Chapter 2

The wound in the right hand of holy Church:
the insufficient education of the clergy

24. Preaching and the liturgy were the two great schools open to the christian people in the finest period of the history of the Church. Through preaching, the faithful were taught by the word; in the liturgy, by words and rites, especially by the sacrifice and sacraments to which their divine Founder united certain supernatural effects.

Both forms of instruction were complete. They were destined for the whole person rather than for one element in human nature; and in penetrating human beings they conquered them. Words were not intended only for intellectual understanding, nor were symbols restricted in their action to the senses alone. By way of mind and senses, words and symbols touched the heart and infused christians with a mysterious, divine feeling, superior to everything created.

Like the grace which was its source, this feeling was all-powerful in its operation. The words used in preaching the gospel came from holy men who poured upon their listeners their own overflowing spiritual abundance; the rites, already efficacious of themselves, were made more fruitful by the honest and good heart of the faithful who had been prepared for the salvation they brought by the preaching of their pastors and a clear understanding of everything done to them and by them in the Church.

Priests came from the midst of christians such as these. They were formed for the honour of ministering in the Church by instruction equal to their faith, which they had absorbed together with the rest of the faithful in prayer when God visited his people with grace. It was this kind of teaching which revealed religion in all its fullness to their understanding and intimate feeling. If we were informed only about the faithful and their assemblies in the first days of the Church, we could easily describe their priests.

This helps to explain certain episodes that seem incredible nowadays. For instance, a crowd appeals for a layman as pastor and within a few days, despite his initial refusal, he becomes a proven bishop. Thus in ancient days St. Ambrose, St. Alexander, St. Martin and St. Peter Chrysologus were amongst the many examples of men suddenly elevated to the episcopate from a humble lay state, from a hidden life or from a life devoted to secular responsibility. Set on a candlestick quite unexpectedly, their splendour gave light to the whole Church

25. By the same standard, our own clergy are no better than our faithful. Generally speaking, it cannot be otherwise. They come from amongst christians who have never understood anything of the sacred ceremonies. As uncomprehending onlookers these christians have been present at spectacles in which the part played by priests is obscure to them. Perhaps they have never had any feeling for their own dignity as members of the Church, nor imagined or experienced the union in one body and one spirit in which clergy and people, prostrate before almighty God, relate with him and he with them. Many perhaps have considered the clergy privileged and enviable because priests live on the fruit of their ministry; perhaps they have thought of priests as superiors exercising their function in the same detached way as other rulers, rather than as a nobler part of the Body of Christ. It would not have occurred to them as lay people that they are lesser members, but nevertheless members, of this one Body which merits by a single action, prays with a single voice, offers a single sacrifice and obtains from heaven a single grace. Hence we hear it said that church affairs are the priests' business.

How can we begin to instruct and form in a truly outstanding, priestly tradition such ill-prepared candidates? They are ignorant of basic elements that should be presumed present in them as suitable for further development. When such individuals come forward, they have no idea of the kind of knowledge required of priests, no idea of what they themselves desire in becoming priests, no idea of what they are about to undertake as candidates for the priesthood.

26. Even worse is the way in which such lack of preparation is camouflaged in aspirants for priestly education. Solid ground is the basis of all building, and this is especially true of priestly knowledge which supposes a christian existence. The first grade of priesthood is in fact the christian himself. This explains the complete lack of ecclesial understanding in candidates for the priesthood, and their clear grasp of worldly ideas; they have never known anything else. Moreover, the worldly spirit, concealed by their good behaviour, that they bring with their secular ideas is disguised for a time by their clerical dress. Superiors are fooled, and cannot see that this is insufficient for the Church of Christ, who has come to fill everything with himself, especially the minds of priests destined to know and make known to others the grandeur of a religion that has to conquer and save all mankind.

The poverty and misery of ideas and feelings which form the preparation and training of modern ecclesiastics produces priests ignorant of the nature of christian laity, of christian priesthood and of the sacred bond between them. Ministers with petty hearts and narrow minds, they grow up as priests and leaders of churches, educating priests weaker and baser than themselves. In their turn these become fathers amd teachers of others who necessarily sink lower with every generation, because a "disciple is not above his master" (1) until God in his compassionate mercy comes to the aid of his beloved Church (2).

27. Only great men can form great men. This is another merit of education offered to priests in earlier ages; they were taught by the best men the Church possessed. The opposite is the second reason for the insufficient education of modern priests.

In the first centuries the bishop's home was the seminary for priests and deacons. The holy life and presence of the leader of the Church was a continual, sublime and burning lesson during which the bishop's learning and pastoral practice were imparted together. Bishops like Alexander had candidates like the young Athanasius; men like Sixtus educated heroes like Laurence. Almost every great bishop trained a worthy successor in his own household - someone who would inherit his piety, his fervour and his wisdom. This kind of instruction produced the great pastors who adorned the first six centuries of the Church. Such teaching was broad and complete, and ensured the handing on of the sacred deposit of divine, apostolic doctrine made known orally through family tradition. Instruction itself was apostolic because men like Irenaeus, Pantaenus, Hermas and many others had drawn their wisdom from the disciples of the apostles, just as these - Evodius, Clement, Timothy, Titus, Ignatius and Polycarp are examples - had been educated at the feet of the apostles themselves, to use a scriptural phrase.

Christians believed in grace, and believed that the words of a pastor established as teacher and ruler of the Church by Christ received particular, unique efficacy from the Church's Founder. Faith like this gave backbone and supernatural life to the teaching of doctrine indelibly impressed in the spirit. Everything co-operated to make the teaching effective: the eloquence with which it was imparted, holiness of life, serenity and seriousness in daily living, the deep conviction of the great man who unfolded it.

Irenaeus has left us a description of his own initial training under the great bishop Polycarp. "I remember much better what happened then than what has occurred since. The things we learn in infancy and grow up with in spirit are never forgotten. I can even point to the place where blessed Polycarp sat when he preached the Word of God. I remember vividly the gravity with which he moved from place to place, his sanctity in everything he did, the dignity of his features and bearing, the many exhortations he preached to his people. I can almost hear the way in which he described his conversations with St. John and others who had seen Jesus Christ. He would relate the words he had heard from their lips, and the details they had given him about our divine Saviour, and his miracles and teaching. All that he said was in complete harmony with the holy Scriptures, as we would expect from persons who had been eye-witnesses of the Word and of the message of life. Through God's mercy I listened attentively and fervently to all these things, and inscribed them not on tablets but in the depth of my heart. God has given me the grace to remember them always, and to meditate on them in spirit" (3).

28. This was the type of wise, efficacious, ministerial education imparted by holy bishops to develop their own clergy. As a result there was a constant supply of great men, conscious of their sacred dignity as priests and replete with their priesthood. It is not necessary to indicate how such training gave birth to intense unity between the chief pastor and his disciples, his children, who formed his clergy. "Higher" or "lower clergy" were terms unknown in the Church at this time, and only came into use much later. In olden days bishops were responsible for the unity of learning, communication of holiness, a common way of life, and affection amongst the younger clergy for whose sake their own constant renewal fitted them to be teachers, pastors and fathers.

Union of this kind led to admirable order and uniformity in the government of the Church, respect for the priesthood, and the exercise of saving power over the people. Selected and educated under this system, even a small body of clergy was enough for the needs of the Church. A simple priest was held in greatest honour by his accession to the priesthood and, by his presence amongst the clergy at the call of his bishop (4), received fitting consideration from people and churches. Traditional, broadly based respect for the priesthood increased respect for the episcopate, while priests naturally felt themselves bound by affective submission to their bishops (5).

29. We should not be surprised to find that these holy bishops jealously reserved the education of the clergy for themselves. Even the instruction of the people was confided to others only with great difficulty, and very rarely (6). Bishops were aware that Christ had entrusted to them the whole flock, clergy and people together, and had filled them with his word, directing their sacramental character principally towards mission and grace.

30. The religion of Jesus crucified conquered tyrants and heretics by the formation of sensitive and virtuous clergy but it was destined by its invisible Head for an equally glorious victory over the invading barbarians. As I have indicated, Providence sent barbarians from the north to destroy ancient society from its foundations. The world at large could thus grasp the power of Christ's word to survive the destruction of empires and of all human endeavour, to revitalise buried cadavers, and to recreate ruined society in a manner worthy of Providence itself.

Human beings are social by nature, and the experience of total division, with its consequent degradation, solitude, helplessness and despair, blots out all hope of survival. Instinctively people turn to religion and the aid of the supernatural as their final safeguard; religion provides the hope they need for complete revival in the midst of total disaster because this hope is as powerful as God himself. Hence we see feeling for religion precede the development of every social instrument and institution, and survive their destruction. Religion is pre-eminent at the birth of nations, and at their revival from disintegration. In this way every culture and all social bonds are the offspring of religion as nations come into being.

This providential disposition, by which nations are saved, prepared the way in due time, that is in the middle ages, for christendom. The one, true religion was to be in no way inferior in its action to false, imperfect religions which, despite their restricted vision of truth, had nevertheless been of great assistance in the development of social bonds and progress amongst nations. True religion, possessing complete truth, pure and full revelation, and redeeming power would indeed far surpass in its social effects all that imperfect religion had achieved.

In the midst of their tremendous disasters, therfore, nations fled for help to the religion in which they had already recognised such superiority in spiritual and divine matters, but now for the first time they asked for assistance at a human level. The universal mother of the faithful answered the appeal with her innate charity and became comfort, shield and organiser of devasted, despairing peoples.

The clergy, without knowing how it came about, found themselves at the head of these peoples. Having answered charity's irresistible call to help crumbling society, the clergy became against all expectations the fathers of orphaned cities and rulers of abandoned public affairs. The Church was suddenly flooded with worldly honours and riches flowing in of their own accord, like an ocean pouring in through newly opened gaps in the sea wall.

31. The new work undertaken by the clergy in the sixth century was a tremendous burden to holy bishops who beheld the Church groaning under the weight of earthly goods as it lost the precious poverty so highly recommended by the early Fathers (7). At the same time, bishops themselves were overwhelmed by worldly business which distracted them from divine contemplation, requiring valuable time and energy previously devoted to preaching Christ's message to the faithful, to training the clergy, and to public and private prayer.

St. Gregory the Great, who ruled the Church during this period, was inconsolable at the sight of the dangers he saw necessarily accompanying the new career opening before the Church. His letters refer constantly to his unhappiness about the circumstances which led him to act as acarius, or treasurer to the emperor, rather than as bishop, and "under the flag of church government to be tossed about and often submerged by the waves of the world" (8). This phrase is often repeated, and is used in a letter to Theoctista, sister of the emperor Maurice, where Gregory wishes to impress on her his own unhappiness at losing the peace he had enjoyed as a monk before becoming pope.

"Dressed as a bishop", he says, "I have returned to the world. Modern conditions subject me in my pastoral duty (9) to more cares than I ever had in my life as a layman. The delight I enjoyed in my retired life has vanished; promoted, or so it seems from an onlooker's point of view, I have been inwardly demoted. I weep for my loss of the vision of the Creator. Every day I tried to separate myself from the world and the flesh, to eliminate the fantasies that attracted my imagination, and to behold the joy of heaven. From the depths of my heart I longed for God, and cried out: 'My heart says to you: My face has sought you. Your face, Lord, do I seek' (Ps 26) [Ps 27, 9]. Without desire or fear for anything in this world, I seemed to tower over everything created. I almost believe that the Lord's promise through his prophet had been fulfilled in me: 'I will make you ride upon the heights of the earth' (Is 58). With business concluded I want to return within, but find my way barred by my own yapping thoughts. What is within has distanced itself from me, and made it impossible for me to obey the cry of the prophet: 'Return to me with all your heart' (Ps 38) [Joel 2, 12]."

Gregory complains at length because: "earthly business makes it impossible for me not only to preach about the Lord's miracles, but even to meditate upon them." The worry he undergoes from worldly affairs undermines the unworldly glory of his position as bishop, and he is now amongst those of whom it is said: "You did set them in slippery places; you made them fall into ruin" (Ps 72) [Ps 73, 17] (10).

32. This, however, was the method used by Providence to achieve its aim of bringing the religion of Christ into human society, or rather of creating a new, christian society. And Providence is never betrayed by events. The christian religion entered all components of society in the middle ages, and used them to administer balm to gangrenous wounds. Mankind, devastated and prostrate after centuries of disaster, acquired new courage and new life. The religion brought into the world by Christ became a mother to ancient humanity, which beheld itself rejuvenated after the round of long, cruel trials to which it had been subject. She educated her new offspring, born of her divine love. A new seed was sown which blossomed into the modern institutions of our civilisation.

This seed is social justice, unheard of in the ancient world, but essentially christian and always resplendent despite the unceasing attempts by human passion to overshadow it. In fact, the great King has dedicated his Providence to preserving his work. The aim of Providence, which has everything at its disposition, is simple: the greater glory of the Beloved of God, and the sublime destiny of the kingdom he has heroically conquered.

The result was what might have been expected: the rulers of the new nations forming the offspring of the gospel perceived the power of this religion which had established their new states, and consecrated their crowns to it. They themselves thus became unheard-of examples of christian virtue. As a result the middle ages was a period in which almost every throne in Europe had a saint as sovereign. The highest glory of these men was to be children and tributaries of the Church. Their entire life was dedicated to understanding how to temper ferocious power with the meekness of the gospel which had been preached by the bishops, and which they took as the source of equity in law and of devout piety in government. But this is also the reason why the clergy were sinking to utter corruption as rulers were ascending to greater holiness.

33. The clergy began their involvement in worldly affairs reluctantly, and easily lost heart when burdened with temporalities. However, they soon grew used to them - the clergy were human - and to secular business. New to this kind of existence and still lacking the cunning to protect themselves from the dangers inherent in the work, they gradually lost the meek, spiritual behaviour proper to pastoral government. Its place was taken only too soon by the ferocity and materialism proper to secular governments. The clergy were happy to share the company of the rich, and to imitate their way of life.

From that moment they lost all satisfaction with the little flock of Christ, and dedicated themselves eagerly to political and economic administration. They had no difficulty in finding reasons for persuading themselves that these occupations were also the most pressing for the Church. Self-interest is never backward in inventing excuses for itself. The people's instruction and pastoral care was unloaded onto the lower clergy as a troublesome burden, or at least a secondary responsibility.

In the 10th century, parishes - good, progressive and praiseworthy considered in themselves - were instituted even in the cities under the eyes of the bishops, whose residences were no longer flourishing schools of church wisdom and holiness for young, new hopes of the Church, but princely courts crammed with soldiers and courtiers. Bishops' homes lost the fine character given them by burning, apostolic zeal, by profound meditation and by the echoes of divine eloquence. The highest praise they could merit was to be recognised as moderately bad, and as some kind of brake to military pride. The pastoral care of the people at large was gradually left entirely to the lower clergy. Little by little, parish priests became pastors in the eyes of the people, and the bishop's role as pastor (11), entrusted to him by Christ, the only Pastor, was forgotten.

The lower clergy and the bishops were divided ever more effectively by their different and indeed opposite employments. Common life ceased, and contact between the two elements of the clergy lessened as it became more troublesome to both sides. Widely separated castes will always have difficulty in finding common ground for communication. Naturally the respect and filial love of the priests changed into frightened subjection, while the kind, paternal authority of the bishops took on the appearance of a mixture of joking contempt and compassion. As a result the lower clergy fell in the estimation of the people, and the higher clergy gained a kind of spurious honour (12). Is it to be wondered that the door was left open to every sort of vileness in the ranks of priests, and that the priestly character became despicable to priests themselves after sinking so low in the eyes of the people?

It is true that preaching and the care of souls were put almost entirely into the hands of the lower clergy. Such duties through their essential holiness could have kept these priests from the abyss. Nevertheless, as soon as the higher clergy had almost no claim to dignity except riches and power, the ambitions of ordinary priests naturally focused upon what they envied in their bishops. The word of God, the sacrifice and the sacraments became the object of a pitiful trade which renewed a thousand times daily Judas' sale of his divine Master. Sacred rites, devotions, prayers and even dogmas were valued, preached and ministered to the people by the priests for the income they could provide. The people themselves remained ignorant of many parts of christian knowledge and wisdom, but were always perfectly aware of the special teaching about prayers for the dead, blessings, the commandments of the Church and indulgences, all of which were profitable to those who ministered them from the sanctuary. In fact, the people knew more about these matters than can be found in christian doctrine.

As a result, priests fell to such a level of degradation that bishops imagined they could not even think about them without loss of dignity. They certainly did not find it fitting to take trouble about providing what they considered unnecessary education. Vice was everywhere. Attempts were made to remedy it by means of laws and penalties, but these were simple legal instruments more in keeping with secular than ecclesiastical government. They could not uproot moral evil, but were simply intended to block vice at all costs and prevent its unrestrained overflow.

Finally the dykes gave way, and the Church was flooded with every kind of evil. Immense waves battered it, toppling its pagan luxury and material grandeur. The mother of the faithful was disowned by her own children, and entire nations fled from the tragic sight their own shortsightedness was incapable of foretelling.

The episcopate was chastised by Providence in a sudden, unexpected move. Accustomed to persuading themselves that their best interests were advanced through the acquisition of a few more square metres of land, or greater power in temporal affairs, bishops failed to notice that nations were retreating from their influence. The people whom they had deserted for the sake of material advantage left them in return, and took with them everything that human beings normally possess. While bishops were engaged with their own narrow self-interest, they suddenly found themselves rejected, set aside and annihilated in hundreds of dioceses through some seemingly invisible command. The episcopate in fact often had so small an opinion of itself that it abdicated spontaneously (the bishops in Germany, France and England cashiered themselves, in a manner of speaking).

But the episcopate can never perish completely, although it may be punished. The word of Christ has established it until the end of time. It rose, therefore, from its lethargy, took fright at its peril and realised that one of the primary causes of the disorder threatening it was the neglected education of the clergy. The remedy eventually devised was the foundation of seminaries.

34. Seminaries were established to overcome the total lack of education amongst the clergy, just as catechisms were intended to remedy the total lack of popular instruction. Courage was missing - and return to the old style of education by which the bishop in person formed his people and his clergy could not be expected. Burdens of this kind were the business of the lower clergy. Nevertheless bishops were more vigilant, discipline was immensely improved, morals were reformed, and great progress became apparent in the limited material sphere of activity then open to the lower clergy for some centuries.

The art of providing great men for the Church was, however, not revived (although God provided them for the Church in his own way on occasion). There was a dearth of priests who knew the vast extent of their mission and recognised the sublime grandeur and universality of the Church. Priests interiorly possessed and dominated by the Word, who formed the character of the earliest clergy, were not being formed. There was no evidence of that feeling for the Word which absorbs the soul, drawing it from the transitory to the eternal world where the spirit can catch fire to set the whole world ablaze. I have to say again: only great men can form great men. Compare the teachers if you want to have some idea of the disciples! On one side you have the bishops of long ago, or some of the most famous men in the Church; on the other, the young professors in our seminaries. What a contrast!

35. Think for a moment of the caution and care that went into the establishment of a non-episcopal school for the people (13), and a fortiori for the clergy, in the early days of the Church! A bishop would only institute such a school if he were sure of wisdom and holiness in the persons to whom he entrusted it. This is clear from what we know of the foundation of the school of Alexandria, the first of its kind, under St. Mark (14).

On the other hand, think of the apparent abundance of suitable lecturers available today for forming the clergy according to the teaching and religion of Christ! Every diocese possesses a seminary, and every seminary abundant staff. So many priests are easily available for this work that a bishop has no dificulty in finding men to teach the candidates for the priesthood. Indeed, they can be changed after a few years and promoted to some less impecunious benefice. New men can take their places, although their only qualification is a senior course in a seminary, that non plus ultra of modern ecclesiastical knowledge. They have no experience of life, and still have to learn the ordinary principles of common sense from contact with the people. After their course they are put to work, and honourably dispensed from further study.

Knowledge of religion has neither root nor unity in their spirit. What they learned at the seminary was compartmentalised, or rather restricted entirely to those parts considered necessary for carrying out perfunctorily and formally the ecclesiastical duties thought to be necessary for satisfying justice towards people and government. The young priest's spirit is devoid of all sense and understanding of religious knowledge. His ability lies in his memory which makes him in his own eyes more fit for teaching than a truly learned man.

His students, needless to say, are also memory men. But it was of solid instruction, not of mere memory work, that Clement of Alexandria was writing when he spoke of his own teacher as "a Sicilian bee sucking at the flowers in the prophetic and apostolic fields in order to provide the honey of genuine, incorrupt knowledge for the spirit of those who would listen to him" (15).

Finally, we must remember that in modern times the salary attached to a post is sufficient indication of the opinion in vogue about the class of persons who undertake it. The low wage obtaining in seminaries is enough to raise doubts about the worth of teachers whose idea of bliss is to leave the seminary for the parochial benefice that has been their aim during their service in the seminary (16).

36. When instruction of the clergy was entrusted to inferior teachers of this kind, it was only natural for them to eliminate the books of wise and holy men, and use in their place inferior textbooks "adapted for youth", as their frontispiece proclaims, by little minds comparable to their own. Everything is in proportion; one defect produces another; the meagreness and poverty of books adopted in theological schools is the third cause of insufficient education amongst the clergy.

37. There are two kinds of books. Some are classics, solid books containing the distilled wisdom of mankind, written by authentic representatives of such wisdom. Method, style and content are all considered carefully for the benefit they can produce; amassing facts (erudition, in a word) is not their sole purpose; universal truths, expressed with a sense of mankind's needs and hopes, form the basis of their healthy, fruitful teaching.

The other kind of books consists of petty, one-sided works, without warmth or attraction, the offspring of narrow minds. The immensity of truth is offered in tiny portions, proportioned to the authors' powers of assimilation; the only real feeling these books convey is that of the writers' fatigue in composing them. Books of this kind are rejected by mankind when it has outgrown adolescence; they fail to appeal to human nature which scans them in vain for some reflection of itself, of its thoughts and desires. Nevertheless, young people are condemned to make use of them, although their instinct repudiates such works. As a result youth's natural longing to change them for something better becomes an open door for the entry of subversive writings.

Another possible effect of mediocre books on young people is a growth of marked aversion to study. Worse again is the outcome of the lengthy, restrictive courses in the schools. Frequently students develop deep, hidden, life-long hatred against teachers, superiors of every kind, books and the truths contained in books. This is genuine hatred, although often concealed under other attitudes and expressed in other forms. If it surfaces, it provides an unpleasant surprise for persons unconsciously affected by it. It appears unreasonable, and characterised by brutal disrespect and ingratitude towards otherwise good teachers who have devoted energy and love to forming their students.

38. At the beginning of the Church's existence holy Scripture was the only textbook in use for popular and ministerial instruction. Scripture, we know, is mankind's own book, the book (Bible), the writing, as its name tells us. In it, mankind is described from beginning to end. It opens with the origin of the world and closes with its destruction. Human nature perceives itself in all its moods, and discovers precise, sure and even evident answers to all the great questions it has posed itself. The mind can rest satisfied with the knowledge and mystery contained in the Bible, and the heart with law and grace. Scripture is "the large tablet" written in "common characters" (17). In it eternal truth speaks in every way known to human language. Truth narrates, teaches, judges, sings. Memory is nourished with history; imagination attracted by poetry; intellect enlightened with wisdom; feeling moved in all these ways together. The teaching is so simple that the uneducated believe it written for themselves; so sublime that the learned despair of grasping it. The text is human in form, but the vehicle of God's own word. Hence "Scripture", says Clement of Alexandria, "enkindles fire in the soul, and simultaneously directs the mind's vision fittingly towards contemplation, broadcasting its seeds within us and bringing to germination the seed we already possess" (18). If words like this can rightly be applied to books in general, they are much more applicable to the divine word of Scripture.

39. This was the sublime book used in christian schools. In the hands of the great men who expounded it, it became the nourishment of other great men. As long as bishops were personally the teachers of clergy and people, they were also the authors who wrote for Church and society. Almost all the great works in the first six centuries were written by bishops. Only exceptionally, in the case of extraordinary men like Origen, Tertullian and others, do we find christian teaching confided to non-bishops.

Books authored by bishops formed a second epoch, as it were, in the history of works employed in moulding young men in christian and church schools; they were the heritage left by bishops to the lower clergy when the total collapse of political society forced secular business upon the charity of the episcopate. Bishops were then deprived of the work of formation of people and clergy which they had hitherto regarded as inseparable from their pastoral care.

Insensibly (19) the lower clergy took their place. First came those nearest to the bishops and most respected for their way of life, that is, the flourishing Orders of canons and monks provided by divine Providence at that time to assist the Church in her need (20). This section of the clergy, which undertook the bishops' work of educating christian youth for the ministry, accepted reverently the heritage of the great pastors and fathers of the Church, and cherished it as a sure norm for its own teaching. In this way bishops of previous ages continued for a long time to be masters and teachers of youth through their writings. But there was an immense divide between their living presence in the living word, and their presence in dead writings which could hardly be revitalised by teachers in those unhappy times. The lower clergy did nothing original for five successive centuries. They simply repeated the teaching and the instruction that had come down from the great fathers (21). On the one hand, they lacked the authority that bishops possessed through consciousness of their sacred dignity as teachers in Israel; on the other hand, intellectual activity had been almost annihilated by the terrible circumstances which had made this a period of rapine and devastation.

After the restoration of order and the location of barbarians in the conquered territories, new teachers began to write books which, however, reflected the condition of their authors. That is, the books lacked the authority, the broadmindedness and surety of thought which characterised the bishops' work, and manifested in its place that of the lower ministers, inferior in dignity and authority to the princes of the Church. New works inevitably lacked originality. They were compendia or summae in which christian doctrine was set out in scientific order. Such compendia were demanded by the need to facilitate understanding of ecclesial tradition now immensely enriched by the work of centuries and impossible to study in its sources. These compendia constituted the era of scholastic theology, the characteristic work of priest-teachers.

The first summa, which by its fame marked the beginning of this era, was that compiled in the 12th century by the Master of the Sentences, Peter Lombard. It was, of course, an excellent idea to epitomise the teaching scattered amongst the extensive writings of church tradition. The same things repeated a thousand times increased the labour of study a thousandfold.

But it was not simply a question of restricting the repetition of christian doctrine, and stating once what had been said endlessly. What touched the heart (22) and other human faculties was also omitted; intellectual satisfaction alone was the aim. Consequently the new books did not speak to the whole person as books of previous ages had done. They spoke to a single part of the human being, to a single faculty - and one faculty never exhausts the resources of human nature.

Theological knowledge grew but wisdom decreased, and the schools acquired the narrow, restricted character that helped form the students into a class separate from other human beings. Common sense was left to ordinary mortals, while theologians devoted themselves to refined discussion. It was only to be expected. The bishop was not only teacher, but father (23) and pastor, and as such was capable of speaking persuasively and explicitly to the whole person. His mission did not cease with a demonstration of the truth. He had to ensure that truth was loved, that human beings were saved through the truth.

The priest is incapable of this, and realises that it is not his work. Hence he restricts himself to placing the truth before the eyes of his disciples who argue with him almost as equals (24). He works scientifically, that is, with a method related to the absolute and unchangeable in the objective order of his subject, abstracting from persuasion which requires a varying approach. The scientific method inevitably reduces the immense power of language, and easily gives rise to that element of rationalism which developed fully in the 16th century into protestantism (25). At this point sacred knowledge and the religion of Christ abandoned the clergy altogether and were, so to speak, secularised.

40. Compendia and summae reached the height of their perfection in the 13th century with the marvellous work of St. Thomas Aquinas. After that, learning in christian schools developed immensely through the revival of history, criticism, languages and style, but fell back in doctrine. Here we find scholastic teaching repeated, annotated and abbreviated in much the same way as the fathers of the first six centuries of the Church were studied by their successors.

This comparison will not seem unjust to anyone prepared to look below the surface. The literary revival of the 15th and 16th centuries attracted the attention of scholars; speculation was abandoned for the greater satisfaction of imagination and feeling; the core of christian philosophy was rejected, suffering the same fate as its vanished, perfect exposition. Students lost sight of the importance of the sublime reasons intrinsic to the teaching of faith, which the majority of scholastics had upheld, just as the scholastics themselves had lost sight of the importance of the fathers' profound, integral way of explaining it. The scholastics had diminished christian wisdom by stripping it of everything related to feeling and moral efficacy; their disciples (and we must repeat that disciples are not above their masters) continued to curtail it, removing from it all that was profound, intimate and substantial. The great principles were avoided, apparently to make things easier but in fact because they were not understood. The successors of the scholastics reduced christian doctrine to miserable formulas, isolated conclusions, and the practical knowledge needed by the hierarchy if it was to parade religion before the eyes of the people in the way it had been known for centuries. This is the fourth and last epoch in the history of books used in christian schools; theologians have succeeded scholastics.

Scripture, fathers, scholastics, theologians: these are the steps by which we have arrived finally at the wonderful books we use in our seminaries today. Their would-be knowledge is on a par with their contempt for our elders. I believe that in centuries to come, which contain the hopes of the imperishable Church, these books will be judged the most miserable, feeble works written in the eighteen centuries of the Church's history. They lack spirit, principles, style and method (26). Their "method" consists of a tidy, regular arrangement of subjects which simply indicates how easily their authors exhaust their intellectual capacities. Finally, because they lack all appeal to feeling, talent and imagination, these books manifest not a single episcopal or priestly characteristic. Let us call them "lay-books", in the perjorative sense of the word. They can be used by teachers and commentators whose only necessary qualifications are eyes to read, and by students with ears to hear (27).

41. But if petty books go hand in hand with petty men, is it possible for them to form a worthy school together, or produce adequate method in teaching? The inevitable lack of suitable method is the fourth and last cause of the wound of the Church under discussion, that is, the insufficient education of modern clergy.

We said earlier that the morals of the clergy perished in the Church when formation of heart and mind (28) were separated in the schools. Later an attempt was made to remedy the appalling immorality which sprang naturally from this division, and a good life, or at least some form of regular life, has been revived in our well-conducted seminaries. However, the root of the difficulty has not been seen, and no effort has been made to bridge the devastating gap between theory and practice by endeavouring to form teachers who would also be fathers. And, as Chrysostom says: "Generation is not enough to make a father; good education for the child is also needed" (29).

So far, energy has been directed to providing help and support where morals are lax. This is certainly not sufficient for the Church. Morality in its ministers must find its root and nourishment in the solidity and fullness of Christ's teaching. The purpose is not simply to form good human beings, but christians and priests enlightened and sanctified in Christ. This was the first principle and entire foundation of the method employed in the first centuries of the Church: knowledge and sanctity were bound together inextricably, one growing from the other. More exactly it can be said with perfect truth that knowledge was born of holiness because the former was desired only for love of the latter. The kind of knowledge we are referring to was centred upon holiness, the ultimate aim. Everything was united; and unity is the authentic characteristic of teaching destined to save the world. Such teaching is not pure, ideal doctrine, but real practical truth which, without holiness, can never be considered the wisdom taught by Christ. We would be deceiving ourselves if we thought otherwise; foolish, we would imagine ourselves wise; we would be substituting a vain, dead image, feeble and powerless, in place of the teaching of Christ.

42. St. Papias, a celebrated disciple of the apostles, was guided in his studies by this holy desire for practical truth. Eusebius writes in his History: "Papias desired the company of persons who would teach him the truth, and kept away from chatterboxes. He did not seek those who produced new laws according to the dictates of their own human spirit, but people who spoke about the commandments left us by the Lord to sustain our faith, and made known to us by truth himself. When he met someone who had been a disciple of the elders, he kept a careful record of all he said. For instance, he asked what had been said by St. Andrew, St. Peter, St. John, St. Philip, St. Thomas, St. James, St. Matthew or other disciples of Jesus Christ, like Ariston or John the elder. He realised that the instruction he obtained from books was less beneficial than that received viva voce from his interlocutors. He noted in his writings that he had been a disciple of Ariston and of John the elder. He often quoted them, and cited many things he said he had learned from them" (30).

This description left by Eusebius enables us to understand how holy men in the earliest days of the Church were motivated by pure love of effective truth (the essential characteristic of Christ's teaching), not by empty curiosity. Their aim went beyond knowledge to penetrate truth itself which they relished as living, solid food. Teaching was not made dependent upon books alone, but rather on the living word. In fact, the greatest mysteries were taught orally (31) at the wish of the people because thus they experienced better the salvation brought by the word. This was one of the merits of the method used by great men to form great men; teaching did not consist in a brief, daily lesson, but in the life disciples led with their mentors, young clergy with great bishops. Needless to say, such an advantage ceased as soon as instruction devolved entirely on the lower clergy, that is, on instructors rather on pastors (32).

43. Knowledge is common to good and bad persons alike; the living, practical truth of the gospel belongs only to the good. Where knowledge is the sole aim of teaching, therefore, the teachers' moral qualities are not of prime importance. Virtue, however, was sought and required by the early fathers, whose intention was directed towards the holiness of truth which, in its turn, demanded holiness in those teaching the truth (33). Likewise no moral choice need be made of students if subjects are purely scientific, without moral bias. If, however, the subject is moral wisdom, great care must be taken to remove from the school all students without true desire for such wisdom.

This was the practice in the early history of the Church when it was easier to make a judicious choice of students for the priesthood. Those called to the ministry were distinguished from those without a calling by use of this sure, unique, moral criterion. Young people themselves knew what they were coming for, and could prepare themselves accordingly. Moreover, holy, practical truth has an immense advantage related to purely ideal truth: because its nature is essentially sacred and divine, it imposes reverence for itself upon the student receiving it. As a result, teachers with the sublime duty of communicating it to others experience a kind of revulsion and distate when they have to impart it to unworthy students. Instinctively they feel guilty of profaning and violating the sanctity of practical truth, and become very conscious of the meaning of Christ's command: "Do not throw your pearls before swine" (34).

Clement of Alexandria has left us a description of ancient masters who "took time to weigh carefully and discern amongst their disciples those capable of following what they were saying. They paid careful attention to their conversation, morals, habits, general tenor of life, bearing and dress; they wanted to know whether they were a highway, or rock, or a path trodden by passers-by, or fertile land, or woodland, or rich well-kept soil that would bear fruit." They took Christ as their model. As Clement says: "He revealed what was suitable for the few to the few, and kept it from the multitude. The former not only comprehended it, but also formed themselves by it," that is, fulfilled in their lives the truth they had come to know intellectually (35). But then we shall have very few priests! Clement's answer to this objection is very simple: "Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers into his harvest" (36).

44. The principle requiring "communication of Christ's living word, not repetition of a dead, human word, in ministerial training" produced another consequence. All branches of knowledge came spontaneously to subject themselves to the word and drew unity from it. Unity paid service and homage to Christ, disposing hearts and minds to experience the beauty and riches of gospel wisdom. There were not two kinds of education, one pagan and one christian, dependent upon secular knowledge or christian knowledge, demanding a secular spirit on the one hand or its opposite on the other. Young people were not first harmed by exposition to pagan writers and distorted human motives, then healed and put on the right path by christian, ecclesial remedies and directions. Christ's teaching was supreme and led to a single end. Secular studies thus served to reinforce the faith of the students. Consequently men like Origen were trained in schools like that of Pantaenus, and men like Gregory Thaumaturgus under teachers like Origen (37).

45. While truly christian studies drew their unity from the unity of their underlying principle, the same principle helped to complete the studies and make them universal, especially in the field of religion. The entire system of arcane mysteries, profound principles and great commandments became the object of study without undue exclusions or excessive claims for one area or another. Christ's word alone was loved and sought, and hence everything which could be investigated in that word. The hidden life sought in that word was found through prayer, contrition and the liturgy, channels of grace that nourished minds thirsting for justice with divine, supernatural light (38).

46. Only this method is worthy of the Church. Who will restore it, and bring back to the schools great books and great teachers? In a word, who will heal the deep wound of insufficient education amongst the clergy which daily weakens and agonises the exquisite Bride of Christ? Only the episcopate has been commissioned to rule her, and endowed with the miraculous power of healing which she needs. We are speaking, however, of a united episcopate, not of an episcopate internally severed and divided. The whole body of bishops, with a single aim and operation, must undertake this great work. But unity is precisely what is lacking amongst the pastors of holy Church in these deceitful times. This deficiency forms the third wound of the Church, deeper and more painful than the two we have already described.

Notes

(1) Matt 10. 24

(2) Note that we are not denying the existence of excellent priests in our own days, but speaking of our desire for their increase.

(3) This quotation from a letter written by the holy bishop to Florinus to dissuade him from his errors is to be found in Eusebius, Eccles. History, book 5, chap. 20 [PG 20, 486].

(4) The importance given to the priest as such can be gauged by recalling a passage in the letter of the Martyrs of Lyon to pope Eleutherius. St. Irenaeus, then only a priest, was commissioned to deliver the letter. He was introduced to the pope in the following terms: "We beg you to consider him a man full of fervour in witnessing to Jesus Christ. This is the recommendation we give him. If we thought that rank and dignity bestowed justice and virtue we would have recommended him as a PRIEST of the Church, as indeed he is" (ibid., book 5, chap. 4)[PG 20, 439]. It is obvious that no one would think of writing in such terms to the pope about a priest nowadays. The interest taken by people and churches in the ordination of a new priest can be seen in the stories put about when famous bishops of Palestine, amongst them Theoctistus of Caeserea and St. Alexander of Jerusalem, ordained the great Origen as priest. St. Jerome attributes the stories to the jealousy of Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria. There would be no jealousy, and no stories circulated, in the case of a modern ordination!

(5) This unity and submission of people and clergy to their bishop is highly recommended in St.Ignatius' letters to various churches. In his letter to the Trallians he praises Polycarp, bishop of Trallia, after commending the perfect obedience of his people. He says: "He is a mirror of the love that reigns amongst his disciples. His very bearing is instructive; his strength lies in his meekness for which even the pagans have to respect him" [PG 5, 678]. In the letter to the church at Magnesia, he has a word of special praise for the obedience of the priests "despite the youth of their bishop, Damasus" [PG 5, 666]. In the letter to the Ephesians he praises the holy bishop, Onesimus, in the highest terms, and commends the priests also because "all are closely united with him, but especially the presbyterium, that is, the clergy. Grace brings them together in Jesus Christ with perfect harmony as they break bread with the priests and bishop, sharing in the saving medicine that confers immortality and banishes death" [PG 5, 662].

(6) St. John Chrysostom was greatly honoured when St. Flavian, bishop of Antioch, commissioned him to instruct his people. Examples like this were rare in the Church. Bishops were prompted by the outstanding virtue and wisdom of ordinary priests when they first permitted them to preach the gospel. St. Augustine's exceptional talents moved Valerian, bishop of Carthage, to commission him to instruct the people, as Chrysostom's talents had prompted St. Flavian. The same can be said about the famous school of Alexandria, founded by St. Mark, where teachers were always persons well-known for their extraordinary doctrine and holiness. At that time the qualifications needed for men to teach in public were well understood, especially in the case of christian doctrine. It is surely a disaster that such a great principle of salvation should be ignored today!

(7) I hope it will not displease or annoy modern readers if I take a famous passage from Origen as proof of what I am saying. I refer to it simply as an undeniable historical reminder of the way in which great men in the Church of the time considered poverty and freedom in relation to the clergy. Origen, the great moulder of bishops and martyrs, spoke in a homily delivered at Alexandria about the idolatrous priests who had received donations of land from the king of Egypt. He takes the occasion to say: "Because the Lord himself wishes to be their portion, he does not wish to give a share in the land to his priests. Be careful, those who are priests among you, to be the Lord's priests rather than the priests of Pharaoh.

Pharaoh wanted his priests to be landowners, and cultivate the earth rather than souls; to work on the land rather than keep the law of God. What does Jesus command his disciples? 'He who does not renounce all that he possesses cannot be my disciple.' I tremble when I utter these words. I become my own accuser, and pronounce my own condemnation. How can we have the courage to read such words and preach them to the people when we not only do not renounce what we possess, but want to acquire what we did not have before becoming disciples of Jesus Christ? Nevertheless, even if our conscience condemns us, are we entitled to conceal what has been written? That would make me guilty of a second fault. I confess before all you people that this is what the gospel says, and that this is what I have neglected. But granted that we do know our duty, let us begin to act responsibly here and now. Let us become priests of the Lord like Paul, Peter and John who had neither gold nor silver, but possessed greater riches than the whole earth could provide for them." (In Gen. Hom. 16) [PG 122, 251].

(8) Letters, book 9, letter 1: Nos enim sub colore ecclesiastici regiminis, mundi huius fluctibus volvimur, qui frequenter nos obruunt [PL 77, 1118, book 11, not 9].

(9) This phrase, ex hac moderna pastoralis officii continentia, shows that presssure of worldly affairs was a burden previously unknown to the episcopate.

(10) Letters, book 1, letter 5. The same complaints can be read in all Gregory's letters in book 1, in letter 121 of book 9, and in the first letter of book 11 [PL 77, 442-538; 1050-1052; 1118].

(11) Hence in St. Gregory's time pastoral theology was understood as proper to bishops. In our own seminaries, at least where pastoral science is taught, the phrase is used in relation to parish priests. The bishop is not even mentioned in books of pastoral theology. However, the application of "pastor" in an absolute sense to parish priests, to the exclusion of bishops, has its origin principally amongst protestants who have eliminated the episcopate. This fate befell the episcopate because it had in great part abandoned the signs by which it could have been recognised as founded by Christ. The responsibilities imposed by Christ had been rejected, and generally speaking people had lost sight of the true idea of a bishop. This was the principle and foundation of the errors of protestants who then cut themselves off from the Church through heresy.

(12) We have to point out once and for all that we are always speaking in general terms. In this as in other cases there are exceptions: holy bishops have always existed in the Church.

(13) Instruction for the people at this time was different from modern instruction. Holy Scripture, and with it the immense canvas of the religion of Christ, was unfolded before the eyes of the christian people. Hence it served to teach both people and clergy, as I have said above. In other words, those chosen to form part of the clergy found in it the necessary preparation for their eventual church education. We are so far from comprehending the great thought of the period that the vast majority of our ecclesiastics are not only incapable of understanding what I am saying here, but will, I am sure, take it badly.

(14) St. Jerome is a witness. De Viribus Illustribus, chap. 36 [PL 23, 651].

(15) Stromata, book 1 [PG 20, 456]. St. Pantaenus, who presided over the famous school of Alexandria, is the teacher to whom Clement of Alexandria is referring.

(16) Modern needs demand for seminary lecturers stipends at least as high as the income in the richest parishes. Moreover, teachers should not be changed from their positions except by promotion as canons or capitulars, or even as bishops. St. Denis, St. Heraclas and the great St. Achillas all passed one after another from the celebrated school of Alexandria to be bishops in that city, the second after Rome. The ears and hearts of men were still ringing with St. Paul's words to Timothy: find "men who will be able to teach others also" the great truths of the gospel. St. Paul characterises these men as "faithful", and wants Timothy not only to give them the doctrine he has received from Paul himself, but also to "entrust it to them." Et quae audistis a me per multos testes, haec commenda fidelibus hominibus qui idonei erunt et alios docere (2 Tim 2. 2).

(17) Is 8. 1

(18) ibid., book 1 [PG 8, 697].

(19) I say "insensibly" because such changes never take place suddenly nor universally. Fleury, in speaking of the five centuries following the first six, says: "The method of teaching was still the same as in the early ages. The schools were attached to cathedral churches and monasteries where either the bishop himself taught or some learned cleric or monk did so at the bishop's order. The students worked at ecclesiastical science and at the same time received moral formation and instruction about the work of their ministry under the eyes of the bishop." (Discourses etc.) [Fleury, Histoire Ecclesiastique, IX, 21, {Paris, 1742, 36 volumes}].

(20) "Most of the schools were in monasteries, and in some countries the cathedrals themselves were officiated by monks, as in England and Germany. Canons, who were founded about 750 under the rule of St. Chrodegang, lived an almost entirely monastic life, and their houses were called monasteries. I consider the monastries as one of the principal means used by Providence to safeguard religion in those disastrous times. They were oases of learning and piety in the midst of the desert produced in the world by ignorance, vice and barbarism. The ancient tradition of the divine Office and the practice of christian virtue lived on in them, and young men were able to behold these things reflected in the lives of their elders. Books from many centuries were preserved, and new manuscripts prepared. This was a constant occupation of the monks. Very few books of any kind would have come down to us if it were not for the monastic libraries" (Fleury, op. cit., ¦22 [XII, 72]).

The bishop himself lived with the canons, a proof that the primitive tradition of episcopal life had endured for a considerable period. When secular affairs broke up the holy, common life of bishops and canons, reforming councils composed of zealous bishops re-established ministerial life on the same model. The same spirit lived on in the Church, ceaselessly endeavouring to make good her losses. St. Charles himself wanted to share common, regular life with his clergy. This is a constant desire, therefore, in the church's long history. Her spirit longs for this kind of life.

(21) "They studied religious doctrine", says Fleury, speaking of the monks, "in Scripture, in the holy fathers, and in the discipline imposed by the canons. They had a high esteem for ancient authors, but little original thinking and limited desire for wisdom. They studied, copied, compiled from and abridged their predecessors. Bede, Rabanus and other theologians in the middle ages are typical examples. Their works are collections of the holy fathers of the first six centuries. It was the surest way of maintaining tradition" (Fleury, Discourse etc. 600-1100, ¦XXI)

(22) St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure and a few others are great exceptions who wrote in the noble spirit of the first fathers.

(23) Clement of Alexandria says: "Those who catechised us are considered our fathers. A son is someone who has been taught, provided that he acts in accordance with what he has learned. In this sense Scripture says: 'My son, treasure up my commandments with you' (Prov 3)" (ibid., book 1) [PG 8, 689].

(24) This explains why the learned followed Aristotle during these centuries. In the first six centuries Plato was more acceptable.

(25) Today protestantism has abandoned revelation for the sake of pure reason, that is, for systematic reason which is not reason at all, but the extreme, final development of the rationalistic element brought by the scholastics (not by all, however, but by Abelard, Ockham, etc.) into sacred teaching. This seed grew and caused damage also amongst catholics who did not, however, have the courage to follow its development to ultimate conclusions which would have taken them outside the ambit of the Church and revelation.

It is not dificult to indicate here its outcome amongst catholics. In dogmatic teaching, it resulted in disputes amongst catholic schools of theology, especially regarding grace, which later proved irreconcilable; in civil and canon law it resulted in the hair-splitting which in part deadened the force of the best laws; in morals its effect was similar because it provoked all that was said and done on the subject of probabilism. This in turn played a great part in the moral decline of the christian people through its influence both on what we call laxism and on rigorism.

The theological controversies which proved so harmful to the unity and sanctity of the clergy are only too well known, and I need say no more about them. Fleury wrote as follows about the acrimonious quibbling of lawyers in the 13th century: "Consult the canons of the great Lateran Council, or better still those of the first Council of Lyons, and you will understand the extent to which litigants exercised their ingenuity to overthrow all laws and make them serve as pretexts for injustice. This is what I call the 'spirit of sophistry', practised by lawyers and their adherence. They were clerics, of course, the only people at the time to study civil and canonical jurisprudence, medicine and other branches of science... If vanity and ambition for fame drove philosophers and theologians to argue endlessly about unworthy subtleties, can we imagine that greed for money would have had less effect on lawyers? What kind of clergy was this? The spirit of the gospel is one of sincerity, candour, charity and disinterestedness. The clergy we have described, destitute of such virtues, were in no position to preach them to others" (Discourse etc. 5, ¦XVII) [op. cit., XII, 72].

Fleury has the following to say about the effect of granting first place to human reasoning in the schools. I cannot altogether agree with him. "The worst effect of the topical method (that is, the method which taught that pro and contra were to be sought scholastic-wise in every argument) and of despair about the possibility of finding the truth is the introduction and authorisation of probable opinions in morals." The evil did not consist in introducing probable opinions, but in abusing them. "This part of philosophy was treated no better in our schools than in those of others. Our learned men, accustomed to contest the likelihood of everything, found ample material for debate in morality, and often abandoned the right path in the interest of their own and others' passions. This is the origin of the laxity found in our modern casuists, and I trace its beginnings back to the 12th century when learned men were happy enough with some kind of balance in their conclusions, although it did not always harmonise with common sense and the gospel. Their fine art in the use of distinctions reconciled the irreconcilable" [op. cit., XII, 62].

(26) Writers like Tournely and Gazzaniga, amongst the best modern authors, will serve as examples. They produce a large, truly erudite tome on grace. Only at the end of the book do they touch vaguely on the question: "What is the essence of grace?", which they then leave unsolved as of no importance. But knowledge of the essence or nature of the subject under discussion is surely the first and most important step in the argument? The definition of a thing flows from knowledge of its nature, and the definition itself is the fertile principle of all reasoning about the matter in hand.

(27) I beg the reader to believe that I have no desire to despise scholastics and theologians when I compare their work with that of the fathers of the Church. On the contrary, I recognise their worth and acknowledge their merits. I hope that the use I have made of the principal authors of the schools in my other works, and my twenty years of effort to rehabilitate them, will absolve me from any accusation of lack of respect towards them.

(28) Describing the student body of the 12th and 13th centuries Fleury writes: "I would hesitate to quote from contemporary authors in painting the picture of student morality in this history of mine. You would see them brawling amongst themselves and with ordinary citizens; exemption from the jurisdiction of secular criminal courts formed their primary privilege; the pope was obliged to grant the abbot of St. Victor the privilege of absolving them from the excommunication imposed by the canons upon those who beat up the clergy; their violence normally began in the drinking houses with wine and merrymaking, and finished with bloodshed and murder. Look at the portrait by James of Vitri. All those students were clerics, destined to serve or govern the Church" (Discourse etc. ¦X) [op. cit., XII, 64].

(29) Chrysostom.

(30) Eusebius, ibid., book 3, chap. 39 [PG 20, 295-298].

(31) "Hidden knowledge" concealed the most sublime truths from the unworthy. Doctrine of this kind was taught orally only to disciples tested during a long period, and proven by their constant resolution to strive for holiness in the christian life. All the ancient writers mention the prudence and reverence shown towards revealed truths. Here it is sufficient to single out Clement of Alexandria who speaks about it in his Stromata, book 1, and many other places.

(32) Remedies later used to revive the moribund education of the clergy did not go to the root of the matter. As a result, this particular difficulty remained. One of the remedies of which I am speaking was the foundation of universities which, however, only served to separate the clerics still further from their bishops, as they still do today. Fleury says: "Another difficulty of universities is that teachers and students were all clerics, and many beneficed, but without any possibility of exercising their orders and functions outside their churches. They learnt nothing practical about preaching, the administration of the sacraments, the government of souls. Experience would have been available to them in their own countries where they could have worked under bishops and priests and followed their example. Learned professors at the universities were mere theoreticians with ample time for writing and developing useless arguments, and full of quarrelsome ambition motivating ever more subtle distinctions. In the first centuries learned men were bishops overburdened with more solid occupations" (Discourses etc. 5, ¦XX).

(33) Here again, one thing leads to another: bad method generates bad teachers. This contrasts strongly with the esteem the ancients had for christian teachers, and what they expected of them. St. Gregory Nazianzen, in a celebrated sermon entitled On Theology describes at length the qualifications needed in a teacher of theology, indicating also the characteristics of the auditors and the care to be taken in speaking to them: "It is not sufficient for anyone at all to philosophise about divine truths; this is the work of persons purified in body and soul, or at least marching steadily on the road to purification and already far advanced in meditation on holy things" (Orat. 33; cf. also Orat. 29) [PG 36, 13; Orat. 27, not 33]. Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, book 1, and Pedagogy in f.) [PG 8, 695-926; 247-684] speaks at length about the disinterestedness, spiritual light and holiness required in a person capable of teaching sacred doctrine.

(34) Matt 7. 6

(35) Ibid., book 1 [PG 8, 702].

(36) Ibid., book 1 [PG 8, 693].

(37) According to St. Jerome, Origen used secular knowledge to lead to the faith philosophers and other learned men frequenting his lectures (De viribus illus., c. 54) [PL 23, 663-667]. Origen's most famous disciple, Gregory Thaumaturgus, speaks of the method used by Origen during his formation. In his oration in praise of his master, delivered at the conclusion of his studies, Gregory tells us that Origen began by correcting his way of life. Then he introduced him to the various branches of knowledge in a way adapted to prepare and strengthen faith in his pupil. Origen did not use compendia, but read all the principal philosophers with Gregory, helping him constantly to discern truth from error in what he read. After these preliminary studies aimed at preparing the student's mind and heart and arousing desire for more sublime and perfect doctrine, the sacred books were opened as the source of doctrine about God. I know that it is impossible to do without compendia nowadays, but I also know that nothing will ever be achieved by means of them alone; students will not even be set on the highway of true knowledge.

Compendia can only be used to abridge what great authors have explained at length. I know that it is impossible to read and explain all they have said, but they should be read and explained at least in part. Even a part would be sufficient to inspire the student, and give him some idea of the grandeur of christian wisdom, just as we can look at the foot of Hercules' statue and work out what sort of man he was. Direct reading of the tests themselves will provide more than the outlines of knowledge. For simple outlines, compendia are sufficient, and this indeed is their only legitimate function. Knowledge gained in this way is like seeing a picture sketched by the art master, and in part coloured by him. All that remains for the student to do is to finish colouring the picture in the way his master has shown him.

(38) Clement of Alexandria always mentions the sacraments of Christ when he speaks in his works about the study of knowledge. For him, the teacher is not simply an instructor, but a devoted gardener who looks after every plant he has put in the ground. He adds: "There are two kinds of gardening, one carried out without books, one with books. The person working for the Lord will truly be a divine gardener if he sows good wheat, attends to its growth, and harvests it. 'Do not labour for the food which perishes,' says the Lord, 'but for the food which endures to eternal life!' But nourishment is taken by way of food, and by way of words, and peacemakers are truly blessed whether they bring people to the peace of the Word and of the life of God by freeing them from their battle against ignorance and error in this life through teaching the opposite, or nourish through the distribution of bread others who hunger for justice" (ibid., book 1) [PG 8, 693].

In the quotation, this disciple of the apostles unites the distribution of bread with instruction by word, after comparing instruction to the Eucharist in a previous passage. His description of the master dedicated to sacred learning always depicts the teacher as a divine worker, a pastor, God's minister. Shortly afterwards he goes so far as to say: "he is one with God himself"! Origen, Clement's disciple, agrees. "The word of God should not be heard by anyone not holy in body and soul. Shortly after hearing it, he has to go into the wedding banquet to eat the flesh of the Lamb and drink the cup of salvation" (In Exod. Hom. 11) [PG 12, 381]. Note the beautiful union between sacrament and word! Another passage from this great writer will underline the same message. In one of his sermons, taken down as he preached them, he says: "You who are accustomed to come to the mysteries know how carefully and reverently you receive the body of the Lord for fear you will rightly be blamed if the smallest particle drops on the floor through your negligence. Granted such care to safeguard the Lord's body, is it less of a sin to despise his word?" (In Exod. Hom. 23) [PG 12, 391, Hom. 13, not 23].