FOOTNOTES:
[149] The best for English readers are: Saint Ignatius of Loyola, by Henri Joly (London, 1899). Life of St. Ignatius, by C. Genelli. Saint Ignatius and the Early Jesuits, by Stewart Rose.
[150] Essays: “Ranke’s History of the Popes.”
[151] Encyclopedia Britannica (9th ed.), article “Jesuits.” This article teems with gross misrepresentations of the Order, and it would take a volume to refute the calumnies and the ungrounded insinuations contained therein.
[152] See The Testament of St. Ignatius. Introduction by Father Tyrrell, S. J., p. 7; and notes on pp. 60–61, 79–82, 197 foll.
[153] Harnack, What is Christianity? (New York, 1901), Lecture XIV, p. 252.—However, much of what has been written about the military character of the Society is due to a misconception. When Mr. Davidson, in his History of Education, says that “the Society of Jesus was a great military organization, a Catholic Salvation Army, with methods very much resembling those of its latest imitator,” we must call this comparison absurd. For a greater difference than that between the methods of the Society and those of the Salvation Army is scarcely conceivable, not to say a word of the vast difference of their aims.
[154] “To resist the encroachments of Protestantism, that followed the diffusion of instruction among the people, Loyola organized his teaching corps of Catholic zealots; and his mode of competition for purposes of moral, sectarian and political control has covered the earth in all Christian countries with institutions of learning.” Compayré, History of Pedagogy, p. 163.
[155] In the first approbation of the Institute, by the Brief Regimini militantis of Pope Paul III., September 27, 1540. (Cf. Litterae Apostolicae, Florentiae, 1892, p. 4.)
[156] Litterae Apostolicae, l. c., p. 44.
[157] Huber, Der Jesuiten-Orden, 1873, p. 3.
[158] Huber, l. c., p. 26.
[159] On this subject cf. Duhr, Jesuitenfabeln. (Jesuit-Myths), Herder, Freiburg, and St. Louis, 1899, (3rd edition), pp. 1–28.
[160] Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts, vol. I, p. 382. In another passage he styles the Society a Professoren-Orden.
[161] Hughes, Loyola, p. 43.
[162] It is common among non-Catholics to style the members of all religious orders “monks.” However, this popular appellation is not correct. The general term is “religious.” This word was used in this sense very early in English (v. g. by Chaucer, Troylus and Chryseyde, CIX, 759). It seems that after the Reformation, Protestants refused to honor members of religious orders with this title. J. L. Kington Oliphant, of Balliol College, Oxford, states in his work The New English (vol. I, p. 482), that “the phrase the relygyon is employed for monk’s profession, almost for the last time” between 1537 and 1540. Protestants preferred to use the word “monk”, which soon became a term of reproach. They saw in the monks the very type of laziness, uselessness, ignorance, fanaticism and profligacy. Cardinal Newman has said of this Protestant view: “As a Jesuit means a knave, so a monk means a bigot.”—The Catholic Church, as every other society, has the right to lay down its own terminology, which, we think, should be respected by all. (The term “religious” in this sense is recognized by the Standard and Century Dictionaries). The Church and all enlightened Catholics distinguish between Monks, Friars and Clerks Regular. Monks are the contemplative orders: Basilians, Benedictines, Carthusians, Cistercians and Trappists. The Friars or Mendicants were founded in the Middle Ages; they are the Dominicans, Franciscans, Carmelites and Augustinians. The Clerks Regular, or Regular Clerics, are chiefly of more recent date: The Theatines, the Jesuits etc. The difference, as regards the aim and manner of life of these classes, is well explained in The Religious State, by William Humphrey, S. J. (London, 1884, 3 vols.) vol. II, pp. 309–336. This work is a digest of the classic work on the religious state, the De Statu Religionis of the Jesuit Suarez. Father Humphrey’s digest may prove of service to all who desire to have information with regard to a salient feature of the Catholic Church.—See also the excellent articles in the Kirchen-Lexikon (Herder, 2nd ed.): “Orden,” vol. IX, 972; “Mönchthum,” vol. VIII, 1689; “Bettelorden,” vol. II, 561; “Clerici regulares,” vol. III, 530.
[163] Much of what Luther said on the subject of vows, as well as of matrimony, does not bear translation. See Janssen, Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker, pp. 93–97. Professor Paulsen indignantly repudiates the vile calumnies of the humanists against the religious orders. He points out that the writings of many humanists exhibit a licentiousness which would have made most religious throw these books aside with utter disgust. Some Protestant critics severely blamed the Berlin Professor for this defence of the outlawed monks. Professor Ziegler even accused him that, in alliance with Janssen and Denifle, he endeavored to restore the old Catholic fable convenue. Professor Paulsen answers this charge of his co-religionists by saying that he is entirely free from any such tendency. “I do not want to restore or maintain any fables, neither Catholic nor Protestant; but I wish, as far as possible, to see things as they are. It is true, this endeavor has led me to doubt whether the renaissance and its apostles deserve all the esteem, and the representatives of medieval education all the contempt which, up to this day, has been bestowed on them.” L. c., vol. I, p. 89.
[164] Taylor, The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages, (New York, Macmillan 1900), p. 182.
[165] What is Christianity?, p. 266.
[166] The Classical Heritage of the Middle Ages, p. 142.
[167] What is Christianity?, p. 288.
[168] The Life of St. Chrysostom, by Dr. Neander. Translated from the German by the Rev. J. C. Stapleton, London 1845, p. 92.
[169] Ibid., p. 37.
[170] Historical Sketches, vol. II, pp. 365–366.
[171] Newman, Historical Sketches, vol. II, pp. 420–26; 452.
[172] De Religione Societatis Jesu.—See the digest of the work in The Religious State, by W. Humphrey, S. J., vol. III, p. 167.
[173] Many interesting details on this subject have been published in a recent book by Reicke, Lehrer und Unterrichtswesen in der deutschen Vergangenheit, Leipzig, Diederichs, 1901. Summary in Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, 1902, vol. X, pp. 295–296.—See also Paulsen, Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts (2nd ed.), vol. I, pp. 326–333; 362.
[174] L. c., p. 296.
[175] Paulsen, Geschichte des gel. Unt., l. c., p. 327.
[176] Ib., p. 296.
[177] Professor Paulsen states that the Jesuit teachers changed also rather frequently; but every Jesuit had to teach at least four or five years after the completion of his philosophical course, and very many returned to the colleges after their theological studies. Hence there was incomparably more stability in Jesuit colleges than in most Protestant schools of those times.
[178] See for instance the Contemporary Review, March, 1900, p. 441, where it is plainly stated by a writer most hostile to the religious orders, that the “religious teachers do their work efficiently and successfully, their rivals with a degree of slovenliness which is incredible.” See further testimonies below, chapter VII.
[179] Atlantic Monthly, May 1901, p. 628. However, this feature is not confined to American schools. Within the last few years serious complaints begin to be heard also in Germany. There is even a serious danger apprehended for the higher schools. The commercial spirit has invaded Germany, and young men are not anxious to enter on a career which is perhaps the most fatiguing of all and offers the fewest chances for advancement. See Dr. Wermbter, Die höhere Schullaufbahn in Preussen, 1901; Dr. Schröder: Periculum in Mora, 1901.—Of the French teachers M. Bréal, Professor of the Collège de France, said as early as 1879: “Les maîtres d’études sont, généralement, des jeunes gens qui acceptent de fatigantes et difficiles fonctions pour avoir le loisir de se préparer à un emploi plus relevé, ... personnes sans expérience pédagogique, dont la pensée et l’activité sont tournées vers les examens qui les attendent.... Je ne crains pas d’être contredit si j’affirme que l’autorité leur manque pour être les éducateurs que nous cherchons.” Du Lac, Jésuites, p. 280.
[180] Political influence has repeatedly been pointed out as another cause that deters able men in this country from school work. “It seems to be true that high schools have not been able to attract the best men into their service, because appointments in them must be sought usually through avenues of political influence.” Educational Review, May, 1902, p. 506. See also President Draper, in Education in the United States, vol. I, pp. 13, 16, 29; and Mr. Anderson’s article “Politics in the Public Schools,” Atlantic Monthly, April, 1901.
[181] In Illinois and other states the same has been proved. Mr. McBurney wrote quite recently in the Ohio Teacher that the average life of the country teacher is not over three years. See The Review, St. Louis, October 2, 1902, p. 601.
[182] Report of the Com. of Education, 1892–93, vol. I, p. 545; see also pp. 565 and 586.
[183] From the Protestant Tägliche Rundschau of Berlin, Sept. 28, 1899.
[184] I. Corinth. 7, 33.
[185] Matth. 19, 11, 12.
[186] Educational Reformers, p. 532.
[187] Albert Duruy in Revue des Deux-Mondes, Jan. 1, 1880.
[188] Contra Impugnantes Dei Cultum et Religionem. Edition of Parma, 1864, vol. XV. Opusculum I. See The Life and Labors of St. Thomas Aquinas, by Roger Bede Vaughan, O. S. B., 1871, vol. I, pp. 625–726.
[189] See also Summa Theol., 2., 2., qu. 188, a. 5.
[190] Thomas and Matthew Arnold, p. 97.
[191] Geschichte des gel. Unt., pp. 628–629 (2. ed., vol. II, p. 390).
[192] Hughes, Loyola, p. 55.
[193] Saint Ignatius, by H. Joly, p. 217.
[194] Encyclopedia Britannica, article “Jesuits”.
[195] See Duhr, Jesuitenfabeln (3rd ed.), pp. 76–102.—The Month (London), August 1901, pp. 176–185: The Jesuit Bogey and the Monita Secreta; and especially Reiber, Monita Secreta, Augsburg, 1902.
[196] First Rule of the Provincial.
[197] Der Jesuiten-Orden, p. 348.—Compayré repeats this charge: “The Jesuits have deliberately neglected and disdained primary education.” Hist. of Ped., p. 142.
[198] Constitut., P. IV, c. 12, Declaratio C.—The XX. General Congregation, 1820, when asked whether elementary schools should be admitted, reverted to this passage of the Constitutions: “Such schools are not excluded by our Institute, on the contrary, it is said in the Constitutions that such teaching is a work of charity. But the dearth of men is to be taken into consideration, and care must be taken not to hinder greater good through this (admission of elementary schools). The whole matter is left to the prudence of the Provincials, who have to see what is expedient according to place and circumstances.” Decr. XXI. Pachtler, vol. I, p. 107.
[199] Pachtler, vol. I, p. 74. (Decr. VIII.)
[200] Monumenta Paedagogica, 1902, p. 108.
[201] See below chapter VII.
[202] Const., P. IV, cap. XIII. Decl. A.