Suchergebnisse

Issue 1.1 of the Review for Religious, 1942. This is the first issue of the publication. ; A.M.D.G.- -~ Review for ehg ous " " JANUARY 15, 1942 ,~>The Vow of P~overfy . ~The oE udta÷ O~Iotn er ¯ Hygienic M6rfificafio~ -- Exemptions from F~s+ing ~.~ ~Bellar~ine's S[gn of The:~Lmfurgy ih'Mo~ern ~r ¯ Religious Cg~secration : . By M~ffhew Germlng,-S.J. . By Adam C. Ellis, S.J. ~.By, William J. McGucken, S.J. ~' " By,'~. Augustine Ellard, S;J. '~ ~. By Gerald Kelly, ~S.J. '/ By C!pm~nt DeMufh, S.J. B~. ~rald Ellard, SfJ. .° VOLUME. NUMBER 1 Review ~:or Religious Volume I January--December 1942 Published at THE COLLEGE PRESS Topeka, Kansas Edited by THE JESUIT FATHERS SAINT MARY'S COLLEGE St. Marys, Kansas REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS VOLUME I JANUARY 15, 1942 NUMBER CONTENTS GREETINGS FROM THE BISHOP OF LEAVENWORTH Tlie Most Reverend Paul C. Schulte, D.D. 4 PLANS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS~The Editors .6 RELIGIOUS CONSECRATION--Matthew Germing, S.J . 8 JOHN NEPOMUCENE NEUMANN . 14 THE VOW OF POVERTY IN THE CODE OF CANON LAW Adam C. Ellis, S.J . 15 THE EDUCATION OF SISTERS--William J. McGucken, S.J .2.7. HYGIENIC MORTIFICATION---G. Augustine Ellard. S.J .3.2 EXEMPTIONS FROM FASTING--Gerald Kelly, S.J .4.2. SAINT ROBERT BELLARMINE'S SIGN OF THE CROSS Clement DeMuth, S.J . 47 LITURGY IN THE PATTERN OF MODERN PRAYING Gerald Ellard, S.J . 51 BOOK REVIEWS .THE MASS. By the Reverend Joseph A. Dunney . 63 A CATHOLIC DICTIONARY. Edited by Donald Attwater . 63 ALL THE DAY LONG. By Daniel Sargent . 64 "FEAR NOT, I~ITTLE FLOCK.'" By the Reverend George Zimpfer 65 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1. Period of Recollection before Perpetual Vows . . " . 68 2. Shortening the Second Year of Novitiate . 68 3. Permission of Parents for Emergency Operation .69 4. Recital of Little Office by those absent from Community Recitation 69 5. Private Vows by Professed Religious . 70 6. Curtain between Priest and Penitent in Convent Confessional 70 DECISIONS OF THE HOLY SEE OF INTEREST TO RELIGIOUS 71 REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS, January, 1942. Vol. I, No. 1. Published bi-monthly: ,January, March, May, July, September, and November, at The College Press, 606 Harrison Street, Topeka, Kansas, by St. Mary's College, St. Marys, Kansas, with ecclesiastical approbation. Application for second class entry pending. Editorial Board: Adam C. Ellis, S.3.,~ G. Augustine Ellard, S.3., Gerald Kelly, $.J. Copyright; 1942, by Adam C. Ellis. Permission is hereby granted~for quotations of reasonable length, provided due credit be given this review and the author. Address all communications to: Review for Religious, St. Mary's College, St. Mar/s, Kansas. Printed in U.S.A. Greet:ings-t: 'om !:he Bishop ot: Leavenw0rt:h WE ARE reminded of the striking analogy that exists between the Mystical Body of Christ and our own physical body. As the human body is made up of mil-lions of tiny ~ells, each cell in a sense a distinct entity having its .own function, so too, the Church is made up of millions of individual members, living individual lives; yet, even as ehch cell in our body draws life from the soul, ~so also is ~ach member of the Mystical Body of Christ quickened by the spiritual life of Sanctifying Grace. Carrying the analog~r further, we are reminded that, as the tiny individual cells are grouped so as to form individu.al organs and members of ~our body,, so too, in the Mystical .Body of Christ, individual men and women are o/~ten grouped into societies andorganizations, distinct, yet work-ing for the common good and drawing life and inspiration from th~ one spiritual head. As St. Paul reminds us,, "the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you,'; neither can the various groups within the Church be self-centered, but" they must work for the common good of the whole Church under the guidance of its head, Christ's Vicar on earth. The religious form what might be called the right arm of the Mystical Body of Christ. Ever since our Divine Savior gave the invitation to the young man in the Gospel, "if thou Wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to .the poor . and come, follow me," noble souls have been inspired to lea~e all things and seek perfection in the life of the religious. The very earliest centuries of the Church already found the deserts filled with the cells of the anchor-ites, from which soon was to be born the great monastic sys-tem as we have it today. Naturally, the unusual form of life led by the religious presents for them unusual problems. The Church in her canon law has taken cognizance of this and has devoted much space to defining the rights and duties of religious, both as indi'viduals and as institutions. However, the rami-fications of these rights and duties are so far reaching, and the field of direction towards spiritual perfection is so vast that the volumes upon volumes of commentaries that have been Written have not begun to exhaust the subje.cts. Besides, new .problems are ever arising. We have today many reviews of a general ecclesias-tical character dealing withthe multitudinou~s phases of the Church ~n general, yet we can readily see the need of a special review for the religious, not only to explain .the general laws governing their lives, but also to keep them abreast of the problems that theever-changing world is presenting to them. We feel confident therefoie that REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS, which is making its bow. with this issue, will be .not .only very helpful to the religious but welcomed by the entire Church. We are happy to give it our personal approbation and fed honored that it is to be published in our Diocese. We are confident of its success under the editorial guidance of the Jesuit Fathers of St. Mary's. May it live long and effect much "pro Deo et Ecclesia!" PAUL C. SCHULTE, Bishop of Leaventvortl~. Plans :nd. ' . Acknowl dgem.ents N THIS initial number of REVIEW FoR RELIGIOus .wish tO say something Of our purpose,and ourplans, so that our readers may know rather definitely what to expect of us. ,, Our 'review is for all religious, clerical and non-clerical. However, we shall consider primarily the needs of brothe~ and nuns, bec~iuse clerics, particularly those in sacred orders, already have many excellent reviews at their disposal. This policy need not make the review less interesting to clerics, and it should increase its utility for those who may be entrusted with the spiritual guidance of other religious. In this latter connection, the review may also be of service to diocesan priests, as many of them are confessors and spiritual directors of religious. We have founded this magazine for a two-fold purpose: first, to aid °religi"ous in their personal sanctification; and secondly, to be of some service to them in carrying on their respective °apostolic works. The first purpose evidently call~ for articles of a purely ascetical nature; also for solid articles on the doctrines, legislation, and liturgy of the Church, as all true piety must ultimately conform to the Church's doctrine and practice. In line with the second purpose w~ll be a~'ticles which may have no direct bearing on ~he personal li:¢es of the religious themselves, such as background articles on various sections of the catechism, suggestions.for the care of the sick and the dying and for the ~arrying on of other ministries. Our general policy will be to offer articles of interest to all, but this policy cannot be inflexible. Some topics will be of use to superiorsand of slight value to subjects; some will be esl~ecially for brothers, others for nuns: some may concern only those engaged ina definite work such-as teaching, caring for the sick, and so forth. We think it well to adopt no general policy that would exclude such special-ized articles; otherwise our power for good would be great-ly diminished. We antidpate difficulties. The war situation evidently increases the difficulty .of .making definite plans. Some of our articles will be quite theological in content, yet these must be written in a non-technical, and understandable manner--an accomplishment that is not easy. On the part of our subscribers, some superiors have already suggested to us that a huge difficulty will be to find time for reading the review. We realize the force of. this practical objection: yet we hope that a fair number of individuals will find the time for private reading, and we suggest, that some articles frbm each issue will be suitable for community reading. The launching of. this project is the result of extensive dreaming and planning. Indeed, we should have begun many years ago, had not a certain unforeseen event delayed 9ur plans. Today, as we finally go to press, we are moved with an intense spirit of gratitude, to God for His assistance, and to all others who have helped us. Almost universally we have met with encouragement andcooperation. Our Bishop has been most kind in appro;cing our venture; our own and other re.ligious superiors were constantly helpful. Higher superiors, in general, responded very promptly and generously to our request for lists of houses to circularize: in many instances the superiors themselves sent subscrip-tions for entire congregations or provinces, thus saving us considerable labor and expense. May God bless them a11, and may He prosper this work begun for His greater glory! -~THE EDITORS. Religious Consecrat:ion Matthew .Germing, S.3. HOLY,SCRIPTURE says: "He that contemneth small things ~hall fall by little and little" (Ecclesiasticus 19:1). Spiritual writers commenting on these words rightly insist on the importance of little thing~ in the spiritual life. In the present consideration I wish to call attention, primarily, not to little things but to a big truth. I say, "primarily," because I believe that often enough interest in little things is best promoted by insistence on some large fundamental truth or fact on which the little ¯ things depend. Such a truth, once it has been thoroughly understood and assimilated, once it has. permeated the very marrow of our being and is thereafter kept vig.or.ously alive in mind an, d heart, will be a wonderfully energ,zmg force in the daily routine of life. It will extend its influence to the smallest actions of the day and thus compel us to take heed of even the little things. . Of this character is the consecration to God made by the members of every religious order and congregation. We are familiar in a general way with the meaning of consecration. Persons or things are consecrated when they are set apart and with the proper ceremonies dedicated to God or the Service of God. Thus the chalice used by the priest at Mass is consecrated; it is sacred and may not be used for any other purpose. To use it for other purposes would be sinful and sacrilegious. The same holds of a consecrated church. All religious are consecrated to Gdd by means of the three vows of religion. They are sacred in the eyes of God, far more sacred than consecrated church or ~halice. Whether they bel6ng to an active or a contemplative order, whether they are engaged in school work or hospital duties, whether in charge of orphans or caring for the aged and infirm, no matter what their function or task or position in the com-munity, all are consecrated to God. And they are so con-secrated by their three vows. There is a twofold aspect to these vows, the .negative and the positive. The negative aspect is "the privation involved in the vows, but privation is not the distinctive feature of religious poverty, chastity, and obedience. The mere lack of temporal goods does not make anyone accept.- able or sacred in God's sight. Poverty .as'such makes.many people in the world at large discontented and miserable, leading to complaints and rebellion against Providence. Nor does celibacy with its privations have of itself a sancti-fying effect. And as for obedience, a man may be a slave and be far from Christian and ev.angelical obedience. It is the motive that counts. It. is the love of Christ, the conse-cration to God which is the purpose and end of.all these sacrifices and privations, that makes them precious in the sight of heaven. And this is the positive aspect of the vows of religion. When we pronounced our vows for the first time we offered to God, to Christ our King and to His Sacred Heart all we had or possessed, and made ourselves entirely depen-dent on God and His representatives on earth. When St. Francis of Assisi bade farewell to his father and gave away the very clothes he wore, he said: "Now I can truly say, our-Father who art in heaven," Certainly Francis knew that God was his Father before that time, but he meant to say that only now was he absolutely without all earthly support whatever; he had only his Father in ¯ heaven to rely upon. And this gave him perfect joy and perfect cbnfidence. Blessed are we if our renunciation of the things of earth was nearly as complete as that of St. Francis and made in the same joyous~spirit. Then we can exclaim with him in ~ransportsof seraphic love, "My God and my all!" and pray to God in the word of another saint, "Give me only Thy love and Thy grace and I am rich enough and desire nothing more." But in pronouncing our vows we did much more than despoil ourselves of all temporal possessions out of love for Christ our Lord. We offered ourselves. There is recorded for us in Holy Scripture (I Paralipomenon 29: 16, 17) the touching prayer of King David when, surrounded by a vast multitude of his people, he offered to Almighty God the gold and silver and precious stones he had gathered from far and near for the temple which his son Solomon was to build. And David prayed: "O Lord our God, all this store ¯ that we have prepared to build thee a house for thy holy name is from thy hand, and all things are thine. I know, my God, that thou provest hearts and lovest simplicity, wherefore I also in the simplicity of my heart have 'joyfully offered all these things." We also on the day of our vows made our offerings to God in joyful spirit, presenting not gold or silver or precious stones but gifts, far more precious m the sight of heaven--the loyalty and devotion of a con-secrated soul. We knelt before the altar and in simplicity and sincerity of heart pronounced the vows of poverty, chas-tity, and obedience. Thus we made an oblat.ion to God of our entire being, our body with its senses and all their pleasures, our soul with its intellect and free will, promising to understand and do all things in accordance with the rules and constitutions of the religious life we then and there embraced in all its fulness. And we made these promises solemnly before the throne of God, in the pres-ence of Mary, Queen of heaven, of our Guardian Angel, our patron saints and the whole heavenly court as witnesses of our oblation. With holy David we acknowledged to God, "All things are thine, and we have given thee what we received of thy hand." Thus we vowed eternal loyalty to Christ and became consecrated and sacred in His eyes. This consecration was the most important event in our life, a spiritual fact of tremendous import. For it meant the abandonment of all selfish interests and complete devo-tion to the cause of Christ. Up to that time self had chiefly been the focus of our thoughts and desires; now our L6rd and Savior was to be enthroned in our mind and heart. Our. aims in life, our thinking and planning, .our capabilities of soul and body, our work and r.ecreation, our time itself, all were consecrated and must be directed to God. We are en-tirely His. We ought to make it our serious effort to understand and appreciate this fact. We should do what the Blessed Virgin did during her life on earth. And what did she do? St. Luke tells us in the second chapter of his Gospel. Toward the end of his account of the nativity Of our Lord, after narrating the apparition of the angel to the shepherds and the visit of the latter to Bethlehem, he adds: "But Mary kept in mind all these words, pondering them in her heart." We may be sure that what is told us so explicitly of her conduct in the present instance she did on many other occa.- sions in connection with the mysteries in the life of our divine Lord in which she had a large part. She treasured up in her memory the words and events, meditated on them, 10 prayed over them in the silence and quiet of her chamber, thus ever increasing in faith, hope, and the 10ve of God. Thus too she secured for herself the divine assistance, sup-port and guidance and encouragement in the daily happen-ings and sufferings of her life on earth. We ought to imitate this practice of our Blessed Mother in regard to so sacred an event in our life as our consecration to God. In the first place, we should recall it often and prayerfMly. Many religious have the commendable custom of making the renewal of'their consecration part of their morning prayer, using for the purpose a short formula; even purely mental renewal is .beneficial. We may do the same at intervals .between exercises during the day, even in the course of work which does not require dose and continu-ous attention. Our Blessed Lady gave us the example. Doubtless her mind and 1,ieart were frequently, if not habitually, occupied, with thoughts of sbme of the great mysteries in the life of her divine Son. This kept her in a state of recollection, transforming all her work into .prayer. Because of the difference of circumstances and the nature of their occupation, religious living in the modern world with its multiplic!ty of work are unable to practise recollection to. the same extent to which our Blessed Lady practised it in her home at Nazareth. Nevertheless, we must not lose sight of the fact that some degree of recoll~ction is essential for living the religious life as it should be lived. For all religious, whether members of an active or contemplative order, are consecrated to God. Consecration means total devotion to the cause of God, the cause of Christ and His Church. But they cannot effectively promote the cause of Christ unless they are devoted to prayer. And the prayer of consecrated souls must be something more than a casual and routine performance at stated times and places. Reli-gious must be penetrated and imbued with the true spirit of prayer, which comes only with thought and reflection and intimate converse between God and the soul. How can they achieve this spirit and continue it once they have achieved it if they do not strive with all the means at their disposal to attain to some degree of interior recollection? It is easier to keep up a high degree of recollection in somepositions or spheres of duty than in others. This holds of all religious communities whose members are engaged in the active life. But to whatever duty individual religious are assigned, all 11 must remember that their life of prayer, their spiritual life in generall will not take care of itself. The' saying is true that no one will be much more in prayer than he or she is out of prayer. In other words, they who outside of praye~ scatter their attention over a variety of interests, neither necessary nor useful for their work, will be unable to pray well beyond a few minutes when the hour comes for their devotional exercises. The inference is not that recollection is to interfere with attention to duty. Duty comes first. But there are moments and intervals when thoughts are free from assigned work and the employment of time is left to each one's discretion. These are favorable moments for the care and attentio.n which religious ought to have for their personal spiritual welfare. And if at such times they follow the promptings of mere curiosity, seeking the news of the day or other information not necessary or useful for them, thus spending the time in useless reading or. idle con-versation, they are losing precious opportunities' for sanc-tifying themselves. I said above that, in the first place, we ought frequently and prayerfully to recall the fact of our consecration to God. It is a thought pregnant with meaning for all of us and will be a great aid to recollection in the course of the day. Secondly, it will be decidedly profitable to take~ our consecration now and then for the subject of daily medita-tion. In such a meditation we may first consider, the ¯ meaning of our consecration. It means complete dedication ¯ "to God by means of the three vows, oblation of all that we have, all that we are, all that we are able to do--our thoughts, words, and actions; it means an act of the most perfect love of God. Then we may reflect on its obliga-tions. They are the observance of the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; of the rules and constitutions of the order, and obedience to the commands of superiors. Finally, we may think of its adoantages. The most impor-tant ones are that it frees us from many s~rious dangers of sin, furnishes numerous aids in the practice of every kind of virtue, aligns us with that choice company of the army of Christ which would signalize itself by special service to its Leader, renders us sacred in the eyes of God, is a sign of God's predilection, has Christ's promise of the highest reward-- they "shall receive a hundredfold and shall possess life ever-lasting" (Matthew 19:29). Conclusion. We may Con- 12 clude-with sentiments of esteem and love of our vocation with its consecration to God; humility; gratitude to God. Another opportunity for strengthening ourselves in our consecration to God is the Monthly Recollection. It is a time of spiritual grace, when God reveals Himself more fully to our souls. We should do our part by making a brief survey of the month that has passed, considering in detail and with more than ordinary scrutiny whether we are living up to ~:he requirements of our state. It is not a question of merely seeing whether we have avoided deliber-ate sin. This too merits our attention, as a matter of course. We must look to our religious ideals, the perfection of our daily actions, the motives that animate us from early .morning till late at night. Are we seeking God in all things in all our doings? Are ,Jesus Christ and His interests habitually in our thoughts, or is self frequently uppermost in our minds, controlling and directing our purposes and policies? Our Blessed Lord said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whold strength" (Mark 12:30). This is the perfection we are bound to strive after in its literal sense. It is the epitome, the compendium of all that is contained in our consecration to God. We are consecrated to God, sacred in His eyes. It would be quite wrong and detrimental to our spiritual life if, by reason of this, we were to fall into the error of conceiving and fostering self-complacency, as though we were the favorite~ of Almighty God and better than other people. If God has manifested His predilection towards us by bestowing the efficacious grace of a religious vocation, He has by that very fact also imposed on us graver obligations and responsibilities. In all humility we should thank God for what He has done for us and for all other men, each of us saying with the patriarch ,Jacob, "I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies and of thy truth which thou hast f.ulfilled to thy servant" (Genesis 32:10). It is very important for .us to maintain~ an attitude of thankfulness and humility. Let us remember our Lord's words to His Apostles: "You have not chosen me, .but I have chosen you". (,John 15:16). He has chosen us out of the world and transferred us into a kingdom of light and grace that, like the Apostles; we might "bring forth fruit." It-remains for us to distinguish ourselves in His service by an ever increasing love and generosity, a more steadfast loyalty to the consecration which we made of ourselves when we pronounced our vows. In this way a big fundamental spiritual truth, kept fresh in mind and heart by daily prayer and recollection, will exercise oa salutary influence On the little things of every day life. It will have the effect Of sweepingaside in a moment the petty and narrow views arising from selfish-ness, just as the bright rising sun scatters the mist on a mid-summer day.' JOHN NEPOMUCENE NEUMANN Just before the first issue of REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS went to press, we received a letter from the Reverend Albert H. Waible, C.SS.R., Vice-Postulator of the Cause for Beatification of the Venerable John Neumann, C.SS.R. John Nepomucene Neumann was the first pro-fessed Redemptorist in the United States and the fourth Bishop of Philadelphia. On December 11, 1921, Pope Benedict XV approved the decree declaring that John Neumann had practised heroic virtue, and he was given the title of Venerable. The Holy Father's words on that occasion are singularly appropriate for readers of REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS : "We deem it proper to say that all our children should profit by the. Decree of today by reason of the peculiar character of the heroic virtues of Ven. Neumann. Perhaps the very simplicity of these virtues has been misunderstood by those Who thought there was no heroic degree in the virtues of the Servant of God. because in their eyes the good works and holy deeds performed by Neumann are. the holy .and good deeds which every good religious, every zealous missionary, every good bishop should perform. ¯ We need not repeat that works even the most simple, performed with constant perfection in the midst of i~aevitable difficulties, spell heroism in any servant of God. Just because of the simplicity of his works, We find in them a strong argu-ment for saying to the faithful of whatever age, sex, or condition: You are all bound to imitate the Ven. Neumann.,. If, in spite of this, there should be some who still seem surprised and cannot pic-ture him to themselves as a hero apart from grand undertakings, We hasten to say that wonderful results can spring from simple deeds, . provided these are performed as perfectly as possible and with unre-mitting constancy." Those interested in Bishop Neumann's cause can procure a small pamphlet biography from the Mission Church Press, 1545 Tremont St., Boston, Mass. 5 cents a copy; $3.50 per 100. 14 The Vow ot: Poverl:y in !:he Code ot: Canon Law Adam C. Ellis, S.,L IIF't LESSED are the poor in spirit, .for theirs is the king-dom of heaven" (Matthew 5:3). This poverty of spirit for which the Gospel promises the kingdom of heaven consists essentially in keeping one's heart free from attachment to temporal goods. It is the first means, though not the most important, which man must make use of to win heaven.or to attain to perfection. The reason for this is that poverty of spirit is the cure for that evil which is the root of all others according to the Apostle: "For covet-ousness is the root of all evil" (I Timothy 6:10). That is why our Lord not only began his preaching with it, but also gave us the example in His own person of a life of pov-erty from the crib in the stable of Bethlehem to the cross on Calvary. And when He wished to teach men the secret and the way ot~ perfection, he tells us again, in the instance of the rich young man, that. poverty is the starting point. "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast. and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me" (Matthew 19:21). The first persons who took this lesson to heart and put it into practice were the Apostles, who in turn imparted it to the primitive church, and thus impressed upon religious communities the form of perfect poverty. In canon 488 of the Code ot: Canon Law, the Church tells us that the three vows ot~ religion, obedience, chastity, and poverty, are means by ~vhich religious strive at~ter per-t: ecfion; Hence in all orders and congregations approved by the Church these three essential vows must be taken, either explicitly, as in modern congregations, or as least implicitly, as in the older orders. In its essentials the vow 6f poverty is the same: for all religious, but the constitutions of different orders and congregations add details to these fundamental notions according to the particular spirit ot~ each institute. Evangelical poverty as set forth in the constitutions of a religious institute, may be considered from different points of view. It-is not our intention to give an ascetical ¯ or a moral.interpretation of the vow of poverty; we leave .15 that to others, who, we trust, will favor us later on with articles in the REVIEW FOR RELIGIOUS dealing with these aspects. It is our purpose now to study the present laws of the Ghurch regarding the personal poverty of religious, as promulgated in the Code of Canon Law, since these laws are applicable to all religious, and are usually incorporated into the constitutions o~ all religious institutes. The Nature of the Vow of Pooert~/. The vow of pov-erty is a promise made to God by whicla the religious deprives himself of the right to place any act of proprietor-sbip over any material thing having a money value, with-out the lawful permission of his superior, The proper and distinctive character of proprietorship or ownership of property is the power to dispose of it freely and independently/: that is, to use it, to give it away, to sell it, to destroy it, at will, as an absolute master over it. without any obligation of having recourse to the will of another, hence independently of the will or permission of another. The essence of the simple vow of poverty consists, therefore, in the privation of this right to dispose freely and independently of temporal goods, of whatsoever kind they may be. The subject-matter of the vow is the possession and use of temporal things, independently of the will of superiors. Whatever the degree of poverty prescribed by the con-stitutions of any particular institute may be, only such things as come under the heading of temporal goods or property constitute the subject-matter of poverty. Other things, such as health, the use of one's bodily members, one's mental and spiritual faculties, talents, supernatural gifts, are not the subject-matter of the vow of poverty. Temporal goods or property, therefore, include any object of money value that a person can acquire and possess or hold, anything that can be owned. Personal goods or property are such things as can be kept on or near one's per-son, usually all movable goods. Real property or real estate consists in lands and whatever is attached to the land, houses and buildings of any kind. The general term, prop-. erty or temporal goods, therefore, comprises every material thing which has a money value, such as: money, real estate, stocks, bonds, mortgages, jewelry, and all movable and per-sonal objects having a money value. By his vow of poverty 16 the religious refiounces his right to place any act of owner- Ship over such goods without the permission of his supe-rior. The vow of poverty, therefore, forbids the religious: 1) every independent act of appropriation, e.g. to acquire, keep, use, receive, borrow from another; 2) every act of disposal of property: to give away, to sell, to lend, or lease to another, to allow goods to deteriorate or perish. All these acts, placed without the permission of the superior or of the constitutions, are contrary to the vow of poverty. The various degrees of sinfulness of these acts is a moral question and outside the limits of this article. Let us now take up the general legislation of the Church regarding the vow of poverty, keeping in mind that these laws obligate all religious, and that any contrary leg-islation in the constitutions has been revoked by the Code of Canon Law, unless a special apostolic privilege has been obtained. I. A religious who has tatien a simple vow of poverty, whether temporar!t or perpetual, retains the ownership of his property, as well as the capacity to acquire, more, unless the constitutions provide otherwise (cf. canon 580, § 1). The distinction between a simple and a solemn vow ~s the result of church legislation. ~ A religious who takes a solemn vow of poverty deprives himself not only of every right to place act~ proprietorship, as explained above, but he freely gives up even the right to own temporal goods. Such a religious must give away all that he. possesses, within sixty days preceding his solemn profession. After taking the solemn vow, he can no longer acquire temporal goods for himself, since by his vow he has renounced his very right to own, hence whatever may come to him by way of inheri-tance or gift, he acquires for his institute (cf. canons 581 and 582). The religious who takes a simple vow of poverty, on the contrary, retains his right to own, that is to possess property; hence he is not deprived of his property by the simple vow, but continues to be the owner of all that he possessed at the time of his religious profession. Further-more, he retains the capacity to acquire more property or temporal goods even after he has taken the simple vow of poverty. Such is the provision of. the general law of the Church today for all religious. The Church allows the constitutions to limit this right, but since there are very few constitutions ;which do so,,we.shall omit any comment On this detail, and we shall suppose hereafter that no such limitation has been placed. iI. The simple vow of poverty makes a" contrary a~t illticit, but not invalid, unless the contrarg, has been expressly decreed (cf. canon 579). The effects of the vow of poverty are determined by the law of the Church. That law says that the simple vow of poverty makes a.contrary act illicit, which means that if a religious with a simple vow of poverty disposes of or in any way exercises rights over his property without permis-sion, he-.commits a sin,. venial or grave acc.ording, to the gravity of the illicit transaction. However, the act which he places, for example, the gift or s~ile of temporal goods, is valid, that is, it is recognized as legal by canon law, unless the contrary is expresslydecreed. Such a prohibition may be contained in the general law of the Church," as 'happens in the case of a religious who takes a simple vow of poverty in an order in which he is to take solemn vows later on. Canon 581 § 1. forbids .him under pain of invalidity to give away his property, except within sixty days preceding his solemn profession. If such a religious gives away any property, the act is null and void, ~which means that the person to whom he,gave it must return it, and may not keep it. Thus if Sister Generosa, a member of a religious congregation, gave all her property to her needy family off the day 9n which she took her first vows, her parents may keep it, since the act is a valid act. Sister Generosa, how-ever, acted illicitly, that is, she violated her vow of povert.y :by transgressing the law of the church, unless she. did so m good faith, being ignorant of the law. Off'the other hand, if Brother John, a member of the Carmelite order, gave away all his property on the day he took his first simple vows, the person to whom he gave it would be obliged to give it back to him, because his act was not only illicit but also invalid. He can give away his property validly only within sixty days of his solemn profession. III.' If during his novitiate, a novice in any way what-ever renounces his property, or.encumbers it, such a renun-ciation or encumbrance is not only illicit, but also null and void (cf. canon 568). This legislation comes down to us from the Council of Trent. It applies to all novices, whether in a pontifical or 18 in a diocesan institute, and to all their temporal goods, whether movable or immovable, real or personal. The pur-poseof the legislation is to safeguard the freedom of action of both the novice and of the institute regarding the profes-sion to be made at the end of the novitiate. The novice may wish to leave, the institute may be unwilling to admit him to profession. Hence the wisdom of the legislation. To renounce one's property means to give up the right to it by freely and lawfully transferring it to another with-out recompense. A novice may, therefore, sell his.property and invest the proceeds, or. put the money in a bank for the time being. He may, likewise, freely~dispose of the income of his property during the novitiate, or add it .to his capital. He must pay his.debts, of course, and may pay for his board and clothing during the'novitiate provided this is required by the constitutions, or agreed upon before entrance into the postulancy, or novitiate in conformity with canon 5 70, §1. To er~carnber one's property means to put a burden or obligation upon it. Hence a novice may not promise to give away a certain part of 'his property or all of it on condition that he perseveres in the religious state and is admitted to profession. He may not mortgage his property.,-as that would be placing an encumbrance .upon it. While the law of the Church does not forbid such renunciation and encumbrance during the postulancy, the same reasons make such an act inadvisable. If such a renun-ciation is made for grave reason during the postulancy, it should be made conditionally, so that the postulant may be able to regain his property in case he does not persevere in religion, and must return to the world. Even before the Code went into effect i~ was a common opinion of canonists that novices could give alms to the poor, to pious causes, and even to their own institute, pro-vided that small amounts were given on rare occasions, The same is permitted under the Code. Thus a novice would be allowed to have a number of Masses said for the repose of. the soul of his father or mother who dies during his novitiate. Supposing that our novice persevere~, and that his institute is ready to admit him to his first profession~, the .law. of the Church requires him to place certain acts in rdgard to his property before he takes his first ~vows. 19 IV. Before the profession of simple vows, whether temporory or perpetual., the novice must cede, for the entire period during Which he wilt be bound bg simple vows, the administration of bis~ 15ropertg to whomsoever he wishes, and dispose freelg of its use and usufruct, unless the consti-tutions determine otberu;ise (cf. canon 569, § 1). We have seen above that the simple vow of poverty does not deprive the novice who takes it of the ownership of his property or of the right to acquire more property after he. has taken the simple vow of poverty. On the other hand, one of the purposes of the vow is to free the religious from the worries and distractions connected with the care and management of temporal goods. Hence the Church wisely decrees that the novice must turn over to another the administration of his property if he has any. He may choose any person he wishes to act as his administrator: his parents, a brother or sister, a friend, a lawyer, a trust com-pany. He may also ask his institute or province or house to assume this task if superiorslare willing tO accept it. Let us u.nderstand what an administrator is. All of us have heard on occasion, after the death of a person, that the deceased had appointed an administrator of his estate in his will, or if he died intestate, the court appointed somebody to fill this office until the estate could besettled. The per-son appointed cares for the estate or collection of temporal goods owned by the deceased, pay bills, collects rents, as well as interest on money deposited in banks or due on stocks and bonds, keeps buildings in repair, pays taxes and the like. In a word, an administrator performs all those ordinary acts which the deceased person performed during his lifetime for the preservation and increase of his prop-erty. Once the novice has appointed his administrator, he must leave to him all these acts of ordinary administration of his property. He may be consulted as regards extra-ordinary acts of administration, such as the sale of his property, and the investment of the money derived from such a sale, and be has the right to receive an annual report of the condition of his property. The administrator is entitled to some recompense in proportion to his labor. Once the administrator has been freely appointed, the religious may not replace him by another without the per-mission of his superior general, unless the constitutions of his institute allow him to do so of his own accord (cf.canon 20 580, § 3). It4s evident that the novice who has no prop-erty at the-time of his first profession .need not appoint an administrator. The disposition or: his income: The novice must dispose freely of the use and usufruct of his pr.operty, if he has any. If his property consists of real estate, a farm, a house and lot, etc. he may ~rant the use of such property to anybody he wishes. If his property is productive, real estate which brings in rents, or stocks and bonds producing income or interest, such income is called the fruits of his property, or .the usufruct. It is evident that were the religious to retain the free disposal¯ of such income in his own hands, it would become a source of distraction and worry to him. Hence the Code prescribes that, before he takes his first vows, he must determine, once for all, the person or persons who are to be given the use of or the income of his property for the duration of his vows. He may choose whomsoever he wishes as the beneficiary of bis income: his parents, a brother or sister, some charitable work, his own institute. It would be well for the novice, before making his decision, to think seriously on those words of our Lord: "give to the poor." His parents may be in need, or he may have a brother or sister struggling to raise a family or to get an education; then there are so many forms of Christian char-ity in need of funds to carry on their work: hospitals, or-phanages, homes for the poor, etc; lastly the novzce should also consider the needs of his own institute before coming to a decision. But the final decision rests with him, unless the constitutions of his institute determine otherwise. There are some constitutions approved before the promultzation of the Code which deprive the novice of the right to dispose of the use and usufruct of his property, or restrict that right or define it, e.g. by limiting such disposal in favor of a char-itable work, or by designating or excluding the institute as the beneficiary. Whatever the dispositions of such consti-tutions may be, they must be observed (Code Commission, Oct. 16, 1919). Once the novice has made this disposition of the use or income of his property, he may not change it in favor of someone else without the permission of his superior gen-eral, unless the constitutions' allow him to do so of his own accord (canon 580, § 3). It will-be Well to call attention here to a restriction which this same canon places on 'th~ 2I right to chahge the beneficiary with the permission ~of the superior general.~ Such modification or change mustnot be made, at least for a notable part of the income, in favor of the institute. Permission of the Holy See is necessary to make such a change in favor of the institute (Code Com-mission, May 15, 1936), if there is question of a notable part, say one-fourth, or certainly one-third Of the same. This point should be made clear to the novice before he chooses the person who is to have the use or the income of his property. While he is free before taking his first vows to appoint hisown institute (orhis province or house) as the beneficiary of his income, ifas a matter of fact, he does not do so, but appoints some other person, he may not later " cbang.e .this disposition in favor of.his ihstitute without the permission of the Holy See, if there is question of one third or more of the entire income. If, later on, after having taken his vows, the religious should leave his institute and the religious life, these appointments of an administrator and of the beneficiary of his income cease to have a.ny effect, and he regains comple.te control of his property. It may happen that a novice has no property at the time be takes his first vows. Later on, after takin~ his vows, he acquires pkoperty by inheritance or gift. What is to be don~? " " V. :In case the novice, because he possessed no property, omitted to make the cession and disposition mentioned above, but later on acquires p. ropertq, or i~:, after making the cession and disposition ~n question, be becomes the possessor of more property under whatever title, be must then' make the cession and disposition for the ~irst time, or repeat it, iri regard to the newI~/ acquired property/, his simple vow o~: povern.] notwit.bstanding (cf. canon 569, §2). In this case the religious whopossessed no property at the time of his first profession, but. later on acquires prop-erty, needs no permission to appoint an administrator and to determine who is to have the use of this newly acquired property, or the income thereof. The law obliges him to do .so. Similarly, if, after having appointed an adminis-trator and determined a beneficiary of the income of his property, a religious, after taking his vows, acquires new property by inheritance, gift, and so forth, he must then 22 repeat the same acts in regard to h!,s. newly acquired prop-erty. Of course he may simply say: I wish the same admin-istrator, already appointed, to take care of it, and I wish the same person or persons, already recei~,ing the income of my property, to receive the income of this new property like-wise." He may, howe.ver, appoint a different person administrator, and a different person the beneficiary of the income of this newly acquired property, if he wishes to do so, It may be noted in 1Sassing that an increase in value of property already possessed does not constitute a new acquirement of property .within the meaning of the law. Hence if the real estate, or the stocks and bonds which a religious owns, increase in value because of a land boom, or because of a rise in the stock market, such a religious may not consider that increase in value as a new acquirement of property. Nothing is to be done in such a case. VI. In ever{] religious congregation the novice, before taking his temporarg vouJs, must freetg make a will or tes-tament regarding all the propertg he actuatl~l possesses, or mag subsequentl~l possess (cf. canon 569, § .3). A will is a legal declaration of a man's intentions as to the disposition of his property that he wills to be carried out afterhis death. Strictly speaking, a testament differs from a will in that it bequeaths personal property only; but the terms are used interchangeably. By his will, there-fore, the novice does not give away his property here and now. ° He merely indicates the person Or persons whom he wishes to come into possession of it after his death. As long as he lives he retains the ownership of all his prop-erty. The beneficiary of his will becomes possessor of the property of the. religious only after the latter dies. Every novice in a religious congregation must make a will before taking his first, temporary vows, whether he actually owns any property or not, the reason being that the will includes everything that may come to the religious dur!ng his life-time, and of which he dies possessed. Novices about to take their first, temporary vows in an order are not obliged to make a will, since they must give away whatever they possess before they take their solemn vows. They are not forbidden, howe~er, to make a will valid for the period of their profession of simple vows, ~hould their wish to do so. ¯ Members of a religious congregation who took their 23 first vows before the Code went into effect (May 19, 1918), are not obliged to make a will, even though they acquired more property after that date, or will akquire such property in the future. But they ar~ not forbidden to make a will, should they wish to do so, and generally speaking, it is advisable for them to make a will.But all religious in every congregation who took their first, temporary vows after May 19, 1918 are obliged to make a will as soon as possible, if they have not done so already. The law requires this, even though it had been omitted in good faith. Even though the novice who is about to take his first vows cannot make a will valid in civil law because of a lack of the required age, he is still bound by canon law to make his will, and later on, when he becomes of legal age, he must tlake the steps necessary to make his will'valid in divil law as well. The Code says that the novice must freel~t make a will. This does not mean that he is free to make a will. or not, but that he who makes the will prescribed by canon law is free to choose the beneficiary of his will, that is he freely chooses the person or persons he wishes to take possession of any property he may own at the time of his death. May a religious ever change his will after he has freely made it? VII. No religious may change his will once made in "conformity with the requirements of canon law as explained above without the permission of the Hotel See, or. in case of urgencq, abd time does not permit of recourse to the Holg See, without the permission o3 his superior gen-eral, or of his local superior if the former cannot be' reached (cf. canon 583, 2°). A will is not considered altered or changed if certain prescriptions are merely made clearer, or if a will'which is invalid in civil law is changed merely to conform with the requirements of that law, so long as in both cases the bene-ficiary remains the same. Should the person named as bene-ficiary in the will of a religious die, the will becomes ineffec-tive and has no value. Hence no permission is needed to make a new will, since by so doing the religious is simply fialfilling the law of the Church which requires him to make a will. The will he had made is no longer valid, hence he is without a will, and must make another in order to fulfill the law, 24 As long as the religious with simple vows continues, to live in a religious congregation he may ~not give away his property. VIII. It is forbidden to the professed of simple" uows in a congregation to abdicate gratuitously the dominion ouer their property b~/ a voluntary deed of conveyance (cf. canon 583, 1°). To abdicate gratuitously means to give away one's property without receiving any monetary recompense in return. The motive for giving away one's property may be a spirit of gratitude, or friendship, or a charitable desire to help others in need, or to further 'the cause of some pious work. No matter what the motive may be, the Church forbids all religious with simple vows in a congregation to give away their property as long as they remain in religion. Due to the uncertain times in which we live, it can and does happen that religious freely leave or are obliged to leave their institute, or the institute itself may be dispersed by reason of persecution which is 'always present in the Church in some part of the world. Should any one of these con-tingencies arise, the religious will not be obliged to return to the world penniless, thus bringing Shame on religion, or becomin~ a burden to others, but he will be able to support himself with the aid of the temporal goods he brought with him when he entered religion, or which he received by. way of inheritance or gift during his stay in the religious life. Since the law says a religious is forbidden to give away his property, but does not say that such an act is invalid as it does in the case of a novice and of the religious with simple vows in an order in which he is to take solemn vows later on, it follows-that if a religious in a congregation has actually freely given away his property contrary to the pre-scription of the law, the act is a valid act, and.the religious cannot reclaim his prbperty. If he did so in good faith, in ignorance of the law, he will be free from all moral guilt in the matter. But all religious in congregations, whether papal or diocesan, should understand clearly that their supe-riors cannot give them permission to dispose of thei~ patri-money, as the sum total of their temporal goods is. called, during th~i~ lifetime in religion. The permission of the Holy See would have to be obtained before this couId be done licitly. A final question arises with regard to the property of O~ 25 religious with simple vows. We have seen that such a re!igidus retains his ownership over the property, he-pos-sessed at the time of his entrance into religion, as well as the capacity to acquire more property, even after he has taken his simple vow of pover~;y. How are we to decide what a religious may and must keep and add to his patrimony, what be must give to his institute of the temporal things which come to him during his life in religion? IX. Whatever a religious acquires b~j l~is own industrg, or in respect to his institute, he acquires for his institute (cf. canon 580, § 2). A religious with simple vows acquires for himself, that~ is, as part of his patrimony or collection of his temporal possessions, whatever he receives by way of inheritance, legacy or personal gift. But whatever comes to him by reason of his own industry goes to his institute. To acquire b.u one's own industrtl means by one's mental and physical efforts, such as writing a book, or making a work of art, a painting or fancy needle work, or by reason of one's profes-sion, recompense received for teaching, nursing and the like. Since the religious has become a member of thereligious family by his profession of vows, and is suppotted, fed, clothed and educated by the institute, which supplies all his reasonable wants, it is but meet and just that the fruits of his:labors should go to the institute. To acquire in respect to the institute refers to what is given to a religious not as an individual person, to John Jones; or to Mary Blank, but to the religious as a religious, to Brother Plus, or to Sister Martha, for the community to which he or she belongs, in order to help the Charitable or educational work in which the community is engaged, or because of the confidence and respect which the institute as a whole inspires in the donor because of its religious activ-ity. In a word a religious acquires in repect to his insti-tute whatever is g.iven to him because be is a religious. In cases of doubt, when it is not certain that the gift was per-sonal to the religious, the presumption will be that it was made in favor of the institute. This presumption applies especially to superiors. Small gifts given on special occa-sions such as feast days or at Christmas time to a teacher by his pupils, and so forth, are presumed to be given to the religious because he is a religious, not for personal reasons. The constitutions usually regulate such gifts. 26 The I::ducafion ot: Sis :ers William 3. McGucken, S.,J. THIS IS an altogether extraordinary book that should be of particular interest to the readers of the REVIEW FOR RELIGIDU$. It is not a dull book, despite the fact that it is in the genre of the much despised doctoral dissertations in Education (with a capital E). Sister Bertrande has a reporter's sense of what constitutes news, a reporter's abil-ity to penetrate beyond the barriers and get a "story" from. her unwilling victim. Very briefly, the book is the narra-tive of what has been done in America for the religious, social, cultural, and professional education of sisters, what is being done, and, most significant of all, what should be done. With the first two parts of the book no one can disagree; the facts are presented with such ingenious clarity that he who runs may read.In the third part one may question some of the proposals on the ground that they are too detailed, too rigidly regimented after the immemorial fashion of nuns, but with the main features of her proposal to give a truly sound and truly Catholic education (this time without the capital E) to American nuns there can be no disagreement. The true story of Catholic education in the United States, especially the education .of women, has yet to be written: its tale of heroisms, sacrifices, blunderings, and fatal failures have been chronicled in part. here and there. notably in Mother Callan's excellent study, The Society! of the Sacred Heart in North America, but nowhere can one find a complete picture of the whole scene. Particularly is this the case with American Catholic ~ducational policy as it affects the religious qua religious. The old saying "Cucullus non.facit monachum" is all too dreadfully true, but unfortunately many religious superiors believed the wimple made the nun. Every religious over fifty years of age knows that there was a time in the history of the sister-hoods in America when a young woman, often not even a high school graduate, was passed through a rapid postu- 1 THE EDUCATION OF SISTERS. A. plan for Integrating the Religious~ Social, Cul-tural, an'd Professional Training of Sisters. By Sister Bertrande Meyers. New York: Sh~ed add Ward, 194i. Pp. xxxiii + 255. $3.75. 27 l~ncy, given a Veil, and sent out to teach. Granted that mother superiors were forced by circumstances, the impor-tunings of bishops and parish priests, granted that the nuns thus sent off the assembly line with less than a year's training made up for their lack of acquaintance with the vchole idea and ideals of ~eligious life by their practices of piety, their simple devotion, their childlike faith, yet it still remains an inscrutable mystery of divine providence that there were not more individual catastrophes as a result of this short-sighted policy. The first .World War came along; there was a multi-plication of school~; especially of sisters' high schools and colleges: there was also a tightening of the reins by the accrediting agencies. .Moreover, Rome. was insistent on religious communities adhering to their constitutions. At last, it is true, the nuns were obliged to, spend, at least a canonical yeay in the novitiate, but in order to satisfy the professional requirements necessary to teach, many .of the sisterhoods had to resort to miserable subterfuges in order° to securethese "credits." A tragic.story, truly, this filching from the r~eligious training 9f the novice to satisfy ttie craze for credits. Nor is it over even now. Sister Bertrande says (of the year 1940) : "Isolated instances were even found where credit was given [dur!ng the Canonical Year] in Church History or World History for reading Lives of the Saints, in Home Economics for the daily.domestid work, and in Philosophy Of Education for the daily instructions of the' Mistress of Novices. iiO,,ne of ~he Mistresses of N0yices co,mplai~is bitterly: In the first place, there is a sii nion~h s postulate. But. lJefore the postulant can be.inducted into religious life She :is made conscious of credits to be earned towards her teaching credentials;.so her day is full of classes. That is not so bad, since this is just the Posti~late, but it would be better if she ~studied something like Logic--that would teach her how to think. But no. Methods of teaching, all professional subje.cts come togeth~er to make the girl more conscious of the need to become a good teacher rather than a true religious. " 'Then--the Canonical YEar. It is so taken, up with studies in the field of education that when a novice is asked how she is coming along in recollection, she says: "Recollec- 28 tion? Why I can think of nothing but getting my school work"done--there is no time even for class preparation." Spiritual exercises ar~ curtailed; classwork takes precedenc~ over interviews with the. Mistress of Novices--often I have to scheme little ways of finding an opportunity to give direction to a novice-who stands in need. " 'Two and one-half hours a day are allowed for Novi-tiate routine such as. instructions, spiritual reading, confes-sions, etc. If anything must be put aside it must be any-thing but classwork. Thus it happens that a thin, super-ficial religious decorum takes the place of depth and breadth in the spiritual life. And no real, permanent culture comes from this cramming of normal work. " 'The second, year the novices are sent out to teach. They go out to teach with good will, but with no concept of the interior life. There was a time when the second year was strictly a part of the Novitiate; .but it began With "bor-rowing" two or three novices for sorely pressed missions, and the Borrowed novices, were .never returned. Then, a few more were borrowed. Now, there is no pretence at leaving them in the Novitiate for a second year. They are robbed of their Canonical Year with a full program 0f studies; the second year they leave for the local schools, and as a~result we have teachers with no real Understanding of their Community or of' the obligations of religious life'." It should be noted that this condition has held ever since the State Departments have insisted on professional requirements for teachers; it still holds today, let us hope only in "isolated instances." It can be left to the reader's imagination what the situation was in the period immedi-ately after World War I when every major superior was confronted with the choice of closing a certain number~of schools or getting credits for her sisters somehow, some-where. The result: a conflict, was set up in the mind of the young religious; she was told that her spiritual develop-ment comes first, and yet much was done to interfere with her allowing her religious life to take first place. A very interesting part of the book is Sister Bertrande's discussion of the effect of secular universities on religious women. The majority of provincials,~mistresses of novices, deans of nuns' colleges feel that it does~harm, that there is a weakening of the Catholic: sense, but some are sure that they are forced to attend for certain courses in the graduate field. 29 It is not explicitly stated that the real reason for the danger tO sisters at secular graduate schools is the haphazard quality of the undergraduate preparation received by many of them: they have not a Catholic view of life, even though they may be very devout religious. "One point was uniformly expressed.m that the courtesy and consideration which sisters met in dealing with the officials and the faculties in secular universities outdis-tanced that which was experienced in Catholic centers." One just wonders if it is not possible that the more poorly prepared for graduate work attend Catholic universities, the brilliant students, the ones superiors are absolutely sure of, frequent the non-Catholic institution. Moreover, Catholic institutions have possibly far more experience of those "isolated instances" where nuns present transcripts of worthless credits than the officials of the secular universi-ties. It is g.ratifying to see from Sister Bertrande's tables that there is a tremendous increase in the attendance of sis-ters at Catholic institutions and a corresponding decrease in attendance at secular universities. One startling fact in the picture presented of the con-temporary education of Catholic sisters is this: relatively t~ew ot~ our nuns receive a thorough grounding in liberal arts. Even where the situation in the Canonical Year has been bettered, 'it is very rare indeed for a sister to be set aside to complete her course for the Bachelor of Arts degree. ~here. there is a second year of novitiate, studies are crowded, into this year--too many, alas, professional studies; that year ended, the novicepronounces her vows and is immediately sent on a mission. Carrying a full teach-ing schedule, she attempts to garner credits after school hours, on Saturday mornings, and in summer sessions. After she has attained the mystica! number of 120, she may be sent to graduate school, utterly unprepared for graduate work by this hurried amassing of credits which she has had no time to digest. It is not thus that bachelors of ar~s are made. One can say that many, not all, bachelors of arts in American colleges are in no better fix. This may be true, but the fact remains that sisters because of their profession as teachers should be thoroughly grounded in systematic fashion in the liberal arts. What this crowding of the day of the young religious does to her spiritual life can be left to the imagination. If this or a similar condition were bad a 30 generation ago, when life was .simpler, when our' novices came from good Catholic families with a tradition of reli-gious practice,, what must it not be today when we find the product even of our convent schools woefully lacking in Catholic principles and practices because of poor home training and the prevalent paganism of the American scen~. Sister Bertrande's plan for the education of postulants, with its emphasis on instruction in Catholic faith and prac-tice, so necessary at all times but especially in these times, its ignoring of all secular subjects except. Speech and Music, is espe.cially commended to all major superiors. So too her plan for the Canonical Year--one might wish that this part~ were continued everywhere for two years--with its rigid exclusion of everything but Religion and Gregorian Music will help to make our sisters strong religious women. Some Will quarrel with the curriculum Sister Bertrande out-lines for the two-year curriculum for the Community Jun-ior College. Too many of the courses, some would think, bear the mark of superficiality so characteristic of survey courses. However, that is a minor detail. The one point is brought Out that the postulancy and novitiate are devoted to God and the development of the spiritual life in the indi-vidual; two yeais of junior college are to be added to com-plete the foundation of their liberal arts program, with the leisure necessary for that. purpose. After that Sister Bert-rande recommends that the new sister be sent to a Catholic college for the completion of the work that is needed for the degree. The author does not say that they should be sent immediately. Perhaps it is too far away from the prac-ticalities of American convent life for her to recommend that. All in all this is a book that should be read and digested by everyone who has anything to do with the education of sisters,--major superiors, Catholic college professors and administrators, at least that they may acquire the saooir i:aire~ of their non-Catholic confr~res,.last but not least, pastors, that they may understand the difficulties under which the sisters in their parish schools are laboring. It is a book that had to be written: the candid objective presen-tation of facts can do no harm; it may prove to be of ines-timable benefit to future generations of sisters, if .present superiors heed the pointed lesson that is written here. 31 i~lygienic Morfit:ic~fion G. Augustine Ellard, S.J. ~'~NE of the most prominent ascetical writers of the ~ J twentieth century and at the same time an authority ~ on the history of the spiritual life in the Church, namely, Msgr. Saudreau, states that the principal defect in the cultivation of the interior life in our days is a lack of bodily mortification (1). Moreover, the want of mortifi-cation is assigned by Father De Guibert, of Rome, a leader among contemporary ascetical and mystical theologians, as the reason why so few pass beyond mediocrity in the spir-itual life (2). Perhaps one of the main reasons or pretexts why most devout people do not practice more external mortification is the fear that it would injure their health, or at least lessen their strength and capacity for work. One might answer that an abundance of mortification, and that too of a supe-rior form, may be found precisely in learning and living up to the principles of hygiene. Let us assume, for the present purpose; that mortifica-tign consists in any or all acts of virtue in as much as these involve foregoing what is pleasant or undergoing what is unpleasant. Thus it would be coexten,s, ive with the spher, e, covered by the old rule of the Stoics: bear and fork;ear. Though the word mortification (putting to death) may suggest the contrary, all sound ascetical authorities would hold that the purpose of it is posltix;e: life, a~nd more life. If inferior vital tendencies are checked and thwarted, it is only in order that the higher vital tendencies may bd saved from being checked and thwarted, and that they may be more freelyand richly developed. By all means, the aim of sound mortification is more and better life rather than less. "Ever we bear about in our body the dying of Jesus, so that the life, too, of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies. For we who live are ever being delivered up to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life, too, of Jesus may be made manifest in our mortal flesh" (II Corinthians 4: I0-1 ! -~Westminster Version). (I) Auguste Saudreau. La Pi~tl d Travers Les Ages, page 661. (2) J. De Guibert. J:h'ctionnaire de SpiritualitY, Fascicule Premier. page 106. Hygienic mortification would consist in foregoing whatever is pleasant and undergoing whatever is unpleas-ant with a view to preserving, or improving, o.r regaining, one's health and vigor, and ultimately to.furth~ering God's glory and to-growing in that participation of, the divine life which comes with grace. Three degrees of hygienic mortification may be distinguished: first, avoiding any sin-ful neglect in the care of one's health; second, steering clear of whatever would .involve danger of such neglect; and third, refraining from wh~itever is less commendable in favor of the more commendable in this matter. Health is either physical or psychical. For the present, let us confine our. discussion to physical hygienic mortifica-tion. The psychic is more important in many respects, and more akin to the° "interior mortification" of the spiritual masters. Possibly in a subesequent paper we may revert.to it. Up to a certain point there is a strict obligation from the divine natural law to care for one's life and health. "Thou shalt not kill," either others or thyself. It is ethical to regulate our conduct in accordance with rational human nature and to avoid what tends to damage or destroy it. This d.uty requires .that one should use the ordinary means of sa.feguarding and preserving life and health. Nature is necessary for the supernatural life. If nature can do nothing in the supernatural order without grace; "neither can grace do anything without nature. It is .equally helpless. The Code of Canon Law, 1369, pr~scrib'es that those who are in charge, of seminaries should exhort the ~emii~arians Con-stant. ly to obs'erve the principles of hygiene and personal cleanliness. Presumably it is in .keeping with the mind of the Church that religious should do at lea~t~ as much. One who is. striving to become perfect will not stop with what is of strict obligation. He will constantly endeavor to do the better thing. Thebetter thing will indlude what-ever, other things being equal, is more conducive to bodily strength and effid~ncy. God counsels solicitude for health. "Better is a poor man who is sound, and strong of constitution, than a rich man who is weak and afflicted with evils. Health of the soul in holiness of justice, is better than all gold and silver: .and a sound body, than immense revenues. There is no riches above the riches of health of the body; and there is no pleasure above the joy of the heart. Better is death 33 t/~an a bit~ter life: and everlasting rest; than continual" sick-ness" (Ecclesiasticus 30: 14-17), In his inspired epistle to Timothy, St. Paul did not disdain to give this advice to one of the first bishops: "Drink no longer water only, but use a little wine, on account of thy stomach and thy frequent illness" (I Timothy 5:23). The divine counsel to have a concern for health is implied in all the numerous exhorta-tions to accomplish good works. As Pope Plus XI wrote in his "Encyclical on Education,"--.something, by the way, especially deserving notice by teadhers--"The true Chris-tian does not., stunt his natural faculties; but he develops and perfects them, by coordinating them with the super-natural. He thus ennobles what is merely natural in life and secures for it new strength in the material ond temporal order, no less than in the spiritual and eternal" (3). This is not the place for a presentation of the principles of hygiene, nor, even if it~ were, should I be presumptuous enough to. attempt such a thing. I should be:like the patient in the medical adage: "He who has himself for a doctor, has a fool for. a patient." If any religious should not know the elementary rules of h~giene, that is, the ~ules for living on the physiological plane, then let him begin his hygienic mortification by taking the trouble to-l~arn them. This is not an original suggestion ot: mine. A first-rate ascetical theologian of the twentieth century, namely, Zimmermann, the author of the excellent treatise Lel~rbucl~ der Asz~tik, counsels everyone seeking perfection to learn both the general prindiples of hygiene which may be studied, and the individual applica-tions and variations which must be gathered by personal experience (4). My attempt will be confined to indicatingcertain points on which the autldorities in hygiene do have something to prescribe, and to suggesting certain possible deviations that may perchance be found among religious. Posture migh~ be considered first. Constantly to pre-serve a wholesome and becoming posture of the body would not 6nly make for health, especially of the lungs, but it would also be something that would please others, and it would add to the influence of one's personality on others. Were it better observed, there would be fewer ill-looking (3) Pius XI. Christian Education of Youth; The Paulist Press: page 37. " '(4) Zimmermann. Otto. Lerhbueb d~r Asz.e. tiko page 516. 3# religious whose very appearance is, to put it mildly, not pleasing nor apt to inspire respect in Others. Certain religious seem to be given to the use of an exces-sive amount of clothing. To see them Out in winter weather, one might suspect from the. great number of thi~ngs 'which they are wearing, that they were planning on visiting the polar regions. Habitu'ally they are over-dressed. Then, sooner or later, iinevitably they are caught in some unex-pected exposure to cold, and, being sensitive like hot-house plants, rather than possessing the normal adaptability .to moderate variations in temperature, they~may catch cold,~ or develop a sore-throat or something of the sort. In any case, one would not expect a man who is ~eally mortified to be meticulous about slight changes in the temperature. Per- 'haps just the same persons are those who, believing that, as everything has its place, the proper place for fresh ai~ in winter is outside, insist on an immoderately high tempera- ~ure, and along with it, a bad atmosphere in the room. Thus .they diminish their alertness and efficiency, and at the same time waste steam and coal. Keeping the rules df etiquette at table would presum-ably be beneficial rather than harmful to one's health. At all events, it could be real charity and mortification. Cer-tainly, very certainly, it would be a great kindness to others, and tend to promote good appetite and health in the com-munity, as the neglect of good manners may be so great as to become disgusting to others. If there should be any re-" ligious who do not already know the ordinary pr~escriptions of table etiquette, then, by. all means, let them get Emily ¯ Post, and study her. It could be a very genuine act of vir-tue. Probably there are very few religious, those excepted who are already on a diet ordered by a physician, who could not make some change in their habits of eating and drinking that would not redound both to their physical well-being and to the glory of God. The right amount, the right balance of,diet, the right way of taking it,--these are points in which it is most human to err. Some, like chil-dren, may be inclined to slight the simple, solid substantials, and to show themselves too fond of sweets, desserts, and such better-tasting things. Possibly there are some who could at the same time reduce the community butcher-bill and improve their health. Some, though they lead a very 35 Sedentary lifd, may eat as if they had to dig ditches or. pitch. hay all day. .It i~ often said now that many Americans, even thosewho eat as much as and 'whatever they like, are star.ring themselves for the want of certain necessary ele-ments in their,diet: vitamines; for instance. Perhaps some ~.religious could drink less coffee, and thus improvetheir nerves, their t.emp~rs, their sleep, and their work. ~ The problems.of overweight and underweight, and all .their consequence.s, which may be 3r.ery serious indeed,hatur- :ally.suggest~ themselves in this context. Perhaps one ~eli-gi0us needs tO drink more milk, though he ~tislikes it~ and .another ought to'take.less of it, though he Iovesit. Pos-sibly one religious should mortify his pride and ask for permission to have an extra lunch~ between meals; "and an: other would do w~ll to obtain leave.to Omit the midday l_uneh. Iridi.vidual applic.ations of this point are~ infinite: If one realizes that he should dos0mething, gut not ~know what, it .would be easy to question the community phys, ician and find out. Thereare many religious who CgUld pr.actice this particular form of hygienic mortification, arid while making themselves more healthy and robust and fit for work and for a lon.ger life, also add very great!~; ~o the glory of God and the glory of His Elect in the hereafter. If one were to accuse, many male religious of smoking too much and thug really injuring themselves, one wduld only be repeating what they themselves accuse themselves of. Their oportunityiS obvious~ and the mortification involved would b~ great; but So ~ouldothe returris, at least in supernatural merit. T, he possibilities for mortification and for edific~ation, in connection with alc6h61 need only to ¯ be suggested. No,doubt there are many religious, who, if they be well-informed and sincere, would have to admit that some ~hangeinz~their lives ~ith respect to exercise Would, even from the spiritual pointof view, be an excellent thihg for them. If they need more physical exercise and can get it in some pleasant way, relaxing the nerves and mind as well as stirring the muscles, somuch the bett~r. " But get itthey ought, if they are fully to accomplish the tasks assigned to them by Providence. If nothing else .be possible; some form of calisthenics or setting-up exercise~ might be" tried fo~ a. prescribed number of minutes every day. If anybody think that there is no great mortification in faithfully per~ severing° in such a routine day after day and' month after m0nth,~let him try it . Many religious women would probably: be spared many troubles of mind and conscience, would performtheir exeicises of.piety with more energy and devotion, and would be more ready°in their obedience~ and work, as well, as morse healthy, if they h'ad a little walk every day' in the fresh air. Younger sisters, who until rather recently were college girls taking part in college athletics, might play a short game of tennis, or something of the kind. It would make for sound nerves and clear heads, and these in turn could obviate many. temptations and worries. It is:.true indeed that St. Paul wrote to Timothy: "For whereas bodily training oi~.,profitable for little, pietyis profitable for'all,things, .pos-sessing promise of life both here and hereafter" (I Tim-othy' 4:8). I take this to mean th~it bodily.training is of .little value in comparison with piety; but in as much as it is subordinated to.the purposes of wirtue and is a requisite condition for more vigorous piety, or piety in a longer life, its .wo.rthmay bereallY~very~great. ' " -" The ancient ascetics by way of reaction, it seems, to abuses connected with.the old public baths, mortified them-selves by not bathing. Could it be true that some.modern ascetics might practice mortification and virtue .by-making more use of it? ~ Care of the eyes deserves special mention. Apparently there are many who could deny themselves at times by taking the trouble to get better light when they are reading. Work, since it takes most of .the time and energy of religious, is a very fertile field for mortification. Some over-w' 6rk themselves for a time, and then for. a longer time they ¯ cannot do the normal amount, and perhaps~ ~hey evens:need the work of others to attend to them. Their ~problem is to avoid excess here, asin the practice of virtue generally. would Seem to be a good rule that there should.~nev~er:~.be overwork or overstrain except in emergencies. In the long run it is very poor economy and ef[iciency. They especially should cultivate self-abnegation'm avoiding overfatigue wh6 do not let superiors know that too much has been assigned to them; or who deceive themselves into believing that they. are heroically sacrificing themselves for noble motives when in 'reality there is an admixture of piide or human respect or merely human desire of success in thei:r 37 motivation. Sisters who in difficult days are attempting the double tasks of teaching and of getting their own edu-: cation at the Same time need more than others to guard themselves, even as the dreaded examinations approach, against overstudy and excessive exhaustion. Overfatigue -begets irritability, diminishes intelligence and liberty, and unbalances the nerves. Then the way is open to evils of all sorts, physical, mental, and moral. "So that ye may not grow weary and lose heart" (Hebrews 12:3). Humbly to be satisfied with a modest accomplishment when that is all that is possible without injuring oneself, or diminishing one's achievement in the end, is a very salutary form of mortification. There are others whose fault is too little exertion. Some of these, could benefit themselves physically, and perhaps mentally, as well as spiritually, by increasing their efforts until they reach the mean between excess and defect. Occu-pational therapy is an important kind of treatment for certain cases. After work, recreation and rest. For people who lead a life as strenuous and tense and uniform as the religious life is, recreation is of great importance. If they do not unbend at times, they will break. But are there not some religious who do not take even that minimum amount of recreation which is enjoined for them by their rules or their superiors? Here, in a peculiarway, to mortification charity could also be added. It is understood of course that what is supposed to be recreation or relaxation, really is recreation. Prob-ably no one will deny that there are at least a few religious who could advance in self-abnegation, and in prayer (especially the next morning), and in .virtue generally, by beginning their night's sleep betimes. Thus far certain points which may be the subject of ~mortification that is good for the body as well as for the soul. Only those in normal health, or at least in health that is nearly normal, have been considered. If one be sick already, evidently one has a greater need for hygienic mortification, and a greater opportunity to bear what is unpleasant and to forbear what is pleasant. Those who as yet are well, but, through some neglect or other, are slowly but surely undermining their health, could more easily and readily mend their ways if they could imagine to some slight extent what pain and torture, whaf 38 disappointment, what bitter sense of frustration, they are bringing upon thems~elves. Mortification is hard; other-wise it would not be mortification. But it is still worse to be sickand incapacitated, particularly if that be owing to some negligence or fault. An initial, though negative, advantage of hygienic mortification is that nobody can object to it on the score that it might injure his health. By definition, it makes for better health. Then, it possesses the-advantages and values of other forms of mortification, and besides, it is more thor-oughly positive and constructive than some of them. It is real and genuine mortification, involving, as it does, the suppression of much that is pleasant and the enduring of much that is unpleasant. :If anyone should think other-wise, he can try the experiment. Religious have a special need of keeping fit physically. There is the importance, in time and eternity, of their work, and this depends in great measure, on health and strength. An intense interior life--and this is always the ideal of religious--makes greater demands upon physical resources than the intellectual life, which in turn is hard enough upon the physique. The cultivation of mental prayer, of supreme importance in the spiritual life, demands that one's physical resources be at their best. Community o,bservances require health in the members of the com-munity, and if a sickly person drags himself along somehow to follow them, he is likely to become still worse and more incapable of continued community life. The great foundress, St. Theresa of Avila, who knew well the problems of religious women, and particularly the difficulties of mental prayer, wrote: "It is this resolution [to be always thinking of Him and loving Him] that He [God] seeks in us; the o~her anxieties which we inflkt upon ourselves serve to no other end but to disquiet the soul-- which, if it be unable to derive any profit, in one hour [of prayer], will-by ttiem be disabled for four. This comes most frequently from bodily indisposition--I have had very ~reat experience in the matter, and I l~now it is true; for I have carefully observed it and discussed it afterwards with spiritual persons--for we are so wretched, that this poor prisoner of a soul shares in the miseries of the body. The.change.s of season, and the-alterations of the humors,,. very often compel it, without fault of its own, not to do what if would,, but rather to suffer in every way. Mean-while, the more we force the soul on these occasions, the greater the mischief, and the longer it lasts. Some discre-tion must be used, in order to ascertain whether ill-health be the occasion or not. The poor soul must not be stifled. Let those who suffer thus, understa'nd that they are i11: a change should be made in the hour of prayer, and often-times that change should be continued for some days. Let souls pass out of this desert as they can, for it is very often the misery of one that loves God to see itself living in such wretchedness, unable to do what it would, because it has to keepso evil a guest as the body" (5). Other things being equal, alacrity of spiritand intensity of good will in exercises of piety, in keeping religi0us disci-pline, and in doing the work of the order or congregation, are to be expected rather from those who are physically fit ai~d strong than .from those who ,are unfit. The supernatural values of sickness and suffering~are very great, but it is understood and presupposed that the illness should not be due to indiscretion or negligence. ¯ Hygienic mortification~ will. contribute to poverty, because it is cheal~er to be well than to be paying for medi-cines, hospitalizations, and operations, and because healthx,, religious do more work. It will help chastity, by precluding certain temptations due to abnormal physical conditions, and by promoting, that soundness and stability of the ner-vous system which are so necessary for self-control. It will promote obedience, by removing obstacles both to readiness of will ai~d to actual performance, and by conferring greater positive strength and effciency. It will enhance charity and perfectibn it~self, by forestalling irritability and other impediments, and by enabling one to accomplish better and greater things for God and for souls. The present incumbent of the See of Peter and his immediate predecessor seem to offer an illustration in point. If Msgr. Ratti ha~d not been a very energetic Alpine climber, it is not likely that as Pius XI, and as a septuagenarian and an octogenarian, he could have achieved so much for the good of the Church. If I mistake not, the ascetical Car.- dinal Pacelli,while Secretary of State at the Vatican, used gymnastic apparatus installed in a room near his office. (5) St. Theresa, Life, translated b.y D. Lewis: chapter-XI. 40 There is one group of re.ligious for whom hygienic, mor~ tification, as thus far suggested, is not at all recommended. They are the hypochondriacs, to be found, here and there throughout the whole body of religiousl that is, those who are already excessively or even morbidly, solicitous about their health and all that appertains to it. For them it would be poison. However, they still need hygienic mortification: only it is of the psychic form. This they may need very rfiuch ideed. To quote St. Theresa again: "Take care, then, of the body, for the love of God, because at many other times the body must serve tl~e s0ul;.and let recourse be had to some recreations~holy ones such as conversation; or going out intothe fields . . . Altogether, experience is a great matter, and it makes us understand what is convenient for us. Let God be served in all things--His yoke is sweet; and it is of great importance that the soul should not be dragged, as they say, but carried gently, that it may make greater pro-gress" (6.). In conc!usion, a religious practicing physical hygienic mortification, as here proposed, will not by any means put care of his health above things that are of greater value, but rather, with the purest and noblest motives, make the most of the physical constitution that God has given him, and thus be better prepared and disposed to accomplish the very utmost for the glory of the Triune God, for the devel-opment of his own supernatural life, and for the sanctifica-tion of his brethren. He would simply and fully be helping to carry out the grand objective of the Incarnation: "I am come that they may have life, and may have it more abun-dantly" ¯ (2ohn 10: 10). (6) Ibidem. l:::xernpl:ions J:rom Fasting Gerald Kelly, S.J. THE PENITENTIAL season of Lent always brings with it the personal question: what should I do about fasting? Very likely the practical solution to thi~ problem in most religious communities is a regulation to consult one's confessor' and abide by his decision. This is certainly a wholesome custom; and it is notthe purpose of this article to criticize it in any way. Nevertheless, it seems profitable for the religious themselves to know something of the mind of the Church regarding exemptions from fast-ing. This .knowledge should be particularly helpful to superiors, since there may be times when they must pass judgment on their subjects' obligation to fast. Other re-ligious also can profit by the knowledge, for it sometimes happens that they cannot consult their confessor, at least for several days, and, even when they can consult, they can do so more intelligently and follow advice more reasonably if they are familiar with the principles governing their cases. This article, therefore, is intended to answer only one question, which may be phrased as follows: In what cir-cumstances is one exempt from the general law of fasting? The only point to be considered is the obligation to keep the general fasts of the Church. There is no question here of the obligations of rule concerning fasting as these exist in various religious communities. Nor is there question of the ascetical aspect of fasting. We can take for granted that fasting is. a splendid act of penance and mortification, as is evidenced by the entire Catholic tradition in the matter; take for granted also that the keeping of the common fasts of the Church in union with the other members of the Church is highly pleasing to God and of great profit to souls. These are interesting questions, but beside the point of the present article, the whole purpose of which is to determine who, according to the mind of the Church, may omit fasting without violating her law. The first expression of the Church's mind is found in the ecclesiastical law itself. Canon 1254, which contains the fasting law, exempts al! who have not completed their twenty-first year and all who have begun their sixtieth year. 42 Canon.1245 makes provision for other exemptions by granting the power of dispensing to local Ordinaries~ pas-tors, and superiors of exempt clerical orders. Custom, the unwritten law of the Church, exempts all who are engaged in hard and protracted manual labor. The foregoing are the only reasons for exemption con-tained explicitly in the law of the Church. They do not, however, exhaust the reasons which the Church acknowl-edges as valid excuses from the obligation of fasting. By far the greater number of excuses can be found in the teaching of the moral theologians. To put the matter briefly, these theologians, applying a principle approved by the Church as a legitimate method of interpreting the law, teach that fasting is not obligatory when it involves extraordinary difficulty. The word, extraordinarg, has a technical meaning which is perhaps best explained by contrasting it with what might be termed ordinarg difficulty. Evidently, the fasting law is intended to impose on the faithful some inconven-ience, that is, the inconvenience of self-denial. An incon-venience of this kind is termed ordinarg, and it would not excuse anyone from the observance of the fast. On the other hand, in a general law of this nature, the Church does not wish to impose exceptional hardship on anyone; much less does she wish to do harm or to hinder greater good. Such difficulties as these would be termed extraordinaru~, with respect to this law; that is, they are outside the scope of the law, and they excuse the faithful from the obligation of observing it. Applying this principle of extraordinary inconvenience, moralists teach that the sick and convalescent are excused from the obligation of fasting. Also exempt are those who, though perhaps not technically "sick," are of frail consti-tution; also extremely nervous people. Such persons nor-mally need nourishment frequently; fasting would prove harmful to them. It sometimes happens that even those in rather normal health cannot fast without severe headaches or dizzy, spells; also that the fast will render it impossible for them to get ¯ their needed rest at night. Some people are unable to get the one substantial meal allowed to those who fast; some are physically unable to eat or digest such a meal. Finally,. there are many who find that fasting interferes with their 43 necessary work; they lose valuable time and are quite inef-ficient. All cases like these are included under the exemp-tion by reason of extraordinary inconvenience. One might ask this very practical question: How am I to know if fasting would be exceptionally difficult for me or be harmful to me or my work? Perhaps the simplest way of answering this question is to tell such people to experiment a bit. This is the simplest but not always the most prudent method. Unless the experimentation is car-ried on very cautiously, it can work harm, and it can do this so quietly that the harmful effects are not perceived until it is too late. To avoid such injurious effects, one may legiti-mately follow certain recognized presumptions in deciding one's obligations to fast. The presumption of excuse favors those who are engaged in hard mental labor, for example, teachers and students. Regarding teachers, one may notice an interesting development~ in the opinions of theologians. The older theologians were quite ready to excuse a. professor of the higher branches, even though he had to lecture only one hour a day. They presupposed, of course, that he had to spend the day in preparation and that he did not merely read lectures which bad long since been cast into permanent mold. But these theologians were not always so benevo-lently inclined toward teachers of the lower grades (the equivalent of our high schools and grammar schools), even though these had to spend several hours a day in the. class-room. Father Ballerini, an eminent moral theologian of the last century, citing the especially severe opinion of one older school, remarked very tartly: "we should note that these great doctors were always engaged in teaching the higher branches; they had no experience in this humbler art." Also in the case of students there has been a progres-sive development towards leniency. Today, it is quite safe to say that the presumption of excuse favors those who spend several hours a day in teaching the lower grades, as well as diligent students who spend most of the day either in attending lectures or in preparing their lessons. When I say "the presumption of excuse favors" those mentioned in this paragraph, I mean that these persons may consider that they are not obliged to fast, unless they have very solid grounds for assurance that they can fast without, harm to 44 themselves, or their work. Those able to fast while carrying on these works are the.exception, rather than the rule. . The same presumption favors those who must spend long hours in the confessional or who are engaged in strenu-ous preaching.It may also be used in favor of those who are engaged in fatiguing works of mercy, such as caring for the sick. It should be noted that. in a!l these.cases, it is not only the strain of ~the work which favors exemption, but also the fact that the works themselves are of, great impor-tance. There should .be no danger that fasting will inter-fete with their proper performance. The foregoing examples of extraordinary ir~con~cen~ ience were chosen because they are of particular interest or practical value to the readers of this magazine. In cases such as these, the Church law does not bind. Furthermore, merely from the point of view of general legislation, there is no strict obligation Of consulting anyone, if one can form a prudent judgment of his~own case. A community regula-tion of consulting the confessor or spiritual director should; of course, be followed; and in general it is considered wise for everyone to consult about the matter. Often enough, it is diflScult to form a prudent, and especially a quieting; judgment of one's own case. Mention has already been made of those who have the power of granting a dispensation from fasting; local Ordi~ naries, pastors, and superiors of clerical exempt orders. These generally delegate the power to other priests, espe-cially at a time like-Lent: and the Holy. See. occasionally delegates other priests by special indults. None of these, even the Bishop, can give a dispensation without some rea-son; but the reason need not b~ so serious as would be required for exemption by reason of extraordinary~incon-venience. A dispensation is perhaps the best of all means for setting one's mind at rest regarding the obligation 0~ fasting. Even those religious superiors who have no power to dispense can pass judgment on their subjects' ability to keep the fast, and if they judge that a reason such as those described as extraordinary inconveniences is present, they may tell the subject not to fast. For passing such a judg-ment, no special jurisdiction is necessary. Certainly supe-riors are in a position to make a prudent judgment, for they 45 should know both the capacity of their subjects and the strain or importance Of their work. From what has been written here, it will appear that a fairly large number of religious engaged in the active life are not strictly obliged to keep the general fasts of the -Church. They have the same right as others to take advan-tage of exemptions. Someone might object, of course, that religious have an added obligation to give good example. The objection does not appear to have much weight in the :present instance. Religious should, by all means, give example to the world of a spirit of self-denial and mortifi. cation, but it is not necessary that this example extend to ,the letter of the law concerning fasting. In fact, without attempting in any way to minimize the general importance of the fasting law, one might advance several obvious reasons why religious have less need of this particular austerity than have others. ' Their life is a well-regulated, well-disciplined one, and those who lead it faithfully are being constantly schooled in self-denial. Furthermore, the very regularity of their life makes them feel more keenly the change brought about by fasting and renders them more apt to be upset by it. Finally, their work itself is of great spiritual importance.i As for bad example, the sharp or sarcastic word spoken by the confessor, teacher, or nurse is much more harmful than the so-called "scandal" of religious who do not fast. Perhaps these few remarks Will prove helpful to reli-gious, particularly to those who are inclined to worry about the fasting obligation or to lament the fact that they are judged unable to fast. They should take consolation in the thought that they can practise an even more meritorious self-denial by observance of their rule, by fidelity to duty, and especially by a constant and delicate charity. The inability to fast does not deprive them of the opportunity of glorifying God or of helping souls. 46 Saint: Rober Bellarmine's . Sign of the Cross Clement DeMuth, S. J. CATHOLICS with a greater than average knowledge of their religion are ~sometimes at a loss when they are called upon to render an. account of some simple reli-gious truth. They discover in themselves, not so much a lack of technical knowledge that lends itself to explanation only in learned phrase_s, but rather a failure to appreciate thd mental capacity of the child or other unlettered person to be instructed. To adapt one's knowledge of even the simpler God-give~i truths to the understanding of such a person is an art that must be cultivated, and developed, and integrated with one's deepening knowledge of human nature itself. The great catechists in the course of the Church's history practiced this art in signal fashion. One of the greatest of these, if indeed not the very greatest, was St. Robert Bellar-mine, Cardinal, Theologian, and Doctor of the Universal Church. In 1597 Pope Clement VIII requested St. Robert to publish his catecheticai method which was proving so successful With the unlettered people of Rome. The saint prepared two catechisms, the first of which was a compen-dium of Christian Doctrine in form suitable for learning by rote. The second, with Which we are here partkularly con-cerned, was a kind of teacher's manual and was entitled An explanation of Christian Doctrine u;ritten in the form of a Dialogue, for the use of those who teach it to children and to other simple people. The success of the little, two-fold work, written in Italian, was immediate and, What is more significant, enduring to an extraordinary degree. In the words of St. Robert's biographer, Father Brodrick, "wi~h the exception of the Bible and the Imitation of Christ, it would be difficult to name any other book which went round the world so rapidly and became familiar to so many different races." A series of Roman Pontiffs com-mended, prescribed, and in general promoted the little work down through the years from the time of Clement VIII. until our own century. With its richness of content, the saint's early chapter on that most obvious---and not always fully appreciated~ ~prayer, the Sign of the Cross, is representative. Its atten-tive perusal brings the conviction that "children and other simple people" are not the only ones who may profit by the saintly, Doctor's explanation of a simple prayer. The style of composition is informally conversational, with the pupil thoughtfully asking questions which would naturally occur to one listening attentively to the explanation of a rather difficult truth. It may be noted that the teacher makes, continual use of examples and illustrations, never permitting himself to forget that the pupil is little used to abstractions. Here is a translation of the chapter on THE SIGN OF THE CROSS PUPIL: Please give me a brief account of the more important mysteries contained in the Creed. TEACHER: There are two principal mysteries of our faith, and both are included in that sign which we call the Sign of the Cross. The first is the unity and trinity of God. Thesecond is the Incarnation and Death of the Savior PUPIL: What is meant by the unity and trinity of God? TEACHER: These are very deep truths and the explana-tion of them is a very slow process. For the time being, however, it will be enough to learn just the names, :and a very little bit more. The unity of God means that besides all created things there is one thing that had no beginning. It has always been and it will always be. It has made all ¯ other things, and it supports them and governs them. It is the highest, noblest, most beautiful, most powerful, the absolute master of every thing; and this being is called God. There is just one God. There can be only one true Divin-ity, that is, one nature, one essence infinitely powerful, wise, good, and so forth. Nevertheless, this Divinity is found in three persons that are called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are just one God ¯ because they have the same Divinity, the same essence. As for example, if three persons here on earth, named Peter, Paul, and John, had the same body and the same soul, they would remain three persons; because one would be Peter, and another Paul, and another John. Nevertheless, there would be just one man, not three men, there not being three bodies and thr~e souls, but just one body and one soul. 48 Such a state of affairs is not possible among men, because the being of man is little ~and finite, .so it cannot be in many persons. But the being of God, the Divinity of~ God,. is infinite. The same being, the same Divinity is found in the Father, in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. There are then three persons because one i~ the Father~ the second.is the Son, an.d the third is the Holy Spirit, and there remains nevertheless just one God, because these persons have the same being, the same power, wisdom, goodness, and so forth. PUPIL: Now tell me what is meant by the Incarnation and.Death of the .Savior'. TEACHER: The second divine person, whom we called the Son, besides his divine being, which he had before the 'world was created, indeed from all eternity, this second person took for himself a human body and a human soul, that is, our whole human nature, in the womb of a most pure virgin. Thus he who-was at first just God now began to bd both God and man. After living among men for thirty-three years, during which time he taught the wa~ of salvatioh and worked m~an~r miracles, at last he let him-self be crucified, and on the Cross he died tO make satisfac-tion to God for the sins of the whole world. After thfee days he rose from death to life, and after forty days he a~cended into hea~ce.n, as we say in the article of the Creed.~ That is what we mean by the Incarnation ~ind Death of the Savior. '~PUPIL~ Why are these the principal mysteries of fdith? " " ~FEACHER: Because in the fi~st ~is contained the first principle and last end of man; in the second we have ttie unique and most efficacious means of knowing that first piinciple and of arriving at that last end. And beck/use by our belief in arid confession of th4se two mysteries we~ are distinguished from all th4 false sects, from Turks, ~dews; and heretics. And finally, because without b41ieving and confessing these two mysteries, no one can be saved. PupIi~:. How are these two mysteries included in the Sign of the Cross? TEACHER: ;The Sign of the Cross is made saying: In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 49 Spirit; at the same time signing oneself in the form of a cross, putting the right hand to the foreh_.ead when one says: In the name of the Father, and then to the breast when one says: and of the Son; finally to the left and right shoulders when one says: and of the Holy Spirit. The words, in the ' Name, show the unity of God, because we say name and not names; and by name is meant the power, and the divine authority, which is one in all three persons. The words, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, show the trinity of persons, Signing oneself in the form of a cross represents the Passion, and consequently the Incarnation, of the Son of God. Moving the hand from the left to the right, and not from the right to the left, means that by the Passion of our Lord we are transferred from temporal to eternal things, from sin to grace, and from death to life. ~ (NOTE: It may be well to observe that St. Robert, in illustrating certain spiritual realities by the movement of the hand from left to right, can be said to be exercising his ingenuity. He'would no doubt find another interpretation if his catechism were for oriental Catholics, who make the Sign of the Cross moving the hand from right to left!) PUPIL: What is. the effect of making the Sign of the Cross? TEACHER: First, it shows that we are Christians, that is, soldiers of our High Commander, Christ: because this sign is like a flag, or uniform, which distinguishes the sol-diers of Christ from all the enemies of Holy Church; from . gentiles, Jews, Turks, and heretics. Further, this sign is made to invoke the divine assistance in all our works. With ¯ it we summon the aid of the most Holy Trinity, through the Passion of the savior. Accordingly good Christians are .accustomed to make the Sign of the Cross when they rise from bed, when they leave the house, when they sit at table to eat, when they are about to go to bed, and at the beginning of every action that ~hey have to perform. Finally, this sign is made to arm oneself against eirery as-sault of~the devil, because the devil is terrified by it, and flees from it, as do criminals when they encounter the sign of th~i~ police. Very often by means 6f this sign of the holy - Cross man has escaped many evils, both spiritual and tem-p6ral; when he makes it with faith and confidence in the divine meicy and in the merits of Christ, our Lord. 50 Li!:urgy in !:he ¯ P !:t:ern of Modern Praying Gerald Ellard, S.J. WHEN the history o~ our times is written, chroniclers will dwell on the fact that they are characterized by three great, world-embracing prayer-movements. They will speak of the widespread initiation of large groups of the laity of both sexes into systematic asceticism,, be it that of the Spiritual Exercises, or other forms, collectively centering in what is known as the retreat movement~. Again, they will point how this age, .the world,over, has shown a sudden deep concern' practical as well as theoreti-cal, in that communion with God, that apperception of God, known as Catholic mysticism. Lastly historians will take pains to record that twentienth century Catholicism is endeavoring once more to integrate the layman and lay-woman into the offices of public worship. Doubtless, too, the portrait-painters of our age will pause a bit to discourse on the mysterious power possessed by this Church twenty. centuries young to renew its life and reform its institutions by drawing upon fresh streams of vita!it~ welling strong within her. ".So it has been in each great crisis," we can well imagine one of them concluding-; "when the forces of the Church seems spent, then it is she finds new power surging up within her: in the twentieth century the Church refreshed herself and the world by refashioning the pattern of her praying." This article concerns itself in elementary fashion with indicating what is to be expected from the restoration to the people, in the pews, after many long ages, of their organic contact with the ministry in the sanctuary in the joint performance of divine service. The better to visualize the goal o[ this reform in Cath-olic corporate worship, suppose we ask ourselves why such a thing as the. current liturgical movement was simply inevitable, and must have come sooner or later, if the Church were not content to see one. of her chief organs wither to full atrophy. The present-day reform of Cath-olic worship seeks to redress the multiple losses that laymen. and laywomen have suffered in the course of time in their parr in our common worship, seeks to lower the wall of separation, which quite literally in many medieval churches to be seen to this day, and figuratively in them all, shuts the laity out from active sharing in what went on within the holy place where the priestly mediator stood at the altar. It was characteristic of Christian worship from the very outset that it was planned precisely to allow the fullest understanding on thd part of all, the fullest sharing in their respective roles .by ministry and people in their joint asso- Ciation with Christ, theirPriest, their Liturgist. Pagan altars were accessible to the pagan priests alone; the ,Jewish Temple admitted' lay-worshippers to the outer court near to the altar. But with Christians the altar itself stood con- ~picuous and accessible to every least, last Christian, because m the new priestly race, all had some sharing, priestly or lay, in the perpetuation of Christ's priestly ministry in the covenant of 10ve. St. Paul thankedGod that he efijoyed the miraculous gift of speaking God's praises in unknown tongues: "Nevertheless," he said, "in church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, so as to instruct Others, than ten thousand words in a 'tongue' " I and my hearers do not understand" (I Corinthenians 14:: 19). Now Catholic worship in the West turned from the primitive Greek to the Latin, when that became the tongue the com-mon man understood best. It then took the liturgy of 'the Western Church a fairly long period in which to grow and develop, until at Rome under Gregory I, Pop.e from 590 to .°.6. 04, it achieved its zenith, the perfect expression of the Latin Christian's corporate worship of almighty God. How regrettable that Gregory lived in an age of indescrib-able upheaval, which rendered the realization of his ideal in worship impossible in any ecumenical manner! Particu- ¯ lar features excepted, the liturgy of the Roman Rite has never since received such a thorough-going reform and readjustment to current life as Gregory gave it then. In one way or another the layman's place in the liturgy has become more circumscribed with every century since Gregor3~ lived. To illustrate how this has been the case, suppose we imagine a sevent.h-century man or woman living on as a 'Wandering Christian" through the intervening centuries, and note how such a pilgrim would find lay-participation in worship further impoverished age by age. 52 In Gregory's day, for all greater occasions, people met at a fixed rendezvous and then marched to church .with Cross and banners, prayer and song~ At the common type of Mass, what we call high Mass, pedple and choir of clerics together madd, in the language of everydayiife, those responses to the celebrant, which, if they are not exactly the structure of the service, are nonetheless so many short, vibrant bonds with the altar. At the entrance of the clergy, in alternation with the choir, there was singing. So, too, did the people come singing to bring their gifts to the altar at the Offering (Offertory). They shared the~cle'rgy's ceremonial postures, standing, extending their arms, bowing or kneeling with the ministers, and gave each other the kiss of peace. So did they join in the psalmody, singing at leas~ the Gloria Patti, the K~rie, the Sanctus, and, when it was later introduced, the Agnus Dei. Singing too they came to the altar, the Table of Union, itself the sign, as the Fathers of Trent were to phrase it later, "of that one Body of which He is the Head, and to which He would fain have us as members united by the closest bond of faith, hope and love." The Roman of Gregory's day could in many ways feel himself "concorporate" in his' worship with every one sharing that worship with him. In the following century, had our pilgrim attended Mass in England, France, Germany, notto mention other coun-tries, he would look in vain for the procession to Mass. Save on Christmas, Easter or Pentecost there would be few communicants at Mass, and correspondingly few offerers giving visible expression of the basic concept of the worship of God by sacrifice. Then, too, he would have found him-self one of the very few laymen able to follow the stately Latin,and, as we see from conciliar enactments, not all the priests able to translate for him! But.our pilgrim would: note with a sigh the people's' eagerness in singing as far.as circumstances allowed. There at least he could still join. with them in prayer that sang. After a second century of wandering, during let us say the pontificate of Nicholas I ( 8 5 8- 8 6 7), our pilgrim would have noted with growing apprehension how elementary part-singing had already been discovered. "I sadly fear this may in course of time lead to the neglect, or even-the corruption, of unison singing, planesong,* alone possible to *Concerning this spelling, see note at the end of the article. 53 the congregation as a whole." But he would have hailed with delight the opportunity given him in the appearance of the sequences,~ to sing simple, homely rhyming lines with lustiness and joy, Could he have foreseen the future, he would have known that after their period of development, and luxuriance, there would follow such decay that with fewest exceptions the sequences were all to be expunged from the Missal. When that happened, there was taken from the layman the last impoitant element of the Mass he could still sing. And so it goes across the ages. When St. Thomas was writing in the thirteenth century his explanation of the Mass, he takes it- for~granted that "there are words which the l~riest begins and thd people take up . the Creed and the Gloria.'" In St. Thomas' day the people stil.1 answered Et cam st~iritu tuo, Amen and the like. Shall we follow our weary pilgrim into-the fourteenth century? In The Low Countries, England, France, Ger-many and elsewhere we find him complaining that the new measured music in such rising vogue everywhere was by its very difticulty robbing him of his chance to sing his prayer to God. "Soon.all singing in church will be the monopoly of the expert musicians, and to them will be restricted the fulfillment of St. Augustine's words, 'He that sings prays double.' " What was more, the new type of music, by its sensuous character, so said Pope John XXII, was under-mining his virility of soul. But Pope John XXII was one of the popes of the so-called Avignon Captivity; and for that reason people considere~l him unduly influenced by the French court. His admonitions drew little attention. ~ There was a period when the Council of, Basle was Cath-olic and well-inspired, and thither our pilgrim might have looked for reform of long-standing abuses. How he would have been cheered to note the Council's condemnation and abolition (?) of that abuse whereby "low Mass was said in such a tow .tone that it cannot be heard by those attending." That abuse seems to-have been spreading then in the northern parts of Europe: "If this is not stopped,~' our pilgrim grimly reflects,"even my few answers at low Mass will soon be made impossible." But that was at a day when the Church hadjust healed :the great scandal of the Great Western.Schism, and papal prestige stood too low to effect far-teaching reforms just then. in 15.18 Cardinal Louis of Aragon went into The Low Countries. ~Hadour pilgrim gonein his train be might .have seen the cardinal's secretary~ write in his journal about the Flemish priests:"They say .[Mass] . . . so low that no ohe hears their voices. They do not permit anyone .to make the responses, except the servers, and no one else."' That was~ noted, of course, because it was cbntrary to Roman practice come down from time beyond memory. But in 1518 Rome was suffering the baleful consequences of Italian Humanism, and suggestions a cardinal.might make on 1.ittle points like letting the'people respon~l at low Mass would fall with little weight. Then, too, when the car; dinal's secretary made that entry in his notebook, it was already soinemonthssinceMartin Luther had appended.his theses to the door of the Cathedral of Wittenburg, and thereby set in motion a chain of events that led to the calling of.the Council of Trent. "At long last the-layman'~s losses over a_period of a thousand years will surely be redressed at this greht Council," said our pilgrim as he faced the journey to Trent.Let us see how Trent prescribed for the cure of this pernicious aenemia of the layman's worship, only to have the administration of the remedy, postponed by yet further troubles. The aging Luther ,did not see fit to attend the Council, to .which he had once so solemnly appealed, and indeed he was in- his grave beforeits sessions were completed. But despite~his absence, he was the greatest chalienge to the Council, because he had become the symbol of every kind of error, the accuser of every discoverable abuse. Not a few,of those abuses were related to public worship, and as our pilgrim could have testified, were associated-with th~ fact that for centuries the layman was being deprived by force of circumstances ,of an active and intelligent part in divine service. All.this, it Was then hoped, would be remedied in this great Council. ~' Of all the Cotincils, Trent claims a position unique in many ways, one of which was that from the very outset the definition of. doctrine and the enactment of reform-decrees went forward simultaneously. From the Second Session (the decree opening the Council being the sole. business, of the First Sesson), ,lanuary 7, 1546, to the Twenty-Fifth 55 Session, December 4, 1563, the multiple questions to.ucl~ing the reform of Catholic public worship came up again and again. The Council's solicitude' was most in evidence in all that referred to holy Mass, becau.~e, as the Fathers said, "of all holy things this Sacrifice is the most holy." In resisting the Protestant demands, the Council deemed it "inadvisable that Mass should be celebrated everywhere in the vulgar tongue." Yet on all having the care of souls it laid the obligation, "lest the little ones ask for bread and there be none to break unto them, to explain frequently during the celebration of the Mass, especially on Sundays and festival days . some mystery of this most holy Sac-rifice." If Trent similarly rejected the Reformers' petition " that the entire Mass be said aloud, it did reaffirm "that some .things in the Mass be pronounced in a low tone and others m a louder tone." Masses at which the priest alone com-municated were emphatically declared to be valid Masses, yet in crystal-clear language is affirmed the desirability of having all worshippers communicate: "The holy Council wishes indeed that at each Mass the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental partaking of the Eucharist, that thereby they may derive from this most holy Sacrifice a more abun-dant fruit." With regard to nuns the. Council here went .further and decreed that they must communicate .at least once a month: "Bishops and other superiors of monasteries° shall t~ike special care that the nuns., confess their sins and receive the most holy Eucharist at least once a month." The reforms of the Missal and the Breviary, begun at the .Council, were then handed over to the Holy See for com-pletion. In a hundred minor ways the Council showed its zeal that anything savoring in the least degree of unworthi-ness be kept from the public worship of the Church. The thorny problem of having only proper music in the churches was given much more serious consideration than might be judged from the brevity, of this enactment: "They [local Ordinaries] shall also banish from the churches those types of music in which, whether by the organ or in the singing, there is mixed up anything unbe-coming., so that the house of God.may be truly a house of prayer." Indeed many a bishop at the Council may have had the painful experience of the force of that saying, that .more people were sung into Protestantism than argued into 56 it. As early as 1523; in his Form for Mass and Communion, Luther had touched upon the desirability of German singing: "I would wish among us to l~ave as much as pos-sible in the vernacular what the people sing at Mass." Within a year Luther had contributed no less than twenty hymns of his own composition to his cause, and after Ein /:este Burg had made its sensational reputation, reli-gious rebels in non-German countries began to sweep peop!e into their conventicles by giving .them the chance to sing at divine service. Small wonder that the Fathers of Trent, with all this before their eyes, wished to purge away the corruption that had overlaid the ChUrch's once so popular planesong. This once restored to the people, these would be saved the sad choice of active participation in unorthodox worship, or mute and silent worship in the Church of Rome. Thus our long-suffering pilgrim, attending the ses-sions of Trent, might have envisaged a veri

Richard Richards ; The Weber and Davis County Communities Oral History Collection include interviews of citizens from several different walks of life. These interviews were conducted by Stewart Library personnel, WeberState University faculty and students, and other members of the community. The histories cover various topics and chronicle the personal everyday life experiences and other recollections regarding the history of the Weber and Davis County areas. ; 81p.; 29cm.; 2 bound transcripts; 4 file folders. 1 video disc: digital; 4 3/4 in. ; Oral History Program Richard Richards Interviewed By Rebecca Ory Hernandez 7 August 2012 13 August 2012 24 September 2012 i ii Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Richard Richards Interviewed by Rebecca Ory Hernandez 7 August 2012 13 August 2012 24 September 2012 Copyright © 2013 by Weber State University, Stewart Library iii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. Archival copies are placed in the University Archives, which also houses the original recording so researchers can gain a sense of the interviewee's voice and intonations. Project Description The Weber and Davis County Communities Oral History Collection include interviews of citizens from several different walks of life. These interviews were conducted by Stewart Library personnel, Weber State University faculty and students, and other members of the community. The histories cover various topics and chronicle the personal everyday life experiences and other recollections regarding the history of the Weber and Davis County areas. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the Stewart Library of Weber State University. No part of the manuscript may be published without the written permission of the University Librarian. Requests for permission to publish should be addressed to the Administration Office, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, 84408. The request should include identification of the specific item and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Richards, Richard, an oral history by Rebecca Ory Hernandez, 7 and 13 August 2012 and 24 September 2012, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. Richard Richards October 2012 1 Abstract: Richard "Dick" Richards, WSU alum, attorney, author and Republican Party National Committee Chairman (1981), grew up in Ogden, Utah and became involved with politics as a young man in high school. Richard is now retired and resides in South Ogden, Utah after spending most of his political career in Washington D.C. He sat down with Rebecca Ory Hernandez from Weber State University to discuss his life growing up in Ogden, his family, education, career and devotion to Weber State University. Richard endowed the "Richard Richards Institute of Politics and Ethics" at Weber State University which awards scholarships to high school students, and currently serves on the board. He and his wife, Annette Bott Richards, have five children. ROH: Today we are beginning an oral history with Richard Richards in his home in South Ogden, Utah. My name is Rebecca Ory Hernandez. Why don't we go ahead with you just stating your name and where this interview is being held? RR: My name is Richard Richards, most people call me Dick. I'm in my home at 5273 Daybreak in South Ogden. I'm prepared to discuss my early history with Rebecca and I look forward to it. ROH: When and where were you born? RR: I was born in Ogden at the old Dee Hospital on May 14, 1932. Nearly all my brothers and sisters were born at the same hospital and had the same doctor, but that was a long time ago. The hospital is now gone. ROH: Where did you grow up? 2 RR: I grew up in South Ogden. I lived in Ogden until I was about 12 years old, and then moved to South Ogden and lived here until I was drafted into the army in 1952. ROH: What part of South Ogden? RR: My first home in South Ogden was 3999 Norton Avenue. That's just next to 40th Street and 40th Street was the dividing line between Ogden and South Ogden. My father bought that home during the war. It was a 1,000 square foot home and I had seven sisters and a brother. So, 11 of us lived in this 1,000 square foot home. There were a couple of bedrooms in the basement that accommodated us, but 11 people in that small home. I can't even remember how we ate dinner. There's no way we could have eaten at the same time because the kitchen wasn't that big. I have no recollection of how exactly we operated in the home, but we lived there for several years. ROH: Where did you fall in the family line-up of children? RR: My brother was the oldest child and I was next to him about a year and a half later. All seven girls came after me. Four of them were born in the month of May one year apart, so the family grew rapidly and it was all girls after my brother and me. ROH: I can't imagine having that many children under one roof. RR: I don't know how we did it. I really don't. I had one sister that was really fastidious and she needed the bathroom for a long time. We agreed that she could have 3 the bathroom for an hour starting at six o'clock in the morning. After that the family had it. ROH: Are all of your siblings still around? RR: One of them passed away. That's the one I was talking about. All of the others are scattered around from California, Idaho, Oregon and I have two sisters living in the Ogden area. ROH: Do you stay in touch with them? RR: We have family reunions. We just had one at Park City in July. We had 123 family members there. We've been doing this for about 20 years and we have not had one death in the family or one child born with severe disabilities out of all 153 of us. We have been a blessed group. We have MBA's, Ph.D's, and a couple of doctors. We've got some pretty good children and grandchildren. My father came from the coal mining camps of Utah when he was in the tenth grade. He didn't graduate from high school. He was tired of living in the coal mines and said, "I'm not going to be a miner, I'm getting out of here." He went up to Salt Lake and got a job helping a sign painting company called Bird and Jex Company. Later on, he decided he didn't want to work for them and he set up his own company here in Ogden. His first shop was no bigger than this living room, but he's the guy that brought us out of the coal mines. ROH: What was the name of the sign shop? 4 RR: Richards Sign Company. That was a long time ago, but that business still carries the name. It's gone through three generations. My father had a stroke many years ago and as a result he couldn't work so he sold his business to a guy by the name of Derek Warner. He ran it for some period of time, then he retired and gave it to his son. His son retired and now it's the next generation working the Richards Sign Company. The company was so well respected that no matter who owned it, they wanted to keep the name. It's still there on Grand Avenue and a bustling business, but it's different. They don't even have a paint brush down there anymore because everything is done by computer. When my dad sold it, we did it all by hand. ROH: Did you learn how to paint signs as well? RR: I did and I earned my living painting signs while I was in law school. Even after I graduated and I was practicing law, the income was so meager that at night I painted signs to make some money to take care of my family. I always hoped that potential clients didn't see me painting signs or they'd wonder about my ability as a lawyer. ROH: That's interesting. What about your mother? RR: My mother lived in Ogden. She met my father in a church activity and her father was a railroader and they lived down on Grant Avenue. My mother did graduate from high school and I don't know if she worked before they were married. ROH: Do you recall which high school she graduated from? 5 RR: It would have been Ogden High School because that's the only one there was. ROH: Okay. They met at a church activity, but can you be more specific? RR: Apparently, it was a Golden Green Ball, a dance of some kind where my father met my mother or shortly after because they participated in the dance and won a prize. A great uncle of mine introduced them. AR: What I understand is that she had caught his eye and she was walking along the street and he pulled over and said, "Could I have a date?" She said, "Yes, if you'll go to church with me." They did enter a contest with the Golden Green Ball and they won. ROH: Did you inherit their love of dancing? RR: No. I don't' dance. ROH: I'm surprised. I thought all politicians liked to dance. AR: He's got a son that dances. ROH: What were some of the things you did as a young person? RR: Before we moved out to South Ogden, I lived on Monroe and we played Kick-the- Can and all kinds of games in the streets. We didn't have television of course. We didn't pay too much attention to radio so we played outside. We played with each other. ROH: Where did you go to school? 6 RR: I went to school first at Quincy for the first grade and so on. Later on, I went to Madison. I was at Madison for a while, then my family went to South Ogden and I went to Riverdale Junior High School. After Riverdale I went to Weber High School. ROH: So you lived on Monroe for a little while? RR: Yes on 26th and Monroe. The family lived there, but as the family grew and more kids were born in the family we had to find a bigger place and my dad bought a house in South Ogden during the war for about $5,000. The house we lived in on Monroe is now a little parking lot for a neighbor. There's nothing there, but it was a very small yard and very small house. ROH: Are there any memories that you have from being at Quincy or Madison that you'd like to share? RR: Not at Qunicy, but when I moved to Madison, I was the newcomer and they had to see whether I was tough enough to be in that environment. They picked fights with me and forced me to fight. I wasn't going to fight. Kids carried me over to the park across the street and I was to fight with a guy and I beat him up, so I was successful there. Then, I had to try one more and I got in a fist fight during art class. The teacher came down, banged our heads together and stopped us. I punched the guy in the nose and his nose was bleeding. I was crying and I didn't want to fight. The teacher came down and knocked our heads together. The guy I was fighting hauled off and punched her and knocked her down. He was expelled from school. They didn't do anything to me because they knew I didn't 7 want to fight with this guy and that was apparent. He was kind of a bully and it was good. I passed the test fighting those two guys and from then on I was accepted. ROH: I just can't imagine that. Annette said she had something she wanted to share. AR: An interesting thing, I was at Quincy School and I was standing over by the water fountain. His brother, Jim, was a year older than me and Dick was a year younger than me. I remember thinking, "Oh, that's Jimmy Richard's little brother." He was running around. That was our first meeting and then he went to Madison and I continued on at Quincy. ROH: Okay. Were there any favorite subjects that stood out to you at that time as a young boy? RR: I liked the art classes, but we didn't have many of them until I went to high school. I was not a good student. I was a troublemaker and I just got by as far as the academics were concerned. There was always trouble, and a lot of it was my fault. I remember when I went to Riverdale Junior High School we rode the bus from South Ogden out to Riverdale and there was a kid in the neighborhood by the name of Tommy James. Tommy crowded in front of us in line for the bus. As I walked past him he took a seat up front and I hauled off and smacked him in the back of the head. When we got to Riverdale I chased him down and picked a fight with him and he just beat the hell out of me. That was the only time I was ever really beat up. He just kept pounding me, the big tall guy with long arms and I would be swinging at him and I'd be missing him by about four of five inches. 8 Incidentally, the principal came down and grabbed us and took us up to the principal's office. He said he was going to give us the board of education. He had a board that he used to paddle kids with and the board had holes in it so he could get a good swift whack. He asked what happened and I owned up. I said, "I picked the fight, it's my fault." I guess that impressed him and he said, "Well, get going and get back to class and I don't want any more of this." ROH: In junior high, Did you have any particular subject that you were fond of? RR: No, I was just getting by doing what I could do. ROH: Being a kid. RR: We rode the bus and I always rose a rumpus on the bus, so the driver kicked me out and said, "You're going to walk home." I said, "Okay." Instead of walking home I went around to the back of the bus and climbed in the window on the side he couldn't see. I rode in the bus with him until we got to Ogden and we got to the bus stop. I jumped out the window and ran up front and said, "Haha Clink, I beat you." He felt bad that he was going to make me walk and before he left he said, "Hey where's the Richards kid, I was only joking I wasn't going to make him walk." I played a joke on Clink. Incidentally, I've had an occasion to work with the Fernilius' again in my business. When we get to that I'll tell you. ROH: You went to Weber High. Tell me about that experience. RR: Well, I shaped up. ROH: Did your parents have a car growing up? 9 RR: Yes. In fact, I remember when I was six years old my brother and I had our tonsils taken out. We went to the doctor's office in the old First Security Bank building and had our tonsils removed. My father picked us up in his brand new Pontiac car. He paid $600 and got a beautiful blue Pontiac car. That's the first car I can remember my folks had. ROH: When you were young, do you remember where you went shopping for new supplies and clothes and things like that? RR: As a kid, I didn't do that. I don't remember that. As I grew up a little bit I remember being in town because I would go to the paramount theater that had the Popeye club. On Saturdays, they'd have Popeye and a series of the Lone Ranger or something and I remember going to town for that. Other than that, I don't remember going to town. ROH: In town are you talking about Ogden? RR: Yes, I'm still talking about Ogden. These were younger years. ROH: Is this the 25th Street area? RR: Yes. Actually there were several theaters in town at that time. There was an Orpheum, a Colonial, Lyseum, The Egyptian, and the Paramount. That's five theaters. Most of the kids went to the Paramount because that had the Popeye Club and the series. Movies cost about a dime and I would work around the yard and I'd get a dime or 25 cents and I was able to go to the movies. ROH: Okay, so we're going to go back to high school now. 10 RR: Before high school, let me talk about Riverdale Junior High School because that was really a turning point for me. That was a rough school. When I went there I was in the 7th and 8th grades and we were rough on teachers there. We drove a couple of teachers out of the room crying. There were several of us that were involved in this kind of stuff. ROH: How did you do that? RR: Just by not paying attention or throwing spit balls or whatever. We drove a couple of substitute teachers out of there. We were upstairs in a room that was called Idaho because it was kind of shaped like Idaho. My friend and I were in the back of the room raising the devil and there were two kids in the middle of the room that were raising Cain and the teacher came in and he just stood there with his arms folded for a few minutes waiting for everybody to shut up. They didn't shut up so he walked down the aisle and gave each of these kids a karate chop on the side of the head and whacked them in the kidney and knocked both of them out. Both of the kids fell with their faces on the desk and my friends and I shut up. That cured us. He really knocked the two kids out. One of the kids' families sued him because when he hit him in the kidneys he bruised him. This teacher didn't say anything and I don't know what happened to him, but I didn't see him again. That was sort of a turning point for a lot of us. After I left junior high school and went to Weber I shaped up. It was a 180 degree change for me. ROH: How many kids were in your class in junior high? RR: I would say there were 20 or something like that. 11 ROH: That was a good-sized class. Is there anything else from junior high that you can recall? What was your favorite part about being in school? RR: Recess. I remember I was supposed to be in arithmetic class, but before the class started I went down to the shop. There was nobody in there except a few kids. The teacher wasn't there and I had never had any experience with some of these tools like the buzz saw. I picked up a chunk of wood and I was going to cut it, but I put it in the wrong way in the saw. It threw the wood and knocked the window out of the class. It would have killed a kid if it hit him. I didn't know what I was doing. I got out of there and sneaked into my arithmetic class by crawling on my hands and knees to the desk so the teacher wouldn't see me coming in. It was a funny school, I had a friend called Toshi Shiba and he went around the junior high school with a water gun and he would shoot the light bulbs and it would pop them. In those days they didn't have a chandelier glass over them, they just had a globe. My friend went around shooting those things and the shop teacher caught him and grabbed him and shook him up and said, "I never did like you Japs anyway." Nothing ever happened as a result of that, but today that would be a disaster. ROH: It sounds like you were a bit precocious. RR: I was not a good little boy. I never did anything really bad, but I did a lot of things that were border line. ROH: Did your parents ever get called to school? 12 RR: No, and I never told them when I had a couple of teachers assault me in junior high school. One guy was a music teacher and he was in the auditorium with the music class and a kid in that class had stolen my baseball mitt. I spotted it because it had my name on it. He had used a leather puncher to punch holes in it so that my name would not be visible, but I saw it anyway. I went into the class and confronted the kid about the mitt. The teacher said, "You get out of here." I said, "I'm not going until I get my mitt." He came down and grabbed me by the shirt and took me out in the hall and he was slapping me on the side of the face front-hand and back-hand. He hit me several times, but I never told my parents about that. You know, that just happened. It was not uncommon in the schools for a teacher to whack a kid. ROH: That is true. Moving on to high school at Weber High, where was Weber High? RR: Weber High School was on 12th and Washington Blvd. We had to take a bus from home to school. When I got into high school I really settled down. It was a major change in my life. I was elected sophomore class president when I went out there. Right out of this junior high school environment to the high school and we had kids from other junior high schools come in from Eden and Huntsville. I don't know the circumstances, but I was elected sophomore class president. ROH: You don't recall running for president? RR: No, I don't recall any of that except that I was elected and I was in a sign painting class and I painted some signs for sophomore assemblies. I misspelled the word "sophomore." They said, "It's got an "o" in it." 13 ROH: You said you got more serious in high school. What were your academics like? RR: I was a good student. It was the beginning of a new life for me. AR: One of the teachers said that Dick was the worst and best student that she ever had. ROH: Did you go to high school together? AR: No, I went to Ogden High School. ROH: Did you have a favorite subject in high school? RR: Yes, I liked the debate class and I participated in the debates and extemporaneous competitions and I did well. So, I did a lot of it. It's interesting because the debate teacher at Weber High School was the same principal that dragged me up to the principal's office when I was at Riverdale. ROH: Is that right? He moved from the other school to that school. He must have had some kind of impact on you. Who were your friends in high school? RR: I had several that lived out here in South Ogden like, George Palmer, Carl Hassel and Bud Reed. I had a lot of friends. We did things in a group out here. Nobody played alone. ROH: What were some of the things you were involved in other than debate? Were you involved in any clubs or activities? RR: No, because I worked after school. Instead of taking the school bus, I would take the city bus and go from 12th Street down to my dad's shop and work after 14 school. I didn't have any time for any of the athletics. I did win the intramural boxing championship for my weight when I was in high school. I didn't play football, basketball, or baseball or anything. Those intramurals took place within the classroom for the most part. ROH: So you continued to fight in high school. You got into boxing? RR: Not a lot, but we had an intramurals program in boxing and I won that in my class. I boxed with the kids that were in the other class. I also wrestled. I met another kid in the other class wrestling, I got down on the mat like you're supposed to and he was over me and the referee said, "Go!" He pinned me so fast I didn't even know what I was doing. I was out of that competition in 15 seconds, just as long as it took for the referee to count me out. This kid was a skinny kid with a glass eye and he went on to win the state championship in his weight a couple of years. He was a very good wrestler. I think his name was Garcia. ROH: So, if you ran for sophomore class president, you were interested in politics at that time. RR: Yes, and that is one of the things that I gravitated toward was the speech class and the debate and that sort of thing. About that time I had developed my philosophy as a Republican. One of my debate partners was a democrat, one that I called the yellow dog democrat. He would rather vote for a yellow dog than a Republican and that's still his philosophy. My father talked politics to us at the dinner table. He talked about a conservative writer at that time called Westbrook 15 Pegler. Pegler was a conservative and he hated the Roosevelts. Most of his column was anti-Franklin and Eleanor and my dad talked about that. There were also some things happening in our life that got me to be a conservative. During that time when we were growing up, we had a coal furnace. The coal man would come to your house, open the coal chute and empty the coal out in the basement. John L. Lewis was the head of the coal miners' union and he called a strike. When he called a strike, we couldn't get coal and everybody complained about that. Even my grandmother and my father complained about it. My father said, "I'm not going to be at the mercy of John L Lewis," and he changed the coal furnace to a gas furnace. John L. Lewis was really big at that time. ROH: When was this? RR: I would say in the early 1940's. Coal mining was a big deal. My grandfather was a coal miner and he still lived down in Carbon County. Coal miners liked John L. Lewis because he got the wages up. He forced people to pay more and if they weren't willing to do that he would call a strike and limit the coal production. My dad talked about that a lot at the dinner table and that had an influence on me. ROH: Who was your friend that was the person who would vote for anyone but a Republican? RR: Jerry Hatch. He was my debate partner. His dad was in the state legislator as a democrat. Jerry always was a democrat. He never changed. He is still a democrat. 16 ROH: When you were in high school did you realize that you wanted to go to college at that point? RR: Yes. In fact, I wanted to be a lawyer at that time and when I wrote my name on the book just to identify it as my book I would write, "Richard Richards Esquire." AR: I've got a page out of something when he was the student of the year and he tells what he wants to do in the future. RR: When I was a senior in high school, I was chosen to give the Valedictory speech. I was not the Valedictorian, but I was chosen to give that speech at the graduation. ROH: So you ran for president and got interested in debate, how did that come about? Were you listening to the radio at that point or did you hear other people speak that influenced you? RR: We listened to the radio and read the newspaper. We always had newspapers and I even take four newspapers here now. I spend a couple hours every day reading the Wall Street Journal and the Investor's Business Daily, The Standard, and Deseret News. ROH: That's incredible. Did your dad take a lot of newspapers too at your house? RR: I don't know how many he took, but I know we took some. ROH: I was just trying to find out where the influence of the debate would have come from because you were interested in both battling physically and verbally so I find that fascinating. 17 RR: Well, I think the word "debate" means to "beat down." ROH: Did you have teachers that inspired you in high school? RR: My debate teacher was the principal out at Riverdale that banged my head. He was my coach all the way through. ROH: You were in school and you were working so give me an idea of your schedule. RR: I would go to school and after school at 3:30 p.m. I would go to my dad's shop and work for a couple of hours and go home. I always worked on Saturdays. My dad probably was the greatest influence on me of anybody because he always said, "I'm not going to give you money, but I'll give you a job. You can work for it and you can have the money." That's the way he was. ROH: So you were student of the year in your high school. RR: Well I don't know if that's what they called it, but maybe they did. ROH: Yes, we will get a copy of this. I'm looking at a photograph that says, "The typical boy graduate is Dick Richards, he's only 5'8" but he has short brown hair and warm brown eyes. He likes school this year but in the past years he skipped school every chance he got. Now he's sorry he's leaving." Is this college or high school? RR: That's high school. ROH: Do you remember what you talked about in your speech? 18 RR: I don't think I have a copy of that speech, but I have a copy of my college speech when I spoke at graduation there. ROH: You were public speaking at a young age. We're going to finish up talking about high school years and move on to college. When you graduated from high school, you wrote the commencement speech. What did you do after high school? RR: Obviously, during the summer I worked for my dad. In the Fall I enrolled at Weber Junior College. Weber Junior College at that time was on 25th Street at about Monroe and Madison. There were about four buildings there and one of them is still there— it's the Deseret Gym building. The other buildings are gone. It was a very small school. Interestingly enough, the president of that school was Dr. Henry Aldus Dickson. He knew an awful lot of the kids by name. We were all very friendly with him. He took a liking to me and I'm not sure why, but he said to me one time, "Dick, are you having a little trouble raising money to go to school?" I said, "Yeah, I'm working but I don't have the money yet." He said, "Well, you drop in my office and see the secretary and she'll give you a scholarship." So I walked in the office and they gave me a twenty-five dollar scholarship. That was a full quarter's tuition. I actually have a copy of that scholarship. ROH: That's fantastic. RR: He liked me and he wanted to help me out. I guess he knew I came from a family of a lot of kids. All of my siblings were still at home. ROH: Did your brother ahead of you go to college? 19 RR: I don't remember. I guess he went to college before me, but I didn't have a lot of relationship with my brother at that time. He was a year and a half older than me and he had different friends. We did some things together, but mostly we each had our own friends. ROH: What did you study at Weber College? RR: I studied debate, philosophy, political science, and economics. I did a lot of those subjects, I didn't do any basket weaving and that stuff. No political correctness at that time. I got enough credits in what I studied in history, philosophy and economics that I was able to transfer them to law school without having a bachelor's degree. When I applied to law school they said, "Well you haven't got a bachelor's degree, you can't come here with what you've got." I said, "Look at the catalog." The catalog said, "153 acceptable hours," or something and I had them. I said, "There they are." He said, "Well, I guess you're right." They enrolled me in law school without having a degree from Weber. ROH: Where was that? RR: University of Utah law school. ROH: How old were you when you started law school? RR: I started law school after I'd been in the army and returned, so there's a gap there. ROH: Did you go into the army after Weber? 20 RR: In August of 1952, I was drafted. The Korean War was on and we were all drafted. It was kind of interesting at that time because there was a lady by the name of Agnus Christe who was the head of the selective service office who really resented Mormon kids going on missions and not going in the army. So, the day you turned 18 you got a draft notice. You couldn't go on a mission. ROH: Did you have any other friends that you were in the army with at that time? RR: I was drafted ahead of my friends for some reason by a matter of a few months. I was drafted with one kid from Ogden by the name of Jim Pollus and we went to basic training together. I went on to leadership and OCS and he did not. He's passed away since. My friends I had here in South Ogden came to Fort Ord after several months that I had already been there so I was ahead of them in the army. ROH: Well, we just kind of skimmed over Weber College, so the next time we meet we'll talk about Weber College, the Army, and Law School. Thank you very much for sharing your young years with me and we will continue next time. This is the end of the interview on August 7, 2012. Thank you. RR: You're Welcome. ROH: Today is Monday, August 13, 2012. We are in the home of Richard Richards, who goes by Dick. I am Rebecca Ory Hernandez from Weber State University and we are going to continue his oral history. We will pick up with your university years from where we left off last week. Why don't you tell me a little bit about your time in law school? 21 RR: After I came home from the Army, I decided to go to law school. I had done some other things in the meantime, but when I found out I was going to go to law school I needed some more credit hours. I went back to Weber and picked up some more hours in political science, history, and philosophy. I was married and had two children. I had to work because I had to make a living, so I worked for my father part-time and painted signs. I worked in Ogden for my dad about 20 hours a week and went to law school. That was an hour a day going down and an hour a day going back. That didn't leave me a lot of time for studying. I really didn't study very hard in law school, but I studied all day Sunday and started at 5:00 a.m. It was a tough grind. I decided it ought to be easier if I lived in Salt Lake because I wouldn't have to commute. So, I got a job with the state liquor commission. It was a political job. Governor Clyde was the governor and I think Laurence Burton was his assistant at that time. Anyway, I got a job with the liquor commission selling liquor out on 23rd South and 13th East. They paid $1.65 an hour and that wasn't enough for me to make a living so I decided even though I'm going to live in Salt Lake I better commute to Ogden to work because I could make $2.50 an hour painting signs. I moved to Salt Lake to the student housing. It was called "Stadium Village." That's where the stadium is now. Rent was $30.00 a month so it was livable for a student. While I was in law school, I was active with the Young Republicans and I was asked to become the Young Republicans state chairman. I didn't know about that because it takes time and doesn't pay so I thought I'd 22 better check with the Dean. He said, "I think you could be of help to us so you go ahead and take that job." I took it and the interesting thing is, later on when the law school was trying to get an appropriation from the state legislature to build a new law school. Jerry Hanson and I invited his grandfather who was a leader in the state legislature to come to the law school and see what kind of shabby condition it was in. He visited the law school and said, "Boy, this is bad." Our main classroom in the law school was a row of tables about 24 inches deep and about six or eight feet long and they were covered with Masonite. They were really old-fashioned. The chairs were all separate and it was a noisy place. When they saw that they said, "Let's make an appropriation for a new law school." They usually invited the governor to come speak on "Law Day" which was the first of May. The assistant dean said, "The governor doesn't like lawyers, he won't come here." I was up to the governor's office talking to Laurence and I asked, "Would the governor like to go up to the University of Utah law school and speak on May Day?" He said, "Sure, we'd love to do that, but we haven't had an invitation." I asked, "Will you come if you get an invitation?" They said, "Yes." I drove back to the law school and went in the dean's office and said, "The governor would like to come if you'll give him and invitation. You type one up and I'll hand carry it to him." He was really pleased that we could get the governor there. The assistant dean that said the governor wouldn't come was embarrassed. ROH: Who was the governor at the time? 23 RR: George Dewey Clyde. The dean of the law school was Dean Diksra. He was a good dean. The assistant was a fellow by the name of Emory. Emory was a democrat and he didn't want the governor up there anyway. ROH: It must have been really good for the law school. RR: These were big helps in getting a new law school. Anyway, I hadn't graduated because I was seven hours short for graduation. I did it in two years. I didn't have time to go for three years. I was married with kids and didn't have time for that. I took extra credit and went through the summers. A couple of the fellows were in the same plight so we asked if we could take the Bar early with the preceding class. They agreed to let us take it. We took the Bar and I passed the Bar before I graduated. I had to go back to pick up seven more hours. Needless to say, I wasn't a very diligent student after having passed the Bar already. They changed the system after that. From then on you had to have a degree. They won't let you take the Bar until you've completed law school. We ruined that for the next-comers. ROH: Did you specialize in anything in law school? RR: No, I just graduated. I was not at the top of my class. I was in the top third of the class, but I did not strive to be number one. I didn't have time to study and do all that because I was working. In fact, working 20 hours was against the rules. They said if you go to law school you can't work 20 hours because you wouldn't be able to keep up. They tested me when they found out I was traveling to Ogden, but I did okay and that all worked out. After I got out of law school, I got a 24 job with the Clayton and Gould law firm in Ogden. Since they were both prosecutors I couldn't do any criminal work. If you can't do criminal work as a young lawyer, you're never going to do any trial work. I said, "I want to get courtroom practice so I'm going to quit." I quit and went on my own. I remember my first month I did not make one dime practicing law. The second month I made $50. It was a struggle. By the end of the year I was making pretty good money, but our total was $6,000 a year my first year. ROH: Do you remember your first case? RR: Yes. I remember my first major cases anyway. I went to the judges and said, "I want to try lawsuits. Give me your guys in jail who don't have any money and can't bail out and I'll represent them for free." Between the judges they gave me ten felons and they were spread out over about a year's time. I got eight acquittals out of the ten. Immediately, I had a lot of criminal clients. They would ask, "Who's your attorney?" They would give them my name and that generated a lot of business for me. I got tired of the criminal stuff, but it was a great experience to try the cases. The first murder case I had was a fellow that came into town on a Greyhound bus, got out of the bus station, walked across the street to the Friendly Tavern, pulled out a pistol and said, "So you're the "blankety-blank"?" He shot a guy about seven times. That was Joe Edgington. He killed him right on the spot. He didn't even know him and the guy was completely nuts. He thought he was somebody else. He casually walked across the street toward the police 25 station. Several witnesses saw him throw the gun in the bushes and keep on walking and they arrested him. L.G. Bingham and I were assigned to defend him pro bono and that was my first major criminal case. L.G. Bingham, in my opinion, was the smartest lawyer in town. He was a good thinker, but he was not a real studious guy and he didn't spend a lot of time preparing the case. Sometimes he would go into court without any defense in mind. He'd find a defense as the prosecutors put on their case. He won a lot of cases. He was very talented in doing that. He and I defended this guy and ended up pleading "not guilty" by reason of insanity. That stuck and he went to a mental institution. I haven't heard anything from him since. That was my first case. L.G. Bingham and I defended another case of a couple of fellows that murdered a man on North Ogden Divide. Maybe you read about it. They picked up a sailor from Salt Lake and took him up to Ogden. They'd been drinking and they thought he had money so they took him up to rob him. The guy resisted and they hit him. They took off all his clothes, threw him in the car and left the guy naked. He was walking down the highway naked and finally fell over the side and froze to death. They were looking through his clothes because they thought he had some money in it. They looked through his shirt and no money in his shirt and threw it out the window as they traveled down the canyon. There was no money in the pants, so they threw the pants out along with the shoes and socks. His clothes were strewn down the canyon for a half a mile and nobody really understood what it was all about. One of the boys called the police and gave himself up. They arrested the other guy a few days later. Ray defended one of 26 them and I defended the other one. They got off with a voluntary manslaughter and two years in prison. They were young guys, drinking and doing stupid stuff and ended up killing a man. I tried cases from 1961 until 1980 when I went to Washington to work full-time with Ronald Reagan. I did spend some time in the early 1960's in Washington with Laurence Burton. That was for two years. I was there at the time that John Kennedy was killed and the Senator of Texas and John F. Kennedy's Vice President, Lyndon Johnson, became the president. ROH: How did it come about that you ended up moving to Washington? RR: Laurence Burton asked me to help him on his campaign. I was one of two major campaign managers on his campaign for congress and he won. He invited me to come back to Washington. I went back there as his legislative assistant and after a year I was made his administrative assistant. Dr. Aldus Dickson, who was a good friend of mine as I indicated earlier said, "Dick, do not stay there more than two years. Laurence is going to ask you to stay, but don't do it." ROH: Why not? RR: He said, "If you do you'll get caught up as a professional staffer in Washington and you'll never develop a career of you own." The pay is good and it's an exciting thing if you're a staffer to a senator and they have big issues. I followed his advice and I came home. ROH: When did you come home? 27 RR: I came home in 1964. I was here when the election was held and Barry Goldwater was soundly defeated. I decided I wanted to run for party chairman. I'd been Young Republican chairman, so I ran for party chairman and won overwhelmingly. The reason I did is because while I was working for Laurence I traveled to all of the counties in the state when they held their county convention. Those were the guys that were going to be delegates to the state convention. When I met them on the county level and they came to the state, they at least knew who I was. I ran against a guy from Salt Lake that should have won. He had a lot of money, was a prominent business guy, and kind of a moderate fellow, but I beat him about six or seven to one. Afterward he said, "I knew you were going to beat me, but I didn't think you were going to stomp me into the ground." He was a good sport. I was the party chairman for two years. In 1966, the state of Utah turned from a Democratic state to a Republican state. People say this has always been a Republican state. However, they were heavily Democratic all over. All of the counties were controlled by Democratic county commissioners. In Weber County, prior to that time, only one Republican had been elected to county office for 50 years. That was Sherriff Mac Wade. This county was so strongly Democrat that a Republican may as well not even get on the ballot. We turned that around in 1966 and won control of the legislature, both the House and the Senate, by a vast majority. I think there were only five Democrats in the Senate when we got to it. There were only ten in the House. In fact, we elected too many. It was a bad deal to have that many Republicans and 28 so little opposition. That gradually faded out. That was one of the most exciting elections of my life because it was such a wonderful victory. I was re-elected party chairman in 1968. I had a good record and got a call from the Republican National Committee in Washington. The chairman of the Republican National Committee asked me if I'd come back and interview for a job working for the National Committee. I went back and I remember the feeling. I got out of my hotel and got that stinky, humid Washington air and I said to myself, "Dick, what in the hell are you doing here? Turn around and go home." I went to the interview with the deputy chairman and the chairman of the committee at that time, Rogers Morton. They offered me a job and I took it. I became the head of party development. After I did that for a while, I was promoted to the political director of the National Committee. I brought my family back and we lived in Maryland. We also lived in Virginia down by the Pentagon and had some nice experiences. We went to the grave site ceremony of John Kennedy when he was taken to Arlington National Cemetery. Later, at the top of the cemetery, they put a forever memorial for John Kennedy. Laurence and the other congressman from Utah, Sherm Lloyd, were there. Somehow or another we got on the parade route out to the cemetery. The soldiers and the Marines were lined up all the way and we had no way to get off. Laurence was joking and said, "Don't throw out any beer cans." We went up past the soldiers and when we got to the cemetery, the guy that was in charge told us we had to leave. We didn't want to after all that effort, so we sneaked into the press section and got kicked out of the press section too. We 29 went up the road and nobody paid attention to us there, but everybody including the Kennedys came up that road. The Carsons and the Kennedys were there. The Emperor of Ethiopia and Charles Degall came in. We were almost within touching distance of each of them. It was really kind of interesting to see that. In part of the ceremony they had the Irish Guard do a drill procedure and when they were through they marched out. As they marched out me and this kid marched in where they had been and we ended up right in front of the congressman. Laurence Burton said, "Hey Dick, look who's standing behind you." I looked behind me and there was Adlai Stevenson, who was the ambassador, and all these big-shots. We stood directly across from the grave site where the Kennedy casket was standing. The Kennedys were all on the other side. I was not even 20 feet away from Jacqueline Kennedy and her kids when all of this happened. In fact, we had a chance to walk by the casket. That was a good experience. Then, of course, Lyndon Johnson became the president and in 1964 he forced the passage of the Civil Rights Act that Kennedy could not get done. Kennedy didn't have the horsepower in the Senate to get it done. The House passed it, that wasn't a big problem, but it was the Senate that didn't want to pass it. They filibustered and did everything they could to avoid passing it. Lyndon Johnson just beat them up and on the 4th of July, they passed the Civil Rights Act. ROH: What was that like living in Washington when that happened? 30 RR: That was an exciting time. They had Martin Luther King Jr. speak at the Lincoln Memorial. There were hundreds of thousands of people there. I was at the Capitol and we talked about going down, but we figured it wasn't a good thing to do to go clear down there and get involved in that crowd. We were also there at the time the Blacks rioted on 14th street and burned a lot of the buildings. That was pretty close to the same time Martin Luther King Jr. gave his historic speech at the Lincoln Memorial. That was a big event at that time. It was an exciting time and an exciting point in history. ROH: Do you remember having conversations with your family about those events in the evenings when you were home with them? RR: My kids went with me when we saw the Kennedy ceremony. I explained that to them and when we got home and they were excited about it. They liked John Kennedy, they though he was a wonderful fellow. They got to do things that other kids don't get to do. They got to go to the White House, the Capitol building, Williamsburg and Jamestown. We went down to Jamestown and that was one of the great experiences where we saw replicas of those three little boats that brought the pilgrims here in 1607 and built the first permanent settlement in America. They gave us the history about how most of them starved to death or were killed by the Indians or by something else. There were very few survivors. That was a real eye-opener to us about early history. We got up to the Baltimore Harbor where Frances Scott Key saw the Star Spangled Banner and we saw the battlefield of the fight between the British and 31 the Americans on the Potomac River. Of course, the British captured Washington and they burned down a lot of things. They tried to burn down the White House and burned down a lot of it. They torched the various places in the Capitol and you can still see where the smoke was where they had gone with their torches. That was a great experience for my kids. They all became far more interested in American government. ROH: You've written a lot about your time in Washington in your book, so I won't repeat a lot of that, but tell me a little bit about how you felt about your career at that time. You had some significant leaps and bounds from Ogden to Washington at that point. RR: Reagan was anticipated to be a candidate for president in 1968. The convention was held in Miami Beach and Nixon, George Romney, and Rockefeller were candidates. Nixon was the clear leader. I was the state party chairman at that time. I knew the Nixon people and they knew me. They talked to me many times about helping on the Nixon campaign and I said, "Well, I'm the chairman of the party so I can't do that." We invited Ronald Reagan to come to our convention and the Nixon people were just livid after Reagan spoke. We only had about 14 national delegates at that time. This was the year we picked our delegates to go to the national convention. Nixon was clearly the favorite, although George Romney had some friends here because of his Mormon ties and ties to Utah. A guy from Cutbank, Montana who was a close associate of Reagan and a guy I knew as a party chairman said, "Dick, how would you like to have Ronald 32 Reagan be the keynote speaker at your convention, he'll do it for free." I said, "Hey, great. We want him." He came and Annette and I met him in the old Hotel Utah the night before he spoke. That was the first time we met Ronald Reagan. Annette was enamored because he was a movie star, and I was enamored because he was a politician. Anyway, he spoke the next day and he just mesmerized our delegation. Every one of them would have turned around and voted for him against Nixon if he ended up being our candidate. As we got down to Miami Beach, Nixon was nominated and Reagan withdrew his name, but George Romney stayed in and I was given the opportunity to second the nomination of George Romney for president back in Miami Beach. That was a high point for me. Nixon won of course. After he won the convention delegates, they hired me to do some ground work as a field man for Nixon in about 8 Western Rocky Mountain states. I had Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Arizona. I organized the ground campaign and it is interesting because the thing that attracted me to the National Party Leaders to begin with was my organizational technique for recruiting people to go door-to-door. We called it the neighbors program. I was called back to New York after Nixon was nominated to meet with John Mitchell who was in charge of the campaign. They asked me about this program that I had in mind and Mitchell liked it, but some of his aides didn't like it and they started to argue with me. Mitchell sat there and just smoked his pipe and never said a word during my presentation. When it was all done, they started asking, "How do you know this is going to work?" I said, "We've done 33 it, we know how this thing works, you don't have to worry about that." Mitchell said, "We're going to do it. I like it. Richards, we'd like you to come to work full-time for us." I said, "I can't do it because I'm the party chairman out in Utah, but I know somebody who can do that program for you." They wanted to do it in Oregon first and he was running a primary against Rockefeller. Oregon was a liberal state and Nixon's people said, "We're not even going to go there, it's just a waste of time." So they didn't go there, but they sent my friend Alan Peterson, who was the guy that I recommended to do this. Peterson was an intern to me when I was party chairman in Utah. He knew my program, so they hired him to run the program and Nixon won. Nixon had never been there and Rockefeller had been there three times. Rockefeller's slogan was, "He cared enough to come." Everybody expected Rockefeller to win, but Nixon did win. Nixon said, "That's my secret weapon. I want to do that." Peterson was hired to run this program all over the country and did a great job with it. After the Nixon campaign, the next effort I got involved with was when Ronald Reagan was running against Gerald Ford. Nixon left, Ford became the president and Ford wanted to run. These same people that brought me back to Washington all thought I would be for Ford and wanted me to be involved in his Ford campaign. They asked me to get involved and I said, "I can't do that. I'm for the other guy." They said, "You're for Ronald Reagan? You can't be against the seated president. You're a party chairman and you're against our incumbent president?" In fact, the owner of Zion's Bank in the state of Utah, Roy Simmons, 34 met me at the airport and said, "Dick, that's crazy. You're going to go for that "class B" act against the president." ROH: Why was that? Why were you so pro-Reagan? RR: I just really liked the guy. I saw something in him and I thought, "This is the guy that ought to be the president." Reagan and Ford contended against each other at the convention in 1976 and it was a very close battle. We lost it right at the last minute and we felt bad about that. Prior to the time that I went to work with him Ronald Reagan had a group called Citizens for the Republic. This was a political action committee that was not for his benefit but where he could raise money and give to conservative candidates. Paul Laxalt was Reagan's closest friend in Washington, the former governor of Nevada and the Senator at that time. He invited me to join the Citizens for the Republic. I got a letter from Ronald Reagan saying, "I understand you're willing to do this, I'd love to have you join us." I became a member of the executive committee for the Citizens for the Republic. After we lost to Ford, we held a couple of monthly meetings and the meetings were usually held in Florida or someplace a distance from me and I had to fly over there and I had to pay a hotel bill. It cost me money to do it, about a thousand bucks every time I went to one of the meetings. After I went to a couple of them I thought, "This is a big waste of time." I got up in a meeting Paul Laxalt was conducting and said, "You know the next battle we're going to have is a convention fight just like the one we just lost and I don't see us getting any better prepared than we were then. I think we're wasting time." Ronald Reagan was 35 sitting at the far end of the table and he was doodling. After I said that he stopped and said, "That's right," and he pointed the pen at me. Paul said, "Well, does anybody else have anything to say?" We said, "No." No one else was going to interfere after the president said that. He said, "Okay, Dick, I'm appointing you to form a committee to come back to the next meeting and tell us what we ought to be doing. Richard, you're the chairman of the committee." We held some meetings after that and came back to the next meeting and gave him a report on what I thought we ought to be doing. We put together a program and I presented it. Everybody at the meeting thought it was a great idea except for two people. One of them was John Sears, who later became the chairman of the Reagan campaign. The chairman was fired at the night of the New Hampshire primary. The other guy was a fellow that had been with Reagan for many years named Nofziger. They all said, "Hey, this is great we want to do it. So after the meeting was over, I headed home and Paul Laxalt remained there for a while with this guy from Cutbank, Montana and Paul said, "I like Dick's idea, but who's going to get to run it? The program entails some work." Frank said, "Well, why don't you ask Dick?" Paul said, "He's a lawyer, he doesn't have time to do this and we don't have money to pay him to get it done. That's a lot of time involved." Frank said, "Well, before you write him off, ask him." So Paul called me on the phone and asked, "Would you run this program that you proposed to us? We will pay all of your expenses and enough money to pay your overhead of your office while you're gone working for us, but we don't have the money to pay you for your time." I said, "Okay." 36 I spent several months doing that and after Reagan got nominated and he was going to do the campaign, he said, "Dick, we want you to run the Western half of the country." Dick Wirthlin was put in charge of it and Bill Casing was the chairman. Dick Wirthlin was the strategist and would say, "We want you to take everything West of the Mississippi River except Texas and build the ground organization." After we won, Reagan wanted me to be the chairman of the transition team for the Department of Interior. I headed the team where we transitioned the Department of Interior from the Democrats to the Republicans and that was an interesting experience because they were paranoid about us and we were paranoid about them. It was common courtesy for the outgoing administration to cooperate with the incoming and let them have whatever information they wanted. So, we went down to the Department of interior, I recruited a group of guys to work with me on the campaign. Paul Laxalt had a couple people he wanted to do that and we took over down at the Department of Interior. We decided what we wanted to do, what people we wanted to remove and what changes we wanted to make. During that time, there were a lot of rumors in the paper about what was going to happen to Dick Richards. You saw them in Ogden. Is he going to be Secretary of the Interior? Is he going to be chairman of the party? When we got through with the Department of Interior, I got a call from the White house and they asked, "Dick, will you be available at 5:00 p.m. to take a call from the White House?" I said, "I'll be here." At 5:00 p.m., I get a telephone call from Ronald Reagan and he said, "Hi Dick, this is Ron, you've been reading about rumors that I was going to 37 appoint you chairman of the National Committee, so I want to make those rumors a reality. Would you take that chairmanship for me?" I said, "Mr. President, I'd be glad to." That's how it happened. ROH: It was that simple. RR: That simple. That's the way Reagan was, he was straight forward and simple. Let me tell you a thing I learned. This is a little out of order, but it shows Reagan. After I was elected, I was invited to go to the meetings that took place once a month between the president and the leaders of the House and the Senate. Bob Michael was a minority leader of the House. He was from Peoria, Illinois. One time, as we walked into the meeting, President Reagan says, "Hi Bob, how are things in Peoria?" Bob says, "Shucks, Mr. President, we've got it tough. We've got 5,600 caterpillar workers unemployed. We're trying to get a contract to sell our ditch-digger to the Russians and we just can't get it done." The president said, "Well, what's the matter? Is that a piece of high-tech equipment or something?" He says, "Hell no, it's a ditch digger, anybody can make a ditch digger." The president said, "Then I don't understand." He said, "Well, we have to get permission from the Department of Commerce in order to make the sale and they haven't made a decision." The president walks over and put his hand on his shoulder and said, "Bob, they just did." That day, Bob announced to his people in Peoria that the President approved their sale and they all went back to work. That's the way Reagan did it. I would have thought that he would have said to his Chief of Staff, Jim Baker to call Secretary Mossbacker and see what's holding 38 this up. Well, he didn't need to do that, he was president he could make the decision. ROH: Today is Wednesday, September 5, 2012. We are in the home of Richard Richards continuing his oral history. This is Rebecca Ory Hernandez from Weber State University. Present are Rebecca and Richard Richards as well as Annette Richards. Why don't we pick up from when you were still in Washington D.C. and you've finished your political piece of working with the White House? Tell me what you did after that presidential term was completed. RR: After I completed my two year assignment at the Republican National Committee, I chose not to run longer because there were too many problems fighting with people that wanted to control the National Committee and all that stuff. As I left, Ronald Reagan called me down to the White House and said, "Dick, you've been a loyal lieutenant to me for a long time, but you've never really been in my administration. I would like you to come and be part of the Reagan administration. What I'd like you to do is go over to the Department of Interior and be the Under Secretary to Jim Watt. Jim is having trouble and I think you could help him out. I said, "Well, Mr. President, I've been a volunteer for you for about six years and I'm broke. I need to get out and make some money. So, I really don't think I can do that." Not only that, I was beginning to have some health problems and I knew that it would be a torture chamber to go through some kind of hearing with the Senate controlled by the Democrats. I could not imagine that the Democrats would approve someone who had just been chairman of the Republican Party to go be the Under Secretary of the Department of Interior. I 39 passed that up and I opened up a lobbying lawyer business in Washington and began representing various interests. ROH: What was the name of the company? RR: Initially, I was with a couple of other lawyers, but when I started my own company it was called, "Commerce Consultants International" (CCI). When I left the National Committee, I had a going away party sponsored by the National Committee. It was to introduce my replacement, but also it was sort of a going away party for me and Ronald Reagan came. I heard from some inside people that some of the folks at the White House said, "Don't go for Richards, you didn't go when Dick Allen left or when others left. Why go for him?" Reagan said, "Well, I like him and we'll go." So, Reagan came and he spoke and said, "Dick Richards was my friend when it took courage to be my friend." That refers to the fact that I was the only state party chairman that supported Reagan against Gerald Ford while Ford was the president. That set me apart from the others and that's why Reagan appreciated me. It took courage to do that. I opened my office and immediately got some clients. One of the first clients was Sikorsky Helicopter Company. They had been trying to sell their helicopter to Taiwan for about six years. At one time they had a deal, but when Jimmy Carter was president he killed it. I met with a representative who was a lobbyist for Sikorsky and also a General from Taiwan. He came to my office and said, 'We want to buy the Black Hawk, and if we can't get it in the next six months we're going to write it off and we're going to buy the French helicopter 40 called the Augusta. We'll give you six months to get this done." I contacted Ed Meece who was counselor to the president and told him what we wanted to do. He went to the president and the president said, "Let them have what they want." That was six years of red tape cut by the president. I became a hero to Sikorsky because they'd been trying for six years. I developed a pretty good base of aerospace clients. I represented Sikorsky and I did some work for Boeing, General Dynamics and Pratt Whitney jet engines. I did a lot of work for them over many years. It turned out to be a very good client. ROH: Were there any other major clients when you were working? RR: I had some interesting ones. I was asked to represent the Kingdom of Thailand. I was the foreign agent for Thailand here in the United States. The United States was pressing some trade violations against Thailand. They were copying some of our medications. I remember they had a fake Sudafed that they sold and they copied our movies and all kinds of stuff. They stole a lot of intellectual property. The United States was going to punish them for it. When I was representing them, I talked to the Prime Minister and saw the other people that were movers and shakers over there and I asked, "What's your deal?" They said, "We'll stop stealing in two years, but we've got to do that now because the American products like medications are too expensive for Thai people to buy so we have to copy them and sell them at a lower price. We'll stop in two years." I asked, "Why?" They said, "Because we're working on our own copyright and patent laws and when they're in place to protect us then we'll protect you, but we're not going to protect you until we're ready." I went to the White House and I talked to the 41 domestic advisor of the president who was a friend of mine, Roger Porter. I said, "They said they'll quit in two years." He started to laugh and he says, "How am I going to tell the president they're only going to steal for two years?" I said, "Well, you know, the Japanese lied to you, the Chinese lied to you, everyone else lies to you, but these guys are at least telling you the truth." They withheld the sanctions against them. I represented this fellow by the name of Chachi. He was the first elected Prime Minister and after a couple years he got on an airplane with one of his generals by the name of Suchinda. The general pulled out his pistol and said, "Okay, Mr. Prime Minister, you're out and I'm in." He took over and executed Chachi right there with the airplane. Later on, Suchinda was trying to establish himself there and a lot of students rioted and picketed and so forth. About 1,500 of them just disappeared. I guess he had them killed and removed. When the king found out what happened he told him, "You're out. You can't be the prime minister here." Suchinda walked away. The king had a great deal of moral influence, although he had no legislative or statutory right to make those decisions. That was an interesting experiment. ROH: Did you ever have to travel to Thailand? RR: I traveled to Thailand once in a while, but my area was mostly in the Far East. I did a lot of traveling. In fact, someone asked me about traveling to Hong Kong and I looked it up and found I had 22 round-trips to Hong Kong in the 10 years of my passport. I did a lot there. 42 ROH: What about in Bangkok? RR: I did a lot in Bangkok. Later on, I represented a company in California called Sunrider International. I went to Bangkok, Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries to get permission for Sunrider to sell their product there and to convince them that our method of selling was legitimate. It was multi-level marketing and that was not common in the Far East, so we had to talk them into letting us do that. ROH: What happened next in your career? RR: That went on for several years. I represented people during the George Bush administration and did some part-time volunteer work for George Herbert Walker Bush in his campaign. I did some organizing in neighborhoods and in Washington, Oregon and here in the West. In fact, I was telling Annette that while I was involved with George Bush, he invited me to fly out with him to Boeing in Seattle. They were honoring the astronauts. They had the living astronauts there and I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to who was there, I never took any pictures or anything because I was there on a political trip. I think about a half a dozen of those guys and Neil Armstrong was there. They were given an award by Boeing Company for their exploits. They had an airplane like the one George Bush flew when he crashed into the ocean and he was rescued. He was really excited about that. He was looking at that and reminiscing. I was talking to Barbara Bush while he was doing that and she was excited for him because he hadn't seen one of those airplanes for a really long time. 43 ROH: Did you do any lobbying after that? RR: I did lobbying almost up to the time that I came home to Utah. Having been the Republican National Chairman, I had excellent contacts with Republicans and the Republican presidents. After Bill Clinton got elected, most of my contacts were gone. They were now Democratic contacts, so I figured that was a good time for me to go home. ROH: What year was it that you came home? RR: I think I came home about 1993. We were looking for a place to live here. I had a nice home in Washington and the value of it increased significantly. I had a profit on that property, but the tax laws were such at that time that if I sold my house, even though I bought another house I didn't get any kind of tax break on it and the government would have taken about $70,000 from me in taxes. I said, "Well, I'm not going to do that. I'll put the money into a new house." I bought a house here in South Ogden. I bought it without Annette seeing it. I came out and I saw this house and I walked in and it was a beautiful house on 46th and Jefferson, a big gray rock house. I walked in there and the neighbor was a real estate agent for Weber County. I walked in and looked in the foyer and I didn't even go through the house, it was just so beautiful and I was impressed so I said, "I'll take it." I gave him a check that night for earnest money. I said, "One condition, my wife has a week to decide whether she wants to come here." I called Annette and she didn't want to be bothered coming out. My daughter who lived here went to see it and she said, "Oh mom, you'll love the house." We agreed and we moved 44 into the house. We lived there until I started having a pretty serious heart problem and we couldn't keep up the land. The property was too big and complicated. We had to move, so we moved here into the condominiums. ROH: Tell me a little bit about your health problems you are referring to. RR: When I was living in Virginia I went out for a bike ride with my youngest son. As I pumped up a hill I had severe chest pains and I stopped at the top and I said, "Brian, I have to stop and rest." He wanted to go on so I told him he can go on but I had to rest. When I went home Annette saw me and she said, "Dick you look terrible, you need to go to a doctor." I said, "Well, I'll do it tomorrow." I was kind of gray and having a lot of pain. I waited until the next day and went to a doctor. They examined me and said, "You've had a major blockage of your arteries, but don't worry about it because the worst that could happen to you already happened." We thought that was pretty crazy to say that, so I went to a very famous cardiologist I had contact with as a result of some of my business. He ran a heart hospital in Phoenix. They tested me and said, "You've got some blockage." They gave me an angiogram and put in a stent. The stent lasted just one day and it was clogged up again. This was just a couple of days before Christmas. I said to the surgeon, "What do you recommend?" He said, "I think you ought to get a mechanical fix." He meant a bypass. I said, "Well, I ought to do it. This is a good time for me to do that. Business is slow in Washington. So when can you do it?" He said, "I can do it 45 tomorrow." I called Annette and said, "I'm not coming home for Christmas, I'm getting open-heart surgery tomorrow." Annette had Christmas in Virginia with the family before she came to see me. I remember after the operation when I looked in the mirror; I looked like my father looked on his death bed. My voice was just like him. Annette saw me and she started crying. That was my first open-heart surgery. I got over that for a while and later on I developed another problem. In fact, I'd been in Korea and worked out in the exercise room in the hotel in Korea and I thought, "I'm doing great." By the time I got to the airport I was having trouble, so that was the sign that I needed it again. Then, I ended up having open-heart surgery again here in Ogden with Dr. Cain at the McKay-Dee Hospital. That one was kind of interesting because I went to Salt Lake to the Beehive House and I was participating in a political meeting there. The pains became more severe and more severe. I didn't think I was going to make it home it was so bad. Immediately, I saw a sign that said "Hospital Next Right" so I took the road up to the hospital on Antelope Drive and went to the emergency ward and went in and told the lady, "I need some help." She said, "You look terrible. Sit down." They got me in a wheelchair and got me some oxygen and said, "You need to see your heart doctor tomorrow." I went to see him and that's when he said, "We'll do another operation on you." So I got another open-heart surgery here. The one I got in Phoenix I got about five or six bypasses. When I was here in Ogden I got a couple more. It seemed like every two years I would have problems. 46 Later on, I had a problem again and I saw the same doctors and they said, "We won't open you up, we've opened you up twice and we're not interested in performing another open-heart, we never know what we're going to get into." I was in serious trouble and nobody would touch me. I went to the LDS hospital in Salt Lake and they didn't want to do anything and McKay-Dee didn't want to do anything. My son got on the internet and found a vascular surgeon out in Daly City, California who was doing some experimental laser surgery. We decided to try that. I went out to see them and they acknowledged that I needed some surgery, but it was experimental and the FDA would not let them perform that surgery unless I had an independent doctor look at me beforehand to say, "If he doesn't get it he'll probably die." It was one of these compassionate things. They said, "There's no insurance, so if you come out here, you'll have to bring cash with you." The vascular surgeon's secretary or nurse negotiated with the hospital and everybody involved and I had to take $15,000 out to Daly City Hospital and they performed that surgery on me. It's called TMR Transmyocardial Revascularization. They open you up and pull the ribs apart and punch holes in your heart with a laser. They move the laser right up to the heart muscle and punch a hole and blood will start coming out and they rub their finger on it and it seals it over and they move over and punch another until they punch 25 holes, sew you up and that's it. I'll tell you, it was the best operation I've ever had. The impact was dramatic. I walked out of there in a couple of days and the only thing that was wrong with me was I hurt a 47 lot on the soft tissue. Otherwise, it was like I'd never had a heart problem. That lasted me for several years and we decided I could go on a mission. Annette and I volunteered to go on a mission and we were called to the Rochester, New York mission and that included Buffalo, Rochester and Palmyra. While I was there I had the problem again and I was hospitalized. When I got home everything looked pretty good. I ended up over here at Ogden Regional and had a few more stents put in. I got to a point where I was really in trouble and my doctor said, "I tried to go in there and put in another stent, but I couldn't even get my wire in the artery. I tried four times and then I gave it up. I have to tell you, you're in pretty serious shape. I don't think you'll live on too much. I'd give you about two months unless somebody can fix this and we don't have a doctor with the ability to fix this particular problem." It was the main descending right artery. ROH: What year was this? RR: It was about 2007. The doctor said, "Let me call Mayo, Johns Hopkins and Cleveland. If anybody could do it one of them can, but I don't even know if they'll touch you." Cleveland said, "Come on back and we'll look at it and decide what to do." So we went back there and we checked in on a Monday and they did all kinds of tests on me until Friday and I met with the surgeon and he said, "Mr. Richards, you're in pretty bad shape. You've got about two months and that's about all you can live with this. The only way we could avoid that is if we could fix it. We don't even want to try. We don't open up people three times, now you want 48 us to open you up the fourth time. We don't normally do that." I said, "Well, doctor, you're the best hospital in the country to do this, you're the best doctor and I'm a tough patient. I want you to do it." He started laughing and he said, "I guess if anybody can survive it, you probably could. I won't agree to do it, but stick around for a day or so and I'll talk to some other surgeons and we'll see if we can work something out. But you have no promise from me." On Sunday, we got the telephone call from them and they said, "If you're still willing to take the risk and give appropriate releases, we'll do it on Tuesday." They called back and said, "We've got a cancellation Monday, come on in Monday morning." So I went in Monday morning and that's when they did the operation on me. It was kind of interesting though, the doctor did not want to do it. I knew he didn't want to do it, so he was looking pretty glum when they were about to do it. They did twelve open-heart surgeries a day at that hospital. He looked kind of glum and I said, "Well, doctor, let me tell you something that will make you feel better. I'm a Mormon, and we have a scripture that says all men are given a gift and you have a gift to heal people and I have the gift to be healed." He gave me the thumbs up and shoved me in the operating room and that was it. He called my doctor here and said, "You know, if it hadn't been for his attitude, we would have never touched him. He had such a good attitude. We thought he had a reasonable chance to survive." After about a year my doctor said, "Write to this guy and tell him you're still alive, I think he'll be interested in hearing it." ROH: It's been five years later. Are you doing well now? 49 RR: I'm doing pretty well. I've got some problems, but I'm doing pretty well. ROH: So does this heart issue run in your family? RR: Both of my parents had strokes, so I presume it runs in the family. I've got seven sisters and none of them have the problem. I have one brother and he's had one little problem, but hasn't had a stent put in. I've ended up with nine bypasses, four open-heart surgeries, fourteen stents, and a pacemaker and I'm just ticking along until it's time to go. ROH: Were there any prominent surgeons here in Ogden that worked with you on this? RR: Doctor Cain at McKay-Dee Hospital and my cardiologist here is Doctor Diehl at Ogden Regional. He's put in about seven of my stents. He's not a surgeon, he's a cardiologist. So, that's my medical history. ROH: Let's back up here a little bit. You moved back here from Washington. Were you involved in law practice when you moved back to Ogden? RR: I still represented Sunrider Corporation out of California. I was their general council. I really wasn't though. I had the title, but I was more of a consultant to them and did routine corporate work for them. I did a little bit of other lobbying. I did not do legal work, but I did some lobbying for people. ROH: Were you lobbying for Utah constituents or people back in Washington? RR: Mostly back in Washington. 50 ROH: Can you tell me some of the people you were working with then? RR: I was working with people in the aerospace business and I had to lobby the congress for them to put a little pressure on Taiwan to buy a bunch of Boeing aircraft. Taiwan Airlines wanted it, but they had some guys in the Taiwan government that didn't want to spend the money although they had billions on hand. Our job was to build a little bit of fire under the head of the government in Taiwan so they'd buy the airplanes from us. We had a bad balance of trade. They sold us a lot more than we sold them. To sell them eight or ten 747's was a big deal and we promoted that pretty aggressively. I didn't do a whole lot more, I really was quite retired. ROH: Did you get involved with any groups in the community? RR: I got involved with some friends and we played golf once a week. I did a little work in politics. I helped Orrin Hatch and other Republican candidates. I didn't do a lot. I didn't have the energy to do a lot and I didn't feel safe to travel. I did do some traveling to visit my son in Alabama and my daughter in New York and stuff like that, but I've been retired. However, I'm writing some papers on how I think we can improve the presidential election system in America. ROH: I know you have written a lot. RR: I've had people ask me to represent them and I've turned them down because I couldn't be reliable. If I had to go someplace tomorrow at 10:00, I'm not sure I could do it because of my health. I wake up some mornings and I just can't operate. 51 ROH: I know about you're involvement with Weber State and you've indicated that you guest lecture at the University of Utah. Why don't you tell me a little bit about that? RR: My interest was primarily with Weber State. When I left Washington after having seen the legal profession and the lobbyist I thought, "We have a real problem with ethics in this country." I wanted to do something about ethics and I talked to Ann Milner who was president of the university. I embarrassed my wife in what I said, but I said, "Ann, you ought to teach ethics on the campus. If you do that, you'll be a hero and if you don't do it you'll be a bum." She said, "You mean I'll be a bum?" I said, "Yes." We laughed about that. We talked about ethics and the development people got in touch with me. He said, "If you want to do something about it, why don't you put up some money to start a foundation?" So I did. I put up quite a bit of money for it. We started our ethics program and what we've been doing is giving scholarships out. For the last couple of years we've given scholarships and I think last year we gave about $20,000. That is, $1,000 scholarships to 20 people. ROH: Tell me a little bit about who is receiving the scholarships. RR: We put on a program in conjunction with Garff Motors, who has a program for high school students. We decided to have each of the high schools in the area participate in a contest to write the best essay on how we can improve ethics in our community. The people who wrote the best essay in 20 high schools were given a $1,000 scholarship to Weber State. We've done that for two years and I 52 presume we will continue to do it. In the meantime, I decided to write a book. I started writing my book about what I had done and so on and I've got some good help from Gene Sessions up on the campus. It took me a long time. Writing a book is not an easy project. My wife had a lot of good notes. My secretary kept a lot of good notes. I had a lot of press releases. A lot of what I put in there I got from newspapers because most everything I did was written up in the press somewhere. The book is called, "Climbing the Political Ladder One Rung at a Time" That was designed primarily to encourage young people who like politics to get involved. Also, to tell them how I was able to go from nowhere to the National Chairmanship and that they can do the same thing. As I give talks around, one of the first questions everybody asks is, "How did you ever get to become the Republican National Chairman?" The press says, "He came from Podunk Utah. Where's Ogden?" They had no idea where Ogden was. I had no family that was previously involved in politics. My family didn't have money, so how did I get to be National Chairman? ROH: Do you think that in today's environment that something like that could happen to someone? RR: It would be pretty rare because I've never heard of it happening before either. ROH: I'm sure that's what a lot of the students say is that it's really remarkable. RR: Well, what I tell them is that if they are willing to do the grubby, unglamorous work like licking the envelopes, putting on the stamps and running the errands, 53 you can work yourself up that ladder. Candidates love volunteers and if you're a good volunteer, you will just keep progressing up the line. The guy that I hired to be the executive director of the party here when I was the national chairman was Dave Turner, a young kid out of Utah State that volunteered to drive a car for me when I was a candidate. He was just a young kid interested in politics and he was a driver. From there he just moved up the ladder until he ended up in a pretty good position. ROH: What is he doing now? RR: He worked for Hudd for a while and he's just trying to get some years in for government service and he's working for the national security people at the airport. ROH: Back to this ethics business. It's curious to me because I don't know of a lot of ethics programs at other schools, so what inspired you to create something related to ethics at Weber State? RR: Well, because we needed it. We really need it. When I talked to them, Ann said, "Talk to the head of the business department." I talked to him and he said, "Well, we devote an hour or two in the course of study on ethics." I said, "That's nothing. We ought to have a whole program of ethics." I really pushed it hard and Nathan Clark pushed me to put up the money to start it and that's what we've done. Every day you can read in the newspaper about some major breech of ethics on the part of a governor, a senator, or someone that works for the city— everybody. There's ethical breech all around us and a lot of times these kids 54 don't know any better. I've seen surveys where they ask kids if they have ever cheated in school. Seventy-five percent of them say they've cheated and when you ask why they say, "Well, everybody else is cheating and I'm competing with them. If I have to compete with them then I guess I have to cheat." I thought, "We need to start teaching them a little bit earlier." If we can get a hold of these kids in high school and get them involved in ethics, it's going to a make a difference. Someone asked me, "How are you going to measure success?" I said, "I don't know that you can, but somewhere along the line you're going to touch somebody and that's going to improve their attitude on ethics." That's what it's all about. It's a difficult thing. It's prodding all the time and trying to get people to buy scholarships for the kids, but we have had some experience from these young kids that won the scholarship that say, "I could not have gone to college without that scholarship. That made all the difference in the world to me." We give it to them not because they are rich or good students, but because they have the best ideas about ethics. I still spend a lot of time and effort on this ethics stuff. ROH: I think that's great. RR: However, I do have a complaint against the university on this and I've talked to a lot of these guys that raise big chunks of money. I say, "Why don't you tell the people that are giving to earmark some of that money for ethics?" The university doesn't want to do it because they want the money to go into the building or whatever they do. There's no reason why we can't tell a guy that's going to give a million dollars that $50,000 of that can go into ethics, but the university has their 55 own program and it isn't channeling the ethics program. We're getting the new president soon and I'm going to be approaching him. Ann has been supportive, but nothing has happened other than holding those meetings. We had the former governor speak to our group a year ago and we gave out all these scholarships and there wasn't one word in the press about it. Standard Examiner never wrote one word about it. We had the pictures taken of all these kids that got scholarships and we were hoping they'd get their picture in the paper and they did not. I called Doug at the Standard and I asked if he would run a story on the ethics program. He said, "Yes. When is it?" I said, "It was last night." They did not even know what night it was and I said, "You guys at the university and the public relations department failed, you should have seen that the press was there." Again, this is the second year they didn't do it. We've decided that we've got to have a public relations guy on our board. It's their job to get the press. ROH: Is there anything nationally that you're aware of happening with ethics? RR: No. It was kind of interesting when Jon Huntsman was the governor, he came up when they named the Richard Richards Institute. Governor Huntsman and Jake Garn were there and they named it. Huntsman said, "You're the only university around here that's promoting ethics. I'm going to support you. I'm going to help you." Well, he hasn't. I sent him an email when he was over in China and said, "You said you wanted to help us I thought it meant you were going to give us some money or get other people to give some money." We hate to have to go out 56 and grub money a dollar at a time to give these scholarships. Zion's Bank has been a big supporter. They have given us $12,000 each year for two years. That was very helpful to us. The university has paid for the meals when we have the banquet and that's about all the university has done. It really hasn't caught on yet. ROH: It takes some time. How many years has it been now? RR: I've been working on it for about three or four years, but we've been giving out scholarships for the last two. Alan Hall is a big money raiser for the school. I went to Alan and said, "Alan, why don't you tell these guys that are giving money that they can earmark some for ethics." He said he would do it, but I don't think he has. However, in the next week or so that committee meets again and I'm going to go back to Alan Hall and say, "Look, give us some money." In fact, because he writes this business article and I told him, "Alan, why don't you write an article about ethics?" He wrote a paragraph about it out of probably 30 or 40 columns. We got two inches referring to ethics. We're going to have to press it. ROH: I think it would be good for you to write a column too because you've got more experience. RR: I've written some columns only they've been political columns. ROH: What do you think about ethics in politics these days? RR: Well, politics today is meaner than it has been in a long time. When Jake Garn decided he didn't want to run again and Howard Baker from Tennessee, the 57 senator from Colorado said, "It isn't fun anymore. It used to be fun, but it is just mean now. Your colleagues are mean, your constituents are mean, the press is mean and it just isn't fun." Senator Baker told me, "If I knew how good it was on the outside, I would have quit the senate a long time ago." It's just a bad environment and it is getting worse. You can go back in history and you can see even in George Washington's time they slandered one another, but we slander them day after day in the press that gets to millions of readers every day. That's why it appears so bad. ROH: How do you inspire the youth? Let's say these high school kids that you're helping to go to university. How do you inspire them to change when what they're seeing is so slanderous? RR: We've made a couple of attempts to do that. We were assigned by the governor to sit on the committee to tell how to improve elections in the state. I got the students up at Weber to write a program on it and we submitted it to the governor. We also got one on ethics and what the ethics reform ought to be. Our kids on the campus wrote a program on how to establish an ethics program in the state of Utah and the legislation didn't pay any attention to it. We gave it directly to the governor and we gave it to legislatures and we gave it to the press. Everybody saw it but the legislature pre-empted everybody and wrote their puny little ethics reform which is nothing. 58 ROH: I was wondering if that had anything to do with it. I remember hearing about ethics reform a little over a year ago, so I was wondering if that is just one of those things that will take more time. RR: Yes, it will take time beyond my time to get, but whatever we do to get it going is worth it. Like I said, if you ask, "How do you measure your success?" There are no definitive measures, but if you touch the heart and mind of a half a dozen kids, that's good. Out of our first year we had one of our students that got an ethics scholarship and they worked on our committee. They went to Washington to be an intern at the White House for Obama. Another one went to work for congressman Bishop. The kids did get involved and they're doing some stuff. I can pick out two or three kids that I know we've had an impact on and will do something in politics. As I look back, when I was party chairman in Utah, Karl Rove was one of my interns. I didn't even know him. I didn't pay attention to him at that time. Another one was this guy Dave Hanson, who runs Orrin Hatch's campaign and I had lunch with him yesterday. Another one named Alan Peterson who did a nationwide organizational program for Richard Nixon and we had some guys from Ogden participating. Alex Hurtado, he was one of my best political friends and he got involved in this national organization for Nixon. I've seen a handful of people that have become involved and have been very successful, but it's got to be more. ROH: Is there anything else you'd like to add about ethics? 59 RR: There is one thing that's happening. Isaac Goeckeritz is putting together a film on ethics to promote the ethics up here. He has interviewed Jake Garn, Richard Wirthlin, Mr. Mack, the governor, and a whole lot of people talking about ethics in their business. Bob Garff talks about the ethics of his father in the automobile business. They're talking about ethics and he's preparing it and his wife said he is coming close and maybe by Christmas he will have it done and it will go on the air at KUED. I think it will be good enough that it will open up a lot of other things. Another guy that's in that is Dan Jones and he talks about ethics in the polling business. ROH: That will be good to see. Isaac Goeckeritz, for future reference, is a local historian, film documenter, a Weber State graduate, and one of Richard's relatives. RR: We were involved with the one on the Union Station, he did the one on the hill out in Uintah, "The U," he did one on homeless vets and now he's doing one on ethics. He's also doing other stuff. KUED loves him, they say he's got a great deal of talent and they're going to keep using him. ROH: Today is September 26, 2012 and we are in the home of Dick Richards. Present are Rebecca Ory Hernandez and Dick Richards. We are going to continue your oral history. The last time we spoke we talked a lot about the Ethics Institute at Weber State, so today I would like to talk a little more about present day and what is happening in your life. What are your involvements here in Ogden and in 60 the state related to politics? I know that you have been a guest on a few T.V. shows, so why don't you tell me a little bit about that? RR: I was on two Ted Capner shows, that's the Sunday afternoon broadcast. The first one after he read my book he invited me to come and talk to him and we talked about the things that are in the book. You've seen many of them. The other discussion we had just a week or so ago was on how we can cut down the cost of presidential campaign. This year's presidential campaign will probably cost 4 billion dollars. Each one of the candidates will raise about a billion dollars for their campaign and the political parties will make another half a billion. Then, 527 committees, or so-called super-packs, will each raise about a half a billion or more and that will put us at least $4 billion for the presidential campaign. The point that people don't understand is that the Supreme Court has rules that anyone can get involved in a campaign and spend all the money they want provided they do not coordinate with the candidate. All these committees raise money and you know what their message is going to be, they don't have to say vote for Obama or vote for Romney, you can tell what they're promoting. They get involved in it and that will bring the cost to over $4 billion. My proposal was that in order to prevent this limit the time, since you can't limit the money. Reduce the time of the campaign and allow the candidates to do their exploratory effort up until about the 15th of April in the election year. By the 15th of April they have to announce whether they will or will not be a candidate. If they say they will be a candidate, from that day on they can start raising money. They'll have to go through the primaries of the various states from that time before November. 61 If you're in a state with a caucus convention like we have, you might have your first caucus about three months after the candidate announces. We'd have the county conventions and the state conventions and if you had to have a primary you'd push the campaign between the Republican and the Democrat clear back to about August of September. They can't raise or spend a billion dollars between September and November, so it will really force the whole process to slow down to eliminate cost. Romney had been running for about 6 or 8 years and Obama has been running for 3 and it's just boring, wasteful and non-productive. The conventions and the debates they have are really about nothing and they reduce themselves to just petty criticism of the other guy. If you had only a three month campaign period they'd talk about what they want to do. They'd talk about the positive aspects of their campaign. ROH: Who profits from all of this money? RR: I made that point on television. The only ones that profit are the television stations, the radio, the newspaper, the campaign managers, and the advertising firms. The public doesn't profit by it. It's the guys that make money out of the campaign. Professional fundraisers get a percentage of the money they raise, the television people get money for everything they run, the campaign managers and the public relations people get 15 percent of what they spend on television. Just imagine a $200 million campaign on television and the guy is going to make about $30 million for putting the ads on the air. That's a big deal. ROH: So the candidates don't actually make any of the money they are raising? 62 RR: No, the candidates don't get it. It's those that are in the campaign business that get the money. Nobody likes to give it, but when you've got a campaign and they keep hitting you up for money, you feel the pressure and you make contributions. Everybody but the guys that make money on the campaign would like to see it shorter. ROH: Do you think that will happen in our lifetime? RR: It could, but I don't know whether it will or not. There has been a drive in the past for regional primaries or a national primary. If we had regional primaries, that would help a lot because then the candidate would have to talk to all of the American people instead of just eight states. Where they are now they go to Illinois and they talk about automobile manufacturing because that's the big issue there. They go to Ohio and they talk about the agricultural subsidies. It really isn't a national campaign, it is a series of little local interest campaigns. That's not good for the country. ROH: Are there any other shows that you've been featured on other than the one that you just mentioned? RR: No, I've been on his show a couple of times and I speak once in a while at the Hinckley Institute. I get invited more to the University of Utah to speak than I do Weber State, but I do participate on the campuses and I've been asked to talk to civic groups in town. My health is such that I have been turning them down. I don't know whether or not I'm going to feel well enough to do it. I just say, "No, I don't do that anymore." 63 ROH: Are you doing any local speeches during this campaign? RR: I write down suggestions for the candidates to send to them and they never follow those. What happens is that when a guy gets to be the campaign manager doesn't want other people telling him what to do. They look at guys like me and say, "Oh those guys are over the hill, they don't know the campaigns are different today." They don't pay any attention to us. They're wrong. I found my way to the national chairmanship by doing a good campaign on the state and local level and then on the national level. The principles of running the program we run is the same today as it was 20, 30, or 50 years ago. The average American has nothing to do with the campaign. They don't know the candidate. They don't meet the candidates and they don't even know who they are. If you put on a program where you give them the opportunity to participate in the campaign they're flattered by it. They want to do it. What we had done over the years was recruit people. For Richard Nixon, we set up a telephone operation and called people in the various neighborhoods and said, "I'm a volunteer for Richard Nixon, we think he's uniquely qualified to be president of the United States. We're doing what we can, will you help us?" A lot of people say yes and ask what they can do. We send them brochures and ask them to go door-to-door and tell the people about Richard Nixon and give him their personal endorsement. We know it flatters people and they think their job is very important. 64 Many years ago, one guy up in Portland called up after we went through the primary and said, "I did my work in the primary, but I'm 82 years old and legally blind. I don't think I can do it in a general election. So, you better get someone to take my place." He thought that the little role he had in the neighborhood was so important that if he didn't do it, there would be a problem so we'd have to get somebody to take his place. T The campaign chairman doesn't make any money if you do this volunteer work and neither does the television or anyone else, this is a very quiet campaign. The only person that makes any money on this is the guy that rents you the building and maybe the telephone company that has telephones from it. ROH: That's interesting. Are you doing any other kinds of present day consulting? RR: No, I'm actually retired. I'm helping a couple of little businesses, but I'm basically retired. I'm one of the 47 percent that's living off of the government program called Social Security. ROH: Can you share a little bit about the businesses you're helping? RR: I've been helping a company that makes a gasoline additive that reduces the pollution of your automobile and increases your gas mileage. Interestingly enough, my role is to get government people to look at it and try it out. I have found that people that work for the government in the motor pools don't care if you save money on gasoline. It's not out of their pocket. You can give it to them and ask them to try it out, but they don't do it. We talk about the need to increase 65 mileage and reduce pollution, but the guy that's running the motor pool at the state of Utah, Salt Lake and Ogden don't care. ROH: Is it corn-based? RR: No, it's not a food-based. It's made of algae. It does not affect the corn prices or the wheat prices. I use it in my car and I get five more miles per gallon in the city and on the highway. ROH: That's fascinating. RR: It's just a little tablet you put in the gas tank. It looks like a jelly bean and when you fill your gas tank you drop it into the tank. ROH: Is it available on the market? RR: Yes, but it's only on the internet. You can't sell it at the gas stations because it cuts down their gas sales they don't want that. I've got to give my wife credit that she put up with all of the things I've done and all of the moving. I have dragged her and my kids around the country time and time again and they've never complained. I think they've had a great benefit from doing it, but at the same time a lot of people complain if they've had to pick up and move every year or two. We never lived in a house for more than 10 years until we were 13 years in that house in McLean, Virginia and that's the longest we've ever been in a house. AR: Actually, we've been here now about as long as we've been there. It wasn't easy, I'll tell you. 66 ROH: Annette, you do history, right? AR: Yes. I've been doing that. I went to a meeting in Salt Lake on this new family search and they asked how long people have been researching and I'd been researching the longest. Over 50 years. I started when I was pretty young. Our oldest daughter was three months old when I got involved. ROH: Okay. Thanks Annette. Let's talk a little about present day politics, just a couple of quick questions. Are you involved at all in present day politics as far as on the national level? RR: Once in a while a candidate will call me and ask if he can sit down with me for a while and talk about the campaign and I give him some ideas. Otherwise, I'm really not involved. I was called by the campaign chairman for Governor Rick Perry and asked if I would be the Utah chairman for Perry and I said, "We've got to get passed John Huntsman first." I couldn't work for Perry as long as John Huntsman was in the race, but if Huntsman was out I'd be glad to help Perry out. I think he was a good candidate except he can't talk and answer questions. ROH: Other than Perry, are there any other names? RR: Well, I gave a little bit of advice to Hatch's opponent, but I said, "Orrin is a good friend of mine. I can't tell you how to run against him, but I can tell you what I think the issues ought to be." I spent an hour with Dan Lillianquist and I thought he was a good candidate, but he ran a bad campaign. ROH: What makes a bad campaign? 67 RR: If the campaign doesn't connect with the public and the voters it's a bad campaign. What you've got to do is talk about a message that they want to hear about and you have to have a good point of view on it. That's what these polls are about. They're polling all the time, "How do you feel about immigration? How do you feel about this or that?" The candidate tailors their message to appeal to those people. Unfortunately, it gets to be just a pandering deal to them. I respect Jon Huntsman because he said, "I'm not going to go to Iowa because I'm against ethanol subsidies. If I got to Iowa they're just going to "boo" me and I won't make any headway there, so I'm not going to go pander to them." I respect him for taking that position. Most of the candidates will go to one place and pander to them and it's just not healthy for the country and I think it's too bad. I'm 80 years old and my health isn't good, so I deliberately took myself out of a lot of this. I did join the tea party and I'll tell you why I like it. Number one, this is middle class America, the silent majority starting to make a little bit of noise. They're not looking for something special for themselves; they just don't want things special given to everybody else. They say, "We've got to cut down our spending." It isn't a question of raising more money, it's spending less money. When they go out and they have a rally of 15,000 people, there's no paraphernalia on the ground or a mess. They don't create a problem. It's clean, it's nice and these are good American citizens voicing their opinion. I read where people say, "The tea party is fading and they are not going to be all that critical in the campaign." They're kidding themselves. The tea party is alive and well and they will be very active in the campaigns when it comes closer to election time. 68 They don't campaign all year long, but they will be out working and they will have an impact. ROH: I think it's interesting that today that we have a new party. I think most people would find that interesting historically to look back and see the beginnings of this new party. Thank you for sharing. RR: One of the things that I propose in election reform is that they allow all parties to campaign in primary elections. Let them all get into the campaign and you'll wash out those that aren't really going to be a contender and you're going to end up with two or three. Maybe there would be three candidates in November, but there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe the guy that wins the presidency only had 47 percent of the population, but that's okay. Other people ought to have the right to voice their point of view and have the American people hear it. ROH: I had a young political science student ask me a question that they wanted me to ask you. He said that a lot of his friends are just not interested in politics at all. I would say between the ages of 19 and 26 are the age of his friends right now. He wanted me to ask you why they should be interested or get involved in politics because their perception of everything they see is negative. RR: That's unfortunate. A lot of people are turned off by the negative campaigns. I am. I'd get tired of listening to them. In fact, I asked Ted Capner if he watched all of the debates and he said, "No." I said, "Neither did I." I couldn't watch them all because they were not productive. I'd tell these young kids, "If you are really interested in politics, find a candidate that you like who's telling the story the way 69 you like it and join that campaign. If you get involved in it you will see your way through all of these things. You'll see how productive it can be." When you're only 19 years old, you're not thinking about retirement, medical expenses, or high taxes. You just haven't been out in the real world yet. As soon as you get a job and get your paycheck and you find out how much money was taken out for social security and worker's compensation and all these other things you think, "Hey, I thought I was getting $200 and I got $150." That shocks them and that's the eye-opener to these people. It kind of goes along with what Winston Churchill said, "When you're 19 years old, if you're not a liberal you've got no heart, but when you're 55 years old, if you're not a conservative you've got no brains." ROH: Right. That was what he asked, "How does it impact my life? All I'm trying to do is survive." He's actually got a wife and a child. He's working, going to school and he's involved on campus in leadership. He said, "I don't see how I can even be a blip on the radar of what's going on nationally." RR: Well, that's a story I tell in my book. I started out as the junior Republican chairman at Weber Junior College in 1952. In 1980, I was the Republican National Chairman. I climbed up. President Reagan said, "He's had every job on the way up. This is the first chairman I know that's worked his way through the state and national chairmanship positions." There's opportunity out there for these guys and in order to really understand it, I think you have to get involved in a campaign. The guy who's going to school and has a wife and kids says, "I'm 70 worried about my health insurance and if we have another baby we can't afford the cost of it." Then insurance becomes interesting to him. After a while, he gets hurt on the job or he gets sick, then social security, Medicare, and disability becomes interesting to him. These things become interesting as he grows older and he's facing that proposition. Young people don't look that far ahead. They think they're invincible and indestructible. They just don't see the problems down the road. ROH: Right. So let's talk a little bit about your family. I know you've got lots of children. RR: I've got five. ROH: That's a good-sized family. Are any of them involved in politics? RR: No, that is the interesting thing. My oldest son is a professor of philosophy at the University of Alabama. His name is Richard Albert Richards. He was named after Annette's father. He started out to be a dancer professionally and he danced around the world as a ballet dancer. He was quite good, but not good enough to be a star, and if you're not a star you can't make a living doing it. He finally decided that it wasn't for him and he went back to school to study philosophy. When he went back to school, he took the college ACT test and he got in the 98th percentile and he was offered a full fellowship at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. He got his degree there. He was a very good student and he had very good recommendations by the number one philosopher there and he went around to some of the colleges to seek employment and he ran into people that 71 said, "White men need not apply, we're going to hire a minority or a woman. So don't bother to apply." My oldest daughter, Julie Dockter, is married to a real estate salesman and they have four sons who are all doing very well. One of them is a businessman doing a lot of business with China and has made a lot of money. Another one is a medical doctor and his name is Dr. Dockter. Another one is in college studying something in physical sciences and the other one is a computer expert at Novell in Provo. My next daughter is married to a lawyer who's practicing law in New York. She's interested in politics, but she doesn't do much of it. She reads a lot and she gets involved a little bit but she has three kids and teaches early morning seminary and some other things. Her name is Jan Stevenson. My next daughter is Amy Hartvigsen and her husband is a landscape architect down in Alpine and they have four boys. The oldest is now on a mission. They have really talented kids. There is a lot of talent around my grandkids. My youngest son, Brian, works for the state of Utah in Utah Workplace. That's my family. I have ten grandchildren and eleven great grandchildren and four of those great grandchildren are part Chinese. My grandson, Chris Dockter married a Chinese girl from Taiwan. 72 ROH: I couldn't help but notice that you have a lot of art hanging in your home. RR: It's all family art. My father was the artist. ROH: Other people in your family are also artistically inclined. RR: Yes. My brother is an artist and he taught art at Dennison University in Dallas. My son, Rich, painted that big picture on the wall there. On the wall up there I've got paintings of my father, my brother, my daughter, and my son. We've all got a painting up there. My father is the best artist of the bunch. I have sisters that are very good. I think you saw the picture of the dogs in my bedroom. One of my sisters did that. There are a number of good artists in the family. The etching above the piano was by my brother. That big picture there is done by my son, Rich. The Abraham Lincoln was given to me by the Republican Party of Utah when I completed my term as state chairman. The star is a little thing that Richard Nixon gave out when he was elected president. The eagle is from the inauguration of Reagan and Bush. Geronimo is one that I just purchased. A friend of mine, Jay Taggert, former superintendent of the schools for Utah gave me the Teddy Roosevelt. ROH: Is there anything else that I might not have asked you that you would like to address? RR: I tell people jokingly that I used to be a genius, but now I'm just very bright. As a result of my heart operations, I have lost some mental acuity and I'm not as sharp as I used to be. My memory isn't as good. I have bad days so I'm limited. As a former National Chairman, I always have access to a seat at the national 73 conventions. They have one for former chairmen and I couldn't go so I asked them if my nephew could use my credentials so he went to the last convention. I went to every convention from 1968 until George W. Bush ran. I did not go then, but I went through Nixon, Reagan, and H. W. Bush. I've been to a lot of conventions. ROH: Is your nephew involved in politics now? RR: He's a lobbyist so he's a little bit involved in politics, but he likes to get involved. He has worked for candidates in the past. I don't have any children that wanted to be lawyers or wanted to be in politics. I wouldn't encourage them to be lawyers because I'm unhappy with the profession now. ROH: I was going to ask you if you encouraged them at all when they were younger to go into law or politics since they were living in Washington. RR: My girls were more enamored by living in Washington than my sons. They loved going to the White House and going to Kennedy Bunk Port and going to the parades and inaugurals and so on. They really enjoyed that. Everybody really loved being in that historical place, including me. ROH: Are there any stories about Ogden that many people might not know about or historical stories that would be just interesting to share? RR: Did you see the film that Isaac did on 25th Street? There is some historical stuff that I'm involved in on that 25th Street thing. When I went to law school, I drove from Ogden to Salt Lake and I had a couple of people that paid me to ride with 74 me. One of them was Annabelle Weakly and the other was Jane Larson. She was about 70 years old and she wanted to go back to school. She graduated from Weber College when she was 70 or 72. I got to know both of them fairly well. After I got out of law school I wanted to try lawsuits and I wanted to go to trial. If you want trial experience as a young lawyer you're not going to get it in a civil case. I went to the judges and said, "I want some trial experience so give me your criminals that don't have any money that are in jail and can't make bond." We didn't have a public defender system then. Over a period of one year they gave me 10 criminals and I tried the 10 felonies to a jury. I got 8 acquittals out of my 10 and that put me in business. I had lots of criminal business. In fact, it was too much. I ended up trying to get rid of it because I got tired of the criminals, but that's where I got my experience in the court room. I'll give you a quote from a guy if it won't sound politically incorrect, "One day I was walking along the street and this black guy came up to me and said, are you Mr. Richardson Richardson?" I said, "Well, I guess I am." He said, "Are you the man that represented Copeland Griffin?" I said, "I guess that's right." He said, "Well, let me shake your hand. You must be good. He was the biggest crook in town." Two of my defenses were for one guy and I won both of the cases and this impressed those in the black community. All my life I've been interested in politics, not for the sake of winning, but for the sake of helping the country. I've been concerned about the country. I see things that I don't think are right and I don't know whether I told you this story but when I was pretty new in the practice, we saw some misconduct and what I call 75 criminal activity on the part of elected officials in Weber County. I was instrumental in getting a grand jury called and ended up putting a sheriff in jail and some other things. These guys were doing a lot of things wrong. ROH: No, you didn't mention that? Who was the Sheriff? RR: It was LeRoy Hadley. I was representing a guy by the name of Ralph Anderson. He was a federal prisoner being housed in Ogden and waiting for his appeal in the tenth circuit. He appeared to have the run of the jail. Every time I'd go up to jail to see another client I'd see him hanging around. He wasn't in a cell, he was hanging around. One of these guys that had tattoos on his arm and had a pack of cigarettes rolled up in his shirt sleeve tried to hire me to represent him and he wanted an appeal to the tenth circuit. He was in jail for burglarizing a couple of post offices. He and his brother-in-law would drive a particularly adapted automobile up to these small post offices, break in, wheel the safe out and put it in the trunk of the car and drive up into the mountains and blow it up with dynamite and take out the money orders and postage stamps. He said, "Dick, I'll hire you. I'll give you $10,000 to represent me. I've got $60,000 stolen in postal money orders up in Pocatello. I can sell those for $20,000 and I'll give you half of it." I said, "No thanks. Not interested." Anyway, as time went on I talked to the guy and one day his wife came to me and said, "Mr. Richards, they're going to let Andy out of jail again this weekend. I'm afraid if he gets caught out of jail when he's supposed to be in jail the sheriff will say he escaped and he'll get an extra 5 or 10 years punishment." 76 When I found out they were letting him out of jail I said, "I've got to tell the judge. I am an officer of the court so I have to tell Judge Anderson, the federal judge in Salt Lake, what's happening here." I called the judge and he said, "You ought to call Judge Ritter." I said, "Judge, I don't like Judge Ritter and he doesn't like me so I'm telling you. I've now done my duty." As a result of what happened here a grand jury was called and the grand jury heard the evidence that the sheriff would let him out on weekends and he'd go burglarize someplace and share what he stole with the sheriff. The grand jury said to contact him and ask him to give some specifics about one of the burglaries that only the burglar would know. We'll find out if he's telling the truth. He said, "I knocked off the Red Pantry Café on the corner of Ogden Avenue and 25th Street. I got in by kicking in the back door with my foot and I left a shoe print on the door so I had to get rid of the shoes afterward. When I went in I got into the cigarette machines, I got into jukeboxes and I stole the stuff out of there. One thing that was very peculiar is when I got the jukebox money, there were a lot of quarters with red fingernail polish on them. I don't know what that meant, but that's what I took." They called in the man that owned the Red Pantry Café and said, "What about the money in the jukebox? Is there anything unusual about it?" he said, "Oh yeah, part of those quarters are what I call show quarters. I put red fingernail polish on the ones I put in so I get them back. When somebody saw other people put in for music they'd play music. They were show coins. I got to keep them and 77 the guy that owned the music company would take all the others." That was proof that my guy stole the money out of the jukebox. Finally, they put the sheriff on trial. When it was known that the sheriff let the guy out, his attorney said, "Sheriff, isn't it true that the reason you let him out was to take him to your home and show him what good law abiding citizens lived like and to get a little spirituality in your life?" The guy said, "No, that isn't true." The lawyer asked the question, "Well, why did you let him out?" He said, "Greed, Mr. Alsup. Greed." They convicted the sheriff and the sheriff was put in jail down in Davis County. ROH: What year was this? RR: I don't know what year it was. I went back to Washington shortly after that. The sheriff came up to me one time when I was alone and said, "Richard, you son of bitch. I'll get you for this." He threatened me, but I didn't say anything about it. He went to jail and some of the other public officials lost their jobs and it kind of cleaned up the community. The interesting part of that is that one of the guys that we had as our plaintiff in our action against the county officials was the lieutenant governor's father. He ran a janitorial supply place in Ogden on 25th Street. His name was George Bell. His son is now the Lieutenant governor. It took courage on the part of his father to act as a plaintiff in the case. It was a taxpayer's lawsuit filed against him because they were crooked. The