It is nearly twenty years since Eric Gill wrote in Blackfriars, ‘It has remained for one unworthy to put his pen to the word, and therefore to the argument, which shall give Capitalism and its attendant monster, Industrialism, their death-blow. The word is Responsibility.’

The argument, that Capitalism (production for money, in such sense that all things made are means of making money) and Industrialism (production by machinery with the working man as a sentient part of it) both ‘reduce the workman to a sub-human condition of intellectual irresponsibility,’ was not and is not difficult to follow. It was and is so clearly true as to raise at once the scandal of truth. It was received with applause as a brilliant argument, and it was rejected almost universally, by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, as an impractical one. There were also the incidental reactions of those who were ‘sneeped’ (as they say in the Midlands) by the terms in which it was expressed. ‘Sub-human, indeed !’ and so on.

So, if there was a great cloud of dust put up when Eric was here to press home his own arguments, there is danger now that the word, his word, should be altogether obscured. For the social reformers were, in the main, not really interested, and the interested parties, in the main, wanted his word silenced. It is more than time, therefore, for a restatement.

Among the causes which have contributed to the tragedy of modern German history the decline of family life may safely be considered one of the most important factors. This decline has, indeed, affected almost all European countries, but, if Russia be excepted, none so deeply and powerfully as Germany. It may, perhaps, sound strange to non-Catholics that the condition of a healthy family life should be the esteem of virginity : for the Church has often been falsely accused of despising marriage, because she demands celibacy from her priests and religious. But even in the ancient Western world the family was nowhere stronger than in pagan Rome, where the Vestal virgins tended the sacred fire, the symbol of the home, from which springs all true civilization. It is, therefore, not surprising that the beginning of the disruption of German family life can be traced to Luther who, himself a monk who had broken his vow of chastity in order to marry a runaway nun, to the scandal even of many of his devoted followers, officially sanctioned the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse. The case of Luther may serve to illustrate the fact that, if virginity is not valued, there is no reason why continence should be esteemed in a wife or husband, except perhaps in the former to ascertain the parentage of the children.

But there is another side of the matter. St. Thomas links virginity closely to the contemplative life. ‘The end,’ he says, ‘which renders virginity praiseworthy, is that one may have leisure for Divine things.’ And moreover the integrity of the chaste mind is necessary for the loving perception of truths that are beyond reason. The Germans are a naturally contemplative race—the names of St. Hildegard, Master Eckhart, Tauler and Suso are ample evidence of that.

The youth movement has received an enthusiastic reception from the Press and little adverse criticism has been made. There is, however, much criticism that does not come into print and it is the purpose of this article to examine objections to the movement and to suggest remedies where criticism is well founded.

The prevailing attitude of the objectors is suspicion derived from the national abhorrence of uniform and regimentation together with the example of dictator states and the débacle of British Fascism. But on the whole fears are aroused, not by what the movement is, but by what it may become ; to some the exploitation of youth for political ends is a potential danger that may well develop with the extension of central control. This danger is a real one and is bound up with the question of vested interest within the movement itself.

At the moment the activities of youth clubs are somewhat decentralised and organisers are given a free hand. This is good; initiative and individuality can play their part by modifying activities in accordance with the needs of the neighbourhood. Should the hand of bureaucracy fasten down on the movement, control may deprive it of its freedom and elasticity and result in its becoming a soulless and regimented function of the State.

The Lord God formed man from the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul. . . . And the Lord God took man and put him into the paradise of pleasure, to dress it and keep it.’—Book of Genesis, c. 1.

The Land ! The very word strikes a chord in the heart of every true Englishman. It brings to mind a vision of life healthy, in harmony with nature, happy. It makes the heart glow with wonder at the fertile goodness and the mysterious beauty of the earth. It leads the soul to faith in God whose perfect Holiness is reflected and made manifest in the harmony, goodness and beauty of nature.

The paradise of pleasure in which grew all manner of trees fair to behold and pleasant to eat; in the midst of which also grew the tree of life, is no legend. It was a Golden Age at the outset of human history when as God told Job : ‘The morning stars praised me together, and all the sons of God made a joyful melody.’ Deep down in the memory of mankind, and therefore in each one of us, is the sense of a holiness that was once our happiness, a holiness that was a harmony between man and the earth which God gave him and between man and the heaven God opened to him, a holiness that was a fulfilment of the Destiny God set us. And if this deep memory has left a glow from the past, surely it has also given a hope for the future, a yearning in us all to regain that health, to re-establish that harmony and to recover that holiness in which alone lies our happiness.