Owing to the disturbance over things religious in France, vows and those who exemplify them in their lives are receiving of late a large share of public attention.  On this topic, it seems, every one is qualified to speak; all sorts of opinions have been ventilated in the religious, the non-religious, and the irreligious press, for the benefit of those who are interested in this pitiful spasm of Gallic madness against the Almighty and His Church.  The measure of unparalleled tyranny and injustice, in which antipathy to religious orders has found expression, is being favorably and unfavorably commented upon.  But since monks, friars and nuns seldom find favor with the non Catholic world, the general verdict is that the religious, like the anarchist, must go; society is afraid of both and is safe from neither.

To Catholics who understand human nature and have read history, this condition of things is not surprising; it is, we might venture to say, the normal state of mind in relation to things so intensely Catholic is religious vows.  Antagonism against monasticism was born the day Luther decided to take a wife; and as long as that same spirit lingers on earth we shall expect this antagonism to thrive and prosper.  Not only that, but we shall never expect the religious to get a fair hearing for their cause.  The hater, open or covert, of the habit and cowl is whole-souled or nothing in his convictions.  And he believes the devil should be fought with his own weapons.

We do not expect all men to think as we do concerning the merits of the religious profession.  To approve it without restriction would be to approve the Church.  To find no wrong in it would be indicative of a dangerous Romish tendency.  And we are not prepared to assert that any such symptoms exist to an alarming extent in those who expatiate on religious topics these latter days.  There will be differences of opinion on this score, as on many others, and one fellow’s opinion is as good, to himself, as another’s.

There are even objections, to many an honest man, serious objections, that may be brought up and become legitimate matter for discussion.  We take it for granted that intelligent men do not oppose an institution as venerable as monasticism without reasons.  Contention between people who respect intelligence is always based on what has at least a semblance of truth, and has for its object to detect reality and label it as distinct from appearance.

We go farther, and admit that there have been abuses in this system of perfection, abuses that we were the first to detect, the first to deplore and feel the shame of it.  But before we believed it, we investigated and made sure it was so.  We found out very often that the accusations were false.  Scandalmongers and dishonest critics noted the charges, but forgot to publish the verdict, and naturally with the public these charges stand.  No wonder then that such tales breed antipathy and hatred among those who are not in position to control facts.