used in that diocese, and approved by Cardinal Vaughan when Bishop of Salford, the questions and answers are arranged, not in the mechanical order with which we are familiar in the ordinary Catechism, but in subjects . Here we have, I submit, a valuable hint which, if judiciously acted upon, cannot but greatly simplify the work of learning and, what is more important, of understanding the Catechism.
The incidental mention of the Catechism for the Diocese of Rottenburg suggests another point — and it shall be the last — on which I wish now to touch. This Catechism has in common with our own one notable feature. Underlying both is the remarkable principle of embodying the question in the answer. When this principle was first introduced into the English Catechism, it was looked upon as the golden key that would unlock the portals of knowledge. It was imagined that the automatic action of dovetailing the question into the answer would serve as a sort of plastic medium for transferring to the mind of the child the connexion between question and answer that exists on paper. The physic process by which this result was to be achieved was doubtless wrapped in mystery; but as an expedient for bridging over the abyss between mind and matter, the device was certainly ingenious. It looked very plausible, and no one could say that it might not succeed. Its short-lived existence, however, has but confirmed the old axiom that an automaton will never produce life or intelligence. No one nowadays dreams that it has realized the great expectations that were formed from it. Nay, if I may speak as one less wise, I should say that the soundness of the principle is very widely called in question. Instead of smoothing away, as many object, it has multiplied the difficulty of learning the Catechism by increasing the matter of the answers, already in many cases too bulky [1]; and, what is far worse, by giving such undue prominence to the question, it has thrust the answer into the background, and thus the answer is smothered or strangled in the question. Now, which is the more important factor in a Catechism: the question or the answer? The answer to this question is too obvious to need stating; for surely there can be no doubt that the answer is of primary, and the question of only secondary importance. The question is of value only inasmuch as it draws out the answer. It is the answer, therefore, that should be to the front, and the question in the background. Whereas when the question is put in front, and the answer in the rear — when the question is made to overshadow the answer — the natural order is inverted.
- ↑ Bulky not merely in words, but chiefly in ideas. An answer should contain one fact or one idea; not a fact and a reason for the fact; or a fact and an exception, and a reason for the exception. Questions with a multiplicity of ideas (e. g. What is an Indulgence?), if split up into several, may be made intelligible.
