What they do produce is generally a rather naïve reproduction of Western ideas at second-hand.[1]
But the Uniates are taught by Western Latins; their schools and seminaries are conducted on the same lines as ours; they learn their theology from the same textbooks as are used in our colleges in the West. There is no question that the Uniate clergy have had an immeasurably better education than the others. In this matter they have every advantage from their union with the more highly developed West. Even in the detail of language the Uniates have the advantage. Most of them know at least some Latin, many can talk quite good French. This opens to them vast fields of knowledge, closed to the schismatics who know nothing but Arabic. It would be an exaggeration to say that the average Uniate priest is quite up to the level of the average Latin priest. But, at least, he is far in advance of the schismatic. He has received at any rate a fair general education on Western lines,[2] and has gone through a course of theology from Western books. The schismatic generally has had no education, and has learned no theology at all. As a simple test of this, ask priests in the Levant about the great questions which lie beneath their differences, about Nestorianism, Monophysism, the idea of the Church and the Papacy. You will not find one Uniate who is not able to give you a general, fairly accurate, if perhaps rather old-fashioned
- ↑ There are, of course, degrees in this, and qualifications to be made in so general a statement. The Russian Church has good theological schools and many excellent scholars. Perhaps Greeks and Armenians come second, inasmuch as they have a few scholars who have been to foreign (generally German Protestant) universities. But the average level of their clergy is not high. That of the Jacobites, Copts, Abyssinians, is very low indeed.
- ↑ It is becoming a commonplace to decry the idea of giving Western education to Eastern people. There is undoubtedly much truth in this protest. A mechanical, unintelligent reproduction of our schools in the East would do more harm than good. On the other hand, there are many things that our schools have, and native Eastern schools lack, which are unmixed advantages in any school. A discipline which is both firm and kind, above all, uniform systematic teaching from well-arranged textbooks, a high tone about truthfulness, honesty, and chastity — these are Western notes; yet they are good for any school. To defend slackness of tone, a discipline which is the arbitrary whim of masters, alternately lax and cruel, desultory teaching with bad textbooks or none in Eastern schools because these things are "Eastern," would be to overdo a principle which has some truth in it. The ideal is to adapt our methods intelligently, being always ready to see and allow for Eastern qualities; and this is what is done in all good Western schools in the Levant, both Catholic and Protestant.
