The family


THE FAMILY

The Foundation of Society

Courtship

Marriage a Contract and

a Sacrament

Father, Mother and Children

Radio addresses by

The Rev. F. B. Ostdiek

Holy Trinity Church

Des Moines, Iowa

Price 10c



Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https ://arch ive . org/detai Is/fam i lyOOostd



THE FAMILY

The Foundation of Society

Courtship

Marriage a Contract and

a Sacrament

Father, Mother and Children

A series of four sermons delivered over
radio station WHO during the month
of April, 1935 by Rev. F. B. Ostdiek,

Holy Trinity Church, Des Moines, Iowa

Our Sunday Visitor Press, Huntington, Ind.





THE FAMILY

Dear Friends: There is an old adage which says “Con-
fession is good for the soul’', and I must confess that I
feel a little timid in this, my first address before the
microphone. I should very much prefer to see your faces.
So, should I stammer or stutter, kindly be merciful and
patient with me. I want to thank the Central Broadcast-
ing Company for granting me the singular privilege of
addressing you at this same hour each Sunday in the
month of April. It is my intention to speak of the family,
and each Sunday I shall try to give you a different phase
of this very important subject. Next Sunday we shall
treat of Courtship, and I shall be pleased to have you
gather your marriageable sons and daughters around the
radio, for they may get an idea or two that will help them
in making their future married life more happy.

When Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ came into the
world. He came to reform society. Society had fallen
from its primitive righteousness.; it lay prostrate in the
mire of sin. [Just a glance at the morals of the Roman
Empire will convince any one of that fact. But there may
be some of my audience that are under the impression that
the law of evolution causes society to grow better from
day to day. That each day megns advancement. Historv
proves the very contrary. Nations have lost their civili-
zation and their culture. The Chinese were at one time
the very cultural salt of the earth. The city of Carthage
with its people was at one time the international center of
education, and look at it today. It is very questionable
whether we are as civilized today as our nation was fifty
years ago. At all events society was in a mire when
Christ came and He came as its reformer.]
He was infinite wisdom, and as such He realized that if

society was to be purified, the purification had to begin at
its very source. No stream can be pure unless it flows
from a pure source. You cannot drink the waters that
flow from an alkaline bed—and they carry the impurity
with them until they are buried in the ocean. So too,
society must flow from a pure source if it is to be pure.
The source of society is the family, and hence Christ began
by purifying marriage. The very first act of His public
life of which we have, a record, consisted in a journey to
a wedding feast, at which He turned water into wine. It
is the common opinion of commentators that He there
raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, for St.
Paul, some years later, called it a great sacrament.
Next to God, the family is not only the physical source

of society but it is also the source of authority. God did
not command us in so many words to obey our teachers
or the state, but He said “Honor thy father and thy
mother”. The family is then the earthly starting point
of authority. But each family could not exist by itself.
In order to have paved roads, or fire protection, or a police
force, etc., families gather into groups, called tribes, or
states. The state is a group of families or individuals
gathered together for a common end. What needs to be
emphasized is, that the state holds only such authority as
is given to it by God, through the family and nature.
The Catholic Church from the very beginning has been

the friend of the oppressed. She has carried on a con-
tinual battle with governments to nrevail upon them to
respect the rights of minorities. She has tried to teach
that the sovereign state is not the government but the
people. Leaders like Hitler and Mussolini maintain that
the child is born for the state: the Catholic Church says
the state is for the child; the government is for the

3



people and not the people for the government. The
framers of our constitution were well aware of the
tyranny a state can hold over minorities, so they embodied
a Bill of Rights in our constitution in order to prevent
our government from trampling upon individuals and
families, by taking away from them their God-given
rights. In spite of the heoric efforts of the Church and
the Bill of Rights, we still find the government treading
on forbidden ground, and usurping the rights of God, the
family and the individual.

About twelve or thirteen years ago, in a city of about
sixty thousand, here in the middle west, there stood a
very beautiful old theatre building. It was the first large
building constructed in that city. It had been planned
by a foreign architect and architectually it was very
correct. It stood in the centre of a beautiful plaza, sur-
rounded by shrubbery. Vines had climbed its walls and
draped the windows. Age and weather had given it a
beautiful rustic appearance. The townsfolk, and especially
the old settlers, considered it a landmark. It was nothing
unusual to see them explaining its age and beauty to
visiting relatives and friends. How they used to love to
tell how they attended their first show in this old theatre.
It appeared like a jewel amid the ungainly looking busi-
ness buildings around it.

One day the city council announced that the old theatre
was unsafe and had to be torn down. A cry of protest
went out from old and young. But the city council was
right. On investigation they were found to be correct
in their decision. Here is what had happened. While
these townspeople were admiring the superstructure of
this old theatre, they had ignored what was going on
within its basement walls. The wiring, plumbing and
heating had been changed so many times, the plumbers,
steamfitters and electricians had cut so many holes in
its basement walls, and had taken out so many brick that
the building had little foundation left. Then added to
this was the fact that the surrounding buildings, which
were much higher and heavier, were pressing these
weakened walls in. Verilly, the theatre had to be taken
down.

Figuratively speaking, what happened to this theatre
building is happening to society today. The masses have
their eyes on the superstructure. How we boast of our
organizations. Visit a friend in the city, and he will
point out the hospitals, schools and other institutions as
signs of progress and stability. He will show you the
welfare organizations, the parks, and amusement places.
But who pays any attention to the families? You might
visit a city for months and know nothing about the
foundation. Like the people and the theatre I described,
the superstructure seems to be all that interests us and
we are oblivious as to the foundation.
Now who are the forces, the steam fitters, plumbers

and electricians tearing away the foundation of society?
There is first of all our economic system, which like the
buildings around the theatre, is pressing in on the walls
and smothering the family. Our economic system has
forced thousands of mothers into the commercial world
to earn bread for their children. Our system of selling
labor to the lowest bidder has forced men to work for a
wage on which they cannot keep their families. In con-
sequence many mothers must work. A mother belono-s at
hom.e. She is the first and most essential teacher of the
child; no one can take her place, but our cruel system
forces her out and only too frequently her children grow
up on the street.

4



Then there is our system of housing. Families with
children are not wanted in rented homes and apartments.
Try to rent a house or an apartment, if you have children,
and see how the owners give you a cold shoulder. A few
weeks ago I met a fine Catholic gentleman who had a
family of eight children. He had to move from one city
to another and had rented a house. He paid one month’s
rent in advance, and when he came with his family the
owner would not let him in because he had eight children.
There is room in the apartment and the rented home for
the cat, the dog and the canary, but like Bethlehem of
old, the owners refuse admittance to children who are
the brothers and sisters of Christ. This is the smothering
process that is ruining the foundation of society.

Now who are the plumbers and electricians that are
tearing away the basement walls brick by brick. They
are our divorce courts. In the year 1933, the divorce
courts here in the state of Iowa tore 3353 bricks out of
the social foundation by granting that many divorces.
But that is not all, for 1437 of these families had children,
amounting to one and seven-tenths child to the family,
so the vandalous divorce courts rendered 2600 children
fatherless or motherless, or perhaps both. . This diabolical
work is not going on alone in Iowa but the pestilence has
invaded every state. In the United States in 1933 there
were 183,633 divorces granted. Of these, 61,000 had
children, at the rate of 1.7 child to the family, which
means that one hundred thousand children were rendered
either motherless or fatherless, or perhaps both, by the
diabolical divorce courts. One hundred thousand children
thrown upon society to be reared for the most part by
strangers, if they are reared at all, and their parents
exposed to the danger of leading adulterous lives. We are
on a par with Russia in granting divorces in this country.
Could anything be more disgraceful?

Yes, there could and there is something more disgrace-
ful. Some of the states of this union have been vieing
with one another in the past to pass laws making divorce
easy and hasty marriages more prevalent. Think of it.
A state tearing the very foundation from under itself by
grabbing for the red dollars collected in divorce courts
and license bureaus. A state enriching itself on lives and
morals of innocent children. If there is one sin that cries
to Heaven for vengeance it is the sin of divorce in
America.

No one seems to be disturbed about this evil. Since
the days of Teddy Roosevelt, there has been no statesman
who had the moral courage to demand legislation that
would stop this evil. Must it be admitted that there are
no representatives in Washington with enough red blood
in their veins, or with sufficient fortitude, to introduce
a bill, and fight it through, that would put a stop to this
crying evil?

For months they have been sparring and arguing back
and forth about the gold contract clauses in our bonds.
Which one of them has a word to say about the broken
marriage contracts? We are so much concerned about
money contracts, but is there any comparison in gravity
between them and the marriage contract ? A man goes
to an attorney and says, “I want to break a contract with
my partner in business”. The attorney reads the con-
tract and says, “You signed this?” The client answers,
“yes”. “Sir, you are tied; you cannot break that contract”.
But the next man coming to the attorney says, “I want a
divorce from my wife”. “How, and why?” asks the at-
torney. “We were married,” says the client, “by a minister
in a church with relatives and witnesses present. We

5 —



have two children. I want a divorce. I am losing* love
for my wife and do not care to stay with her. Another
woman has entered my life”. “But is your wife disloyal?
Has she ever treated you cruelly?” “Well, last Christmas
morning she served me, my brother and his wife, burned
biscuits for breakfast”, says the client. “Will your brother
and his wife substantiate that cruelty in court?”, asks
the attorney. “Yes”, says the client. “Very well, we
will charge cruel and inhuman treatment”. Eventually
the divorce is granted. The contract that implied a few
paltry dollars in a business partnership is binding, but the
contract made before at least three witnesses with God
Himself as a witness is to be broken. Children have
nothing to say, they are thrown out into a heartless
world without a father to care for them. The wife is
exposed to the danger of an adulterous life. But the
government says “So be it”. Friends, whenever a govern-
ment assumes authority which belongs to nature or to
God alone, she suffers for it, or her people suffer. A year
ago the government said, “Plow up the cotton, kill the
hogs, limit the fruits of the field”, and today even the
middle class people cannot afford bacon or steak. The
corn and wheat were limited and chickens and cattle
are dying of pure starvation today. They forget what St.
Paul said “I sowed, and Apollo watered, but God gave the
increase”. In like manner, the civil governments have
entered into the pure domain of God Almighty. The bond
of marriage which God has reserved to Himself to break,
governments are so foolish as to think they can break.
By their mock divorces they have started a boulder down
the mountain side that bids to wreck the very foundation
of society.

Now, who pays the financial bill for the divorce evil?
The taxpayer for the most part. In the city of Pittsburgh
an investigation was made and here is part of the results.
Seventeen percent of the families of Pittsburgh were
found to be broken by divorce or otherwise. These seven-
teen percent furnished fifty percent of delinquent children
in the juvenile courts. Some three years ago, the prisoners
of a large eastern penitentiary were interviewed and it
was found that seventy-three precent of them came from
broken homes. Our own state and private orphanages
are crowded with the children of divorced parents. Must
I tell you who pays the bill. Ask the juvenile officers,
the welfare workers, or anyone who has to deal with
society’s unfortunates and they will tell you that divorce
is the predominant factor in creating criminals.

A few weeks ago while on a vacation, I met with two
Chinamen who were making a trip around the world.
They spoke English quite well and one of them asked
me if I was a Christian. After I informed him that I
was, he asked if this was a Christian country. Rather
dubiously I said “Yes”. Since I have investigated the
statistics on divorce in this country, I have begun to
wonder if my reply was not a lie. Can we call ourselves
Christian when we each year deprive one hundred thou-
sand children of the care of a mother or a father through
our divorce courts? If this happened in China, we would
be organizing to remedy such an evil among those poor,
ignorant people. A Christian is a disciple of Christ, and
let us see what Christ has to say about all this. In the
Gospel of St. Luke, 16th Chapter, we read: “Everyone
that putteth away his wife and marrieth another com-
mitteth adultry; and he that marrieth her that is put
away from her husband committeth adultery”. In the first
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians we read these words:
“To them that are married, not I but the Lord com-
mandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband; and

6



if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled
to her husband. And let not the husband put away his
wife”. “What God hath joined together, let no man put
asunder”. With scripture so clear and emphatic on this
question of divorce, there are a number of so-called min-
isters of the Gospel who will stand and witness marriages
between divorced people. They are hirelings and not
Shepherds; they have entered the ministry in another
way than by the Gate. They, like the state governments,
are trying to set aside God’s law. They step into the
sanctuary of the home and tell a disgrunted husband or
wife, “We will break your marriage contract; we will
set you free. We will legalize your adultery”. Friends,
no state, nor king, nor emperor has the power to break
the bond of marriage, for what God hath put together
no man can put asunder. It may be legal in the eyes of
the state and the masses, but in the eyes of God it is
adultery. Call it by the right name. In the sight of
God a judge has no more right or power to give a man,
who is validly married, the permission to go and marry
another woman while his wife still lives than I have to
give you permission to murder your neighbor, for the
same decalogue which says “Thou shalt not kill”, likewise
says “Ihou shalt not committ adultery”.

Some may claim that God and the Church are too strict
in this matter. Can we not at least put the marriage
contract on a par with other contracts, with gold bonds,
for example ? Have the children no right to consideration
in the breaking of the marriage contract? Other nations
keep their marriage vows. In 1914 there were but two
divorces in Catholic Ireland, and if I mistake me not.
Prince Edward Island in Canada had only three divorces
in 1933. God does not demand the impossible. If these
people could keep their marriage contracts, the people of
this country can do it, and if the civil law were not so
lax, most of them would do it.

Why not popularize loyalty to the marriage vows and
clean living? The young especially will well nigh kill
themselves to be in style, and do the thing that is popular.
Girls v/ill freeze in winter because silk is the style and
smother in summer beneath a fur neckpiece. If it were
style to cling to a husband or wife, most of our people
would do it. As long as their ideals are drawn from
Ben Lindsey’s companionate marriage and the front pages
and headlines of the daily papers in which the divorced
votaries of Hollywood with their multiplicity of divorces
are idealized, one might say made heroes and heroines,
we can expect just what we are getting, viz., divorce in
abundance.

Friends, please realize that no house can stand without
a foundation. The old theatre had to be torn down. The
foundation of society is the family. Destroy that and the
Nation will not long survive. The armies of pagan Rome
marched on and on, conquering every known nation in that
day, as long as the husbands and wives of Rome were
faithful to their marriage vows; but as soon as the wives
began to estimate the lapse of time, not in years, but by
the number of husbands they had had, Rome fell. Let
divorce continue to increase as it has in the past twenty
years and America must fall. If you love your country
and want to see it prosper; if you wish to make America
safe for future generations; if you love God and wish
to obey Him, then do all in your power to stop divorce.
Be not hypnotized by the superstructure of society, but
look to its foundation, which is the family. The family
is God’s creation; it is the image of the triune God. God
hath put it together, let no man rend it asunder.

7



COURTSHIP
A witty Irish girl was once asked by her pastor what

she considered a good preparation for marriage. The
lassie answered, “A little courting, Your Reverence’’.
The girl was right; light hearted but serious courting is
the preparation for marriage.

The days of courtship should be among the happiest
days in this world. They generally come during the years
of promise, right after youth, when we are filled with
zeal, and before the hardships of life have frosted our
ambition. As a rule those who are happily married, look
back to the days of courtship with the fondest recollection.

Courtship should be light hearted. Those contemplat-
ing marriage should not act as though they were prepar-
ing for a funeral. Choosing a wife is not like buying a
farm, or a house, or even securing a position. The man
who courts a lady simply because he wants a housekeeper
and is tired of batching, or the woman who courts simply
because she wants three meals a day, is very sure to
meet with shipwreck on the matrimonial sea.

There are two forces which should direct a person in
courtship. They are reason and love. Not reason alone,
for, if only such marriages took place as are the outcome
of pure reasoning, we should have to fear for the survival
of the race. Nor should reason be ignored. They are not
contradictory as many would have us believe. The same
God who gave us an intellect with which to reason, gave
us a will with which to love. In fact, reason should
govern all our emotions and appetites. No matter how
much we may like liquor, or a certain kind of food, if
we are rational we will see to it that the intellect and
will will keep the appetite under control. So it should
be with love. The intellect should tell us whom and how
much we may love.

The very first question which reason prompts the wise
to ask is whether or not the person to whom they are
about to give their affections is free to marry. You may
see a “For Rent” sign on a house when you are seeking
a house to rent, but when you inquire and find it is already
rented, you do not so much as bother looking through it.
So should it be with courtship. A person may have the
“To Marry” sign out, but when you find that they have
already vowed their affections to someone else, whether
they are divorced or not, they should be passed by with
the same cool reasoning with which a person passes a
rented house. Even if a civil divorce has been granted,
it must be remembered that marriage is a contract binding
in the sight of God and no human power can break that
contract. Hence, when one receives the affections of a
man or woman who has vowed his or her affections to
another, one is receiving stolen goods. And let no one
excuse himself by saying “We are only going together
for fun, there is no thought of marriage”. Such people
are playing with dynamite and experience proves that
they are in grave danger. The primary purpose of com-
pany keeping is marriage; let that not be forgotten.

If the chicken thief or the auto thief is contemptible,
what must we think of the man who steals the affections
of another man’s wife, and perhaps breaks up his home?
The safe blower and the bank robber are angelic in
comparison with the man who breaks up another man’s
home by stealing his wife’s affections. I sometimes doubt
if I would carry water to quench the fire around a girl
burning at the stake for breaking up another woman’s
home. Words fail me in expressing myself about this

8



damnable sin. Yet how much there is of it. And many
of them think it quite cute. Stenographers and secretaries
wining and dining with their married employers while
their wives sit at home wondering where he is tonight.
Friends, these are enemies No. 1 in this country.

The second requirement which good judgment demands
is that the person who is to be a mate for life be of the
same religious faith. To many this seems of very little
importance, but it is most important. Let us see why.
Here is a question a great many people seldom, if ever,
ask themselves. Why am I in this world? Why was I
created? What is the one thing that I must do above
all else? With a little thought you will agree with me
that you are in this world to earn Heaven; that it is
to save your immortal soul. If that is accomplished, all
is well; if that is neglected, no matter how successful
we may be otherwise, all is wrong. Saving our soul is
the one thing necessary. But cannot a man and wife of
different faiths save their souls? Yes, they can, but it
is very difficult. Here surely they should be working
together. It is the experience of the Catholic Church
that seventy percent of the children born of parents, one
of which is a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, are
lost to the Catholic Faith. But that is not all. Two-
thirds of those who are lost to the Catholic Faith have
no faith at all. Mixed marriages not only cause Catholic
leakage, but empty Protestant Churches as well.

The Catholic Church does not forbid or merely tolerate
marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics because
she hates non-Catholics. By no means, but she realizes
that it is better to have Methodist marry Methodist and
have the children brought up Methodists than to have a
Methodist marry a Catholic and have their children grow
up without any faith at all. The Catholic who marries a
non-Catholic does his or her future children a grave in-
justice. What does the average Catholic prize higher
than his Catholic Faith? Most Catholics would give their
lives rather than give up their faith. More than five
thousand poor Mexicans have been backed up to the wall
and shot in the past seven years because they would not
give up their faith. Since they prize their faith so
highly, is it not a grave injustice to their children to
endanger the very faith for them, that the father or
mother holds more precious than anything in the world?

To the Catholics in this audience who contemplate
marriage with a non-Catholic, let them stop, look and
listen. Let them not be deceived by promises. Every
mixed marriage that has proved a failure is replete with
broken promises. Courtship is the period of promises.
In courtship the world looks like a great playhouse, but
after marriage, when grim reality is met, things may be
very different, and the promises made in the days of
promise may be easily broken. Oh, how often have

'

seen fine Catholic women coming to Mass on Sunday
morning, their eyes wet with tears because of the abuse
received before leaving home because a non-Catholic hus-
band wanted them to miss Mass so they could get his
breakfast when he chose to get out of bed.

I am not saying that all mixed marriage are like that,
but too many of them are. At very best, a mixed
marriage is not good. Suppose that the non-Catholic
party is very liberal; gives absolute liberty to the Catholic
party. How about the children ? If they grow up
Catholics will they not worry about their non-Catholic
parent? Will they not fear for his or her salvation?
This worry is far more serious than most of us think.
F'inally, I believe I am safe in stating that the vast ma-

9



jority of Protestant Ministers—and thank God, I have
found them a fine body of men—will agree with me that
mixed marriages in any Church are not conducive to
religion nor marital happiness. One of them once said
to me, “There is enough in the family circle to cause
eruptions without a difference of religion”.

Good judgment would certainly call for character in
the prospective bride or groom. There is no character
without virtue, and all virtue should be practiced to some
degree. However, there are virtues that should be out-
standing in the groom, and they are three; honor, thrift
and sobriety. A man who divides his affections between
two or more women has no honor and is surely to be
discarded. If he is not loyal before marriage, you can
hardly expect him to be so afterwards.

If he does not possess enough thrift to support himself
and pay his own debts, you cannot expect him to support
a wife. If a girl has to continue to work away from
home after marriage, to support herself, you can be quite
certain that she will delay establishing a real home, if
she ever does establish one.

Must I mention sobriety? What sin has created more
poverty, broken more motherly hearts and chilled the love
of more children in this land of ours than the sin of
drunkenness? On every side we see its trademark of
misery. Scarcely one of my hearers but has seen the
ravages of drunkenness. Despite this fact, there are still
girls, who like foolish virgins, think they can reform a
drunkard by marrying him. Girls, try it, and the odds
are ten to one that you will fail. If he is a drunkard,
a gambler or a debauch, you are loading yourself down
with a yoke that perhaps only death will remove. The
reformed man is too often like a wild duck domesticated,
but on a nice spring day a flock of wild ducks flies over
and your duck will soar out of the pen and it is gone.
So with a reformed husband. You know not the day
nor the hour that he will go back to the sins of his
youth or early manhood. Girls, when you marry, you
are supposed to be starting a home, not a reformatory.
Marriage is an adventure, not a reclamation project.
But you may answer me as many have in the past, “Is
it not a great act of charity to convert this man from his
sinful ways?” Indeed it is, but remember that charity
begins at home. You are never permitted to endanger
your own soul, and especially the souls of your future
children by placing them in such a hazard, even though
you convert the world. Holy Scripture clearly states,
“What will a man give in exchange for his soul”? And
again: “What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world
and suffer the loss of his own soul” ? Consult the divorce
records and see how many divorces are granted because
of drunkenness and infidelity, and then I think you will
agree with me that reforming a husband is a Herculean
task.

Holy Scripture seems to place prudence among the
essential virtues in a bride, for it says, “Houses and lands
are the gifts of parents, but a prudent wife is properly
from the Lord”. Hence prudence in a wife is a God’s
blessing. But how many seek it? The good, sensible
girl is generally shunned. Oh, how many a fine man
with a good position has his life’s ambition frustrated
because he sought a graceful form, or a pretty face, in-
stead of good common sense in his prospective wife.
Good dressers, good dancers, and even at times, good
drinkers seem to be more in demand for marriage than
good housekeepers and good thinkers.

10



With courtship licentious as it is today, with university
professors teaching Fraudian sex philosophy to the youth
of the land, will I be put olf the air for making a plea for
purity in the prospective bride? I feel that some in my
audience will titter at the very mention of this angelic
virtue, and ask if Methuselah or Rip Van Winkle is on
the air. Others may think I drive a horse and wagon.
I am not offended; the woman who did more to elevate
womanhood than all the Freudian professors of the past
or the future will ever do, rode a donkey on the hills of
Palestine nineteen hundred years ago. She was the
mother of the God man and bore in her maternal arms
Him, who was the truth, the light and the way, and she
was and is the Mother of Purity. You tell me times have
changed. Yes, but human nature does not change. Auto-
mobiles and aeroplanes may take the place of donkeys
and wagons, bon-bons and chocolate sundaes may have
taken the place of popcorn and taffy, but licentiousness
cannot take the place of purity anymore than a lie can
take the place of the truth. Human nature permits no
such changes. The scarlet woman of Christ’s time was
despised and she is despised today. The very scum of
the Roman Empire respected the Vestal Virgins because
they were pure, and today only the pure woman enjoys
real honor and respect from men. I am not preaching a
double standard of morality. The Commandment, “Thou
shalt not commit adultery” is binding on men and women
alike, but the angelic virtue of purity rests in the hands
of the women and if they do not preserve it, it will be
lost. Women can rule the world if they go about it
rightly. They cannot do it by the ballot box, nor the
rostrum, nor through physical force; neither can they do
it by any sex appeal. They must do it by decency, purity
and refinement. When they cast these three aside, they
are like a ship at sea in a storm, without compass, propel-
ler or rudder.

Some may reply, “How can I win a husband if I do
not allow familiarities before marriage?” Girls, if you
cannot win a husband without making yourself a carnal
toy in his hands before marriage, then go to Heaven with-
out a husband rather than go to Hell with one. He may
tell you he loves you, but after your marriage the chances
are that when a misunderstanding comes up, one of the
first insults he will fling into your teeth is, “You were
not decent when I married you”.

Have you no eyes; can you not see for yourself what
happens ? Does not the unmarried father in the ma-
jority of cases deny the paternity of his child, and how
often do such fathers leave the community and the mother
to bear the blunt of shame ? He says he loves you.
Does he? Would he not kill the man who would treat his
sister as he treats you? Girls, be not deceived. If you
wish to be the queen of your future home, if you expect
to enjoy the admiration of your husband after you have
lost your youthful beauty, go to the altar a virgin. Be
pure in courtship; let no man pluck the lily of innocence
from your fair brow and plant a blister there.

A few words to the parents and I shall detain you no
longer. The old system, in which parents chose the wives
and husbands of their sons and daughters, should not be
welcomed back; but the indifference in these matters on
the part of parents today, is productive of even worse
results. Parents should not act as dictators on the one
hand, and they should not forfeit all authority on the other.

Is it not strange that a young man, who is going into
business for himself will consult with his father, and not
only his father but other business men, before he ventures ?

— 11 —



He will sound the community where he is to carry on his
business; he will leave no stone unturned to consult any-
one who might give him useful information. But when
he ventures out to select a wife he consults nobody. The
poet Pope said only too well:

Horses and asses men may try,
And sound earthen vessels, ere they buy;
But a wife, a random choice, untried they take.
In courtship sleep, in wedlock wake.
Then, not till then, the veil’s removed away.
And the wife appears in the full of day.

But why blame the young folks? The parents are the
ones to blame. They are indifferent. They shrug their
shoulders and say, “Well, they have their own lives to
live, and if they make a mistake it is they for it”. If
your daughter comes home with a ragged, hungry baby
on each arm in three or four years, it will be you for it,
as well as she. A parent’s own comfort, if nothing else,,
should make him solicitious and interested in the com-
pany his children keep.

If there is one thing that makes my blood boil, it is to
stop in of an evening to call on a family of my parish,
be visiting with the family and have a car drive into the
driveway. Some young chap sounds a claxon and out
goes Susie and hops into the car. A shift of gears and
they are off. Then I have often asked, “Who is that
fellow Susie went off with?” The father says: “I don’t
know; some fellow she picked up with”. Friends, if that
fellow came up to the porch and asked the father to
borrow five dollars, he would be refused. The father
would say, “No, I do not know you”. He would not loan
that man a five dollar bill, but he will trust his daughter
out in a car with him. Yet, how does a five dollar bill
compare with that daughter, in the estimation of that
father ?

Why cannot your daughters court their gentlemen
friends at home in the family circle ? Fathers and
mothers, it is far better for you and your children to have
them dance in the living room than to skim around the
floor of a public dance hall, even though your furniture
does not look so well the next day. A few dollars spent
on ice cream and lemonade for your children during the
courting age, may save you hundreds of dollars and gal-
lons of tears which you would otherwise have to spend
later on in supporting your grandchildren. If the family
circle is not good enough before marriage, it should not
be afterward.

Fathers of this radio audience, your duties to your
family are not fulfilled when you bring home a pay check
that feeds, clothes and houses your wife and children.
You are not just a meal ticket. You were appointed by
God as the head of that family. Your wife does not know
the world as you know it, and hence you should be the
one to see whom your children court. If you do not know.
And out. The details of your home, the baking of cookies
and making of ice cream, you may leave to your wife, but
you should be the advisor of your children in courtship.
Fathers, take this cue from me; there is no one under high
Heaven that a daughter would rather have pleased with
her prospective husband, than her father. Many a time
I have seen them extend their chests and raise their heads
and say to me, “Father, Dad thinks he is all right”, and
I have found five times out of six that when dad says he
is all right, he is all right.

Lastly, but not leastly, we must never forget that the
providential hand of God is over us. If He intended us

12



to marry, He likewise created a partner for us, and if we
use our reason, seek sound advice and pray to Him, we
shall find the one whom God intended us to have. A
prudent wife is properly from the Lord. Then let us ask
the Lord for the prudent wife or husband. I close with
the witty answer of the Irish lassie, with which I started.
Courtship, lighthearted, pure, sane and prayerful, is the
best preparation for marriage.

13



MARRIAGE A SACRAMENT AND
A CONTRACT

“We, who are children of Saints, should not be joined
together like pagans that know not God.”—Tobias.
One of the most difficult tasks the Catholic Church has

had to perform throughout the ages, has been to teach
people to take serious things seriously. Statistics show
that more than half of the accidents in the United States
are due to carelessness, and what is that but taking serious
things too lightly ? There are certain material things
which, if not feared, at least, should be held sacred; such
as sanctuaries, churches and homes. There are also moral
values, or spiritual things which must not be made com-
monplace, treated with mediocrity, or trampled into the
mire. A lily has no place on an ash pile; neither should
the circumstances of maternity be discussed in the market
place.

The modern tendency seems to reduce all things to a
common plane. Nothing is treated as sacred, therefore,
with reverence or respect. Our stage, press and picture
screen are the greatest sinners in this respect. They
depict episodes that should only be seen in the confines
of private life. Sex matters and even revolting sins are
displayed before old and young without the least sem-
blance of reserve. The very things St. Paul says should
not as much as be mentioned among Christians, are
emblazoned on the silver screen and in the headlines.

It was not always so. The Jews treated the name of
Jehovah with such respect that they would only pronounce
it at certain times; the Ark of the Covenant dared not be
touched by profane hands, and those who overstepped this
prohibition were struck dead. For centuries a person
accused of a crime could flee to the sanctuary, and dared
not be removed except by those who had authority in the
sanctuary, that he might receive a just trial. Family
history was seldom paraded in public; in fact, all refined
people felt that there were many things that would be
blighted if exposed to the public view.

What spurs the human on to do better things? Is it
not ideals? Is it not the things above him that beckon
him to climb higher? But when we tear down ideals,
what is there left for him to do, but stop trying? Tear
down patriotism and make it a subject of ridicule and
joke, and who will care to be patriotic? Joke and laugh
about lying and who will tell the truth? Picture the
grafter and the thief as just a little smarter than the rest
of humanity and who will wish to be honest? Represent
purity as the prudery of the proverbial old maid and who
will try to be pure? Ridicule the miracle of the Resur-
rection and who will glory in the Resurrection? We often
hear complaints that the youth of today have no high
ideals. How can they have, when the press, the stage
and picture shows are reducing the highest aspirations .to
vulgar mediocrity?

What is the effect of this tear down policy? It is
disastrous. Take the oath as an example. Our courts of
justice operate on fidelity to the oath; yet a judge told me
a few months ago that not one trial in ten was enacted
in which one or more witnesses did not swear to lies.
Three years ago, an attorney remarked, after winning a
case, that he was sorry to win it since all the witnesses
on the other side told the truth. Why so much perjury?
Because our idea of the seriousness of the oath has been
lowered until we put it on par with a white lie. Why is
it so difficult to persuade the most trustworthy and

14 —



capable men to seek government positions? Simply be-
cause society today does not consider a man’s private
life as anything sacred. A snooper may pry into his
private life, obtain a real or apparent fault and ruin him
in the headlines.

There is one noble ideal, and it is the subject of this
discourse, that has been torn down from the realms of
the sacred and tramped into the very mire, and that is
marriage. Of all the social institutions, there is none
that has been so woefully degraded as has marriage. It
seems to be the target of the most unwholesome wit,
humor and pun. A bride of six months remarked that ii
her husband could not furnish her a modern home she
would find one that could. A prosperous groom remarked,
while buying a wedding ring, that there were plenty of
women in the world and if the present wife to be, did not
suit him, he could always get another. Read the pro-
ceedings of the divorce courts or listen to the conversa-
tions of the young people of today and you will readily
see the deplorable condition to which marriage has sunk
in the popular mind.

What covenant in the world should be more sacred than
the marriage contract? The vows of matrimony are so
sacred that they should be spoken of in a whisper. They
are the very steel that holds the foundation of society
together. Our Dear Lord realized the seriousness of
matrimony, and for that very reason He raised it to the
dignity of a Sacrament. The very word “Sacrament”
tells us with what reverence it should be treated. Sacra-
ment comes from two Latin words, “Sacra”, which means
sacred or holy, and “Mens”, which means mind. Sacred
and holy in the mind is the literal meaping.

If there is one institution that the Catholic Church has
tried to keep Holy, it is marriage. Sad to say. She stands
rather alone in the battle to preserve its dignity and
sacred character. One by one, the other denominations
are deserting the Camp of Christ and yielding to human
frailty and passion.

Those who really think and have che good of society at
heart, view the condition of marriage with alarm. Some
have offered quack remedies, such as domestic relations
courts, hygienic instructions before marriage, and com-
panionate marriage. I notice from recent reports that
the inventor of companionate marriage is losing faith in
his own pet theory. In fact, all the “cure alls” that have
been put forth so far have met with dismal failure. They
are little more than an opiate that relieves the pain in a
member here or there, but they are useless as a cure.
What we need is not something new, but a revival of the
old. Nearly two thousand years ago Jesus Christ put
marriage in its proper place, and commissioned the Cath-
olic Church to represent Him in keeping it there, and if
Mr. Ben Lindsey, or anyone else, wants to know how to
restore marriage, let him study the Canon Law of the
Catholic Church, or the famous letter of Pius XI, delivered
to the world on Dec. 31, 1930. There, and only there,
will he find the solution of this serious problem.

The Catholic Church teaches that whenever a valid
marriage has been entered into and consummated, nothing
but the reaper of death can break that bond. Some are
under the impression that She considers all non-Catholic
and Protestant marriages invalid. Here and there we
find uninstructed Catholics who are under the same im-
pression. It is nothing unusual to have a Catholic man
or woman come to a pastor and want to marry a Protes-
tant that has been married before in a Protestant Church,

— 15 —



thinking* that their marriage was no marriage, and to
the surprise of the Catholic party, though the day for the
marriage has been set, the gowns purchased and the fatted
calf prepared, they are refused permission to marry be-
cause the Church defends that Protestant’s first marriage.
The Catholic Church maintains that every Protestant
marriage is valid and binding, unless proved otherwise,
due to a former marriage or the like.
When a Catholic marries a non-Catholic before a

Protestant Minister or a civil magistrate, the Church
holds their marriage invalid. She will not grant the
Sacrament to a Catholic, unless married before a pastor
of a Catholic Parish, or a priest having his permission or
delegation.

Friends, many are under the impression that the Pope
may grant divorces. The Pope has no more power to grant
a divorce than you or I have. One radio listener wrote me
after my sermon on divorce and said I should not criticise
the judges for granting divorces since the popes granted
them if they were well enough paid for it. I think our daily
papers have a great deal to do with forming this false
impression. They speak of it as divorce which it is not.
It is just like a court pronouncing a contract void from
the beginning. The Church has the right to lay down
the conditions under which she will grant the Sacrament
of marriage, and once the sacrarnent has been conferred
the Pope himself cannot break that bond. It does happen
however that impediments make the marriage invalid;
fear for example. A father says to his daughter, “If you
do not marry that man I will disinherit you.” Fearing to
be disinherited she goes through with the marriage.
Twenty years later she leaves the man and wants to marry
another. The Church investigates and finds that her
contract was not free that she acted through fear. The
Church simply says there was no marriage there from
the start, because Marriage is a free contract. If
the Pope could grant divorces surely Henry the VIII
would have been given one. He was the lad who could
have paid any price, and besides the faith of the whole of
England was at stake; yet the Pope was powerless.
Henry’s first marriage was valid, and the Pope could give
no permission to Henry to marry a second wife while the
first still lived, though he could have kept the whole of
England in the Church by so doing. Matrimony is too
serious a matter to trifle with. Well could Tobias in his
day cry out, “We, who are the Children of Saints, should
not be joined together like Pagans that know not God”.
To begin with, the Catholic Church requires at least three
Sundays or Feast Days in which the intent to marry is
published. This is intended to prevent hasty marriages,
and secondly to discover any impediments that might
make the marriage invalid. Then there is the Marriage
ceremony buried in pomp and majesty. A wedding or
nuptial Mass for the occasion, with a special blessing for
the bride, and instruction before and after taking the
vows, in which their seriousness is dwelt upon at length.
She places practically no limit to the finery, flowers,
candles, etc., which add dignity and beauty to the cere-
mony. Sentimental songs are forbidden lest they detract
from the seriousness which should accompany this con-
tract. Those of you who have never witnessed a Catholic
Church wedding, make use of the first opportunity to see
one. They are public—you need not be invited to thr
Church. You are welcome without an invitation. See a
real Catholic wedding and you will not ask afterward,
“Is marriage a serious matter in the Catholic Church?”
But what is this contract of marriage? Friends, I am

going to let that master mind, St. Paul, tell you, for he

16



can do it better than I. In his letter to the Ephesians,
V. Chapter, he has this to say:

“Let women be subject to their husbands as to
the Lord. Because the husband is the head of the
wife as Christ is the Head of the Church. There-
fore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also
let the wives be to their husbands in all things”.

Then to the husbands, he says:

“Husbanc^s, love your wives as Christ also loved
the Church and delivered Himself up for it.*—

•

So also ought men to love their wives as their
own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth
himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh,
but nourished it and cherisheth it as Christ doth
the Church”. “For this cause shall a man leave
his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife,
and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a
great Sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in
the Church”.

Show me any contract that compares with the one St.
Paul thus describes. What other contract makes two
persons one flesh? In all other agreements we give some-
thing exterior to ourselves; our work for so much per
week; our money for lands or houses. But in this con-
tract we give our very selves. Is it not easy to see that
a contract that implies all must be binding until death?

When a. man goes to the altar and accepts the hand and
heart of a woman in marriage, he promises to protect her
with his very life. The Love of Christ for His Church is
his model. Did Christ stop at any sacrifice? Did He say
“Thus far and no further?” See Him hanging on Cal-
vary’s cross and see what He did for His Church. No
sacrifice was too great; He laid down His life for His
Church. He made the Church His Mystic Body so that
those who persecuted the Church persecuted Him. Hus-
bands, your wives are your very bodies, for by marriage
you become two in one flesh. How then can you tear
those bodies by drunkenness or revelry? How can you
starve them, abuse them, or treat them as mere carnal
toys? They are flesh of your flesh, and bone of your bone,
and how can you set them aside for another? When you
do, you are traitors to your own flesh.

Wives, you have in the Church’s love and obedience to
Christ the exemplar of your fidelity to your husband.
Obedience to a Christian husband is not slavery as many
will have us believe. The ultra moderns say: “I have as
much right to be the head of my family as my husband.
I am just as intelligent as he. Why should I be a slave?”
Does not every organization require a head? Is obedience
to that head slavery? Am I a slave becausce I obey the
governor of this state, or the mayor of the city? Love
itself implies obedience. Did not Christ say, “If you love
Me, keep My commandments.” Love and obedience go hand
in hand. If we really love a person we will anticipate their
wishes.

Do those who wish to exempt obedience from the mar-
riage contract ever stop to consider what a Christian wife
receives in return for her obedience to a Christian hus-
band ? What should be a greater consolation to her than
to realize that there is one man who stands between her
and a cruel world? One man who will lay down his life
for her. If anyone will inflict injury on her, it must be
over the dead body of her husband. Is yielding the leader-
ship in their home too high a price to pay for such pro-
tection ?

17



I have the greatest regard for womanhood and mother-
hood, but after twenty years of dealing with all classes
of society, I have come to the honest conclusion that if
there is one party of the marriage contract that has not
been treated fairly it is the husband and father. Too many
wives take complete control of the family. They cash
the checks,, pay the bills, select houses for rent or pur-
chase, direct the children and the poor husband and father
has nothing to say. His sole responsibility seems to con-
sist in procuring the daily bread.

The baby gets sick, and the neighborhood sympathy
goes to the mother. She is pictured bending over that bed
of pain, in tears and with an aching heart. Poor “dad”
seems all forgotten. He does not sob nor moan, nor be-
come hysterical. Hence he gets no sympathy. To see his
tears you must sneak to the basement or out to the
garage. He goes to work apparently indifferent. His body
indeed is at work but his mind and heart are hovering
around that baby bed. These last five years of depression
have taught me what there is in the heart of a Christian
husband and father. When you see a man, as I have seen
them, earn but two dollars per week, buy grofeeries with
all of it and take them home to the wife and children and
then set out and beg cold sandwiches at back doors for
himself, you realize that a Christian father is more than a
mere breadwinner. Examples of this kind have been so
numerous in recent years that I have concluded that sighs
and tears are not always the trademarks of the greatest
love and sorrow.

To my mind there are two abuses that have helped
m_orp than anvthing else to put society in the chaotic
condition in which we find it today. The first is. that dur-
inp- the war and boom days, young people conducted the
affairs of the world. The cry rang out, “Giye us young
blood: let the young men do things, they are more pro-
gressiye.” The second eyil consists in the fact that fathers
and husbands forfeited their places as heads of families.

Wh'^t mothers and wiyes need today is to stay in their
own domain. Step by step they haye entered the realm of
men; they dress like men and feel that the wide world is
theirs to use as they please. With eyery step they are
returning to primitiye slayery. What they do need is
more humility, modesty and refinement. They can rule
the world but they cannot do it by taking fidelity and
obedience out of the marriage contract. They cannot do it
by usurping the rights of men. As long as they take
haughtiness, effrontery and sex appeal as their weapons,
they are doomed to failure.

Their weapons must be humility, purity and refinement.
Mothers and wiyes, practice the yirtues that adorned the
heart of the Blessed Mother of Christ. Tear the pictures
of the moyie actresses with their numerous husbands from
the walls of your homes and place the Madonna there.
Let the angelic yirtues of purity and refinement adorn
your hearts and you shall rule the world. Husbands and
fathers, God and nature haye selected you to be the heads
of families. Place a picture of the Christ where you can
see it eyery day, and often remind yourselyes that the
sacrificing loye of Christ for His Church is the pattern
of your loye for your wedded wife.

Husbands and wiyes, this is the Feast of the Resurrec-
tion. The F'east commemorating how Christ took His poor
bleeding, lacerated Body of Good Friday and restored it
to perfection and Glory on Easter Sunday. Ask that Risen
Sayior to help you to take poor bleeding, lacerated mar-

^18



riage and restore it to dignity and perfection. Remember
that marriage will never be restored until the sacrificing
love of Christ for His Church and the undying. loyalty of
the Church to Christ are the ideals of the marriage vows.

19



FATHER, MOTHER AND CHILDREN
If there* is anything the average person enjoys, it is to

be associated with great people or places. Somehow they
think that the very association elevates them. In traveling
along the highway leading into the hamlet of Cascade,
Iowa, a large sign greets you, which reads “Red Faber’s
Home Town.” Perhaps not one-half of one percent, of the
people of this little town helped to make Red Faber fam-
ous, yet they feel that to live in his home town gives them
a slight claim to fame. We all know only too well how
odious the proverbial New Yorker makes himself when he
gets one hundred miles from Broadway, because he is
under the impression that culture is bounded by the city
limits of Greater New York. The fact that he is a resident
of New York makes him think that culturally he is just a
little superior to the rest of America. It was probably the
damaginsr effect of this state of mind that prompted the
officials of a great eastern University to place this inscrin-
tion over the University gate, “It is not what your dad is,
but what you are”. No matter how ridiculous it may seem,
the fact still remains that most of us love to be associated
with great personages.

Now if it is a great honor to have dined with th^ Gov-
ernor. or taken tea with the Prince of Wales; if one
should be proud to have been called in counsel bv the
President or the Pope, how much prouder should one be
who is called into council and made a co-worker with God
Himself. And that is just what parents are required to do.
They are co-laborers with God Himself. They are the
very ones whom God chooses to help Him people the world.

When God chose to free America from the tyranny of
Ensrland, He chose the parents of George Washinerton to
assist Him in this serious undertaking. When God saw
(humanly speakinsr) that the prince of sin was gaining
the upperhand in the world and He needed a strong char-
acter to head .His Church, a character that no worldly
power could influence. He chose the parents of Pope Pius
XI to be His helpers in producing such a man, and be-
cause they cooperated, we have the gloriously reigning
Pope Pius XI.

Parents, do you realize your dienity? Do vou realize
that it reauires God, a father, and a mother to produce a
human beine-? Not parents alone, but parents with God
are required. No man or 8-roup of men can produce a
human soul. That can be done only by the creative hand
of God.

This doctrine is denied bv the neo-Pavans of today.
They claim the parents alone are responsible for the pro-
creation of the race. If they are correct, will they kindly
explain why it is that thousands of couples today, who
crave children to love, cannot have them? If man has
power over life, he must also have it over death; yet. why
do rich and poor have to die when God calls them to an
account. Indeed we can interfere with the designs of God,
but when we do it, it is a sin. If we could not interfere
we would not have free will.

The complaint has been recorded in a number of periodi-
cals coming from numerous pens, that this country today
is lacking in real statesmen. May it not be that God is
punishing us for our race suicide of the past years? It
may be that thirty or forty years ago a couple practiced
contraception in some small hamlet here in our country
and in so doing kept the very man out of the world that
God had destined to lead the country out of the depression.

— 20



I do not wish to be misunderstood. The Catholic Church
does not require her married people to have all the chil-
dren they are capable of bearing, but she does demand that
if they indulge in the pleasures and privileges of marriage
that they accept the consequent obligations. The Church
has no objection to parents limiting the number of their
offspring, if they do so by limiting their indulgence.

There are a great many who think there is no sin in
preventing conception as long as there is no bloodshed.
Let such ask themselves, would they be here today to talk
about conception if their parents had prevented conception
the day they were conceived. Onan, in the Old Testament,
committed that sin and God slew him for it. Let us draw a
little unsavory comparison which will show us why con-
traception is such a great perversion of nature.

The primary purpose of eating is to keep strength in
the body, or as we are wont to say, to keep body and soul
together. The pleasure we get from eating is secondary.
Now what would you think of a person who ate solely
for pleasure, and did away with the primary purpose al-
together? We read with disgust how the old pagan Ro-
mans used to eat at their banquets until their stomachs
were filled, leave the dining hall and empty their stomachs,
come back and eat again. We call them swine? Why?
Because they did away with the primary purpose of eating,
and ate just for pleasure. Why not use the same logic
in dealing with contraception? The primary purpose of
sex indulgence is the procreation of children. The physi-
cal pleasure is only secondary as it is in eating. Those
who practice contraception frustrate the primary purpose
of sex indulgence and indulge only for pleasure. We can-
not say that such sinners are brutes because even the
brute will not pervert the laws of nature in such a manner.

One might dwell at length on the various phases of this
sin of contraception, how it is the solitary sin committed
by two persons with mutual consent, but I have said more
than I cared to say about the filthy business.

Let us consider an argument or two put forth by the
race suiciders to defend their malpractice. They maintain
that it is better to rear one, two or three children and
give them advantages than it is to rear seven or eight
and have them denied advantages, such as college educa-
tions and the like. If I know anything about education,
character development is the most important branch of
education. Show me the University that can compare with
four or five sisters and brothers in the development of
character. The brain trust gives us the information that
selfishness and greed stand in the way of recovery. Who
can extract conceit, selfishness and greed out of a child
like a number of sisters and brothers? Children have the
keenest sense of justice, and they know how to mete it out.
Where there are a number of them in the family, they see
to it that the candy and ice cream are evenly divided. They
develop a sense of dimensions and a memory. They can
detect the largest piece of cake clear across the room, and
can likewise remember who got the biggest piece yester-
day. On the other hand, if you want sacrifice, they are
not v/anting. The new baby is most welcome and if a
brother or sister is sick, it takes little or no persuasion to
make them surrender a sweetmeat to the sick member.

The very virtues, the identical traits of character so
much needed in the world today are the ones the large
family tends to develop.

On the other hand, the very vices rampant in the world
today, selfishness, greed and intemperance, are the very
ones the one and two child family fosters. The hatcheries

— 21



and brooders of selfishness are the ultra modern one and
two child families.

I feel certain that the teachers in this radio audience
will agree with me when I say that the cross of the school
teacher is the one and two child family. The mothers and
fathers hiding behind the petticoats of interest and co-
operation, park at the schoolhouse door to tell the teacher
she does not understand their pampered Percy, for if she
did, be •’"’ould not have sixty in deportment. The reason
he got sixty was that the teacher knew him better than
Papa and Mamma. Naturally, if the report card is not
better next month. Papa and Mamma will not go after
Percy but they will go after the school board and next
ypav, teacher may be washing dishes in a restaurant. And
all because parents want to produce supermen.

T wish to Question that last statement, however. Right
do’"m in my heart I do not believe that it is a desire to
produce supermen that prompts race suicide, nor do I be-
lieve it is the financial hazard of rearing large families,
but I do believe it is selfishness pure and simple. The peo-
ple who commit the most contraception are the rich with
whom money is no item. And it is invariably the children
of the one and two child family that are left to servants
and tutors for care and training.

I regret very much that time will not permit me to dwell
on the domestic virtues which embellish the family. I hope
that at some future date, with the consent of my Bishop
and W. H. 0., I will be permitted to speak to you on these
virtues. However, our work would not be complete if we
did not accompany the family to the gates of eternity. In
order to do this, I will try and describe two deathbeds to
you. I am changing a few unessential conditions lest some
in my audience might recognize one or the other. They
are the deathbeds of two wives and mothers. For conveni-
ence sake, we will call the first Magdalene and the other
Mary. Magdalene died at the age of forty-six. She had
been reared in a good Catholic family. Her father was a
highly respected professional man. Unfortunately for
Magdalene, however, he was one of those criminally kind
fathers who leaves the entire direction of the family to the
mother. At the age of seventeen, Magdalene began keep-
ing company, and did her courting away from home for
the most part. One month, after passing her eighteenth
birthday, she eloped to a neighboring city with a non-
Catholic man and entered a clandestine marriage. Her
parents did not know anything about the marriage for
two weeks after it took place. She was married by a
priest and hence the marriage was binding in the eyes of
the Church.

They lived together three years when a divorce was
procured and the husband given custody of their baby boy
then eighteen months old. After three or four years of
rather loose living, Magdalene married another man.
Again a non-Catholic. This time, however, by a Justice of
the Peace. Three children were born to her and this so-
called second husband. At the age of forty-four she con-
tracted tuberculosis and was an invalid for two years.
The few earnings and savings dwindled and the last year
of her life, she had to take her family and live in a country
town with an older maiden sister. Her sister tried her ut-
most to have her make her peace with God. When Magda-
lene saw that her days in this world would be very few,
she consented to talk with the priest and he was called.
Nothing could be done in reconciling her to the Church
unless she repudiated the man with whom she was living.
What a battle went on between her flesh and her soul. In

22



watching’ her, one was reminded of the battle that St.
Aug-ustine describes in his confessions, which took place
in his heart before his conversion. Three times the priest
visited her, and as many times she refused the change.

Finally, on a Thursday afternoon, God’s grace won the
battle and of her own accord she called for the priest. Af-
ter repudiating her so-called husband, the priest proceeded
to prepare her for death. At the very mention of the
word death, she said, “Father, I do not want to die. How
can I face my God after such a life? My children were
taught nothing about God, and for years I kept from hav-
ing children. 0 Father, I cannot face my God after such
a life”. The priest pictured Christ’s mercy in forgiving
the repentant thief on the cross, and the woman taken in
adultery, and thus instilled hope into her fearing soul.
She received the Sacraments of the dying; her children
stood «round the bed, and not one of them knew how to
pray for her.

As the priest was imparting the final blessing, the door
onened and two men came in. Magdalene cast one glance
at them, uttered a shriek and collapsed. Her soul went to
God. Some one had written her first husband that she
was dangerously sick, and thinking she might want to see
her son before she died, thev both came to her deathbed.
The children by her second husband looked on in amaze-
ment, wondering what it was all about. Out in the back
vard her so-called second husband was nervously walking
back and forth thinking of the tragedy he had caused
when he married a woman who was already married. Two
days later her emaciated remains were carried to the vil-
lage Church and thence to the churchyard, and many in
that little country hamlet still wonder how a Catholic
woman could have two living husbands follow her to the
grave.

Mary died at the age of forty-four. She too was reared
in a good Catholic home out in the country. Her father
was a man who believed in “eternal vigilance,” and in-
sisted that the children do their courting in the family
circle. At the age of twenty she began keeping company
with a Catholic boy from a neighboring parish. The court-
ing was done for the most part in Mary’s home. After a
year of company keeping, the young man asked her to
accept an engagement ring. Mary begged for two months’
time to think it over. She consulted her parents and her
pastor, and even their consent was not sufficient for she
asked' the advice of an old priest who had baptized her
and given her her First Communion. He advised her to go
ahead and get married, but she still took time to make a
novena of Communions before she accepted the ring.

Her wedding day was set and there was not a blessing
the Church has to offer on such occasions that Mary did
not procure. I never saw a more beautiful bride march up
the aisle in a Church, than was Mary. She saw to it that
there should be no carousing on her wedding day, but
that her friends and relatives should have a day of real
Christian enjoyment.

She and her husband moved on a farm and made a real
Catholic home. God blessed them with six children, one of
which preceded her into Heaven. .Just two weeks after her
forty-fourth birthday, in early May, Mary was taken dan-
gerously sick, and I was called about the middle of the
afternoon. I went to her bedside to give her all the con-
solations of the Church which she so dearly loved. When
her little eleven year old daughter heard that Communion
was to be brought to her mother, she set the May altar
which she had in her bedroom, beside her mother’s bed.

— 23



On it was a crucifix in the center, a statute of the Blessed
Mother of Christ on one side and a statue of the Little
Flower on the other. The only fiowers she could find were
apple blossoms, and two vases of apple blossoms were on
the altar.

When I entered, the tots were on their knees beside
the bed. They left the room that their mother might go to
confession, but they might have stayed, for the imper-
fections she had to confess would not have scandalized
the smallest of her children.

After her confession, I opened the door and the husband
and children came in and knelt around the sick bed in
tears and at prayer. The devotion with which she re-
ceived Communion and Extreme Unction was inspiring.
After the last blessing, I said to her: “Mary, are you
afraid to die?” “Oh, no Father,” she replied, “I dread to
leave the children but God gave them to me, and He is
taking me away from them, and He will see that they
get along, and besides, they have a good father.” She
then turned to Billy, a boy of sixteen and said: “Billy,
you will think of your morning prayers when I am gone ? ”
Billy nodded. She gasped for breath and asked that her
head be raised a little. Her husband knelt by her side,
raised her head a little and let it rest on his arm. The
children went on with the Litany of the Blessed Virgin
that she had taught them to say by heart. “Holy Mary,
Pray for her. Holy Mother of God, Pray for her.”

I took the crucifix and placed it to her lips. Her eyes
opened and she said, “Jesus, I am Thine”. With her head
resting on the strong arm of a faithful husband, with her
nostrils soothed in the sweet odor of apple blossoms, with
five loving children sending a holocaust of prayer to high
Heaven for their mother, with a baby in Heaven beckon-
ing for her to come, with her lips pressed to the image
of the Crucified Savior, she breathed her last and her pure
soul went to God.

Fathers and Mothers, which deathbed will be yours?
Now is the time to choose it and to prepare for it. May
God bless you and give you the grace to choose and
have the deathbed of Mary.

24