Publication: www.newadvent.org
URL: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm
A term used for the first time about
1846 by George Jacob Holyoake to denote "a form of opinion which concerns
itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience
of this life" (English Secularism, 60). More explicitly, "Secularism is
that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual
nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life
- which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart
from Atheism, Theism or the Bible - which selects as its methods of procedure
the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these
positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate
life by reason and ennoble it by service" (Principles of Secularism, 17).
And again, "Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded
on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find
theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential
principles are three:
1. The improvement of this life
by material means.
2. That science is the available
Providence of man.
3. That it is good to do good. "Whether
there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it
is good to seek that good" (English Secularism, 35).
I. HISTORY
The origin of Secularism is associated
especially with the names of Holyoake and Bradlaugh. George Jacob Holyoake
(born at Birmingham, 13 April, 1817; died at Brighton, 22 January, 1906)
met Robert Owen in 1837, became his friend, and began to lecture and write
articles advocating socialism or co-operation. In 1841, with Southwell,
Ryall, and Chilton, he founded a magazine called "The Oracle of which was
succeeded by "The Movement" (1843), and by "The Reasoner" (1846). In 1861
the publication of the latter was discontinued, and Holyoake founded "The
Counsellor" which later on, was merged with Bradlaugh's "National Reformer".
Owing to differences between Bradlaugh and Holyoake, the latter withdrew
from "The National Reformer," started the publication of "The Secular World
and Social Economist" (1862-64), and in 1883 of "The Present Day". Among
the political and economical agitations in which Holyoake took a leading
part may be mentioned those for the repeal of the law prohibiting the use
of unstamped paper for periodical publications, for the abolition of all
oaths required by law, for the secularization of education in the public
schools, for the disestablishment of the Church, for the promotion of the
co-operative movement among the working classes, etc.
Charles Bradlaugh (born at Hoxton,
London, 26 September, 1833; died 30 January, 1891) was a zealous Sunday
school teacher in the Church of England, when Rev. Mr. Packer, the incumbent
of St. Peter's, Hackney Road, asked him to prepare for confirmation which
was to be administered by the Bishop of London. "I studied a little", writes
Bradlaugh, "the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, and the
four Gospels, and came to the conclusion that they differed" (Autobiography,
6). He wrote this to Rev. Mr. Packer, who hastily denounced him as an atheist.
His views, which at this time were deistical later on reached extreme Atheism.
From 1853 till 1868 he wrote a great number of articles under the pseudonym
of "Iconoclast", gave many lectures, and held many public debates. In 1858
he edited "The Investigator", and in 1859 founded "The National Reformer".
Elected by Northampton as a member of the House of Commons in 1880, he
refused to take the required oath, and was not allowed to sit in the House.
Re-elected the following year, he consented to take the oath, but this
was refused on account of his Atheism. Finally, in 1886, the new Speaker
allowed him to take the oath and sit in Parliament. In 1858 Bradlaugh succeeded
Holyoake as president of the London Secular Society, and in 1866 enlarged
the scope of this association by founding the National Secular Society,
over which he presided until 1890, when he was succeeded by Mr. G. W. Foote,
the actual president. The following words from Bradlaugh's farewell speech
are significant: "One element of danger in Europe is the approach of the
Roman Catholic Church towards meddling in political life. . . . Beware
when that great Church, whose power none can deny, the capacity of whose
leading men is marked, tries to use the democracy as its weapon. There
is danger to freedom of thought, to freedom of speech, to freedom of action.
The great struggle in this country will not be between Freethought and
the Church of England, not between Freethought and Dissent, but - as I
have long taught, and now repeat - between Freethought and Rome" (Charles
Bradlaugh, II, 412).
In the United States, the American
Secular Union and Freethought Federation, presided over by Mr. E. P. Peacock,
with many affiliated local societies, has for its object the separation
of Church and State, and for its platform the nine demands of Liberalism,
namely:
1.that churches and other ecclesiastical
property shall be no longer exempt from taxation;
2. that the employment of chaplains
in Congress, in state legislatures, in the army and navy, and in prisons,
asylums, and all institutions supported by public money, shall be discontinued,
and that all religious services maintained by national, state, or municipal
governments shall be abolished;
3. that all public appropriations
for educational and charitable institutions of a sectarian character shall
cease;
4. that, while advocating the loftiest
instruction in morals and the inculcation of the strictest uprightness
of conduct, religious teaching and the use of the Bible for religious purposes
in public schools shall be prohibited;
5. that the appointment by the President
of the United States and the governors of the various states of religious
festivals, fasts, and days of prayer and thanksgiving shall be discontinued;
6. that the theological oath in
the courts and in other departments of government shall be abolished, and
simple affirmation under the pains and penalties of perjury, established
in its stead;
7. that all laws directly or indirectly
enforcing in any degree the religious and theological dogma of Sunday or
Sabbath observance shall be repealed;
8. that all laws looking to the
enforcement of Christian morality as such shall be abrogated, and that
all laws shall be conformed to the requirements of natural morality, equal
rights and impartial justice;
9. that, in harmony with the Constitution
of the United States and the constitutions of the several states, no special
privileges or advantages shall be conceded to Christianity or any other
religion; that our entire political system shall be conducted and administered
on a purely secular basis; and that whatever changes are necessary to this
end shall be consistently, unflinchingly, and promptly made.
Although the name Secularism is
of recent origin, its various doctrines have been taught by free-thinkers
of all ages, and, in fact, Secularism claims to be only an extension of
free-thought. "The term Secularism was chosen to express the extension
of freethought to ethics" (English Secularism, 34). With regard to the
question of the existence of God, Bradlaugh was an atheist, Holyoake an
agnostic. The latter held that Secularism is based simply on the study
of nature and has nothing to do with religion, while Bradlaugh claimed
that Secularism should start with the disproof of religion. In a public
debate held in 1870 between these two secularists, Bradlaugh said: "Although
at present it may be perfectly true that all men who are Secularists are
not Atheists, I put it that in my opinion the logical consequence of the
acceptance of Secularism must be that the man gets to Atheism if he has
brains enough to comprehend.
"You cannot have a scheme of morality
without Atheism. The Utilitarian scheme is a defiance of the doctrine of
Providence and a protest against God". On the other hand, Holyoake affirmed
that "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent
of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances
others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere,
but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose
conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular
knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this
life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare
of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this
life" (Charles Bradlaugh, I, 334, 336). But in many passages of his writings,
Holyoake goes much further and seeks to disprove Christian truths. To the
criticism of theology, Secularism adds a great concern for culture, social
progress, and the improvement of the material conditions of life, especially
for the working classes. In ethics it is utilitarian, and seeks only the
greatest good of the present life, since the existence of a future life,
as well as the existence of God, "belong to the debatable ground of speculation"
(English Secularism, 37). It tends to substitute "the piety of useful men
for the usefulness of piety" (ibid., 8).
II. CRITICISM
The fundamental principle of Secularism
is that, in his whole conduct, man should be guided exclusively by considerations
derived from the present life itself. Anything that is above or beyond
the present life should be entirely overlooked. Whether God exists or not,
whether the soul is immortal or not, are questions which at best cannot
be answered, and on which consequently no motives of action can be based.
A fortiori all motives derived from the Christian religion are worthless.
"Things Secular are as separate from the Church as land from the ocean"
(English Secularism, 1). This principle is in strict opposition to essential
Catholic doctrines. The Church is as intent as Secularism on the improvement
of this life, as respectful of scientific achievements, as eager for the
fulfilment of all duties pertaining to the present life. But the present
life cannot be looked upon as an end in itself, and independent of the
future life. The knowledge of the material world leads to the knowledge
of the spiritual world, and among the duties of the present life must be
reckoned those which arise from the existence and nature of God, the fact
of a Divine Revelation, and the necessity of preparing, for the future
life. If God exists, how can Secularism inculcate the practical sufficiency
of natural morality?" If "Secularism does not say there is no light or
guidance elsewhere" how can it command us to follow exclusively the light
and guidance of secular truth? Only the Atheist can be a consistent Secularist.
According as man makes present happiness
the only criterion of the value of life, or on the contrary admits the
existence of God and the fact of a Divine Revelation and of a future life,
the whole aspect of the present life changes. These questions cannot be
ignored, for on them depends the right conduct of life and "the development
of the moral and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point".
If anything can be known about God and a future life, duties to be fulfilled
in the present life are thereby imposed on "all who would regulate life
by reason and ennoble it by service". "Considerations purely human" become
inadequate, and the "light and guidance" found in secular truth must be
referred to and judged from a higher point of view. Hence the present life
in itself cannot be looked upon as the only standard of man's worth. The
Church would fail in her Divine mission if she did not insist on the insufficiency
of a life conducted exclusively along secular lines, and therefore on the
falsity of the main assumption of Secularism
Again, the Catholic Church does
not admit that religion is simply a private affair. God is the author and
ruler not only of individuals, but also of societies. Hence the State should
not be indifferent to religious matters (see ETHICS). How far in practice
Church and State should go together depends on a number of circumstances
and cannot be determined by any general rule, but the principle remains
true that religion is a social as well as an individual duty.
In practice again, owing to special
circumstances, a secular education in the public schools may be the only
possible one. At the same time, this is a serious defect which must be
supplied otherwise. It is not enough for the child to be taught the various
human sciences, he must also be given the knowledge of the necessary means
of salvation. The Church cannot renounce her mission to teach the truths
she has received from her Divine Founder. Not only as individuals, but
also as citizens, all men have the right to perform the religious duties
which their conscience dictates. The complete secularization of all public
institutions in a Christian nation is therefore inadmissible. Man must
not only be learned in human science; his whole life must be directed to
the higher and nobler pursuits of morality and religion, to God Himself.
While fully recognizing the value of the present life, the Church cannot
look upon it as an end in itself, but only as a movement toward a future
life for which preparation must be made by compliance with the laws of
nature and the laws of God. Hence there is no possible compromise between
the Church and Secularism, since Secularism would stifle in man that which,
for the Church, constitutes the highest and truest motives of action, and
the noblest human aspirations.
