THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION ON THE MOTIVES OF CONDUCT

REV. EDWARD A. PACE, CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The subject on which I have the honor to address this National Council seems to gather in one concise phrase some of the largest problems which can be offered either to our private thinking or to our public deliberation. Education, religion, conduct epitomize life. Each suggests the dualism of theory and practice. Each may be regarded alternately as end and as means. And each is apt to be taken, according to our individual fashion of thought, as the supreme standard by which all other values are determined.

It is significant, therefore, that our program asks us to discuss, not the respective worth of education, religion, and conduct, but rather their mutual relation. Our question is not whether religion shall enter into our scheme of education; but, assuming that a particular sort of training which we call religious education is to be given, we ask what is or may be its influence upon the motives of conduct.

You have also noted, I am sure, that the question proposed in these terms goes to the heart of the moral life; for the implication is, obviously, that the worth of conduct lies chiefly in the motives which prompt it, and not merely in the outward form of action. In other words, we are getting away from that plane of ethical theory on which a man's character is judged exclusively by his behavior. We are looking at facts in the light of purpose. And we are trying to determine how far the purposes which are supplied by religion and woven into the will by religious education avail toward the securing of right conduct.

That they are of some avail we are doubtless agreed. From our point of view as teachers, religious education is simply religion at work. It is the tangible shape that religion takes alongside of ourselves in the discharge of our professional duties. And since, as intelligent men, we must admit that "the religious element of human culture is essential," likewise, as intelligent teachers, we claim that "it must be presented to every child whose education aims at completeness or proportion."

It seems, then, that at least two important points are beyond dispute: first, that conduct should be guided by high motives and even by the highest motives; second, that religious education does in some measure influence the motives of conduct. If so much is clear, we are ready for the further question: In what way precisely does religious education exert its salutary influence? Wherein lies its power, if power it really have, for uplifting and strengthening and making purer the determination of our human will?

The answer which the Catholic church gives to this question is found

most clearly in her insistence upon the need of the religious element in all forms and grades of education. As to her purpose in holding so tenaciously to this position, it is often said that she seeks thereby to spread and perpetuate her beliefs. In her judgment, the school is a nursery of faith and a training ground for the practical exercises of religion. Its chief lesson would therefore be her Credo, and the cardinal virtue of its pupils would be loyalty to those who wield her authority. That there is much truth in this appreciation, no Catholic need deny. The church, in fact, does maintain that religion must be based on definite beliefs; tho she also teaches that faith without works is dead. She does insist on sacrament and rite, tho she plainly says that the outward sign is worthless without the inward grace. And if she requires from her members obedience to her laws, it is only what she commands them to yield to all legitimate rule. In a word, the church holds that a large share of our duties is toward our Maker, that the discharge of these duties is or should be an essential portion of our conduct, and consequently that the motives. which shape our conduct in conformity with these duties can, in the very nature of things, be supplied by religious education alone.

Now, just as we know from the highest source that all the precepts are reducible to the one great commandment, so we might say that all our duties are included, either explicitly or implicitly, in the duty we owe to God. Religious education in the best sense would therefore be not only an education in religion, but an application to all the affairs of life of those principles and motives which religious belief supplies. To "do all things for the glory of God" would certainly make us men after the manner of St. Paul himself. And for men of this type "religious education” would be a prime necessity.

But again, facing actual conditions, we have to admit as a fact the distinction between religious obligations and other obligations, between religious motives and other motives. And it behooves us to inquire in what way the motives which religion furnishes may be brought to bear effectually upon our every day and every-hour conduct upon our working and planning, our business dealings and our social relations, our external behavior and our secret thought.

It seems to me that we need to keep steadily in view certain psychological principles respecting the nature of motives; and tho we have not at this time to make a thorogoing analysis such as the psychologist might demand, we can assure ourselves at any rate on this point: the efficacy of any motive is due chiefly to the habitual attitude of the mind to which that motive is presented. Merely as an idea in which the connection between a proposed action and our welfare is perceived, a motive may, and according to a well-known theory always does, produce some effect. It is, as we say, an "ideo-motor" process. But even on this theory, it remains true that the motor effect depends, not only on the afferent

stimulus, but also on the momentary condition of the centers thru which it must pass. And the same is doubtless the case for the whole range of organic processes down to the reflex discharge.

We cannot, of course, enumerate-much less foresee the impressions received thru the senses during, let us say, a single day. Similarly, it is impossible to predict the motives that will spring up in consciousness as the result of deliberate thought, association, impulse, passion, or emotional state. But we can say for a certainty that the selection of any one motive in preference to all the rest will be determined by the habits developed in will and intellect thru the whole course of experience. No system of religion or of education or of religious education can guarantee us against the appearance in consciousness of unworthy motives. The saints have all been tempted. The calmest of the philosophers has his internal storms. And the majority of us, who are neither sages nor saints, know that the best actions, objectively considered, may issue from the meanest motive.

Any sort of education, therefore, that pretends to impart moral strength must concern itself not so much with laying down precept on precept as with developing in the mind a habit of appreciating, judging, and willing in conformity with the rules of upright conduct. "Automatic righteousness" is not an acceptable expression; and yet, without the least concession to our determinist friends, I think we would prefer what it means to the disposition of those who "always err in their hearts."

Now, it is plain that this moral center, as I will call it, may be organized in many different ways. Its cells may all have the idea of duty for their nuclei; its fibers may have the sense of honor for their axes; its ganglia expand with the love of humanity; its whole structure be under the tension of a categorical imperative, strong with the sanction of all the moralists from Aristotle to Kant. Be it so. Let us by every possible means inculcate these principles, and all other principles that make for better conduct. There can be no question as to the necessity of making men dutiful, honorable, philanthropic. The function of religion is not to dispense with such motives, but to consecrate them; not to inhibit, but to reinforce, the feelings and promptings that open up paths of goodness. The impulses that flow down from the cortex are not destructive, but regulative with respect to subordinate centers. The brain itself must atrophy and perish if it fail to quicken and control the organs of nutrition; and religion likewise would tear away its firmest support, were it to deaden the fine growths of volitional power which raise us above the level of self.

What we call lower impulses or instincts or tendencies are selfishness gone to excess. All attempts, consequently, to educate us out of these less worthy motives are attempts to educate us away from self, or to educate that very self to a better sense of its own interests. Unselfishness, as we

understand it, is rational precisely because it is founded upon a clear perception and a vivid realization of the exact value of self. So long as I take a view of myself which makes me the center of the world, neither I nor my universe can be of much use except at moments of total eclipse. But when the center begins to displace itself somewhat, then is the beginning of hope for me; and when my conceptual system, by further displacement and reduction, is brought to coincide with reality, hope gives way to the substance of well-ordered action.

Religious education, properly understood, aims at a just estimate of the self in view of all that is. It locates man in the universe. It gives him his setting in the order of things. If it reminds him that in one respect he is but dust, it also tells him that in another respect he is but a little below the angels. By teaching him to look upon himself and all things else in the presence of a Supreme Being, it opens up to him a perspective in which all values are definitely fixed. It shows him that the starry heavens and the moral law derive their grandeur from the same

It lays upon him the imperative: So act that thy action may fit harmoniously into the universal order of which God is the center and

source.

The several precepts of morality are simply the more or less detailed working out of this supreme ordinance. The complex system of hierarchy, government, dogma, and ritual in the Catholic church represents so many different attempts to arouse and preserve in men's minds the consciousness of membership in this universal order. The "calmer piety" which enables us to take this comprehensive view is not inborn. To a few gifted minds it may come as the fruit of earnest philosophical thought. But mankind in the average needs a methodical training to lift them above the appearances of sense, to differentiate inclination and duty, to purify the imagination, and to strengthen the will.

It is not to be expected that religious education will enable a man at any and every moment to place himself ideally in the universal order and regard each of his actions sub specie aeternitatis. It is not even necessary that a man should ever unravel the metaphysics bound up with such concepts. But the habitual attitude of his mind and his habitual way of selecting motives should be such that it could be analyzed and, if necessary, restated in terms of the order imperative.

Briefly, therefore, the view which has been taken may be recapitulated as follows:

1. Where various motives of conduct are suggested, that motive is adopted which best accords with the mental and moral habits of the individual.

2. The aim of all education, on the ethical side, is the formation of such habits as

will insure the selection of good motives and the rejection of evil motives.

3. The aim of religious education is to secure for this selective habit the greatest possible breadth on the highest possible plane by bringing the mind to choose its ends conformably to the divine order.

4. All other criteria and imperatives that have real worth should be regarded as more or less specialized forms which may become clearer and stronger under the influence of religious training, and which may in turn facilitate the application of the religious standard to particular motives of conduct.

I need not remind you that we have been dealing all along with a priori judgments; in other words, that we have been studying out the influence which religious education ought to exert and would exert in ideal conditions. Nor again would it be the part of wisdom to propose religious education as the one infallible remedy for all our ills. But, considering the amount of work that is done in the interests of religion by persons of all denominations, we seem justified in asking ourselves one question more: How can religious education be made to yield the results, or at any rate a larger proportion of the results, which might reasonably be expected?

So far as I can see, the simplest answer is: By giving the religious element its due share in education. The child comes very quickly to look on the school as the place in which everything is taught that is worth knowing. The absence of religious instruction has for one of its effects ignorance of certain important truths. But its more serious effect is the detachment, in the child's appreciation, of religion from practical life. Once we give the impression that religious ideas and duties are extras for which the ministers alone are responsible, we make the work of the church in the pulpit and in the Sunday school exceedingly difficult. And the difficulty increases as we go on adding every other sort of practical teaching to our curricula. Physical training is not turned over to the professional athlete nor manual training to the expert mechanic. We have brought these and other things into the school, and by so doing we have recognized their value. Whether we intend it or not, we are surely making it quite clear to the people, both young and old, that the school provides or means to provide all the essentials of knowledge. The obvious inference as to the value of religion is not likely to overcrowd the churches.

It must, of course, be admitted that religious education, from the pedagogical view-point, leaves much to be desired. In content, method, and organization, but above all in the proper training of teachers, there is ample room for improvement. Now that these needs are realized, it is to be hoped that the experience gained in building up our school system will prove valuable in solving the problems of religious education. In the movements recently initiated there is a promise of success which must be gratifying to all friends of education. The fulfillment must bring about that unity of intellectual, moral, and religious development which is the basis of right conduct. A mind in which all good motives and all habitually determinant principles of action are thoroly co-ordinated, so that duty to self, duty to the fellow-man, to society, and to God