Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 14.djvu/130

 SOCIETY

106

SOCIETY

to be most careful not to incline the exercitant more to one object of choice than to another (Annot. 15).

It is notoriously impossible to expect that anti- Jesuit writers of our day should face their subject in a common-sense or scientific manner. If they did, one would point out that the only rational manner of inquiring into the subject would be to approach the persons under discussion (who are after aU very approachable) and to see whether they are character- less, as they are reported to be. Another easy test would be to turn to the hves of their great missionaries Brebeuf, Marquette, Silveira, etc. Any men more unhke "mere machines" it would be impossible to conceive. The Society's successes in education con- firm the same conclusion. It is true that lately, as a preparatory measure to closing its schools by violence, the French anti-Jesuits asserted both in print and in the Chamber that Jesuit education pro- duced mere pawns, spiritless, unenterprising nonen- tities. But the real reason was notoriously that the pupils of the Jesuit schools were exceptionally suc- cessful at the examinations for entrance as officers into the army, and proved themselves the bravest and most vigorous men of the nation. In a contro- verted matter Like this, the most obvious proof that the Society's education fits its pupils for the battle of life is found in the constant readiness of parents to entrust their children to the Jesuits even when, from a merely worldly point of view, there seemed to be many reasons for holding back. (A discussion of this matter, from a French standpoint, will be found in Brou, op. cit. infra, II, 409; Tampe in "Etudes", Paris, 1900, pp. 77, 749.) It is hardly necessary to add that methods of school discipline will naturally differ greatly in different countries. The Society would certainly prefer to observe mutatis mutandis its well-tried "Ratio Studiorum"; but it is far from thinking that local customs (as for instance those which regard surveillance) and external dis- ciphne should everywhere be uniform.

(2) Another objection akin to the supposed hostility to freedom is the alleged Kulturfeindlichkeit, hostiUty to what is cultured and intellectual. This cry has been chiefly raised by those who scornfully reject CathoUc theology as dogmatism, who scoff at Catho- Uc philosophy as Scholastic, and at the Church's insistence on Biblical inspiration as retrograde and unscholarly. Such men make httle account of work for the ignorant and the poor, whether at home or on the missions, they speak of evangelical poverty, of practices of penance and of mortification, as if they were debasing and retrograde. They compare their numerous and richly endowed universities with the few and relatively poor seminaries of the Cathohc and the Jesuit, and their advances in a multitude of physical sciences with the intellectual timidity (as they think it) of those whose highest ambition it is not to go beyond the limits of theological orthodoxy. The Jesuits, they say, are the leaders of the Kidtur- feindliche; their great object is to bolster up anti- quated traditions. They have produced no geniu.ses, while men whom they trained, and who broke loose from their teaching, Pascal, Descartes, Voltaire, have powerfully affected the philosophical and religious beliefs of large masses of mankind; but respectable mediocrity is the brand on the long lists of the Jesuit names in the catalogues of Alcganilie and de Backer. Under Bismarck and M. WaMeck-Kousseau arguments of this sort were accompanied by decrees of banish- ment and confiscation of goods.

This objection springs chiefly from prejudice — rehgious, worldly, or national. The Cathohc will think rather better than worse of men who are decried and iiersecuted on grounds which apply to the whole Church. It is true the modern Jes\iit's school is often smaller and poorer than the establishment of hia rival, who at times is ensconced in the acadi'iny

which the Jesuits of previous times succeeded in founding and endowing. It is not to be questioned that the sum total of learned institutions in the hands of non-Catholics is now greater than those in the hands of our co-religionists, but the love of culture surely is not extinguished in the exiled French, German, or Portuguese Jesuit, who, robbed perhaps of all he possesses, at once settles down again to his task of study, of writing, or of education. Very rare are the cases where Jesuits, living among enter- prising people, have acquiesced in educational inferiority. For superiority to others, even in sacred learning, the Society does not and should not contend. In their own line, that is in Catholic theology, philos- ophy, and exegesis, they would hope that they are not inferior to the level of their generation, and that, far from acquiescing in intellectual inferiority, thej- aim at making their schools as good as circumstances allow them. They may also claim to have trained many good scholars in almost every science.

The objection that Jesuit teachers do not influence masses of mankind, while men like Descartes and Voltaire, after breaking with Jesuit education, have done so, derives its force from passing over the main work of the Jesuits, which is the salvation of souls, and any lawful means that helps to this end, as, for instance, the maintenance of orthodoxy. It is easy to overlook this, and those who object will perhaps despise it, even if they recognize it. The work is not showy, whereas that of the satirist, the iconoclast, and free-lance compels attention. Avoiding compari- sons, it is safe to say that the Je-suits have done much to maintain the teaching of orthodoxy, and that the orthodox far outnumber the followers of men like Voltaire and Descartes.

It would be impossible, from the nature of the case, to devise any satisfactory test to show what love of culture, especially of intellectual culture, there was in a body so diversified and scattered as the Society. Many might be applied, and one of the most teUing is the regularity with which every test reveals refine- ment and studiousness somewhere in its ranks, even in poor and distant foreign missions. To some it will seem significant that the pope, when searching for theologians and consultors for various Roman colleges and congregations, should so frequently select Jesuits, a relatively smaU body, some thirty or forty per cent of whose members are employed in foreign missions or among the poor of our great towns. The periodicals edited by the Jesuits, of which a list is given below, afford another indication of culture, and a favourable one, though it is to be remembered that these publications are wTitten chieflj- with a view of popularizing knowledge. The more serious and learned books must be studied separately. The most striking test of all is that offered by the great Jesuit bibliography of Father Sommervogel, showing over 120,000 writers, and an almost endless list of books, pamphlets, and editions. There is no other body in the world which can point to such a monu- ment. Cavillers may say that the brand-mark is "respectable mediocrity"; even so, the value of the whole will be very remarkable, and we may be sure that less prejudiced and therefore better judges will form a higher appreciation. Masterpieces, too, in every field of ecclesiastical learning and in several secular branches are not rare.

The statement that the Society has produced few geniuses is not impressive in the mouths of those who have not studied, or are unable to study or to judge, the writers under discussion. Again the objection, whatever its worth, confuses two ideals. Educational bodies must necessarily train by cla.'ises and schools and jiroduce men formed on definite lines. Genius on the other hand is independent of training and does not conform to t>T3e. It is unrea.sonable to reproach a missionary or educational system for not possessing