p. 85Filial Obedience

One of the duties of a good Christian is to be a good citizen; and the chief characteristic of a good citizen is loyal and conscientious obedience to the authority and ordinances of those who govern the community to which he belongs. Without such obedience in its members, civil society can have no coherence, no solidity, no principle of perpetuity. It may indeed be kept together for a time by factitious means; but it is ever open to disruption. A designing, unscrupulous agitator, or a spontaneous popular outbreak, or a harsh measure unduly pressed, may at any time dismember it and reduce it to chaos. Governments are then short-sighted to their own present interests, as well as to their dangers in the future, when they regard in the subject only his outward, formal compliance with his civil duties, and take no care in making his obedience heartily and conscientiously loyal. But the governments of our day commit a greater folly still: for they prevent by their legislation, and particularly by their intrusion on domestic life, and by their tampering with its relations—they prevent, as far as they are able, the present generation from bequeathing to the future any tradition whatsoever of that religious allegiance to civil institutions rights and laws, on which society must be based and by which it must be protected, if it is to withstand the onset of revolution and anarchy.

Now these remarks have a very intimate connexion with the subject of this chapter. Home is the training-school of a child in the obedience which, in its after-life, it will be bound to give to the civil authority under which it is to live. The rule of the parent, then, ought to prepare it for the rule of the state; and the conscientiousness with which it subjects itself to the former ought to characterize its adherence and fidelity to the latter. The authority of parents therefore, and the obedience of children, are two important factors in the constitution of every well-ordered civil community; and whatever can be done to strengthen and perfect these factors ought to be done by those who have the government of such a community in their hands.

I am not, however, writing a political treatise, and I say these things solely for the purpose of giving parents an adequate idea of the importance they should attach to the proper discharge of their authority over their children. It is necessary to instruct children also in this idea, that they may see the practical bearing of their present obedience on their future lives.

And now, as to the conditions of this obedience: it should first of all be conscientious; that is, the child should feel itself bound under pain of sin to obey every just command of its parents. “Children,” says St. Paul, “obey your parents in the Lord: for this is just.” (Eph. vi. 1.) And in another place he repeats the same divine precept, nearly in the same words: “Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord.” (Col. iii. 20.) Fear of punishment, therefore, should never be the predominant motive of a child’s obedience. External wrong-doing may be repressed for a time by such fear; but there will be no permanent good done by it; there will be no salutary discipline of conduct in it; and it will inspire the child with life-long, inward dislike for all authority—a dislike, I may add, that will make its possessor a dangerous, if not an obnoxious member of the community to which he will belong. Merely natural love of parents also, and unwillingness to give them pain, and anxiety to secure their good opinion, these and other like human motives, although amiable and desirable in themselves, will not secure either the true and lasting obedience of the child or the ulterior benefits to which that obedience should lead, unless they be subordinated to the supernatural motive of fulfilling the divine Will revealed in the fourth Commandment of the Decalogue.

A child therefore should be taught, as soon as it is capable of learning anything, that by doing what it is ordered to do by its parents, it pleases not only them, but also its divine Father who is in Heaven. In like manner, when it disobeys wilfully, it ought to be told that it incurs the divine displeasure by such disobedience; and that it is far more serious and dreadful to displease God than to displease parents. This twofold idea ought to be instilled into a child’s mind until it becomes thoroughly imbued with it. Of course, the other motives for obedience should not be made light of or ignored. Love, gratitude, fear, hope of reward, every inducement, in fact, that usually acts on the young, ought to be made use of; but the great primary motive, to which all others should be subsidiary, is the divine authority manifested and exercised through the parent.

Such conscientious obedience will be uniform and unchanging in all the varied forms and circumstances of home-life. Whether parents be kind or unkind; whether duties be difficult or easy; whether there be an immediate advantage in doing them, or no advantage at all; in every case, the obedience will be the same, because it will be grounded on the one unchanging motive of the divine will. And when this obedience will be transferred from the parent to the state, namely, when the child will have grown to manhood, it will result in an allegiance more true, staunch, and permanent than the most stringent laws or the largest standing army could ever secure.

Another condition of filial obedience consists in its being prompt and willing. In fact, obedience that is forced and slow scarcely deserves the name. There is indeed an external compliance in it by which the work ordered is done; but this compliance proceeds only from fear or some human motive; and the will rebels and resists while the hand is put sulkily and grudgingly to its task. Yet when parents command something difficult or laborious, they are very often obeyed in this manner. The child hesitates, murmurs, complains, excuses itself, or declares broadly that it will not do what it is told. After a little, however, but still under protest, it sets about doing it; and we may well guess how imperfect and unsatisfactory is the performance of any work under such conditions. If you follow the history of such a child’s life you will find that it generally results in absolute stubborn disobedience. A time comes when it is no longer afraid of chastisement; nay, when that child actually defies its parents to chastise it. There is no motive then for obedience, and in consequence, it follows its own will, upsets the order of its home, takes the government of domestic affairs on itself, tyrannizes over its parents, and in the end, either breaks their hearts outright by its ingratitude, or adds sorrow to sorrow in the end of their lives.

I have seen many homes of this description; and I need scarcely say that they were not happy. I have often been called into them to check the brutal violence of sons to their parents; and I must confess, that I count my efforts in trying to do so among the most fruitless missionary efforts of my life. If children once “get the upperhand” of their parents, they will, as a rule, never resign it as long as they remain under the parental roof. Hence, I would most earnestly caution parents not only against permitting insubordination and disobedience in their children; but also against tolerating any manifestation of unwillingness or grumbling in the execution of their commands. Let them insist firmly on prompt, unhesitating obedience, and let them do all in their power to make it cheerful and willing. I would also impress on children the necessity of this cheerful and willing obedience. It is the only kind of filial obedience that is acceptable to their Father in Heaven; the only obedience that can make their parents happy and justly proud of them; and the only obedience that can lighten the difficulty and trouble of any disagreeable or unpleasant task that may be imposed on them.

There is one great danger to which filial obedience is exposed, and against which every possible precaution must be taken. It cannot perhaps be better described than by calling it the esprit de corps of children. Young people will talk among themselves about their parents and their domestic grievances, and they will boast to each other of their stout resistance to paternal, and their utter contempt for maternal authority. Among boys at school in particular, that one who is bold enough to assert any filial respect, is sneered at, and treated roughly, and called very unpleasant names, of which “milksop” is perhaps the mildest. In the same way, if a boy be apprenticed to a trade, or be a clerk in an office, or an assistant in a shop, he will generally find that disrespect for parental counsel is considered by his companions as a very manly feeling, and one that is almost necessary for his incorporation with them. To illustrate this, imagine a young lad fresh from home, thrown among twenty or thirty others of his own age in a shop or office. There is an immemorial custom in the establishment that each new comer must entertain at supper all his new associates, and he complies with the custom. Everything is provided on a liberal scale, and the guests sit down in high spirits, disposed to think favourably of their new friend, until they find to their horror that he is a water drinker—a teetotaller. He is at once called to task for his reputed crime; and if he have the courage to say, that through respect for the advice of his parents, he had pledged himself some time ago against the use of all strong drink, there will be an unanimous outburst of indignation raised against him for submitting so slavishly to the parental counsel. There will be much denunciation of parental authority in general; and one or two fledgelings are pretty sure to be more outspoken than the others, and to assert that it is unworthy of gentlemen like them to be led at their mother’s apron-strings.

Now if this illustration be substantially true, as I think it is, it shows two things: first, the anti-parental esprit de corps existing among children of the class referred to; and secondly, the serious danger to which even the best of home-teaching is exposed when brought into contact with that esprit de corps. Perhaps the home-teaching will hold out for a time, but only for a short time, if it be not assisted by supernatural help. This, of course, implies a thoroughly religious life, morning and night prayer, frequent reception of Sacraments, Mass, Meditation, &c. Yet even these practices are themselves undermined by the spirit of which I am speaking; so that he who continues them regularly and uniformly must have had a sound religious home-training indeed. How often are fathers and mothers sadly and painfully disappointed in their children on their return for their holidays from their place of employment or of apprenticeship? They left home obedient, respectful, affectionate; they return, ready to assert themselves “their own masters” on the first opportunity, and to patronize with a sort of comical condescension the parents of whom they formerly stood in dutiful awe. However, if the cause were to be sought out, it would be found, in most cases, to consist in the giving up one by one of devotional practices, and thus leaving themselves defenceless against all the evil influences of the society in which they live.

Children should therefore be impressed by their parents on leaving home with a due sense of the dangers to which they will be exposed, and of the surest means of coming out of them unscathed. This means, as I have already said, is perseverance in the usual exercises of piety in which they had been previously trained. Indeed, I would recommend earnestly that for this purpose they be placed under the personal care of the Priest in charge of the mission in which they will reside; and that a letter of introduction to him be obtained from their Parish Priest at home. It will be given with pleasure, and it will be a passport to whatever Catholic clubs or associations for the benefit of young people may exist in the mission to which their new home belongs. I have known letters of this kind, given to children emigrating to foreign countries, to produce most beneficial results; and I do not see why similar results should not be produced by those given in the circumstances I mention.

I would make another recommendation also in this matter of saving young people from danger when they leave home. It is, that parents put themselves in communication with the Priest of the place where their child resides, and not only ask him to look after it, but let them know from time to time about its attendance to its religious and moral duties. I can scarcely conceive the reason why this obvious and effectual means of maintaining their supervision and control over their children is not more generally resorted to by parents. If they fear giving trouble to the Priest, they are much mistaken; for they rather assist him in the performance of his duty; and if they think that they intrude on his time which he owes to his mission generally, they can recoup him by becoming benefactors to his schools or to some work of charity in which he is sure to be engaged. Many young persons of both sexes would have been saved from dangers through which unfortunately they did not pass unharmed, and by which some of them were ruined, had their parents taken this precaution. The first downward step would not then have ever led to a headlong career of vice: and the religious and moral training of home, protected by the continued, though indirect supervision of parents, would have been a sure safeguard against every evil and seductive influence.

Even children who reside at home with their parents, but who go to work during the day, often show in their conduct the effect of their association with others, whose moral training was either neglected or produced no good result on them. In such cases, there will be at first no actual insubordination or formal disobedience. There will be merely an unwillingness to do what is ordered, a slowness and a slovenliness in doing it, a well-disguised assertion of independence, an assumption of authority over brothers and sisters. These are what may be called “feelers;” but if they be not checked at once, they develop very rapidly into open and habitual violation of all the duties imposed by the fourth Commandment on children. Parents, then, should watch for such manifestations and be prepared to check them at their first appearance. They should never tolerate impertinence, even from their grown up sons and daughters; but they will find it very difficult to prevent it, if they do not begin at the beginning. When a child once gains a foot-hold, by an overlooked or uncorrected act of wilful disobedience or disrespect, the act is sure to be repeated, and it will be much more difficult to correct it effectually, the second time it is committed, than it would have been at first.

But in order to insure true and constant filial obedience, parents ought to be prudent in the orders they give their children. Those orders ought to be adapted with care and forethought to those who have to fulfil them, so that they may not be looked on as unreasonable, harsh, or degrading. A child should not be treated as if it were a hired servant; for such treatment is not only unnatural and wrong in itself, but it forces the child sooner or later to rebel against it, and it tends to destroy all filial affection and reverence. Neither should grown up sons or daughters be asked to do things unbecoming their age, and for which they may be subjected to the banter and ridicule of their companions. In fact, it is most important that parents should trust their children to act more and more on their own discretion as they become older. They will thus be taught gradually that self-reliance in business and domestic affairs which they will have to practise afterwards in the new home for which they are destined. Nor will the parental authority be in any way lessened by such relaxation: it will rather be strengthened by it; because children, seeing how reasonably they are treated, will have all the more respect for those commands that will be imposed upon them.

I have now to add a few words before I conclude this chapter on the management of a class of children called “incorrigible.” I dare say everyone knows, at least by hearsay, if not by actual acquaintance, what is meant by “an incorrigible child.” It is a child that is always doing some mischief or other, and that, no matter how often or how severely it be punished, continues to be a mischief-doer. Its unfortunate little life is divided into two parts, namely, sleep and mischief, and the latter is by far the greater part. Nor are its faults attributable to levity or any other excusing cause, for if they were, it would not be considered beyond hope of reclamation; but the saddest thing about it is the seeming premeditation and malice with which it goes on repeating acts for which it had been already punished, perhaps only a few moments before. It does not appear to care what pain it gives, even to those who love it: it will not be bribed by kindness: it will not be daunted by chastisement: it will follow its own way, stubbornly, persistently, ungratefully, and the more opposition it meets the worse it becomes.

Now, what is to be done with a child of this kind? The answer cannot be given in one word; but I will try to compress it into as few as possible. I would say, first of all, that the name, “incorrigible” is one that never should be given to it, unless indeed it be a veritable little monster, unaccountable for its actions, and unamenable not only to the influence of reason but also to that of the higher animal instincts, through which even brute beasts are tamed and domesticated. If this be the character of a child, nothing remains to be done but to treat it as an imbecile, and to have recourse, if necessary for the moral safety of its brothers and sisters, to confinement in an asylum for the insane. I do not think, however, that such a case of real incorrigibility as this is ever found, or if it occur once in a hundred years, there is no practical utility in discussing it here. I hold, then, that so-called incorrigible children are generally not incorrigible at all; and that they are made worse by being reputed and called incorrigible; and that there is a way to their hearts by which they can be educated and trained, if parents and teachers will only take the trouble to study their peculiarities of character and disposition. But this is not generally done: sometimes the first act of wilful stubbornness or disobedience, instead of being studied, that the motive may be discovered, is supposed to be the outcome of a hardened perverted nature, and a cruel unrelenting war is commenced on the supposed perverted nature which in reality has no existence; it is carried on, by inflicting on the child corporal punishment, disgrace before its brothers and sisters, loss of self-respect, and the deprivation of its father’s and mother’s love. It feels that the hand of every one is against it, and that it is hunted down and driven into a corner; and like every animate thing so driven, it turns on its persecutors, even though they be its parents; it turns on them and wounds them in the most painful manner, perhaps, in which a child can wound its parent, that is, by its wilful, persistent and formal ingratitude. Now, I have no hesitation in saying that in cases like this, judicious, kindly treatment would have reformed and saved the so-called incorrigible. We must prepare ourselves, without losing patience or hope, to meet in children some very ugly manifestations of vicious propensities; and the manifestations will be all the more ugly and repugnant, because the propensities are directly opposed to those that we most anxiously seek to develop. A young child, for instance, has a tendency to theft. The parents are horrified; because, being thoroughly honest themselves, they cannot bear to be mixed up with the dishonesty of others, especially of their children. They feel themselves disgraced by it; they resolve to crush it out at once, no matter at what cost; and, in doing so, they allow themselves to be carried away by their excited, wounded feelings. They chastise the culprit; they separate it from the rest of the family; they scold it bitterly. All this would be right and expedient, if it did not destroy the child’s hope of becoming better. But it does destroy it; for in the angry, unmeasured words spoken, the expressions, “hardened wretch,” “incorrigible little sinner,” “disgrace of the family,” and others of a similar import are sure to be used; and they all tend to the one conclusion, that the parents’ good opinion being lost irretrievably, there is no inducement to regain it. And this conclusion becomes still more evident from the stern, unrelenting demeanour which the child sees displayed towards it afterwards. It tries to show its sorrow in some shy way of its own; but it is discountenanced or perhaps scolded anew; and so, it loses hope in despair and makes no effort to repress the temptation to steal when it next recurs.

I would impress upon parents, then, never to lose hope of their children, or tell them they have lost it; but to tell them on the contrary, that they are never beyond redeeming their characters and becoming reformed. They should encourage them with the prospect of becoming once more what they had been, by repentance, by the avoiding of dangerous occasions, and relying on the help of divine grace. This encouragement ought to accompany all correction; for without it, correction is sure to fail in its purpose, and to make the child more stubborn than before.

If parents, however, train up their children carefully from the beginning, they will in most cases have no reason to complain of their afterwards becoming incorrigible. I have, in fact, generally found that early over-indulgence is at the root of all that studied disobedience and contempt of parental authority, and of all that filial ingratitude that sometimes make the young the curse of their homes. I shall conclude this chapter, then, by repeating what I have already in these pages frequently inculcated: Begin the training of a child from the first dawn of its reason: teach it to love and respect its parents: show it how to do what is right, more by example than by words: exercise authority over it firmly and uniformly, but, at the same time, gently and considerately. Parents will thus secure its love, its reverence and its obedience, and by these means they will go far towards securing its eternal happiness.