The Society of Jesus.--Religious as Educators.
It is not our task to give a detailed history of Ignatius of Loyola,
the Spanish nobleman who was wounded on the ramparts of Pampeluna,
in 1521, nor of his subsequent conversion and life. This story has
often been told and may be read in the numerous biographies of the
Saint.[149] Nor need we enumerate all the different and contradictory
estimates of his character, as given by various writers. Macaulay
calls him a “visionary” and an “enthusiast, naturally passionate and
imaginative,” possessed of a “morbid intensity and energy, a soldier
and knight errant,” who became “the soldier and knight errant of the
spouse of Christ.”[150] Canon Littledale, in spite of his hostility
against the Society, cannot help admitting that Loyola possessed
“powerful gifts of intellect and an unusual practical foresight.”[151]
To see with Macaulay in Ignatius a “visionary,” is an utter
misconception of his character. Nor is it correct to style him a
“religious enthusiast.” This appellation could, at the most, be applied
to him only for the first few years after his conversion. During that
period, in a few instances, as in the famous meeting with the Saracen,
Ignatius displays indeed a conduct singularly contrasting with his
conduct in after-life and with those wonderfully wise rules which he
laid down on the discernment of the good spirit from the evil one. In
his _Autobiography_ the Saint insists particularly on the mistakes
into which he had fallen on the road to mature judgment in spiritual
matters.[152] During these first few years following his conversion,
Ignatius gave manifestation of the chivalrous spirit which he had
imbibed from his early military training, when, for instance, in the
Monastery of the Montserrat he hung up his sword beside our Lady’s
image, in token that henceforth his life was to be one of spiritual
warfare and spiritual knighthood.
The Society, however, was not founded in this period of the Saint’s
life, but when the youthful fervor was completely mastered by the
calmest discretion. At the time when he drew up the Constitutions of
the Society, all his actions and sentiments were so entirely under his
control that, although by nature of an ardent temper, he was commonly
thought cold and phlegmatic. In framing the Constitutions he proceeded
with the utmost care and circumspection. On points which might appear
unimportant, he deliberated for days, nay for weeks and months. It was
a common practice of his to write down the reasons for and against in
parallel columns, then to weigh their force and importance. After this
he consulted the Fathers who lived with him in Rome, in order to take
their advice as to changes or additions which they thought necessary
or useful. Moreover, he submitted the results of his painstaking
labors to the judgment of those Fathers who lived in various parts of
Europe. Surely in this cautiousness we see anything but the traits of a
visionary or enthusiast.
As early as 1523 Ignatius had conceived the idea of his future
life-work, although only in general outlines. We find this idea
embodied in his _Spiritual Exercises_, particularly in the
contemplation on the “Kingdom of Christ.” The generous knight, who
has renounced all worldly ambition, is resolved to become a soldier
of Christ. In Him he sees his King and General and, in order to
defend and propagate Christianity, the Kingdom of Christ, he plans a
spiritual crusade. Those who wish to become his companions in this
noble enterprise must be determined to distinguish themselves in the
service of their heavenly King. They are not to be satisfied with
being ordinary soldiers in this army, but they are to constitute,
as it were, Christ’s bodyguard, hence the name of the Society: “La
Compañia de Jesus,” the Company of Jesus. A distinguished Protestant
writer, Professor Harnack of Berlin, has recently made the following
comparison which in _some_ points is _not inappropriate_: “If we assert
and mean the assertion to hold good even of the present time, that the
Roman Church is the old Roman Empire consecrated by the Gospel, that
is no mere ‘clever remark,’ but the recognition of the true state of
the matter historically, and the most appropriate and fruitful way of
describing the character of this Church. It still governs the nations;
its Popes rule like Trajan and Marcus Aurelius; Peter and Paul have
taken the place of Romulus and Remus; the bishops and archbishops, of
the pro-consuls; the troops of priests and monks correspond to the
legions; the Jesuits to the imperial body-guard.”[153]
Ignatius’ first intention was to convert the Turks in Palestine.
So he went to Jerusalem, there to establish a society of apostolic
men who, in the midst of the children of Mahomet, should open a
way to new triumphs of the Church. This was without doubt a noble
conception, one which the swords of Christian chivalry had not been
able to realize by the efforts and enthusiasm of centuries. It was only
after his endeavors to gain a foothold near Our Lord’s Sepulchre had
been frustrated, that Ignatius gave his new Society the more general
character of defending the “Kingdom of Christ” among all classes,
in all countries, and by all legitimate means. As the object of the
Society was purely spiritual, not temporal or political, so also the
means employed were to be of spiritual order, above all preaching and
teaching.
It has often been said that the prime object of the Society was and
is the crushing of Protestantism.[154] This assertion is proved to be
false by the life of Ignatius, and this proof is strengthened by the
Constitutions, the Papal Approbations, and the whole history of the
Order. The Papal Letters and the Constitutions assign as the special
object of the Society: “The progress of souls in a good life and
knowledge of religion; the propagation of faith by public preaching,
the Spiritual Exercises and works of charity, and particularly
the instruction of youth and ignorant persons in the Christian
religion.”[155] The Protestants are not as much as mentioned in this
Papal document which states the end and the means of the Society. Pius
V., in 1571, highly praised the educational work of Jesuit schools and
granted them ample privileges.[156] Here again it is not said that
these schools or the Society are directed against Protestantism.
The evidence is so strong that Professor Huber, one of the bitterest
opponents of the Order, declares: “At the time when Ignatius conceived
the idea of founding a new order, he had not heard as much as the name
of the German Reformer. Even more than a decade later he seems to
have paid little heed to the religious movement in Europe, especially
in Germany.”[157] As we said, it was the intention of Ignatius to
convert Palestine. Frustrated in this plan, he chose Italy, Spain and
Portugal as the field of labor for himself and his companions. There
he endeavored to reform the morals of the people and to encourage the
practice of works of charity.[158] His most powerful co-worker, Francis
Xavier, he sent to East India; to Germany, he sent the first Jesuit in
1540, and that only at the urgent request of the Imperial Ambassador.
In 1555, one year before the death of Ignatius, the Society comprised
eight provinces: Italy had two; Spain, three; Portugal, one; Brazil,
one; India and Japan, one. There was none in Germany, the cradle of
Protestantism. Of the sixty-five residences of the Order in that year,
there were only two in Germany: those of Cologne and Vienna. The
first colleges of the Society were founded in Catholic countries: at
Gandia in Spain, Messina in Sicily, Goa in the East Indies. Protestant
pupils were received only by exception, and in many colleges they were
not admitted at all. How, then, can all this be explained, if the
main object of the Society was the destruction of Protestantism and
proselytism among Protestant students?[159]
When Ignatius had decided to devote his life “to the greater glory
of God” and the salvation of souls, he understood the necessity of
higher learning. So, at the age of thirty-three, the former gallant
officer and hero of Pampeluna, was not ashamed to sit with children on
the school-bench at Barcelona, where he began to study the rudiments
of Latin. After two years he went to the university of Alcala, thence
to Salamanca, and last to the university of Paris, at that time the
greatest centre of philosophical and theological learning.
He arrived in the French capital in 1528. There he studied philosophy
and theology, and in 1534, by a successful examination, became a
Master of Arts. At the University he had won six young men: Peter
Lefèvre, a Savoyard; Francis Xavier, a Navarrese; the three Spaniards,
James Lainez, Alphonsus Salmeron, and Nicholas Bobadilla, and Simon
Rodriguez, a Portuguese. On August 15, 1534, the little band repaired
to the church of the Blessed Virgin at Montmartre in Paris, and bound
themselves by a vow to the service of God. This was the birthday of the
Society of Jesus. The new Order received the papal sanction from Paul
III., on September 27, 1540.
The aim of the Society is expressed by its motto: _Omnia ad majorem
Dei gloriam_--_All for God’s greater glory_. Hence it is the duty of
the members to labor with the same zeal for the salvation of others
as for their own perfection. The salvation of their neighbor they
accomplish by conducting the spiritual exercises, preaching missions
to the faithful, and evangelizing the heathen; by hearing confessions;
by defending the faith against heretics and infidels through their
writings; by _teaching catechism to children and the ignorant_;
by _lecturing on philosophy and theology in the universities_; by
_instructing youth in grammar schools and colleges_. Although various
occupations are here mentioned, yet, as Professor Paulsen rightly
observes, “education so largely prevails in the activity of the Order
that it can be called in a special sense a _teaching_ or _school_
order.”[160] “Evidently these university men, who were engaged in
drawing up the Institute, considered that, if the greatest Professor’s
talents are well spent in the exposition of the greatest doctrines in
theology, philosophy, and science, neither he, nor any one else, is too
great to be a school master, a tutor, and a father to the boy passing
from childhood to the state of manhood,--that boyhood which, as Clement
of Alexandria says, furnishes the very milk of age, and from which the
constitution of the man receives its temper and complexion.”[161]
Ignatius, then, had founded a religious order which made the
education of youth one of its primary objects. It will be well to speak
here of a much discussed and most important question, namely, the
educational work of religious orders in general, a work not favorably
viewed by the majority of non-Catholics, to whom “monasticism”[162] is
one of the features in the Catholic Church which they hold in special
abhorrence. This antipathy is largely due to the unscrupulous slanders
of the later humanists and the fierce invectives of the fathers of the
Reformation. It is known what language Luther used against religious
vows, which he called an “abomination, unnatural and impossible to
keep, a slavery of Egypt, a sacrifice to Moloch;” etc. The monks he
styled “lazy drones, cowled hypocrites,” etc.[163]
However, there are many enlightened and scholarly non-Catholics who do
not share these opinions. Careful historical research revealed that the
monks were not lazy drones, but that they were the civilizers of Europe
and the preservers of ancient literature. Then it was admitted that
they were not all hypocritical debauchees. Thus, in a recent work of an
American scholar,[164] we find, after the description of the monastic
principles and ideals, the following statement: “The ideal monastic
character was that which corresponded to these principles. And in
hundreds of instances a personality with such a character did result;
a personality when directing faultless in humility and obedience to
God, faultless in humility and obedience when obeying; knowing neither
pride nor vanity, nor covetousness nor lust, nor slothful depression;
grave and silent with bent head, yet with an inner peace, even an inner
passionate joy; meditative, mystic, an otherworld personality; one that
dwells in spiritual facts, for whom this world has passed away and
the lusts thereof; one that is centered in God and in eternal life,
and yet capable of intense activities; a man who will not swerve from
orders received, as he swerves not from his great aim, the love of
God and eternal life.” And the Protestant Professor Harnack declares
that even to-day the Roman Church “possesses in its orders of monkhood
and its religious societies, a deep element of life in its midst. In
all ages it has produced saints, so far as men can be so called, and
it still produces them to-day. Trust in God, unaffected humility, the
assurance of redemption, the devotion of one’s life to the service of
one’s brethren, are to be found in it; many brethren take up the cross
of Christ and exercise at one and the same time that self-judgment
and that joy in God which Paul and Augustine achieved. The _Imitatio
Christi_ kindles independent religious life and a fire which burns with
a flame of its own.”[165]
A still more remarkable reaction seems of late to take place in
the minds of Protestant writers, concerning the origin and nature
of “monasticism”. After various attempts had been made to explain
the rise of monasticism from Essene, Brahman, or Buddhist influence,
not a few Protestants admit now that it logically, and, as it
were, naturally, arose from Christianity. “Monasticism”, says Mr.
Taylor, “arose from within Christianity, not from without.”[166]
Professor Harnack even regrets it that the Reformation has abolished
monasticism within the Evangelical Church. The words of this leader
among rationalistic Protestants deserve to be quoted. After having
pictured the achievements of the Protestant Reformation, he asks what
it has cost. Among other “high prices” which the Reformation had
to pay, he enumerates monasticism. When the Reformation abolished
monasticism, “something happened which Luther neither foresaw nor
desired: monasticism, of the kind that is conceivable and necessary in
the evangelical sense of the word, disappeared altogether. But every
community stands in need of personalities living _exclusively_ for its
ends. The Church, for instance, needs volunteers who will abandon every
other pursuit, renounce the ‘world’, and devote themselves entirely to
the service of their neighbor; not because such a vocation is a ‘higher
one’, but because it is a necessary one, and because no church can
live without also giving rise to such a desire. But in the evangelical
churches the desire has been checked by the decided attitude which they
have been compelled to adopt towards Catholicism. It is a high price
that we have paid; nor can the price be reduced by considering, on the
other hand, how much simple and unaffected religious fervor has been
kindled in home and family life. We may rejoice, however, that in the
past century a beginning has been made in the direction of recouping
this loss. In the institution of deaconesses and many cognate phenomena
the evangelical churches are getting back what they once ejected
through their inability to recognize it in the form which it then took.
But it must undergo a much ampler and more varied development.”[167]
One of the “ends” of the Church is education. It is natural, then,
that there should be personalities who live exclusively for this end,
or, at least, devote themselves in a special manner to this work. In
fact, from the earliest ages of Christianity, we find that religious
took a special interest in the education of youth. The celebrated
historian Dr. Neander of Berlin, who can not be accused of any undue
leaning towards Catholicism, praises the early monks for their labor
in this direction. He points out that the duties of education were
particularly recommended to the monks of St. Basil. They were enjoined
to take upon themselves voluntarily the education of orphans, and the
education of other youths when entrusted to them by their parents. It
was by no means necessary that these children should become monks; they
were early instructed in some trade or art, and were afterwards at
liberty to make a free choice of their vocation.[168]
St. John Chrysostom most earnestly recommended to parents to employ
the monks as instructors to their sons; to have their sons educated in
monasteries, at a distance from the corruption of the world, where they
might early be made acquainted with the Holy Scriptures, be brought
up in Christian habits, and where the foundation of a true Christian
character might be laid, the fruits of which would afterwards manifest
themselves in every station and circumstance of life. Dr. Neander
thus comments on the appeals of St. Chrysostom: “Where men truly
enlightened were to be found among the monks, as was often the case,
the advice of St. Chrysostom was undoubtedly correct; and even where
too great attention to outward forms, and too little of an evangelical
spirit prevailed, education among them was more desirable than in
corrupted families, or the schools of the sophists, in which vanity and
ostentation were in every way encouraged.”[169]
It is scarcely necessary to state that other religious orders before
the foundation of the Society of Jesus, especially the Benedictines
and the Dominicans, had rendered inestimable service to the cause of
Christian education. Cardinal Newman compares the educational work of
these three orders in the following terms: “As the physical universe
is sustained and carried on in dependence on certain centres of power
and laws of operation, so the course of the social and political world,
and of that great religious organization called the Catholic Church,
is found to proceed for the most part from the presence or action of
definite persons, places, events, and institutions, as the visible
cause of the whole.... Education follows the same law: it has its
history in Christianity, and its doctors or masters in that history. It
has had three periods: the ancient, the medieval, and the modern; and
there are three religious orders in those periods respectively which
succeed, one the other, on its public stage, and represent the teaching
given by the Catholic Church during the time of their ascendancy. The
first period is that long series of centuries, during which society
was breaking, or had broken up, and then slowly attempted its own
reconstruction; the second may be called the period of reconstruction;
and the third dates from the Reformation, when that peculiar movement
of mind commenced, the issue of which is still to come. Now, St.
Benedict has had the training of the ancient intellect, St. Dominic of
the medieval, and St. Ignatius of the modern.... Ignatius, a man of the
world before his conversion, transmitted as a legacy to his disciples
that knowledge of mankind which cannot be learned in cloisters.”[170]
However, none of the religious orders of the Middle Ages had taken
the education of youth formally and expressly into its constitution.
As regards the Benedictines, Cardinal Newman maintains that their
occupation with literary and historical studies was, in a way, a
compromise with the primary end of their institute. The monastic
institute, as the great Benedictine scholar Mabillon says, demands
_summa quies_, the most perfect quietness. Hence the studies which they
pursued with special predilection, were such as did not excite the
mind: the study of Holy Scripture and the Fathers, the examination of
ancient manuscripts, editions and biographies of the Fathers, studies
which can be undergone in silence and quietness.[171] So was also the
educational work which they undertook accidental to the primary object
of their institute. The Order of St. Dominic had a much closer, a more
direct and explicit connection with studies and teaching. But it was
chiefly the teaching of the highest branches, of theology, the “science
of sciences”, and of philosophy, which this order undertook. What we
now understand by “education” was only remotely included in the object
of the Order of St. Dominic.
St. Ignatius was the first to assume the education of youth as a
special part of the work of a religious order, as a special ministry,
a special means of obtaining the end of his Society: the glory of God
and the salvation of souls. “We can,” says Cicero, “do no greater or
better service to the commonwealth than to teach and instruct youth.”
St. Ignatius knew this full well, he also knew that it applied to the
supernatural commonwealth, the City of God, the Church of Christ.
In opposition to the pagan ideas of the radical school of the
humanists, he deemed it absolutely necessary that all efforts should
be made to instil the principles of the true religion, together with
useful knowledge, into the minds of boys; for as the Wise Man says:
“A young man, according to his way, even when he is old, he will not
depart from it.” (_Prov._, 22, 6.)--“Hence”, as the Jesuit theologian
Suarez says: “God raised up St. Ignatius, and gave to him this mind and
counsel, without the motive and example of other religious orders, and
it has been approved by the authority of His Vicar.”[172]
This measure of St. Ignatius in taking the education of youth as
a fundamental part into his order, marks an important epoch in the
history of Catholic education. After the time of St. Ignatius other
religious congregations were founded with the special object of
undertaking the education of the young; we mention only the Christian
Brothers, founded by Saint de La Salle, and the Piarists. For the
education of women there are numerous congregations of sisters, which
exclusively or primarily are engaged in imparting a refined and
thoroughly Christian education.
Of late the educational work of religious orders has frequently been
objected to, even by some who call themselves Catholics. But in spite
of all that has been said to the contrary, the care which religious
orders take of education is a source of blessings for the pupils, the
family, and the whole community. Religious, above all, try to impart a
religious, a Christian education. How useful, how absolutely necessary
this is for society as well as for the individual pupil, need not be
discussed. Further, in the case of religious teachers a guarantee is
given that persons of noble character and high aspirations devote their
whole lives to the cause of education. Must we not expect that such
teachers will obtain most satisfactory results in their work? At all
events, it cannot be denied that the educational labors of the Society
were crowned with success.
Protestant historians, as Ranke, Paulsen, and others, admit that the
Jesuit schools of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were far more
successful than their Protestant rivals. Whence the difference? Ranke
finds it in the exactness and nicety of the methods of the Society.
This was undoubtedly one cause of their greater success. Still it is
more probable that the chief reason is to be sought in the teachers
themselves. The teachers in the Jesuit colleges were, on the whole,
better fitted for their work than were most other teachers. It is not
difficult to prove this assertion. The social position of teachers
was, during these centuries, a most undesirable one.[173] The salaries
were so miserable that the teachers, to support themselves and their
families, had to practise some other profession or trade. Professor
Paulsen states that in Saxony, towards the close of the sixteenth
century, the _one_ schoolmaster of a small town was regularly organist,
town-clerk and sexton.[174] The village schoolmasters were mostly
sextons, field-guards, or tailors. As late as 1738, an order was
issued in Prussia to the effect that in the country there should be
no other tailors besides the sextons and schoolmasters, and later on
Frederick the Great declared: “tailors are bad schoolmasters,” and so
he preferred to make teachers out of old soldiers, invalid corporals,
and sergeants. The position of teachers in the higher schools was
not much more enticing. They had to obtain some addition to their
scanty salaries by a sort of genteel beggary: by dedicating books or
orations to influential persons, by writing poems for weddings or
similar occasions. Teachers were always far worse off than lawyers or
physicians. It was always a true saying, but especially in those times:
_Dat Galenus opes, dat Justinianus honores,
Sed genus et species cogitur ire pedes_,
which may be freely rendered:
The doctor’s purse old Galen fills,
Justinian lifts the esquire on high,
But he that treads in grammar-mills,
Will tread it on until he die.
The famous rector of the school of Ilfeld, Neander, was told one day
by his former colleague of Schulpforta, Gigas, who had retired to a
parish: “You should have had yourself flayed alive rather than stay
so many years with the wicked and devilish youths of to-day.” And
Schekkius, who died in 1704, had the following inscription painted on
the wall of the Gymnasium in Hildesheim:
“_Quis miser est? Vere miseros si dixeris ullos,
Hi sunt, qui pueros betha vel alpha docent._
“The schoolmasters have horses’ and asses’ labor; they have to swallow
much dust, stench and smoke to boot; discomfort, calumnies, and sundry
troubles, with ingratitude in _fine laborum_.”
We cannot wonder that the _desudare in pulvere scholastico_ was not
considered a desirable profession, and that the school career was
sought only as a transitory occupation, which was abandoned as soon as
a good parsonage was offered. Others again entered upon this career
because, for lack of talent or other qualities, they could not expect
to succeed in the ministry.[175] The changes among the teachers, in
Saxony and elsewhere, were exceedingly frequent. It was very common
among Protestant theologians to teach for one year, or at the most two
years, and then to retire to a parish.[176]
What do we find among the Jesuits? The most talented youths entered
their ranks, and after a long and solid training many taught in the
colleges their whole lives, others for at least five or more years.
They had not to worry about their livelihood, as the Order provided
all they needed. So they could devote themselves, all their time and
strength, to the work of education.[177] But this was possible only
because they had joined a religious order, which had taken up the
education of youth as one of its special ministries. I have never
found that any writers who discuss the causes of the superiority of
the Jesuit schools have taken this fact into account. And yet it was
undoubtedly one of the most important reasons of the great success of
the colleges of the Society.
But may not even at the present day religious most beneficially
be employed as educators of Catholic youth? Will not their state
of life secure some advantages for the work of education? It has
repeatedly been stated by non-Catholic writers that the schools
of the teaching congregations in France were far more successful
than the lay schools.[178] What is the explanation of this fact,
so unwelcome to those who have to admit it? A recent article in an
American magazine may help us to find a very plausible explanation.
Professor Münsterberg of Harvard writes[179]: “The greater number of
those who devote themselves to higher teaching in America are young
men without means, too often without breeding; and yet that would be
easily compensated for, if they were men of the best minds, but they
are not. They are mostly men of a passive, almost indifferent sort of
mind, without intellectual energy, men who see in the academic career
a modest safe path of life ... while our best young men must rush to
law, and banking, and what not,” and all this because the salaries are
not high enough.[180] It is not our task to investigate or defend the
correctness of these statements, which unquestionably contain a great
deal of truth.
What do we find in religious orders? No doubt, the type of mind
described in the preceding lines is to be met with among them; but in
schools, conducted by religious, men are teaching who are “of the best
minds”, sometimes also men who belong to the best Catholic families
in the land. The Jesuits, in particular, have even been charged with
drawing the finest talents and the sons of the most distinguished
families to their Order. If this were true, these talents would not
be lost to society. For they are working for the noblest cause, the
education of the young. Their state of life made firm and lasting by
sacred vows, frees them from family cares and family troubles, and
permits them to devote all their time and energy to education. The
Jesuit is prevented from seeking earthly remuneration, consequently, no
“better chance”, no higher salary offered by other occupations, will
entice him to forsake his arduous but sublime task.
In the year 1879, at the time of violent agitations against the Jesuit
colleges in France, a writer in the Paris _Figaro_ called attention
to the fact how little a Jesuit teacher needed. In the provinces, a
Jesuit teacher costs one thousand francs, in Paris, a little more, and
this is for board, clothes, etc. Going from one college to another, he
takes with him his crucifix, his breviary, and the clothes which he
wears on his body, his manuscripts, if he has any, and that is all. And
yet, as the same writer points out, among these truly poor men, among
these volunteers to the noble cause of education, are men who are the
sons of millionaires, others who have received the badge of the “Legion
of Honor”, others who had been awarded this distinction before they
became Jesuits; there are among them men who had been able officers in
the army or navy. Indeed, these men must see in the education of youth
something more than an occupation for gaining a livelihood.
In this country the instability of teachers has more than once formed
the subject of complaints. “In Maine,[181] some time ago, four years
was found to be the average time of service. The report of 1892 on the
high schools of Washington (D. C.) remarks that, with few exceptions,
all professionally prepared teachers who had occupied their positions
four years ago had resigned to enter more lucrative positions. Better
opportunities are offered not only to male but to female teachers,
who also give up their positions to enter upon married life. Even
well-to-do American women, generally highly educated, well informed,
and at the same time enterprising, prefer to spend a few years in
teaching rather than await their future inactively. The official report
condenses all this in the mournful remark: ‘In the United States the
profession of teaching seems to be a kind of waiting-room in which the
young girl awaits a congenial, ulterior support, and the young man a
more advantageous position.’”[182]
It is evident that teaching must suffer from such instability. No
professional skill is possible in the majority of teachers; experience
and steadfastness, two important elements in education, are lacking.
This latter point may be illustrated by a comparison drawn between the
Catholic Sister and the Protestant Deaconess. The comparison has been
drawn by a Protestant lady in Germany, Frau Elisabeth Gnauck-Kühne,
who for many years was prominent in works of Christian charity. She
says:[183] “The Catholic Sister has made a binding vow, she has burnt
the ships behind her; earthly cares, earthly pleasures she knows no
more, her conversation is in heaven. It is the same to her whither she
goes, whom she attends, poor or rich, old or young, high or low, all
these circumstances are immaterial; for she has balanced her account
with the life on this side of the grave, she does nothing by halves.
The Evangelical Deaconess in theory stands in a different position. Her
church demands of her no oath of renunciation, she has not destroyed
the bridge, she may at any moment return to the fleshpots of Egypt,
especially when a man wants her for his wife. Then the motives which
have led her to the service of the sick will hold no longer; then
the needs, which, as far as lay in her, she wished to remedy, must
continue to exist, she doffs the severe garb and decks herself with
the orange-blossoms. Such being the case, is it not most natural
that she yields more easily to the temptation of having one eye on
her vocation, the other on the world? What is excluded in the case
of the Catholic Sister, the desertion of her vocation and marriage,
are possible for her, and why should she not find the possibility
desirable? If, in addition, the wish is father to the thought, there
arises consciously or unconsciously, that disposition which has been
felt as a ‘tinge of worldliness.’ But it would be unfair to blame the
Deaconess. Protestantism with irresistible consistency must produce the
described disposition and half-heartedness, for it esteems married life
more highly than voluntary virginity, and under all circumstances it is
lawful and laudable to strive after that which is higher and better.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, while considering married life
a sacred state, gives a higher rank to life-long virginity consecrated
to God.”
This surprising tribute to the usefulness and dignity of the
religious life as practised in the Catholic Church, may be applied
with equal force to the religious teachers. They, too, do nothing
by halves; “their hearts are not divided.”[184] “For the kingdom of
heaven’s sake”[185] they have renounced the joys of family life. All
their affections purified, ennobled and made supernatural, are to be
bestowed on those entrusted to their care. It is Christ whom they
have to see in the little ones, according to the words of the Divine
Master: “He that receiveth one such little child in my name receiveth
me.” We do not mean to imply that married men may not be excellent
teachers,--thousands have been such,--nor that all religious on account
of their state are good teachers. We merely wish to prove that the
religious state in itself affords many advantages for the cause of
education. The difficulties connected with education will be borne more
patiently, sometimes even heroically, by one who has bound himself to a
life of perfect obedience and self-sacrifice.
Besides, in a teaching order, a continuity of aim and effort is
effected which is and must be wanting in individuals. Mr. Quick has
well emphasized this fact: “By corporate life you secure continuity
of effort. There is to me something very attractive in the idea of a
teaching society. How such a society might capitalize its discoveries.
The Roman Church has shown a genius for such societies, witness the
Jesuits and the Christian Brothers. The experience of centuries must
have taught them much that we could learn of them.”[186] For this
reason a change of Professors in a Jesuit College is attended by fewer
inconveniences, as all have been trained under the same system, and
thus have imbibed the pedagogical traditions of the Order.
A French writer has spoken of another advantage, the moral influence,
which the religious exercises owing to his state. “The Jesuit
teacher”--the same may be said of all religious teachers--“is not a
paid official. The pupils look up to him as a loved and venerated
friend. Perhaps they know that he is the scion of an illustrious
family, who could have followed a splendid career in life, who could
have succeeded in the world of finances and industry. But he preferred
to take the black gown and to devote himself to education.”[187]
The source of the growing antipathy against the educational labors
of religious is either hatred of the Catholic religion or religious
indifferentism. When people do not care any more for the supernatural,
the education based professedly on supernatural views, seems to them
out of date, antiquated, a remnant of medieval priestcraft and clerical
tyranny. Be it remarked, however, that this opposition is not new
to our age. The very Middle Ages witnessed a violent opposition to
the teaching of religious orders. This was especially the case in
the University of Paris, where, in the thirteenth century, a strong
rationalistic party, headed by William of Saint-Amour, endeavored to
expel the Dominicans and Franciscans from the professorial chair.
William’s contention was that the religious should not be allowed to
teach, but should employ themselves in manual labors, as did the monks
in olden times. Then it was that three able pens were employed to
defend the religious orders and their work: those of Bonaventure, of
Albertus Magnus, and of Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas wrote his little
work: “Against those who attack, Religion and the Worship of God”,[188]
of which Fleury said that it had always been regarded as the most
perfect apology for religious orders. In the second chapter, headed
“Whether Religious may teach”, and the third, “Whether Religious may be
a corporate body of secular teachers”, the Saint refutes the objections
of William in a most lucid and powerful manner, and sets forth the
advantages which the Church and society may derive from teaching by
religious orders. He contends that a religious order may be instituted
for any work of mercy. As teaching is a work of mercy, a religious
order may be founded with the special end of teaching.[189] And as the
common good is to be preferred to private utility a monk may leave his
solitude with permission of Superiors, to minister to the general good
by teaching as well as by writing.
We see from this fact that history repeats itself, and that the modern
attacks on the educational labors of religious communities are by no
means new. The tactics of the enemies of the religious change, the
pretexts of attacks on them will vary, but the nature of the warfare
is ever the same. It is conscious or unconscious opposition to the
principles of Christianity. Therefore, we find that those who have
the interest of religion at heart, are not among the opponents of
“clerical” education.
Even Protestants frankly admit that the union of the clerical office
with that of the teacher offers great advantages. Sir Joshua Fitch,
the distinguished English educator, thinks that the “parents in
parting with the moral supervision of their sons are not unreasonably
disposed to place increased confidence in a headmaster who combines the
scholarship and the skill of teaching with the dignity and the weight
of the clergyman’s office.”[190] And Professor Paulsen, certainly not
theologically biased, says that it was not without disadvantages that
the theologians were replaced in the Gymnasia by philologians and
mathematicians, a change which for a long time was wished, undoubtedly
not without good reasons. The theologian, owing to his whole training,
had an inclination towards the care of the _souls_; the interest in the
_whole_ man was the centre of his calling.[191]
What we have said so far undoubtedly justifies us in maintaining that
the measure adopted by Ignatius, in making education a special ministry
of a religious order, marks an epoch of prime importance in the history
of Catholic pedagogy.
The character and object of the Society, the means it applies for
obtaining its object, and its system of administration are laid down
in the Constitutions of the Society. These Constitutions are the work
of St. Ignatius, not, as has been asserted, of his successor Lainez,
although the latter was one of those Fathers whom Ignatius consulted
very frequently whilst drawing up the Constitutions. St. Ignatius died
in 1556; in 1558 the representatives of the Order met together and
elected James Lainez second General of the Society. They examined the
Constitution which Father Ignatius had left at his death, and received
it with unanimity, just as it stood. They presented it to the Sovereign
Pontiff Paul IV., who committed the code to four Cardinals for accurate
revision. The commission returned it, without having altered a
word.[192]
We must explain a few details of the organization of the Order, as
certain terms will be used again and again in this work. The Order is
divided into _Provinces_, which comprise all the colleges and other
houses in a certain country or district. The Superior of a Province
is called _Provincial_; he is appointed by the General for a number
of years. Several Provinces form a so-called _Assistancy_. The head
of the Order is the _General_, elected for lifetime by the General
Congregation. He possesses full jurisdiction and administrative power
in the Order. Five assistants form, as it were, his council. They are
elected by the General Congregation, from the various assistancies.
They are now five: those of Italy, Germany (with Austria, Galicia,
Belgium and Holland), France, England and North America, Spain
(with Portugal). The legislative body of the Order is the _General
Congregation_. It alone can add to the Constitutions, change or
abrogate. It consists of the General (after his death, his Vicar),
the Assistants, the Provincials, and two special deputies, elected by
each province. It assembles only after the death of a General, or in
extraordinary cases at the command of the General. As was said, it
elects a new General and his assistants, and it may depose the General
for grave reasons. It is clear, then, that the General’s power is not
so absolute as it is sometimes represented to be, but is wisely limited.
In this way the greatest possible centralization is secured in the
hands of the General, and yet the danger of abusing so great a power
is excluded by the institution of the Assistants. Ribadeneira has
well remarked that this form of government borders closely upon
monarchy, but has still more in common with an oligarchy, for it avoids
everything faulty in each of the two systems and borrows the best
points of both. From the monarchy it takes its unity and stability;
from the oligarchy the existence of a council, so that the General
may command every one, and at the same time, be subject to every one
(_praesit et subsit_).[193]
In connection with the Constitutions we must mention a book which
is said to exhibit the “true” character of the Society, namely the
so-called _Monita Secreta_, or code of secret instructions, supposed to
have been drawn up by Aquaviva, the fifth General, for the benefit of
Superiors and others who are considered fit to be initiated in the full
mystery of the schemes of the Society. It imputes to the Society the
most crooked designs to achieve the aggrandizement of the Order. It has
been reprinted again and again, in England as late as 1850 (London), in
France 1870 and 1876, in Germany 1886 and 1901. The work has repeatedly
been proved to be an infamous libel, written by one Zahorowski, who had
been discharged from the Society in 1611 or 1612. Even such enemies of
the Society as the Jansenist Arnauld, the “Old-Catholics” Döllinger,
Huber, Reusch, and Friedrich, declare it “spurious and a lampoon on the
Order.” Dr. Littledale calls it “an ingenious forgery”,[194] it has
been recently called a fraudulent squib by Protestants like Professor
Harnack (1891), Tschackert (1891), and others.[195] And still, in
spite of all this adverse authority, recent Protestant publications
have referred to this forgery as to an authentic document. No, not the
_Monita Secreta_, but the Constitutions, available to any one, contain
the spirit of the Society.
The Constitutions are divided into ten parts, the fourth of which
treats of studies. This part is the longest of all, and its perfect
arrangement met with especial admiration. After the promulgation of
the Constitutions successive General Congregations issued decrees,
emphasizing the vast importance of the education of youth, and the
great esteem to be had for the teaching of grammar and the classics.
It is called “a special and characteristic ministry of the Society”
(_Congr. 8., Dec. 8._), “one of the most desirable occupations and most
beneficial to many” (_C. 7., D. 26._). In the Ratio Studiorum, the very
first Rule reads:[196] “As it is one of the principal ministries of our
Society to teach all the branches of knowledge, which according to our
institute may be taught, in such a manner that thereby men may be led
to the knowledge and love of our Creator and Redeemer, the Provincial
should consider it his duty to see with all diligence, that the fruit
which the grace of our vocation requires, corresponds with the manifold
labors of our schools.” This work of teaching boys is considered
so important in the Society that in the last vows it is expressly
mentioned: “I vow according to obedience a special concern for the
education of boys.”
The branches which “according to the Institute may be taught,” are
chiefly those that are connected with higher education. The Society has
been blamed for neglecting elementary education. Professor Huber thinks
that the Jesuits did so, “first, because this task seemed to them to be
more subordinate, since the hold on the people was assured to them any
way by their ecclesiastical influence; secondly, because on the whole
they were no friends of popular education, however insignificant; for
the complete ignorance of the masses did but fortify their control of
them.”[197] This is a flagrant injustice and sheer calumny. The Order
never opposed popular education. On the contrary, the Constitutions
expressly declare it to be a laudable work: “Moreover it would be a
work of charity to teach reading and writing, if the Society had a
sufficient number of men. But on account of dearth of men we are not
ordinarily used for this purpose.”[198]--This is the proper reason, and
the only one why the Jesuits could not undertake elementary education.
They had never men enough to supply the demands for higher education.
Actually hundreds of applications from bishops and princes for erecting
colleges had to be refused. As early as 1565, the Second General
Congregation had to decree that “existing colleges should rather be
strengthened than new ones admitted. The latter should be done only if
there was a sufficient endowment and a sufficient number of teachers
available.”[199]
How, then, could the Society enter so vast a field as that of
elementary education? Besides the whole intellectual training of
the Jesuits fitted them better for the higher branches. At the
present day, when the watchword is “specialization”, the Jesuits
should rather find recognition than censure, for having wisely
limited their work centuries ago. Moreover, the Jesuits _did_ teach
elementary branches, at least in some places, not only in Paraguay,
but also in Europe. Father Nadal writes: “In the elementary class
(_classic abecedariorum_), which may be opened with the permission
of the General, the boys are taught reading and writing. A brother
may be employed to assist the teacher if the class should be too
large.”[200]--Be it further added that at present, in the foreign
missions, v. g. in Syria, the Jesuits conduct hundreds of elementary
schools, in which most branches are taught by lay brothers or by
sisters of various teaching congregations.[201]
The fourth part of the Constitutions contains only the general
principles, not a complete system of education. That this more general
legislation was not considered final by St. Ignatius, follows from the
passage in which he states that “a number of points will be treated of
separately in some document approved by the General Superior.”[202]
This is the express warrant, contained in the Constitutions, for the
future Ratio Studiorum, or System of Studies in the Society of Jesus.
FOOTNOTES:
[149] The best for English readers are: _Saint Ignatius of Loyola_,
by Henri Joly (London, 1899). _Life of St. Ignatius_, by C. Genelli.
_Saint Ignatius and the Early Jesuits_, by Stewart Rose.
[150] _Essays_: “Ranke’s History of the Popes.”
[151] _Encyclopedia Britannica_ (9th ed.), article “Jesuits.” This
article teems with gross misrepresentations of the Order, and it would
take a volume to refute the calumnies and the ungrounded insinuations
contained therein.
[152] See _The Testament of St. Ignatius_. Introduction by Father
Tyrrell, S. J., p. 7; and notes on pp. 60-61, 79-82, 197 foll.
[153] Harnack, _What is Christianity?_ (New York, 1901), Lecture XIV,
p. 252.--However, much of what has been written about the military
character of the Society is due to a misconception. When Mr. Davidson,
in his _History of Education_, says that “the Society of Jesus was a
great military organization, a _Catholic Salvation Army_, with methods
very much resembling those of its latest imitator,” we must call this
comparison absurd. For a greater difference than that between the
methods of the Society and those of the Salvation Army is scarcely
conceivable, not to say a word of the vast difference of their aims.
[154] “To resist the encroachments of Protestantism, that followed
the diffusion of instruction among the people, Loyola organized his
teaching corps of Catholic zealots; and his mode of competition for
purposes of moral, sectarian and political control has covered the
earth in all Christian countries with institutions of learning.”
Compayré, _History of Pedagogy_, p. 163.
[155] In the first approbation of the Institute, by the Brief _Regimini
militantis_ of Pope Paul III., September 27, 1540. (Cf. _Litterae
Apostolicae_, Florentiae, 1892, p. 4.)
[156] _Litterae Apostolicae_, _l. c._, p. 44.
[157] Huber, _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, 1873, p. 3.
[158] Huber, _l. c._, p. 26.
[159] On this subject cf. Duhr, _Jesuitenfabeln_. (Jesuit-Myths),
Herder, Freiburg, and St. Louis, 1899, (3rd edition), pp. 1-28.
[160] _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_, vol. I, p. 382. In
another passage he styles the Society a _Professoren-Orden_.
[161] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 43.
[162] It is common among non-Catholics to style the members of all
religious orders “monks.” However, this popular appellation is not
correct. The general term is “religious.” This word was used in this
sense very early in English (v. g. by Chaucer, _Troylus and Chryseyde_,
CIX, 759). It seems that after the Reformation, Protestants refused
to honor members of religious orders with this title. J. L. Kington
Oliphant, of Balliol College, Oxford, states in his work _The New
English_ (vol. I, p. 482), that “the phrase _the relygyon_ is employed
for monk’s profession, almost for the last time” between 1537 and
1540. Protestants preferred to use the word “monk”, which soon became
a term of reproach. They saw in the monks the very type of laziness,
uselessness, ignorance, fanaticism and profligacy. Cardinal Newman
has said of this Protestant view: “As a Jesuit means a knave, so a
monk means a bigot.”--The Catholic Church, as every other society, has
the right to lay down its own terminology, which, we think, should be
respected by all. (The term “religious” in this sense is recognized by
the Standard and Century Dictionaries). The Church and all enlightened
Catholics distinguish between Monks, Friars and Clerks Regular. _Monks_
are the contemplative orders: Basilians, Benedictines, Carthusians,
Cistercians and Trappists. The _Friars_ or _Mendicants_ were founded in
the Middle Ages; they are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites and
Augustinians. _The Clerks Regular_, or _Regular Clerics_, are chiefly
of more recent date: The Theatines, the Jesuits etc. The difference, as
regards the aim and manner of life of these classes, is well explained
in _The Religious State_, by William Humphrey, S. J. (London, 1884,
3 vols.) vol. II, pp. 309-336. This work is a digest of the classic
work on the religious state, the _De Statu Religionis_ of the Jesuit
Suarez. Father Humphrey’s digest may prove of service to all who desire
to have information with regard to a salient feature of the Catholic
Church.--See also the excellent articles in the _Kirchen-Lexikon_
(Herder, 2nd ed.): “Orden,” vol. IX, 972; “Mönchthum,” vol. VIII, 1689;
“Bettelorden,” vol. II, 561; “_Clerici regulares_,” vol. III, 530.
[163] Much of what Luther said on the subject of vows, as well as of
matrimony, does not bear translation. See Janssen, _Ein zweites Wort an
meine Kritiker_, pp. 93-97. Professor Paulsen indignantly repudiates
the vile calumnies of the humanists against the religious orders. He
points out that the writings of many humanists exhibit a licentiousness
which would have made most religious throw these books aside with utter
disgust. Some Protestant critics severely blamed the Berlin Professor
for this defence of the outlawed monks. Professor Ziegler even accused
him that, in alliance with Janssen and Denifle, he endeavored to
restore the old Catholic _fable convenue_. Professor Paulsen answers
this charge of his co-religionists by saying that he is entirely
free from any such tendency. “I do not want to restore or maintain
any fables, neither Catholic nor Protestant; but I wish, as far as
possible, to see things as they are. It is true, this endeavor has led
me to doubt whether the renaissance and its apostles deserve all the
esteem, and the representatives of medieval education all the contempt
which, up to this day, has been bestowed on them.” _L. c._, vol. I, p.
89.
[164] Taylor, _The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, (New York,
Macmillan 1900), p. 182.
[165] _What is Christianity?_, p. 266.
[166] _The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages_, p. 142.
[167] _What is Christianity?_, p. 288.
[168] _The Life of St. Chrysostom_, by Dr. Neander. Translated from the
German by the Rev. J. C. Stapleton, London 1845, p. 92.
[169] _Ibid._, p. 37.
[170] _Historical Sketches_, vol. II, pp. 365-366.
[171] Newman, _Historical Sketches_, vol. II, pp. 420-26; 452.
[172] _De Religione Societatis Jesu._--See the digest of the work in
_The Religious State_, by W. Humphrey, S. J., vol. III, p. 167.
[173] Many interesting details on this subject have been published in
a recent book by Reicke, _Lehrer und Unterrichtswesen in der deutschen
Vergangenheit_, Leipzig, Diederichs, 1901. Summary in _Neue Jahrbücher
für das klassische Altertum_, 1902, vol. X, pp. 295-296.--See also
Paulsen, _Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts_ (2nd ed.), vol. I, pp.
326-333; 362.
[174] _L. c._, p. 296.
[175] Paulsen, _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, _l. c._, p. 327.
[176] _Ib._, p. 296.
[177] Professor Paulsen states that the Jesuit teachers changed also
rather frequently; but _every_ Jesuit had to teach at least four or
five years after the completion of his philosophical course, and very
many returned to the colleges after their theological studies. Hence
there was incomparably more stability in Jesuit colleges than in most
Protestant schools of those times.
[178] See for instance the _Contemporary Review_, March, 1900, p. 441,
where it is plainly stated by a writer most hostile to the religious
orders, that the “religious teachers do their work efficiently and
successfully, their rivals with a degree of slovenliness which is
incredible.” See further testimonies below, chapter VII.
[179] _Atlantic Monthly_, May 1901, p. 628. However, this feature is
not confined to American schools. Within the last few years serious
complaints begin to be heard also in Germany. There is even a serious
danger apprehended for the higher schools. The commercial spirit has
invaded Germany, and young men are not anxious to enter on a career
which is perhaps the most fatiguing of all and offers the fewest
chances for advancement. See Dr. Wermbter, _Die höhere Schullaufbahn
in Preussen_, 1901; Dr. Schröder: _Periculum in Mora_, 1901.--Of the
French teachers M. Bréal, Professor of the _Collège de France_, said
as early as 1879: “Les maîtres d’études sont, généralement, des jeunes
gens qui acceptent de fatigantes et difficiles fonctions pour avoir
le loisir de se préparer à un emploi plus relevé, ... personnes sans
expérience pédagogique, dont la pensée et l’activité sont tournées vers
les examens qui les attendent.... Je ne crains pas d’être contredit si
j’affirme que l’autorité leur manque pour être les éducateurs que nous
cherchons.” Du Lac, _Jésuites_, p. 280.
[180] Political influence has repeatedly been pointed out as another
cause that deters able men in this country from school work. “It seems
to be true that high schools have not been able to attract the best men
into their service, because appointments in them must be sought usually
through avenues of political influence.” _Educational Review_, May,
1902, p. 506. See also President Draper, in _Education in the United
States_, vol. I, pp. 13, 16, 29; and Mr. Anderson’s article “Politics
in the Public Schools,” _Atlantic Monthly_, April, 1901.
[181] In Illinois and other states the same has been proved. Mr.
McBurney wrote quite recently in the _Ohio Teacher_ that the average
life of the country teacher is not over three years. See _The Review_,
St. Louis, October 2, 1902, p. 601.
[182] _Report of the Com. of Education_, 1892-93, vol. I, p. 545; see
also pp. 565 and 586.
[183] From the Protestant _Tägliche Rundschau_ of Berlin, Sept. 28,
1899.
[184] I. _Corinth._ 7, 33.
[185] _Matth._ 19, 11, 12.
[186] _Educational Reformers_, p. 532.
[187] Albert Duruy in _Revue des Deux-Mondes_, Jan. 1, 1880.
[188] _Contra Impugnantes Dei Cultum et Religionem._ Edition of Parma,
1864, vol. XV. _Opusculum_ I. See _The Life and Labors of St. Thomas
Aquinas_, by Roger Bede Vaughan, O. S. B., 1871, vol. I, pp. 625-726.
[189] See also _Summa Theol._, 2., 2., _qu._ 188, a. 5.
[190] _Thomas_ and _Matthew Arnold_, p. 97.
[191] _Geschichte des gel. Unt._, pp. 628-629 (2. ed., vol. II, p. 390).
[192] Hughes, _Loyola_, p. 55.
[193] _Saint Ignatius_, by H. Joly, p. 217.
[194] _Encyclopedia Britannica_, article “Jesuits”.
[195] See Duhr, _Jesuitenfabeln_ (3rd ed.), pp. 76-102.--_The Month_
(London), August 1901, pp. 176-185: _The Jesuit Bogey and the Monita
Secreta_; and especially Reiber, _Monita Secreta_, Augsburg, 1902.
[196] _First Rule of the Provincial._
[197] _Der Jesuiten-Orden_, p. 348.--Compayré repeats this charge: “The
Jesuits have deliberately neglected and disdained primary education.”
_Hist. of Ped._, p. 142.
[198] _Constitut._, P. IV, c. 12, _Declaratio C._--The XX. General
Congregation, 1820, when asked whether elementary schools should be
admitted, reverted to this passage of the Constitutions: “Such schools
are not excluded by our Institute, on the contrary, it is said in the
Constitutions that such teaching is a work of charity. But the dearth
of men is to be taken into consideration, and care must be taken not
to hinder greater good through this (admission of elementary schools).
The whole matter is left to the prudence of the Provincials, who have
to see what is expedient according to place and circumstances.” _Decr._
XXI. Pachtler, vol. I, p. 107.
[199] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 74. (_Decr._ VIII.)
[200] _Monumenta Paedagogica_, 1902, p. 108.
[201] See below chapter VII.
[202] _Const._, P. IV, cap. XIII. _Decl. A._