Jesuit Education/Chapter 18

by Robert Schwickerath

 

Chapter XVIII.

Religious Instruction.

The preceding chapter has shown how painstaking the Jesuits are as regards the moral training of their pupils. Other educators also insist on the necessity of this training, but the Jesuits, in fact all Catholics, differ from a great number of other educators in a most essential point, namely in that they base the moral training entirely on the religious education. They consider a moral training without the religious as defective and incomplete. Incomplete, because it disregards one of the most important obligations of man. Man's first and most sacred duty is to acknowledge his dependence on God, his Creator and Lord, and to give expression to this recognition by interior and exterior acts of worship. This is religion. Religion is a postulate of man's rational nature. This thought stood clearly before the mind of the founder of the Society of Jesus, when in his Spiritual Exercises he wrote down this brief summary of religion: "Man is created to praise God, to reverence and serve Him, and, by doing so, to save his soul." No system of education can be considered as harmonious which leaves this first duty of man out of consideration, and fails to implant religion into the hearts of the pupils. If it is man's duty to worship God, it is his duty likewise to know God; he can know Him from the manifestation of His works (Romans 1, 19), and the revelation of His word. Religion does not consist in mere sentiment and pious emotions, but in the recognition of certain truths and the subjection of the will to these truths. Hence no religion is possible without the knowledge of these truths, or let us plainly call them what they are: dogmas, although this word is so hateful to the ear of the rationalist and agnostic educator of the day. Dogmas must be taught and believed as the foundation of all true religion, as the Great Teacher of mankind has said: "This is life everlasting that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."^[1] It is, indeed, the highest wisdom "to know Christ and him crucified," "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."^[2] Christ, therefore, must be the centre of all true education.

The knowledge of religious truths is necessary in education for another reason, because it is the only sure foundation of morality, and without it no true moral education is possible. This is the firm conviction of Christian thinkers. I know the champions of the "unsectarian" schools cry out against such an assertion, and they ask indignantly: "Can we not teach ethics without dogmas, moral principles without religion?" Reason, history, daily experience, and our innermost conscience give a stern and emphatic answer to this question: "You cannot teach it effectively and with any satisfactory result." All motives of self-respect, honor, sense of duty, welfare of the community, etc., may deter a man from certain more revolting crimes, but they will not hold in times of fierce temptation, when neither disgrace nor civil punishment is to be feared. How well has the "Father of this Country" expressed this, when he left to his people as a sacred legacy these weighty words: "Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." Another great military and political leader has spoken even more strongly on this subject. Lord Mahon writes of a conversation which he had with the great Duke of Wellington: "I shall never forget the earnestness and energy of manner with which he [the Duke of Wellington] deprecated mere secular education, adding, I doubt if the devil himself could advise a worse scheme of social destruction." ... "Take care what you are about," he exclaimed on December 23, 1840, when speaking of the new Education Act; "for unless you base all this education on religion, you are only bringing up so many clever devils."^[3] The educational legislation of the year 1902 proves that England, after many decades of experimenting, has at length realized the truth of the warning of her distinguished leader.

Alas, that the most important words of Washington have been practically forgotten in this country, and that the exclusion of religious teaching from the schools has been made one of the fundamental principles of the national system of schools, in such a degree that the Catholic Church, which all along has insisted that it was its duty to educate the children of Catholic parents in the truths of their religion, was denounced as an enemy of the country. At present the more thoughtful Protestants begin to acknowledge that this idea is the only true one. The spread of immorality and infidelity has opened the eyes of many.^[4]

We may be allowed to quote one or other recent utterance of non-Catholics on this subject. Professor Gates, of the Chicago Theological Seminary, writes in the Biblical World, September 1902: "The great problem of life is education. The mind of the race is growing all the while, and it is for the educator to see that these mental powers are developed in the right direction. But no man's education is complete if religious instruction be omitted. One may know all mysteries of science and literature; he may sweep the heavens with the telescope, or peer into the secrets of nature with the microscope; but if in all this he see not God, he is but poorly educated after all. Now where do we find ourselves, as we confront this phase of the national problem? We have a system of public education to be proud of. Never have the various questions that meet the teacher been so well understood as to-day. But what is this great system doing for the religious instruction of our children? Practically nothing."

It has been said time and again that religion should be taught by the Sunday school and in the family. Yet every thoughtful man must see that such instruction cannot be but insufficient. The Biblical World, in an editorial, October 1902, asks whether the religious and moral education is adequately achieved through the Sunday school and the home, and it gives this answer: "It has been so assumed, but each passing year shows more clearly that this is not the case... The home feels no longer the necessary responsibility, and the Sunday school has neither the time nor the instrumentalities for adequate instruction. And, in addition, the divorcement of religious from secular education destroys the vital relation between the two. Therefore, it seems certain that the ideal of education, as well as the only adequate method of education, is to establish religious and moral instruction in the common schools. And we shall then find ourselves once more in accord with the status of instruction in England and Germany."

A few years ago, Mr. Amasa Thornton spoke similarly in the North American Review. There he said: "The questions which we have to solve then are these: How can the present decline in religious teaching and influence be checked; and how can such teaching and influence be increased to such a point as will preserve the great cities of the next century from depravity, degradation, and destruction? What can be expected of the family?" Mr. Thornton rightly adds: "If the adults of the present age are not as religious as the needs of the hour and of the future require, will the children receive the proper religious training if they receive none except in the home circle?" In fact, thousands of children do not even learn a short prayer at home. The writer then declares that one of the greatest blunders that have been made in this country is the failure of teaching religion in the public schools. He then pays a striking tribute to the Catholic Church. "The Catholic Church has insisted that it is its duty to educate the children of parents of the Catholic faith in such a way as to fix religious truths in the youthful mind. For this it has been assailed by the non-Catholic population, and Catholics have been charged with being enemies of the liberties of the people and the flag. Any careful observer in the city of New York can see that the only people, as a class, who are teaching the children in the way that will secure the future for the best civilization, are the Catholics; and although a Protestant of the firmest kind, I believe the time has come to recognize this fact, and for us all to lay aside religious prejudices and patriotically meet this question."^[5]

Professor Coe of Northwestern University quite recently said in a lecture delivered in Chicago: "The position of Roman Catholics in regard to religion and education, and their policy in the establishment of parochial schools, are absolutely correct. For corroboration of this opinion I refer you to the work Philosophy of Education, by Dr. Arnold Tompkins, principal of the Chicago Normal School, in which he says religious character is the proper end of all education."^[6]

The Catholics object to purely secular education, because they consider it subversive of religion and true morality, subversive of "the pillars of human happiness and national security." It is not so much what is taught in the non-sectarian schools that renders them objectionable to Catholics, as what is not taught and cannot be taught. An education which omits Christ as its central and informing principle is an unchristian education. Such an education may not directly teach wrong principles, nor directly undermine the faith of the pupils, yet it does nothing to protect and strengthen it. The inevitable consequence of this neglect must be the weakening of faith, especially in an age in which literature and the whole domestic and social life are infected by agnosticism and a new paganism. As the non-sectarian school does not and cannot counteract these baneful tendencies, it is clear that the education which it imparts is a defective, nay, a false one.

Not unfrequently, however, Catholics must also object to what is taught in non-sectarian schools and colleges. It is impossible to avoid in text-books and oral instruction, in the teaching of history, literature, and natural sciences, all allusions to questions most closely connected with religion. How does the Catholic Church fare in such references? One need only examine the text-books used in many schools, to become convinced that a Catholic parent must protest against the statements contained therein about the Church, its history, its worship, the Papacy, monastic orders, etc. But if Catholic children grow weak in their love of the Church, her institutions and practices, they will gradually neglect their religious duties, and fall a prey to religious indifferentism and moral ruin. How well has this been expressed in the latest "School Order for the Higher Schools" of Prussia: "Catholic religious instruction has the specific task of grounding Catholic youth in the conviction of the truth and the divine origin of Christianity and the Church, and to teach them to preserve, foster, and steadfastly profess this conviction by living in and with Christ and His Church. Only on the solid foundation of a definite religious knowledge, of deep-rooted conviction and loyalty to the Church, can religious instruction try and expect to fulfil that other, by no means last or least important, part of its task, viz., to accomplish fully and permanently the religious and the moral elevation of the pupil. According to Catholic teaching, the truly moral life rests on obedience to the Church, as the divinely attested guardian and exponent of God's ordinances, and herein is found a special protection against the false and perverse aspirations of the modern age, which endanger the moral order."^[7]

For this reason, what an English Catholic said about the schools of England has also an application to our country. Dr. Windle (F. R. S.), speaking of the "Present Needs of Catholic Secondary Education," said among other things: "By the fact that we are Catholics, we are circumscribed in our choice of schools to those of our own faith. ... I should like to add one word on this subject from my own experience. Born and brought up a Protestant I was educated at a great public school, for which I still retain considerable respect, and even affection; but I wish to say with a due sense of responsibility, that the Catholic parent who sends his son to a non-Catholic public school deliberately and without a shadow of justification exposes him to the almost certain loss of his faith, and to the grave danger of the corruption of his morals."^[8]

The attitude of Catholics towards the question of religious instruction in school is, therefore, very clear. Of those Protestants that now advocate religious instruction, not a few commit a serious mistake. They recommend a sort of religious teaching which will suit all and offend none, an "unsectarian, undenominational religion," as they style it. Such a religion does not exist, and what is taught as such does not deserve the name of religion. This has been emphatically stated by many distinguished Protestants of widely differing religious opinions. Of American educators we mention President McCosh who made some very noteworthy statements on this subject.^[9] Even men of most advanced liberal views condemn the teaching of an "undenominational" religion. Professor Ziegler of the University of Strassburg, who is not in the least "clerically biased," wrote two years ago in his General Pedagogy: "A knowledge of the religion in which one is born forms part of general culture, and the state would have to look after this part of education, as after all the rest (sic!). But here enters the Church as competitor, demanding that the instruction in religion be imparted to her children according to her views; an undenominational instruction in religion, which is advocated by some, is nonsense; for every religion is denominational."^[10] It would fill a large volume were we to collect the unsparing criticism passed within the last thirty years on "unsectarian" religious teaching by the most enlightened men in England, among them statesmen like Disraeli and Lord Salisbury.^[11] An English agnostic, a member of the London School Board, thus described the system adopted by this Board: "The result of unsectarian teaching is to establish a new form of religion which has nothing in common with Historical Christianity or any other form of Christian teaching. By taking away everything to which any one objects, they leave something which is really worthless. They say they will have no Creed and no Catechism, and the result is that every teacher is his own Creed and his own Catechism. The result of unsectarian teaching is a colorless residuum, which I should think would be as objectionable to the earnest Christian as it is contemptible to the earnest unbeliever."^[12] Other English writers were even more severe in their condemnations of this system, which they called "a misshapen beast," "a moral monster," "lifeless, boiled down, mechanical, unreal teaching of religion."^[13] Needless to say, Catholics will always object to such a maimed teaching of religion.

Protestant advocates of religious instruction frequently consider the reading of the Bible as sufficient, and as the only admissible means of teaching religion in the schools. However, in this principle there are several serious errors. We must first mention recent utterances calling for the restoration of the Bible to the schools as literature, as a means of literary culture. The National Educational Association that met in Minneapolis in the summer of 1902, adopted the following resolution: "It is apparent that familiarity with the English Bible as a masterpiece of literature is rapidly decreasing among the pupils in our schools. This is the direct result of a conception which regards the Bible as a theological book merely, and thereby leads to its exclusion from the schools of some states as a subject of reading and study. We hope and ask for such a change of public sentiment in this regard as will permit and encourage the English Bible, now honored by name in many school laws and state constitutions, to be read and studied as a literary work of the highest and purest type, side by side with the poetry and prose which it has inspired and in large part formed."^[14] Such a study is, of course, practically useless from the religious point of view; moreover, and this is a more serious objection against the scheme advocated by the National Educational Association, it is wrong in principle and mischievous in its consequences. It is a deplorable degradation of the sacred volume to put it on a par with profane writings, be they of the highest type, as the dramas of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson. This scheme would tend to destroy entirely the reverence due to the Bible. Besides, no literary study is possible without explanation of the contents of the works studied; but it is absurd to attempt an explanation of the contents of the Bible without trespassing on religious ground. Rightly has the Biblical World observed that culture is not the chief end of man, nor the primary function of the Bible. The biblical books are indeed masterpieces of literature, but they have a much more important service to render to the world. The Bible is first of all for religious and moral instruction, a guidebook to religion and morality.^[15] We perfectly agree with the Biblical World so far, but not as to the manner of reading the Bible which this review advocates. In an editorial, October 1902, we read: "The fact that the Bible is generally excluded from the public schools of the United States, where formerly it was used as a book of devotion and instruction, is not to be attributed to a growing disregard of religion. ... This situation has been created by the friends of the Bible rather than by its enemies; for if the friends of the Bible could have agreed among themselves as to how the Bible should be taught in the schools, their influence would have secured the continuance of such instruction. But it came to pass that the Bible was used in the schools, not only for general and ethical religious instruction, but also for the inculcation of sectarian and theological ideas. Protestant teachers taught the Bible in a way which antagonized the Roman Catholics; and teachers of the several Protestant denominations interpreted the Bible to the children from their own point of view. But the public money which is raised by general taxation for the support of the common schools comes from men of widely differing ecclesiastical creeds and connections, and cannot therefore be used for the dissemination of sectarian tenets." The writer then asks: "Can we now teach religion and morals by means of the Bible without at the same time teaching sectarian ideas? The Bible is not sectarian; Roman Catholics and all Protestant denominations equally claim it. The formal creeds and the systems of government and worship which have grown up in the centuries of Christian history are post-biblical; they are a superstructure, built upon the fundamentals of Christianity as recorded in the Bible. Can we get beneath ecclesiastical formulations, regulations, and liturgies to a fundamental religious belief and moral practice upon which all Christians can agree, and which they can unite to promote? ... We believe that sectarianism is fast disappearing, that an era of unity in essentials is near at hand. ... In order to restore the Bible to the schools it must be taught in the right way – the way which accords with the best modern knowledge of the Bible, the best modern science of religion and ethical teaching, and the best Christian spirit which recognizes true Christianity wherever it exists, and is able to distinguish between essentials and non-essentials."^[16]

We do not want to comment on all the latitudinarian statements contained in this quotation, but confine ourselves to the following remarks. First, that religion consisting of merely the "fundamentals of Christianity without formal creeds," is no true religion. It is a distillation or a dilution of Christianity which deserves all the castigation inflicted by English writers on the "moral monster of undenominational religion." Secondly, it is said that "the Bible is not sectarian, and that Roman Catholics and all Protestant denominations claim it." But how do they claim it? Surely not merely as a source of "general and ethical religious instruction," but as the document which is supposed to prove their particular religious tenets. It is as true now as centuries ago what the Reformed theologian Werenfels expressed in his famous distich:

Hic liber est in quo quaerit sua dogmata quisque;
Invenit et pariter dogmata quisque sua.

Within one book each seeks to read
The tenets of his private creed.
And, strange to tell, each reads so well
The selfsame words all doctrines spell.

Hence it is unreasonable to expect that the Bible will ever be taught without "sectarian" bias, or that in future it will be taught by Protestants without "antagonizing the Roman Catholics."

The objections of Catholics to the reading of the Bible in undenominational schools which are frequented by Catholic children, may briefly be summed up as follows: First, the Catholics must ask which translation of the Bible is to be used. Is it to be the Catholic Rheims and Douay version? To this the Protestants would undoubtedly object. Then the Protestant Bible? Against this the Catholics must protest. For the Bible of King James contains numerous errors of translation—this was candidly admitted by the authors of the Revised Version^[17]—errors by no means insignificant, errors which, to a great extent, consist in rendering the Bible so as to justify certain Protestant tenets and to antagonize Catholic doctrines. The Revised Version has done away with some of these objectionable translations, but not with all that justly offend Catholics. Hence the very version used in the public schools is "sectarian." Besides, the Catholic acknowledges books as canonical which are rejected in the Protestant Bibles as apocryphal, and this is another reason why the Catholic cannot approve the reading of the Protestant Bible. – Secondly, the Catholic Church is opposed to giving the complete and unabridged Bible into the hands of children. The reason for this attitude is one that testifies to the great pedagogical wisdom of the Church. She cannot bear the thought that the most sacred of books should become a stumbling-block to the innocent, or a means of gratifying the unholy curiosity of vicious youths. There are earnest Protestants who in this matter side with the Catholic practice. It may suffice to quote one testimony, that of a Protestant educator of the first rank, namely of Professor Schiller, Director of one of the best training schools for teachers in Europe. Speaking of the causes of impurity among students, he finds one in the reading of the unabridged Bible. He affirms that a large experience has proved that most deplorable vicious habits among pupils, boys and girls, sprang up in the first place from the reading of certain passages of the Bible, the selection and knowledge of which were handed down as a tradition among the pupils. This danger, he adds, can be so easily avoided by preparing special school Bibles that the opposite practice seems unpardonable. We think it well to quote the instructive passage in the original in a note, adding here that the Catholic Church all along taught the Bible in such school editions.^[18] – There is a third consideration which prompts Catholics to oppose the reading of the Bible as advocated by most Protestant educators. It is the following question: Is the Bible to be read with or without comment? If with comment, is this Protestant or Catholic? Evidently either Catholic or Protestant would be offended. Therefore, without comment and explanation! Now this reading is almost useless, as the young will understand very little of the meaning of the passage. Disraeli, the English statesman, has justly ridiculed this practice. "I cannot imagine," he says, "anything more absurd than that a teacher should read 'without note and comment,' as it is called, a passage from the Bible, and that children should be expected to profit by it. The 'without note and comment' people in their anxiety to ward off proselytism, seem to have forgotten that, if there is any book in the world which demands more explanation than another, it is the Bible. And so, if nothing else is possible than such a feeble and useless compromise as this, I would, in the interest of the Bible itself, not have it read at all." And then he adds: "I am a great believer in the old-fashioned Church-Catechism. I wonder whether those that sneer at it, have always read it. I fancy not. It is, rightly interpreted, a most practical document, but without interpretation, not worth teaching or learning."^[19]

As is to be expected, religious instruction in the widest and fullest sense received a prominent place in the educational system of the Society of Jesus. The first rule of the Ratio calls it one of the most important obligations of the Society "to teach all branches of learning in such a manner that men should be led to the knowledge and love of their Creator and Redeemer;"^[20] and in the rules of the Rector, the Prefect of Studies, and the teachers, the same duty is inculcated. As regards the reading of the Bible, the old prejudice that the Church ever set her face against it is unfortunately still alive among vast numbers of non-Catholics. For our purpose it suffices to remind the reader of what was said in a former chapter, namely, that in Jesuit colleges the Gospels were read, in the higher classes the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek.^[21]

But above all, the Jesuits were always "great believers in the catechism." Catechetical instruction was prescribed in all classes once a week. This may seem rather little; however, it should be remembered that there were religious instructions in the weekly meetings of the Sodalities, and, which is still more important, that the whole teaching was permeated by a religious spirit. Besides, it may be added that in many modern Jesuit colleges two full hours are devoted to religious instruction every week. In the lower classes the catechism is explained, in the higher classes a fuller explanation of the Catholic dogmas and a course of apologetics is given. Such an apologetical course was recommended by the German province of the Society of Jesus as early as 1821.^[22] That in our age an apologetical treatment of the Christian religion is absolutely necessary need not be demonstrated. The words of the Apostle St. Peter: "Be ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you,"^[23] had, perhaps, never before a more important bearing than in this age of omnivorous reading. At a time when the literature of the day is largely infected by naturalism and agnosticism, and when the principles of Christianity are attacked in so many subtle forms, it is certainly necessary to be well instructed lest one's own faith be tainted by the prevalent scepticism, and to be ready to defend this faith against the attacks made in the name of progress, modern philosophy, and science. This readiness can be obtained only by a solid catechetical and apologetical training.

Catechetical instruction was, from the very beginning of the Society, a special ministry and a labor of love to the Jesuits. In the papal approbation of 1540 it is said that the Society was instituted for "the propagation of faith, and especially for the instruction of children and ignorant people in Christian doctrine." Father Sacchini has a beautiful chapter on the "Teaching of the Catechism,"^[24] in which he says the Jesuit should teach languages and grammar with great diligence, but with far greater devotion and alacrity catechism, "which is the grammar of Jesus Christ."

An American prelate wrote recently on this subject: "Among religious orders established with a special view toward the religious education of youth, the first place must undoubtedly be assigned to the Society of Jesus... St. Ignatius himself set the example. The first forty days after the papal approbation he devoted himself to the instruction of children in Rome. When told that no one would come to his class, he answered: 'If only one child comes to my catechism, it is enough of an audience for me.' The Society followed the example of its founder with a hitherto unheard of zeal and enthusiasm... The Jesuits, moreover, developed a most meritorious activity in writing catechetical works, not less than one hundred and fifty having been published during the first century of their existence. The catechisms composed by Bellarmine and Canisius soon displaced all others."^[25] Indeed, the writing of catechisms has been one of the glories of the Society from the first decades of its existence. Dr. Knecht, Coadjutor Bishop of Freiburg, an eminent writer on catechetics, affirms that "the Jesuit Order has undoubtedly produced the greatest catechists."^[26] The catechism of the celebrated Bellarmine^[27] was used in many countries for centuries, even at present among Romanic nations. Of great fame were also the French, Latin and Greek catechisms of Father Edmund Auger. But all were surpassed by that of Peter Canisius, the first German Jesuit; this catechism was used extensively all over Europe. The works of this eminent writer and founder of many colleges deserve to be treated at some length.

Catechetical instruction had been given from the beginning of the Church, and there existed works which guided the clergy in this sublime office. The idea of placing a summary of Christian doctrine in the hands of the people and children, appears to have been first expressed in a letter of the great Gerson, chancellor of the University of Paris (1363-1429). The first known summary of this kind was the one published at the order of the synod of Tortosa in Spain (1429). The first German catechism, so far known, was that of Dederich Coelde, a Minorite Friar of Münster in Westphalia, printed about 1470, then published in many editions.^[28] There existed, besides this, other catechisms before the Reformation. Of the Protestant works of this kind Luther's "Great and Small Catechisms" were undoubtedly those that spread most widely and had the greatest influence. Several Catholic catechisms came out shortly after, but they were, in point of language and arrangement, inferior to that of Luther. They were also either too lengthy or too difficult. The need of a new and better work, adapted to the circumstances of the times, was felt especially in Germany. Then it was, in 1554, that Canisius began to publish his three catechisms.^[29] The first was the large catechism in Latin for the use of students in colleges. After this appeared a shorter one, and finally his small catechism. This last established his fame as a writer. There are about three hundred different editions extant which appeared before the death of the author in 1597. By that time the work had been translated into English, French, Greek, Italian, Bohemian, Spanish, Polish, Swedish, and many other languages. Before 1623 there existed Aethiopian, Indian, and Japanese translations. In Southern Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, up to the nineteenth century the name "Canisi" was synonymous with catechism.^[30]

The merits of this work can best be judged from the innumerable recommendations which it received from Popes and bishops, and not less from the violent attacks made upon it by Protestants. The Italian historian Cesare Cantù styles it, "the most famous Catholic catechism written since the time of Luther." Even the Protestant historian Ranke cannot help praising and admiring it. And a distinguished Protestant controversialist in Germany, Professor Kawerau, says: "The catechism of Canisius is without doubt of the same importance to the Catholic Church as Luther's was to the Church of the Reformation. It is distinguished by its clear and lucid treatment of the subject and particularly by the mild and conciliatory tone in which it is written."^[31] This "mild and conciliatory tone" was recommended to all Jesuit teachers. Thus Father Nadal laid it down as a rule for all teachers that "both in the subject for written exercises and in the explanation of the catechism they should proceed with the greatest moderation. Especially in Germany, France, etc., they should not use any contumelious epithets against their opponents; nay they should not even style them heretics – although in truth they may be such –, but they should call those who adhere to the Augsburg Confession, Protestants, others Anabaptists etc.^[32] How, then, is Mr. Painter justified in asserting that the Jesuit system fostered religious pride and intolerance?^[33]

Father Canisius gave also beautiful instructions as to the motives and methods of teaching catechism. "We who are of the Society of Jesus," he writes, "wish to provide the little ones of Christ with the salutary milk of his doctrine. It is their welfare that we love and seek to promote. To this end has our Society been instituted, to instruct youth in piety as well as in learning, as far as with the grace of Christ we can accomplish."^[34] One of the most essential qualities of a good catechist is kindness of heart and manners. This quality was a marked feature of Canisius' character, one which attracted the children to his instructions. The summary of the catechetical lectures which he gave in Augsburg has been pre- served. Canisius began with the words of the Psalmist: "Come children hearken to me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord" (Psalm 33, 12). Then he continued: "Christ, our Lord loved the children and showed his affection for them in various ways. He blessed and embraced them and defended them against the Pharisees (Matth. 21, 15. 16) and against his own disciples (Matth. 18, 1-10). He said: 'Suffer little children to come unto me'; yea come to me, to be instructed, and to be taught the science of salvation. And to all those who are not well instructed I speak with St. Paul: 'You have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God: And you are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat.' (Hebr. 5, 11. 12.) Following the examples of the Prophets, of Christ, and of the Apostles, I shall teach you not as wise and learned ones, but as children and little ones. Come, then, with a willing and cheerful heart; be convinced that it is a matter of the greatest importance for you to be justly called and truly to be sons of God. On your part, you must imitate the Child Jesus, who, in a manner, has given you an example how to learn the doctrine of salvation, when he set aside all else, left even his parents, and remained in the temple. Watch him there, see how he sits there quietly, listens to the teachers, and asks them questions. His questions are not about silly and useless matters, but about the great things of salvation. You must imitate him in this, now and ever in the future." This simple and hearty manner of teaching found great favor with the people, and we are not surprised to hear that after a few of his catechetical instructions Canisius could write: "I am delighted at seeing the good will of the people. Even men, among them persons of distinction, set aside all other business and come to listen to the instruction for children."^[35]

Throughout his life Canisius found a special delight in giving catechetical instructions. The son of a distinguished family, the celebrated Doctor of theology, and author of many learned works, the founder of the famous colleges of Prague, Ingolstadt, Munich, Dillingen, Innsbruck, and Freiburg, the man whose advice was sought by the Emperors of Germany, by the Dukes of Bavaria, by Popes and Cardinals, by Church Councils and Imperial Diets – this man devoted every spare minute to the humble work of instructing children, and that not only in the cities where he resided, but on his many journeys, from one end of Germany to the other, he performed the same work of Christian charity among the simple country people. In his old age, when worn out by incessant toils, this was his favorite occupation. A year before his death, in his seventy-eighth year, he writes that his time is spent in "instructing children and old people."^[36] A touching testimony to this work of the saintly Jesuit is still extant at the present day. In a little village near Innsbruck (Tyrol) is to be seen, on the gable of an old house, a picture which represents Canisius sitting among children whom he is instructing in their catechism. It was before this house that, on his journeys to Innsbruck, he used to perform the work which the picture has immortalized. We have dwelt longer on the labors of this great man, because they represent so beautifully what thousands of other Jesuits have done all the world over, in their endeavors to spread the knowledge and love of Christ.

Many other Jesuits wrote catechisms after Canisius. But it will suffice to mention a more recent one, that of the German Jesuit Deharbe. The merits of Deharbe's catechism were soon recognized, and it was introduced into nearly all dioceses of Germany, and was translated into many languages. It obtained a large circulation, especially in this country.^[37]

In order to give a solid and efficient religious instruction, it is not enough to teach catechism once or twice a week. The General of the Society, Father Beckx, in a letter addressed to the Austrian Minister of Instruction, July 15, 1854, maintains the following: "Religion should not only hold the first place among the various branches, but permeate and rule all, and, according to our Ratio Studiorum, the teacher should treat all subjects in such manner that the truths of the catechism are found in all branches. Now it is some wise adage, then an inspiring thought, again a remarkable incident, or a beautiful trait of character, which gives the teacher occasion to instruct, to warn, and to elevate to Christian sentiments; such hints given incidentally and, as it were, accidentally, often make an impression all the more vivid, the less they were expected. In this manner religion is not a dry and disagreeable branch, but vivifies all the rest of instruction, gives it a higher, sacred character, and makes the pupil not only more learned but also better and more virtuous."^[38]

The Fathers Jouvancy and Sacchini say that the explanations of all authors, also of pagan writers, should be conducted so that they become, as it were, heralds of Christ. This is very important in our times, when pagan ideas, principles, and tendencies are praised as the spirit of the progressing human mind, as the precious fruit of modern research and civilization. From the study of the ancients, particularly the Greeks, the young may learn that mankind is on the point of going again through a circle of errors, which in a retrogressive movement shall lead our race through all the aberrations which Christianity has long ago overcome. Against the enticing sirens of "modern progress," "freedom of thought," and "independence of morality," a most salutary lesson may be learned from the ancients, who in spite of their accomplishments in art, literature, and politics, could not find in them the remedy for social evils, nor contentment of mind and heart. Such suggestions, however, must be made discreetly, with great tact and moderation, when an occasion naturally offers. Here, too, the old ne quid nimis is of the greatest import; if the teacher too often, in season and out of season, indulges in pious exhortations, the pupils may easily conceive disgust at them and a loathing for all kinds of spiritual and religious instruction. Therefore, the teacher should not only not molest the pupils by too frequent admonitions, but should also observe prudence in those he thinks fit to give.^[39]

The principles laid down by the Jesuits, as to the religious tone of all instruction, have recently been emphasized by Pope Leo XIII., in the Encyclical written in 1897, on occasion of the centenary of Peter Canisius. There we read: "All schools, from the elementary to the university, should be thoroughly Catholic, and one of the main duties of the pastors of the Church is to safeguard the rights of parents and the Church in this matter. It is of the very greatest importance that Catholics should have everywhere for their children not mixed schools, but their own schools, and these provided with good and well trained masters. Let no one delude himself that a sound moral training can be separated from dogmatic religious training. To separate the training in knowledge from all religious influence, is to form citizens to be the bane and pest of society instead of being the bulwark of their country. Moreover, it is not enough for youths to be taught religion at fixed hours, but all their training must be permeated by religious principles."

Some Protestant educators of the highest standing have advocated a system which is practically that defended by Catholics. Thus Professor Schiller strongly insists on "concentration and unity in education." As regards religious instruction he wishes it to be given by one "who has in his hands the most important branches of instruction, those which are best suited to influence education," above all literature and history.^[40] The same view is also taken in the Prussian "School Order" of 1892 and 1901, where it is said that it is of the utmost importance that religious instruction is not rent from the other branches, but intimately connected with other, particularly the ethical branches.^[41] From this principle we may draw another argument for the advantages which can be derived, if education is in the hands of the clergy,^[42] especially in the higher classes, where a thorough knowledge of theology is required in order to give that religious training needed in this stage of education. It is evident that such a course can be followed only in denominational schools. For this reason Professor Schiller deplores the fact that, in consequence of religious differences, it is almost impossible to apply this most important principle.^[43]

English and American educators are not wanting who advocate the same principle on which the Jesuits have insisted for centuries. Arnold's opinion on this subject was quite explicit. Sir Joshua Fitch tells us that he dreaded any theory which would tend to view the life of the scholar as a thing apart from the life of a Christian. He protested earnestly against any attempt to divorce religious from secular instruction, or to treat them as distinct parts of an educational scheme. "The device sometimes advocated in later times for solving the religious difficulty in our common and municipal schools by confining the functions of the school teacher to secular instruction, and calling in the aid of the clergy or other specialists to give lessons on religion at separate hours, would have seemed to him wholly indefensible, and, indeed, fatal to any true conception of the relation of religious knowledge to other knowledge." In one of his sermons he said: "It is clear that neither is the Bible alone sufficient to give a complete religious education, nor is it possible to teach history, and moral and political philosophy, with no reference to the Bible, without giving an education that shall be anti-religious. For, in the one case, the rule is given without the application, and in the other the application derived from a wrong rule."^[44]

But a few months ago the same view was forcibly expressed by a writer in the Chicago Biblical World,^[45] in a leading article which is said to be inspired by the editor of this review, President Harper of the University of Chicago.^[46] In this article we find the following most appropriate statements: "It is a serious phase of the present situation that the religious and moral instruction of the young is isolated from their instruction in other departments of knowledge. The correlation of the different elements of education is incomplete, because the religious and moral instruction is received in entire separation from the general instruction of the public schools. The facts and truths of religion are the foundation and the imperative of morality. Present civilization rests upon the religious and ethical ideas of the past, and the civilization of the future depends upon a due recognition of religion and morality as essential factors in the growing welfare of humanity. The knowledge and experience of religious and moral truth must underlie and penetrate all knowledge and experience. The events and the ideas of the past, as of the present, must be viewed in the light of a divine hand as the creator of the universe, a divine power sustaining it, a divine wisdom guiding it, and a divine purpose accomplished in it. The physical world about us, our fellow-men, and our own selves must all be interpreted by religion truly conceived and morality properly understood. It is, therefore, impossible to accomplish the ideal education of the individual when the religious and moral element is isolated from the other elements; still worse when it is not received at all by the majority of the children. All the elements of education must be woven together into an organic unity to produce a perfect result." The writer then proposes an organization which "may seek to show how to correlate religious and moral instruction with the instruction in history, science, and literature obtained in the public schools." – A comparison with the words of Father Beckx quoted on a previous page (p. 599) will show the great similarity of the views of the President of the University of Chicago and the former General of the Society of Jesus. But we think there is one essential difference: the Jesuit draws the logical consequences of his principles, namely, that education should be imparted in denominational schools; for only in such schools can the moral and religious training be harmoniously united with the other elements of instruction. The President of the University of Chicago has not drawn this conclusion. Yet we fail to see how, except in denominational schools, the proposed correlation of religious education and instruction in the other branches is possible. However, for our present purpose it suffices to have shown that this distinguished American scholar and educator agrees with the fundamental principle of the Jesuits, namely, that religious instruction should be closely connected with the general education.

We heard that Pope Leo said all schools, from the elementary to the university, should be under the influence of religion, not only the lower schools. The student in the college and the university needs the saving and elevating influence of Christianity as well as, and perhaps even more than, the boy in the elementary course. The man who receives a higher education is to become the leader and adviser of his fellow-men. This rôle he will not assume to the benefit of society unless he possesses a thorough knowledge of religion. Otherwise he will be "a blind leader of the blind, and both shall fall into the pit." What dangers are to be apprehended if the religious instruction does not keep pace with the growth of secular knowledge, especially in natural sciences, has been well stated by a Catholic writer: "Catholics have the faith and a creed, but it is not an easy thing for men to bear up against the superciliousness with which high-sounding philosophy treats the doctrine of truth as puerile, effete, and obsolete. The young man leaves school or college with certain religious principles, and with certain ideas of the Being and attributes of God; he is intended for a profession to which physiological science is preparatory. His theological knowledge is stationary; his scientific is progressive. Life and motion he learns to trace to secondary causes, of which before he had heard nothing. He had been taught that life is a gift of God, and that it rests with Him to destroy or to save; but now he finds that life expresses but an aggregate of properties, attached to organization, and dependent for their exercise on the perfection of the organism and the presence of certain stimuli, as heat and light and electricity. His scientific knowledge grows into maturity; his religion is still that of his boyhood or youth! He has found other causes of the facts he sees, besides those that he knew before, and the conceit of knowledge and superiority hides from him the fact that these causes are themselves effects: and then he ascribes a real power to his generalizations, personifies abstractions, and deifies nature."^[47]

For this reason the Irish Jesuit Father Delaney, Rector of University College, Dublin, believes that laymen should have a scientific training in theology. "I should like," he said in his evidence before the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland, "that educated laymen should be given an opportunity of getting a scientific knowledge of their religion. At present boys leaving school find newspapers and pamphlets and reviews dealing with subjects vitally affecting Catholicity and Christianity itself, with the existence of a soul, and the existence of God, and where are these men to get the training and knowledge to enable them to meet difficulties which are suggested to them in this way?"^[48]

Indeed, it would be not only incongruous, but even scandalous, if a Christian place of higher education imparted all sorts of secular knowledge and neglected that which is the most important, the knowledge of the Christian religion. A Catholic youth, when leaving college, should be well prepared to defend his faith against the numberless misrepresentations which are prevailing among Protestants about things Catholic. Half the controversies which go on in the world arise from ignorance and misinformation; and educated laymen that are able to remove such prejudices by a correct statement of facts of history and doctrines – and numerous questions of this kind occur in social intercourse – not only vindicate the calumniated Church, but also further peace and good feeling among men of different creeds.

 

1. John 17, 3.
2. 1 Cor. 2, 2; and Col. 2, 3.
3. Lord Stanhope's Conversations with the Duke of Wellington, London, 1888, p. 180.
4. On this subject see the following recent publications: Father Poland, S. J., "True Pedagogics and False Ethics," in Am. Cath. Quart. Review, April 1899; also as separate pamphlet. – Father Campbell, S. J., "The Only True American School System," Messenger, November 1901, and the same author's article: "Moral Teaching in French Schools," ib., May 1902. – Further, Father Conway, S. J., The Respective Rights and Duties of Family, State and Church in regard to Education. New York, Pustet, 1890, pp. 34-60. – Father Cathrein, S. J., Religion und Moral, oder Gibt es eine Moral ohne Gott? Freiburg and St. Louis, Herder, 1900.
5. North American Review, January 1898, pp. 126-128. – See also the Biblical World, November 1902, p. 323.
6. New York Freeman's Journal, January 24, 1903.
7. Lehrpläne und Lehraufgaben, 1901, pp. 15-16.
8. The London Tablet, September 14, 1901.
9. See his remarks on "Boston Theology," in the sixth chapter of Christianity and Positivism.
10. Allgemeine Pädagogik (Leipzig, 1901), p. 107.
11. Fortnightly Review, May 1896, p. 808 foll.
12. Ib., p. 814.
13. Ib., p. 815.
14. The Literary Digest, August 2, 1902. – See also the Rev. Thomas B. Gregory, in the New York American and Journal, January 11, 1903.
15. The Biblical World, October 1902, p. 243 foll.
16. Ibid., pp. 243 and 246-247.
17. On this subject see the beautiful little book Chapters of Bible Study, by the Reverend H. J. Heuser (New York, 1895), especially chapter XX.
18. "Es darf doch hier auf Grund einer reichen Erfahrung nicht unerwähnt bleiben, dass namentlich die Bibel in ihrer ursprünglichen Gestalt eine grosse Gefahr für die Sittenreinheit der Jugend ist. Es ist mehrfach konstatiert worden, dass die Onanie (self-abuse) in männlichen und weiblichen Schulen durchaus zunächst sich an die Lesung von Bibelstellen angelehnt hat, deren Auswahl und Kenntnis sich traditionell unter der Jugend fortpflanzten. Man kann dieser Gefahr insofern leicht entgegentreten, als die Herstellung von Schulbibeln schon so erfolgreich geschehen ist, dass man nicht begreift, wie man noch immer die ungekürzte Bibel den Schülern in die Hände geben kann." Schiller, Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik (Leipzig, 1894, 3. ed.), pp. 171-172.
19. Reminiscences, quoted in the Fortnightly Review, May 1896, p. 814.
20. Reg. Prov. 1.
21. See above pp. 121-124.
22. "Instructio catechistica, praecipue in Humanitate et Rhetorica, sit ad praeservandam contra modernos errores juventutem accommodata" Pachtler, IV, p. 360.
23. 1 Peter 3, 15.
24. Paraenesis, art. 13.
25. Spirago's Method of Christian Doctrine. Edited by the Rt. Rev. S. G. Messmer, Bishop of Green Bay, Wis. (Benziger, N. Y., 1901.)
26. Kirchenlexikon, vol. VII, p. 310 (2nd ed.).
27. Pope Leo XIII., when still Cardinal Archbishop of Perugia, published a revised and enlarged edition of Bellarmine's Catechism. At the Vatican Council (1869-70), it was the wish of Pius IX. that a catechism, which should be essentially that of Bellarmine, should be adopted as the uniform and official catechism for the whole Catholic world. Messmer, l. c., p. 536.
28. Janssen, History of the German People, vol. I. (17th ed., p. 48 foll. – English ed., vol. I, p. 45.)
29. See Kirchenlexikon, vol. VII, p. 302. – Braunsberger, S. J., Die Catechismen des Petrus Canisius. Herder, St. Louis, Mo., 1893. – Spirago's Method, pp. 532-534. – Janssen, Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, vol. IV (15th ed.), pp. 436 foll. – It is to be regretted that there exists no English biography of this great Catholic reformer and educator. A sketch of his labors was published recently in the Dublin Review, January 1903, pp. 137-158.
30. Janssen, vol. IV, p. 445.
31. Also Chemnitz, one of the leading Reformers and a violent antagonist of Canisius, acknowledges that "the catechisms of this Jesuit are written with the greatest mildness and moderation." See his words in Braunsberger, Canisii Epistulae et Acta, vol. III, (Herder 1901) p. 811. – In many places of his numerous writings Canisius lays down his principles about controversies with the Protestants. "The "Protestants heap the most frightful calumnies upon me. Would that we loved them the better, the more they persecute us. They deserve to be loved, although they hate us, because most of them err from ignorance. I would gladly shed my blood for them if I could thereby save their souls." He exhorts his brethren and Catholics in general to avoid all bitterness in controversies; they should argue with gravity and modesty and suffer all attacks with holy patience for the love of Christ. (See Janssen, l. c., vol. IV, pp. 408-411.) – This moderation is all the more remarkable if contrasted with the shocking insults and contumelious appellations with which Canisius was loaded by his Protestant adversaries. Melanchthon calls him a "cynic." Others styled his catechism "devil's dirt," the "cursed sacrilegious book of the dog Canisius," a "heathenish work, and a product of hell." The Jesuits are styled by Chemnitz and others "scoundrels, perjurers, beasts, hell-frogs spit up by the infernal dragon, a brood of vipers born of the Babylonian...," epithets which do not bear translation here. See Janssen, l. c., pp. 411-413, 441-445.
32. Mon. Paed., p. 113. Pachtler III, 470 (no. 12), 474 (no. 6). Several other documents inculcate the same moderation and spirit of Christian charity. See Janssen, l. c., p. 411, note 1.
33. History of Education, p. 172; see above p. 252.
34. Canisii Epistulae et Acta, vol. III, p. 777.
35. Canisii Epistulae et Acta, vol. III, pp. 623-627.
36. Janssen, vol. IV, p. 437.
37. See Spirago's Method, page 530 foll., where also the shortcomings of this catechism are pointed out.
38. Duhr, Studienordnung, p. 104.
39. Ratio Docendi, chapt. I, art. 2.
40. Handbuch der praktischen Pädagogik, pp. 237-238.
41. Lehrpläne, etc., p. 11.
42. See the words of Professor Paulsen above, p. 100.
43. L. c., p. 238.
44. Fitch, Thomas and Matthew Arnold, pp. 95-96.
45. The Biblical World, November 1902, p. 324.
46. The Literary Digest, December 27, 1902.
47. Dublin Review, Jan. 1847, p. 383. – In this connection we would beg the reader to see the beautiful exposition of the same principle in Cardinal Newman's Idea of a University (pp. 372-380): "General Religious Knowledge."
48. Quoted in The Review, June 19, 1902, p. 384.