Preamble
There are, at times, certain works that are drafted and promulgated that change the course of how an institution or tradition thinks and operates. At other times, they are simply written and seemingly fall into the graveyard of lost papers, both published and unpublished. Both types of documents, however, provide prisms through which we might better understand the historical elements that gave them rise and shaped their formulations.
The Instructio sent by Superior General Wlodimir Ledóchowski to the American Assistancy on the organization of schools, colleges, and universities and on the preparation of teachers, is a particularly understudied source that some have called the magna carta of Jesuit education in the twentieth century.[1] While much of Jesuit education today is primarily focused on documents such as the The Characteristics of Jesuit Education (1986) and the Ignatian Pedagogy: A Pedagogical Approach (1993),[2] there has been little written on the Instructio and its place in understanding the Jesuit educational heritage in the United States. The work of Barton T. Geger, S.J. has traced the current Jesuit educational mantra of ‘cura personalis’ to this document,[3] however, there is still little research into the document itself and an account of the history and evolution of the Jesuit educational philosophy that made such a phrase resonant in later times, particularly during the time period prior to Pedro Arrupe, S.J. (1907–91), the 28th Superior General of the Society of Jesus from 1965 to 1983.
Leaving this exploration for a future article, I hope to provide here some preliminaries by providing a critical translation of the document, a narrative of what gave it rise, and an overview of its place in the Jesuit educational history of the United States.[4] All such documents have a history: there are the discussions, the meetings, the drafts, and the papers that both preceded and surround the final promulgation. These can help us to better understand its origins, development, intention, and character.
Jesuit Education and its Discontents
In June of 1920, a group of Jesuits led by Edward P. Tivnan, S.J. (1882–1937), rector of Fordham University, while attending the Catholic Educational Association[5] convention in New York City, decided to convoke their own meeting to discuss the state of Jesuit education.[6] The First World War had begun just six years prior in the midst of violent competing nationalisms. In 1915, General Congregation (GC) 26 elected Wlodimir Ledóchowski, S.J. as the 26th Superior General of the Society of Jesus. GC 26 also established the American Assistancy, officially creating it as separate from the English Assistancy.[7] While the American Assistancy had been newly created, some of its educational institutions already had over a century of development, with many of the schools and educational institutions being established piecemeal and formed to local contexts and needs. After World War I, enrollments increased as waves of people came back from the war and regional and national accreditation standards became progressively important and supervised.[8]
Tivnan and his fellow Jesuits had doubts about the quality of Jesuit education in the United States. They felt understaffed, underfinanced, and unevenly administered and would come to express their wish
that the Very Reverend Father Provincials should call together during the year representatives of our Provinces in America to discuss various plans whereby we might mutually help one another and become more closely united in the Society’s great work, education of youth.[9]
So there arose the creation of the Inter-Province Committee on Studies the following year, chaired by Albert C. Fox, S.J. (1878–1934),[10] rector of Campion College in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, with membership representing each of the five Provinces of the American Assistancy at the time.
Emerging Efforts of Unity and Cooperation
The Committee on Studies met annually from 1921–31, where proposals for a national association of Jesuit educational institutions, later named the Jesuit Educational Association (JEA), and a “Jesuit Journal of Education,” later to become the Jesuit Educational Quarterly, would be discussed and proposed. In their first meeting in 1921, they successfully recommended two major changes—the creation of a permanent committee on studies for each Province, and the creation of a modern Province Prefect of Studies, or prefect general of studies, whose “sole duty it is to communicate with the secretaries of other Province committees.”[11] Other topics discussed during this decade of meetings include: accreditation, administration, alumni, athletics, budgeting systems, curriculum, directory of Jesuit institutions, graduate degrees, graduate schools, lay professors, libraries, publication of books, religion courses, the course of studies for Jesuit scholastics, study of the Ratio, teachers and teaching, and vocations. One of the final directives of the Inter-Province Committee concerned the Jesuit course of formation for scholastics. It gave rise to a final twenty-three-page report on the topic.[12] As the number of Jesuits entering the Society in the United States was rapidly growing, along with the need to train and staff their expanding schools, colleges, and universities, there was an increased focus on the training of teachers and the formation they would need for contemporary circumstances.
By March of 1931, Ledóchowski had created the Inter-Province Commission on Higher Studies for the American Assistancy, appointing six Jesuits to the task of generating conclusions and recommendations for Jesuit educational priorities, chaired by James B. Macelwane, S.J. (1883–1956), Dean of the Graduate School at Saint Louis University.[13] Meeting every two or three months for the next year, the Commission collected surveys from Jesuit colleges and universities and generated a final 234-page report in 1932.[14] The lengthy report would be divided into four parts: 1) United Purpose and Concerted Action; 2) Comparative Standing of Our Institutions of Higher Learning; 3) National and Regional Accrediting Agencies; and 4) Academic Degrees and Educational Training of Ours.
Articulating a Jesuit Philosophy of Education
While not fully implemented into the Instructio, the 1932 Report was its foundation. The 1932 Report went further than the Instructio did in certain respects, such as in its proposal that a doctorate be the normative goal for Jesuits. But many of the articles of the Instructio are detailed almost directly from this report. Written in English, the 1932 Report proposed a succinct articulation of the characteristics of a Jesuit philosophy of education:
We may sum up the principal characteristics of our Jesuit philosophy of education under the following heads:
The student is a human being who is to be educated as such for his individual proximate end and especially for his final end.
All his powers of soul and body are to be harmoniously developed under the influence of divine grace by methods of teaching which will form habits of correct and vigorous thinking and of courageously effective and virtuous acting.
These methods consist largely in:
Clear-cut organization of successive objectives to be attained by the student;
Frequent provision for stimulating the student to organize in his own mind the knowledge he has thus far gained. ‘Repetitio est mater studiorum’;
Prevention of any attitude of passivity or mere absorption of information, by the use of objection and discussion as an essential part of the teaching technique;
Continual urge to self-expression in accordance with the highest ideals in the intellectual and moral order—the true, the beautiful, and the good;
Personal interest in the student, spurring him on and encouraging him to do his individual best in acquiring both learning and virtue.
It seems clear that such a program need only be presented in proper dress, in order that it may win the enthusiastic approval of sane educators. Once our teachers have training in their subjects equal or superior to that of the non-Jesuit teachers, and once we are organized to work together, we shall not only be free to apply the spirit of our Ratio, but shall be applauded for doing so.[15]
This articulation eventually was translated into Latin and shaped to Article 7 of the Instructio, which rearticulates the ends and means of Jesuit education as it was understood by Jesuit educational leaders at the time. It is in Article 7 where we find the curious phrase “personalis alumnorum cura,” which was originally articulated in English as ‘personal interest in the student,’ but would eventually be rearticulated again as “cura personalis.”
The Instructio and the JEA
Completed in August 1932, the Report was sent to the Provinces for review and comments. There was no shortage of replies and criticisms. Ledóchowski would continue to discuss the Report with Jesuits and called upon James B. Macelwane, S.J. and John W. Hynes, S.J. (1886–1953) to assist in drafting the Instructio of 1934.[16] The Superior General eventually promulgated it on August 15, 1934, the four hundredth anniversary of the beginnings of the Society in Montmartre, along with a letter to the Fathers and Scholastics of the Assistancy and a letter to the Provincials.[17] The Instructio was, from its beginning, mandatory and was intended to be tested for three years and then finalized with any appropriate modifications. Ledóchowski’s introductory letter for the Instructio in 1934 asked for all Jesuits engaged in educational work in the American Assistancy to read and discuss the document in all houses of study, in tertianship, and ‘at table.’[18] It was to be read widely, thoroughly, and welcomed with “wonted cheerful obedience to the orders of Father General.”[19]
Within the instruction was the creation of the JEA, the first central organization of Jesuit schools, colleges, and universities in the United States. The JEA was seen as the vehicle of implementation of the Instructio and Ledóchowski had appointed as the first National Secretary of Education, with the special title of Commissarius, Daniel M. O’Connell, S.J. of the Chicago Province (1885–1958). He opened his office in Chicago on September 8, 1934, and served as the National Secretary of the JEA from 1934–1937.
The title of Commissarius was controversial because of questions of hierarchy and power, particularly regarding provincials. Ledóchowski’s letter announcing this title cited GC 2, Decree 11, which concerns a special appointment by the superior general meant to only be used for rare circumstances and for a set amount of time.[20] This gave O’Connell the authority he needed to implement initiatives across provinces, though it was met with some resistance. The issue of power and authority in the hierarchical structure of the Society began to shift and the tensions can be seen through the revisions of the Instructio from 1934 to 1948. With the hierarchy in mind in tandem with the need to adopt national organizational standards, the National Secretary of the JEA, was also known as the Executive Director, with the Provincials being named as the Board of Governors.
First Revisions and Proposal
One of the first and primary initiatives of O’Connell was the topic of graduate studies and doctoral degrees for Jesuits. O’Connell had decided that it was important for him to visit each of the Jesuit schools, colleges, and universities in the Assistancy. During those visitations he observed obstacles to Jesuits pursuing those advanced degrees, which were becoming increasingly necessary to be hired as teachers. He noted that in the formation of Jesuits in some provinces, it was not always the case that their studies were leading to college credits or official degrees. In provinces where it was not yet done, he proposed to integrate the houses of study into the neighboring university so that they would receive a degree upon completion of their course of studies in their formation. He proposed to integrate the juniorates, philosophates, and theologates[21] with the colleges, helping the Jesuit programs receive university status and providing them with a university atmosphere during some of the scholastics’ time in formation.[22] This was the case with the integration of the juniorate at Shadowbrook and the philosophate at Weston College with Boston College, and similarly with others, such as the juniorate at Saint Andrew-on-Hudson with Fordham. While the locations of the various Jesuit houses of formation did not necessarily change until after Vatican II at various times, Jesuits would begin to receive credits towards degrees.[23] O’Connell would go on to establish a Committee on Graduate studies in the Jesuit Educational Association, which would publish an influential statement entitled Norms Proposed by the Committee on Graduate Studies of the Jesuit Educational Association for its Guidance in Appraising Graduate Work.[24]
Three years had passed and the proposed testing phase of the Instructio was over. The Executive Committee had the task of sending a report to Ledóchowski about the progress of the Instructio and how they might need to revise it for its final form. In the April 1937 Executive Meeting of the JEA in Louisville, Kentucky, it was expressed by O’Connell, that the “heart of the Instructio is special studies for Ours.”[25] William J. McGucken, S.J. (1889–1943), General Prefect of Studies for the Missouri Province, agreed but also added that he believed that it also included the organization of the JEA, collaboration with learned societies, and attainment of recognition of Jesuit graduate schools by regional and national accrediting associations.[26] In drafting the final report, the Executive Committee would recommend the insistence upon the following points:
- Continuance of the permanent organization of the Jesuit Educational Association. Art. 2, Art. 3, Art. 4.
- Continuance and furthering of Special Studies for the Master’s Degree as prescribed by Art. 30.
- Combined effort on part of all colleges and universities concerned to gain recognition by Regional and National accrediting agencies, e.g. American Association of Universities, Art. 23, Title II.
- To gain this recognition by such accrediting agencies—it further respectfully recommends that the Reverend Provincials continue and extend the fine efforts that they have made to carry out Art. 33—putting aside men to secure the Doctorate in their Special fields of Study. (JEA Minutes, April 1937, 2–3)
McGucken recommended that the report to Ledóchowski of their discussions should include that their belief was that even though the Instructio was promulgated for a trial period of three years, every effort should be made to implement its essentials. This meeting would be the last on the Instructio under the leadership of O’Connell and in October of 1937, Ledóchowski appointed Edward B. Rooney, S.J. (1900–1976) as his successor, following the recommendation of the American provincials.[27]
In 1938, a revised form of the Instructio was sent to Rome and would be submitted back to the Provincials.[28] Concurrently, Ledóchowski would call General Congregation 28, the third and final of his tenure, which convened from March to May of 1938. Decree 38 of that congregation would entrust “to the superior general the task of adapting the Ratio studiorum to the needs of our times, keeping in mind the laws of the Church on acquiring academic degrees; the congregation’s ordinances on higher studies are also to be retained.”[29] A commission would be created to revise a new Ratio for higher studies.
In April of 1939, the proposed changes of the Instructio were presented to the JEA Executive Committee and finalized by October of 1939,[30] however, the American Assistant Zacheus J. Maher, S.J. (1882–1963)[31] reported a delay in reprinting the Instructio due to the Commission for revising the Ratio studiorum taking longer than expected. Since the revising of the Instructio depended upon the revision of the Ratio, the final reworking of the Instructio was delayed.[32] The new Ratio studiorum superiorum (RSS) would not be promulgated for experimentation until 1941, and Ledóchowski’s death on December 13, 1942 further delayed concerted action.
Final Revisions and Promulgation
With both the Instructio and the RSS in ‘experimentation,’ the JEA and Provincials had the task of reviewing and proposing revisions for two major documents for the Society. In the JEA Executive Committee’s October 1942 meeting, they would appoint two sub-committees: one for the revision of the Ratio, led by Allan P. Farrell, S.J. (1896–1976), and the other for the revision of the Instructio,[33] led by Matthew J. Fitzsimons, S.J. (1898–1975).[34] The two would work closely together for the next fifteen years to articulate a philosophy of Jesuit education.
Fitzsimons and Farrell, both experienced members of the Executive Committee of the JEA, collaborated to incorporate elements of the RSS into the revised Instructio. A few years earlier, Farrell had written his treatise on the Ratio, entitling it The Jesuit Code of Liberal Education: Development and Scope of the Ratio Studiorum.[35] Farrell also served as the managing editor of the Jesuit Educational Quarterly, the official journal of the JEA, which had made him particularly privy to the concerns and discourse of Jesuit education across the American Assistancy.
In addition to the revisions of wording and integration with the Ratio, an additional article on the libraries and their care would be proposed in a 1943 meeting of the Executive Committee.[36] By May 1944, the sub-committee on the Revision of the Instructio completed their work and a revised document was submitted to the Provincials. The draft was approved by the Provincials and sent to the American Assistant in July 1944, who then sent it to the newly appointed Vicar-General Norbert de Boynes, S.J. (1870–1954)[37] on August 27, 1944, together with his own comments and suggestions. Vicar-General de Boynes would approve the revised text, though with some observations and concerns about the wording of the RSS, since it was released ad experimentum—that is, not yet definitively approved.
In February of 1946, Vicar-General de Boynes would provide ad interim approval of the revision of the Instructio and the Constitutions of the JEA, which was instructed to be sent to all Jesuit administrators in office, incorporated to all onboarding processes of newly appointed administrators, sent to all Jesuit house libraries and recreations rooms, and ordered to be read at table, discussed at faculty meetings, and given an important place in teacher training programs of scholastics.[38] Just a month later, GC 29 would be called to convene in September of that year, electing Jean-Baptiste Janssens as the 27th Superior General of the Society of Jesus, once again further delaying the printing of the Instructio.
On September 27, 1948, the final form of the Instructio would be promulgated by Janssens along with a letter prefacing the instruction.[39] It is curious that the finalized Instructio of 1948 would maintain the experimental letter of the RSS, since that document would not be finalized until 1954, but the already fourteen years of revisions and the questionable timeline of the finalization of the RSS understandably seemed to have taken precedence.
Reception of the Instructio and Beyond
Matthew Fitzsimons, S.J. called the Instructio “the synopsis and conclusion of all Jesuit thought and preoccupation with education in the Assistancy,” particularly in the first half of the twentieth century.[40] Within some circles of Jesuit educational leaders, the Instructio was considered to be a magna carta of Jesuit education in the United States,[41] a descriptor usually reserved for the Ratio studiorum or the fourth part of the Constitutions.[42]
While certainly, there are elements of such a philosophy of education from these core documents such as the Ratio studiorum and the Constitutions, what is clearer are the ways in which the Society of Jesus was understanding their own educational philosophy and guiding principles during this time period. This particular articulation was not done in a vacuum, but rather, in a dialectic with a complex historical embeddedness that can be observed not simply through the Instructio itself, but also the surrounding documents and discourses.
These conversations included the concerns of a liberal arts education versus ‘vocationalism,’[43] the role of accreditation and credentialing, and the changing landscape of the intellectual apostolate not just within the Society, but in higher education as a whole, particularly in the United States. Not surprisingly, the re-articulation of a Jesuit philosophy in that time period is inherently tied to the Ratio even though that venerable plan was precariously implemented across Jesuit schools, colleges, and universities. The attempt reflects the reality of a conflicted desire both to hold on to the Ratio and to move beyond its letter.
In a time when the unity of Jesuit education was largely constituted by the presence of the Jesuits themselves, with their core documents of the Ratio and Constitutions in the background, there seems to have been a rising concern about what ought to be explicitly unified, since what did unify them seemed to be more implicitly understood. However, as the changing landscape of Jesuit education through the early twentieth century and beyond gave rise to a further and further drift from the letter of the Ratio, and as lay faculty and lay deans multiplied in Jesuit institutions, sources such as the Instructio were able to guide the discourse back to what unified and articulated a Jesuit philosophy of education in the historical context of late modernity.
The expressed understanding of Jesuit education, particularly in Article 7, comes from the work of the Commission of Higher Studies, which strived to encapsulate a condensed and abbreviated formulation of key principles. While this understanding would continue to evolve, it clearly impacted the basis of the dialogue of Jesuit education that would unfold for the next century. Various forms of ‘personal interest,’ rather than ‘care of the whole person,’ can be found in a number of texts in this time period, including the translation efforts by Fr. George E. Ganss, S.J. (1905–2000) of the Constitutions[44] and Farrell’s work on the Ratio. Farrell would include as one of the key principles rooted in the Ratio studiorum, “Personal interest in and contact with the student for the purpose of inspiring and encouraging him to achieve distinction in both learning and virtue.”[45] In addition, Robert A. Hewitt, S.J. (1914–78), of Boston College and former Rector of Boston College High School and Cheverus High School, would draw from Article 7 of the Instructio to dive further into the ‘personalis alumnorum cura’ in 1956 at the meeting of secondary school delegates at the JEA to advocate for the place of ‘personal counseling’ for students by all Jesuit high school teachers.[46]
Whatever it may be, it is undeniable that the Instructio was one of the focal documents that surrounded much of Jesuit education in the early and middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Whether it was indeed a ‘magna carta’ of Jesuit education is a less important issue. However, I believe that alongside its efforts to organize Jesuit education on a national scale and increase special studies within the Jesuit ranks, the story of the elaboration of this source provides a way to grasp the concerted effort of this time period to rearticulate a Jesuit way of proceeding with regard to education and the intellectual apostolate. The following critical translations of the 1934 and 1948 Instructio documents offer therefore a modest, yet essential, contribution to the description of how the living tradition of Jesuit education was unfolding in the United States during the early twentieth century and beyond.
Instruction for the American Assistancy on the Organization of Universities, Colleges, and High Schools and on the Preparation of their Teachers
Title I
On Cooperation between Provinces and the Leadership
within Individual Provinces
Article 1
Unity
The unity between our Universities, Colleges, and High Schools, which reason itself and the spirit of our Institute so greatly recommend, is rendered absolutely necessary by the present circumstances of our times.
Cooperation
To achieve this unity, both the Provinces themselves and each of their individual members must cooperate with united efforts.
Article 2[48]
National Association
To achieve this cooperation properly, it is very important that a vigorous and effective “Association of Universities, Colleges, and High Schools of the Society of Jesus in the United States” be established as soon as possible.[49]
Article 3
Interprovincial Executive Committee
- §1. This Association will be governed by an Interprovincial Executive Committee, which will be composed of the General Prefects of Studies from each Province, and will meet at least once a year.
- §2. The duties of this Committee will be:
- a) to consult about all matters related to studies and education and to present these in a timely fashion to the Provincial Superiors and the Superior General;
- b) To assist the Provincials in ensuring that what has been established and approved by legitimate authority for each Province is assigned to be carried out.
Article 4
National Secretary
- §1. A permanent National Secretary of Education, appointed by the Superior General, will preside over the Interprovincial Executive Commission, ex officio. This Secretary will send a full report on academic matters to the Superior General at least once a year.
- §2. The Secretary will establish his office in the location deemed most suitable and will be provided with all the necessary resources to properly fulfill his duties.
- §3. The duties of this Secretary are:
- a) To take special care of educational matters throughout the entire Assistancy;
- b) To have a thorough understanding of the state of affairs and personnel in our Universities, Colleges, and Schools;
- c) To attend educational conferences, at least those of major importance, and there to act as representative of the Interprovincial Association mentioned in Article 2;[50]
- d) To offer advice and assistance to Superiors and officials in their relations with “Accrediting Agencies”;
- e) To maintain up-to-date information related to education for the use of Ours, and to communicate summaries of this information several times a year.
Article 5
General Prefects of Studies
- §1. At least in the larger Provinces, two General Prefects of Studies should be appointed: one for the Universities and Colleges, another for High Schools, and each should have two consultants or assistants. However, in smaller Provinces, at least one General Prefect of Studies should be appointed, who similarly should have two consultants or assistants.
- §2. The role of these General Prefects will be to assist the Provincial Superiors in all matters related to the studies of Ours and of externs; specifically, to conduct regular visitations of our schools, so that they can assess progress made, correct deficiencies, and ensure that directives are properly implemented.
Title II
On the Education of Students, on Professors,
and on the Governance of Universities, Colleges, and High Schools
Article 6
Excellence to be Achieved
Universities, Colleges, and High Schools should make every effort to truly achieve excellence in their own domain, in accordance with our Institute, while taking into account the proper considerations of the diversity and demands of the times and places. Therefore, the focus should be not so much on expanding or founding new schools, but rather on improving those we already have.
Article 7
According to the Spirit of the Ratio Studiorum
We must keep in mind the essential and characteristic elements of our Institute and schools, which must always and everywhere be put into practice, especially things such as:
- §1. The ultimate end of our education: i.e. to lead our neighbor to the knowledge and love of God.[51] Accordingly, the primary concern must be that students, along with academic learning, acquire habits worthy of Christian morals.[52] In all our schools, the first priority must be the moral and religious formation of students, according to the principles and directives of the Church. In this way, we will prepare outstanding individuals for family, country, and the Church—individuals who, in whatever field of life they may engage, will stand out to others both by the integrity of their principles and solid Christian virtues, and who will be capable of actively promoting Catholic action under the guidance of the Hierarchy.
- §2. Special means conducive to this education:
- a) Religious instruction, taught with particular care and adapted to the age and formation of the young;
- b) Scholastic Philosophy, which, together with religious truth, should be applied as a norm to all areas of daily life;
- c) Our traditional method of teaching, which not only aims at imparting knowledge but, above all, at ensuring the formation and development of the whole person with all their faculties;
- d) Personal interest in students,[53] by which Ours, beyond the teaching and good example provided in the classroom, strive to guide and assist each individual student with counsel and encouragement.[54]
Article 8
A System Proper to the Society
Since it is evident that among the many new and varied educational systems of modern times, even the schools of the Society have been adversely affected, it will be very useful for the Interprovincial Committee to examine the question of organizing our academic curriculum in such a way that the principles of our Ratio studiorum are adapted to the needs of the present day and that we achieve greater stability and uniformity in all of our schools.
Article 9
Priests Should Teach in High Schools
It is absolutely necessary that there be a stable faculty in order to foster stable academic traditions. Therefore, Ours, after ordination, should be prepared to make a career of teaching in High Schools. They should understand that they are fulfilling a task of the highest value by providing academically solid and religiously oriented education to Catholic youth at a formative age.
Article 10
Prefects of Studies in High Schools
The Prefects of Studies in High Schools must be prepared for their role with the proper degrees and academic training as well as practical experience in administration.
Article 11
Department Heads and Deans of Universities and Colleges
In Universities and Colleges, department heads should be well-versed in their field, preferably holding a doctorate, and fully demonstrating administrative competence. This applies even more strongly to the Dean of Faculties.
Article 12[55]
Authority of Prefects
- §1. As is proper, Prefects of Studies, both general and particular, must be subject to the authority of their Provincials and Rectors. Nevertheless, it is highly appropriate that they be granted as much authority as is necessary to effectively fulfill their duties.
- §2. All Prefects of Studies, whether general or particular, should not fail to write at least once a year to the Superior General and twice a year to their respective Provincial.[56]
Article 13
Changes to Be Avoided
Although indifference to location and readiness to undertake any task for the glory of God are to be praised and encouraged, according to our Institute, Superiors must understand that the reputation, stability, and progress of our schools require that officials and professors not be frequently moved from their positions.
Article 14
Esteem for Learning and Degrees
Superiors should constantly promote in Ours, especially the young, the high regard that has always flourished in our Society for true and solid learning. They should encourage and assist, to the best of their ability, those who, in response to modern needs, strive to attain even higher academic degrees for the glory of God and the good of souls.
Article 15
Professors Should Have Time for Writing
Superiors should carefully ensure that Ours, who have striven to become distinguished in their fields through arduous and prolonged effort, are freed from other duties so that they may have sufficient time and leisure to continue to develop their skills and to publish their research, whether through lectures and conferences or through the publication of books and dissertations. There is hardly a more suitable and effective way to attract esteemed scholars to our Colleges and Universities, and to the Society itself, or a means more aligned with our Institute to promote the glory of God, the honor of the Church, and the salvation of souls.
Article 16
Statutes of Universities and Colleges
Each University and College should establish and publish Statutes, as uniform as possible. Along with other useful information they should clearly establish norms for the hiring, promotion, and other matters related to professors.
Article 17
Lay Professors
- §1. As a general rule, lay professors should not be accepted into Faculties unless they are Catholic, possess true teaching ability, and hold the required degrees.
Lay Deans
- §2. Lay deans should be selected for their distinguished learning, administrative expertise, and exemplary faith and Catholic life.
Article 18
Chancellor or President of the University
If in certain Universities, due to their size, it seems necessary to appoint a Chancellor or President in addition to the Rector, this person will be designated by the Superior General. Under the overall leadership of the Rector, the Chancellor or President will administer, ex officio, the educational affairs and relations of the entire University.[57]
Article 19
Financial Foundations
Everyone, especially Superiors, should make every effort to establish financial foundations, which are in our times (if ever they were) exceedingly necessary for the welfare of the Colleges. Therefore, benefactors must be prudently sought out, who are willing and able to cooperate with us in matters of education.
Article 20[58]
Accounting Practices
- §1. In each of our Colleges, a modern system of bookkeeping should be established, under a competent accountant, who will act as an assistant to the Procurator.
- §2. These books should be reviewed at regular intervals by qualified individuals (Certified Public Accountants).
Financial Reports
- §3. If it becomes necessary to share any financial documents (reports or statements) with external parties, this should only be done by the appropriate authority. These reports must be accurate, consistent, and faithfully correspond to the copies kept within our records.
Article 21
Educational Reports
In a similar manner, reports, records, and lists that show the state of education and individual students in our schools should be accurately compiled and properly organized. They should be consistent from year to year, published by the appropriate authority, and copies should be kept in our records.
Article 22[59]
Attendance at Convenings
To foster friendly relations and to gain comprehensive expertise on the state of education, it is advisable that not only the Prefects of Studies, Deans, and other Officials, but also local Superiors, and occasionally even Provincials, attend convenings of Educational Associations.
Article 23[60]
Affiliation with Accrediting Agencies
Given the current circumstances, it seems necessary that our Universities, Colleges, and High Schools seek membership with the respective Accrediting Agencies, and that, once affiliated, they should strive to excel among other institutions of the same rank.
Article 24
Relationship with Bishops
All Superiors should strive with special care to ensure that the relationships between our Colleges and the Bishops and ecclesiastical authorities are as friendly as possible. To this end, they must carefully ensure not only that they earn and maintain the goodwill and cooperation of the Bishops through due obedience and respectful deference, but also that they demonstrate in word and deed that our Colleges are centers of Catholic activity, always ready to assist and support the Bishops in their plans and labors for the Church and religion.
Title III
On the Preparation of Teachers
Article 25
Selection of Candidates
In admitting candidates to the Society, greater care must be taken, especially as vocations are now more abundant in both number and quality. Therefore, preference should be given to those who excel in talent and character and who show promise of later working fruitfully in the field of education.[61]
Article 26
Scholarly Preparation
Regarding their academic preparation, it is desirable that candidates complete the “intermediate curriculum of classical studies,” i.e., the first two years of College, before entering the Society. Those who are admitted immediately after completing High School must have surpassed mediocrity in their studies and must provide clear evidence of this.
Article 27
Studies of Novices
While maintaining the primary purpose of the Novitiate, which consists in the study of one’s vocation and perfection, and in the love and practice of solid virtues, Superiors should ensure that the studies permitted to Novices are conducted seriously and in an orderly manner, under the best teachers, and should be especially focused on learning the Latin language as best they can.
Article 28
Studies in the Juniorate
- §1. In the Juniorate, the course should be in the liberal arts disciplines, which the Apostolic Constitution Deus Scientiarum Dominus prescribes for those who are advancing to Philosophy, and which the American educational system requires as the foundation for higher studies.
Definition
- §2. By “liberal arts disciplines” are meant: the vernacular language, classical and modern languages, history, mathematics, the so-called natural sciences, and pedagogical concepts.
Order of Studies
- §3. The order of studies approved by the Superior General for each Juniorate must be followed, and, as far as possible, should be uniform. However, there is nothing to prevent considering the individual interests and aptitudes of each Scholastic, so that they may later be prudently directed toward those disciplines to which they are most inclined, which are usually referred to as “special studies.”
Article 29
Division of Philosophy
It will be most useful, also with regard to civil academic degrees, if Philosophy is taught in all Scholasticates as follows:
1) In the first two years, all courses of Philosophy should be covered through the principal and easier topics, and at least the civil degree of Bachelor’s should be conferred;
2) In the third year, the more difficult topics should be thoroughly treated in such a way that the Scholastics, through lectures and through “seminars,” are trained in truly scientific methods and work, with the aim of obtaining the canonical degree of Licentiate and the civil degree of Master of Arts.
Article 30[62]
Special Studies. Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees
After completing the Juniorate and the Philosophy curriculum, each Scholastic who is destined to teach shall be sent to one of our Universities to specialize in a discipline determined by the Superiors, after consultation with Professors, Deans, and Prefects of Studies. They will focus on these studies until they obtain a Bachelor’s and a Master’s degree. In this matter, the cooperation of everyone is essential, so that the most suitable Universities are chosen, and Scholastics are fully supported in every way.
Article 31
Pedagogical Courses
It must be ensured that, either during the Philosophy curriculum or the special studies curriculum, or in both, the pedagogical courses required according to the current standards in America are completed.
Article 32
Teaching
- §1. After obtaining the Master’s degree in a specialized discipline, Scholastics will generally engage in teaching for one or two years, mostly serving as Assistants to the permanent Professors in the discipline to which they are assigned, striving to make progress in these areas.
“Teaching Fellowships”
- §2. Nothing prevents, and it is even recommended, that while Scholastics are preparing for the Master’s degree, they also engage in teaching through “Teaching Fellowships,” that is, by teaching some lower-level courses in their discipline while continuing their own advanced studies.
Those Exempted from Teaching Should Demonstrate Teaching Ability
- §3. Those whom the Superiors deem better suited to be exempt from teaching and immediately apply themselves to higher studies should still be given the opportunity to demonstrate their teaching ability.[63]
Article 33
Special Studies for the Doctorate
After completing Theology and Tertianship, those selected by the Superiors will devote themselves to the studies required for a Doctorate in their discipline, either at one of our Universities or, if possible, at another Catholic university, that is well-suited for achieving the intended goal.
Article 34[64]
Relationship with Learned Societies
To encourage continuous progress in learning and to secure for the Society the authority in the field of education that typically arises from interaction with scholars, Superiors may allow Scholastics who have attained a Master’s degree to join such scientific societies. These memberships may even continue during their study of Theology if they do not interfere with the sacred sciences.
Wlodimir Ledóchowski
Superior General of the Society of Jesus
Rome
August 15, 1934
Instruction for the American Assistancy on the Organization of Universities, Colleges, and High Schools and on the Preparation of their Teachers
Title I
On Cooperation between Provinces and the Leadership
within Individual Provinces
Article 1
Unity
The unity between our Universities, Colleges, and High Schools, which reason itself and the spirit of our Institute so greatly recommend, is rendered absolutely necessary by the present circumstances of our times.
Cooperation
To achieve this unity, both the Provinces themselves and each of their individual members must cooperate with united efforts.
Article 2[66]
National Association
To achieve this cooperation properly, it is very important that a vigorous and effective “Association of Universities, Colleges, and High Schools of the Society of Jesus in the United States” be actively promoted.
Article 3.
Interprovincial Executive Committee
- §1. This Association will be governed by an Interprovincial Executive Committee, which will be composed of the General Prefects of Studies from each Province, and will meet at least once a year.
- §2. The duties of this Committee will be:
- a) to consult about all matters related to studies and education and to present these in a timely fashion to the Provincial Superiors and the Superior General;
- b) To assist the Provincials in ensuring that what has been established and approved by legitimate authority for each Province is assigned to be carried out.
Article 4
National Secretary
- §1. A permanent National Secretary of Education, appointed by the Superior General, will preside over the Interprovincial Executive Commission, ex officio. This Secretary will send a full report on academic matters to the Superior General at least once a year, and will consult on these matters with the Provincial Superiors in an annual meeting.[67]
- §2. The Secretary will establish his office in the location deemed most suitable and will be provided with all the necessary resources to properly fulfill his duties.
- §3. The duties of this Secretary are:
- a) To take special care of educational matters throughout the entire Assistancy;
- b) To ensure that the Constitution of the Association, as approved by the Superiors, is duly observed;[68]
- c) To have a thorough understanding of the state of affairs and personnel in our Universities, Colleges, and High Schools;
- d) To attend educational conferences, at least those of major importance, and there to act as representative of the National Association mentioned in Article 2;
- e) To offer advice and assistance to Superiors and officials in their relations with “Accrediting Agencies”;
- f) To maintain up-to-date information related to education for the use of Ours, and to communicate summaries of this information several times a year.[69]
- g) To be the editor of the official journal of the Association.[70]
Article 5
General Prefects of Studies
- §1. At least in the larger Provinces, two General Prefects of Studies should be appointed: one for the Universities and Colleges, another for High Schools, and each should have two consultants or assistants. However, in smaller Provinces, at least one General Prefect of Studies should be appointed, who similarly should have two consultants or assistants for Universities and Colleges, and two for High Schools.
- §2. The role of these General Prefects will be to assist the Provincial Superiors in all matters related to the studies of Ours and of externs; specifically, to conduct regular visitations of our schools, so that they can assess progress made, correct deficiencies, and ensure that directives are properly implemented.
Title II
On the Education of Students, on Professors,
and on the Governance of Universities, Colleges, and High Schools
Article 6
Excellence to be Achieved
Universities, Colleges, and High Schools should make every effort to truly achieve excellence in their own domain, in accordance with our Institute, while taking into account the proper considerations of the diversity and demands of the times and places. Therefore, the focus should be not so much on expanding or founding new schools, but rather on improving those we already have.
Article 7
According to the Spirit of the Ratio Studiorum
We must keep in mind the essential and characteristic elements of our Institute and schools, which must always and everywhere be put into practice, especially things such as:
- §1. The ultimate end of our education: i.e. to lead our neighbor to the knowledge and love of God. Accordingly, the primary concern must be that students, along with academic learning, acquire habits worthy of Christian morals. In all our schools, the first priority must be the moral and religious formation of students, according to the principles and directives of the Church. In this way, we will prepare outstanding individuals for family, country, and the Church—individuals who, in whatever field of life they may engage, will stand out to others both by the integrity of their principles and solid Christian virtues, and who will be capable of actively promoting Catholic action under the guidance of the Hierarchy.
- §2. Special means conducive to this education:
- a) Religious instruction, taught with particular care and adapted to the age and formation of the young;
- b) Scholastic Philosophy, which, together with religious truth, should be applied as a norm to all areas of daily life;
- c) Our traditional method of teaching, which not only aims at imparting knowledge but, above all, at ensuring the formation and development of the whole person with all their faculties;
- d) Personal interest in students,[71] by which Ours, beyond the teaching and good example provided in the classroom, strive to guide and assist each individual student with counsel and encouragement.
Article 8
A System Proper to the Society
Since it is evident that among the many new and varied educational systems of modern times, even the schools of the Society have been adversely affected, it will be very useful for the Interprovincial Committee to examine the question of organizing our academic curriculum in such a way that the principles of our Ratio studiorum are adapted to the needs of the present day and that we achieve greater stability and uniformity in all of our schools.
Article 9
Priests Should Teach in High Schools
It is absolutely necessary that there be a stable faculty in order to foster stable academic traditions. Therefore, Ours, after ordination, should be prepared to make a career of teaching in High Schools. They should understand that they are fulfilling a task of the highest value by providing academically solid and religiously oriented education to Catholic youth at a formative age.
Article 10
Prefects of Studies in High Schools
The Prefects of Studies in High Schools must be prepared for their role with the proper degrees and academic training as well as practical experience in administration.
Article 11
Department Heads and Deans of Universities and Colleges
In Universities and Colleges, department heads should be well-versed in their field, preferably holding a doctorate, and fully demonstrating administrative competence. This applies even more strongly to the Deans of Faculties.
Article 12
Authority of Prefects
- §1. As is proper, Prefects of Studies, both general and particular, must be subject to the respective authority of their Provincials and Rectors. Nevertheless, it is highly appropriate that they be granted as much authority as is necessary to effectively fulfill their duties.
- §2. All general Prefects of Studies, as well as all particular Prefects of Studies in Universities and Colleges, should not fail to write at least once a year to the Superior General and twice a year to their respective Provincial.[72]
- §3. It is especially the duty of the particular Prefects of Studies, both in Colleges and in High Schools:
- a) to occasionally attend individual classes of teachers;[73]
- b) to convene meetings of teachers, according to a program established by the Rector, to review and promote academic progress.[74]
Article 13
Changes to Be Avoided
Although indifference to location and readiness to undertake any task for the glory of God are to be praised and encouraged, according to our Institute, Superiors must understand that the reputation, stability, and progress of our schools require that officials and professors not be frequently moved from their positions.
Article 14
Esteem for Learning and Degrees
Superiors should constantly promote in Ours, especially the young, the high regard that has always flourished in our Society for true and solid learning. They should encourage and assist, to the best of their ability, those who, in response to modern needs, strive to attain even higher academic degrees for the glory of God and the good of souls.
Article 15
Professors Should Have Time for Writing
Superiors should carefully ensure that Ours, who have striven to become distinguished in their fields through arduous and prolonged effort, are freed from other duties so that they may have sufficient time and leisure to continue to develop their skills and to publish their research, whether through lectures and conferences or through the publication of books and dissertations. There is hardly a more suitable and effective way to attract esteemed scholars to our Colleges and Universities, and to the Society itself, or a means more aligned with our Institute to promote the glory of God, the honor of the Church, and the salvation of souls.
Article 16
Statutes of Universities and Colleges
Each University and College should establish and publish Statutes, as uniform as possible. Along with other useful information they should clearly establish norms for the hiring, promotion, and other matters related to professors. These Statutes, being highly valued in educational matters, should be diligently observed in our Universities and Colleges.[75]
Article 17
Lay Professors
- §1. As a general rule, lay professors should not be accepted into Faculties unless they are Catholic, possess true teaching ability, and hold the required degrees.
Lay Deans
- §2. Lay deans should be selected for their distinguished learning, administrative expertise, and exemplary faith and Catholic life.
Article 18
Division of Governance
If in certain Universities, due to their size, a division of governance seems necessary or useful, the method for establishing this division will be determined by the Superior General.
Article 19
Financial Foundations
Everyone, especially Superiors, should make every effort to establish financial foundations, which are in our times (if ever they were) exceedingly necessary for the welfare of the Colleges. Therefore, benefactors must be prudently sought out, who are willing and able to cooperate with us in matters of education.
Article 20
Accounting Practices
- §1. In each of our Colleges, a modern system of bookkeeping should be established, under an expert accountant, who will act as an assistant to the Procurator.
- §2. These books should be reviewed at regular intervals by qualified individuals (Certified Public Accountants).
Financial Reports
- §3. If it becomes necessary to share any financial documents (reports or statements) with external parties, this should only be done by the appropriate authority. These reports must be accurate, consistent, and faithfully correspond to the copies kept within our records.
Article 21
Educational Reports
In a similar manner, reports, records, and lists that show the state of education and individual students in our schools should be accurately compiled and properly organized. They should be consistent from year to year, published by the appropriate authority, and copies should be kept in our records. It will also be very useful if the Presidents of our Colleges and Universities publish an annual report on the academic and financial status (in accordance with the prescriptions of Epitome n. 879, and following).[76]
Article 22[77]
On Libraries and Their Care
- §1. Among the aids to studies, the library holds the primary place. Therefore, in all Universities, Colleges, and High Schools, libraries should be diligently and vigorously promoted according to the standards in effect for schools of the same grade and as prescribed by regional associations.
- §2. In each school, a truly sufficient supply of both books and periodicals, adapted to the curricula of each school, should be provided.
- §3. A certain annual sum should be allocated for this purpose, which should not be diverted to other uses.
- §4. The library requires a competent librarian, who must be properly prepared for such an important office.
Article 23[78]
Attendance at Convenings
To foster friendly relations and to gain comprehensive expertise on the state of education, it is advisable that not only the Prefects of Studies, Deans, and other Officials, but also local Superiors, and occasionally even Provincials, attend convenings of Educational Associations.
Article 24
Affiliation with Accrediting Agencies
Given the current circumstances, it seems necessary that our Universities, Colleges, and High Schools seek membership with the respective Accrediting Agencies, and that, once affiliated, they should strive to excel among other institutions of the same rank.
Article 25
Relationship with Bishops
All Superiors should strive with special care to ensure that the relationships between our Colleges and the Bishops and ecclesiastical authorities are as friendly as possible. To this end, they must carefully ensure not only that they earn and maintain the goodwill and cooperation of the Bishops through due obedience and respectful deference, but also that they demonstrate in word and deed that our Colleges are centers of Catholic activity, always ready to assist and support the Bishops in their plans and labors for the Church and religion.
Title III[79]
On the Preparation of Teachers
Article 26
Selection of Candidates
In admitting candidates to the Society, greater care must be taken, especially as vocations are now more abundant in both number and quality. Therefore, preference should be given to those who excel in talent and character and who show promise of later working fruitfully in the field of education.
Article 27
Scholarly Preparation
Regarding their academic preparation, it is desirable that candidates complete the “intermediate curriculum of classical studies,” i.e., the first two years of College, before entering the Society. Those who are admitted immediately after completing High School must have surpassed mediocrity in their studies and must provide clear evidence of this.
Article 28
Studies of Novices
While maintaining the primary purpose of the Novitiate, which consists in the study of one’s vocation and perfection, and in the love and practice of solid virtues, Superiors should ensure that the studies permitted to Novices are conducted seriously and in an orderly manner, under the best teachers, and should be especially focused on learning the Latin language as best they can.
Article 29
Studies in the Juniorate
- §1. In the Juniorate, the course should be in the liberal arts disciplines, which the Apostolic Constitution Deus Scientiarum Dominus prescribes for those who are advancing to Philosophy, and which the American educational system requires as the foundation for higher studies.
Definition
- §2. By “liberal arts disciplines” are meant: the vernacular language, classical and modern languages, history, mathematics, the so-called natural sciences, and pedagogical concepts.
Supplementary Disciplines
- §3. “If a Scholastic has come from a secondary school in which one or more of the disciplines mentioned in §2 were either not taught at all or at least not sufficiently, Superiors should ensure, according to the guidelines given by the Superior General, that he studies those disciplines and passes an examination, generally before advancing to Philosophy or at least before being admitted to its examinations” (Cf. Ratio studiorum superiorum [1941], n. 126).[80]
Order of Studies.
- §4. The order of studies approved by the Superior General for each Juniorate must be followed, and, as far as possible, should be uniform. However, there is nothing to prevent considering the individual interests and aptitudes of each Scholastic, so that they may later be prudently directed toward those disciplines to which they are most inclined, which are usually referred to as “special studies.”
Article 30
Division of Philosophy
- 1. “In presenting Scholastic Philosophy, the material should be divided over three years so that each year covers different parts in the following or a similar manner: Year I—Logic, Criticism or Criteriology (Epistemology), Ontology; Year II—Cosmology and Psychology; Year III—Natural Theology and Ethics, along with Natural Law.”[81]
- 2. “With the approval of the Superior General, the material of Philosophy may also be arranged so that all parts are covered in the first two years, reserving the more difficult questions from all or some parts for the third year. However, where this distribution has been legitimately introduced, it should not be changed without new approval from the Superior General” (Cf. Ratio studiorum superiorum [1941], n. 131).[82]
Article 31[83]
Special Studies. Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees
After completing the Juniorate and the Philosophy curriculum, Scholastics, especially those foreseen to become teachers, shall be sent to a Catholic University (in accordance with Epitome n. 325, §2)[84] to focus on the specific discipline determined by the Superiors, after consultation with Professors, Deans, and Prefects of Studies. They will focus on these studies until they obtain the Bachelor’s and the Master’s degrees. In this matter, the cooperation of everyone is essential, so that the most suitable universities are chosen, and Scholastics are fully supported in every way.[85]
Article 32
Pedagogical Courses
It must be ensured that, either during the Philosophy curriculum or the special studies curriculum, or in both, the pedagogical courses (e.g. principles, history, psychology, administration, general and specific teaching methods, teaching experiments) required by current standards are completed.[86]
Article 33
Teaching
- §1. After obtaining the Master’s degree, Scholastics will generally engage in teaching for one or two years, mostly serving as Assistants to the permanent Professors in the discipline for which they are well prepared, striving to make progress in these areas.
“Teaching Fellowships”
- §2. Nothing prevents, and it is even recommended, that while Scholastics are preparing for the Master’s degree, they also engage in teaching through “Teaching Fellowships,” that is, by teaching some lower-level courses in their discipline while continuing their own advanced studies.
Those Exempted from Teaching Should Demonstrate Teaching Ability
- §3. Those whom the Superiors deem better suited to be exempt from teaching and immediately apply themselves to higher studies should still be given the opportunity to demonstrate their teaching ability.
Article 34
Special Studies for the Doctorate
After completing Theology and Tertianship, those selected by the Superiors will devote themselves to the studies required for a Doctorate in their discipline, either at one of our Universities or, if possible, at another Catholic university that is well-suited for achieving the intended goal. In special cases, Scholastics may be sent directly to pursue a Doctorate after completing the Philosophy curriculum, with the approval of the Provincial.[87]
Article 35[88]
Relationship with Learned Societies
To encourage continuous progress in learning and to secure for the Society the authority in the field of education that typically arises from interaction with scholars, Superiors may allow Scholastics who have attained a Master’s degree to join such scientific societies. These memberships may even continue during their study of Theology if they do not interfere with the sacred sciences.
Jean-Baptiste Janssens
Superior General of the Society of Jesus
Rome
September 27, 1948
Notes:
[1] See Jesuit Educational Association, “John W. Hynes, S.J.: Ad Multos Annos,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1951): 64.
[2] Both of these can be found in José Mesa, S.J. (ed.), Ignatian Pedagogy: Classic and Contemporary Texts on Jesuit Education from St. Ignatius to Today (Chicago: Loyola Press, 2017).
[3] See Barton T. Geger, S.J., “Cura Personalis: Some Ignatian Inspirations,” Jesuit Higher Education 3, no. 2 (2014): 6–20. For the humanist roots of cura personalis, see Cristiano Casalini, “Włodzimierz Ledóchowski’s Call for Cura Personalis: Humanist Roots and Jesuit Distinctiveness in Education,” Studia Paedagogica Ignatiana 22, no. 4 (2020): 123–34, https://doi.org/10.12775/SPI.2019.4.006.
[4] I am grateful to Claude Pavur, S.J., who had referred me to a 2011 drafted translation of the 1934 Instructio by David H. Gill, S.J. and Charles F. Ahern, retired professors of the Classics Department of Boston College, which aided in the edited and updated translation presented here.
[5] The Catholic Educational Association (CEA), renamed the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) in 1927, was founded in 1904 as a result of concerted efforts to organize a Catholic educational association in the United States that included Catholic schools, colleges, universities, and seminaries. The CEA began as a merger between the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities of the United States (founded in 1899), the Conference of Diocesan Representatives of Catholic Parish Schools (founded in 1902), and the Educational Conference of Seminary Faculties (founded 1899). Monsignor Denis J. O’Connell, D.D. (1849–1927), rector of The Catholic University of America, served as the first President General of the CEA. See Catholic Educational Association, “Report of the Proceedings and Addresses of the First Annual Meeting, St. Louis, MO. July 12, 13 and 14, 1904,” The Catholic Educational Association Bulletin 1, no. 1 (1904): 1–196.
[6] See Paul A. FitzGerald, S.J., The Governance of Jesuit Colleges in the United States, 1920–1970 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 3; Matthew J. Fitzsimons, S.J. “The Instructio, 1934–1949,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1949): 69–78.
[7] The first American Assistant elected was Thomas I. Gannon, S.J. (1853–1918), provincial of the Maryland-New York Province.
[8] In 1900, the two American Provinces at the time (Maryland-New York and Missouri) including several mission areas, consisted of 7,191 students enrolled in the seven-year collegiate program. By 1921, there would be 25,477 students enrolled in collegiate programs and 12,723 were registered in university courses and professional programs. See “Students in our Colleges in the United States and Canada, Oct. 1, 1900,” Woodstock Letters 29, no. 3 (1901): 550; “Students in Our Colleges,” Woodstock Letters 51, no. 3 (1922): 469.
[9] “Report of the Meeting of the Inter-Province Committee on Studies,” 1921, Jesuit Educational Association Collection, JA-2015-001, Box 49, Folder 1, John J. Burns Library of Boston College (hereafter JBL); hereafter “Inter-Province Report.”
[10] Albert C. Fox, S.J. also served as the President of the Department of Colleges and Secondary Schools and was on the Executive Board for the CEA at the time.
[11] “Inter-Province Report,” 1921, 2.
[12] “Inter-Province Report,” 1931, 92–114.
[13] The five other Jesuits were Charles F. Carroll, S.J. (1877–1934), General Prefect of Studies of the California Province and Regent of the University of San Francisco School of Law; Charles J. Dean, S.J. (1881–1966), Dean of the College and Dean of Administration, John Carroll University; John W. Hynes, S.J. (1886–1952), President of Loyola University, New Orleans; and Edward P. Tivnan, S.J. (1882–1937), Procurator of the New England Province, Boston College.
[14] See Report of the Commission on Higher Studies of the American Assistancy, 1931–1932, Jesuit Educational Association Collection, JA-2015-001, Box 49, Folder 23, JBL; hereafter 1932 Report.
[15] 1932 Report, 17–19.
[16] See “John W. Hynes, S.J.: Ad Multos Annos”; Edward B. Rooney, S.J., “Report of the Executive Director,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 19, no. 1 (1956): 7–16.
[17] See Wlodimir Ledóchowski, “Epistola ad patres et scholasticos assistantiae americae,” Acta Romana 7, no. 3 (1934): 920–23; Wlodimir Ledóchowski, “Ad praepositos provinciarum assistentiae americae,” Acta Romana 7, no. 3 (1934): 923–27.
[18] Jesuit Educational Association, “Meeting Minutes of the Executive Committee,” November 1938, Jesuit Educational Association Collection, JA-2015-001, Box 33, JBL; hereafter JEA Minutes.
[19] Ledóchowski, Ad praepositos provinciarum, 923.
[20] Ledóchowski, Ad praepositos provinciarum, 924. Cf. GC 2, D. 11 and GC 1, D. 91 in John W. Padberg, S.J., Martin D. O’Keefe, S.J., and John L. McCarthy, S.J. (eds), For Matters of Greater Moment: The First Thirty Jesuit General Congregations (St. Louis, MO: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1984).
[21] At the time, the typical course of formation for Jesuits included the stages of the novitiate, juniorate, philosophate, regency, theologate, and tertianship. Following the two-year novitiate period, which was concluded by pronouncing his perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the Jesuit became a ‘scholastic’ and entered the ‘collegiate program’ consisting of a two-year juniorate and three-year philosophate. The traditional juniorate, in line with a value of gradualness, was attached to the novitiate, forming a single community but may have been in a separate wing. Studies in the juniorate concentrated on languages and literature, primarily in Latin, Greek, and English, with a course or two in ancient Roman or Greek history. The Jesuit then moved to a separate location and community to enter the philosophate and study the sciences, chiefly scholastic philosophy. Following the philosophate and the collegiate program, the Jesuit entered a period of regency, where he was no longer fully together with his initial cohort, and immersed in apostolic work for three years, usually teaching at a Jesuit high school and acting as a moderator for some sort of extracurricular activity or group such as athletics, newspaper, yearbook, or student clubs. After the philosophate, the Jesuit returned to studies for the next four years in the theologate, where he prepared for priestly formation, academic study of theology, and was ordained as a priest in his third year. Theologates were usually in more rural locations and were separate institutions. Tertianship was the final phase of formation and directly followed theology. It was the shortest stage of formation, traditionally lasting eight to ten months, and was understood as a ‘third year’ of the novitiate, where Jesuits returned to the ‘school of the heart,’ in contrast to the ‘school of letters.’ For more on the ‘school of the heart,’ see Barton T. Geger, S.J., Constitutions of the Society of Jesus: A Critical Edition with the Complementary Norms (Chestnut Hill, MA: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 2024), §516 and 239n458.
To illustrate this, it is helpful to trace to the account of Joseph M. Becker, S.J. (1908–2001). Becker joined the Society of Jesus in 1926 at the novitiate in Florissant, Missouri. He continued with his juniorate at Florissant from 1928–30, before moving to St. Louis, Missouri for his philosophate experience at St. Louis University from 1930–33, where he took “one course each in chemistry, physics, biology, and mathematics. They were special courses taught only to Jesuits and possibly thinner than the regular courses taught in the university” (Becker, 264n3). Becker recalls that in the beginning of the 1930s, only three of the philosophate were on or immediately adjacent to college campuses: “That of the Missouri and Wisconsin provinces, in St. Louis, Missouri; that of the California and Oregon provinces, in Spokane, Washington; and that of the New Orleans province, in Mobile, Alabama” (Becker, 197n2). For his regency from 1933 to 1936, he was assigned to Loyola University in Chicago, Illinois, where he taught Latin, Greek, and English in the academies, served as an assistant moderator in athletics, and as an assistant prefect of conduct. Afterwards, he was sent to St. Mary’s College in St. Marys, Kansas from 1936 to 1940 for his theologate, and was ordained in 1939 during his third year, as was the norm. Following his theologate, he did his tertianship at the St. Stanislaus tertianship house in Cleveland, Ohio in 1941. He was then sent to the University of Detroit as a lecturer on philosophy and religion while serving as a confessor and giving exhortations to students for one year, before he was assigned to special studies for sociology and economics. Becker would receive his doctorate in economics from Columbia University. See Joseph M. Becker, S.J., The Re-Formed Jesuits: A History of Changes in Jesuit Formation During the Decade 1965–1975 (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1992).
[22] Jesuit Educational Association, “Father Daniel M. O’Connell, S.J.,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 21, no. 4 (1959): 263. See also FitzGerald, Governance of Jesuit Colleges, 49–50.
[23] The attention of academic credits grew much larger in the 1960s and post-Vatican II. A 1967 survey of novitiates in the United States, conducted by the JEA, found that novices accumulated a number of college credits during their novitiate at various provinces. In some novitiates, the men earned over a year of college credit in areas such as theology, languages, and sometimes in music. The provinces ranged widely from six total credits during the two years of the novitiate at Shadowbrook in Lenox, Massachusetts to forty-six credits at the St. Charles College novitiate in Grand Coteau, Louisiana. However, Becker recounts that even during his own novice years in 1926–28 at Florissant, Missouri, he had earned a number of college credits in Latin and English without his knowledge. See Becker, The Re-Formed Jesuits, 231n1, 233–34.
[24] Cf. Edward J. Power, History of Catholic Higher Education in the United States (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1958), 237n55.
[25] JEA Minutes, April 1947.
[26] JEA Minutes, April 1947.
[27] Rooney would serve as the National Secretary of the JEA until 1966.
[28] JEA Minutes, November 1938.
[29] Padberg, For Matters of Greater Moment, GC 28, D. 38.
[30] JEA Minutes, October 1939.
[31] Zacheus J. Maher, S.J. served as the rector of the University of Santa Clara (now Santa Clara University) from 1921–26 and rector of Loyola University of Los Angeles (now Loyola Marymount University) from 1930–32.
[32] JEA Minutes, October 1939.
[33] The Committee for the Revision of the Instructio consisted of Matthew J. Fitzsimons, S.J. (chair), Julian L. Maline, S.J., William J. McGucken, S.J., and Allan P. Farrell, S.J.
[34] JEA Minutes, October 1942.
[35] Allan P. Farrell, S.J., The Jesuit Code of Liberal Education: Development and Scope of the Ratio Studiorum (Milwaukee, WI: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1938).
[36] JEA Minutes, April 1943.
[37] Superior General Wlodimir Ledóchowski died in Rome December 13, 1942. Ledóchowski had named Alessio Ambrogio Magni, S.J. (1872–1944) as vicar-general in the event of his death. Magni, however, soon followed him in death just sixteen months on April 12, 1944. De Boynes would be elected as vicar-general and then called General Congregation 29 (1946) as soon as the turbulence of the war allowed.
[38] JEA Minutes, April 1946.
[39] Jean-Baptiste Janssens, S.J., “Ad patres et scholasticos assistentiae americae,” Acta Romana 11, no. 4 (1948): 568–71.
[40] Matthew J. Fitzsimons, S.J., “The Instructio 1934–1949,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1949): 69–78, at 70.
[41] See “John W. Hynes, S.J.: Ad Multos Annos.”
[42] See John W. O’Malley, S.J., “Jesuit Schools and the Humanities Yesterday and Today,” Studies in the Spirituality of Jesuits 47, no. 1 (2015): 1–34, at 25; or Joseph F. Mulligan, S.J., “Jesuit Education and the Natural Sciences,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 21, no. 4 (1959): 209–21, at 212, for instance.
[43] See the first article published on the Jesuit Educational Quarterly, the official journal of the JEA; George D. Bull, S.J., “Present Tendencies in Our Educational System,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 1, no. 1 (1938): 5–13.
[44] See for example George E. Ganss, S.J., Constitutions of the Society of Jesus (St. Louis, MO: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970), §456.
[45] Farrell, Jesuit Code of Liberal Education, 146 and 404.
[46] Robert A. Hewitt, S.J., “Personalis Alumnorum Cura,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 19, no. 1 (1956): 35–41.
[47] For the original Latin translation, see Acta Romana 7, no. 3 (1934): 927–35.
[48] Articles 2–5 are almost copied word for word from the recommendations of the 1932 Report. Ledóchowski appointed six Jesuits to this commission: Charles F. Carroll, Charles J. Deane, Albert C. Fox, John W. Hynes, Edward P. Tivnan, and James B. Macelwane (chair). For a history of this commission, see FitzGerald, The Governance of Jesuit Colleges in the United States 1920–1970, 21–35.
[49] While this Association was initially named as such, it would soon be changed officially to the Jesuit Educational Association (JEA). The JEA was self-understood as the vehicle to ensure the implementation of the Instructio. It would remain in existence until 1970, when the association split between higher education and secondary association, creating the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) and the Jesuit Secondary Educational Association (JSEA), which would later be changed again to the Jesuit Schools Network (JSN) in 2015.
[50] The meetings of the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA) and the JEA were particularly in mind here.
[51] Ratio studiorum 1599, “Rules for the Provincial,” §1; “Common Rules for Professors of the Higher Faculties,” §1; “Rules Common to All the Professors of the Lower Classes,” §1. The edition referred to throughout this text is Claude Pavur, S.J., Ratio Studiorum: The Official Plan for Jesuit Education (St. Louis, MO: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 2005); hereafter RS1599.
[52] Cf. Constitutions, §481. The edition referred to throughout this text is Barton T. Geger, S.J., Constitutions of the Society of Jesus: A Critical Edition with the Complementary Norms (Chestnut Hill, MA: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 2024).
[53] The Latin phrase “personalis alumnorum cura” is used here and has traditionally been seen as the roots of the more modern ‘cura personalis.’ While this typically is understood as ‘care of the whole person,’ the original grounding of the Latin framing for this particular document seems to be first drafted in English through the 1932 Report and then translated into Latin for the Instructio. In proposing a Jesuit philosophy of education, the ‘means’ listed in the 1932 Report frame this particular point as, “Personal interest in the student, spurring him on and encouraging him to do his individual best in acquiring both learning and virtue” (1932 Report, 17–19). For the sake of maintaining the historical understanding of those who drafted the document, the original English phrasing has been kept.
In addition, the English articulation of ‘personal interest in students’ is evident in other works of this time period such as Farrell’s The Jesuit Code of Liberal Education.
[54] Cf. RS1599, “Common Rules for Professors of the Higher Faculties,” §20; “Common Rules for Professors of the Lower Classes,” §50; Constitutions, §456.
[55] Cf. RS1599, “Rules for the Prefect of Studies,” §1; Epitome n. 336
[56] Cf. Epitome n. 859, §1, 7°.
[57] In the United States, the rector was typically in charge of both the university and the Jesuit community associated with the university at this time. The movement away from this model led to the separation of the Jesuit rector and the president. In 2020, Superior General Arturo Sosa, S.J. abolished the usage of the term rector to denote superiors of communities. See Geger, Constitutions, 214n390; cf. Constitutions, §§490, 493.
[58] Cf. 1932 Report, “Summary of Recommendations,” Part II, §§2–7.
[59] The NCEA and regional associations were particularly in mind here.
[60] Of particular concern was the recognition by the Association of American Universities and the Association of American Colleges. Cf. 1932 Report, “Summary of Recommendations,” Part III.
[61] Cf. Wlodimir Ledóchowski, “Ex epistola de ratione comparandi Societati viros excellentes [On the Manner of Securing Outstanding Men for the Society],” Letter to some Provincials, April 10, 1918, Acta Romana 2 (1918): 583–90; for English translation, see American Assistancy of the Society of Jesus, Selected Writings of Father Ledóchowski (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1945), 519–26.
[62] Cf. Epitome nn. 309; 325, §2.
[63] Cf. RS1599, “Rules for the Provincial,” §26; Epitome n. 295.
[64] It is not surprising that this push for the engagement with learned societies makes it into the 1932 Report and then to the Instructio. The Commission on Higher Studies was chaired by James B. Macelwane, S.J., a prominent seismologist, scientist, and one of the drafters of the Instructio. He was the organizer and president of the Jesuit Seismological Association and would hold positions in other learned societies such as the president of the American Geophysical Union, president of the Missouri Academy of Science, and a member of the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation. See Edward B. Rooney, S.J., “Report of the Executive Director,” Jesuit Educational Quarterly 19, no. 1 (1956): 7–16; cf. 1932 Report, “Summary of Recommendations,” Part II, §§16.
[65] For the original Latin translation, see Acta Romana 9, no. 4 (1948): 571–79.
[66] For the evolution of the official name of the association, see above note 48.
[67] This last clause was added in the revised edition to explicitly add the role of the Provincials with regard to the National Secretary. While in practice, the Provincials were the acting Board of Governors of the association, there was concern by some that Provincial oversight was being diminished.
[68] Concern was raised by Vicar-General Norbert de Boynes on whether this point was infringing upon the authority of local superiors. While this seems to have ultimately been a misunderstanding between the Constitutions of the Society and the Constitutions of the Jesuit Educational Association, it further highlights the concern for the shifts in power, administration, and oversight that this document was proposing. See JEA Minutes, April 1945, 3.
[69] One of the first initiatives of the JEA was to implement and maintain a directory of all Jesuit schools, colleges, and universities in the American Assistancy. Enrollment statistics were also collected and began to be published in the Jesuit Educational Quarterly (JEQ).
[70] The journal being referenced here is the JEQ, which launched with its first issue in 1938, though the discussion of such a journal began as early as 1928 during within the Interprovince Committee on Studies. While the National Secretary was technically the editor of the journal, in practice, the managing editor was the primary director of the periodical. The first managing editor of the JEQ, was Allan P. Farrell, S.J. (1896–1976), who was unanimously voted by the JEA Executive Committee.
[71] For notes on the translation of ‘personalis alumnorum cura,’ see above note 53.
[72] Some debate occurred between Rome and the American Jesuits as it pertained to the ‘Praefecti Generales.’ Vicar-General Norbert de Boynes believed it should read ‘Omnes praefecti studiorum universitatem et collegiorum, sive . . .’ However, the growing distinction between high schools, colleges, and universities in the United States led the revision committee to land at the present wording. With every Consultor of the House for each community writing annually, Rome believed that it would cover the high schools, however, it was not universally true that prefects of studies (principals) of high schools were house consultors at the time. The term ‘Praefecti Generales’ was not used particularly in the educational institutions, but was rather a province official, which was changed in the American Assistancy from the recommendation of the Inter-Province Committee in 1921. See Inter-Province Report, 1921; Edward B. Rooney, S.J., Report of the Executive Director to the Board of Governors of the Jesuit Educational Association (1945), Jesuit Educational Association Collection, JA-2015-001, Box 24, Folder 8, JBL; cf. Epitome n. 859, §1, 7°; RS1599, “Rules for the Provincial,” §2.
[73] The tension observed from the JEA Executive Committee was that it was logistically difficult for General Prefects of the Province to visit many classrooms of Jesuits who had been teaching for a long time. However, these teachers would also at times feel slighted if such class visits were omitted. See JEA Minutes, April 1944.
[74] An interesting exchange of letters about this point is discussed between the Vicar-General, Provincials, and the National Secretary Edward B. Rooney, S.J. The worry of the Vicar-General Norbert de Boynes seemed to be one of distribution of power. De Boynes was interpreting the proposal for the power to convene the faculty and oversee progress was being transferred away from the Rector, leading to the addition of the wording of ‘established by the Rector.’ See Norbert de Boynes, Letter to Father Assistant Zacheus J. Maher, January 17, 1945, Jesuit Educational Association Collection, JA-2015-001, Box 24, Folder 8, JBL; cf. RS1599 nn. 41, 45; Statuta Facultatum in Collegiis Societatis Iesu Erectarum (Rome: Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae, 1934), n. 15; Epitome nn. 334, 402.
Rooney in his 1945 report, clarifies that “Charging deans and principals with the function of calling routine faculty meetings does not withdraw the deans or principals, or the meetings, from the supervision of the Rector. Our whole aim in inserting this section was to try to ensure [sic] the holding of faculty meetings. . . . Our idea was that the calling of routine meetings was rather necessary for the efficient performance of a principal’s or dean’s functions. We also feel that accrediting associations would complain if the authority of deans and principals were so restricted” (Rooney, Report to the Board of Governors [1945], 5).
[75] Article 16 would be discussed within the JEA with regard to uniformity and adaptability. While the language inscribed in the Instructio pushes for uniformity, this was not interpreted as strict uniform application, but rather, the emphasis was on the opposite. The discourse of the JEA was that the statutes are “patterns upon which individual schools may fashion their own statutes, and adapt or modify them according to local needs” (JEA Minutes, April 1941, 3).
In addition, it was strongly suggested in the discussion of statutes that Jesuit schools “make every effort to provide some sort of pension for teachers in our schools” as well as insurance and other provisions (JEA Minutes, April 1944, “Report,” 4).
[76] The Epitome here references the need for any publication to first receive permission from the Provincial. While this effort of uniform documentation was in efforts for unification of the various educational apostolates, it also very much in the spirit of the Society to focus on good record-keeping. See Paul Nelles, “Jesuit Letters,” in The Oxford Handbook of the Jesuits, 44–72, ed. Ines G. Županov (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190639631.013.3.
[77] In 1933, Ledóchowski wrote a letter to all the Provincials of the Society on the choice of ministries. He devotes an entire section to the importance of libraries and a trained librarian, which seems to echo the sentiments of 1932 Report. See Wlodimir Ledóchowski, “De ministeriorum atque operum delectu nostrorumque ad ea institutione [On the Choice of Our Ministries and Works, and of Our Training for Them],” Letter to Provincials, June 29, 1933, Acta Romana 7, no. 2 (1933): 454–93; for an English translation, see American Assistancy of the Society of Jesus, Selected Writings of Father Ledóchowski (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1945), 549–80. Cf. Epitome n. 363, §4
However, this particular article was not proposed until the second revision process held in 1942–43 by the JEA sub-committee on the Revision of the Instructio consisting of Fathers Matthew J. Fitzsimons, Julian L. Maline, William J. McGucken, and Allan P. Farrell. The emphasis of the library, particularly for graduate studies can be seen in other documents in this period to further establish the necessary resources for academic excellence in Jesuit educational institutions. In the 1937 statement by the JEA entitled Norms Proposed by the Committee on Graduate Studies of the Jesuit Educational Association for Its Guidance in Appraising Graduate Work, there is a section focused on the need for good libraries for graduate courses, stating that “a reference librarian and a dictionary catalogue are indispensable.” In addition, nine different entries are published in the Jesuit Educational Quarterly about libraries in schools, colleges, and universities within this time period. This was also likely due to the revisiting of the study of the Ratio. See RS1599, “Rules for the Provincial,” §33. Cf. Epitome n. 341; Constitutions, §372.
[78] The NCEA and regional associations were particularly in mind here.
[79] Title III received the most number of revisions from the 1934 version, much of which was after review of the Ratio studiorum superiorum (RSS) that was set in motion by General Congregation (GC) 28, DD. 38 and 39, and promulgated in 1941 for experimentation. In 1946, GC 29 would appoint Superior General Jean-Baptiste Janssens, and would discuss at length the RSS. They would ultimately decide to extend the experimentation of the RSS due to disagreements and difficulties of implementation. This would eventually be revised and finalized in 1958. For the English translations of the General Congregations, see Padberg, O’Keefe, S.J., and McCarthy, For Matters of Greater Moment.
Though the RSS would not be officially revised and finalized until 1958, the JEA and the recently appointed Superior General Jean-Baptiste Janssens found it worthy to implement the Instructio as it was due to the already delayed timeline.
[80] The text referred to in the RSS here is regarding those who are to be admitted to the course of Philosophy. Where the text in the Instructio refers to §2, the Ratio refers to n. 125, which discusses the requirement of classical studies, as well as “appropriate religious instruction and studies in Latin, Greek, and vernacular literature, which are the principal disciplines, must also include natural history, mathematics, physics, chemistry, geography, and civil history . . .” Cf. RSS1941, nn. 125–26; RSS1954, nn. 119–20.
[81] Cf. Peter J. Beckx, “De triennali philosophiae studio,” in Epistolae Selecta Praepositorum Generalium ad superiores societatis (Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1911), 234–54.
[82] The discussion in the JEA Executive Meeting reveals that in practice, this task of covering the material in the first two years was almost always rendered impossible, though the wording was left since it was in the Ratio. See JEA Minutes, April 1944, “Report,” 7.
In the RSS1954, the wording would be change to:
“With the approval of the Provincial, the material of Philosophy may also be arranged so that in the first two years, all parts of Scholastic Philosophy, along with all major questions of substance, are covered, and in the third year, certain principal questions, especially the more difficult ones, are suitably completed and explained in greater depth.” (RSS1954, n. 131, §2)
[83] This article received ‘exhaustive discussion’ about the practicality of having every single scholastic who might become an educator to go on to receive special studies. At the same time, a proposed change to ‘some’ or ‘those who may teach a special discipline’ seemed to raise concern about whether it would too drastically reduce the number of scholastics sent for special studies. In the meeting minutes and comments on revisions, it is clear that there was a shared understanding that the preparation of Scholastics for special degrees was one of the most important concerns of the Instructio. See JEA Minutes, April 1944, “Report”, 8.
[84] The Epitome n. 328 here encourages the attendance of Catholic universities when possible. However, §2 stipulates that,
“According to common law, it is not permitted to send religious to secular universities unless they have completed the entire course of theology and philosophy with commendation, are distinguished by exemplary religious life, and have obtained the express permission of the General; nor should this extend beyond what is required by the necessity or utility of the Order. However, Provincials, by privilege of the Society, may send selected Scholastics to these universities, provided they are fully trained in all branches of philosophy and especially proven in solid virtue, under the condition that they reside in our houses and live a religious life.” (Epitome, n. 328, §2)
[85] This particular article received much discussion and debate amongst Jesuits. Vicar-General Norbert de Boynes poses the question, “Are we to gather from it, that select students of our High Schools (Novices are supposed to be selected) after 5 years devoted to the study of Literature, History, Sciences, Philosophy, etc. are not candidates for the degree A.B., not to say A.M.? Is the course given to Ours in the Society so inferior to that given to the boys in our Colleges? If so, what is being done to remedy such an anomalous situation?” (Norbert de Boynes, S.J., Letter to American Assistant Zacheus J. Maher, January 17, 1945, Jesuit Educational Association Collection, JA-2015-001, Box 24, Folder 8, JBL). The problem was that while some Jesuits were going through coursework at the Jesuit houses of study, they were not always receiving credits towards degrees.
Provincials were also particularly concerned about the practicality of sending scholastics on to receive a Master’s degree immediately after Philosophy. They cite the logistical difficulty, as well as the case that it is not “desirable in all cases since there are some scholastics who either because of lack of ability or for other reasons should not be sent to special studies” (Response of Board of Governors to Report of Executive Director [1945], Jesuit Educational Association Collection, JA-2015-001, Box 24, Folder 8, JBL).
[86] The mentioning of specific courses was not meant to be prescriptive, but merely illustrations. See JEA Minutes, April 1944, “Report”, 8.
[87] Cf. Epitome n. 325.
[88] For more on learned societies, see above note 64.
Open Access 
