The Cult of Naturalism
To be adequately understood a problem must not be studied in isolation and abstraction, but seen in its larger context and complete setting. When thus placed against its appropriate background, it appears in the right perspective and in its proper dimensions; its importance can be gauged and its bearings upon other questions clearly perceived; it can then be discovered whether it is cause or effect or perhaps both. For every phenomenon has numerous surfaces of contact with the whole of life and a thousand roots reaching out in every direction. Only a study that takes these facts into account can result in really useful knowledge and suggest effective remedies.
In a previous paper the decay of modesty as manifested in indecent fashions and improper dancing was lamented. This deplorable phenomenon of our days we will now try to fit into its larger context; for it is quite evident that it is not unrelated to other social facts, but that it is organically connected with fundamental trends of modern life. We may pick up what seems to be a loose thread of the woof of life anywhere and we will quickly observe how it ramifies through the entire texture and crosses and recrosses the other threads that constitute the fabric.1 The decline of modesty that our age is witnessing and that fills with alarm the custodians of public morality is merely the outward symptom of profound changes in ethical evaluations and views concerning life that have gradually taken place and are now beginning to work themselves out in practical consequences. It is intimately bound up with the general revolt against so-called social conventions that has become so widespread in our days. Conventions are the external embodiments of inner moral attitudes. They are intended to safeguard those spiritual things that are held in high esteem and are thought worthy of preserving. We may liken them to hedges and fences which a man builds around a plot where his most valued plants and flowers grow. The function of the convention is to protect against hostile approach. It keeps danger at a distance. Conventions, then, are not altogether arbitrary. They may, however, in course of time become empty and devoid of meaning and purpose. That happens in the following manner.
Customs once established in a community have a tendency to survive, because societies are naturally conservative. It may thus come about that a custom still continues though the reason for its existence has disappeared. A time will arrive when this fact is realized by the community and when the custom is recognized as destitute of meaning. The tyranny of habit, however, is such that even after the hollowness of a custom has become apparent, society will still persist in imposing it upon all. As long as the obsolete custom is not particularly irksome, men will readily submit to it; but if it proves troublesome they will point out the arbitrary nature of the restraint and revolt against it. Man naturally chafes under arbitrary rule; but no rule is more arbitrary than that of a custom which has outlived its usefulness and which has degenerated into its mere shallow pretense. Now that is the attitude of the younger generation against what they disparagingly term the conventions of the past. These conventions, for example those that govern the relations of the sexes are restrictive measures and consequently irksome. As long as they protect something that is acknowledged to be of undisputed value men will nevertheless bow to them. But when the thing to be safeguarded has in the general estimation lost its original value, then the convention that has been set up for its protection becomes ridiculous and the new generation will refuse to be fettered by it. Hence, we have at present a practically universal revolt against the conventional, because the great majority of the present generation fails to see the reason for these restraints and as a consequence regards them as artificial, arbitrary, tyrannical and hypocritical. No law can command the respect of man that has not reason behind. There is a terrible logic in this revolt against social conventions which have been deprived of their significance by the change of mentality that has been wrought in the community.
The conventions that are most violently resented by our generation are those connected with modesty. The growing generation instinctively feels that there is some incongruity between the world's insistence on modest reserve and its general views on the value of virtue. It senses that there is something distinctly pharisaical in this attitude. It rebels against a restraint for which there seems to be not a shadow of reason. Nor is there any justification in the modern way of thinking for the restrictions with which a sensitive and delicate modesty has surrounded the relations of the sexes. On the level of naturalism to which our age has sunk the restraints of modesty are uncalled for and unnecessary. The glorification of the flesh in which our age frankly indulges leaves no room for modesty. The young generation, therefore, acts in full accord with the trend of modern thought when it scoffs at discipline and throws the last pretense at modesty to the winds. The older generation stands aghast at this condition of things, but it remains helpless unless it is willing to abandon its naturalistic ideas and to accept again the teaching of Christ. In the Christian world-view modesty is eminently justified and not a mere hypocritical and arbitrary convention.
The Genesis of Naturalism
For all Christian peoples naturalism is the reversion to an inferior type of morality. Those who repudiate Christianity after having known it invariably sink to lower levels than those who have never adopted its teachings. This becomes quite evident in our times. For it can easily be observed that in those portions of the Western World, where the doctrines of Christianity have been preached and are now being relinquished, vices and abominations spring up that outrival the most shameless practices of the pagans. It is impossible to arrest the downward course once it has started. That is the nemesis of national apostasy.2
The Reformation set the world on the road of denial. Sheer momentum carried it on to lower levels and greater depths until in our days it has reached the last stage, that of naturalism. Naturalism rejects the supernatural destiny of man. It makes nature and especially man self sufficient. Nature is essentially good and all its instincts are legitimate. Original sin is a myth and a libel on human nature. Under these circumstances distrust of human nature is unjustifiable and precautions against it are superfluous. By itself it will find the right direction.3
It stands to reason that a doctrine of this kind will have no use for asceticism and modesty. For in a nature that is good and that knows nothing of an original taint there is nothing to repress or to conceal. Hence, we hear much of the innocence of nature and the inerrancy of natural instincts. Literature, poetry and art have accepted these doctrines and spread them through the length and the breadth of the land. The grossest violations of the law of God are euphemistically called experiences. In a world committed to such principles modesty will be entirely out of place.4
The French language has a term that admirably expresses the kernel of naturalism. It designates this tendency as la rehabilitation de la chair.5 This well sounding phrase implies that the flesh had been defrauded of its just rights and deprived of the honor that belongs to it. The enemy and the prime offender, in this case, of course, is the Christian doctrine of the Cross, upon which the ascetical practices of the Church are based. It goes without saying that the crucifixion of the flesh and its subjugation to the spirit are absurd and unreasonable if there is no opposition of the carnal nature of man to his spiritual self. The modern world, having discarded the doctrine of the original taint and the consequent disturbance in man's dualistic nature, sees no longer any reason in the crucifixion of the flesh and disapproves of violent repression of natural impulses. This attitude towards the body has become quite common outside of the Church which still clings to its old ascetical ideals. It is impossible that a sentiment that has become so universal should not also affect the mentality of Catholics and in many cases, at least unconsciously, influence their ideas and especially their conduct. Latent naturalism does exist among the faithful. Its infiltrations have penetrated deeper than we think. The Holy Father deplores its presence in Christian society. He writes: "Magna equidem cura ac sollicitudine urgemur, cum illud cernimus malorum omnium compendium, quod naturalismum vocant, cotidie magis in christianam societatem invadere: ex quo fit, ut effrenata deliciarum cupiditas, animorum vires enervando moresque bonos corrumpendo, ipsam officiorum conscientiam pedetemptim exstinguat. Etenim nimis multi sunt homines, qui, mundi huius illecebris deleniti, nihil tam vehementer horrent impenseque devitant quam adventicias molestias aut voluntarias animi corporisque castigationes, et tamquam inimicos Crucis Christi, ut ait Apostolus, sese gerere consueverunt."6 On the basis of this naturalism both modern self indulgence and indecency are justified. Hence, we cannot effectively combat these glaring evils of our days unless we attack the underlying naturalism from which they spontaneously spring.
Extent of Naturalism in Our Days
Perhaps no one has done more to popularize naturalism than Nietzsche. Like Bernard Shaw he had the courage to tell the men of his time what they really believed in their innermost hearts but what they were afraid to acknowledge even to themselves.7 Now, however, the last vestige of reticence has disappeared and men no longer conceal their real sentiments. Novelists, artists, dramatists and public speakers openly profess the doctrines of naturalism, not infrequently in a very revolting form. Ideas have their inevitable effect upon conduct and life and men are becoming alarmed at the way in which the naturalistic dogma of the inherent sanctity of the flesh is working itself out. Not only theologians but sociologists and physicians as well are lamenting the extreme lengths to which this pernicious doctrine is being pushed in practice. The younger generation has the audacity of carrying it out almost to the letter; for it repudiates every conventional restraint and proclaims its right to every experience.8
It surely is very significant when we find in a book devoted to the discussion of sociological problems a chapter entitled, "Our Semi-pagan Civilization,"9 and when a thoroughly modern philosopher includes in a volume dealing with religious questions a chapter bearing the unmistakable heading, "The Recrudescence of Paganism."10 These things speak for themselves. They plainly show that naturalism has assumed dimensions of startling and alarming proportion, for sociology and modern philosophy would not voice their disapproval of a view of life so completely in accord with their own fundamental assumption if it did not actually constitute a menace to the social structure. But if those who have no sympathy with the supernatural are compelled to warn against the fatal practical tendencies of naturalism what will our feelings be in this matter? Most certainly we cannot be indifferent to this subtle mentality that undermines Christian asceticism and puts an end to decency. We cannot bring back Christian discipline and modesty until we have extirpated this radically unchristian and unholy mentality.
Dr. Edward Cary Hayes describes the situation that confronts us without exaggeration when he writes: "A large part of our own popular fiction consists in the subtle advocacy of a pseudo-scientific immorality. If a critic raises his voice in defense of the mid-Victorian decencies and sanctities he is greeted with a chorus of scoffs and jeers. We are assured that nothing is wrong that is natural, that in nature there is no higher and no lower, that altruism is only a form of selfishness, and that reason has no precedence over the instincts that we share with the beasts."11
Having before us the impartial testimony of these men, we must admit that the Pope has ample reason to warn against the inroads of naturalism and that he is justified when he calls upon us to combat this insidious way of thinking that is reproducing in our Christian era the brazen indecencies of Pagan civilization.
End Notes
1.
"True, it should seem that the tissue of thought(Goethe, Faust, Part First, I, vii.) This organic and coherent character of thought has its reason in the organic and coherent structure of objective reality.
Is like a web by cunning master wrought,
Where one stroke moves a thousand threads,
The shuttle shoots backwards and forwards between,
The slender threads flow together unseen,
And one with the others thousand-fold weds."
2. "The second group of After-Christians afford on a superficial view a startling contrast to the first, but on closer view a startling likeness . . . What is common to them is negative, the rejection of the Christian view of the end of life, of the Christian view of man's nature, of the Christian view of the sanctity of marriage and the training of the young . . . Further details of After-Christianity, though available, are here unnecessary, where we are only seeking a preliminary presumption in favor of the Christian claims. It is enough that the examples before us seem to point to a probable conclusion, namely, that Christianity is final, that it provides the highest type of family life (on which all society rests), and that those who desert Christianity are cut off from the possibility of reverting to the higher types of Fore-Christian families, and find themselves driven back to lower forms, and threatened with the worst abominations of outcast and degraded races." (Charles Stanton Devas, The Key to the World's Progress.)
3. "One may say generally that in the case of these writers there is simply a revulsion of feeling against Christian conceptions of sin, moral law, and asceticism and in favor of a return to the natural man. Nature in this sense is held to be a safe guide as to what is best in conduct." (Lionel Spencer Thornton, Conduct and the Supernatural.) According to this view the one sin is repression of natural impulses. Thus Dr. E. J. Kempf: "No matter how holy and sanctified the laws may seem to sound, if suppressive wasters of energy, they are immoral." (Psychoanalytic Review, Oct. 1917.)
4. Dr. Dearmer writes: "God made our bodies, very wonderfully. It cannot please Him that we should obstruct or spoil His work. His will must be our health, both in body and soul." This would be true enough if the chief emphasis were not placed on the health of the body. The Month, therefore, from which we have taken this quotation, makes the following appropriate comment: "Precisely 1 But the health of the soul infinitely more than the health of the body. The very object of asceticism, which Dr. Dearmer fails to grasp, is to prevent the latter from interfering with the former and thus spoiling the work of God." (Non-Catholic Ideals of Asceticism, September, 1924.) In the same article another writer is quoted who declares that asceticism is "immoral in the same way as suicide is immoral." Other writers are even stronger in their denunciation of anything that could interfere with what they call the rights of the body. (Cfr.: Dr. Franz Walter, Der Leib and Sein Recht im Christentum; Donauwoerth, 1910.)
5. In some form or other the world has always asserted the rights of the flesh against those of the spirit. The cult of the flesh, however, received a new impetus through the doctrines of Saint-Simonianism, a frank and consistent naturalism. Of the effect of this teaching on his generation Alexander Herzen, a Russian revolutionist, says: "A new world was knocking at the door and our hearts and minds flew open to welcome it. . Many mocked at the freedom of women and the recognition of the flesh, attributing a low and unclean meaning to these phrases; for our minds, corrupted by monasticism, fear the flesh and fear women . . . A religion of life had come to replace the religion of death, a religion of beauty to replace the religion of penance and emaciation, of fasting and prayer. The crucified body had risen in its turn and was no longer abashed. Man had reached a harmonious unity; he had discovered that he is a single being, not made, like a pendulum, of two different metals that check each other; he realized that the foe in his members had ceased to exist." (Memoirs, Yale University Press.) Upon this principle, either consciously or unconsciously, our age is acting. Naturalistic tendencies have received a powerful reinforcement through the popularization of Freudian theories. Thus Mr. Andre Tridon writes: "The task of modern ethics will not be the barren task of the old ethics. The old ethics condemned and pronounced sentences; the new ethics will understand and find a rational use for everything human . . . The new ethics will constantly bear in mind that life is meant to be lived fully and joyfully in a social sense, not in a selfish sense, and is not a preparation for death but an aim and end in itself. Nietzsche, who in many respects has been a forerunner of the analysts, makes Zarathustra say, 'Since humanity came into being, man has enjoyed himself too little. That alone, my brethren, is our original sin."' (Psychoanalysis; New York, B. W. Huebsch.) Similarly Miss Barbara Low, B.A., writes: "The primitive impulses, admitted and understood as the dynamic basis of our psychic life, bearing their own validity and splendor, essential to any harmonized consciousness, will obtain much larger consideration. The rational conscious life will be realized as a part only of the whole psyche, not necessarily, nor always, as sole leader and guide." (Psychoanalysis; New York, Harcourt, Brace and Howe.)
6. Acta Apostolicae Sedis; 1 Septembris 1924, p. 362.
7. "With all this in mind to daunt him, he set the fashion (nowadays increasingly popular) of taking for granted that human nature, in its natural state with all its primitive instincts unchecked, can safely cut a pathway for itself to a supreme destiny . . . The real reason is that he had ruled out the whole spiritual side of man's nature as a diseased growth . . . He could not allow the dualism of human nature as portrayed by St. Paul or even by Plato; he could not permit himself to acknowledge the struggle of the flesh and the spirit; to do so would have been fatal to his whole position. He therefore assumed human nature to be one and simple; he took for granted that it is a harmonious entity, sure of what is best for itself and right in grasping it, able to correct instinctively any dangerous tendencies. For example, in Thus Spake Zarathustra Nietzsche endeavors to show how voluptuousness, thirst for power, and selfishness, though they have been given a bad name, are really good and human. Voluptuousness, we are told, is a fire to consume the filthy and degraded; a poison to the unhealthy, but pure joy and strength to the innocent; a good wine to be used sparingly, a prototype of a higher happiness." (L. S. Thornton, 1. c.) This philosophy is now the stock-in-trade of our modern fiction.
8. Edna Ferber, in her remarkable novel, The Girls, expresses this sentiment in her heroine's outburst against repression thus: "All these centuries we've been told to profit by the advice of our elders. What's living for if not to experience? How can any one know whether you are right or wrong? Oh, I don't mean about small things. But the big things — those things I want to decide for myself. I'm entitled to my own mistakes. I've the right to be wrong." (Mrs. Augustus Trowbridge, What are our young people seeking in their apparent revolt from the Moral Standards of an earlier day?) In another passage the author says: "A return to nature, many of these young people term this casting away of the defenses of civilization and the return to the barbaric in thought and practice." This right to experience is an essentially pagan and naturalistic idea. It is claimed by all those who desire to renew paganism. It was asserted by Walter Pater, "Not the fruit of experience," he says, "but experience itself, is the end. While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or anything of the senses, strange dyes, strange colors, and curious odors, or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's friend. With this sense of the splendor of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch." (The Renaissance.) The essentially pagan note as also the depressing pessimism of this passage cannot escape the reader. It expresses the philosophy of our age.
9. Dr. Charles A. Ellwood, The Reconstruction of Religion; A Sociological View; New York, The Macmillan Company.
10. Joseph Alexander Leighton, Ph.D., LL.D., Religion and the Mind of Today; New York, D. Appleton and Company, 1924. For the sake of illustration we bring a few pertinent quotations. "When we speak of paganism recrudescent today, we have in mind the wanton luxury, the gross sensualism, the cult of unnatural vices, the decay of family life and of the old republican simplicity and integrity, the judicial and political corruption which Seneca bemoans, Juvenal satirizes, and St. Paul lashes." "There are, I think, in our social life many symptoms of moral confusion and disintegration that present striking, and even startling analogies to the decadent paganism of the Roman world under the Caesars." "The unblushing effrontery and sensual suggestiveness of the lascivious stage corrupt our youth." "There is plenty of cheap and easy materialism abroad. Even where it is not adopted in the form of a creed it breeds in many minds confusion, and a weakening, or even total loss, of spiritual conviction." "So we have a modern Stoicism, which preaches life according to nature as the way to virtue and happiness."
11. Sociology and Ethics; New York, D. Appleton and Company, 1921.
© Joseph F. Wagner, Inc.
This item 9045 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
