An amazing recalling of mid-1950s Catholic (actually, Jesuit) secondary and higher education.
It is by someone who later became a psychiatrist, and thus bought into every single idiocy
of the contemporary mindset. But, amazingly, this author was able to step out his 2010s shoes
to recollect what made those mid-Twentieth Century teachers tick (before, at the article's end, inevitably relapse into the nostrums of our day.
The under-statement of the year, though, has to be his observation
that to-day's students would never accept what was commonplace 60 years ago.
All to their loss, I'd say.
Where I utterly part company from the author is in his conclusion
that it is because RC's clergy are invariably so infantalized
that he found his Jesuit adolescent-teaching high school teachers could so tremendous,
but his Jesuit adult-teaching college teachers so mediocre or worse.
At GU in the late 1950s no one who took Frank Fadner, SJ, Joseph Sebes, SJ, Joseph Zrinyi, SJ,
Joseph Sweeney, SJ, or William Kelly, SJ, would have thought
that any of them was less than an unbelievably phenomenal teacher.
If present day Jesuit education sucks, which it surely does, it is not in any way because
it continues over 400 years of Jesuits' pedagogy, including vows to poverty, obedience and celibacy . And that's because nowadays precious few Jesuits have any of the three.
The dis-avowing of the three started in Jesuit colleges decades before it did in Jesuit high schools.
That's the explanation for Barry Gault's finding such a difference between his secondary and collegiate Jesuit teachers.
What an excellent article. I have a similar background though 10 yrs later than the author, but my Catholic high school was just as he describes, and had a more lasting impact than Catholic college. The beauty of this piece is that I had no idea where he was going until he got there. Right on the mark.
I found the article by Barry Gault on his Jesuit education at Marquette High and the College of the Holy Cross illuminating in parts but offensive in others, particularly his conclusions about priests, based on those he knew as a student in the 1950s. Certainly there are emotionally unhealthy (and even abusive) priests, as there are emotionally unhealthy (and even abusive) married men and fathers. But really: Poverty, chastity and obedience render a person incapable of being a "good decision maker"? Tell that to the Jesuits who founded, built and ran Marquette High and Holy Cross, accomplishments which, I would suspect, required a modicum of decision-making skills. Celibacy doesn't allow for a "full" life? Tell that to St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Teresa of Avila and, by the way, Jesus of Nazareth. Finally, to conclude, Mr. Gault, a psychiatrist, passes along a sneering comment he heard from "several" women: "Priests are like children." Men are children, he explains, but priests are "more so." Thanks: we're children. Can I look forward to other articles that pass on callous stereotypes and dismissive generalizations about other groups of people? Psychiatrists perhaps? Stereotypes are insidious, no matter who the group. And even if the Jesuits didn’t teach this to Mr. Gault in the 1950s, he should know it by now.
Can someone explain for me the significance of the green apple on the front cover of this issue of Commonweal? Is there an allusion to some famous painting or photo?
Thanks
An amazing recalling of mid-1950s Catholic (actually, Jesuit) secondary and higher education.
It is by someone who later became a psychiatrist, and thus bought into every single idiocy
of the contemporary mindset. But, amazingly, this author was able to step out his 2010s shoes
to recollect what made those mid-Twentieth Century teachers tick (before, at the article's end, inevitably relapse into the nostrums of our day.
The under-statement of the year, though, has to be his observation
that to-day's students would never accept what was commonplace 60 years ago.
All to their loss, I'd say.
Where I utterly part company from the author is in his conclusion
that it is because RC's clergy are invariably so infantalized
that he found his Jesuit adolescent-teaching high school teachers could so tremendous,
but his Jesuit adult-teaching college teachers so mediocre or worse.
At GU in the late 1950s no one who took Frank Fadner, SJ, Joseph Sebes, SJ, Joseph Zrinyi, SJ,
Joseph Sweeney, SJ, or William Kelly, SJ, would have thought
that any of them was less than an unbelievably phenomenal teacher.
If present day Jesuit education sucks, which it surely does, it is not in any way because
it continues over 400 years of Jesuits' pedagogy, including vows to poverty, obedience and celibacy . And that's because nowadays precious few Jesuits have any of the three.
The dis-avowing of the three started in Jesuit colleges decades before it did in Jesuit high schools.
That's the explanation for Barry Gault's finding such a difference between his secondary and collegiate Jesuit teachers.
Sharing the same high school graduation year of the author, albeit in a smaller coed high school in central Wisconsin, I easily identified with the distant yet still important memories of the author. I also studied Latin, under a highly competent nun who was equally competent in math. I went on to study theology in a diocesean seminary. As much as I treasure my education, and the work of the nuns (disciplined yet joyful), I lament the state of much our our current leadership in the church. Voluntary celibacy among other changes, is long overdue. I trust the Spirit will lead us there.
Answering my inquiry about the cover design (with the green apple over the face) someone suggested that I google Rene Magritte (Belgian painter, 1898-1967). Many thanks! Both Google Images and Wikipedia offered much of interest. Somewhat as Barry Gault's article does, Magritte's paintings provoke questions.
Barry Gault's article brought back many fond memories of my own Catholic education in the 40s and 50s. I appreciate both his article and honesty. My own experiences, however, did not coincide with his disappointment with his Catholic college teaching.
Gault indicates that the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience might lead to an "incomplete adulthood" and hamper an adult grasp of wealth, sex, and power. There are cases where that is probably so. On the other hand, I wonder how he thinks the adult Christ of the gospels told anyone who wants to be his disciple how to contend with wealth, sex, and power. He certainly didn't go out of his way to encourage his followers to amass wealth, engage in sexual activities, and exert power over others. Or did I miss something?
Certainly Gault was right in saying that "none of us, growing up Catholic, ever thought of such a thing" as clergy sex abuse of minors, and that our teachers' "lives were consecrated -- to our education." Then he muses: "Could it be that a requirement of celibacy resulted in a disproportionate number of sexually immature men among Catholic clergy?" Theoretically, I guess we could say that's indeed possible. And some do insist that is so. But, then, why did it not affect our many priest teachers in elementary, high, college, and post-graduate schools? Isn't it true that the epidemic proportions only seem to appear in the 60s, 70s and 80s? And, not to excuse this terrible aberration among such a large number of priests, apparently even on a worldwide scale, isn't it true that the vast majority of abuse cases are perpeterated by men who have never made any pretense of being celibate? Study and research are needed, yes, but I would hesitate to put the blame on the religious vows. But let me be clear: I still think it is a mistake for the Roman church to demand celibacy of all who seek ordination to the priesthood.
I am shocked, angered and saddened by the fact that so many priests have been sexual predators of youth, and why so many bishops stonewalled. It came to me as a bolt out of the blue in the late 80s. I'm still looking for an explanation. No doubt, clerical privilege and fear of scandal played a big part. So too, I think, did the fact that bishops are not parents of flesh and blood children, and that the papacy was blinded by its own theology of the priesthood. But I still am looking for a more complete understanding of why such large numbers of men sworn to celibacy and to Christ preyed on the innocent youth entrusted to their pastoral care to such an outrageous extent from about 1960 to 1990. I hope the worst is past us, but with the revelations from Philadelphia lately, I tend to hold my breath.