- Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri
- 75. To meet the weakness of man's fallen nature, God in His Goodness has provided the abundant helps of His grace and the countless means with which He has endowed the Church, the great family of Christ. The Church therefore is the educational environment most intimately and harmoniously associated with the Christian family.
76. This educational environment of the Church embraces the Sacraments, divinely efficacious means of grace, the sacred ritual, so wonderfully instructive, and the material fabric of her churches, whose liturgy and art have an immense educational value; but it also includes the great number and variety of schools, associations and institutions of all kinds, established for the training of youth in Christian piety, together with literature and the sciences, not omitting recreation and physical culture. And in this inexhaustible fecundity of educational works, how marvelous, how incomparable is the Church's maternal providence! So admirable too is the harmony which she maintains with the Christian family, that the Church and the family may be said to constitute together one and the same temple of Christian education.
77. Since however the younger generations must be trained in the arts and sciences for the advantage and prosperity of civil society, and since the family of itself is unequal to this task, it was necessary to create that social institution, the school. But let it be borne in mind that this institution owes its existence to the initiative of the family and of the Church, long before it was undertaken by the State. Hence considered in its historical origin, the school is by its very nature an institution subsidiary and complementary to the family and to the Church. It follows logically and necessarily that it must not be in opposition to, but in positive accord with those other two elements, and form with them a perfect moral union, constituting one sanctuary of education, as it were, with the family and the Church. Otherwise it is doomed to fail of its purpose, and to become instead an agent of destruction. - Reference to 76. above ...
- From a Footnote:
19. Cf. Pius XI's encyclical letter, Divini Illius Magistri, 1, p. 76; Pius XII's allocution to Bavarian Association of Catholic Teachers, Dec. 31, 1956: Discourses and Radio Messages, vol. 18, p. 746.
It was a footnote to: - GRAVISSIMUM EDUCATIONIS ("Paul VI"/Vatican II)
- 5. The Importance of Schools
Among all educational instruments the school has a special importance.(19) It is designed not only to develop with special care the intellectual faculties but also to form the ability to judge rightly, to hand on the cultural legacy of previous generations, to foster a sense of values, to prepare for professional life. Between pupils of different talents and backgrounds it promotes friendly relations and fosters a spirit of mutual understanding; and it establishes as it were a center whose work and progress must be shared together by families, teachers, associations of various types that foster cultural, civic, and religious life, as well as by civil society and the entire human community.
Beautiful indeed and of great importance is the vocation of all those who aid parents in fulfilling their duties and who, as representatives of the human community, undertake the task of education in schools. This vocation demands special qualities of mind and heart, very careful preparation, and continuing readiness to renew and to adapt. - Difference?
- Yes.
1) To Pope Pius XI, it was necessary for society that the schools should exist. But not that every child should be in school. To Paul VI, the school is important because ... see next difference.
2) To Pope Pius XI, the specific task of the school is "[s]ince however the younger generations must be trained in the arts and sciences for the advantage and prosperity of civil society," - meaning the school is not there for the good of the pupil so much as for a good the society can get from the pupil once the training is finished. That is - alone - where family and Church without the school are not enough. To Paul VI, I will now highlight the additions, here is his idea:
It is designed not only to develop with special care the intellectual faculties but also to form the ability to judge rightly, to hand on the cultural legacy of previous generations, to foster a sense of values, to prepare for professional life.
So Pope Pius XI basically agreed with Chesterton (whom he granted a Papal decoration!) that children get their moral and otherwise "right" judgement from parents (and Church), but school must agree with or at least not hinder that. To Montini, they get it from school, that is what it is ultimately designed for.
To me this means Montini was perhaps Judaising, perhaps Communising, perhaps Protestantising, perhaps Massonicising the doctrine, but certainly not keeping it Catholic.
3) To Pius XI, parents are the representatives of God. To "Paul VI" ...
Beautiful indeed and of great importance is the vocation of all those ... who, as representatives of the human community, undertake the task of education in schools.
Teachers undertake, then, according to him, the task of education (not just specific training) in the very specific capacity of representatives of the human community.
This means the "human community" is where the authority to educate ultimately resides. Not in the Divine Master, Jesus Christ. And its representatives are teachers, not foremost parents.
I am sorry, but "Paul VI" was a sad story of divinising human society precisely as Athenian pagans did before him.
Here I break off for now. Click the links if you want to study the documents. I will give a fuller description below. For now, I am very much fed up with reading the declaration of Vatican II, which I consider identic to the errors of Communism on this point, as well as the errors of Swedish education, as well as the errors of Jules Ferry and Azaña, except in so far as the declaration at least wants a Catholic Education for Catholic families. It is something. But stating that the educative power resides in either human community or schools is NOT giving a Catholic education.
On top of this, one states that the teacher needs to be a very specific man. And his specificity includes (but is not limited to) readiness to adapt. No, the traditional view is that a teacher needs to be:
- Doctrinally Orthodox,
- Morally irreproachable,
- Apt to teach his subject matter.
- Patient with those stumbling (but this is not required at all levels)
The last qualifications obviously asks one thing of a language teacher and another thing of a teacher in archery. Neither is required to have a continuous readiness to renew and adapt. Neither requires a very careful preparation just for being able to teach. And the specific qualities of mind required for teaching mathematics are not the same as those required for teaching literature. Nor need the qualities of mind be anything like more specific than simply mastering the subject and being articulate enough to communicate mastery. The un-Pope "Paul VI" falls into the trap of that British educator who provoked a sham epitaph:
No teacher I of kids and smaller fry.
No teacher I of teachers, no not I.
Mine was the further aim, the longer reach
To teach men how to teach men how to teach.
Because a teacher supposedly needs to have very specific qualities and be very carefully prepared, this preparation (with selection according to presence or absence of "special qualities of mind and heart"), and because families are obviously not capable to guarantee that by simply choosing a teacher (unless they are families with special qualities), and because "education" (under such horrid modernist auspices) is a "human right", which the state must guarantee to each child (Paul VI neither says nor denies "even against the parents") the state is therefore obliged to introduce such levels of control of educators as ultimately add up to the dictatorial powers assumed by the man parodied in above verses. I tried to look him up, he was of the 19th C. but I found very little on seeking these verses. And it was decades since I read the book where this sham epitaph is given as example of sham epitaphs. Will have to ask a FB friend. If answered, I will update in a PS. Anyway, the man had this kind of megalomania about what teaching in schools is about and thus also helped destroy liberties in United Kingdoms.
And "Paul VI" very un-Catholicly supports this nonsense.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Friday, 27/VI/2014
DIVINI ILLIUS MAGISTRI
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html
DECLARATION ON CHRISTIAN EDUCATION
GRAVISSIMUM EDUCATIONIS
PROCLAIMED BY
[...
...] PAUL VI
ON OCTOBER 28, 1965
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html
Gravissimum educationis momentum ... Synodus attente perpendit. How well they choose "gravissimum" for "extremely important" and "perpendit" for "weighs". It reminds me of an extremely heavy stone hung around necks. You see, "gravissimus" is also "very heavy" and hang is "pendere" in Latin.
No comments:
Post a Comment