By Father Myron J Pereira
For four centuries at least, from the Council of Trent (1565) to Vatican II (1965), the Society of Jesus — better known as the Jesuits — dominated the spiritual and intellectual life of the Church.
Their contribution was two-fold: in the field of doctrinal theology, and in the area of popular religiosity. In the latter, for example, we may cite the phenomenal spread of the devotion to the Sacred Heart, and the Sodality movement.
This should not distract us from the intellectual contributions of the Jesuits to the secular sciences, as in the work of Christopher Clavius (1538-1612), and Athanasius Kirchner (1602-1680).
The seminary system
A major contribution of the Council of Trent was the seminary system, whereby young men were trained to become priests through specialized courses in public speaking, philosophy, and theology. (Before this innovation, a young man “apprenticed” himself to his local parish priest).
The Jesuits had invented this system, parallel to the schools they also ran, and soon each diocese in Europe clamored for a seminary, run by the Jesuits.
The 15th century also saw the birth of an invention that revolutionized communication: Gutenberg’s printing press.
Under Jesuit inspiration, the press also gave rise to the textbook, for use in Jesuit schools; and the catechism, widely disseminated in Jesuit parishes. These innovations are still in use today.
The early Society had a thriving intellectual life, not just in its colleges (actually “high schools”), but also among ordinary Catholics, who flocked to hear its sermons, begged to “make a retreat,” and eagerly read its tracts and pamphlets.
In India and China
And all this was carried out not just in Europe, but wherever the Jesuit sense of mission led them — to North and South America, and to the lands of Asia as well.
China and India were their particular fields.
Spurred on by their motto, “for God’s greater glory,” the Society of Jesus left a definite imprint on the intellectual history of the modern world, and on this country.
However, this article is not just an account of the Jesuits’ glorious past, but also a look at the present. Does the Society of Jesus live up to its name with regard to its intellectual contributions, or has it changed?
For this, we need to take a good look at contemporary India and the Jesuit’s place in it.
To the newcomer, the first impression in India is the overwhelming success of Jesuit schools and colleges, nay, their very varied educational institutions. In almost every region of the country, they are the most prestigious, and thus the most imitated.
All of us have experienced the transforming effects of education, but it has taken the genius of a Paolo Freire to remind us that schools and colleges also stand for ways in which a society acculturates us to its values, stifling criticism and promoting acquiescence.
Is this also the case for Jesuit education in India today? India is one of the most oppressively unequal societies in the world. Do Jesuit schools perpetuate this inequality?
Is there space for the Jesuit intellectual who will question, criticize, research and offer new insights to transform society, as his founder once did 400 years ago?
This in brief is the question before us as we enquire into the intellectual life of Jesuits in India.
Who is an intellectual?
At the outset, let’s understand just who an intellectual is, and here’s a helpful description:
An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection about the reality of society, and who proposes solutions for its normative problems.
Coming from the world of culture, the intellectual participates in the public life of society, either to defend a concrete proposition, to denounce an injustice, or to uphold a system of values.
This is an adequate definition of an intellectual. Does it apply to most Jesuits? The answer is no, it does not.
Pastoral motivation
The average Jesuit is pastorally motivated, and not academically or scholastically inclined. Much less is he disposed “to reflect about the reality of society, and propose solutions for its normative problems,” desirable as we may think this to be.
What is this “pastoral motivation” we refer to? We refer to “the helping professions” (teaching, counseling, family guidance) so much part of the priest’s ministry, and within the context of liturgical devotions, all within the objective of making people better.
Here in fact is where we find the largest investment of the Society, and here is where most of the early companions of Ignatius — men like Francis Xavier, Peter Faber and Peter Canisius distinguished themselves.
Pastors transform society from within, through persuasion, not by confrontation or argument.
Ignatius Loyola himself set great store by the “art of conversation,” whereby one led another to deeper levels of spirituality by the inspired use of words.
But valuable as the pastoral life is, what concerns us in this article is the intellectual life in the Society, and how seriously it takes critical reflection, scholarly research and transformative vision.
And it’s here that we meet our first stumbling block.
An ideology of obedience, not of dissent
The Society of Jesus has been largely a force for the Establishment, and not for the poor and subaltern classes in society.
This is not to say that Jesuits have not worked with the poor and the marginalized — they have, and they have done sterling work.
Consider for example Peter Claver’s (d. 1654) work with the slaves and Jesuit mission to the indigenous peoples — from the Paraguay reductions (1609-1767) to the Canadian missions to the Huron (1634-55) to Fathers Lievens and Hoffmann in (what is today) Jharkhand (19th c.).
The reason why our ideology is pro-Establishment is because of our unswerving — should that be “unthinking”? — loyalty to the pope and the Vatican (“You have to be a pope to realize the value of the Jesuits” — Pius XI).
Ours is an ideology of obedience, not of dissent. No matter how free-thinking they may appear to be, Jesuits are not Protestants.
Why do I say “unthinking” loyalty? Because we have never subjected the Vatican and its structures to a critique of accountability.
But how could we demand accountability, considering that in essence, our juridical structures are feudal, not modern and democratic? When I say “feudal,” I mean that our governance is based on the “divine right” of superiors to dictate what must be done, and if accountability is sought, it is demanded of the subject to the superior — not vice versa.
No superior, no provincial, no bishop is ever held accountable to his subjects, whether individually or to the community.
But the whole structure of modern democratic society is based on criteria of freedom, equality and accountability. Wherever Jesuits appropriate these values, it makes for tensions.
Thus, it is often asked: is perhaps Jesuit obedience in actuality a form of conformism, without anyone having the courage to dissent?
Reviewing Jesuit formation
For example: in the 1980s, the Society in South Asia engaged in a long and thorough discussion on Jesuit formation. It was agreed that formation was meant for mission, that is, geared to training for various forms of ministry.
One of the decisions taken was to have one’s theological formation in the local language, and in a local setting, not in a big house of formation. In other words, in a “regional theologate.” A change of place meant interaction with the lives of the poor, and dialogue with several local groups, something quite new.
The teaching staff in the big houses of formation felt nervous that an emancipatory agenda would be changing too much, too soon. They were unsure whether young Jesuits would measure up. The new plan was quietly sabotaged.
True, for some years, this new system was put into effect, but the misgivings kept growing. Today, 20 years later, there is no “regional theologate” in existence, save one in Tamil Nadu.
The intellectual life and ideology
Jesuit formation has not been geared for critical thinking, research and reflection on the actual state of the country. This is because educators in formation houses, colleges and schools have been forming their students (and Jesuits among them) by segregating them from real life.
As a result, what takes place is indoctrination and not education. (Indoctrination takes place when one is forbidden to question the “status quo”). Jesuit institutions prepare people to take their place in the establishment, instead of critically questioning its structures, and resisting them, if necessary.
Have we been taken in by power, privilege and prestige, and failed to be gripped by issues of marginalization, impoverishment and exclusion? This is the question.
Transformation does not take place in a culture of conformity but in a culture of questioning, disagreement and dissent. This is the real task of the intellectual.
The intellectual class on the whole, both within and outside the Jesuit society in the country, has not been able to tie up with the aspirations of the marginalized in Indian society.
Not even with groups who have the interests of the marginalized at heart, because our formation does not take place in dialogue with them.
Can one speak of the intellectual life in India without the ideological dimension?
Ideologies are related to building consciousness and providing power, so all ideologies tend to be political. An ideology raises questions about who has power, why one group has so much power as to control the majority, and how the powerless are to be empowered.
If our mission is to empower the poor, and so transform them, we cannot do that without an ideological dimension. Why do Jesuits shy away from these vital questions?
And if Jesuits do not do this, then who will? – UCA News
*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official editorial position of UCA News.
