M. Williams

It seems inappropriate for the author of a book onetiquette to describe herself as a "newspaper woman" and "magazine writer""wife" and "mother". In charity, we should assume that Fenner (whose two children were married at the time of publishing) didn't engage in career pursuits until after her children were grown. However, there is no proof of this. Owing to her other credentials mentioned in the note, such as graduating first in her college class and receiving a Pulitzer scholarship, it seems obvious that Fenner accepted the notion of "Working mothers", and likely was one herself. Perhaps this apparent neglect of family life explains why obituary information for Mrs. Fenner cannot be found online.

Kay Toy Fenner's busy life as a newspaper woman, magazine writer, wife, and mother includes such varied interests as gourmet cooking, local history, and child guidance. Her ambition is to "always have more plans for the future than time to fulfill them."

I first heard abouton Tradition in Action's article entitled " Courtesy: An Essential Element of the Catholic Home ", and having heard much good about the book from another friend, I purchased it. It is no longer in print today, hence it is somewhat costly -- about $45 for my copy. To me, however, this was a good sign: after all, I reasoned, a book no longer in print, with a traditional-looking cover design, and frequently cited by Tradition in Action would be worth reading. When the book arrived in the mail, I was impressed and eagerly set about reading it. I had already read portions of it on-line, and everything I had read so far seemed orthodox.

More and more traditionalists are realising the Crisis in the Church didn't begin in 1958 with the death of the "conservative" Pope Pius XII. To believe otherwise is to sacrifice the Militant character of the Catholic Church -- for the truth is that the Crisis in which we presently suffer, the Modernist Progressivist Crisis, has been creeping into the Catholic Church for over a hundred years. Thus, it is not automatically safe to assume a "pre-Vatican II" book will be acceptable reading. This is why I am writing about a particular book that might gain popularity among traditional Catholics today. It is called American Catholic Etiquette , published in 1962 and written by a woman named Kay Toy Fenner. While I must stress this book contains much useful advice, there are sprinklings of feminism -- likely a by-product of the 1960s mentality -- that have to be addressed.





However, I would not dare to criticise Mrs. Fenner -- a skilled writer -- for this one particular point, unless it was supported by additional evidence, of which there is plenty.



Marriage proposals





Fenner's extensive chapters on Engagement and Marriage are useful and interesting. Indeed, they make up the bulk of the book, and in my research, it appears to be Mrs. Fenner's area of expertise. So, you can imagine my surprise when I read Mrs. Fenner's very unorthodox view of marriage proposals:

In present-day America, an engagement is more solely the concern of the contracting parties than in any other country in any age. A young man often proposes and is at least tentatively accepted without either family's being consulted. Thereafter the young people sometimes announce it to their families as a settled thing, without any permission being asked or given.



The more old-fashioned way is the better one. Let the young man tell his family in advance that he intends to propose, and what his marriage plans are. Let him listen to his parents' opinions in the matter, especially if they know the girl .He may not--indeed, if he is of age, he need not-- take their advice, but she should hear it, and try to weigh it dispassionately.



After proposing and being accepted, he should then call formally on his fianc é e's father and ask his consent to the marriage. He should tell him what his present financial status is [etc].

after the proposal. This is plainly wrong. Traditional Catholic teaching, however offensive to modern ears, says that fathers have a quasi-"ownership" (though not precisely this term is used) over their daughters. This is why, during weddings, fathers escort their daughter down the aisle, give their daughter a blessing, and then give her hand to her husband-to-be at the altar. It represents a transfer of "ownership", although perhaps the more proper term would be "protectorship", for as with bad husbands and fathers, wives and daughters have rights under the Church to protect themselves when their fathers and spouses refuse to do so.



This is also the reason why the father's permission is required if there is to be any lawful familiarity -- courtship -- between a daughter and a young man exceeding normal acquaintanceship and friendliness. In traditional Catholic morality, when it comes to courtship and marriage, fathers reign supreme, and rightly so. But Fenner, even living in the supposedly "conservative" pre-Vatican II times, embodies and approves just the opposite: liberty, emancipation, mutual consent. This one line -- essentially an endorsement of feminism --, which somehow received an imprimatur and a nihil obstat, is enough to condemn the entire book and place it on the Index. Unfortunately, the "smoke of Satan" had already entered the Catholic Church, so of course it never happened, and this book is still being paraded around today.



I believe this is sufficient proof that Fenner accepted a (albeit less radical) form of feminism that is nevertheless unacceptable to Catholic morals in every respect. This also explains Fenner's unusual choice to describe herself as a career woman before a wife and mother, in her list of traits on the biographical note.



Fenner promotes excessive familiarity (above) between the unmarried More misguided teaching

It should not come as a surprise, then, that Fenner's views on marriage -- essentially a question of mutual consent, without much care for the opinion of the families -- would also affect her views on courtship and "dating". Now it is important to reiterate that courtship and dating are two separate things, the first is acceptable under the norms of Catholic morals, the second has to be condemned. Fenner herself doesn't seem to realise this, for although I basically skimmed through this book and focused on the parts I deemed important, I read the sections on "dating" as carefully as I had read the sections on marriage, and there are several points in which traditional Catholic teaching are violated. This is actually proven by Fenner's admission: "Much dating is casual and brief, and does not lead to marriage, just to fun and learning about other people." Read the entire quote and the contradiction is apparent: Fenner appears to approve of the "mutual consent" being "more solely" the means by which a couple is engaged. Then she appears to contradict herself, saying "the old-fashioned way is the best". Then she contradicts herself a second time! Do you notice the problem? Fenner says it is proper to seek the approval for marriagethe proposal. This is plainly wrong. Traditional Catholic teaching, however offensive to modern ears, says that fathers have a quasi-"ownership" (though not precisely this term is used) over their daughters. This is why, during weddings, fathers escort their daughter down the aisle, give their daughter a blessing, and then give her hand to her husband-to-be at the altar. It represents a transfer of "ownership", although perhaps the more proper term would be "protectorship", for as with bad husbands and fathers, wives and daughters have rights under the Church to protect themselves when their fathers and spouses refuse to do so.This is also the reason why the father's permission is required if there is to be any lawful familiarity -- courtship -- between a daughter and a young man exceeding normal acquaintanceship and friendliness. In traditional Catholic morality, when it comes to courtship and marriage, fathers reign supreme, and rightly so. But Fenner, even living in the supposedly "conservative" pre-Vatican II times, embodies and approves just the opposite: liberty, emancipation, mutual consent. This one line -- essentially an endorsement of feminism --, which somehow received an imprimatur and ais enough to condemn the entire book and place it on the. Unfortunately, the "smoke of Satan" had already entered the Catholic Church, so of course it never happened, and this book is still being paraded around today.I believe this is sufficient proof that Fenner accepted a (albeit less radical) form of feminism that is nevertheless unacceptable to Catholic morals in every respect. This also explains Fenner's unusual choice to describe herself as a career woman before a wife and mother, in her list of traits on the biographical note.It should not come as a surprise, then, that Fenner's views on marriage -- essentially a question of mutual consent, without much care for the opinion of the families -- would also affect her views on courtship and "dating". Now it is important to reiterate that courtship and dating are two separate things, the first is acceptable under the norms of Catholic morals, the second has to be condemned. Fenner herself doesn't seem to realise this, for although I basically skimmed through this book and focused on the parts I deemed important, I read the sections on "dating" as carefully as I had read the sections on marriage, and there are several points in which traditional Catholic teaching are violated. This is actually proven by Fenner's admission: "."





This is false. Dating is wrong because it has as its intention the pleasure of the company of the other person. There is no end-goal for marriage, or if it exists it is only vague. Courtship, on the other hand, (which is approved by the Church as the correct path towards marriage) when begun with the approval of the young woman's father, has clear goals: marriage is the end, and the object of "dates" during this time is to see if the two are compatible for marriage.





Thus, Mrs. Fenner's suggestions for how "teens" should "date" are at best a moot point. At worst, it is bad advice. "Teens" are not old enough to get married under the present legal circumstances, although there is nothing inherently evil about it, no more so than arranged marriages. It is pointless for "teens" to "date" others even with the intention of getting married, if the young man in the relationship is not financially and morally stable. The chapters on dating -- the mannerisms expected, etc -- could only apply to various outings which might occur during courtship, but even then, one-on-one activities are not appropriate until engagement, and even then with great prudence.









"The Working Wife"

Although I've already said much, this is actually just the beginning of Fenner's problematic book. On page 368, Fenner allows for mixed marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics, and gives the reasons for this. "It's unfair," Fenner actually says the word! --, "to non-Catholics. [That they should not be allowed to date Catholics] Thousands of them are mature enough, reasonable, fair-minded, honorable enough, to make and keep the promises required of them if they wish to marry in the Church."

Working wives pave the way for...

As is to be expected by now, Fenner also tacitly approves of working wives. In a section titled "The Working Wife", Fenner lays down her belief that "to work or not to work is a decision one rightfully makes for oneself". "[T]housands of wives work outside the home," Fenner argues. "Mother may be working to help buy a home, a car, a summer camp, a boat or some other advantage for the whole family. To do so she must carry an extra-heavy work load, and Father and the older children must take over some of her family responsibilities, thus increasing their work load." Although Fenner admits "only a woman with superb health should attempt it", she is clear that this is the woman's choice.

It is obvious Fenner would adopt this line of reasoning, given that she was a "working wife" herself, and she could not openly criticise working mothers. Even if she actually disapproved of the practice (and she appears to disapprove it in principle), she seems to accept it in some kind of moral expediency, in the same way that many Vatican II catholics justify outings to stores and restaurants on Sundays and holy days.





It is good that Fenner writes, "They [families] should set up a budget in which all ordinary expenses [...] are geared solely to the husband's income." This is correct, but like her faulty logic in dating and marriage, she contradicts herself here just a few sentences prior when she says "[T]housands of wives work outside the home. Many are the sole support [!] of their famlies [sic] ...". In other words, Fenner's position on this matter is unclear, typical of the contradictory, ambiguous mentality of 1960s Catholics that produced the rubbish Vatican II documents.





A revolutionary book



Some might say -- "you go to far. You expect perfection from Catholic books, but this is not practical." Although I do not expect lay authors to be perfect (although it shouldn't be much to expect), I certainly demand freedom from error in the Imprimatur and Nihil obstat which is given to this book. Clearly, however, this book is full of moral errors, and it is disgraceful that it is presented as being "free from error" when it is not. The Imprimatur and Nihil obstat must therefore be considered doubtful pending a future canonical investigation.

Yes, American Catholic Etiquette is a very faulty book on closer examination. Despite the good-looking cover and the flawless credentials of the author, this is a book that is in need of serious revision. I cannot recommend this book in its entirety, and as such I cannot recommend it at all. Only the discerning, counter-revolutionary Catholic can read it and profit from the good portions. Those easily swayed into changing their mind should not read this book, since its revolutionary logic is very attractively presented. I would instead suggest other books, like Courtesy Calls Again by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D. and Judith Fife Mead, Restoring the Family by Marian T. Horvat Ph.D., and especially Catholic Manual of Civility by Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.





Indeed, if there's a term that describes this book better than "feminist" or "progressivist", at its core it is a Revolutionary book. It advocates a form of Etiquette that is not Catholic -- it reminded me of the "Company manners" mentality, wherein one acts very proper publicly but privately acts like a Hun. Although that's an extreme example, and doesn't really apply here, that was my thought in analysing this book. It reeks of hypocrisy. I haven't even discussed the portions on ecumenism -- etiquette, for example, in asking a Protestant "pastor" to give a prayer at a party; attending non-Catholic weddings, etc.

In this book, what is called "American Catholic Etiquette" is really just the total disregard of the Militant spirit of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.



