Religious Instruction.
The preceding chapter has shown how painstaking the Jesuits are as
regards the moral training of their pupils. Other educators also
insist on the necessity of this training, but the Jesuits, in fact
all Catholics, differ from a great number of other educators in a
most essential point, namely in that they base the moral training
entirely on the religious education. They consider a moral training
without the religious as defective and incomplete. Incomplete, because
it disregards one of the most important obligations of man. Man’s
first and most sacred duty is to acknowledge his dependence on God,
his Creator and Lord, and to give expression to this recognition by
interior and exterior acts of worship. This is religion. Religion
is a postulate of man’s rational nature. This thought stood clearly
before the mind of the founder of the Society of Jesus, when in his
_Spiritual Exercises_ he wrote down this brief summary of religion:
“Man is created to praise God, to reverence and serve Him, and, by
doing so, to save his soul.” No system of education can be considered
as harmonious which leaves this first duty of man out of consideration,
and fails to implant religion into the hearts of the pupils. If it is
man’s duty to worship God, it is his duty likewise to know God; he can
know Him from the manifestation of His works (_Romans_ 1, 19), and the
revelation of His word. Religion does not consist in mere sentiment
and pious emotions, but in the recognition of certain truths and the
subjection of the will to these truths. Hence no religion is possible
without the knowledge of these truths, or let us plainly call them what
they are: _dogmas_, although this word is so hateful to the ear of the
rationalist and agnostic educator of the day. Dogmas must be taught and
believed as the foundation of all true religion, as the Great Teacher
of mankind has said: “This is life everlasting that they may know thee,
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”[973] It is,
indeed, the highest wisdom “to know Christ and him crucified,” “in
whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”[974] Christ,
therefore, must be the centre of all true education.
The knowledge of religious truths is necessary in education for
another reason, because it is the only sure foundation of morality,
and without it no true moral education is possible. This is the
firm conviction of Christian thinkers. I know the champions of the
“unsectarian” schools cry out against such an assertion, and they
ask indignantly: “Can we not teach ethics without dogmas, moral
principles without religion?” Reason, history, daily experience, and
our innermost conscience give a stern and emphatic answer to this
question: “You cannot teach it effectively and with any satisfactory
result.” All motives of self-respect, honor, sense of duty, welfare
of the community, etc., may deter a man from certain more revolting
crimes, but they will not hold in times of fierce temptation, when
neither disgrace nor civil punishment is to be feared. How well has the
“Father of this Country” expressed this, when he left to his people
as a sacred legacy these weighty words: “Let us with caution indulge
the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on
minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to
expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious
principle.” Another great military and political leader has spoken even
more strongly on this subject. Lord Mahon writes of a conversation
which he had with the great Duke of Wellington: “I shall never forget
the earnestness and energy of manner with which he [the Duke of
Wellington] deprecated mere secular education, adding, _I doubt if the
devil himself could advise a worse scheme of social destruction._”...
“Take care what you are about,” he exclaimed on December 23, 1840,
when speaking of the new Education Act; “for unless you base all
this education on religion, you are only bringing up so many clever
devils.”[975] The educational legislation of the year 1902 proves that
England, after many decades of experimenting, has at length realized
the truth of the warning of her distinguished leader.
Alas, that the most important words of Washington have been
practically forgotten in this country, and that the exclusion
of religious teaching from the schools has been made one of the
fundamental principles of the national system of schools, in such a
degree that the Catholic Church, which all along has insisted that it
was its duty to educate the children of Catholic parents in the truths
of their religion, was denounced as an enemy of the country. At present
the more thoughtful Protestants begin to acknowledge that this idea is
the only true one. The spread of immorality and infidelity has opened
the eyes of many.[976]
We may be allowed to quote one or other recent utterance of
non-Catholics on this subject. Professor Gates, of the Chicago
Theological Seminary, writes in the _Biblical World_, September 1902:
“The great problem of life is education. The mind of the race is
growing all the while, and it is for the educator to see that these
mental powers are developed in the right direction. But no man’s
education is complete if religious instruction be omitted. One may know
all mysteries of science and literature; he may sweep the heavens with
the telescope, or peer into the secrets of nature with the microscope;
but if in all this he see not God, he is but poorly educated after
all. Now where do we find ourselves, as we confront this phase of the
national problem? We have a system of public education to be proud
of. Never have the various questions that meet the teacher been so
well understood as to-day. But what is this great system doing for the
religious instruction of our children? Practically nothing.”
It has been said time and again that religion should be taught by
the Sunday school and in the family. Yet every thoughtful man must
see that such instruction cannot be but insufficient. The _Biblical
World_, in an editorial, October 1902, asks whether the religious and
moral education is adequately achieved through the Sunday school and
the home, and it gives this answer: “It has been so assumed, but each
passing year shows more clearly that this is not the case.... The home
feels no longer the necessary responsibility, and the Sunday school has
neither the time nor the instrumentalities for adequate instruction.
And, in addition, the divorcement of religious from secular education
destroys the vital relation between the two. Therefore, it seems
certain that the ideal of education, as well as the only adequate
method of education, is to establish religious and moral instruction
in the common schools. And we shall then find ourselves once more in
accord with the status of instruction in England and Germany.”
A few years ago, Mr. Amasa Thornton spoke similarly in the _North
American Review_. There he said: “The questions which we have to solve
then are these: How can the present decline in religious teaching
and influence be checked; and how can such teaching and influence be
increased to such a point as will preserve the great cities of the
next century from depravity, degradation, and destruction? What can
be expected of the family?” Mr. Thornton rightly adds: “If the adults
of the present age are not as religious as the needs of the hour and
of the future require, will the children receive the proper religious
training if they receive none except in the home circle?” In fact,
thousands of children do not even learn a short prayer at home. The
writer then declares that one of the greatest blunders that have been
made in this country is the failure of teaching religion in the public
schools. He then pays a striking tribute to the Catholic Church.
“The Catholic Church has insisted that it is its duty to educate the
children of parents of the Catholic faith in such a way as to fix
religious truths in the youthful mind. For this it has been assailed
by the non-Catholic population, and Catholics have been charged with
being enemies of the liberties of the people and the flag. Any careful
observer in the city of New York can see that the only people, as a
class, who are teaching the children in the way that will secure the
future for the best civilization, are the Catholics; and although
a Protestant of the firmest kind, I believe the time has come to
recognize this fact, and for us all to lay aside religious prejudices
and patriotically meet this question.”[977]
Professor Coe of Northwestern University quite recently said in a
lecture delivered in Chicago: “The position of Roman Catholics in
regard to religion and education, and their policy in the establishment
of parochial schools, are absolutely correct. For corroboration of
this opinion I refer you to the work _Philosophy of Education_, by Dr.
Arnold Tompkins, principal of the Chicago Normal School, in which he
says religious character is the proper end of all education.”[978]
The Catholics object to purely secular education, because they consider
it subversive of religion and true morality, subversive of “the pillars
of human happiness and national security.” It is not so much what is
taught in the non-sectarian schools that renders them objectionable to
Catholics, as what _is not_ taught and cannot be taught. An education
which omits Christ as its central and informing principle is an
unchristian education. Such an education may not directly teach wrong
principles, nor directly undermine the faith of the pupils, yet it does
nothing to protect and strengthen it. The inevitable consequence of
this neglect must be the weakening of faith, especially in an age in
which literature and the whole domestic and social life are infected by
agnosticism and a new paganism. As the non-sectarian school does not
and cannot counteract these baneful tendencies, it is clear that the
education which it imparts is a defective, nay, a false one.
Not unfrequently, however, Catholics must also object to what _is_
taught in non-sectarian schools and colleges. It is impossible to
avoid in text-books and oral instruction, in the teaching of history,
literature, and natural sciences, all allusions to questions most
closely connected with religion. How does the Catholic Church fare in
such references? One need only examine the text-books used in many
schools, to become convinced that a Catholic parent must protest
against the statements contained therein about the Church, its history,
its worship, the Papacy, monastic orders, etc. But if Catholic children
grow weak in their love of the Church, her institutions and practices,
they will gradually neglect their religious duties, and fall a prey
to religious indifferentism and moral ruin. How well has this been
expressed in the latest “School Order for the Higher Schools” of
Prussia: “Catholic religious instruction has the specific task of
grounding Catholic youth in the conviction of the truth and the divine
origin of Christianity and the Church, and to teach them to preserve,
foster, and steadfastly profess this conviction by living in and with
Christ and His Church. Only on the solid foundation of a definite
religious knowledge, of deep-rooted conviction and loyalty to the
Church, can religious instruction try and expect to fulfil that other,
by no means last or least important, part of its task, _viz._, to
accomplish fully and permanently the religious and the moral elevation
of the pupil. According to Catholic teaching, the truly moral life
rests on obedience to the Church, as the divinely attested guardian and
exponent of God’s ordinances, and herein is found a special protection
against the false and perverse aspirations of the modern age, which
endanger the moral order.”[979]
For this reason, what an English Catholic said about the schools of
England has also an application to our country. Dr. Windle (F. R.
S.), speaking of the “Present Needs of Catholic Secondary Education,”
said among other things: “By the fact that we are Catholics, we are
circumscribed in our choice of schools to those of our own faith....
I should like to add one word on this subject from my own experience.
Born and brought up a Protestant I was educated at a great public
school, for which I still retain considerable respect, and even
affection; but I wish to say with a due sense of responsibility, that
the Catholic parent who sends his son to a non-Catholic public school
deliberately and without a shadow of justification exposes him to
the almost certain loss of his faith, and to the grave danger of the
corruption of his morals.”[980]
The attitude of Catholics towards the question of religious
instruction in school is, therefore, very clear. Of those Protestants
that now advocate religious instruction, not a few commit a serious
mistake. They recommend a sort of religious teaching which will suit
all and offend none, an “unsectarian, undenominational religion,” as
they style it. Such a religion does not exist, and what is taught as
such does not deserve the name of religion. This has been emphatically
stated by many distinguished Protestants of widely differing religious
opinions. Of American educators we mention President McCosh who made
some very noteworthy statements on this subject.[981] Even men of most
advanced liberal views condemn the teaching of an “undenominational”
religion. Professor Ziegler of the University of Strassburg, who is not
in the least “clerically biased,” wrote two years ago in his _General
Pedagogy_: “A knowledge of the religion in which one is born forms part
of general culture, and the state would have to look after this part of
education, as after all the rest (_sic!_). But here enters the Church
as competitor, demanding that the instruction in religion be imparted
to her children according to her views; an undenominational instruction
in religion, which is advocated by some, is nonsense; for every
religion is denominational.”[982] It would fill a large volume were we
to collect the unsparing criticism passed within the last thirty years
on “unsectarian” religious teaching by the most enlightened men in
England, among them statesmen like Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.[983] An
English agnostic, a member of the London School Board, thus described
the system adopted by this Board: “The result of unsectarian teaching
is to establish a new form of religion which has nothing in common with
Historical Christianity or any other form of Christian teaching. By
taking away everything to which any one objects, they leave something
which is really worthless. They say they will have no Creed and no
Catechism, and the result is that every teacher is his own Creed and
his own Catechism. The result of unsectarian teaching is a colorless
residuum, which I should think would be as objectionable to the earnest
Christian as it is contemptible to the earnest unbeliever.”[984] Other
English writers were even more severe in their condemnations of this
system, which they called “a misshapen beast,” “a moral monster,”
“lifeless, boiled down, mechanical, unreal teaching of religion.”[985]
Needless to say, Catholics will always object to such a maimed teaching
of religion.
Protestant advocates of religious instruction frequently consider
the reading of the _Bible_ as sufficient, and as the only admissible
means of teaching religion in the schools. However, in this principle
there are several serious errors. We must first mention recent
utterances calling for the restoration of the Bible to the schools as
_literature_, as a means of literary culture. The National Educational
Association that met in Minneapolis in the summer of 1902, adopted the
following resolution: “It is apparent that familiarity with the English
Bible as a masterpiece of literature is rapidly decreasing among the
pupils in our schools. This is the direct result of a conception which
regards the Bible as a theological book merely, and thereby leads to
its exclusion from the schools of some states as a subject of reading
and study. We hope and ask for such a change of public sentiment
in this regard as will permit and encourage the English Bible, now
honored by name in many school laws and state constitutions, to be
read and studied as a literary work of the highest and purest type,
side by side with the poetry and prose which it has inspired and in
large part formed.”[986] Such a study is, of course, practically
useless from the religious point of view; moreover, and this is a
more serious objection against the scheme advocated by the National
Educational Association, it is wrong in principle and mischievous in
its consequences. It is a deplorable degradation of the sacred volume
to put it on a par with profane writings, be they of the highest type,
as the dramas of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson. This scheme
would tend to destroy entirely the reverence due to the Bible. Besides,
no literary study is possible without explanation of the _contents_
of the works studied; but it is absurd to attempt an explanation of
the contents of the Bible without trespassing on religious ground.
Rightly has the _Biblical World_ observed that culture is not the
chief end of man, nor the primary function of the Bible. The biblical
books are indeed masterpieces of literature, but they have a much
more important service to render to the world. The Bible is first of
all for religious and moral instruction, a guidebook to religion and
morality.[987] We perfectly agree with the _Biblical World_ so far, but
not as to the manner of reading the Bible which this review advocates.
In an editorial, October 1902, we read: “The fact that the Bible is
generally excluded from the public schools of the United States,
where formerly it was used as a book of devotion and instruction,
is not to be attributed to a growing disregard of religion.... This
situation has been created by the friends of the Bible rather than by
its enemies; for if the friends of the Bible could have agreed among
themselves as to how the Bible should be taught in the schools, their
influence would have secured the continuance of such instruction. But
it came to pass that the Bible was used in the schools, not only for
general and ethical religious instruction, but also for the inculcation
of sectarian and theological ideas. Protestant teachers taught the
Bible in a way which antagonized the Roman Catholics; and teachers
of the several Protestant denominations interpreted the Bible to the
children from their own point of view. But the public money which is
raised by general taxation for the support of the common schools comes
from men of widely differing ecclesiastical creeds and connections,
and cannot therefore be used for the dissemination of sectarian
tenets.” The writer then asks: “Can we now teach religion and morals
by means of the Bible without at the same time teaching sectarian
ideas? The Bible is not sectarian; Roman Catholics and all Protestant
denominations equally claim it. The formal creeds and the systems
of government and worship which have grown up in the centuries of
Christian history are post-biblical; they are a superstructure, built
upon the fundamentals of Christianity as recorded in the Bible. Can we
get beneath ecclesiastical formulations, regulations, and liturgies
to a fundamental religious belief and moral practice upon which all
Christians can agree, and which they can unite to promote?... We
believe that sectarianism is fast disappearing, that an era of unity
in essentials is near at hand.... In order to restore the Bible to
the schools it must be taught in the right way--the way which accords
with the best modern knowledge of the Bible, the best modern science
of religion and ethical teaching, and the best Christian spirit which
recognizes true Christianity wherever it exists, and is able to
distinguish between essentials and non-essentials.”[988]
We do not want to comment on all the latitudinarian statements
contained in this quotation, but confine ourselves to the following
remarks. First, that religion consisting of merely the “fundamentals
of Christianity without formal creeds,” is no true religion. It is
a distillation or a dilution of Christianity which deserves all the
castigation inflicted by English writers on the “moral monster of
undenominational religion.” Secondly, it is said that “the Bible is not
sectarian, and that Roman Catholics and all Protestant denominations
claim it.” But how do they claim it? Surely not merely as a source of
“general and ethical religious instruction,” but as the document which
is supposed to prove their particular religious tenets. It is as true
now as centuries ago what the Reformed theologian Werenfels expressed
in his famous distich:
_Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque;_
_Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua._
Within one book each seeks to read
The tenets of his private creed.
And, strange to tell, each reads so well
The selfsame words all doctrines spell.
Hence it is unreasonable to expect that the Bible will ever be taught
without “sectarian” bias, or that in future it will be taught by
Protestants without “antagonizing the Roman Catholics.”
The objections of Catholics to the reading of the Bible in
undenominational schools which are frequented by Catholic children,
may briefly be summed up as follows: _First_, the Catholics must ask
which translation of the Bible is to be used. Is it to be the Catholic
Rheims and Douay version? To this the Protestants would undoubtedly
object. Then the Protestant Bible? Against this the Catholics must
protest. For the Bible of King James contains numerous errors of
translation--this was candidly admitted by the authors of the Revised
Version[989]--errors by no means insignificant, errors which, to a
great extent, consist in rendering the Bible so as to justify certain
Protestant tenets and to antagonize Catholic doctrines. The Revised
Version has done away with some of these objectionable translations,
but not with all that justly offend Catholics. Hence the very version
used in the public schools is “sectarian.” Besides, the Catholic
acknowledges books as canonical which are rejected in the Protestant
Bibles as apocryphal, and this is another reason why the Catholic
cannot approve the reading of the Protestant Bible.--_Secondly_, the
Catholic Church is opposed to giving the complete and unabridged
Bible into the hands of children. The reason for this attitude is one
that testifies to the great pedagogical wisdom of the Church. She
cannot bear the thought that the most sacred of books should become a
stumbling-block to the innocent, or a means of gratifying the unholy
curiosity of vicious youths. There are earnest Protestants who in this
matter side with the Catholic practice. It may suffice to quote one
testimony, that of a Protestant educator of the first rank, namely
of Professor Schiller, Director of one of the best training schools
for teachers in Europe. Speaking of the causes of impurity among
students, he finds one in the reading of the unabridged Bible. He
affirms that a large experience has proved that most deplorable vicious
habits among pupils, boys and girls, sprang up in the first place
from the reading of certain passages of the Bible, the selection and
knowledge of which were handed down as a tradition among the pupils.
This danger, he adds, can be so easily avoided by preparing special
school Bibles that the opposite practice seems unpardonable. We think
it well to quote the instructive passage in the original in a note,
adding here that the Catholic Church all along taught the Bible in such
school editions.[990]--There is a _third_ consideration which prompts
Catholics to oppose the reading of the Bible as advocated by most
Protestant educators. It is the following question: Is the Bible to be
read with or without comment? If with comment, is this Protestant or
Catholic? Evidently either Catholic or Protestant would be offended.
Therefore, without comment and explanation! Now this reading is almost
useless, as the young will understand very little of the meaning of the
passage. Disraeli, the English statesman, has justly ridiculed this
practice. “I cannot imagine,” he says, “anything more absurd than that
a teacher should read ‘without note and comment,’ as it is called, a
passage from the Bible, and that children should be expected to profit
by it. The ‘without note and comment’ people in their anxiety to ward
off proselytism, seem to have forgotten that, if there is any book in
the world which demands more explanation than another, it is the Bible.
And so, if nothing else is possible than such a feeble and useless
compromise as this, I would, in the interest of the Bible itself, not
have it read at all.” And then he adds: “I am a great believer in the
old-fashioned Church-Catechism. I wonder whether those that sneer at
it, have always read it. I fancy not. It is, rightly interpreted, a
most practical document, but without interpretation, not worth teaching
or learning.”[991]
As is to be expected, religious instruction in the widest and fullest
sense received a prominent place in the educational system of the
Society of Jesus. The first rule of the Ratio calls it one of the most
important obligations of the Society “to teach all branches of learning
in such a manner that men should be led to the knowledge and love of
their Creator and Redeemer;”[992] and in the rules of the Rector, the
Prefect of Studies, and the teachers, the same duty is inculcated. As
regards the reading of the Bible, the old prejudice that the Church
ever set her face against it is unfortunately still alive among vast
numbers of non-Catholics. For our purpose it suffices to remind the
reader of what was said in a former chapter, namely, that in Jesuit
colleges the Gospels were read, in the higher classes the Gospels and
the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek.[993]
But above all, the Jesuits were always “great believers in the
catechism.” Catechetical instruction was prescribed in all classes once
a week. This may seem rather little; however, it should be remembered
that there were religious instructions in the weekly meetings of
the Sodalities, and, which is still more important, that the whole
teaching was permeated by a religious spirit. Besides, it may be added
that in many modern Jesuit colleges two full hours are devoted to
religious instruction every week. In the lower classes the catechism is
explained, in the higher classes a fuller explanation of the Catholic
dogmas and a course of apologetics is given. Such an apologetical
course was recommended by the German province of the Society of Jesus
as early as 1821.[994] That in our age an apologetical treatment of the
Christian religion is absolutely necessary need not be demonstrated.
The words of the Apostle St. Peter: “Be ready always to satisfy every
one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you,”[995] had,
perhaps, never before a more important bearing than in this age of
omnivorous reading. At a time when the literature of the day is largely
infected by naturalism and agnosticism, and when the principles of
Christianity are attacked in so many subtle forms, it is certainly
necessary to be well instructed lest one’s own faith be tainted by the
prevalent scepticism, and to be ready to defend this faith against the
attacks made in the name of progress, modern philosophy, and science.
This readiness can be obtained only by a solid catechetical and
apologetical training.
Catechetical instruction was, from the very beginning of the Society,
a special ministry and a labor of love to the Jesuits. In the papal
approbation of 1540 it is said that the Society was instituted for
“the propagation of faith, and especially for the instruction of
children and ignorant people in Christian doctrine.” Father Sacchini
has a beautiful chapter on the “Teaching of the Catechism,”[996] in
which he says the Jesuit should teach languages and grammar with great
diligence, but with far greater devotion and alacrity catechism, “which
is the grammar of Jesus Christ.”
An American prelate wrote recently on this subject: “Among religious
orders established with a special view toward the religious education
of youth, the first place must undoubtedly be assigned to the Society
of Jesus.... St. Ignatius himself set the example. The first forty days
after the papal approbation he devoted himself to the instruction of
children in Rome. When told that no one would come to his class, he
answered: ‘If only one child comes to my catechism, it is enough of an
audience for me.’ The Society followed the example of its founder with
a hitherto unheard of zeal and enthusiasm.... The Jesuits, moreover,
developed a most meritorious activity in writing catechetical works,
not less than one hundred and fifty having been published during the
first century of their existence. The catechisms composed by Bellarmine
and Canisius soon displaced all others.”[997] Indeed, the writing of
catechisms has been one of the glories of the Society from the first
decades of its existence. Dr. Knecht, Coadjutor Bishop of Freiburg,
an eminent writer on catechetics, affirms that “the Jesuit Order has
undoubtedly produced the greatest catechists.”[998] The catechism
of the celebrated Bellarmine[999] was used in many countries for
centuries, even at present among Romanic nations. Of great fame were
also the French, Latin and Greek catechisms of Father Edmund Auger. But
all were surpassed by that of Peter Canisius, the first German Jesuit;
this catechism was used extensively all over Europe. The works of this
eminent writer and founder of many colleges deserve to be treated at
some length.
Catechetical instruction had been given from the beginning of the
Church, and there existed works which guided the clergy in this sublime
office. The idea of placing a summary of Christian doctrine in the
hands of the people and children, appears to have been first expressed
in a letter of the great Gerson, chancellor of the University of
Paris (1363-1429). The first known summary of this kind was the one
published at the order of the synod of Tortosa in Spain (1429). The
first German catechism, so far known, was that of Dederich Coelde,
a Minorite Friar of Münster in Westphalia, printed about 1470, then
published in many editions.[1000] There existed, besides this, other
catechisms before the Reformation. Of the Protestant works of this
kind Luther’s “Great and Small Catechisms” were undoubtedly those
that spread most widely and had the greatest influence. Several
Catholic catechisms came out shortly after, but they were, in point
of language and arrangement, inferior to that of Luther. They were
also either too lengthy or too difficult. The need of a new and better
work, adapted to the circumstances of the times, was felt especially
in Germany. Then it was, in 1554, that Canisius began to publish his
three catechisms.[1001] The first was the large catechism in Latin for
the use of students in colleges. After this appeared a shorter one,
and finally his small catechism. This last established his fame as a
writer. There are about three hundred different editions extant which
appeared before the death of the author in 1597. By that time the work
had been translated into English, French, Greek, Italian, Bohemian,
Spanish, Polish, Swedish, and many other languages. Before 1623 there
existed Aethiopian, Indian, and Japanese translations. In Southern
Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, up to the nineteenth century the
name “Canisi” was synonymous with catechism.[1002]
The merits of this work can best be judged from the innumerable
recommendations which it received from Popes and bishops, and not less
from the violent attacks made upon it by Protestants. The Italian
historian Cesare Cantù styles it, “the most famous Catholic catechism
written since the time of Luther.” Even the Protestant historian Ranke
cannot help praising and admiring it. And a distinguished Protestant
controversialist in Germany, Professor Kawerau, says: “The catechism of
Canisius is without doubt of the same importance to the Catholic Church
as Luther’s was to the Church of the Reformation. It is distinguished
by its clear and lucid treatment of the subject and particularly by
the mild and conciliatory tone in which it is written.”[1003] This
“mild and conciliatory tone” was recommended to all Jesuit teachers.
Thus Father Nadal laid it down as a rule for all teachers that “both
in the subject for written exercises and in the explanation of the
catechism they should proceed with the greatest moderation. Especially
in Germany, France, etc., they should not use any contumelious
epithets against their opponents; nay they should not even style them
heretics--although in truth they may be such--, but they should call
those who adhere to the Augsburg Confession, Protestants, others
Anabaptists etc.[1004] How, then, is Mr. Painter justified in asserting
that the Jesuit system fostered religious pride and intolerance?”[1005]
Father Canisius gave also beautiful instructions as to the motives
and methods of teaching catechism. “We who are of the Society of
Jesus,” he writes, “wish to provide the little ones of Christ with
the salutary milk of his doctrine. It is their welfare that we love
and seek to promote. To this end has our Society been instituted, to
instruct youth in piety as well as in learning, as far as with the
grace of Christ we can accomplish.”[1006] One of the most essential
qualities of a good catechist is kindness of heart and manners.
This quality was a marked feature of Canisius’ character, one which
attracted the children to his instructions. The summary of the
catechetical lectures which he gave in Augsburg has been preserved.
Canisius began with the words of the Psalmist: “Come children hearken
to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Psalm 33, 12). Then
he continued: “Christ, our Lord loved the children and showed his
affection for them in various ways. He blessed and embraced them and
defended them against the Pharisees (Matth. 21, 15-16) and against his
own disciples (Matth. 18, 1-10). He said: ‘Suffer little children to
come unto me’; yea come to me, to be instructed, and to be taught the
science of salvation. And to all those who are not well instructed I
speak with St. Paul: ‘You have need to be taught again what are the
first elements of the words of God: And you are become such as have
need of milk and not of strong meat.’ (Hebr. 5, 11-12) Following the
examples of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles, I shall
teach you not as wise and learned ones, but as children and little
ones. Come, then, with a willing and cheerful heart; be convinced
that it is a matter of the greatest importance for you to be justly
called and truly to be sons of God. On your part, you must imitate the
Child Jesus, who, in a manner, has given you an example how to learn
the doctrine of salvation, when he set aside all else, left even his
parents, and remained in the temple. Watch him there, see how he sits
there quietly, listens to the teachers, and asks them questions. His
questions are not about silly and useless matters, but about the great
things of salvation. You must imitate him in this, now and ever in the
future.” This simple and hearty manner of teaching found great favor
with the people, and we are not surprised to hear that after a few of
his catechetical instructions Canisius could write: “I am delighted at
seeing the good will of the people. Even men, among them persons of
distinction, set aside all other business and come to listen to the
instruction for children.”[1007]
Throughout his life Canisius found a special delight in giving
catechetical instructions. The son of a distinguished family, the
celebrated Doctor of theology, and author of many learned works,
the founder of the famous colleges of Prague, Ingolstadt, Munich,
Dillingen, Innsbruck, and Freiburg, the man whose advice was sought
by the Emperors of Germany, by the Dukes of Bavaria, by Popes and
Cardinals, by Church Councils and Imperial Diets--this man devoted
every spare minute to the humble work of instructing children, and that
not only in the cities where he resided, but on his many journeys,
from one end of Germany to the other, he performed the same work of
Christian charity among the simple country people. In his old age, when
worn out by incessant toils, this was his favorite occupation. A year
before his death, in his seventy-eighth year, he writes that his time
is spent in “instructing children and old people.”[1008] A touching
testimony to this work of the saintly Jesuit is still extant at the
present day. In a little village near Innsbruck (Tyrol) is to be seen,
on the gable of an old house, a picture which represents Canisius
sitting among children whom he is instructing in their catechism. It
was before this house that, on his journeys to Innsbruck, he used to
perform the work which the picture has immortalized. We have dwelt
longer on the labors of this great man, because they represent so
beautifully what thousands of other Jesuits have done all the world
over, in their endeavors to spread the knowledge and love of Christ.
Many other Jesuits wrote catechisms after Canisius. But it will suffice
to mention a more recent one, that of the German Jesuit Deharbe.
The merits of Deharbe’s catechism were soon recognized, and it was
introduced into nearly all dioceses of Germany, and was translated into
many languages. It obtained a large circulation, especially in this
country.[1009]
In order to give a solid and efficient religious instruction, it is
not enough to teach catechism once or twice a week. The General of the
Society, Father Beckx, in a letter addressed to the Austrian Minister
of Instruction, July 15, 1854, maintains the following: “Religion
should not only hold the first place among the various branches, but
permeate and rule all, and, according to our Ratio Studiorum, the
teacher should treat all subjects in such manner that the truths of the
catechism are found in all branches. Now it is some wise adage, then an
inspiring thought, again a remarkable incident, or a beautiful trait of
character, which gives the teacher occasion to instruct, to warn, and
to elevate to Christian sentiments; such hints given incidentally and,
as it were, accidentally, often make an impression all the more vivid,
the less they were expected. In this manner religion is not a dry and
disagreeable branch, but vivifies all the rest of instruction, gives it
a higher, sacred character, and makes the pupil not only more learned
but also better and more virtuous.”[1010]
The Fathers Jouvancy and Sacchini say that the explanations of all
authors, also of pagan writers, should be conducted so that they
become, as it were, heralds of Christ. This is very important in our
times, when pagan ideas, principles, and tendencies are praised as the
spirit of the progressing human mind, as the precious fruit of modern
research and civilization. From the study of the ancients, particularly
the Greeks, the young may learn that mankind is on the point of going
again through a circle of errors, which in a retrogressive movement
shall lead our race through all the aberrations which Christianity has
long ago overcome. Against the enticing sirens of “modern progress,”
“freedom of thought,” and “independence of morality,” a most salutary
lesson may be learned from the ancients, who in spite of their
accomplishments in art, literature, and politics, could not find in
them the remedy for social evils, nor contentment of mind and heart.
Such suggestions, however, must be made discreetly, with great tact and
moderation, when an occasion naturally offers. Here, too, the old _ne
quid nimis_ is of the greatest import; if the teacher too often, in
season and out of season, indulges in pious exhortations, the pupils
may easily conceive disgust at them and a loathing for all kinds of
spiritual and religious instruction. Therefore, the teacher should not
only not molest the pupils by too frequent admonitions, but should also
observe prudence in those he thinks fit to give.[1011]
The principles laid down by the Jesuits, as to the religious tone of
all instruction, have recently been emphasized by Pope Leo XIII., in
the Encyclical written in 1897, on occasion of the centenary of Peter
Canisius. There we read: “All schools, from the elementary to the
university, should be thoroughly Catholic, and one of the main duties
of the pastors of the Church is to safeguard the rights of parents and
the Church in this matter. It is of the very greatest importance that
Catholics should have everywhere for their children not mixed schools,
but their own schools, and these provided with good and well trained
masters. Let no one delude himself that a sound moral training can be
separated from dogmatic religious training. To separate the training
in knowledge from all religious influence, is to form citizens to be
the bane and pest of society instead of being the bulwark of their
country. _Moreover, it is not enough for youths to be taught religion
at fixed hours, but all their training must be permeated by religious
principles._”
Some Protestant educators of the highest standing have advocated a
system which is practically that defended by Catholics. Thus Professor
Schiller strongly insists on “concentration and unity in education.”
As regards religious instruction he wishes it to be given by one “who
has in his hands the most important branches of instruction, those
which are best suited to influence education,” above all literature
and history.[1012] The same view is also taken in the Prussian
“School Order” of 1892 and 1901, where it is said that it is of the
utmost importance that religious instruction is not rent from the
other branches, but intimately connected with other, particularly the
_ethical_ branches.[1013] From this principle we may draw another
argument for the advantages which can be derived, if education is in
the hands of the clergy,[1014] especially in the higher classes, where
a thorough knowledge of theology is required in order to give that
religious training needed in this stage of education. It is evident
that such a course can be followed only in denominational schools. For
this reason Professor Schiller deplores the fact that, in consequence
of religious differences, it is almost impossible to apply this most
important principle.[1015]
English and American educators are not wanting who advocate the same
principle on which the Jesuits have insisted for centuries. Arnold’s
opinion on this subject was quite explicit. Sir Joshua Fitch tells us
that he dreaded any theory which would tend to view the life of the
scholar as a thing apart from the life of a Christian. He protested
earnestly against any attempt to divorce religious from secular
instruction, or to treat them as distinct parts of an educational
scheme. “The device sometimes advocated in later times for solving
the religious difficulty in our common and municipal schools by
confining the functions of the school teacher to secular instruction,
and calling in the aid of the clergy or other specialists to give
lessons on religion at separate hours, would have seemed to him wholly
indefensible, and, indeed, fatal to any true conception of the relation
of religious knowledge to other knowledge.” In one of his sermons he
said: “It is clear that neither is the Bible alone sufficient to give
a complete religious education, nor is it possible to teach history,
and moral and political philosophy, with no reference to the Bible,
without giving an education that shall be anti-religious. For, in the
one case, the rule is given without the application, and in the other
the application derived from a wrong rule.”[1016]
But a few months ago the same view was forcibly expressed by a writer
in the Chicago _Biblical World_,[1017] in a leading article which is
said to be inspired by the editor of this review, President Harper of
the University of Chicago.[1018] In this article we find the following
most appropriate statements: “It is a serious phase of the present
situation that the religious and moral instruction of the young is
isolated from their instruction in other departments of knowledge.
The correlation of the different elements of education is incomplete,
because the religious and moral instruction is received in entire
separation from the general instruction of the public schools. The
facts and truths of religion are the foundation and the imperative of
morality. Present civilization rests upon the religious and ethical
ideas of the past, and the civilization of the future depends upon
a due recognition of religion and morality as essential factors in
the growing welfare of humanity. The knowledge and experience of
religious and moral truth must underlie and penetrate all knowledge and
experience. The events and the ideas of the past, as of the present,
must be viewed in the light of a divine hand as the creator of the
universe, a divine power sustaining it, a divine wisdom guiding it,
and a divine purpose accomplished in it. The physical world about us,
our fellow-men, and our own selves must all be interpreted by religion
truly conceived and morality properly understood. It is, therefore,
impossible to accomplish the ideal education of the individual when
the religious and moral element is isolated from the other elements;
still worse when it is not received at all by the majority of the
children. All the elements of education must be woven together into an
organic unity to produce a perfect result.” The writer then proposes
an organization which “may seek to show how to correlate religious
and moral instruction with the instruction in history, science, and
literature obtained in the public schools.”--A comparison with the
words of Father Beckx quoted on a previous page (p. 599) will show
the great similarity of the views of the President of the University
of Chicago and the former General of the Society of Jesus. But we
think there is one essential difference: the Jesuit draws the logical
consequences of his principles, namely, that education should be
imparted in denominational schools; for only in such schools can the
moral and religious training be harmoniously united with the other
elements of instruction. The President of the University of Chicago
has not drawn this conclusion. Yet we fail to see how, except in
denominational schools, the proposed correlation of religious education
and instruction in the other branches is possible. However, for our
present purpose it suffices to have shown that this distinguished
American scholar and educator agrees with the fundamental principle
of the Jesuits, namely, that religious instruction should be closely
connected with the general education.
We heard that Pope Leo said all schools, from the elementary to the
university, should be under the influence of religion, not only the
lower schools. The student in the college and the university needs
the saving and elevating influence of Christianity as well as, and
perhaps even more than, the boy in the elementary course. The man who
receives a higher education is to become the leader and adviser of his
fellow-men. This _rôle_ he will not assume to the benefit of society
unless he possesses a thorough knowledge of religion. Otherwise he
will be “a blind leader of the blind, and both shall fall into the
pit.” What dangers are to be apprehended if the religious instruction
does not keep pace with the growth of secular knowledge, especially
in natural sciences, has been well stated by a Catholic writer:
“Catholics have the faith and a creed, but it is not an easy thing for
men to bear up against the superciliousness with which high-sounding
philosophy treats the doctrine of truth as puerile, effete, and
obsolete. The young man leaves school or college with certain religious
principles, and with certain ideas of the Being and attributes of God;
he is intended for a profession to which physiological science is
preparatory. His theological knowledge is stationary; his scientific is
progressive. Life and motion he learns to trace to secondary causes, of
which before he had heard nothing. He had been taught that life is a
gift of God, and that it rests with Him to destroy or to save; but now
he finds that life expresses but an aggregate of properties, attached
to organization, and dependent for their exercise on the perfection of
the organism and the presence of certain stimuli, as heat and light
and electricity. His scientific knowledge grows into maturity; his
religion is still that of his boyhood or youth! He has found other
causes of the facts he sees, besides those that he knew before, and the
conceit of knowledge and superiority hides from him the fact that these
causes are themselves effects: and then he ascribes a real power to his
generalizations, personifies abstractions, and deifies nature.”[1019]
For this reason the Irish Jesuit Father Delaney, Rector of University
College, Dublin, believes that laymen should have a scientific training
in theology. “I should like,” he said in his evidence before the Royal
Commission on University Education in Ireland, “that educated laymen
should be given an opportunity of getting a scientific knowledge
of their religion. At present boys leaving school find newspapers
and pamphlets and reviews dealing with subjects vitally affecting
Catholicity and Christianity itself, with the existence of a soul, and
the existence of God, and where are these men to get the training and
knowledge to enable them to meet difficulties which are suggested to
them in this way?”[1020]
Indeed, it would be not only incongruous, but even scandalous, if
a Christian place of higher education imparted all sorts of secular
knowledge and neglected that which is the most important, the knowledge
of the Christian religion. A Catholic youth, when leaving college,
should be well prepared to defend his faith against the numberless
misrepresentations which are prevailing among Protestants about things
Catholic. Half the controversies which go on in the world arise from
ignorance and misinformation; and educated laymen that are able to
remove such prejudices by a correct statement of facts of history
and doctrines--and numerous questions of this kind occur in social
intercourse--not only vindicate the calumniated Church, but also
further peace and good feeling among men of different creeds.
FOOTNOTES:
[973] _John_ 17, 3.
[974] 1 _Cor._ 2, 2; and _Col._ 2, 3.
[975] Lord Stanhope’s _Conversations with the Duke of Wellington_,
London, 1888, p. 180.
[976] On this subject see the following recent publications: Father
Poland, S. J., “True Pedagogics and False Ethics,” in _Am. Cath. Quart.
Review_, April 1899; also as separate pamphlet.--Father Campbell, S.
J., “The Only True American School System,” _Messenger_, November 1901,
and the same author’s article: “Moral Teaching in French Schools,”
_ib._, May 1902.--Further, Father Conway, S. J., _The Respective Rights
and Duties of Family, State and Church in regard to Education_. New
York, Pustet, 1890, pp. 34-60.--Father Cathrein, S. J., _Religion und
Moral, oder Gibt es eine Moral ohne Gott?_ Freiburg and St. Louis,
Herder, 1900.
[977] _North American Review_, January 1898, pp. 126-128.--See also the
_Biblical World_, November 1902, p. 323.
[978] New York _Freeman’s Journal_, January 24, 1903.
[979] _Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben_, 1901, pp. 15-16.
[980] The London _Tablet_, September 14, 1901.
[981] See his remarks on “Boston Theology,” in the sixth chapter of
_Christianity and Positivism_.
[982] _Allgemeine Pädagogik_ (Leipzig, 1901), p. 107.
[983] _Fortnightly Review_, May 1896, p. 808 foll.
[984] _Ib._, p. 814.
[985] _Ib._, p. 815.
[986] _The Literary Digest_, August 2, 1902.--See also the Rev. Thomas
B. Gregory, in the _New York American and Journal_, January 11, 1903.
[987] _The Biblical World_, October 1902, p. 243 foll.
[988] _Ibid._, pp. 243 and 246-247.
[989] On this subject see the beautiful little book _Chapters of Bible
Study_, by the Reverend H. J. Heuser (New York, 1895), especially
chapter XX.
[990] “Es darf doch hier auf Grund einer reichen Erfahrung nicht
unerwähnt bleiben, dass namentlich die Bibel in ihrer ursprünglichen
Gestalt eine grosse Gefahr für die Sittenreinheit der Jugend ist.
Es ist mehrfach konstatiert worden, dass die Onanie (self-abuse)
in männlichen und weiblichen Schulen durchaus zunächst sich an die
Lesung von Bibelstellen angelehnt hat, deren Auswahl und Kenntnis sich
traditionell unter der Jugend fortpflanzten. Man kann dieser Gefahr
insofern leicht entgegentreten, als die Herstellung von Schulbibeln
schon so erfolgreich geschehen ist, dass man nicht begreift, wie man
noch immer die ungekürzte Bibel den Schülern in die Hände geben kann.”
Schiller, _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik_ (Leipzig, 1894, 3. ed.),
pp. 171-172.
[991] _Reminiscences_, quoted in the _Fortnightly Review_, May 1896, p.
814.
[992] _Reg. Prov._ 1.
[993] See above pp. 121-124.
[994] “_Instructio catechistica, praecipue in Humanitate et Rhetorica,
sit ad praeservandam contra modernos errores juventutem accommodata._”
Pachtler, IV, p. 360.
[995] 1 _Peter_ 3, 15.
[996] _Paraenesis_, art. 13.
[997] _Spirago’s Method of Christian Doctrine._ Edited by the Rt. Rev.
S. G. Messmer, Bishop of Green Bay, Wis. (Benziger, N. Y., 1901.)
[998] _Kirchenlexikon_, vol. VII, p. 310 (2nd ed.).
[999] Pope Leo XIII., when still Cardinal Archbishop of Perugia,
published a revised and enlarged edition of Bellarmine’s Catechism.
At the Vatican Council (1869-70), it was the wish of Pius IX. that a
catechism, which should be essentially that of Bellarmine, should be
adopted as the uniform and official catechism for the whole Catholic
world. Messmer, _l. c._, p. 536.
[1000] Janssen, _History of the German People_, vol. I. (17th ed., p.
48 foll.--English ed., vol. I, p. 45.)
[1001] See _Kirchenlexikon_, vol. VII, p. 302.--Braunsberger, S.
J., _Die Catechismen des Petrus Canisius_. Herder, St. Louis, Mo.,
1893.--_Spirago’s Method_, pp. 532-534.--Janssen, _Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes_, vol. IV (15th ed.), pp. 436 foll.--It is to be
regretted that there exists no English biography of this great Catholic
reformer and educator. A sketch of his labors was published recently in
the _Dublin Review_, January 1903, pp. 137-158.
[1002] Janssen, vol. IV, p. 445.
[1003] Also Chemnitz, one of the leading Reformers and a violent
antagonist of Canisius, acknowledges that “the catechisms of this
Jesuit are written with the greatest mildness and moderation.” See his
words in Braunsberger, _Canisii Epistulae et Acta_, vol. III, (Herder
1901) p. 811.--In many places of his numerous writings Canisius lays
down his principles about controversies with the Protestants. “The
Protestants heap the most frightful calumnies upon me. Would that we
loved them the better, the more they persecute us. They deserve to be
loved, although they hate us, because most of them err from ignorance.
I would gladly shed my blood for them if I could thereby save their
souls.” He exhorts his brethren and Catholics in general to avoid
all bitterness in controversies; they should argue with gravity and
modesty and suffer all attacks with holy patience for the love of
Christ. (See Janssen, _l. c._, vol. IV, pp. 408-411.)--This moderation
is all the more remarkable if contrasted with the shocking insults
and contumelious appellations with which Canisius was loaded by his
Protestant adversaries. Melanchthon calls him a “cynic.” Others styled
his catechism “devil’s dirt,” the “cursed sacrilegious book of the dog
Canisius,” a “heathenish work, and a product of hell.” The Jesuits
are styled by Chemnitz and others “scoundrels, perjurers, beasts,
hell-frogs spit up by the infernal dragon, a brood of vipers born of
the Babylonian ...,” epithets which do not bear translation here. See
Janssen, _l. c._, pp. 411-413, 441-445.
[1004] _Mon. Paed._, p. 113. Pachtler III, 470 (no. 12), 474 (no. 6).
Several other documents inculcate the same moderation and spirit of
Christian charity. See Janssen, _l. c._, p. 411, note 1.
[1005] _History of Education_, p. 172; see above p. 252.
[1006] _Canisii Epistulae et Acta_, vol. III, p. 777.
[1007] _Canisii Epistulae et Acta_, vol. III, pp. 623-627.
[1008] Janssen, vol. IV, p. 437.
[1009] See _Spirago’s Method_, page 530 foll., where also the
shortcomings of this catechism are pointed out.
[1010] Duhr, _Studienordnung_, p. 104.
[1011] _Ratio Docendi_, chapt. I, art. 2.
[1012] _Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik_, pp. 237-238.
[1013] _Lehrpläne_, etc., p. 11.
[1014] See the words of Professor Paulsen above, p. 100.
[1015] _L. c._, p. 238.
[1016] Fitch, _Thomas and Matthew Arnold_, pp. 95-96.
[1017] _The Biblical World_, November 1902, p. 324.
[1018] _The Literary Digest_, December 27, 1902.
[1019] _Dublin Review_, Jan. 1847, p. 383.--In this connection we would
beg the reader to see the beautiful exposition of the same principle
in Cardinal Newman’s _Idea of a University_ (pp. 372-380): “General
Religious Knowledge.”
[1020] Quoted in _The Review_, June 19, 1902, p. 384.