeks to carry his or her opinion into effect. The consequence is that the child witnesses the disedifying spectacle of divided authority, and even though the chastisement be inflicted, its salutary effect is neutralized by the sense of injustice aroused in it by the sympathy of its more indulgent parent. Moreover, every manifestation of discord between parents weakens their hold on the respect and affection of their children; and it proportionately weakens their influence over them. Of course it is morally impossible for two persons to take uniformly the same view of the kind and the amount of correction useful or necessary for each individual child, in the endless variety of cases in which the question of correction may arise. But they should discuss amicably their different views between themselves, and they should do so, each with a disposition to yield something to the other; both having one sole aim before them, namely, the spiritual good of the child. When this is done, their combined authority is sure to be exercised temperately, and at the same time firmly, and thus it will always command the respect of their children.

It is a mistake to think, as some parents do, that correction consists wholly in corporal punishment. This mistake often leads to undue severity, and sometimes to the permanent injury of the child’s moral and religious character. A father, for instance, uses the rod on all occasions, slight or serious, in which he thinks correction necessary. Those occasions happen to be frequent, for he has a wild, thoughtless, high-spirited boy to deal with; and the consequence soon shows itself in the tearless, unwincing sullenness with which the chastisement is received, and the cool deliberateness with which the same or a similar fault is very soon afterwards committed. The boy feels that he is being treated harshly; he is put on his mettle; he resists, and begins to detest the authority from which he has to suffer so much; and from being thoughtless, he becomes wilfully disobedient. Sometimes, however, there is a different issue to this treatment. The boy’s spirit is broken down thoroughly; he trembles at his father’s voice; the tread of his footstep fills him with terror; he has no heart for childish frolics; he seldom laughs, or even smiles—never indeed in his father’s presence; exteriorly he is all compliance and servility to the slightest wish or nod. Perhaps this is considered by some a wholesome, salutary discipline; but those who think so are grievously mistaken. That boy has become a hypocrite under the paternal treatment; his young soul seethes with burning, revengeful, unholy thoughts; every germ of virtue is scorched and withered there; and one day the sense of injustice that goes on growing within him will find vent and burst forth, showing the evil consequences of his misguided training. No; corporal punishment is not the only nor even the principal means of correcting a child. There are besides it, two other means much more efficacious, both of which ought to be tried before recourse is had to the degradation of the rod. These means are rebuke and privation. The tongue may be made to utter words of warning, or sorrow, or pain, or anger, at the wrong-doing of a child, that frequently have as deterrent an effect on it as the most cutting scourge could have. Such words are calculated to evoke the better feelings of the child’s nature; its self-respect is not affected by them, provided they be spoken temperately and affectionately; and they can always heal the wound they inflict. If children be not spoiled while very young, they can, I am convinced, be generally corrected by rebuke; especially when it is confirmed by their parents’ good example, and kind affectionate training. I do not mean, however, that the fear of corporal punishment should be entirely unknown to a child. On the contrary, I say that it ought to be kept in its mind, looming in the background behind the idea of parental authority; and when this authority is exercised by a command or a prohibition, and much more by a threat, the fear of punishment ought to be brought more to the front, so as to strengthen the higher motives actuating the child in its obedience. And here I would caution parents against the mistake of threatening children with punishment under certain circumstances, and when the circumstances occur, not inflicting it. A child very soon learns to look on such threats as so many unmeaning words; and it begins to lose all fear of them, and even to conceive for them indifference or contempt. Promises should be invariably and faithfully discharged—even when they refer to the corporal chastisement of a child.

But even although words be unavailing for the purpose of correction, there is still the punishment of privation, that may be tried before the rod is used. Privation is the natural punishment of excess or abuse; and when excess and abuse are wilful, and are becoming habitual, in spite of admonition and warning, no better remedy can be applied than to deprive the young culprit of that in which he exceeds, or of which he does not choose to understand the use. A boy, for example, plays truant from school; let him be deprived of his recreation, and kept to his books. He is idle at his lessons; let him be put to some hard constant work, until he has learned the value of time. He spends on play-things the money given him for another purpose; let the play-thing be taken from him, and let him not be trusted again for some time. A boy will feel punishment like this all the more, because he cannot but recognize its natural justice; and he will profit by it for the sake of his own personal comfort, if for no higher reason.

Sometimes, however, corporal punishment becomes necessary to correct a child on whom every other mode of correction has been tried in vain. Let it then be inflicted, but without any show of anger; let it be in proportion to the fault committed; and let it never be excessive. Above all, let neither corporal punishment, nor privation, nor censure, give the child to understand that you consider it incorrigible. No child is incorrigible; indeed I believe no human being, however hardened in sin, to be wholly beyond the possibility of reform. It is, then, injurious and even cruel to a child to have its hope of amendment taken from it by its parents dinning into its ears their conviction that it will never come to any good. In fact, by doing so, they are using a very effectual means of realizing their conviction: for the child is led to the conclusion, by a very simple process of reasoning, that if it is never to come to any good, there is no earthly use in trying; so it resolves not to try. No; the parent should never appear to lose his good opinion, or his hope of the child whom he corrects. He should rather lead it to expect very soon a return of his favour, provided it changes its ways and shows at least a sincere desire of improvement.

And now I would say a word about those fathers and mothers who bribe their children to secure their obedience, and “to make them good.” A more silly course, or more short-sighted could scarcely be adopted. Such children will grow up without any idea of authority; they will very soon begin to tyrannize over their parents; they will wrangle and dispute among themselves without any effectual check; and their home will be a constant scene of clamour and confusion. The experiment has unfortunately been often tried, and it has invariably led to these deplorable results. Men must submit to be governed by lawful authority without prospect of reward; and children must be trained into this submission by the firm exercise of parental authority. Bribes or rewards given to children for simply doing their duty, are as a rule demoralizing; they interfere with the higher motives for which a child should obey; and besides, they excite in the minds of the other children of a family who are not so treated, feelings of jealousy, and also suspicions of favouritism. No grounds should ever be afforded of such suspicions. Let good conduct, docile dispositions, real merit be the only recommendations to favour in the eyes of those who would make their authority respected by the young.