The Henson Journals

[34]

Saturday April 20th 1929.

BIARRITZ

A fine, warm morning, and less wind, but both Ella and I sore bitten by mosquitoes, or some related insect, to our exceeding discomfort and no small disfigurement.

How far can corporate patriotism condone violations of the moral law by individuals? That is the question which the history of the Jesuits presents in the most emphasized form. For while nothing can exceed the excellences of the individual Jesuits, nothing can exceed the moral turpitude of their corporate methods and performances. No precept of Christ, no precedent of the Apostles, no principle of morality was not outraged by Jesuit policy and practice. "Jesuitry" is the synonym for sanctimonious craft serving the purposes of merciless bigotry. In adopting a quasi–military organisation for his Order, the Founder of the Jesuits would seem to have accepted the casuistry of War, which authorizes, requires, and justifies the most extreme departures from morality.

[35]

'O ye that love the Lord, see that ye hate the thing that is evil' – there is the governing principle of acceptable religion, and its application cannot possibly be limited to the sphere of private or personal morality: for how can public policy be raised or lowered in moral quality save by the influence of the individuals who control it? And that must mean their application of their own standards of behaviour to the courses of public action which they urge, and for which they are responsible. A man who has accepted for himself the conception of human duty implied in the words of Micah – "He hath showed thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God" – could not possibly have sanctioned a policy of assassinating hereticks. S. Bartholomew and Gunpowder Plot could not have been engineered and defended except by men who had lost hold of the truth about God and about man, which the prophet discloses. 'The spirit of man is the candle of the Lord', but 'if the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness!'

[36]

The confusion of mind which the record of the Jesuits exhibits in such tragic paradoxes is widely diffused, and enters into the use and wont of Christian society at many points. That indifference to the obligations of filial duty in the professed interest of Religion which Christ condemned in the Pharisees is illustrated in the little annals of parochial life. Every bazaar exhibits the contrast between the public conduct in the interest of corporate causes of excellent persons, and their private behaviours. National policy and competitive commerce would appear to proceed on the assumption that the morality which governs individual conduct ceases to govern conduct which has wider than individual concerns. "Sport" could continue on no other assumption. Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the revolutionary change which would pass over human society if that assumption were effectively disallowed. The Sermon on the Mount has never been more than a statement of ideals, unrealisable in the actual world of human intercourse.

[37]

To what conclusion, then, do we arrive? What conceivable value have moral ideals which we definitely admitted to be unrealisable in practice? Is their acceptance on that understanding worth anything at all? Are the Quakers, Franciscans, and other "short–cut" Christians, who profess and attempt to practice a liberal obedience to the precepts ^of the Gospel^ right after all? Or do they but succeed in accumulating hypocrisy or failure? It is hard to deduce from their history any other but an affirmative answer to this question. Has the pace of moral progress been accelerated by Christianity? But this question assumes that there has been moral progress, an assumption which is obviously disputable, and has in fact been vigorously disputed. Is not what we call moral progress more truly described as a shifting of emphasis on the elements of morality? In one age the stress is laid on purity: in another on truth: in another on liberty: and in another on charity. But the balance of virtue is never preserved. The ascetics are hard as nails: the saints are also inquisitors: the theologians care nothing for freedom: & humanitarians are freethinking & licentious!

[38]

We frittered away the morning in the neighbourhood of the Hotel: and, after lunch, I wrote to Kitty Wilson.

We went in the tram to Bayonne, and there visited the magnificent cathedral. The proportions are fine, the scale vast, and the cloisters extraordinarily good. There is much good medieval glass in the clerestory, and an amazing elaborate 13th century doorway in the vestry, itself one side of the 13th century cloisters.

On returning to Biarritz, we went to Cook's Office & made arrangements for our homeward journey.

Then I wrote to Fawkes & Lionel. The 'Daily Mail' of yesterday reports the sudden death in the streets of Mr Steggall, the Vicar of Holy Trinity, South Shields. He was 65, the same age as I. "In an hour when ye expected not, the Son of Man cometh". He was a man who, as a missionary in Africa, is said to have done & suffered much. I regret his loss to the diocese.

[39]

The programme on which Mr Baldwin proposes to fight the coming election is honourably distinguished from the rival programmes by its modest and practical character. There is nothing in it to arouse enthusiasm. It might almost be described as commonplace. How many of the 27,000,000 electors will be affected by the programmes, even to the extent of knowing what they are? The great majority of the men, & probably all the women, will vote for the man, not for his programme. Baldwin is not an inspiring candidate. Both the others are probably superior to him in that respect. But he is believed to be honest, and known to be respectable. He is, moreover, an Englishman. Lloyd–George is known to be tricky, and his Welsh nationality is a grave handicap. Ramsay Macdonald is a Scot, and thought to be vain. Moreover he is seen to be unable to keep order in his own camp. But 'the swing of the pendulum' is against Baldwin, and Conservatism is not popular with the masses of the industrial constituencies. On the other hand, Baldwin can afford to lose many seats.

---