text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/274

254 should naturally think that, when some charges are so ridiculous, others may turn out equally groundless.

Those who are so positive in asserting that the aim of Jesuit education was "the interest of the Order," might well be advised to ponder over a page or two of the work of a scholar of the first rank, – we mean Professor Paulsen who at present is equalled by few as a writer on pedagogy, and who has studied the Jesuit system more carefully than any of those writers who have the hardihood to raise such charges. In spite of his opposition to the fundamental principles of the Society, this writer severely censures those who represent the Society as a body of egoists and ambitious schemers. "It would be a gross self-deception," he writes, "to imagine that the members of the Society were attracted to, or kept in the Order by any selfish motives or personal gratifications. He who should have sought a life of ease and pleasure in this Order, would soon have been disappointed. What was put before them on entering, was first a humble novitiate, then a prolonged course of rigorous studies, finally, the toilsome work of the classroom, or the self-sacrificing labors of preaching or giving missions. Suppose the powerful and influential position of the Order whetted the ambition of some individual; but he would soon have found out that, for every one without exception, not commanding but life-long obedience was the summary of the Jesuit's career. He had to be ready to accept any position without murmur, and give it up the moment the Superior should command. This law of absolute obedience was enforced in the case of men of such merit and consideration as Canisius, the first German Provincial... Besides, the Order would

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/274


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/275

Rh never have been persecuted and prohibited, had it served the ease of its members; associations for such purposes have never been considered dangerous; those societies only are dangerous that try to realize ideas." The author then adds: "Why do I insist so much on this? Because it disgusts me to hear again and again that men who, with the sacrifice of all personal interests, live for an idea, are accused of selfishness and ambition, and that by dull Philistines, who throughout their lives were seeking their own comfort and pleasure, or by ambitious place-hunters who think of nothing else but how to please those in power and to natter public opinion." These words sound severe; but have the men, whom they are meant for, not provoked this severity by unjust and venomous accusations?

Not a few writers call the Jesuit schools dangerous to the public welfare; one styles the whole Order "international and anti-national." By the way, the same slander has been hurled against the Catholic Church; moreover, we know that long ago a great Teacher arose and founded a society. A certain class of learned men wanted to get rid of him, but did not dare to come forth with the real motive. Then they denounced the teacher as "anti-national": "He forbids to give tribute to Caesar; he makes himself king and opposes Caesar." And the judge was told that "if he acquitted that man, he was not Caesar's friend." The disciples of this Teacher were told that they would ever share the fate of their Master, and more than once in history the same futile accusations were

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/275


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/276

256 made against those who professed to follow the great Master.

Not a shadow of proof has ever been advanced that the Jesuits in their principles and teaching are unpatriotic, but more than one testimony has been given, proving that they possess true patriotism and instil it into the hearts of their pupils, and that Jesuit students yield to none in ardent and self-sacrificing love of country. Of course, there is no lack of assertions to the contrary. But recently Sir Henry Howorth stated that the English Jesuits shared the anti-English views of their brethren on the continent, and he entreated English parents to keep their children away from Jesuit schools where they imbibed hatred against their own country. A Roman Catholic layman in England wrote to the London Times, December 4, 1901, with reference to this attack on the Jesuits: "The moral

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/276


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/277

Rh and religious teaching of the Jesuits is the same in England as on the Continent, but it does not follow that their political opinions or their estimate of public affairs in this country are identical. The English Jesuit is a loyal subject of his Majesty, and all his sympathies are with his own country. Sir Henry Howorth informs English fathers and mothers that it is nearly time they considered how much longer they are going to permit their fresh and ingenuous children to imbibe hatred and contempt for their country at Jesuit establishments. Here I can speak from personal experience of the hatred and contempt for their country which my three sons imbibed at the Jesuit College of Beaumont, near Windsor, and how it has influenced their after lives. The principles which the Jesuits inculcated upon them may be summed up in five words – 'Fear God; honor thy king.' The result in after life was that they all three volunteered to fight for England and her Sovereign in her hour of need. One of them has fallen on the battlefield; the other two have survived to serve their country, and our name is known to-day to most loyalists in South Africa." In fact, more than one hundred students from the Jesuit College of Stonyhurst fought in the South African war; three have received the Victorian Cross, and many of them have lost their lives; and more than one hundred have gone from the College of Beaumont. Another utterance, and that from a non-Catholic Review, deserves to be quoted in this connection. In the last number of the Westminster Review, Mr. Reade, speaking of the appointment of Dr. Parkin to draw up the scheme for the Rhodes Scholarships,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/277


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/278

258 adds: "It is just possible that, if he will pay any attention to the teachings of history, he may find food for meditation in the system on which the Propaganda Fide and the English College at St. Omers [Jesuit College] were recruited during their best years. The latter school (now Stonyhurst) kept the English Catholics loyal English Gentlemen during the worst times of the Penal Laws. Many of them accompanied James II. into his exile at St. Germain, but it would be hard to find one who held a commission, as the Irish and Scotch exiles did, in the French service, when France was at war with his own country. We had no Regiment de Howard firing on the English Guards at Fontenoy, as the Regiment de Dillon did, and Wellington's chief secret agent in Spain was a Stonyhurst boy."

The whole history of the Society refutes the imputation of want of patriotism. Is it not significant that the two shrewdest monarchs of the eighteenth century, Frederick the Great of Prussia, and Catharine II. of Russia, protected the Jesuits? Would they have done so if there had existed even the slightest doubt about their patriotism? And, as to France, Dr. Huber admits that "the greatest generals, as Condé, Bouillon, Rohan, Luxembourg, Montmorency, Villars, and Broglie, have come from the schools of Jesuits." The same may be said of many great men in Austria, Bavaria, and other countries where the Jesuits conducted schools. Also in the nineteenth century their patriotism has been publicly acknowledged. We quote the words addressed to the Jesuits

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/278


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/279

Rh by King Leopold I. of Belgium. Visiting their college at Namur he praised them especially for giving the youth under their charge a truly national education. "I am much pleased," he said to the Fathers, "to be among you. I know that you give the students a wise direction. Youth needs sound principles. There is nothing more important in our days, when men endeavor to stir up the passions. It is of the greatest moment strenuously to fight against the spirit of lawlessness which now threatens all order and the very existence of the states. What pleases me most in your work is that you impart to the young a truly national education. If you continue to educate them in this spirit, they will become the support and the mainstay of the country."

When in 1846 the French Minister Thiers publicly attacked the education of the Jesuits on similar grounds, six hundred former pupils of the Jesuits, who then held high positions in the administration, in literary and industrial circles, came forth with the solemn declaration: "Our Jesuit professors taught us, that God and His religion have to enlighten man's intellect and guide his conscience; that all men are equal before God and before the law which is an expression of God's will; that the public powers are for the nations, not the nations for the public powers; that every one has the sacred duty to make all sacrifices, even that of property and life, for the welfare of the country; that treason and tyranny alike are sins against God and crimes against society. Would that all France knew that this calumniated education is solid and truly Catholic, and that we, by learning to

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/279


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/280

260 unite our Catholic faith with patriotism, have become better citizens, and more genuine friends of our liberties." In 1879, Ferry introduced new laws to suppress the Jesuit schools. In the Revue des Deux Mondes (1880), Albert Duruy asked Ferry whether the Jesuit pupils had less bravely fought against the Germans in the war of 1870, or whether more Jesuit pupils had taken part in the Commune; whether especially the ninety pupils of the one Jesuit school in Rue des Postes, Paris, who had fallen in the battles of that war, had been bad citizens, devoid of patriotism?

The same question may be asked in every country where Jesuits are engaged in educating youth: Have Jesuit pupils ever shown less patriotism, less heroism, less self-sacrifice for their country than pupils of secular institutions? Was Charles Carroll of Carrollton less patriotic than the men who were educated at Harvard and Yale? Was Bishop John Carroll lacking in patriotism? And yet, John Carroll had been a Jesuit himself, and both had been educated in Jesuit Colleges in Europe. And we may safely challenge any one to prove that the American Jesuits and their pupils are less patriotic, less attached to the interests of their country, and less solicitous for its fair name among the nations than the teachers and pupils of other institutions. And we should like to know the facts on which the American writer has based the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/280


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/281

 terrible indictment, that in Jesuit schools "love of country was insidiously suppressed." However, if such a calumny must deeply wound the hearts of all American Jesuits, they will know, too, that other Americans, and such whose words count a thousand times more than the uncritical assertions of certain writers, have thought and spoken differently on the influence of Jesuit education. On February 22, 1889, at the centennial celebration of Georgetown College, Mr. Cleveland, President of the United States, said among other things: "Georgetown College should be proud of the impress she has made upon the citizenship of our country. On her roll of graduates are found the names of many who have performed public duty better for her teaching, while her Alumni have swollen the ranks of those who, in private stations, have done their duty as American citizens intelligently and well. I cannot express my friendship for your college better than to wish for her in the future, as she has had in the past, an army of Alumni, learned, patriotic, and useful, cherishing the good of their country as an object of loftiest effort, and deeming their contributions to good citizenship a supremely worthy use of the education they have acquired within these walls."

If the old saying holds: "Quails rex, tails grex," and vice versa, then we must conclude that the teachers themselves cannot be devoid of patriotism. Fortunately, we are not confined to this a priori argument. Numerous instances are on record that Jesuits, especially at the time of war. sacrificed themselves in the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/281


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/282

262 service of the sick and wounded and on the battlefields. Not to say a word of the many cases recorded of former centuries, we mention one of more recent date. In the Franco-German war of 1870-71, the Maltese Society of Rhineland and Westphalia sent, besides the 1567 Sisters, 342 male religious to the service of the sick and wounded. Among these 342 were 159 Jesuits. Of the 81 volunteer army chaplains sent by the same organization, 33 were Jesuits. No less than 80 Jesuits received decorations, and two of them were honored with the "Iron Cross," the highest distinction for heroic conduct on the battlefield. The patriotism of the French Jesuits is not less conspicuous. In every war which was waged by France, a number of Jesuits accompanied the army as chaplains. In 1870-71 several were wounded on the battlefield, and one died at Laon.

The attitude of the Society towards national and political questions has been clearly stated by Father Beckx, General of the Society: "The public and the press busy themselves much about the Society's attitude towards the various forms of government. ... Now the Society, as a religious Order, has nothing to do with any political party. In all countries and under all forms of government, she confines herself to the exercise of her ministry, having in view only her end – the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls, – an end superior to the interests of human politics. Always and everywhere the religious of the Society fulfils loyally the duties of a good citizen and a faithful subject of the power which rules his country. Always and everywhere she tells all by her instructions

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/282


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/283

Rh and her conduct: 'Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's'."

In recent years the attacks on the educational system of the Jesuits chiefly insist on the fact that it is "antiquated and unable to cope with modern conditions." We quoted the words of Mr. Browning, that "little is to be hoped for the Jesuits in the improvement of education at present, whatever may have been their services in the past." A similar verdict is passed by Buckle. "The Jesuits, for at least fifty years after their institution, rendered immense service to civilization, partly by organizing a system of education far superior to any yet seen in Europe. In no university could there be found a scheme of instruction so comprehensive as theirs, and certainly nowhere was there displayed such skill in the management of youth, or such insight into the general operations of the human mind... The Society was, during a considerable period, the steady friend of science, as well as of literature, and allowed its members a freedom and a boldness of speculation which had never been permitted by any monastic order. As, however, civilization advanced, the Jesuits began to lose ground, and this not so much from their own decay as from a change in the spirit of those who surrounded them. An institution admirably adapted to an early form of society was ill suited to the same society in its mature state." We think this charge has been sufficiently refuted by what was said in the preceding chapter.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/283


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/284

264 How is this hostility to the Jesuits to be explained? It is not so difficult to find some reasons which account for the aversion of Protestants to this Order. Time and again they have been told that Ignatius of Loyola founded this Society in order to crush Protestantism. Although it has been proved that such a view of the Society is entirely contradicted by the Constitutions and the history of the Order, most non-Catholics still cling to their old prejudices and traditional views of the Jesuits. Even now many see in the Society the "avowed and most successful foe of Protestantism, and the embodiment of all they detest." The Jesuits have been represented to them as notoriously dishonest and unscrupulous men, who teach and practise the most pernicious principles; they have been denounced as plotters against the lives of Protestant rulers, Queen Elizabeth, James I., William of Orange, Gustavus Adolphus. The mention of the Gunpowder plot, and the Titus-Oates conspiracy, conjures up the most horrible visions of those black demons who dare to call themselves companions of Jesus. Then it has been said that the Jesuits were the cause of the Thirty Year's War, of the French Revolution, of the Franco-German War of 1870, of the Dreyfus affair. All such and similar silly slanders

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/284


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/285

Rh have gradually formed that popular idea according to which the Jesuit is the embodiment of craft, deceit, ambition, and all sorts of wickedness. "It began to be rumored up and down," complains Bunyan, "that I was a witch, a Jesuit, a highwayman, and the like." Last year it was very correctly stated by Mr. Andrew Lang, the celebrated Scotch scholar, that this popular idea and the Protestant dislike of the Jesuits is not based on historical facts, but largely on works of fiction. There is a certain picturesqueness about the mythic Jesuit which makes him highly important in works of fiction. Accordingly, a number of writers have introduced him with great effect, as Charles Kingsley, Mrs. Humphrey Ward, and even Thackeray. Mr. Lang himself rises above that vulgar conception of the Jesuits, and he freely confesses: "The Jesuits are clever, educated men; on the whole I understand their unpopularity, but with all their faults I love them still." And the words of another Protestant deserve to be meditated on by all fair-minded Protestants: "Why should a devoted Christian find a difficulty in seeing good in the Jesuits, a body of men whose devotion to their idea of Christian duty has never been surpassed?"

But some Protestants will say: The Jesuits have always been the most strenuous and most successful supporters of the Catholic Church; hence they weaken the Protestant cause. – To men who argue thus apply

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/285


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/286

266 the words of the great Master; "You know how to discern the face of the sky, and can you not know the signs of the times?" Indeed, the signs of the time point to dangers quite different from those dreaded from "Jesuitism". The dangers of our age arise from infidelity, immorality, and anarchy. What has become of the belief in the fundamental truth of Christianity, in the Divinity of Christ? That there are still millions of real Christians in the world, is chiefly due to the Catholic Church, to what they call the stubborn "conservatism" of the Romish Church. And the Jesuits make it the centre of their educational work and of all their labors, to strengthen the faith in the Divinity of Christ, and to propagate the Kingdom of God. They teach the lofty morality, the generous self-denial, which was preached to the world by the words and example of Jesus. They inculcate assiduously the most important civic virtue, obedience to all lawful authority. Therefore, all those who still believe in the Divinity of Christ, who zealously labor for the moral betterment of their fellow-men, who have the true interest of their country at heart – all those men should heartily welcome the Jesuits as helpful allies in their noble enterprise. There is, in our days, surely no reason for antipathy against the Society of Jesus.

However, considering the force of long cherished prejudices, we understand the dislike and the dread with which less enlightened Protestants view Jesuit schools. Their feelings spring from ignorance, and they are to be pitied rather than blamed. And every Jesuit will pray with Jesus: "Father forgive them, for they know

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/286


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/287

Rh not what they do." But what should we say of men who lay claim to critical scholarship, if they, instead of examining conscientiously the documents and the history of the Order, unscrupulously copy the slanders of virulent partisan writers, as is done by so many modern historians and educationists? Some seem studiously to neglect to acquire that information which is necessary and easily available, in order to understand this system. Of others one has reason to suspect that they write against their better knowledge, from fanatical hatred, not so much of the Society as of the Catholic Church. But then let them at least be honest; let them say that they are fighting against the "Anti-Christ in Rome," against the "Scarlet Woman," as their leaders were pleased to express themselves; let them confess that it is the odium Papae, the old "no-Popery" and "Know-nothing" feeling which inspires them. Well has a non-Catholic periodical recently observed: "We end inevitably by recognizing that all the reproaches with which we may feel entitled to load the Jesuits, in the name of reason, of philosophy, etc., etc., fall equally upon all religious orders, and upon the Church herself, of which they have ever been the most brilliant ornament. Why then address these reproaches to the Jesuits only?"

History has proved the correctness of these statements. In the eighteenth century the Jesuit colleges were suppressed. Not long after the monasteries of other orders were "secularized". In 1872 the Jesuits were expelled from Germany; two or three years after, the other religious orders had to leave the fatherland,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/287


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/288

268 and then the secular priests were persecuted, and bishops imprisoned. Since 1879 there was a continued agitation in France against the Jesuits and their schools. This campaign has now issued in a general war against all teaching congregations, in fact against all religious orders.

But this is not all; of late radical papers begin to proclaim the real intentions of the persecutors of the religious orders. One paper wrote recently: "Now we must not forget the Curés (Parish priests); after the monks let us attend to them." Hostility to the Church, nay, to all religion, is at the bottom of the unjust and tyrannous proceedings against the Jesuits and other religious orders in France. For, whilst to the ordinary reader of newspapers the recent laws "appear to be a mere measure of self-defense forced upon the Republican Government by the reputed political intrigues of the Clerical party in France, it is in reality a systematic attempt to discredit religion, and to remove its checking influence upon the atheistic movement of the controlling party." That influence was chiefly felt to come from the religious orders, particularly from the teaching congregations. Hence they must go. The hypocritical assertion: "We combat Jesuitism, not the Church, not religion," is a mere ruse the guerre, a stratagem, used to deceive more fair-minded Protestants, and short-sighted or lukewarm Catholics. That this is no exaggerated party statement, is evident from the discussions in the French Senate during the last three years. It is also frankly

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/288


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/289

Rh admitted by the more candid advocates of the new persecution, and by not a few far-seeing Protestants.

Here, however, a serious objection is raised: Have not Catholics, even high dignitaries of the Church, opposed the Jesuits? How is this? "Protestants are not ignorant that the Society of Jesus has been the object of suspicion and attack from influential men in the Church of Rome itself; that no worse things have been said of it by Protestants than have been said by Romanists themselves; that Romish ecclesiastics have in all generations of its history, directed against it their open attacks and their secret machinations; that Romish teachers have dreaded it as a rival and intriguer." However, such Protestants should not fail to examine who these "Romanists" are, and especially from what motives they act when attacking the Jesuits. We do not wish to say more on this subject, but quote only the words of a distinguished French writer, M. Lenormant, who said: "Outside the Catholic Church opinions regarding the Jesuits, as regarding other religious orders, are free, but within the Catholic Church the war against the Jesuits is the most monstrous inconsistency."

The opposition of Catholic schools to the Society is frequently looked upon by non-Catholics as the surest proof of the dangerous character of Jesuit education. They point to the hostility of the Alma Mater of the Society, the once famous University of Paris, to the Jesuits. But a German Protestant, a pro-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/289


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/290

270 fessor in the University of Strasburg, not in the least partial to the Jesuits, writes on this subject: "This hostility evidently arose from jealousy, as the youths of Paris flocked to the schools of these dangerous and dexterous rivals, while the lecture rooms of the University were empty." The same opinion is held by M. Jourdain, the historian of the University of Paris. He describes the scientific stagnation of the University in the seventeenth century, and the frightful licentiousness of the students, in consequence of which parents did not dare to send their sons to this school, but were anxious to have them educated by the Jesuits. The University combated this competition not so much by raising the intellectual and moral standing of the University, as by acts of Parliament, expelling the Jesuits or closing their colleges. The colleges of the University were on the point of being deserted, and this time the danger was all the more grievous, as a part of the Professors could attribute to themselves the decadence. Still the members of the University never ceased from accusing the Jesuits of being corrupters of youth and disturbers of the public peace. It is admitted also that the teaching in the University was most defective. But they reproached the Jesuits for inefficiency and faulty methods. The University, although tainted with Jansenism, charged the Jesuits with spreading doctrines prejudicial to the Catholic faith, with "rendering faith a captive to vain human reason and philosophy." The historian here justly exclaims: "How often, in later days, has the Society

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/290


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/291

Rh reversely been accused of being the implacable foe of philosophy and reason!"

The hostility of the Paris University was, therefore, merely the outcome of jealousy. At all times monopolies were jealous. Richelieu had perceived that clearly. Frequently urged to expel the Jesuits from Paris, he did not yield; on the contrary, towards the end of his life he handed over to the Jesuits the Collège de Marmoutiers. "The Universities," he said, "complain as if a wrong were done them, that the instruction of youth is not left to them exclusively. But as human frailty requires a counter-balance to everything, it is more reasonable that the Universities and the Jesuits teach as rivals, in order that emulation may stimulate their efforts, and that learning being deposited in the hands of several guardians, may be found with one, if the others should have lost it." In another passage Jourdain does not hesitate to state that the competition of the Jesuits soon turned into a blessing for the University itself, as it was forced to exercise a more active supervision over masters and students, which was beneficial both to discipline and instruction.

In Germany also and in other countries the Jesuits had to encounter the opposition of the old universities. The reason has been given by Professor Paulsen: "The old corporations at Ingolstadt, Vienna, Prague, Freiburg, Cologne, resisted with might and main, but it was all in vain; the Jesuits were victorious everywhere. The old corporations who were in possession

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/291


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/292

272 of the universities have often raised the charge of "imperiousness" of "desire of ruling" against the Jesuits, and many historians of these institutions have passionately repeated this charge, certainly not without good cause. But it must be added that it was not the desire of ruling that springs from arrogance and rests on external force or empty titles, but the desire that arises from real power which is eager to work, because it can work and must work."

Another reason for the cold treatment of the Society by Catholics must be sought in unfair generalizations of individual cases. The Jesuits had always the privilege – or the misfortune – of being the subject of the constant pre-occupation of the public mind. They are watched closely, and they are, too often, watched with a magnifying glass. But if faults are discovered in an individual, is it fair to censure the whole body? Well has an English writer said: "The most splendid and perfect institution, if it grow, and occupy a large space, if many join it, will have among its members imprudent and therefore dangerous men – men who offer so fair a pretext to the malevolent for attacking it, that the combined learning and prudence of many years will hardly make good the damage done. The mass of men do not make fine distinctions; to distinguish with them, means casuistry, and casuistry they consider to be next door to systematized imposture. Point out some telling scandals against some member of a large organized body; be they only three or four, or true or false, repeat them often enough – and the public will pass the verdict of

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/292


text:
Page:華英字典集成.pdf/17

 言語文字迥不相通或一言惧譯頓啟爭端 或一字訛諸致滋挾制爰推四海同文之義 著有華英字典並英語彙腋應酬寶笈等書 刪繁甄要刊佈流傳俾經商外洋者觸類 通免滋齟齬凡屬洋商及肄習西文學童 已家置一編藉資考證近復集取華英貿易 札取其語言之簡括易明為日用往來所 必需者諧譯華英音義附入前刋字典編末

title: Page:華英字典集成.pdf/17


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/293

Rh guilty upon the whole, and condemn both the system and him who sins against it."

Sometimes, indeed, it may be that individual Jesuits have, by their unfaithfulness to the principles of their order, deserved the ill-feeling with which they have been regarded. But in a large majority of cases, it is due either to prejudice or ignorance on the part of their adversaries, or else to an imperfect grasp of the Jesuit system, especially to the false impression that the Jesuits exercise an influence which interferes with the work of others and that they are a rival power in the government of the Church.

The utter falsity of the impression referred to has been proved more than once. In 1880 all the French Bishops, with two or three exceptions, addressed letters of protest to the President of the Republic against the decree of expulsion of the Jesuits. These letters form a splendid testimony, not only to the educational success of the Jesuits, but also to their loyalty to the ecclesiastical authorities. The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris uttered these striking words about the Jesuits, so many of whom labored in his diocese: "Among the religious institutes, there is one which has been more before the world than the others; which has done splendid service in education, which has shed lustre on literature, which has formed savants of the first rank in every branch of science... Marked

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/293


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/294

274 out by its importance and success as an object of the hatred of the enemies of religion, the Society of Jesus has always confounded calumny by the splendor of its virtues, its intellectual power and its work. ... To zeal, these generous priests have always united prudence. In the midst of the dissensions which trouble the country, just as the whole of the clergy have kept themselves rigorously within the limits of their spiritual ministry, the Society of Jesus has been scrupulously exact in avoiding all interfering with politics. Those who deny this, make assertions without proof. A Bishop like myself who has under his jurisdiction the chief Jesuit establishments in France is in a position to know the truth in a matter like this."

Cardinal Bonnechose testified as follows: "The Jesuits devote themselves to the laborious and often thankless task of education. They open colleges; experience justifies their efforts; families entrust their children to them with the utmost confidence; year by year, public opinion and the government itself, testify to their success; year by year, they send forth into every career young men who have been taught to respect authority, who are penetrated with the idea of duty; who are fitted to become brave soldiers, conscientious functionaries, and honorable and useful citizens, and who are, every one, devoted to their country and ready to die for France." – The Archbishop of Cambrai, Cardinal Regnier, spoke in the same strain: "Here I must make particular mention of the Jesuit Fathers, who are to be treated with special severity. On my conscience and in the name of truth, President of the French Republic, I bear witness that

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/294


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/295

Rh these religious men, who have so long been abused, spit upon, and calumniated by the anti-Christian press with a malice which no authority has ever attempted to restrain – who are devoted day by day to the hatred and violence of the mob, as though they were an association of malefactors – that these religious are esteemed and venerated in the highest degree by the clergy and by every class of the faithful, and that they are in every way most worthy of it. Their conduct is exemplary; their teaching can only be blamed by ignorance and bad faith. Many of them belong to the most distinguished families of the country. The house of superior education which they carry on with such brilliant success at Lille, was entrusted to them – I may almost say, forced on them – by fathers of families who had themselves been brought up by them, and who were determined to provide for their children an education which their own experience taught them to value. I fulfil a duty of conscience and of honor in addressing to you these simple and respectful observations."

The testimony of the Archbishop of Lyons will be of special interest. Cardinal Caverot writes: "It is the privilege of the children of St. Ignatius to be in the front of every battle. I know how hatred, and still more how ignorance and prejudice, have accumulated calumnies against the Society. But I owe it to the truth to declare here, that in the course of a ministry of well-nigh fifty – years twenty as priest, thirty as bishop – I have been able to satisfy myself, and I know that these worthy and zealous servants of God have well deserved the distinction given to the Society by the Church, when she proclaimed it, in the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/295


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/296

276 Council of Trent, a 'Pious Institute, approved by the Holy See.' I admire these men in their work of teaching, and in the labors of their apostleship. Nowhere have I met with priests more obedient to ecclesiastical authority, more careful of the laws of the country, more aloof from political conflict; and I affirm without fear of contradiction, that if these decrees which strike at them have not made any charge whatever against their life and teaching, it is because not a charge could be made which would survive an hour's discussion."

There in no room for further extracts from these letters. The Dublin Review remarks that these manifestoes of the French hierarchy are precious documents for the religious orders; "but the Jesuits, in particular, will be able, from these utterances, to collect a body of episcopal testimony to their ability, devotedness, and deference towards the Bishops such as perhaps they have never before received from a great National Church during the whole course of their existence."

In modern times it has sometimes been said that religious orders, in general, were admirably equipped for former ages, but time has progressed so fast that the orders were left behind and are now "out of date." One Philip Limerick, who, as he affirms, was at one time himself in a monastery, states this view plainly in the Contemporary Review (April 1897). This writer admits that the Monks were the benefactors of mankind, by teaching the arts of civilization to the rude tribes of the North, and that the monastic institutions were the homes, for a long time even the only ones, of learning. But, he says, "omnia tempus habent, and

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/296


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/297

Rh monks are now rarely met with, and of the later orders, the Regular Clerks, only one has left a deep impression on the Latin Church and obtained a place in history – the Society of Jesus. This Society owes its still vigorous life to its wider scope and more efficient administration." Although this writer assigns an exceptional position to the Society, others include also this Order in the general doom. "We can do without the Jesuits," was a saying of Dr. Döllinger, and his opinion is shared by some so-called Liberal Catholics.

That the present Pope Leo XIII. has other sentiments about religious orders in general is evident from his numerous letters. In his letter to the Archbishop of Paris, December 23, 1900, he enumerates all the benefits religion and society receive from their hands. He says that "the religious are the necessary auxiliaries of the bishops and the secular clergy." "In the past their doctors shed renown on the universities by the depth and breadth of their learning, and their houses became the refuge of divine and human knowledge, and in the shipwreck of civilization saved from certain destruction the masterpieces of ancient wisdom. Nor is their activity, their zeal, their love of their fellow-men, diminished in our own day. Some, devoted to teaching, instruct the young in secular knowledge and the principles of religious virtue and duty, on which public peace and the welfare of states absolutely depend. Others are seen settling amongst savage tribes in order to civilize them. Nor is it an uncommon thing for them to make important contributions to science by the help they give to the researches which are being made in such different domains as the study of the differences of race and tongue, of history, the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/297


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/298

278 nature and products of the soil, and other questions. Of course we are not unaware that there are people who go about declaring that the religious congregations encroach upon the jurisdiction of the Bishops and interfere with the rights of the secular clergy. This assertion cannot be sustained if one cares to consult the wise laws published on this point by the Church, and which we have recently re-enacted."

On more than one occasion Leo XIII. gave expression to the high esteem in which he holds the educational work of the Jesuits, from whom he himself had received his early training. In the year 1886 he solemnly confirmed once more the Institute of the Society and its ecclesiastical privileges, exhorting the sons of Ignatius courageously to continue their work in the midst of all persecutions.

Before closing this chapter we may mention one explanation for the widespread animosity against the Society at which some may be inclined to smile. It is recorded that the founder of the Society, St. Ignatius of Loyola, used to beg of God continually that his sons might always be the object of the world's hatred and enmity. He knew from the words of Our Divine Master: "If the world hate you, know that it hated me before you," and from the history of the Church that this persecution for the sake of Jesus has always

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/298


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/299

Rh been an essential condition for every victory won for the sacred cause of Christianity. No doubt, this prayer of St. Ignatius has been heard. Whether it be the Courtiers of Queen Elizabeth, or the Reformers in Germany, the infidel Philosophers of the eighteenth century, or the Atheists of our own days, the Communists of Paris, or the Revolutionary party in Italy, the Bonzes in Japan, or the fanatical followers of Mahomet, all who hated the name of Catholic concentrated their deadliest hatred on the unfortunate Jesuits. And what was more painful to them, even within the pale of the Catholic Church, they have sometimes met with misunderstanding and opposition. The Jansenists in France were their bitter enemies. The Liberal Catholics invariably stood aloof from them. At times even Bishops and Archbishops treated them coldly. Still, these persecutions were not without some good results. They kept the sons of Ignatius ever on the alert; and for this reason, the prayer of St. Ignatius manifests a wonderful insight into human affairs. Constant attacks prevent a body of men from stagnation and security.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/299


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/301

Rh quated." Here we may be allowed to ask whether men who make such assertions are sufficiently acquainted with Jesuit education. Some of them seem to have seen Jesuit colleges only from the outside; but an educational system cannot be fairly judged unless one has watched its practical working. It is very easy to make a caricature of a system which one does not know.

But let us, for fairness sake, assume that the opponents of the Jesuit system take the trouble of reading the Constitutions of the Society and the Ratio Studiorum, even then they may be led into serious mistakes, unless they pay attention to a few regulations which are usually overlooked. To say: the Jesuits teach only what is mentioned in the Ratio Studiorum and neglect what is not put down there, is altogether false. The Constitutions and the Ratio Studiorum leave great liberty in the matter of changes and adaptations. In his Constitutions Ignatius himself says: "Let public schools be opened wherever it may conveniently be done. In the more important studies, they may be opened with reference to the circumstances of the places where our colleges exist. And because in particular subjects, there must needs be much variety, according to the difference of places and persons, we shall not here insist on them severally; but this may be declared that rules should be established in every college which shall embrace all necessary points."

Conformably to this fundamental law of St. Ignatius, the Ratio Studiorum emphasizes the lawfulness,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/301


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/302

282 nay, the necessity of changes and adaptations. In the first part of the Ratio, in the Rules for the Provincial Superior, it is expressed not less than six times. Thus one rule reads: "As according to the difference of country, time and persons, there may be a variety in the order of studies, in the hours assigned to them, in repetitions, disputations and other school exercises as well as in the vacations, if he [the Provincial] should think anything more conducive to the greater advancement of learning in his province, he shall inform the General in order that, after all, special regulations be made for all the particular needs; these regulations should, however, agree as closely as possible with our general plan of studies." This is evidently a most important regulation, proving that the arrangement of studies is practically committed to the Provincial Superior. A distinguished commentator on the Institute of the Society, in a recent work, could write: "We do not deny that in their methods of teaching, the members of the Order differ in many points from the Ratio Studiorum as we have explained it. It cannot be otherwise, since in the various provinces, owing to different conditions, it is necessary to make different regulations, without interfering with the general principles on which the Institute rests. We have already mentioned that St. Ignatius not only permitted but ordered various regulations to be made, according to the various conditions of time and place. This is much more necessary in our days, when so many educational schemes, good ones and bad ones, have been advanced. The Society, far from considering her own system absolutely perfect and unalterable, on the con-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/302


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/303

Rh trary grants that many things are merely temporary and can be improved."

This is what the Society itself thinks of its educational system. If the system has not been changed for three hundred years – it existed three hundred years, not, as President Eliot thinks, four hundred, – the Society has proved false to the principles of its founder. That the Society has changed its teaching in the course of time, is proved by its history. We referred in a previous chapter to the Revision of 1832 and later additions, and showed that the revision of 1832 was not considered final. But this general change is slight as compared with the many important changes, which were made in the different provinces. The four volumes of Father Pachtler's work exhibit a considerable number of adaptations made in the provinces of Germany in the old Society. As an instance of such a change we must consider the systematic teaching of geography and history, which was gradually introduced in the 17th century, although it was not expressly prescribed by the Ratio. Greater in number and more far-reaching were the changes made in the new Society.

In this regard the demands and suggestions for a revision of the old Ratio Studiorum, sent to Rome before 1832, are highly instructive. There we read: "As the philosophy of Aristotle is no longer suited for our age, it should not be introduced into our schools... Natural sciences were formerly taught as part of philosophy; but in order to conform with the exigencies of our times, all these sciences must be taught

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/303


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/304

284 separately... Ethics are not to be treated according to the commentaries on Aristotle, but according to the best modern works... The elements of Euclid do not suffice now-a-days, but in our age we must teach algebra, geometry, trigonometry, conic sections, differential and integral calculus, and the scientific applications of all parts of mathematics... In the lower classes special care must now be had of the mother-tongue; the pupils must be diligently exercised in the use of their native language, and must be acquainted with the best authors in the vernacular... In our times it will not suffice to explain the principles of rhetoric according to the precepts of Aristotle and Cicero, but according to modern authors; besides, now-a-days it is necessary to give instruction in aesthetics... In the lower classes we must now teach history, geography, as well as mathematics; in the higher classes also archaeology." These demands were attended to in the Revised Ratio. This may suffice to show that the Jesuits do not shut their eyes to the needs and exigencies of the times. In 1830 the General of the Society wrote to the superiors of the different provinces that they should not fail to call attention to the commendable practices of other schools in their countries; they should also be careful to mention, whether certain things were to be introduced in their respective places, even if they were contrary to the common customs of the schools of the Order.

The Society has never denied that vast progress has been made in all branches of learning, especially in natural sciences, history, and philology. It does

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/304


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/305

Rh not wish a return of the conditions of former centuries, but gladly makes use of the advantages afforded by modern science, in order to qualify the pupils for the necessities of our times. If one compares the curricula of Jesuit schools in America, England, France, Belgium, Austria, and other countries, he will find the greatest variety. He will discover that it is a groundless charge against the Jesuits, that they cling with blind stubbornness to every detail of their Ratio. No, as far as it is compatible with thorough education, they have adapted their teaching to the customs of the respective countries in which they are laboring. As was said before, these changes and modifications are not added to the printed Ratio as amendments or bylaws; this is not necessary, since, as was stated above, the Ratio itself admits the necessity of having "different regulations as regards studies, according to the different conditions of time and place." The changes and modifications are laid down in the customs and directives for the different Provinces or Missions. Now, the writers outside of the Society are, as a rule, utterly ignorant of the particular regulations of the various provinces; hence, they are easily led into the same mistake which a foreigner, coming to the State of New York, would make if he imagined there existed no law except the Constitution of the United States. As the General, and to a great extent the Provincial Superiors, by the Constitution of the Order, are empowered to make all changes which they deem necessary, it cannot be said that the Ratio Studiorum is so difficult to reform.

But it may be objected here, that what remains is no longer the Ratio Studiorum. This is not correct.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/305


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/306

286 All the essential points remain; it is only important to know what is essential. The assailants of the Ratio usually suppose that it is the preponderance given to certain subjects, especially the classics, or the order and succession in which the different subjects are taught. Others again seem to find the essentials of the Ratio in minor details, concerning the manner in which the subjects are "taught. We admit that it would be altogether impracticable to carry out the prescriptions of the Ratio in their entirety. Thus the Latin idiom can no longer be insisted on as the language of conversational intercourse among the students, as was done in the lyth century, nor is it possible to use it as the medium of instruction in all the lectures. Neither is it possible to devote the same number of hours to the classics, as much time and labor is requisite for the study of modern literature, mathematics, and the sciences. We admit further that some details of the Ratio, for instance the system of decuriones (boy supervisors and assistants of the teacher), certain solemnities at the distribution of prizes, the use of the grammar of Alvarez, etc., are really antiquated. But they are exactly those points which have been abandoned long ago, and which have never been regarded as essential.

The present General of the Society, Father Martin, who, if any one, is unquestionably warranted to speak authoritatively on this subject, declared on January 1, 1893: "There are men who think that the Ratio Studiorum was good formerly, but that it is no longer so in our times. He who maintains this position does not understand the Ratio Studiorum; he looks only at the matter, not at the form [the spirit] of the system. ..

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/306


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/307

Rh But the matter is not the essential feature of this system." Neither is the order, the sequence, in which the different branches are taught. The subject matter as well as the order is in many countries prescribed by the governments. Although this prescribed order may not always be the best, still it can be adopted, as the order is not the characteristic feature of the system of the Society.

Now, may it not be said that modern conditions merely forced the Society and its General to this broad interpretation of the Ratio, to make, as President Eliot would express it, some further "trifling concessions"? By no means. The utterances of Father Martin are neither novel nor alien to the Ratio or the Constitutions of the Society, as is shown by a comparison with the quotations we gave before from these two documents. One point is made clear, viz., that the Ratio admits of a very broad interpretation, and leaves especially ample room for innovations as regards various branches of study. If it is useful and advisable to teach a new branch: economics, civics, local history, biology, or Spanish, or any other subject, there is no difficulty on the part of the Ratio Studiorum. If the Jesuits exclude certain branches from their curriculum, it is not because they are not mentioned in the Ratio, but because they consider these branches of less educational value; if they uphold certain other branches, as the classics, it is because they expect the most from them for the training of their pupils; if they defend the successive teaching of different branches in preference to the simultaneous treatment of a multitude

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/307


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/308

288 of unconnected subjects, they act according to approved pedagogical principles; if they do not admit the extravagant electivism of some modern school-reformers, it is because they consider it injurious to solid education, not because it is opposed to their system. We venture to say, they could adopt electivism to a very great extent, without entirely abandoning the fundamental principles of their Ratio. We shall speak of these principles in the next chapter. Suffice it to quote here the words of a writer in a first class literary review in Europe on the Ratio: "The regulations and principles of that system of studies, viewed in the light of modern exigencies, need not shun any comparison, and the pedagogical wisdom contained therein is in no way antiquated."

Although the teaching of the Jesuits has not remained unchanged for centuries, it is true, on the other hand, that the Society was never rash in adopting new methods. The Jesuits did not experiment with every new-fangled theory, with every pedagogical "fad", no matter how loudly praised and held up as the system of our age. Herein they acted wisely. For, first of all, there may be several systems, equally good, and the Jesuits possessed a system of their own, which had been approved by a remarkable success in former centuries. And that in recent times the teaching of the Society has not been unsuccessful, is sufficiently proved by what we said in the preceding chapter.

Whilst the efficiency of her old and approved system justifies the conservative spirit of the Society in educational matters, another striking proof of its wisdom in this respect is furnished by the fate of the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/308


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/309

Rh modern school reforms themselves. No sooner has one startled the world, than it is followed and overthrown by a newer, later, more modern system. To each of them may be applied the words of St. Peter to Saphira, which a German philosopher used with reference to modern philosophical theories: "Behold the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out." We have an instance in Germany. In 1892, a new plan of studies was introduced in Prussia, and at about the same time in the other states of Germany. The classical studies lost a great number of hours. Although this plan was introduced at the urgent wish of the young Emperor and through his "energetic personal interference," it met with great opposition on the part of the majority of teachers. No party was satisfied. The strict advocates of the ancient classics complained of the reduction in the classical instruction. The friends of the scientific schools were not satisfied with the concessions made them. On all sides the cry was heard: "Reform the Reform of 1892."

In 1895 the Ministry of Instruction allowed the directors of the gymnasia to add, in the three higher classes, one hour a week, which should be devoted to

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/309


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/310

290 the old grammatical and stylistic exercises. Still more complaints were heard in the following years. In 1899 even Professor Virchow, one of the most determined opponents of the gymnasium in its old form, admitted that the graduates after the reform manifested a notable decline in grammatical and logical training. It was found necessary to convoke a new conference, which met in Berlin, June 1900. Here some of the ablest schoolmen were outspoken in demanding a partial return to the system existing before 1892. Dr. Matthias, the referee of the Ministry, stated that all official reports and the most experienced men of the Kingdom complained about the serious decline of Latin scholarship which had manifested itself after 1892. The cause of this decline he suspected to be the excessive use of inductive methods, so much encouraged by the reform. Efforts were to be made to check this decline; above all it was necessary to secure again greater grammatical knowledge, and it seemed better to introduce again some of the old methods, especially frequent translations from the German into Latin and speaking Latin. He thus recommended what the most zealous of the reformers had ridiculed as antiquated. Professor Kübler and Professor Harnack were not less outspoken on this point. The latter said that writing Latin was to be insisted on, and that the discarding of this exercise in 1892 was a mistake. The result of these discussions was a strengthening of the Latin course, by adding

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/310


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/311

Rh one hour weekly from the third class on, therefore an increase of seven hours Latin weekly in the whole gymnasium. The new "School Order" of 1901 demanded most emphatically a thorough grammatical training. Books for translating from German into Latin, which in 1892 had been done away with almost entirely, were again introduced into all the classes. By these regulations, the Prussian Ministry, taught by the experience of nine years, and convinced by the arguments of the foremost schoolmen of the Kingdom, acknowledged that the "reform" of 1892, in several important points had been a mistake, a deterioration. It was thus proved that some of the much decried old methods were, after all, the best and safest.

Within the last decade a novel experiment has been made in Germany, that of the "Pioneer Schools" or "Reform Gymnasia." These schools are to be the common foundation of all higher schools: Gymnasium (classical), Real-Gymnasium (Latin scientific), Real-Schule (scientific). During the first three years one modern language is taught, French in the schools of the Frankfort-type, English in those of the Altona-type. In the fourth year the schools separate. Latin is begun in the Gymnasium and Real-Gymnasium, English in the Real-Schule. In the sixth year the Gymnasium introduces Greek, the Real-Gymnasium English. Whilst a great number of educators vigorously oppose this system – some say "the experiment should never have been allowed" – the most advanced "reformers of the universe" expect great things of it; to them it

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/311


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/312

292 is "the school of the future." Be it remarked, as a curious fact, that this modern system is not new at all, but a mere revival of the system of Comenius (1592—1671). The future has to show whether this system is practicable or not. So far its value has not been sufficiently demonstrated.

Our own country furnishes significant phenomena,—similar to those witnessed in Germany. People had been told that our educational system was well nigh perfect. American children, at the age of ten or twelve years, now learn things of which in former generations men of twenty-five knew little or nothing, be it physiology, biology, hygiene, civics or what not. And all this they learn without exertion and coercion; for, agreeably to the free spirit of the country, the young citizens are to be given, as early as possible, full liberty of choosing those branches which suit their good pleasure, or, as our moderns express it, their natural abilities. Indeed, what system can be more perfect? Now on a sudden people are rudely awakened from their pleasant dreams by most distinguished men, who tell the people that there is something wrong, some say "radically wrong," in our educational system. Not a few of these critics begin to point out that one of the fundamental defects of American schools is the very thing which was vaunted as our greatest educational achievement: the elective system in secondary schools. Others discover the greatest danger in the hasty experimenting, in the rash accep

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/312


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/313

Rh tation of novelties so common in our modern schools. "There is too much agitation, unceasing change, and consequent uncertainty in the operations of our American schools. There is too much individualism in laying plans and arranging courses and in methods of teaching, too burning a desire to say something new or to do something novel for the sake of prominence in the teaching body. Of course it will be said that this has brought us where we are. But we might be quite as well off if we were not exactly where we are."

Within the last month (October 1902) severe strictures were made on some of the very latest educational "improvements," and that not by Jesuits, nor by professional philologians, who stubbornly defend their long-cherished classics, but by such as may eminently be called men of affairs. The Electrical World spoke of President Eliot's efforts to lift the American college to the plane of a foreign university. "The chief effect has been to push the college into the existing dilemma. It is crowded from above by the necessity for more time in the professional schools, and for a nether millstone it finds the secondary school that its own hands have fashioned. And truth to tell, the college is losing heart. It has virtually surrendered its last year to professional electives, but the sacrifice has not served its purpose. The latest suggestion from no less eminent a source than that of Professor Butler, of Columbia, is

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/313


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/314

294 for a two-year college course, leading to post-graduate training, and a parallel four-year course for such as may desire it. We hope this experiment may not be tried, for its success would mean the disintegration of the college as it has been, and the introduction of nothing to take its place. ... If the American college is still to remain a part of our educational system, it must stand by its old ideals and neither retreat nor compromise. ... If the college would do the greatest possible service to education it should sharpen its ax, not to decapitate itself according to the present program, but to hew out of its curriculum the courses that demand a diffuse preparation in the secondary schools, and out of these latter the time-wasting requirements." The utterances of another man deserve to be quoted in this connection, I mean Mr. Cleveland, the former President of the United States. On October 25, 1902, at the inauguration of the new President of Princeton University, he earnestly warned against "false educational notions," "a new-born impatience which demands a swifter educational current and is content with a shallower depth." Mr. Cleveland declared "Princeton's conservatism is one of her chief virtues, and that we of Princeton are still willing to declare our belief that we are better able to determine than those coming to us for education, what is their most advantageous course of instruction, and surely every phase of our history justifies this belief." It is hardly necessary to point out what "false educational notions" are hinted at. From these criticisms of the latest

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/314


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/315

Rh "school reforms" we are justified in drawing the following inferences:

First, not all school changes and innovations are real improvements. Secondly, a great deal of sound pedagogy was contained in the old systems, which was rashly and wantonly abandoned by many modern school reformers. Thirdly, the Jesuits acted prudently in not accepting in their totality these new methods which, to a great extent, are but haphazard experiments.

The Society believes in a sound evolution in educational matters, but is averse to a precipitous revolution. Those who recently have called the educational system of the Society antiquated or absurd, because it repudiates their own pet theories, have acted very rashly, all the more so that these very theories have been condemned by many competent judges. The man who lives in a glass house should not throw stones at other people.

In every important movement, the ardent desire of progress must be tempered and controlled by a goodly amount of conservatism. Otherwise the rerum novarum studiosi will sacrifice much of what is of fundamental importance. At the time of the famous Gaume controversy in France about the classical studies, an English Catholic writer characterized the attitude of the Jesuits in the following words: "Though essentially conservative, that remarkable Society has never held itself so far behind the current of Catholic thought, as to lose its influence over it; nor has it placed itself so much in the advance, as to become an object of general observation. It has, as a rule, firmly, cautiously, and with a practical wisdom, mani-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/315


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/316

296 fested to so great an extent by 110 other order in the Church, kept pace with the general movement, and influenced its direction; and when it has not been able, through the unmanageable nature of the elements with which it has had to do, to lead, it has had the sagacity to bide its time and follow. It is this instinct which, though it may to 'carnal men' savor of human prudence, to men who see things through a spiritual eye, manifests the workings of a governing Providence through one of the most able human instruments which has ever undertaken God's work upon the earth."

The extent and limit of the Society's progressiveness and conservatism in educational matters, has been clearly enunciated by Father Roothaan, General of the Society, in 1832: "The adaptation of the Ratio Studiorum means that we consult the necessities of the age so far as not in the least to sacrifice the solid and correct education of youth." Accordingly, the Society will ever adapt its system in all and to all that is conducive to the great end of its educational labors: the thorough intellectual and moral training of its pupils.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/316


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/318

298 cultivation of the mind and faculties. In these definitions we see that education signifies development, and rightly so, as its original meaning is to "draw out." The fundamental mistake of many modern systems is the utter disregard of this truth. Father Dowling, S. J., of Creighton University, has expressed this very well in the following words : "Unfortunately education, which ought to signify a drawing out, has come to be regarded as the proper word to denote a putting in. Properly it supposes that there is something in the mind capable of development, faculties that can be trained, implicit knowledge which can be made explicit, dormant powers which can be awakened. The main end of education should be to unfold these faculties. It means not so much the actual imparting of knowledge, as the development of the power to gain knowledge, to apply the intellect, to cultivate taste, utilize the memory, make use of observations and facts. It is not essential that the studies which produce these results should be directly useful in after life any more than it is necessary for the athlete in the development of his powers to wield the blacksmith's hammer, instead of using dumb-bells or horizontal bars, none of which play any part in his subsequent career; he puts them all aside when the physical powers have been developed."

The Germans express the same idea admirably by the name they give to their colleges. They call a college a gymnasium. Indeed, this is what a college should be, a place of mental gymnastics, of training,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/318


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/319

Rh not for the muscles, but the mind. Education ought not to be merely an accumulating of knowledge, of data from various sciences, of bits of learning gathered here and there. This, alas, it now is in too many modern systems. "Give the pupils facts, broad information, varied instruction," is their watch-word. And yet, facts, information, instruction, are only a means of educating, not education itself; they are, to use the above mentioned metaphor, the dumb-bells, the horizontal bars, the pulleys of this mental gymnasium, by the use of which the mind acquires that agility and nimbleness, that quickness of action, and last, but not least, that gracefulness and refinement which we call taste, the noblest result of a well balanced education. A mind thus trained and developed may then take up any special study. A young man thus educated has his intellectual tools sharpened and ready for use. He will accomplish more, and will do more thorough and successful work, in any line of professional or practical work, than the one who from the beginning took up special studies. Undoubtedly, the latter will get an earlier start in life; when twenty-five years old he is earning money, while the former has just finished his long course of training. But wait until they are thirty-five, then, ceteris paribus, the one who laid a deeper and broader foundation of general education, will be known as the more successful lawyer, physician, or teacher, perhaps even the more prosperous business man, and certainly the more cultured and more refined gentleman, one who exercises an elevating and ennobling influence on all who come into contact with him.

It may safely be said that one of the worst features

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/319


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/320

300 of modern educational systems is the tendency to cram too much into the courses of study, too much that is considered "practical" in one way or other. As Professor Treitschke of Berlin has expressed it, "the greatest danger that threatens the education of modern man lies in the infinite distraction of our inner life, in the superabundance of mental impressions of every sort that rush upon us and hamper the one prerequisite of all great work: recollection of soul, concentration of mind." Hence he thinks it absolutely necessary that youths should be educated as simply as possible, and should not be mentally overfed by many and various things. It is, indeed, a most serious mistake to think that a person who knows all sorts of things is educated; no, sciolism is not culture. Consequently, that school is by no means the right one which "coaches" or "crams" for the future profession, – we are not speaking of the professional schools, – but that which trains the man, trains the mental faculties, develops clear logical thinking, cultivates the imagination, ennobles the sentiments, and strengthens the will. This, indeed, is educating, that is, "drawing out" what lies hidden and undeveloped in the soul. Instead of this, many modern schools aim at further expansion, which, considering the limited capacity of the youthful mind, is inseparable from shallowness. What is gained in extent of knowledge, is necessarily lost in depth, thoroughness, and mastery of the knowledge acquired. What is sadly needed now-a-days is concentration, a wise restriction of subjects which leads to depth and interior strength.

The educational system of the Society always aimed

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/320


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/321

Rh at a thorough general training in a few branches. Four characteristic points are discernible in this training: it is to be thorough, prolonged, general, simple. It is to be thorough; for superficial knowledge, smattering, is not training. It must be prolonged; for thoroughness cannot be effected in a short time. Time is as essential for maturing a man's mind and character, as it is for ripening a choice fruit; one may bake an apple in a few moments, but one cannot ripen it in that time. Education must, in this regard, follow the laws of nature. Time and prolonged and patient efforts are absolutely necessary in order to produce any success in education. In the third place this training is to be general, not professional; its aim is the man, not the specialist; it is the foundation on which the professional training is to be built up. It is, in other words, a liberal training; it has to cultivate the ideal, that which is really human and permanent in life. What is useful and practical will be cared for in time, and, as a rule, is sufficiently looked after. Lastly, this training must be simple, that is, it must be based on a few well-related branches; if too many disconnected subjects are treated, thoroughness becomes absolutely impossible.

The modern tendency in education is in the opposite direction. It aims at the useful and practical rather than the general training, or, at best, allots too short a time to the general education. Hence the very foundation of the practical training is weak. Besides, it comprises too many various subjects, the consuming of which does not effect a healthy mental growth, but an intellectual hypertrophy. It is showy

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/321


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/322

302 in the extreme, and dazzles the eye of the public, and even of some whose education and position in the world of culture should be a safeguard against such delusion. For these very reasons it is most detrimental to true progress. Far-seeing men, in this country as well as in Europe, realize the dangers of this tendency, and warn all educators against them most emphatically.

In an address on the occasion of the 27th annual commencement of the Jesuit College, Buffalo, N. Y., 1897, the Right Rev. James B. Quigley, D. D., Archbishop of Chicago, said: "We Americans are a practical people, but we are also impatient. We cannot arrive at our goal quickly enough. We send the boys to a high school for three or four years, and then we call them away and send them to the study of law or medicine. Now I would tell the parents: if you want to make a lawyer or a doctor of your son, let him finish the college course, he will be the better for it in his profession. We have now lawyers and doctors enough, what we need is better lawyers and better doctors."

Dr. McCosh, for twenty years President of Princeton College, says: "There is a loud demand in the present day for college education being made what they call practical. I believe that this is a mistake. A well known ship-builder once said to me: 'Do not try to teach my art in school; see that you make the youth intelligent, and then I will easily teach him ship-building.' The business of a college is to teach scientific principles of all sorts of practical application.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/322


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/323

Rh The youth thus trained will start life in far better circumstances than those who have learned only the details of their craft, which are best learned in offices, stores and factories, and will commonly outstrip them in the rivalries of life. He will be able to advance when others are obliged to stop."

Professor Münsterberg of Harvard University, in his article on School Reform, speaks admirably on the same subject. He points out the various fallacies underlying the system that advocates the earliest possible beginning of specialization. He ably proves that the pretensions of this system are wrong, and its calculations superficial, even from the merely utilitarian and mercenary standpoint. But above all, this system is to be condemned from the standpoint of liberal education. The Harvard Professor writes: "The higher the level on which the professional specializing begins, the more effective it is. I have said that we German boys did not think of any specialization and individual variation before we reached a level corresponding to a college graduation here. In this country, the college must still go on for a while playing the double rôle of the place for the general education of the one, and the workshop for the professional training of the other; but at least the high school ought to be faithful to its only goal of general education without professional anticipations. Moreover, we are not only professional wage earners; we live for our friends and our nation; we face social and political, moral and religious problems; we are in

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/323


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/324

304 contact with nature and science, with art and literature; we shape our towns and our time, and all that is common to every one, – to the banker and the manufacturer, to the minister and the teacher, to the lawyer and the physician. The technique of our profession, then, appears only as a small variation of the large background of work in which we all share; and if the education must be adapted to our later life, all these problems demand a uniform education for the members of the same social community. The division of labor lies on the outside. We are specialists in our handiwork, but our heart work is uniform, and the demand for individual education emphasizes the small differences in our tasks, and ignores the great similarities. And, after all, who is able to say what a boy of twelve years will need for his special life work? It is easily said in a school programme that the course will be adapted to the needs of the particular pupil with respect to his later life, but it would be harder to say how we are to find out what the boy does need; and even if we know it, the straight line to the goal is not always the shortest way."

Mr. Clement L. Smith is not less outspoken on this topic : "An education which aims to equip men for particular callings, or to give them a special training for entering upon those callings, however useful it may be, is not the liberal education which should be the single aim of the college. It should be the aim of the secondary school, too, – if not for all pupils, certainly for those who are going to college. For those who turn away, at the end of the school course, to

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/324


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/325

Rh train themselves for some technical pursuit, let appropriate technical schools be provided, and let them be held in all honor. But they should not masquerade as institutions for liberal education. Above all, they should not invade the province of the college, introducing confusion, and turning it into a place where there are a number of unconnected and independent educations going on at the same time, instead of a place where, though there are many paths, they all lead to a single goal. For the essence of a liberal education lies in the aim, not in the studies pursued, – not in letters, not in science. These are the materials with which it works; and employs them, not to make professional or technical experts, but to make men and women of broader views, of greater intellectual power, – better equipped for whatever profession or employment they may undertake, and for their equally important function of citizen and neighbor."

The Honorable James Bryce, a man excellently fitted to express his opinion on American, as well as on European, questions, a few years ago, while advocating a special commercial training, warns against shortening the time allotted to general education, whether elementary or secondary. On the contrary, the further the general education can be carried, the better for the young man, and more would be lost by curtailing the time spent on the subjects which everybody should learn, than would be gained by any special preparation for a particular employment. He reminds the people of England and the United States that the demand for a commercial education might do more

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/325


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/326

306 harm than good, "were it to lead to a shortening or to a commercializing of general school education, or were it to dispose us to ignore the supreme importance of securing that the teaching of the commercial subjects themselves shall be so directed as to arouse and stimulate the faculties no less than to inform the memory of the learner."

Long before this, Arnold had spoken in similar terms: "It is no wisdom to make boys prodigies of information, but it is our wisdom and our duty to cultivate their faculties, each in its season, first the memory and the imagination, and then the judgment, to furnish them with the means and to excite the desire of improving themselves." The most enlightened and experienced German educators insist on this point as strongly as any of those whose authority is cited above. It is needless to point out the fact that these writers clearly and strikingly express the same opinion about the intellectual scope of education as the Jesuits, namely, that real education does not consist in merely imparting information, but in training the mental faculties, in the efformatio ingenii, as the General of the Society called it in 1893.

In this country the question about the intellectual scope of education is closely connected with the other most important question: What is the function

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/326


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/327

Rh of the high school and college? Aside from the champions of extreme electivism, there is no educator of note who does not consider general culture the function of the high school. A great number of prominent educators do not hesitate to assign the same function to the college, relegating specialization, the acquisition of scholarship, or professional skill, entirely, or for the main part, to the university. The college should concern itself with the final stage of secondary education; it ought to stimulate general culture and to train character, rather than to impart specific instruction. A college President declared that the first step towards a betterment is the reassertion of the aim and nature of college life. The university, demanding for entrance a bachelor's degree, is the crown of our educational system. Its province is higher education, the cultivation of advanced scholarship and research. But "the college should give itself no airs. It should not pretend to be a university."

It needs scarcely be stated that the Jesuits' view of the college is exactly the same. They assign no other function, no other aim to it than general culture, harmonious training of the mind.

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/327


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/328

308 How is this training of the mind to be obtained? The Jesuit answers: By exercise, that is, by the different exercises, such as are laid down in the Ratio Studiorum: exercises of the intellect – translations, compositions; exercises of the memory – recitations and declamations; debates (academies), etc. These exercises have sometimes been styled "mechanical"; still how can any training be effected except by devices according to strict rule? Certainly not by the mere lecture of the teacher, however scholarly or interesting it may be. No one becomes an athlete by attending lectures on gymnastics, and no one becomes a perfect soldier by reading the U. S. Infantry Drill Book; but practice, drill, exercise is required. No one's mental faculties will ever become really developed, unless he is trained and drilled. The insisting on this fundamental principle is probably the most characteristic point in the educational system of the Society. Practice and exercise run all through the different grades, beginning from the teaching of the elements of Latin up to the highest course of theology. It is the same great principle of the necessity of self-exertion, self-activity which Ignatius so forcibly insists upon in that admirable little book, which he justly calls the "Spiritual Exercises." As there the exercitant is exhorted to act for himself, and not merely to suffer himself to be acted upon, so here the pupil is required from the beginning to act, not merely to listen, to exert himself in the various prescribed exercises.

As these exercises will be spoken of in a later chapter of this book, we need not discuss them here. Suffice it to say that the ablest educators of the nine-

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/328


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/329

Rh teenth century have recommended exercises which are essentially the same as those of the Society. So Dr. Arnold, the famous head-master of Rugby; Dr. Wiese, for decades one of the most influential men in the Prussian Ministry of Education; Dr. M. Seyffert, the great Latinist. In the introduction to his excellent Scholae Latinae, Dr. Seyffert has the following: "I thought this work, the fruit of twenty-five years experience, was something new. However, I had scarcely finished, when through the information of a friend of mine, I found out that there was nothing new under the sun. The merit and honor of the invention belongs, as I know now, to the seventeenth century, and, as hardly can be expected otherwise, to the diligence of the Order of the Jesuits, who were unwearied in preparing pedagogical helps and means. I shall be satisfied if my work finds only one tenth of the approval which their work found, and as I think, most deservedly found." Another great educator of Germany, K. L. Roth, said: "Exercise was the secret of the old college-systems; it forced the pupil daily to use for the formation of his judgment the material accumulated to excess in his memory."

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/329


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/331

Rh sons and daughters. They have not been stimulated by the marked encouragement of the colleges; for, at the present day, several important colleges still decline to regard any pre-collegiate course of study as comparable in value to the traditional classical course. Would it not have been the duty of the "leading" schools of the country to lead public opinion, and not allow themselves to be guided by it? When some large and influential schools adopted many parallel courses, the majority of the smaller and less important schools imitated the larger ones, or were practically forced to do so. After these schools had yielded to external demands, it was but natural that there "has also come a desire on the part of all to justify such programmes by an appeal to reason."

This appeal has been made most forcibly by President Eliot on various occasions. We have heard that his most serious charge against Jesuit colleges is their adherence to prescribed courses. To this indictment the President added: "Nothing but an unhesitating belief in the Divine wisdom of such prescriptions can justify them; for no human wisdom is equal to contriving a prescribed course of study equally good for even two children of the same family, between the ages of eight and eighteen. Direct revelation from on high would be the only satisfactory basis for a uniform prescribed school curriculum. The immense deepening and expanding of human knowledge, in the nineteenth century, and the increasing sense of the

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/331


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/332

312 sanctity of the individual's gifts and will power, have made uniform prescriptions of study in secondary schools impossible and absurd. We must absolutely give up the notion that any set of human beings, however wise and learned, can ever again construct and enforce on school children one uniform course of study. The class system, that is, the process of instructing children in large groups, is a quite sufficient school evil, without clinging to its twin evil, an inflexible programme of studies. Individual instruction is the new ideal."

If this new ideal of individual instruction should be carried out consistently—and the patrons of this electivism certainly ought to work at the realization of this ideal state—we might in the twentieth century see the day, when for five thousand students at Harvard there will be no less than five thousand instructors. No wonder that all these pupils will turn out geniuses, such as the world has never seen before. It seems certain that great results are anticipated by President Eliot. For he concludes his paper with the words: "These gains are noiseless but persuasive; they take effect on five hundred thousand pupils every year. Have we not here some solid ground for hopefulness about the Republic, both as a form of government and as a state of society?"

Not less amusing is the absolute certainty with which President Eliot affirms that electivism is the only system which can claim a right to exist. He says: "Direct revelation from on high would be the only satisfactory basis for a uniform prescribed school curriculum, and nothing but an unhesitating belief in

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/332


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/333

Rh the Divine wisdom of such prescriptions can justify them." Does not the President himself claim almost a superhuman infallibility when he straightway asserts: "Uniform prescriptions in secondary schools have been made impossible and absurd. We must absolutely give up the notion that any set of human beings, however wise and learned, can ever again construct and enforce on school children one uniform course of study." Could any one, whether prophet or pope, speak with more certainty, than President Eliot does in this passage? How can uniform prescriptions be styled impossible and absurd, when they are exacted in whole countries, and not only among half-civilized Moslems, or "decaying" Latin races, but also in "Teutonic" States, for instance in Germany, a country which leads in scholarship and of late years has so rapidly advanced also in industrial and commercial enterprise, that it is considered a formidable rival of American industry and commerce? The absolute certainty with which President Eliot proclaims his views is all the more unwarranted if we compare them with what other distinguished scholars think on this subject.

We quoted before the words of Professor Russell of Columbia, that the experience of Germany can teach us much, especially that "a uniform course of study for all schools of a particular grade, and a common standard for promotion and graduation, can be made most serviceable in a national scheme of education." Mr. Canfield, in his interesting book The College Student and his Problems, cautions the student in the following terms: "The more specialized your course,

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/333


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/334

314 the more certain ought you to be that the end is that which you desire. It is quite necessary, therefore, that you know yourself and your purposes, something quite definite of your capacity and powers, if you are to make a wise selection of your work. In the inefficiency or inexactness of such knowledge the college finds one weakness and one danger in multiplying courses or in enlarging the number of electives within a course. For very few young men know themselves at the age at which they enter college, and I think that others know them less. ... It is because of this uncertainty of purpose and this ignorance of self that the wisest educators and the most thoughtful students of mankind have always given such loyal adherence to the general culture courses, and especially to the classical courses. This adherence does not mean that all culture power is denied to other courses. It is simply an insistence upon that broad and humanizing work which has been and which ever will be one of the best and surest foundations for large and generous life." Nothing less is contained in these statements than a condemnation of President Eliot's electivism. For, if a choice of a specialized course without perfect knowledge of self is a great danger to the college student, how much more to the pupil in the high school? Or, if very few know themselves when entering college, how many can be expected to know themselves when entering the high school? Another remark is most significant. President Eliot asserts that "Moslems and Jesuits" uphold the old

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/334


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/335

Rh prescribed courses; the former President of Ohio State University does not hesitate to say, that for the most weighty reasons, "the wisest educators and the most thoughtful students of mankind have always given loyal adherence to the general culture courses, and especially to the classical courses," that is practically, to the old prescribed courses.

But to return to the Jesuit system. President Eliot is perfectly correct in stating that it defends a prescribed curriculum. However, it does not exclude, but in many places admits distinct parallel courses; beside the classical course there may be offered an English course, consisting chiefly in English, history, modern languages, some of the natural sciences and mathematics; or a Scientific course in which mathematics and natural sciences are the principal subjects taught. But these courses have to be followed as laid down, at least in the main subjects. Nor do the Jesuits exclude a certain amount of election in secondary branches. We say secondary, as there can be no reasonable doubt that not all branches are of the same educational value. For who would have the hardihood to say, that music and drawing, or even botany and zoology, are as well fitted to develop the mental faculties as the old-fashioned course of classics and mathematics? The Society at least does not dare to affirm it, and in this she is at one with the best educators of all ages, our own not excepted. Dr. McCosh said years ago in the famous debate with President Eliot: "At Harvard a young man has two hundred courses from which he may choose, and many of these courses, I am compelled to call dilettante. I should prefer a young man who has been trained in an

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/335


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/336

316 college, in rhetoric, philosophy, Latin, Greek, and mathematics, to one who had frittered away four years in studying the French drama of the eighteenth century, a little music and similar branches." Again Dr. McCosh maintains "there should be required studies for all who pursue a full course for a degree, and the required studies should be disciplinary, affording true mental training. Such studies are English, Greek, Latin, German, French, history, mathematics and physical science."

The objections of the Jesuits to the extreme electivism are mainly two. The first is that they apprehend serious dangers for the intellectual training from this new system. As was said in the preceding chapter, the intellectual scope of the Jesuit system is a thorough general training of the mind. There are the gravest reasons to fear that this training can scarcely be expected from the elective system as practised in many schools. The second objection arises from the conviction that the moral training of the students will be injured if the choice of studies is to any great extent left to them, especially if they are allowed to change the branches which they find difficult and disagreeable. For, greatly as the Jesuits value the intellectual training of their pupils, they attach far greater importance to the moral training, to the training of the will and the development of character.

President Eliot implicitly asserts that the Jesuits, as upholders of prescribed courses, violate the sanctity of the individual's will-power. This is a serious charge. In answer to it we may first quote the words

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/336


text:
Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/337

Rh of a prominent educator who in the strongest terms makes the same charge against systems like that of President Eliot. Professor Weissenfels of Berlin wrote in 1901: "In our times the moment comes relatively early when the special gifts and abilities of the individual try to assert themselves. But let it not be forgotten that there are brilliant abnormities. The talent for a special science, particularly mathematics, or for a special art, particularly music, even in childhood, gets a tyrannical ascendancy over everything else. Shall we give free play to it and foster it? Or shall we at first endeavor to counteract it, or at least keep from it all that could stimulate still more the inclination which is in itself too strong? Among the tolerably intelligent there is but one opinion: they distrust precociousness. ... It is justly considered want of common sense, nay more, a sin against the child's soul, to make advances to the impatience with which the special aptitude is trying to assert itself, and thus to add fuel to the fire." The author further calls this system a criminal mutilation of the soul, and maintains that the special talent, if unduly and prematurely fostered will be like a rank weed that stifles every other inclination and thus destroys all harmony of mind and character.

We hear now-a-days so much about the "sanctity of the individual's will" that one's idea of human nature may easily get confused. True, there is something sacred in human nature, because it is the image and likeness of its Maker. Still, that sanctity of man is not pure and unalloyed, that image is not altogether

title: Page:Jesuit Education.djvu/337