Jesuit Education/Chapter 3

by Robert Schwickerath

 

Chapter III.

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.^[1] 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."^[2] 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."^[3]

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.^[4] 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."^[5]

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.^[6] 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."^[7] 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.^[8] 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."^[9] 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.^[10] 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?^[11]

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."^[12] "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."^[13]

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"^[14] 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.^[15]

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,^[16] 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."^[17]

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."^[18] 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."^[19]

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.^[20]

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."^[21]

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."^[22]

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.^[23] 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."^[24]

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.^[25] 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.^[26] 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.^[27] 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.^[28]

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.^[29] 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.^[30] 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^[31]: "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.^[32] 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,^[33] 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.'"^[34]

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:^[35] "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 flesh-pots 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."^[36] "For the kingdom of heaven's sake"^[37] 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."^[38] 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."^[39]

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",^[40] 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.^[41] 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."^[42] 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.^[43]

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.^[44]

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).^[45]

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",^[46] it has been recently called a fraudulent squib by Protestants like Professor Harnack (1891), Tschackert (1891), and others.^[47] 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:^[48] "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."^[49] 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."^[50] – 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."^[51]

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 (classis 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."^[52] – 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.^[53]

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."^[54] This is the express warrant, contained in the Constitutions, for the future Ratio Studiorum, or System of Studies in the Society of Jesus.

 

1. The best for English readers are: Saint Ignatius of Loyola, by Henri Joly (London, 1899). Life of St. Lenatius, by C. Genelli. Saint lenatius and the Early Jesuits, by Stewart Rose.
2. Essays: "Ranke's History of the Popes."
3. 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.
4. See The Testament of St. Ignatius. Introduction by Father Tyrrell, S. J., p. 7; and notes on pp. 60-61, 79-82, 197 foll.
5. 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.
6. "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.
7. 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.)
8. Litterae Apostolicae, l. c., p. 44.
9. Huber, Der Jesuiten-Orden, 1873, p. 3.
10. Huber, l. c., p. 26.
11. On this subject cf. Duhr, Jesuitenfabeln, (Jesuit-Myths), Herder, Freiburg, and St. Louis, 1899, (3rd edition), pp. 1-28.
12. Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts, vol. I, p. 382. In another passage he styles the Society a Professoren-Orden.
13. Hughes, Loyola, p. 43.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Taylor, The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages, (New York, Macmillan 1900), p. 182.
17. What is Christianity?, p. 266.
18. The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages, p. 142.
19. What is Christianity?, p. 288.
20. The Life of St. Chrysostom, by Dr. Neander. Translated from the German by the Rev. J. C. Stapleton, London 1845, p. 92.
21. Ibid., p. 37.
22. Historical Sketches, vol. II, pp. 365-366.
23. Newman, Historical Sketches, vol. II, pp. 420-26; 452.
24. De Religione Societatis Jesu. – See the digest of the work in The Religious State, by W. Humphrey, S. J., vol. Iii, p. 167.
25. 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.
26. L. c., p. 296.
27. Paulsen, Geschichte des gel. Unt., l. c., p. 327.
28. Ib., p. 296.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. Report of the Com. of Education, 1892-93, vol. I, p. 545; see also pp. 565 and 586.
35. From the Protestant Tägliche Rundschau of Berlin, Sept. 28, 1899.
36. I. Corinth. 7, 33.
37. Matth. 19, 11, 12.
38. Educational Reformers, p. 532.
39. Albert Duruy in Revue des Deux-Mondes, Jan. 1, 1880.
40. 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.
41. See also Summa Theol., 2., 2., qu. 188, a. 5.
42. Thomas and Matthew Arnold, p. 97.
43. Geschichte des gel. Unt., pp. 628-629 (2. ed., vol. II, p. 390).
44. Hughes, Loyola, p. 55.
45. Saint Ignatius, by H. Joly, p. 217.
46. Encyclopedia Britannica, article "Jesuits".
47. 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.
48. First Rule of the Provincial.
49. Der Jesuiten-Orden, p. 348. – Compayré repeats this charge: "The Jesuits have deliberately neglected and disdained primary education." Hist. of Ped., p. 142.
50. 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.
51. Pachtler, vol. I, p. 74. (Decr. VIII.)
52. Monumenta Paedagogica, 1902, p. 108.
53. See below chapter VII.
54. Const., P. IV, cap. XIII. Decl. A.