• 1 “Vele vrouwen hebben waerlyk reden om over hare mans te klagen”. Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer d (...)
• 2 “De godsdienst is goed voor vrouwen”. De Ségur, L., Antwoorden op de meest verspreide opwerpingen t (...)
• 3 The need for a study of men and religion, or rather of gender and religion, stepping away from the (...)
• 4 E.g. Zouaves have been recently studied by Harrison, C., “Zouave Stories: Gender, Catholic Spiritua (...)

1“Religion [only] suits women”. This reproach was one of the main objections carefully treated and refuted in the 1896 Belgian edition of Answers to the most frequent objections to religion2. If this statement were true, there would not be much point in dedicating an article to the depiction of men in Catholic sermons. However, the interaction between men and religion has not only proved to be a long standing relationship, but also a fruitful research area now that the gender critical turn in the study of religion has balanced its attention on the femina religiosa with an augmented interest in the vir religiosus3. Although in recent years men’s religious movements have been studied within various national and denominational contexts4, the depiction of average Christian men, especially Catholic men, is by no means complete. This article will try to respond to this still fragmentary knowledge, analysing the Catholic Church’s normative discourses. Concentrating on (exemplary) sermons, it will try to retrace the construction of the (ideal) Catholic male in the household.

• 5 Marks, L., ““A Fragment of Heaven on Earth”? Religion, Gender and Family in Turn-of-the-Century Can (...)
• 6 Gevers, L., “Gezin, religie en moderniteit. Visie en strategie van de Belgische bisschoppen (1830-1 (...)
• 7 E.g. within the Catholic Church the confraternity of the Holy Family aimed primarily at men and tri (...)
• 8 Horne, J., “Masculinity in Politics and War in the Age of Nation-States and World Wars, 1850-1950”, (...)
• 9 Studies about men in their families: Van Rahden, T., “Vaterschaft, Männlichkeit und private Räume. (...)
• 10 King, U., “Religion…”, op. cit, p. 70; Warne, R., “Making… », op. cit., p. 255; Marks, L., “A Fragm (...)
• 11 Broeckaert, P.F., Predikatie en arbeidersprobleem. Onderzoek naar de sociale opvattingen van de sec (...)

2The focus of this article will be on the second half of the nineteenth century and the turn of the twentieth. This period, when the ideology of the separate spheres was at its prime, has been associated with the privatisation of Christianity and a growing focus on the central role of the mother in moral and religious education5. Still, at the same time, it is also considered as the timeframe for the Catholic Church’s increased attention to the Christian family6 and, more specifically, to the role and authority of the pater familias within the household7. This patriarchal focus and its link between the earthly and heavenly father has been presented as an attempt to replace other (problematic) forms of male sociability, as a challenge to the politics of liberalism and socialism, and as an exploitation of a father’s influence on his sons8. The more that the separate spheres ideology has been criticised and reformulated as a mere rhetorical device, the more its implicit consequences have been questioned. Not only has religion been re-called from its banishment to the private sphere, but at the same time men have been reintroduced to the private life of their families and are no longer solely situated within the public life of work and politics9. Accordingly, the questioning about the presumed decline of Christianity has drawn attention to the importance of religion in the formation and legitimizing of genders10. This article will follow this lead and study the way in which Catholic masculinity was constructed in the sermons. I thereby concentrate on printed sermon books, models and sources of inspiration for the preachers. Since these works were edited, they had gained the consensus of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The books were selected from a catalogue of “representative” nineteenth-century sermon books (for Flanders) listed by P.F. Broeckaert. I focused primarily on those books in his list that were published in Belgium in the second half of the nineteenth century and at the turn of the twentieth century11.

• 12 Vickery, A., “Golden Age to Separate Spheres? A Review of the Categories and Chronology of English (...)
• 13 On the use of sermons in the study of gender or family history: Karant-Nunn, S., ““Fragrant Wedding (...)
• 14 On sermons as a means of communication and behaviour guideline: Cloet, M., Nissen, P. and Storme, H (...)

3Although sermons were (mostly) “prescriptive and not descriptive”12; they do not only offer insights on “true Christian behaviour” but also on censured conduct13. To guarantee optimal reception of these lessons, the discourse of this mass communication had to build on common ground and the ideal Catholic would have to be constructed through reference to the hegemonic ideas of gender14. The Catholic male analysed within the sermons was either a married man or a young man (on the verge of becoming married, or one entering into the priesthood or abbey). The main focus of the article will therefore be on married Catholic masculinity and its gender norms.

• 15 “But a wife should fear her husband”. Ephes.V.33, cited in Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. c (...)
• 16 Talkenberger denotes the difference between men and women in obedience: a woman had to obey her fat (...)

4Catholic man was shaped in the sermons within a complex network of hierarchical relationships defined and confirmed by his place in society and within his family. As a man he was a “son” to his parents and his heavenly father; he was a “husband” to his wife, a “father” to his children, a “master” to his servants or a “servant” to his master (and to his heavenly master), a “comrade” to his friends and fellow workers, and a “Christian” to his fellow man. He therefore had to pay “respect” to his parents, masters and God (heavenly father and master), but at the same time had “authority” over his wife, children and servants16.

• 17 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen en aanspraken ten gerieve der bestuurders van H. Familien, Xaverianen,(...)
• 18 Ephes.V.33, cited in Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, 1859, p. 276; Tanghe, G., (...)
• 19 Hunolt, F., Uitgelezene sermoonen, Ghent, Vander Schelden, 1850-1851 [1836-1837], vol. 2, p. 92 ; I(...)
• 20 Duhayon, F., Korte Onderrichtingen voor gelezene zondagsmissen met een duizendtal voorbeelden opgeh (...)
• 21 He refers to a story by Elianus: Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 270-273.

5The hierarchical relationship between husband and wife was of a complex and fragile nature. Although men and women were depicted as (spiritually) equal thanks to their “nature, origin and destination”17, their social status differed and the wife had to obey her husband’s will with fear and reverence, whereas her husband should provide and protect her18. Since a husband was his wife’s master, his position could be compared to Christ’s status as head of his Church and he would have to love her accordingly. The explanation of this hierarchical difference drew, among other things, upon the weaker intellectual capacities of women, the “natural” superiority of the male sex, and woman’s role in the primal sin. Woman’s dependency was personified and initiated by Eve, formed from Adam’s rib and, therefore as a part of him, clearly his property19. Still, it was stressed that she was taken from his rib and not his feet. Woman was therefore not a man’s slave to be trampled upon but his companion, formed from a part next to the heart. Accordingly, her husband had to show her respectful (godly) love, not to be confused with a mere natural (physical) love20. Therefore, woman’s subordination was based on a lecture of the scriptures in combination with her supposedly innate features. Still, even in this subordinate position women were, according to Father Franz Hunolt, better off than those women of a “certain people” described by Elianus in his historical stories. In a distant past, these women allegedly had to wrestle with their husbands over the ruling position within the household. Hunolt believed that, if in his day a comparable fight should take place upon the wedding day, most of his female contemporaries “would fall short in battle”, since they were “brought up so tender and weakly” that they “would not be able to resist a strong man”. However, Hunolt did not pity women their position as he believed that although they were weak, they often found their own ways of gaining control over the household and sometimes a good husband would have to give in even without a fight, just to keep the peace21.

• 22 Ibid., vol. 2, p. 278.
• 23 Gaume, J., Katechismus van volherding. Geschiedkundige, onderwyzende, zedelyke, kerkdienstkundige, (...)
• 24 Mergel, T., “Die subtile Macht…”, op. cit., p. 28-30; Hammerton, A., Cruelty and Companionship. Con (...)

6Although a husband held authority over his wife, it was not always a one way or top down relationship. According to Franz Hunolt “a good wife” ruled her husband “by willing obedience”, she had to give her husband the impression that she obeyed him in everything and did not have a will of her own. Clovis faced this female strategy in his marriage to Clothilde. Apparently his wife used to say she had left her will at her father’s house and Clovis therefore called her a woman of “outstanding intellect and a lively memory”, but “without a will of her own”. However, Clothilde’s influence proved strong enough to win her husband over to Christianity22. Her story illustrated a lesson that was formulated in general terms by M^gr Jean-Joseph Gaume. He was convinced that men who did not believe in the holy word could be won over by the virtuousness of their women23. This tension between women’s subordination on the one hand, and their moral influence and ability to bring their men to religiosity on the other, is a widespread mould in Christian culture and has been observed and studied in other nations and denominations. Thomas Mergel called it “die subtile Macht der Liebe”24.

• 25 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 139.
• 26 Prov. XIX, 13, cited in Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 138-139.
• 27 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 291.
• 28 Id., Uitgelezene…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 97.
• 29 Id., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 247. A bad marriage depicted as the result of a ba (...)

7In an ideal Catholic marriage, both husband and wife knew their place and respected the rights of the other. Man, head of the household and sensitive to every challenge to his authority, should however not react to every dispute started by his wife, as it was generally known that “with women you’ll never have the last word”25. Consequently, good Catholic men would sometimes have to act as if they did not “have ears and eyes” as “a quarrelsome wife” was like “an always leaking roof”26. Besides, a quarrelsome, grumpy or stubborn wife might be a nice opportunity for Catholic men to practice Christian patience. In that instance, they could mirror themselves to that which Jesus had had to put up with27. “Weak men”, not able to face the “temper and whims of a woman”, should never marry28. It was however recommended to make a good analysis of your future wife’s character as a man should never use the argument that he did not expect his wife’s character to turn out the way it did29.

• 30 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 279-280; Tanghe, G., Sermoenen…, op. cit., (...)
• 31 Chapman, T., Gender and Domestic Life. Changing Practices in Families and Households, Houndmills, P (...)
• 32 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 257, p. 276-277, p. 289.

8Although a husband held authority over the household, he had to give his wife certain freedom and to let her be master over the home. She was responsible for the housekeeping, but still had to follow her husband’s lead. He had to consult her on matters related to the household, trust her in things such as the household budget and to not check every cost she incurred30. The ideal Catholic household was therefore characterised by what Tony Chapman called the “peculiar tension between the idea that masculinity was dependent upon men being master of their own house, while the running of the house was ultimately the responsibility of women”31. On certain points however, a Catholic husband was entitled to curtail for example extravagance as to clothes. Apparently it was considered one of a woman’s weak spots. Potential objections were anticipated and she was told that, although she might not believe it, it was often in her own (financial) interest if her husband did not sponsor her extravagances in fashion. Similarly, also introduced for a woman’s own good was her husband’s right to ask her to dress in a certain way (although the clothes in this case would have to be honourable), to keep quiet, and to stay at home or to refuse particular positions of employment. He was also entitled to keep her away from bad company and off the streets in order to protect her soul32.

• 33 Vendrickx, A., Sermonen…, op. cit., vol. 7, p. 225-226 ; Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit (...)
• 34 “How often is it not heard to a man’s scorn and shame that the wife is master of the house”. Hunolt(...)
• 35 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 140.
• 36 Hunolt, F., Uitgelezene…., op. cit., p. 257.
• 37 As has been concluded for the sixteenth century sermons: “In the early wedding sermons, husbands’ f (...)

9Although the roles were clearly set within Catholic wedlock, practice had proved that it was a fragile balance. The sermons testify of the narrow line that man’s authority had to walk. If he exerted too much power, he risked creating a brutal despotism, too little authority however and he was made the laughing stock of others as his wife called the shots33. Although authority over the household was prerequisite and a central component of a man’s honour, a husband had to see the difference between indulgence out of love for his wife or out of lack of authority and “masculine courage”34. However, he “should not be afraid to live on Woman’s street” as it was always better to live “on Woman’s street than in she-devil alley or on hell’s street without ending”35. The authority-ideal for men also played a part in the marriage tips given to women. They were advised to make their lectures to their husbands as short as possible, since men did not like “to be lectured by their wives”36. A correct hierarchical relationship (or at least the impression of it) therefore appeared to be an important issue both within the household and the society at large37.

• 38 “Women, be subservient to your husbands as to God”. Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vo (...)
• 39 Marks, L., ““A fragment”… ”, op. cit., p. 255-256.
• 40 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 277.
• 41 Id., Uitgelezene…, op. cit., p. 261.

10In ideal situations, the will of a husband mirrored the will of God and a woman’s obedience faced no conflicting demands between her earthly and heavenly master38. However, there may have arisen a more difficult situation if a husband forbade his wife from keeping her promises to God (e.g. a pilgrimage, donation or mass). The spiritual obedience one had to pay outside the biological family therefore had, as Lynne Marks has already noted, the potential to disturb the harmony of the Catholic family39. The description of these situations offers interesting insights into the hierarchical ranking of God’s and a husband’s authority. Apparently, God granted part of his authority to the husband through the sacrament of marriage. Hence a man had the power to cancel his wife’s promises if these damaged the home or the family40. Still, women had to resist their husbands if they wanted them to miss Church or communion and made them swear. In this case, Hunolt advised firm resistance and comforted these women with the idea that they would become martyrs for God and virtue41.

• 42 Id., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 265-266, p. 243.
• 43 Duhayon, F., Korte onderrichtingen..., op. cit., p. 425. Since Duhayon is a Belgian author, his sta (...)

11However, he was not consistent in his advice, as in another sermon he recommended patience and obedience, reminding the women whose husbands prohibited them their external acts of piety, that they could not be prevented from performing internal ones. Hunolt reminded them that the most important devotion the mother of a family could show was her thrifty work in the home, her obedience to her husband, and the Christian education of her children42. Ferdinand Duhayon places a woman’s justified resistance to her husband’s will precisely within the context of her children’s Christian education. He remarks that a man who jeopardises his child’s soul by sending them to an “immoral” – i.e. public – school deserves to be met with the firm opposition of his wife43. Ideally however, the patriarchal authority would never be challenged and religion would function as a way to smoothen tense relationships between husband and wife, as for example in the case of Clothilde.

• 44 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit, p. 26.
• 45 D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen, Ghent, Siffer, 1900-1905, vol. 7, p. 219 ; Gaume, J., Katechismus…, op. cit.(...)
• 46 Hillegeer, J., Grote Volkstheologie, Ghent, Van der Schelden, 1864 [1863], p. 446-447; Gaume, J., K (...)
• 47 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 34, p. 143.
• 48 “Here the traditional masculine concern with instruction and discipline had to be balanced against (...)
• 49 D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 145, p. 220 ; Peeters, C. and Monsieurs, J., De Christ (...)
• 50 Hillegeer, J., Grote Volkstheologie…, op. cit., p. 499.
• 51 D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 16, p. 193.
• 52 Broughton, T. and Rogers, H., “Introduction…”, op. cit., p. 4, p. 20.
• 53 Mergel, T., “Die subtile…”, op. cit., p. 34.
• 54 Peeters, C. and Monsieurs, J., De Christen…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 341; Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen (...)

12Marriage was not the only hierarchical relationship in the household that was important for the depiction of the Catholic man, fatherhood made Catholic men walk the same difficult line between authority and love. A father had a “natural authority” over his household since God had given men, in comparison to women and children, “more wisdom, prudence and power”44. As “king of the household”, his family members owed him respect, love and obedience; he on his part had to avoid turning into a tyrant and his authority had to be strong, wise and orderly45. Ideally his paternal authority was tempered by a tender parental love combined with a pious mind. This paternal love for his children was a decisive feature of the Catholic father, since it set him apart from a heathen father or even an animal and bound him to the fatherhood of God46. According to Ferdinand Duhayon, this love however should not turn a father into his children’s equal, “a father” could not be “the playfellow of his child”; he still had to remain “a father” or risk “losing his authority”. Besides, a father would probably only play with his children at certain times, and only for a few moments to “satisfy his father’s heart”, it would not take long until he grew tired of them and sent them back to their mother47. The image of the Catholic father was therefore strongly dependent on his authority, and his playful quality was overshadowed by the task to instruct and discipline48. As head of the family, a father had the right, or rather he had the duty, to punish his children when they disobeyed or misbehaved. Only weak fathers were afraid to take action and only someone “who hated his child” would “spare the rod”49. A Catholic father should therefore not be afraid to fulfil this task50. So, as a moral guide a father had to watch over the souls of his children; analyse their character and fight their shortcomings and tempers. This careful study of his children’s character demanded his presence, therefore he should avoid being absent from home, spending time in pubs with dubious friends51. A father had to remember his educational and moral obligations, although he also had to be “absent enough to provide” and to “represent his family in public settings”52. His moral and educational decisions, based on his position as head of the household, probably also gained more importance through their relative scarcity, since a mother held the day to day responsibility and her orders were of a more frequent nature53. However, as both parents had been assigned the task to educate their children, a father had to be careful not to destroy a mother’s authority. When present in the household he had to honour his wife, since his regard guaranteed his children’s respect for their mother54.

• 55 Peeters, C. and Monsieurs, J., De Christen…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 328-330. The discourse of the inf (...)
• 56 Gaume, J., Katechismus…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 274.
• 57 Hunolt, F., Uitgelezene…, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 286-287.

13Although the first and primal care of a father had to be the immortal soul of his children, he also had to think of their mortal future. Therefore he had to let his daughters learn some craft and provide his sons with a profession (if he himself was an artisan) or an education (if he belonged to the higher classes). Since work was a central feature of masculinity, men were preparing their sons for manhood through this educational task. Although both parents were held responsible for their children’s upbringing, apparently a son’s education was considered more a father’s job55. According to Jean-Joseph Gaume, there was a difference in their educational program. Whilst a mother taught her daughters how to take care of both the family and household tasks, a father showed his sons how to honour God and the parent, and how to avoid the problem of “being a lion in the household” (stressing the importance of a balanced patriarchal authority)56. Since good behaviour was not only taught but more often than not copied, the best education was given by a good example. No father should therefore be surprised why his sons started to swear, play and drink if he was guilty of these crimes himself. Likewise, a mother should not wonder about her daughter’s spoilt and vain behaviour if she herself acted in the same manner57.

• 58 He shared this capacity to bless and curse with only God and the priests : D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, (...)
• 59 Marks, L., “A fragment…”, op. cit., p. 262; Little, J., “The fireside Kingdom…”, op. cit., p. 83.
• 60 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 38, p. 42-46.
• 61 D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 131.

14A father was not only depicted as the moral guide of his household; he also had to consider himself its priest. He had to pray for his family and make its members honour the Catholic faith and ethics. Since he shared his fatherhood with God, he was considered equal to him in authority and love. This paternal dignity allowed him to bless his children in the morning and in the evening, as in keeping with the habit of the patriarchs. However, through this “godly” right he was also entitled to curse his offspring58. The importance of a father’s blessing was comparable to that of the father leading the family prayers in Protestant discourse: both rituals strengthened the patriarchal authority59. This accentuation and symbolic exteriorisation of a father’s religious role within the household, nuances the ideal image of the wife as (sole) “priest of the household”60. Although there was intense focus on the woman’s religious and moral role within the household61, men were certainly not excluded.

• 62 Ibid., vol. 16, p. 192-197. Importance of work in the construction of masculinity: Chapman, T., Gen (...)
• 63 Gen.III.19, Hunolt, F., Uitgelezene…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 90. The English translation of this Bibl (...)
• 64 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 15.
• 65 D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 16, p. 196-197.

15Frequently depicted as a worker, Saint Joseph figured as a role model for the Catholic man. He illustrated that although marriage and fatherhood were essential elements for Catholic manhood, these features still had to be complemented with a Catholic man’s identity as a worker. As a father, his task was not only to rule, love and protect his family, he was also expected to provide for it62. Although women also had to “cooperate in their mutual maintenance” of the home, this was primarily a man’s duty. After Adam had sinned, God said to Adam alone: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread”63. Since “man is created to work” he would not be worth his bread if he did not “work to earn it”64. Men were not only able to compare themselves to Joseph, but also to Jesus, as he had accompanied his foster father Joseph and had worked for about thirty years to maintain the holy family. “A Christian worker” should therefore not resist the “burdens of life”, he should not “resort to riot or an unfounded strike”, instead he should look to Joseph and think about the way the saint had accepted his humble position “with courage and happy submission” and had provided for his family with the “work of his hands”. For the same reason rich people had to look upon the worker, not as a mere tool to expand their fortunes, but as a “brother” and as a “privileged friend of God”65.

• 66 Gaume, J., Katechismus…, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 208-209. “Ennobled”: D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit.(...)
• 67 Krick, L., De Christelijke Deugden uitgeleid in twee en vijftig verhandelingen, Roeselare, De Meest (...)
• 68 Vendrickx, A., Sermonen…, op. cit., vol. 7, p. 228-229.

16Although it was a man’s duty to go to work, work in itself had a dual role. On the one hand it ennobled him and kept him away from idle laziness, “mother of all sins”66, on the other hand it was also a man’s ticket into the dangerous, sinful public world of the work place… Ideally a Catholic man would resist the negative influence of his work mates and co-soldiers67. In the “paradise” of his own home he would find a refuge from the outside world. This domestic bliss was made possible by his wife, since home and family were her main responsibilities68.

• 69 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 144; Tanghe, G., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 135. (...)

17As work was considered a man’s duty and necessary in order to pass the threshold of manhood, every woman should expect her husband to work and provide for his family. As a result, the husband who drank away his family’s money or was not capable of finding a job could be catalogued among the complaints of a Catholic wife. This capacity to provide for one’s family was not only part of the man’s duty; it was also part of their honour. The moment that money was scarce, it would be the wife who would have to negotiate since, according to Ferdinand Duhayon, a man would consider himself “above that”69.

18Catholic men were primarily depicted in sermons as fathers, husbands and workers. In these descriptions they were part of complex hierarchical relationship and their corresponding behaviour towards the other people involved (wife, children and people in the workplace) helped to denote them as good Catholic men. However, they were not only defined by their place within this hierarchical network, as they also became more clearly delineated through binary oppositions, i.e. comparisons with women and other men.

• 70 Socialists: Daems, S., Kanselstoffen, Averbode, van der Linden, 1894-1906, vol. 28, p. 366. Working (...)
• 71 Mcleod, H., Secularisation in Europe, 1848-1914, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000, p. 86-94.
• 72 These tensions peaked during the first School war: Witte, E., “The Battle…”, op. cit., p. 102-103.
• 73 For the heathen father see: Hillegeer, J., Grote Volkstheologie…, op. cit., p. 446; Gaume, J., Kate (...)

19Although Catholic men were characterised and singled out from by the depiction of men who did not live up to the ideal that was held for them (drunk, out of work, lazy), it was often left unmentioned in the sermons whether these imperfect specimens were former or non-Catholics. In the rare situations where there was a name mentioned, these men had a working class background and were labelled “socialist” or “freethinker”70. Complaints about the attitude of the urban and industrial masses, often associated with socialism, were a recurrent theme also in other nations and denominations71. The terms, cited by the Belgian authors, undoubtedly refer to the tension between Catholics and “anti-clericals” in Belgian society72. That Catholic men were not compared to men of other denominations although there were references to the days before Catholicism and heathen fathers73 is not very surprising, since Catholicism was the dominant religion in Belgium and only a very small percentage of the population adhered to other denominations.

• 74 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 273-274. According to Rutz the “Geschlechts (...)
• 75 “Manmoedig”, “manhaftig”. Daems, S., Kanselstoffen…, op. cit., vol. 24, p. 306; Duhayon, F., Onderr (...)
• 76 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 8, p. 331.

20Men were also part of another binary opposition, since the Catholic Church not only differentiated between both genders but also put them in a hierarchical order. As men had been donated with wisdom, judgement, caution, courage and perseverance, the “male sex” was considered “more excellent” and as men’s characteristics were ranked more highly than women’s, men were rightfully handed authority74. However, the boundaries between the characteristics of men and women were not so rigid that interaction could not exist. Although courage was considered a “masculine” virtue and man and courage sometimes became intertwined (“manly”)75, it was still a virtue that could be attained by women. In this case however, it might be noted that “virtue conquered the sex”, thus implying that it was an extraordinary achievement. Crossing gender boundaries did not always mean improvement; it could also imply susceptibility to the other gender’s flaws. One of women’s main weaknesses e.g. the fact that they were so talkative, could not be claimed by women alone. In cases where they “should have behaved as men”, some men had proven themselves to be just as talkative. So, although there was a clear differentiation between the genders, the exclusiveness of their innate characteristics was nuanced76.

• 77 Hoegaerts, J., “Masculinity Abused: Ill-Treatment and Divorce at the End of the Nineteenth Century” (...)

21Not all faults were presented as innate characteristics. However, some of those flaws that were not catalogued in this way still appeared to be linked to one of the genders exclusively and although they were disapproved of, they figured as a guideline for expected and, to a certain extent, accepted typical behaviour77. Men’s potential shortcomings were thereby not depicted in vague and abstract terms, but illustrated by very concrete examples of their misbehaviour. The variations on this theme were accompanied by guidelines for Catholic wives describing the ideal (Catholic) reaction to such men.

• 78 Hunolt dedicates a whole sermon on the faults of men: Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., (...)
• 79 Ibid., vol 2, p. 263-264 ; Tanghe, G., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 149. For adultery see Hoega (...)

22In the case of ill-tempered men, women were advised not to take their sneers and insults too seriously, as they could be caused by bad health or (financial) sorrows which the men did not want to burden their wives with. However, just like those women who were beaten by their husbands, these women should ask themselves whether they themselves were not the cause of their husband’s vexation and they were advised not to stir his anger by stubbornness or disobedience78. Although physical beating was bad, adultery was worse, and a woman whose husband was cheating on her was hard to console. She could only try to talk to the sinner, show patience, and forgive him79.

• 80 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 255-259.
• 81 Tanghe, G., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 135 ; Peeters, C. and Monsieurs, J., De Christen…, op. (...)

23Next to (physical and psychological) ill-treatment, money – or rather the lack of it – appeared to have been a central issue. If their husbands were stingy, women were advised not to make their own cross harder to bear by arguing about it and bringing discord in the family. Little money was still better than no money at all and, if their husband did not provide for the family, women should make the distinction between laziness (in which case you would have to rouse your husband) or clumsiness (there was not much to do about that). At the same time they had to be thrifty themselves and measure up for all the shortcomings80. Still, an inability to make any money was not the only way a man could bring financial crisis upon his family, and men’s frittering away of a family’s financial resources on extravagances, games and alcohol was lamented thoroughly. Although it was frequently depicted as a working-class problem, spending day and night in the pub and drinking away the money, apparently was still considered man’s traditional sin, and no class could take credit for it alone81.

• 82 E.g. when a husband was touched by a certain sermon or confession : Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedelee (...)
• 83 Hammerton, also noted the importance of “consistent religious principle” because it might “dispose (...)

24If their husband was a drunk, women had to wait for the right moment to speak to him about it. Harsh words on his return from the pub would do no good, it was better to wait until he was more susceptible to their lectures about jeopardising his health and soul and being despised by neighbours and friends as a drunk82. Apparently, in all cases of potential marriage trouble, husband and wife both received advice on being patient and forgiving. Their religiosity and the accompanying behavioural guidelines would ideally mitigate the lines of friction rather than create new ones83.

• 84 For Michael Frank the greatest danger in the (ab)use of alcohol was the reversion of traditional ge (...)
• 85 Tanghe, G., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 137.
• 86 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 179.
• 87 “Der Patriarchalismus war eher ein Programm als ein Zustand oder besser: ein Idiom durch das eine s (...)

25The faults of both men and women could be connected to the expectations they had to live up to. If a woman was blamed for her stubbornness, this complaint alluded to the obedience demanded of a woman. If a man was a drunk, he was considered problematic since he could not provide for his family or show enough respect and love for his wife84. If a man did not resist the bad influence of a woman, he was not using his “natural” intellectual supremacy. However, in this case the man would be in good company: a woman’s bad influence had not only brought Adam – the first married man85 – down; it had also proved pernicious for other Biblical men such as David and “what a man” Salomon86. The gender construction therefore included both rights and duties, and for Catholic men and women, a clear set of ideals (a “good reason”) to which every complaint could refer to and which made a critical discussion possible87.

• 88 “Een onchristelyk ondeugend vrouwspersoon in ‘t huis, is, myns dunkens, veel gevaerlyker dan een go (...)
• 89 Schellens, M., Sermoonen…, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 131 ; Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 1 (...)
• 90 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 110-112, p. 108, p. 127.
• 91 For the term “marriage marketability” see Chapman, T., Gender…, op. cit., p. 38. For the importance (...)
• 92 Duhayon, F., Onderrichtingen…, op. cit., p. 125.

26As husbands could be faced with troublesome wives, so women could be plagued by evil men. However, if a choice had to be made, one should still prefer a bad husband over a bad wife. According to Franz Hunolt, women would more rapidly lead men into temptation than a husband bring his wife to moral ruin. “An unchristian mischievous female in the house” was, in his opinion, “much more dangerous than a godless man; and usually a pious man” would be “more easily seduced by a woman, than a pious woman by a man: a wicked woman” would “sooner spoil the virtue of a man, than a good man improve the bad morals of a woman”88. However, avoiding problems was always the best option and, before marrying, women should bear in mind that bad men (drunkards e.g.) would never change their habits and that a decent, virtuous and god-fearing man was to be preferred89. Still, women should keep away from sanctimonious hypocrites (these are as sensitive as “porcupines” and life with them is not easy) although these should still be favoured over godless men. If a man could not be faithful to his God, he would never be true to his wife as he would have no moral bounds to make him90. Apparently, men were aware of the fact that pious men were more attractive to Catholic women and sometimes they even tried to improve their “marriage marketability”91. Therefore, Ferdinand Duhayon even warned young girls of those men who tried to create a pious impression and who began visiting the Church frequently when they were shopping for a wife92.

• 93 D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 7, p. 222.
• 94 On the naturalisation of qualities see Nye, R., “Die Transmission der Männlichkeiten”, Österreichis (...)
• 95 Hunolt, F., Christelyke Zedeleer…, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 274.

27Although remarks were made on the fact that some men referred to religion as “something for women”93 and left them the honour of fulfilling religious duties, in the analysed sermons there appears to be no “biologisation of the social”94, and there was no natural classification of men or women as being the more pious sex. Although women appeared to be quite easily connected to religious practices, it were their natural faults, according to Franz Hunolt, that kept them from fulfilling more leading positions within Catholicism. As they lacked wisdom and insight, they could not be allowed to preach or teach in public since that would give rise to “too many deviations”. Men however did not own their authority as a result of their extreme piety, but to their wisdom, perseverance and ability to judge95. Catholicism was for neither of the genders a natural characteristic; it was part of their identity that had to be formed, stimulated and shaped through a behavioural pattern.

• 96 See Tosh, J., Manliness…, op. cit., p. 70.
• 97 Schellens, M., Sermoonen…, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 97; D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 16, p. 1 (...)

28Although a clear distinction was made between the private and the public sphere, a Catholic husband and father was not confined to either of them. He did not only move between the private sphere of his home and public working life96, but his identity as a Catholic man was actually built upon his (hierarchical) interaction with people in a whole variety of spheres. However, the private world of the home was to be favoured and a Catholic man being “king of the household”, was encouraged to spend time at home. His presence there would not only guard the souls and education of his children, but it would also keep him away from the bad influence of pubs97.

• 98 For the importance of a man’s vote: D’Hoop, F., Sermoenen…, op. cit., vol. 5, p. 200. Importance of (...)

29Men’s family-based identities (husband and often father) coincided with their more public identity as citizens, since as the representatives of their family, they were entitled to vote for a good Catholic government. As a Catholic father, a man would rather see his children have a proper Catholic education, as a citizen he would have to make sure that the government that was in charge would make this Catholic education possible. Both fatherhood and Catholic faith, archetypical epitomes for the private sphere of the nineteenth century, were thereby brought into the public male political field98.

• 99 “Men zou niet gelooven hoe vele ellenden er in eenen state worden voortgebragt, door de verzwakking (...)
• 100 However, it was also presented as a task for both parents to comment upon or even make the partner (...)

30Fatherhood exceeded the private sphere also in another way. Since families were considered the cornerstone of society and fathers held authority over them, strong and severe fatherhood guaranteed a stable (moral) society. Gaume therefore lamented and commented on the decline of paternal authority and society accordingly: “One would not believe how many troubles are created in a state, through the weakening and the destruction of the paternal authority. Look how it is among us! However young a son is, as soon as he is married, or can exist without the help of his parents, he thinks that he no longer owes them special respect. From that, this mass of small households who live apart, or who are only connected to each other through very weak ties that can be broken off by the least discordance. This independence is the first cause of the moral decay and on top of that it is very dangerous for the state: half a century of upheavals has proven this all too well”99. Apparently there was not only a close connection between a family’s well-being and that of the state, but between the macro level of society and micro level of the household, a father’s influence ideally also formed the nucleus of wider family network as he had to be consulted with on the creation and maintenance of every new (nuclear) family100.

• 101 On the family as a sanctuary: Ibid., p. 38, p. 44. For the spiritualisation of the home: see e.g. f (...)
• 102 ““Patriarchal domesticity” [was] an ideal promoted and fostered by both Protestant and Catholic chu (...)

31This convergence between family and state, man’s private role and public role, denoted that although the ideology of separate spheres helped to accentuate the importance given to the proper roles and places of men and women, it should not (or no longer) lead to a neglect of man’s function within his family, and the mother should no longer be listed as the sole inhabitant of the religiously loaded private sphere101. This “patriarchal domesticity”102 and its power relationship made clear that Catholicism should not be studied as a mother’s legacy, but as both parents’ responsibility and realization.

• 103 Tosh, J., Manliness…, op. cit., p. 68. “Hegemonic masculinity (…) is the dominant form of masculini (...)
• 104 King, U., “Religion…”, op. cit., p. 70. For Lynne Marks religious ideals were still dominant in the (...)

32Catholic men balanced themselves between the public and the private spheres, walking a thin line of authority in both of them. Through an analysis of sermons, no comment can be made upon the daily practice, the observance of the norms projected in this normative discourse, but one could confirm that the way that male authority over women is stressed upon in the Catholic ideal, is comparable to hegemonic masculinity reconstructed by R.W. Connell, and described by John Tosh as the “masculine attributes which serve to sustain men’s power over women in society as a whole”; these “elicit support and conformity regardless of economic or political status”103. Since “the very construction of gendered identities in history is inherently linked to religious teachings, norms and values which have structured interpersonal relationships”104 the Catholic discourse, as it could be reconstructed from the sermons, most probably contributed to and most certainly helped in the construction and maintenance of hegemonic masculinity.

• 105 For a depiction of married masculinity in the court room and the way the collective construction of (...)

33Still, although Catholic men clearly fit into this hegemonic ideal and were comparable to men in the Civil code105 for example, in the sermons they were depicted as a specific kind of man. Their exclusivity was based upon binary oppositions and depended on their masculinity and Catholicism. On the one hand Catholic men were considered better than other men (e.g. socialists) thanks to their faith; on the other hand they had unique duties, tasks and characteristics in comparison with Catholic women. These expectations that Catholic men had to live up to were not only internalised by men themselves, but the norms were also formulated and reiterated by their wives (e.g. women expected their husbands to be able to provide for their families) and society (e.g. a man was brought to shame if he did not hold authority over his wife).

• 106 On men as “home heathens” and their feminisation see Brown, C., Death of Christian Britain. Underst (...)

34Through their stress on “patriarchal domesticity” the sermons offered interesting nuances to the study of Christian masculinity in the second half of the nineteenth century and at the turn of the twentieth. The pater familias depicted in the sermons represented not only hegemonic ideals of masculinity, but demonstrated at the same time how his religiosity was considered an intrinsic part of his identity. As such, the archetypical image of the “home heathen”, the irreligious and anti-religious husband opposing his pious wife, an image that has been prevalent in the study of nineteenth century Christianity, gained a more pious alter ego, as did the feminised convert, the other dominant type of man in the study of Christian masculinity, who could be introduced to a Christian man whose masculinity was in no doubt. This perseverance of the Catholic housefather-ideal at least nuances the prominence of the discourse on the “maleness of impiety” in which “men were the religious problem” and women “the religious solution”106.