There was, as far as I can ascertain, only one Jesuit writer who ranged himself prominently on the side of Abbé Gaume in this controversy.[1] The Jesuits, as a body, "the greatest of all educational communities," as a writer at the time called them,[2] stood up for the defence of the classics. They did not deny that the classics contained dangerous elements, which could work evil in men of bad hearts, or weak heads. But they thought that it was the vicious organization of the individual, or a pernicious system of teaching, as that of many humanists, that extracted the poison from the classics and rejected the sound aliment of intellectual food contained in the ancient literature. This danger cannot exist for all, and it can be effectively remedied by wise teaching. As the afore-mentioned writer declared, "put education into proper hands, and the greatest step [towards obviating
- ↑ La Natura e la Grazia, Rome 1865. – The fact that this Jesuit publicly opposed the views held generally by his fellow-religious, may furnish material for an important reflection. It is so often asserted that the Jesuits have to follow, like humble sheep, a certain system or set of opinions prescribed for them, and that any utterance of individual views is practically excluded. The whole history of the Order proves the contrary. Even in theological opinions, as Cardinal Newman said, the Order is not over-zealous about its traditions, or it would not suffer its great writers to be engaged in animated controversies with one another. (Historical Sketches, vol. II, p. 369.) We shall have more to say on this subject in chapter XV, when we treat of the training of the Jesuit teacher. Whenever the Jesuits as a body defend certain opinions, they do so on the intrinsic strength of the arguments for these opinions, not for the extrinsic reason of a tradition of their Order.
- ↑ Dublin Review, December 1852, p. 322.
