on the other hand, we have practically but one Catechism, which is learnt alike by infants on the gallery, and by youths in the upper orms. Is it better to have one Catechism or a graduated series adapted to the several capacities of those who use them ?[1] Surely, it would not be futile to discuss the respective merits or demerits of the two systems. For without presuming to say that either is better than the other, I may safely affirm that ours is not so obviously superior as to be outside the pale of discussion.
Another question closely bound up with the former is to determine what should be the setting and frame-work and general characteristics of a Catechism. Should a Catechism, in a word, be a Summa Theologica in miniature ? a compendium of Theology ? a condensed essence of theological treatises? Should it be couched in technical language? Should it bristle with definitions? Should the definitions be framed with such studied accuracy that the most fastidious philosopher shall be unable to detect the slightest flaw or imperfection? Should they be such that “only a philosopher can read them without a groan”? Or should a Catechism be a religious primer? Should its language be plain and simple, but accurate withal, though without straining after minute shades of accuracy? Should there be more explanations and fewer definitions? By way of illustrating the two methods I will transcribe two answers to the question: What is God? One answer occurs in the English Catechism, the other in Deharbe’s Small Catechism, a translation of which is extensively used in the United States.
| ENGLISH CATECHISM. | DEHARBE’S CATECHISM. |
| What is God ? | What is God ? |
| God is the supreme Spirit, who alone exists of Himself and is infinite in all perfections. | God is the Lord and Master of heaven and earth, from whom all good things come. |
The English definition is made up of a number of ideas of such a hard metaphysical cast as to be wholly impervious to the ordinary mind, to say nothing of the child-mind. Nay, it may be affirmed without exaggeration that only those who have undergone a philosophical and a theological training can ever hope to understand it. The very explanation involves a course of theology. For the definition is the whole treatise De Deo in a nutshell. Deharbe’s answer immediately stoops to lowly intelligences, and thereby it stoops to conquer. Being adapted to the capacity of children, it will give them, at least, some idea of God, whereas the English definition cannot but leave a blank. And
- ↑ One and the same Catechism might serve for all grades, if it were printed with some distinction analogous to large and small type.
