IDENTITY OF MARIANIST EDUCATION

Roots and Heritage

Volume 4

Charles-Henri Moulin, SM

Eddie Alexandre, SM

And a Team of French Educators

Translated from the French by Charles H. Miller, SM

CONTENTS

PREFACE      

INTRODUCTION      

PART ONE      

THE SOURCES OF AN IDENTITY      

CHAPTER 1 AN OVERVIEW OF EDUCATION IN FRANCE      

1.      IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY      

2.      DURING THE FRENCH REVOLUTION      

3.      UNDER NAPOLEON AND THE FIRST EMPIRE      

4.      EDUCATION UNDER THE RESTORATION OF THE MONARCHY      

CHAPTER 2 - CHAMINADE’S EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE      

CHAPTER 3 - CHAMINADE AND EDUCATION DURING THE EMPIRE      

CHAPTER 4 - THE FIRST MARIANIST SCHOOLS      

1.      PENSION AUGUSTE (RUE DES MENUTS) AND INSTITUTION SAINTE-MARIE (RUE DU MIRAIL) (1819)      

2.      THE FIRST FREE PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR POOR FAMILIES IN AGEN      

CHAPTER 5 - THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEDAGOGY      

1.      AT THE WELLSPRINGS OF MARIANIST PEDAGOGY, SOME LEADERS      

2.      A NATURAL-BORN PEDAGOGUE, JEAN-PHILIPPE-AUGUSTE LALANNE      

3.      VARIOUS TYPES OF MARIANIST SCHOOLS      

3.1.      Free Schools      

3.2.      Preparatory Elementary Schools      

3.3.      Special Schools, Also Known as Joint Schools or Middle Schools      

3.4.      Trade and Agricultural Schools

3.5.      Normal Schools      

4.      VARIOUS TEACHING METHODS AND THE FIRST MARIANIST PEDAGOGICAL PUBLICATIONS      

5.      APPENDIX. A DAY IN THE CLASSROOM, AROUND 1830

6.      IN THE CONSTITUTIONS OF 1829 AND 1839      

7.      THE VOW OF TEACHING CHRISTIAN FAITH AND MORALS      

7.1.      Not Just a Passing Idea for Chaminade      

7.2.      The Vow of Teaching Christian Faith and Morals Arises from the Contemplation of the Mystery of Redemption      

PART TWO      

HEIRS OF A HISTORY      

CHAPTER 6 - GROWTH AND CONSOLIDATION OF MARIANIST EDUCATION      

1.      THE AGRICULTURAL AND TRADE SCHOOL TRADITION AT SAINT-REMY, GRANGENEUVE, YZEURE, AND SAINTE-MAURE      

2.      THE TRADITION OF ORPHANAGES IN THE SOCIETY OF MARY      

3.      NORMAL SCHOOLS      

4.      VILLA SAINT-JEAN IN FRIBOURG      

5.      THE PLACE OF THE CHURCH’S SOCIAL TEACHINGS AROUND 1900 IN MARIANIST EDUCATIONAL WORKS      

6.      A LIST OF INNOVATIVE MARIANIST EDUCATORS AT THE TURN OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY      

CHAPTER 7 - WORLDWIDE EXPANSION      

PART THREE      

MARIANIST EDUCATION TODAY      

CHAPTER 8 - THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY, OUR EDUCATIONAL TRADITION HAS BEEN ARTICULATED IN DOCUMENTS CHARACTERIZED BY A CONSTANT FIDELITY TO THE ORIGINAL INTUITION      

1.      OUR EARLIEST DOCUMENTS CONCERNING EDUCATION FLOWED FROM THAT EXPERIENCE      

2.      THE BEGINNINGS OF A TRANSFORMATION      

3.      A NEW REALITY      

4.      THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MARIANIST EDUCATION      

CHAPTER 9 - FAR FROM STAGNATING, REFLECTION ON      

MARIANIST EDUCATION CONTINUES

CHAPTER 10 - THE TEACHING OF THE GENERAL CHAPTERS OF THE LAST THIRTY YEARS, FROM 1986 TO 2016

1.      A NEW TYPE OF PROBLEM      

2.      LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS      

3.      NOT MERELY OBSERVING, BUT APPLYING A REMEDY      

CHAPTER 11 - THE SOCIETY OF MARY IN PUBLICATIONS AND MULTIMEDIA. THE APOSTOLATE OF THE BOOK      

1.      HISTORICAL APPROACHES      

2.      BIRTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF GRUPO EDITORIAL SM      

CHAPTER 12 - A CURRENT PANORAMA OF OUR EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY      

1.      LIGHTING THE WAY AHEAD      

2.      THE WORKERS      

3.      THE GEOGRAPHICAL EXPANSION OF MARIANIST EDUCATION      

4.      SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES      

5.      NONFORMAL EDUCATION      

6.      THE CURRENT SITUATION AND THE FUTURE OF MARIANIST EDUCATION      

7.      TO CONCLUDE THE CHAPTER      

EPILOGUE      

WHERE IS THE GUARANTOR TODAY, “THE MAN WHO NEVER DIES”?      

APPENDIX      A SMALL ANTHOLOGY OF THE MOST RECENT REFLECTIONS ON MARIANIST EDUCATION      

SIGNIFICANCE AND ORIGIN OF THE TEACHING APOSTOLATE IN THE MISSIONARY CHARISM OF THE SOCIETY OF MARY      

MARIANIST SPIRIT AND EDUCATION      

MARY, INSPIRATION AND MODEL FOR THE CHRISTIAN EDUCATOR      

CHARACTERISTICS OF MARIANIST EDUCATION. REFLECTIONS ON THEIR APPLICATION TODAY AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL IN THE USA      

INTERPRETATIONS AND ADAPTATIONS OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MARIANIST EDUCATION TO THE FRENCH CONTEXT      

BIBLIOGRAPHY      

Preface

The publication we present here forms a part of the collection of Marianist Education: Heritage and Future, a series of essays on Marianist education that developed from a project which began to take shape five years ago under the leadership of the Assistant General for Education at that time.

We Marianist religious have been creating educational works since our very origins, almost two centuries ago. Today, all around the world we continue to dedicate the best of our human and material resources to education. Just as we have always done, the practical implementations are accompanied by reflections about the task accomplished, ways of responding creatively to novel and unforeseen situations, and the means for passing on our experience and wisdom to new generations of educators.

In this way the Marianist educational tradition has been enriched over the years, nourished by the reflection, competence, and creativity of those who carry out the initial commitment. Marianist educators (in the beginning all were vowed Marianists and today almost all are laity) have known how to maintain an ongoing dialogue with their environment so their formational goals will continue to become incarnated in each human situation.

Again today, current circumstances demand our attention. The internal conditions of the Society of Mary and of our own establishments require our renewed planning. The growing development of Marianist works in new countries and cultures and the subsequent need to transmit to them an up-to-date Marianist pedagogy, as well as the majority presence of lay people in almost all the positions of responsibility, are realities which mark the way forward in Marianist education.

Given these considerations, the idea arose to undertake the project of Marianist Education: Heritage and Future. The desire to deepen and develop the content of the document on our educational characteristics impelled us to create something new. The growing interest in knowing our charism and the current contributions of the educational sciences have inspired and oriented our efforts. New circumstances for the youth and families of the societies where we are present urge us forward in this task.

The books which form the collection are intended to respond to these needs. The target readers are the many diverse groups of men and women interested in Marianist education: Marianist religious currently dedicated to education, both those now preparing themselves for this and those who have consecrated their entire lives to this; lay people who direct, animate, and teach in a Marianist institution, so they can take on an educational project which may give meaning to their efforts and fill them with enthusiasm; pastoral workers and other educators, so they may accomplish their task with awareness of the principles and motivations which inspire Marianist works; those who animate and govern Marianist life according to various levels of responsibility; and parents of the students, who also begin a process of formation when their children enter an educational institution. The project is also directed to alumni, to the society in which we are present, to all those interested in education, and of course also to local churches, so they all understand more clearly what Marianist educational works intend to accomplish.

The ultimate goal, of course, is to better serve the children and young people who come to our educational institutions and who are the principal recipients of all our efforts.

The purpose of this entire project is to offer a good instrument for promoting formation, reflection, and dialogue in different Marianist surroundings. At the same time, it can serve as a point of reference and of inspiration for local educational projects. For this reason it includes theoretical reflections, as well as more concrete proposals. The Characteristics of Marianist Education are thus framed in a comprehensive study which intends to be thorough and rigorous, but still accessible.

The entirety of the work consists of various sections, each of which is developed in an independent publication. The purpose of the first section, Charism and Educational Mission, is to show how the Society of Mary’s dedication to education is closely related to its very identity. In the section on Educational Principles we intend to plumb the depths of the foundations of Marianist education using the contributions of anthropology and theology, showing the vision of society, of the world, of the people we attempt to form, and of the educational institution where the work is carried out. The third topic addressed is the Context, given that along with the general principles Marianist institutions must take into account the needs, expectations, and conditions specific to each locale, as well as advances in the pedagogical sciences and new technologies. The fourth section discusses the Identity of Marianist education, the heir of a rich tradition with distinctive traits which respond to the principles studied in the preceding chapters. The fifth section deals with the Educational Activity which is developed in diverse institutions and considers some agents and specific recipients. The sixth theme refers to Animation and Leadership of Marianist educational works, for the accomplishment of its objectives depends in great part upon those who bear the burdens of leadership responsibility.

Under the title New Education in New Scenarios, we intend to bring together in the seventh section the contributions of countries or continents more culturally distant from the Western environment in which Marianist education was born, or where at the present time less of a tradition exists.

To carry this entire project forward, we have enjoyed the collaboration of a very valuable team. Among the authors are religious and lay people, men and women, immediately engaged in the Marianist educational mission or fulfilling various responsibilities in this field. Naturally, they begin from the experience of their own cultural scope, but in their considerations they do not miss the universal scope.

The book you now hold is the fourth in this collection. It is entitled Identity of Marianist Education. We are deeply interested in the identity of the Marianist education of which we are heirs, seeking to examine its roots and follow the course of its history up to the present time. It was developed under the direction of Charles-Henri Moulin, surrounded by a team of French educators who deserve our gratitude: Eddie Alexandre, André Brissinger, Hélène Carion, Jean Marc Kusnir, and Adalbert Muller. This team gathered and commented upon an invaluable resource of documentation which will delight many readers and researchers; however, it is impossible to include the scope of their work in the present collection, Marianist Education: Heritage and Future.

The first and second sections of volume four, edited by Eddie Alexandre, are kept as written. The third section, which included more than 700 (A4) pages in the original, had to be reworked under the direction of Essodomna Maximin Magnan, Assistant General for Education, in order to meet the requirements of this collection. Even if some authors’ names are cited, these texts are no longer always complete due to the need for brevity, absence of repetition, and coherence. The authors of this newer version hope they have not betrayed the ambition and the thought of their predecessors, without whom the work presented here could not have been completed. We offer special thanks to Fr. Bernard Vial, who was instrumental in the drafting of this version.

All the documentation, including the many elements not used here but which are obviously relevant, is found in the Education section of the website of the General Administration, www.marianist.org.

Essodomna Maximin Magnan, SM

Assistant General for Education

April 2017

Introduction

It all began in Bordeaux with the Sodality of the Immaculate Conception. But William Joseph Chaminade (1761-1850) already had experience in education through his position at Mussidan in the Ecole Saint-Charles. Upon his return from Spain and in the early days of the founding of the Family of Mary, his main concern was formation in faith. Gradually, and with the help of some of his first disciples who were involved in teaching, he became aware of what the education of young people could contribute to his original missionary aims. During that time, schools were created or taken over, beginning with schools for poor children and then trade schools to train students for various professions. From Bordeaux, this apostolate—for it was just that, in Father Chaminade’s thinking—spread throughout France to the borders of the country. From elementary schools to large establishments such as Saint-Remy or Stanislas of Paris at a later time, Marianist schools have flourished. After France, other countries welcomed the Marianist educators: the United States of America, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium... With this expansion came a growing concern to support the Marianist mission, a concern which also appeared in the consolidation of specific educational methods and practices.

The Marianist educational experience is part of the wider history of education in France, with a particular program: to rechristianize France following the Revolution. Fr. Joseph Lackner researched and synthesized this entire period of Chaminade’s activity (to which we refer the reader; see volume one of this series). We will revisit this period and add some other elements. The purpose of this volume is to define “the identity of Marianist education.”

What is identity? Among the definitions given in the Petit Larousse en couleurs we find in the second place “permanent and fundamental character of someone, of a group. Affirm one’s identity. Crisis of identity. Psychology: social identity, an individual’s belief in belonging to a social group based on the feeling of a geographical, linguistic, cultural community and engendering certain specific behaviors.” The “permanent and fundamental character” could refer to the “principles of [Marianist] education” which, according to article 267 of the Constitutions of 1839, “can no longer vary.” But every society evolves, and it is in this sense that the same article continues, “but the practices by which they are applied and the methods of teaching should necessarily follow the progress of human society and be adapted to its needs and its wishes. To adopt invariability of forms and of modes as a principle would be to limit to a very short time the services and the existence [of the Society].” In our institutions this identity is palpable; there is a “family spirit” that brings us together in all our diversity and makes us a Marianist school, and not something else. We state at this time in this introduction that Marianist education is the opposite of a mold into which young people must be shaped to fit; it intends to take into account the situation of each person—hence the diversity. Of course, the identity of Marianist education is not limited to this aspect alone; this is what we will attempt to develop in this book.

First of all, we will return to the sources of this identity (first part); then we will examine our educational heritage and its development throughout the world (second part); finally, we will see how Marianist education operates today and gives an identity to all Marianist institutions (third part).

Part One- The Sources of an Identity

Chapter 1 - An Overview of Education in France

1.      In the Eighteenth Century

It is traditional in France to say that the Emperor Charlemagne is the one who “invented” the school. We would have to show that the school existed long before him, but that goes far beyond our purpose here. In the Middle Ages, education gradually developed in Europe around monasteries and churches. It was generally reserved for the wealthier classes and clerics; boys were the main beneficiaries of this education. From the 12th century on, universities appeared in the large cities and contributed to the general intellectual, theological, scientific, and cultural development of society. The Hundred Years’ War, the Wars of Religion, and the Thirty Years’ War slowed the development of what would later become the elementary school. From the 16th to the 18th centuries religious congregations, especially the Jesuits, developed free collèges independent of the Université. In the early 17th century, these collèges aroused an enthusiasm among overwhelming numbers; this worried public authorities because of an increase in intellectuals, the decrease in the number of manual laborers, and the societal change this entailed. Educated people wanted to change their rank in society. At the end of the same century as the cost of living was increasing considerably, the collèges emptied because of the impoverishment of families. The collège/séminaire of Mussidan was a part of the continuation of these collèges of the 17th century, offering more or less the same studies. The principal beneficiaries of this teaching were the children of the nobles, the bourgeois, the merchants, and all the legal or liberal professions.

The “little schools” initiated students into writing, reading, calculation, catechism, and singing. These schools developed unevenly according to the regions of the kingdom of France. Teachers of the time were pastors, vicars, and lay people called “regents.” At the end of the 17th century, following the decrease in religious vocations, lay people were more likely to teach; they often had poor training and practically no pedagogy. They lived on a small income and needed to practice another trade to survive. Following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, so that Protestant children might be educated in the Catholic faith Kings Louis XIV and Louis XV issued a number of declarations concerning, among other things, the question of schooling, which the bishops were obliged to implement. “The regents, preceptors, and school teachers of small villages will be approved by the pastors of parishes or by other ecclesiastics who have the right to do so.” Needless to say, what is central to these royal declarations is the teaching of catechism and of the Catholic faith. The most complete declaration, which repeats the preceding ones, is that of Louis XV.

(5) We desire that as much as possible, there will be established male and female school teachers in all the parishes where there now are none at all, to teach all the children, both boys and girls, about the principal mysteries and duties of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Religion; to lead them to Mass on all days of work as far as possible; to give them the instruction they need on this subject; and to take care that they attend the divine service on Sundays and feasts; and also to learn to read and even to write, for those who may need it, all as arranged by the archbishops and bishops. (6) We enjoin all fathers, mothers, guardians, and other people who are in charge of the education of children, and especially those whose fathers or mothers professed the Protestant Reformed Religion or were born of such religious parents, to send them to schools and catechisms until the age of 14.

The need was great, and the 17th century saw the development of several religious congregations for the education of boys and girls, including the Brothers of the Christian Schools at the end of the century. Parish and notary registers are valuable indicators of the number of people who could write. Generally, the nobility and the bourgeoisie knew how to sign. In the 18th century there was a substantial increase in the number of people who could sign with confidence, even among peasants, but this varied greatly from one region to another because the royal declaration was not applied everywhere.

The development of the Enlightenment philosophy certainly played a role in the thirst for knowledge, but not necessarily in the development of schools and collèges. With the publication of Emile, or On Education in 1762, Jean-Jacques Rousseau awakened minds. The collèges had to adapt and open themselves more to new studies such as scientific subjects. To this end, new teaching methods were instituted and developed until the Revolution of 1789.

2.      During the French Revolution

The French Revolution quickly became concerned with “public education” and took the place of the Church in this field. The National Constituent Assembly declared, “A public instruction common to all citizens shall be established and organized free of charge with respect to the parts of education indispensable to all people, the schools of which shall be gradually distributed in a ratio according to the division of the kingdom.” This statement shows us the vision of a school for all and assumes a higher school for those who have the capacity. In the Constitution of June 24, 1793, article 22 is less precise: “Education is needed by all. Society must favor with all its power the progress of public reason and make education accessible to all citizens.” A “committee of public instruction” was set up on October 14, 1791. It evolved according to political changes and the renewal of its membership until its disappearance on October 26, 1795 (4 brumaire, year IV). The Revolution unfolded and moved from the Constituent Assembly to the Legislative Assembly and then to the Convention, continuously delaying the commission’s plans presented by Charles-Maurice Talleyrand and then by Jean-Antoine Nicolas de Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet, with the latter having a global vision of education from childhood to maturity, with institutes for the training of teachers and supervision by the National Society of Sciences and Arts. A year later Maximilien Robespierre presented a “Draft Decree on Public Education” prepared by Louis-Michel Lepelletier of Saint Fargeau. “Article 1. All the children will be reared at the expense of the Republic, from the age of 5 to 12 for boys and from 5 to 11 for girls. (2) National education will be equal for all; all will receive the same food, the same clothes, the same instruction, and the same care. (3) National education being the duty of the Republic to all, all children have a right to receive it, and parents cannot avoid the obligation of allowing them to enjoy its advantages. (4) The object of national education will be to fortify the bodies of the children, to develop them through gymnastic exercises, to accustom them to manual work, to harden them against every type of fatigue, to train their hearts and minds by useful instructions, and to give them the knowledge which is necessary to every citizen, whatever his profession. […] (6) The deposit of the humane sciences and of all the fine arts will be preserved and enriched by the care of the Republic; their study will be taught publicly and free of charge by the Nation’s salaried teachers.” The project also included the care of orphans and “the elementary books to be composed.” This draft was voted on August 13, 1793, but was never applied. The drafts and decrees followed one another with many twists and turns; on September 15, 1793, the Convention passed the “Decree which Established Three Progressive Stages of Public Education.” “(1) Apart from the elementary schools covered by the Convention, the Republic will establish three progressive degrees of instruction: the first for the knowledge indispensable to artisans and craftsmen of all types; the second, for the further knowledge necessary to those who are destined for the other professions of society; and the third, for objects of instruction whose difficult study is not within the reach of all people.” The Convention wanted these schools to be opened on November 1, 1793, “and consequently the full collèges and the faculties of theology, medicine, arts, and law shall be abolished throughout the entire Republic” (article 3).

In the year II, Gabriel Bouquier presented the work of the Committee and obtained the vote for the free and compulsory school for children from 6 to 8 years. The decree of 30 vendémiaire, year II (October 21, 1793) determined the content of the programs and set standards for the establishment of schools; another on 7 brumaire, year II, completed on 9 brumaire (October 28 and 30, 1793), gives the procedure for the recruitment of teachers; on 29 frimaire, year II (December 19, 1793), the Convention decreed that education was free. The decree presented by Joseph Lakanal on 27 brumaire, year III institutes elementary schools for boys and girls (one school per 1,000 inhabitants). Chapter four of this decree, “Instruction and Operation of Elementary Schools,” specifies the type of teaching in article two. “In each section of each school, pupils will be taught (1) to read and to write, and the examples of reading will recall their rights and their duties; (2) the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Constitution of the French Republic; (3) they will give elementary instructions on republican morality; (4) the elements of the French language, both spoken and written; (5) the rules of simple calculation and surveying; (6) the elements of geography and the history of free peoples; (7) elements of the principal phenomena and the most common products of nature.” The collection of heroic actions and the songs of triumph will be made known (article 3). The teaching will be done in the French language; local dialects may be used only as an auxiliary means. The boys will be trained in military exercises and, if possible, in swimming and gymnastics. Again in that same decree, it was recommended to rouse the older people and the defenders of the homeland to the trades and to helping in “domestic and agricultural” work. Article 15 allows “the citizens to open private and free [non-governmental] schools, under the supervision of the constituted authorities.” Shortly before this text, the Convention had created the first French normal school in Paris on 9 brumaire, year III (October 30, 1794). Students had to be at least 21 years old. This school disappeared very quickly. On 14 frimaire, year III (December 4, 1794), three schools of health were planned. Following the report presented by Joseph Lakanal on 7 ventôse, year III (February 25, 1795), the central schools were created “for the teaching of science, literature and the arts,” replacing the collèges which had been abolished; these schools developed nearly everywhere in France.

The decree of 3 brumaire, year IV (October 25, 1795) known as the "Daunou Law” followed the Constitution of 5 fructidor, year III (August 22, 1795). It took up a number of texts and modified them. It dealt with teachers, their selection and appointment, their placement, and their remuneration, which passed from the burden of the State to the families, except for the indigent. The law distinguished three types of institutions: elementary schools teaching reading, writing, calculation, and republican morality; the central schools which replaced the collèges and received pupils after the age of 12 years (the establishment of these schools was slow, resulting in several decrees in 1796 and 1797 for their establishment with some urgency); and finally, the special schools which were destined for the study of astronomy, geometry and mechanics, natural history, medicine, veterinary medicine, rural economy, antiquities, political science, painting, sculpture and architecture, and music. In addition, schools for the deaf and “born blind” people were to be created. Military and public service schools already existed and were to continue their mission as before. Another decree voted on the same day divided the elementary schools into two sections, one for boys and the other for girls, and therefore asked for a male teacher and a female teacher. The same law created the National Institute of Sciences and Arts, which was divided into three classes: (1) Physical and Mathematical Sciences, (2) Moral and Political Sciences, and (3) Literature and Fine Arts.

We owe to the French Revolution what we call les grandes écoles [university level institutes of higher studies]. Thus were created the Jardin des Plantes [botanical garden] and the Museum of Natural History of Paris (June 10, 1793), with corresponding courses; the Central School of Public Works (7 vendémiaire, year III, September 28, 1794), which later became the Polytechnic School on 15 fructidor, year III (September 1, 1795); the School of Living Oriental Languages (10 germinal,year III, March 30, 1795); two schools of rural veterinary economics (29 germinal, year III, April 18, 1795); the School of Inscriptions, Medals, and Antiquities (20 prairial, year III, June 8, 1795). The decree of 30 vendémiaire, year IV (October 22, 1795) gives a list of the so-called “public service” schools, whether planned or already in existence: “Polytechnical School. School of Artillery. School of Military Engineers. School of Bridges and Highways. School of Mines. School of Geographers. School of Ship Engineers. Navigation Schools. Marine Schools.”

3.      Under Napoleon and the First Empire

On 1 germinal, year VIII (March 22, 1800), the concern for a restoration of secondary education was revealed in the creation of a prytanée [military school], divided into five collèges decided by the Consulate. This school was reserved primarily for children whose parents had given their lives for the Nation. However, it was necessary to wait until 11 floréal, year X (May 1, 1802) for an actual reform of education.

Discussions were held during the preparation of this law, particularly with regard to the teaching of agriculture. Here is what the spokesman of the Republic, Antoine Charles, Count de Fourcroy, said in justifying the non-creation of a special school of agriculture.

Agriculture, which tradition alone communicates, which example, experience, and methods extended little by little throughout the countryside and perfected slowly but surely, did not appear appropriate to be taught in special schools because these would be attended by those who do not cultivate, and because those who work the fields would not attend them or would attend without understanding them; it is up to the proprietors to teach this great art on their properties, and to the agricultural societies to spread good practices in their respective departments. Moreover, the principles of the natural sciences, which are applicable to all branches of the rural economy, will be taught in a considerable number of institutions, so that all those who are interested in the progress of this nourishing art may find the means for it in the lycées and special schools.

In spite of the intervention of Citizen Pierre-Charles Martin, Baron de Chassiron, on 6 floréal, year X (April 26, 1802), on the means of introducing the study of agriculture and the rural economy into the bill, nothing happened. Birth of the schools of agriculture had to await private initiatives like that of Mathieu de Dombasle at Roville-devant-Bayon in 1822.

The law of 11 floréal, year X presented four levels of education: elementary schools, secondary schools, lycées, and special schools, with the creation of the special military school; the great novelty of this law was the creation of the lycées, which were to gradually replace the central schools. For elementary schools, teachers would be chosen by mayors and municipal councils; these would be housed by the commune and would receive a stipend, the amount of which had been determined by the municipal councils but paid by the parents. The same councils would be able to exempt poor families from financial participation. The secondary schools could be municipal/public or owned and operated by private individuals, but they all had to be authorized by the Government. The curriculum was to include “the Latin and French languages, the first principles of geography, history, and mathematics.” To obtain the title of secondary school, the decree of 19 vendémiaire, year XII (October 12, 1803) specified that it must have at least three teachers, including the principal, and fifty pupils. The lycée curriculum included “ancient languages, rhetoric, logic, morality, and elements of the mathematical and physical sciences.” In order to understand Father Lalanne’s practice at Saint-Remy, it is important to note that on 30 prairial, year XII (June 18, 1804) a decree was passed “that the skill of swimming will be part of the education in the lycées and secondary schools.” In addition, drawing, military exercises, and fine arts such as dancing and singing were to be taught. Secondary school students would be admitted by competition. “There will be one lycée, at least, by district of each court of appeal.” Teachers of modern languages were to be added to several lycées. New special schools were to be created—ten schools of law; three medical schools; four schools of natural history, physics, and chemistry; two schools of mechanical and chemical arts; one school of higher mathematics; one school of geography, history, and public economy; a fourth school of design; observatories were to have a teacher of astronomy. “Eight teachers of music and composition will be appointed.” Soon after a law was passed organizing the schools of pharmacy. The State was to support 6,400 students in the lycées and the special schools; some national boarding school scholarships would be awarded.

Trade schools existed before the Revolution, but these had been suppressed. They were reborn under the Empire in Compiègne by the decree of 6 ventose, year XI (February 25, 1803); this one later became the Imperial Trade School. According to the decree, it included five workshops: first, for blacksmithing crafts, filer, fitter, and metalworker; second, for the foundry trade; third, for the trades of carpenter and joiner for buildings, furniture, and machinery; fourth, for woodworking; and fifth, for wheelwright. Eight hours were devoted to the workshops and two hours to theory and other subjects.

Although it is not directly related to our subject, it would seem important to mention the law of 23 ventose, year XII (March 14, 1804) which reestablished the metropolitan seminaries, to be subsidized by the State. Later, ecclesiastical secondary schools, future minor seminaries, would also be established. By the royal ordinance of October 5, 1814, these became independent of the Université and were no longer obligated to send their pupils to the secondary schools or lycées of the State.

Under the title “Act Respecting the Formation of a Teaching Faculty under the Name Université impériale,” Napoleon wanted to create a body that would head up all public education. That law of May 10, 1806, gives little information on the plan (3 articles). Article 1 states simply, “Under the name Université impériale a body will be formed which is exclusively responsible for public education throughout the Empire.”

March 17, 1808, a very complete text was passed under the title “Decree on the Organization of the Université.” From then on, “No school, no teaching institution, may be formed outside the Université impériale, or without the permission of its head.” “No one can open a school or teach publicly without being a member of the Université impériale and a graduate of one of its faculties.” The country was divided into “academic councils,” each chaired by a rector. This decree created the faculties and the three levels of studies: baccalauréat, license, and doctorat. Article 101 informs us that “the directors and head teachers of the lycées, the principals and administrators of the collèges, as well as the teachers of these collèges, will be subjected to celibacy and to common life.”!!!

“Article 103. The heads of institutions and the teachers of boarding schools will not be entitled to exercise [their position] without having received from the Grand Master of the Université a certificate entitling their appointment. This certification will be for ten years and may be renewed. (2) Beginning January 1, 1809, public education throughout the Empire will be entrusted exclusively to the Université. (3) Any school which at the time mentioned above does not possess a special certificate from the Grand Master will cease to exist.”

The foundational elements to be taught in the schools of the Université can be summarized as follows: “to form for the State citizens attached to their religion, their prince, their country, and their families.”

Article 108. “To improve elementary education, each academy should open one or more normal schools.” The first higher “normal school” (called pensionnat normal) for the training of teachers was required by the decree and confirmed by another decree in the year 1809. The ordinance of February 27, 1821, invited the creation of partial normal schools near the royal collèges (as distinct from the Grande Ecole Normale in Paris).

109. “The Brothers of the Christian Schools will be certified and encouraged by the Grand Master, who will appoint their internal statutes, admit them to the oath, prescribe a particular style of dress, and cause their schools to be supervised. The superiors of these congregations may be members of the Université.”

The same decree created the competitive examination for agrégés, the qualification for teaching in the lycées, which continues to exist today (articles 119 to 122).

The decree of November 15, 1811, aimed to have 100 lycées in France in 1813. Secondary schools become collèges. Institutions and boarding schools could not teach all the subjects of the lycée and had to send their pupils to the collèges and lycées. This was the case for the pension on the Rue des Menuts in Bordeaux.

4.      Education Under the Restoration of the Monarchy

After taking power, King Louis XVIII maintained the laws governing the Université (June 22, 1814).

By the royal ordinance of February 17, 1815, the Université was decentralized, and its branches took the name of the city where they were located. The bishop and the prefect were members of the local université council. The lycées became collèges royaux.

An institution or boarding school could not be established without the permission of the Université council or without the approval of the Royal Council of Public Instruction.

To develop elementary education, committees were set up in each canton. In the text of the royal ordinance, the king developed the aim of that educational level.

Convinced that one of the greatest advantages we may obtain for our subjects is an instruction suitable to their respective conditions; that such instruction, especially when it is founded on the true principles of religion and morality, not only is one of the most fruitful sources of public prosperity, but also contributes to the good order of society, preparing for obedience to the laws and the fulfillment of all types of duties...

Every commune will be obliged to ensure that the children who live there receive elementary instruction, and that the indigent children receive this free of charge.

To be able to teach, a person had to hold the general certificate of capacity and the special authorization of the rector. In the same order it was specified that “On agreed terms, any religious or charitable association, such as that of the Christian Schools, may be permitted to furnish teachers to the communes that request them, provided that this association is authorized by us and its regulations and its methods have been approved by our Commission of Public Instruction.”

We can more easily understand why Father Chaminade was requested by so many communes and why more than half our institutions were communal schools (about 56% in 1874), later fewer because of the German annexation of Alsace. Later still, the public schools were abandoned because the law of October 30, 1886 (articles 17 and 18), to be applied within five years, did not allow religious to teach there, which meant that we had left almost all those institutions by 1891.

The issue of the military draft was a problem for the early religious. If by chance they drew a “poor number,” they would have to leave for six to eight years of military service or pay someone to replace them. The law of March 10, 1818, gave dispensation to young men pursuing ecclesiastical studies, as well as to the students of the Ecole Normale and of public instruction, who had to commit themselves for ten years. These provisions were applicable to the Brothers of the Christian Schools. The novices and the brothers pledged their ten-year commitment into the hands of their superior, who sent the list annually to the minister. This question of the military draft and the above law spurred the eagerness of Father Chaminade to obtain legal recognition of the Society of Mary by the kingdom of France, especially for religious who were not teachers and who risked falling under the law of the military draft.

The political organization of education became necessary. By an ordinance of August 26, 1824, the King created a Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Instruction and defined the powers of the minister of that department.

The Minister of Public Instruction from 1832 to 1837, François Guizot, gave new impetus to education in France. By the law of June 28, 1833, private or public elementary education was recognized; municipalities had to establish these schools and recognize with the title of communal school, at the request of the municipal councils, “schools belonging specifically to one of the religious denominations recognized by the State.” Teachers, including the religious, now had to be trained and have attained the Brevet de capacité for teacher certification. They received a salary, and housing was to be provided for them. These schools were free for the poor. By the same law, the elementary school was divided into two levels.

•      Elementary education [for ages 6 to 13], which included “moral and religious instruction, reading, writing, elements of the French language and arithmetic, and the legal system of weights and measures.”

•      Higher elementary education [ages 14-15 to 17], which included also “the elements of geometry and its usual applications, especially linear drawing and surveying; some concepts of the physical sciences and natural history applicable to everyday life; singing, the elements of history and geography, and especially the history and geography of France.” These higher elementary schools were to be established in towns with more than 6,000 inhabitants

Each local school was to have a “local supervisory committee composed of the mayor or his assistant presiding, the Catholic pastor or Protestant minister, and one or more well-known residents designated by the ward committee.”

Soon after this law, the same recommendations were made for the development of elementary schools for girls.

The law of March 15, 1850, better known as the “Falloux Law,” complemented the Guizot Law and recognized what was called the “free school.” In 1839 Father Lalanne had published a pamphlet on this topic, “Freedom of Education Defended Against the Thinking of the State and Against the Unfavorable Prejudices of the Clergy”; this had an important impact, leading to the creation of a Committee for the Defense of Freedom of Education which prepared the law of 1850.

Until then, few teacher training normal schools had been developed, except mainly in the eastern part of France; that of Strasbourg, founded in 1810, had inspired similar institutions. If elementary schools were to develop, it was necessary to be concerned with the training of teachers. The Guizot Law required in its article 11 that “Every department will be bound to maintain an elementary teacher-training school, either by itself or by joining with one or more neighboring departments.” These normal schools would develop, and little by little they would escape from the departments and depend directly on the national government. They would often become hotbeds of anticlericalism.

There was very little development of trade schools, also called “schools of arts and crafts,” which Father Chaminade would have liked to promote. These did not appear until the latter part of the 19th century. They were often created by factories to train the workforce.

At the agricultural level, “school farms” were set up at the beginning of the 19th century but were few in number. By a decree of October 3, 1848, the State gave a new impetus to agricultural education, which was developing gradually. Thus our school of agriculture in Saint-Remy, Haute-Saône, was recognized by the State as a school farm around 1850.

As we have seen, religious authorities had influence over education. The second half of the 19th century saw the rise of anti-clericalism in France, which culminated in the laws of Jules Ferry establishing absolutely free elementary education in public schools and compulsory school from 6 to 13 years of age for both boys and girls, a positive contribution. On the other hand, the rights of inspection, supervision, and direction were forbidden to ministers of religion following the exclusion of the representatives of the Church from the High Council of Public Instruction, and from then on “public elementary schools will close one day a week, in addition to Sunday, in order to allow parents, if they so wish, to have religious instruction given to their children apart from the school buildings.” Thursday became the catechism day. The secularization of education and curriculums had begun, and it became effective in the law of October 30, 1886, which required that all teachers would be lay people and that the congréganistes [members of religious teaching congregations] would be replaced within five years after the promulgation of the law. In its Title Three, the same text gives the guidelines to be followed for “private education, also called “free education,” which would develop until the beginning of the 20th century and thereafter at the insistence of the clergy. Two schools would face off against each other for years: the “secular schools” and the “pastors’ schools,” according to the popular expression.

The anticlerical crisis culminated in the early 20th century. As all French people understood, the Law of Association of July 1, 1901, was anti-religious congregations in its Title III, and the congregations not already recognized by law (as was the case for the Marianists) must request legal recognition. They were refused in 1903, and the liquidation of their property was announced. The law of July 7, 1904, forbid purely and simply any teaching by religious congregations ... the choice was exile or secularization! Many secretly continued to be religious and to teach in spite of everything. The law “Concerning the Separation of the Churches and the State” pushed anticlericalism to its height. Not until the 1914-1918 war were the French brought together; hatred was reduced, and education by religious congregations could be revived in France.

Chapter 2 - Chaminade’s Educational Experience

According to his biographers, Blessed William Joseph Chaminade had received his first schooling at the Petite Mission of Périgueux, operated by diocesan priests, before going to the Collège Royal of Saint-Charles in Mussidan at the age of ten.

The collège of Mussidan was influenced by the methods of the Jesuits and drew its inspiration from them. Recall that Jean-Baptiste Chaminade had been a member of the Society before its dissolution by the parlement of Paris in 1763, and he undoubtedly trained his younger brother in the methods he himself followed.

According to Fr. Joseph Verrier, SM, the teachers gave some lectures and delegated to regents (the older students), the teaching of other courses.

William Joseph had finished his Latin and his humanities classes at the age of 15 and became a regent while studying during his years of philosophy and physics.

Thanks to the Abridgment of the Rules of the Congregation of Priests and Ecclesiastics under the Title of Saint Charles, we understand more clearly the mission entrusted to the regent.

(1) To take care that the pupils frequent the sacraments, know their catechism, and behave in church; (2) in all classes, to seize some favorable means to encourage the pupils to virtue; (3) in private conversations to stress that they conduct themselves well; (4) to pray for them often, and especially immediately before and after class; (5) to treat pupils with politeness and demand that they themselves use politeness among their companions; (6) never to appear to be ignorant, or irritable, or too familiar; (7) to faithfully prepare the lesson to be dictated and explained in class; (8) to maintain emulation among the pupils of the same class and among different classes; (9) to do nothing extraordinary and never to use extreme punishment without notifying the superior; (10) to be exact in all that concerns the classroom and to read often the book Ratio docendi and the Treatise on Studies by Rollin.

This last work is very important. Published in the first half of the 18th century in Paris under the title The Method of Teaching and Studying the Belles-lettres in Relation to Mind and Heart by Charles Rollin, this was reissued many times as Treatise on Studies. It is a genuine summary of knowledge of education, as well as of instruction in the sections which interest us here. It is very possible that in part, the Marianist “discipline” has its source in this work, which would deserve a more in-depth study. We know the seriousness with which William Joseph Chaminade worked, and we know that when he would find a text or some interesting ideas, he made them his own and integrated them into his thought and life. This may be the case for a portion of this book, the influence of which may have been reflected in the development of education in the Society of Mary.

The more solemn moments of life at the collège were carefully prepared and celebrated, especially in the distribution of prizes. It is possible that with his rich experience in this field, William Joseph transposed this into the meetings of the Sodality of the Immaculate Conception in Bordeaux.

The collège/séminaire of Mussidan was marked by a Marian atmosphere, a family spirit, and a collegiality in the direction of the institution. All this left an indelible mark on the life and work of William Joseph Chaminade. This is the same spirit that would be found in the Marian Sodality and in his religious Institutes. And if the structure of the Three Offices was born in Mussidan...?

During his stay in Mussidan, Blessed Chaminade acquired knowledge and skills in many fields. He was introduced to accounting and the business office by performing the functions of syndic; he matured in his political vision, conscious of the reforms needed in the State; he participated in the preparation of the Estates General; and finally, he refused to take the oath at the time of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.

During this period he taught not only classical subjects but also sciences. In 1829, Father Chaminade replied to Father Lalanne, who wanted to go from Saint-Remy to Paris to buy physics instruments,

With a very small number of instruments it is possible to go quite a distance in physics, in even the experimental type. A good professor is easily able to get along with little equipment, if this must be. He makes a little go a long way. With a good electric machine, for example, a good professor will be in a position to make known, and thoroughly, all the new discoveries of this type. The air pump and everything that goes with it cost a lot. It is possible to make up for this, not to make perfect experiments, but to give a perfect understanding and demonstration of a perfect machine. I could give you other examples for the experiments in chemistry, for the extraction of gases, etc. Experto crede Roberto [Trust in Robert].

The tone leaves no doubt; the real name of “Robert” here is William Joseph Chaminade. In writing these lines with youthful ardor at the age of 68, the older man, who had provoked the admiration of his correspondent by his knowledge, certainly relied on his years of teaching at Mussidan, and perhaps on a few hours spent on the premises of the Museé de Paris before the Revolution.

Chapter 3 - Chaminade and Education During the Empire

Chaminade’s approach to developing education under the Empire was by supporting some sodalists as teachers and by aiding the rebirth of the Brothers of the Christian Schools in Bordeaux.

The education of youth was suffering when Father Chaminade returned from exile in 1800. Among the first sodalists, several were teachers: Raymond Lafargue, Alexandre Dubosq, Timothée Momus, Jean Thomas, Jacques Déjernon, and André Martres. Crépin Cahier and Jean-Baptiste Hyacinthe Lafon were private tutors; Jean-Baptiste Estebenet headed one of the most famous boarding schools in Bordeaux. “Chaminade was happy with all this educational activity, which did not separate Christian education from secular instruction. In his eyes, the Christian school did for the children what the Sodality was trying to do for the young people.” We can see that from this time forward Father Chaminade encouraged education through the involvement of the sodalists. He already saw that this was a powerful missionary means of renewing society and the Church. Within the framework of the Sodality itself, “always with an apostolic purpose, the sodalists soon undertook to win friends through the appeal of practical courses intended to complete their school lessons and fill in the gaps. In a city like Bordeaux, lessons in commerce and in bookkeeping were highly appreciated, and these had the greatest success. Having become a teacher and director of educational institutions, Father Lalanne would never forget those productive initiatives.”

Louis Arnaud Lafargue (the cousin of Raymond, mentioned above) had attached himself to Father Chaminade in 1795, and he would become one of the artisans of the renewal of education in Bordeaux. He had been the first prefect of the Marian Sodality. About 30 years old, he had been taught for seven years by the Brothers of the Christian Schools. Accompanied by a former Lassalian brother and Father Chaminade, following a type of novitiate he opened a school on the Rue des Etuves and welcomed his first pupils January 2, 1802. Shortly after, he was joined by another sodalist, Guillaume Darbignac. Here is how Blessed Chaminade relates the facts.

Long before it was possible to hope that the Institute of the brothers might reappear in France, two young men embraced this state through divine inspiration and followed the Rule faithfully, except for the habit.

The brothers appeared in Lyons. The archbishop requested some for Bordeaux. Brothers Seraphim and Alexander were sent by Venerable Brother Frumentius. At first they were received at the residence of the young men. The city returned to them the former house of the brothers at the entrance of Sainte Eulalie and had six schools opened. Brother Seraphim had called a few members to come from Toulouse... Two other schools were opened in the seminary buildings. Brother Seraphim had a number of other brothers come.

At this time, Lafargue and Darbignac took the habit and became, respectively, Brother Eloi and Brother Paulin; but curiously they still had not professed their vows, which would be done in 1808. Father Chaminade continued.

The archbishop requested Venerable Brother Frumentius’ permission to establish a novitiate in Bordeaux. The permission was granted. I was charged with establishing and looking after it…

The Sainte Eulalie house did not seem adequate for lodging the brothers engaged in the school and also the novices. The archbishop wrote again to Venerable Brother Frumentius and received permission to separate the houses. From the beginning, he had also obtained for Brother Paulin the title of Director of Novices. The difficulty of finding suitable quarters led me to offer the archbishop a part of a country house which is very close, only 12 or 15 minutes from the house of the brothers of Sainte Eulalie and the parish church. This little country house is a virtual solitude, entirely surrounded by walls. In the part occupied by the novitiate I had repairs made which were necessary for healthy living and for being independent of the section which I reserved for myself and for the country folk. I had a chapel made adjoining their quarters. The Blessed Sacrament is kept there. I say Mass for them every Thursday, unless some feast prevents me. This part of the house can accommodate only 12 novices...

This year the Sainte Eulalie house met at the novitiate for its retreat.

His Excellency the Archbishop, Father Boyer, his first Vicar General, and I desire only the prosperity of your Institute. We desire also to have it serve as a support of religion without any change in its forms and customs... Brother Seraphim is a very good religious, full of the spirit of his state...

Pardon me, Venerable Brother, if I have wearied you with too many details and too-lengthy reflections. I desire to have you see my love for your Institute and the confidence I have in you, together with the esteem I have for the wisdom of your administration. I will add only my very sincere wish for a happy year and the assurance of the profound respect with which I am, Venerable Brother, your humble and very obedient servant, William Joseph Chaminade, Hon. Can., Rue Lalande

As we have just seen, from 1809 to 1811 Father Chaminade had put at the disposition of the Brothers of the Christian Schools for their novitiate a portion of the Saint-Laurent property, in perfect agreement with Archbishop Charles-François d’Aviau of Bordeaux. The wish of the Superior General of the brothers to consolidate the body of the Institute within the unit led him decide to install the novitiate in Toulouse. Archbishop d’Aviau and Father Chaminade yielded.

As Father Verrier points out in his article, Father Chaminade had no idea of acquiring this revived Institute. He could have kept a Louis Arnaud Lafargue and other sodalists who entered the Brothers of the Christian Schools for his own foundation, but he never did; and once the Society of Mary was founded, he was careful never to cast a shadow on other Institutes.

The good Brothers of the Christian Schools have nothing to fear for the honorable and important mission which they fulfill. I have contributed too much to their spread in France and to their support to wish to hamper their work in any way. The Spirit of God does not contradict itself. We will never apply the sickle to anyone else’s harvest, and by this I mean the harvest of the Lord given to others to reap. But my dear Son, how very abundant is the harvest of the Lord, how extensive it is and what different sections it has!

Chapter 4 - The First Marianist Schools

Father Chaminade’s missionary vision was broad, and even though he was thinking more particularly of a group to follow up and consolidate the Marian Sodality at the time of the founding of the Daughters of Mary, he wrote to Adèle de Batz de Trenquelléon.

As to what in particular is to distinguish you from the other Orders, this is zeal for the salvation of souls. The principles of religion and of virtue must be made known; Christians must be multiplied. You will definitely not have to teach children, or visit and care for the sick or conduct a boarding establishment. Leave such works, however excellent they may be, to other groups older than you—but what are we to do then? You will have to instruct in religion and train in the practice of virtue young women of every state and condition in life; to make of them true sodalists; to hold meetings, either general or by selections or groups, etc.; to have the young women make little spiritual retreats; to guide them in the choice of a state of life; etc. Your community will be composed of entirely of “missionary” religious.

Given the universality of the Marianist mission, repeatedly affirmed by the Founder and especially in the Constitutions of 1839, the mission through education was already present in his mind.

The Society of Mary does not exclude any type of work; it adopts all the means that Divine Providence ordained for it in order to attain the ends that it proposes. Quodcumque dixerit, facite. [Whatever you say, do.] This is its motto; the Society follows it as if the order Mary gave to the servants at Cana were addressed by the august Virgin to each of its members: “Do whatever he tells you.”

In The Institut of the Daughters of Mary of 1815, the “three offices” are already mentioned: zeal, instruction, and work. Here is what concerns the Mother of Instruction.

12. The Mother of Instruction has as her responsibility the explanation of the maxims and practices of religion, the formation to Christian morals and behavior, and the development of the signs of vocation of her pupils. She always has in mind the formation of new teachers in various types of teaching among the subjects of the monastery. She strives to develop in the externs an intimate love of God, in such a way that her pupils will become seeds of virtue, both for the convent and for the world.

13. The instruction which is called “human” is secondary in the purposes of the Institute. Because it may easily either corrupt or improve the behavior of the pupils, this enters into the responsibility of the Mother of Instruction. Such instruction includes reading, writing, arithmetic, and the basic arts suitable for young women.

14. The Mother of Instruction, moreover, expressly has the duty of gathering into the Sodality under the auspices of Mary various classes of young women in whom the spirit of religion is manifest, or who have never been ruined by the world.

Before the founding of the Society of Mary, three future members were already teachers at the Pension Estebenet on the Rue des Menuts. Two were Auguste Brougnon-Perrière and Jean-Baptiste Collineau. Jean-Auguste Lalanne had joined them since the autumn of 1815. This presence shows a certain continuity that existed between the Marian Sodality and one of the first missions of the “little Society.” Moreover, the first religious committed themselves in these terms.

I the undersigned, Jean Lalanne, child of the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman Church, profess vows for my entire life and promise to God on the holy Gospels and into your hands, Monsieur Chaminade, Missionary Apostolic, approved by the Ordinary and Superior of the Institute of Mary, [to observe] during the said time chastity, poverty, obedience, stability in the Institute, and to work under the authority of the heads and officers who are, or will be, charged with my direction at the teaching of Christian practices and the Catholic faith.

No doubt, this “means” of teaching for evangelization is certainly present; we will return later to the last vow, better known as “the teaching of Christian faith and morals.”

At the end of 1816 at the invitation of Archbishop d’Aviau, Fr. Denis-Antoine Luc Frayssinous, the future Minister of Public Instruction, had given a series of 11 lectures in Bordeaux on the foundations of religion. Through what Daniel de Montplaisir writes, we find ideas dear to Father Chaminade. “What is expected of his talent: a relentless indictment against the spirit of the Enlightenment. It will be his famous ‘Discourse on the Revolution, Its Causes, Its Course, and Its Ravages.’ Frayssinous attacks ideas, never people; only the first deserve his blows, but for the latter it is only love and forgiveness, sincerely and profoundly penetrated by the message of the Gospel.” The author of The Spirit of Our Foundation and Antonio Gascón write that these conferences had a profound influence upon the first religious in favor of teaching.

Other reasons for the option for school education are to be found in Chaminade himself. His aim was to defend youth against the surrounding philosophism, to give them a sufficient religious background and to teach them to live according to Christianity. More generally, through teaching children he wished to completely renew French society and bring it back to faith. As he writes,

Christian schools directed according to the method adopted by the Institute of Mary and conducted by its religious destined for this good work are a powerful means of reforming the people. The children there generally make such rapid progress and become so docile and Christian that they carry the good odor of virtue and religion into their respective families. The children become apostles to their parents, as it were, and their apostolate always produces some happy fruit. That is what makes me call the schools a means of reforming the people.

Here we find one of the principles of the Marian Sodality: evangelization by contagion.

Through education, Father Chaminade was in accord with the great expectations of the French nation and its clergy “[to form] children in an effective and constant manner to religion, morals, loyalty to monarchy, and all the habits which make good Christians, faithful subjects, people useful to the State and to their families.”

1.      Pension Auguste (Rue des Menuts) and Institution Sainte-Marie (Rue du Mirail) (1819)

We refer the reader to the appendix of this book, “The Significance and Origin of the Apostolate of Teaching in the Missionary Charism of the Society of Mary.” Fr. Antonio Gascón, SM, historian and archivist of the Society of Mary, deals extensively with the subject in a lecture given in Rome on November 12, 2008, to the Assistants for Education of the Units of the Society of Mary.

2.      The First Free Public School for Poor Families in Agen

On this subject, we again refer the reader to Father Gascón’s talk in the appendix, “The Significance and Origin of the Apostolate of Teaching in the Missionary Charism of the Society of Mary.”

It seems important, however, to add and clarify here that this school was intended for poor families (this explains the title of this section). Here is what the brochure written by Father Chaminade’s secretary, Bro. David Monier, tells us.

Students who are able to pay in the other schools should not be withdrawn from them. Admission to the Free School must be made easy for all those children who otherwise would be left adrift in complete ignorance. For this double purpose, parents who intend to bring their children are to furnish a certificate from their respective pastors stating that they are entitled to benefit by the offered assistance. Children of the town and those of the surrounding country will also be admitted.

The success of these beginnings was total, with nearly 300 students! It was impossible to take more.

We imagined from the very outset that the title of “Free School” and the issuance of Certificates of Indigence would serve as a check on the reception of children from well-to-do parents, and in consequence, there would be only those in the school who belonged to the indigent class; the fact is, the latter form the minority; all the rest belong to the working class and some even to families of excellent standing; it is the latter who are enthusiastic about our school. These families have even cast human respect aside and with tearful eyes pleaded with their pastors to issue Certificates of Indigence to their children in order that they might enjoy the instructions and moral principles we impart. Several priests told me that they recognized two sorts of indigence, one material and the other spiritual, and that they believed themselves bound in conscience to issue certificates for the latter even more than for the former.

Even if the Marianist missionary commitment is broader, these first two schools show two directions of engagement—on the one hand toward the middle class of the time with institutions such as Institution Sainte-Marie of Bordeaux, and on the other hand, to all of society through the different elementary schools. This broad commitment would occasionally create tensions between the brothers of the “large” collèges and those of the elementary schools. For example, at the time of the animadversions on the Constitutions in 1865, which asked for a priest as director in each secondary school, we have this anonymous reaction, [following a “salvo” against the priests, suspected of wanting to put the brothers under their authority].

There are 200,000 francs that will be absorbed in Cannes; and as soon as the Administration again has some savings, it will be, they say, “for a fourth house in Paris.” Poor schools of Franche-Comté and of the Midi, widows of the brothers who directed you, this is where these ungrateful men go! Who came themselves out of your womb! They prefer to the little peasant of the Upper Saône, the little Marquis of Paris who wears zouave trousers and a benoiton [ridiculous] collar!”

Chapter 5 - The Development of Pedagogy

Marianist pedagogy was gradually built up, influenced among other things by the experience of several religious who worked at the Estebenet school, which had an excellent public reputation in Bordeaux. It is difficult to determine which were the contributions of each brother and those of Chaminade himself. Here is a brief presentation of the people who marked our pedagogy in the early days of the Society of Mary.

1.      At the Wellsprings of Marianist Pedagogy, Some Leaders

Jean-Baptiste Estebenet, one of the earliest sodalists, was born in Bordeaux August 20, 1777. He had been the principal of the pension since 1801. He entered the Jesuits in 1834 and ended his life as a proctor at the collège of Dôle in the Jura, in 1848. He was formed by Fr. Claude Liautard, founder of the Collège Stanislas de Paris, just as Bro. Auguste Brougnon-Perrière and Fr. Jean-Auguste Lalanne had been.

Auguste Brougnon-Perrière (1790-1874), a teacher at the Pension Estebenet, had been a faculty member of the collège in Figeac. He had his first experience in school administration in M. Estebenet’s establishment in 1814, when the latter had been dismissed because of his royalist involvements. It was M. Auguste who obtained the title of maître de pension [boarding school headmaster], and he directed the first Marianist institution and the first community. He left the Society of Mary in 1832, after being the third Assistant General beginning in1826. A trial which opposed him to Father Chaminade caused the resignation of the Founder as Superior General on January 7, 1841.

Jean-Baptiste Collineau (1796-1852), born in Bordeaux, was an early member of the Sodality of the Madeleine, of which he was the prefect in 1818. As one of the first members of the Society of Mary, he was sent to Villeneuve-sur-Lot in 1822 as director of the collège of that small town. Returning to Bordeaux in 1827, he collaborated in the Institution Sainte-Marie, giving himself to preaching and fulfilling the functions of First Assistant alongside Father Chaminade. He left the Society in 1832, relieved of his vows by Archbishop Jean-Marie Lefebvre de Cheverus, who named him Honorary Canon, then pastor of St. Louis Church of Bordeaux (1835). He always remained devoted to the person of the Founder, to whom he administered the Last Sacraments. He died in Beirut while on a voyage to the Holy Land.

Bernard Laugeay, born in Bordeaux in 1796, had joined the Sodality of the Madeleine in 1817. Having learned of the existence of the Little Society, he asked to join and was received at the house on Impasse de Ségur on August 15, 1818, on the eve of the opening of the first retreat of the Society at Saint-Laurent.

After two years (in 1820), Brother Laugeay was sent to Agen to open the Society’s first school. His success was so complete that in it Father Chaminade saw an indication of Providence to direct the apostolate of his children to this line of work. After opening a second school in Villeneuve (1823), Brother Laugeay formed part of the small group who introduced the Society into Alsace at Colmar (1824). Then he was successively charged with the foundation of the schools of Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines (1828), of Brusque (1842), and of Cordes (1844). We owe to Brother Laugeay the first method of teaching of the Society, called the “Former Method” (1824); as he wrote to Father Chaminade on April 18, 1821, “When M. David and I have written the Méthode des écoles, I will send it to you.”

David Monier, co-editor of the “Teaching Method for the Elementary Schools of the Society of Mary or the Former Method,” also contributed to building up the pedagogy of the Marianist school, among other things by creating writing boards. He prepared the establishment of the schools in Agen, Colmar, and Saint-Remy, sometimes pushing Father Chaminade to act faster than foreseen. Father Lalanne wrote, “Who launched us into works of education, almost in spite of ourselves, if not Father Chaminade, pushed by Brother David?”

This colorful figure was born in Bordeaux November 7, 1757. After his studies he had opened a law office in Bordeaux and had gone to Paris, where he had participated in various political circles. Enthusiastic about the ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he welcomed the French Revolution as putting into practice the “Social Contract.” The excesses of the Terror provoked a reversal in him; he became a monarchist, an agent of Louis XVIII, which sent him traveling in Europe. He had been married and had at least three children in Paris. Imprisoned at the end of 1799, he later returned to Bordeaux and reopened his law office. Accompanied by Father Chaminade, he experienced a true conversion and gave himself body and soul to the Sodality from 1804 on, and to the developing Institutes. He was 61 years of age when the first members committed themselves. He joined them and, due to his insistence, professed his final vows October 22, 1821. To him we owe many texts, especially legal ones. He was not always very clear in the drafting; as Father Lalanne said, “Brother David spoke as well as he wrote badly.” Although he venerated the Founder, tensions existed between the two men. In retirement, he ended his life at the Madeleine, dying January 16, 1849.

Bernard Gaussens was born in 1795 in Branne, near Bordeaux, to a very honorable family. After having completed his classical course of study at barely 16 years of age he went into the army, took part in the Spanish wars, and reentered his country with the rank of officer. When in 1819 Father Chaminade came to Libourne to organize the Sodality, Bernard Gaussens was among the first to be inscribed, and for him as for so many others the Sodality was the preparatory stage for religious life. In fact, he joined the members of the Little Society on Rue des Menuts in 1820 and professed his perpetual vows in 1821.

He took part in the foundation of our first elementary school in Agen (1821) and then was assistant to the small group sent to Saint-Remy (1823). As Head of Instruction there, he gave very highly appreciated pedagogical conferences to the teachers of the region assembled for retreat, and he was placed in charge of our first normal school (1824). Brother Gaussens then opened the normal school of Courtefontaine (1829). After new stays in Agen and Saint-Remy, for 16 years he assumed years the direction of the important school in Colmar (1840-56). He then returned to the Midi, where after some years as head of the boarding school in Moissac he became the first Inspector of the province (1859). He continued in this position until his death on September 15, 1873, the Octave of the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin. To Brother Gaussens the Society owes several of its first classics—the Syllabaire, the First Readings, and the History of the Church, among others. He also participated in the writing of The New Method of Teaching: Regulations for the Schools of the Society of Mary with David Monier, Jean-Baptiste Lalanne, and Jean-Marie Mémain.

Jean-Marie Mémain, born in 1797 at Saint-Loubès near Bordeaux, entered the Society at the end of 1818 and in 1820 was one of the founders of the school at Agen. In 1823 he became its director, and with the exception of some brief absences he remained there until 1833. At that time he was appointed business manager at the boarding school Sainte-Marie, where Father Lalanne had just come to replace Brother Auguste, and he contributed to the transfer of the boarding school of Bordeaux to Layrac in 1835. At that same time, he succeeded Brother Auguste as Assistant General for Temporalities of the Society. After financial difficulties he left Layrac in 1836 and again assumed the direction of the schools at Agen; in 1837 he left the Society.

Jean Coustou was the director of the Colmar schools from 1835 to 1840; then he left the Society. He published the Course of Calligraphy, which was highly respected.

2.      A Natural-born Pedagogue, Jean-Philippe-Auguste Lalanne

Jean-Auguste Lalanne was born in Bordeaux on 15 vendémiaire, year IV of the French Republic (October 7, 1795). After his secondary studies he entered the Faculty of Medicine of Bordeaux and was admitted as an intern at the General Hospital. In 1811 he was one of the founders of the Linnaean Society of Bordeaux for the advancement of the natural sciences. He spent the year 1814-1815 in Paris, where he studied physics and chemistry at the Collège de France, while staying at the Maison d’Education in Notre Dame des Champs (the future Collège Stanislas in Paris) run by a former Oratorian, Fr. Claude Liautard, who applied the methods of the Oratory. This experience permanently marked the life of Lalanne, who changed direction and became an educator. Returning to Bordeaux to financially support his mother, widowed since 1812 by a husband who had left her nothing, young Lalanne became a prefect and teacher at the Pension Estebenet, practicing the methods of Father Liautard. (It must be mentioned that M. Estebenet and M. Brougnon-Perrière had also been trained in this Parisian institution.) According to his biographer, Father Lalanne was marked by the system of discipline used by Liautard (already “family spirit”?). Children had to be happy to go to school!

Lalanne’s links with Father Chaminade go back to 1807, when he was received as a postulant in the Bordeaux Sodality. He later became a member of the State (a group of consecrated people which today would be called a “Secular Institute” and of which the Alliance Mariale is heir). After a mission in Bordeaux preached by Fr. Jean-Baptiste Rauzan, Founder of the Missionaries of France, he went to Father Chaminade on May 1, 1817, and opened his heart to him: after hesitating to become a Jesuit, he wished to live following Christ by leading a life similar to that of William Joseph. The director of the Sodality saw this as a sign and confided to young Lalanne what he himself had long carried in his heart. Jean Lalanne told his friends about the project that was developing, and on October 2, 1817, five of these young men committed themselves, thus founding the Society of Mary.

Father Lalanne was successively a teacher at the Pension Estebenet (1815-1818), then at the Pension Auguste (1819-1825); Superior of the Petit Séminaire of the Madeleine (1825-1826); Principal of the Collège Universitaire of Gray (1826-1829); Director at Saint-Remy (1829-1833), at Bordeaux (1833-1835), at Layrac (1835-1845); a chaplain in Paris at the Pension Laville (1845-1848), teacher at the Petit Séminaire Saint-Lucien in Beauvais (1848-1850), Director of Studies, in Paris again, at the Collège Sainte-Marie des Ternes (1850-1853 ), tenured teacher at the Institution Sainte-Marie of the Rue Bonaparte (1852-1855) and at the same time Director of the Ecclesiastical Section at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes des Carmes (now the Institut Catholique de Paris) (1853-1855), Director of Collège Stanislas in Paris (1855-1871), then of the Stanislas Institute in Cannes (1871-1876), and finally Inspector of the secondary schools of the Society of Mary (1876-1879). For more than 60 years, in the most varied offices and circles, Father Lalanne had devoted himself to this work of education which he loved and for which he was marvelously gifted.

Having imprudently fallen into debt [with the acquisition of Layrac], in 1845 he obtained permission to temporarily separate himself from the Society, while keeping his vows of religion until he had freed himself of his entanglements. To do so he went to Paris, and thus it was through him at that time that the Society of Mary was introduced to that city.

The direction of Collège Stanislas was the great work of his life. He devoted 15 years to it (1855-71). He then used the strength of his vigorous old age, first to launch the Institut Stanislas in Cannes (1871) and then to visit as Inspector the houses of secondary education of the Society of Mary (1876). In the course of one of his visits, at Besançon, he suffered a stroke while reciting his breviary. He died a few days later in sentiments of the most filial abandonment to the most holy will of God in the arms of Good Father Simler and Father de Lagarde. His mortal remains rest in the cemetery of the Society in Courtefontaine, at the foot of the Cross.

Father Lalanne was gifted with a brilliant intelligence, an enterprising mind, and a courageous will. These valuable gifts permitted him to render the greatest service to the Society throughout the entire course of his long life. However, on several occasions the ardor of his imagination drew him into vexing adventures. What always saved him was his profound spirit of faith, which he had learned from the Founder; his filial confidence in the most holy Virgin, which made him keep his Act of Consecration on his breast until his death; and finally, his attachment to the Society of which he had been the first member and which he always tenderly loved. “I have been born of her,” he wrote. “My existence in the spiritual and religious life is linked with hers. To separate myself from her, that would be death” (1837). From this disposition, after his lapses comes the most touching humility, as when he wrote his admirable letters of repentance to Father Chaminade, or when at the General Chapter of 1876 he got down on his knees, an old man of 80, to publicly ask pardon of his brothers for the poor example he had given.

Father Lalanne published numerous books. Among them is the book On Public, Moral, and Religious Education, published in Paris in 1870, in which he summarizes his thoughts on education from a compilation of various earlier publications. In L’école de l’Etoile du matin: échange culturel franco-japonais, Mr. Sadao Tanaka summarizes the pedagogical principles of Father Lalanne (unfortunately, he does not cite his sources).

Begin from the most tender age to cultivate the child’s mind; prefer public instruction to private instruction; introduce the child to the sciences and the arts of education; put into his hands the works of the most recommended authors; admit that a child can learn many things at once without fatigue and confusion.

For Lalanne, only secondary education provided the complete formation of a person.

Education must teach the child of his dignity as a human being and his rights as a citizen and make him discover the secrets of art and nature. It should not be forgotten that the child is not yet an adult; he has specific psychological qualities which evolve according to a particular rhythm. Lalanne thought that persuasion was preferable to constraint in the child’s training. It is necessary, he thought, to awaken conscience in the child, and for this to create an environment in which he acts spontaneously. The best place for full development of the child was the family. Hence the necessity for the teacher to develop relationships of friendship and trust, analogous to those which must exist in the family. Lalanne had the gift of knowing how to innovate and improve, without, however, admitting absolute freedom. As he advocated contact with nature, Lalanne preferred to set up schools in the countryside. It is also necessary to know how to use the tendencies, needs, and interests of the child to train him. Hence the importance of games, exhibitions, and theater performances. Lalanne was a convinced advocate of classical studies. Moreover, he added that education must be complete; integral to the intelligence of the child, a healthy and solid body must be formed to better serve the soul. According to him, physical education should have an important place, with life in the open air, games, walks, sports, etc., not forgetting aesthetic education such as singing, drawing, painting, etc. But the place of discipline must not be forgotten. Moral formation is based on freedom, which must be allied with the concern to assume discipline: show the child his duty, rather than constrain him. Finally, to be effective, integral formation must be based on a solid religious basis.

It is difficult to summarize in a few lines the educational principles of Father Lalanne; I would simply add what was prominent at the Pension des Menuts, according to Fr. Pierre Humbertclaude, and which made it a success: “the good behavior of pupils, the politeness and the savoir-vivre taught to children.”

3.      Various Types of Marianist Schools

Marianist schools were created according to demands and circumstances, following Father Chaminade’s discernment. The diversity of establishments existed from the beginning. Throughout the Constitutions of 1829, written largely by Father Lalanne and the Founder during his visit to Gray, Haute-Saône, where Father Lalanne was principal of the collège), we find various types of schools described. They were merely named in the Constitutions of 1839, in article 254, and evoked elsewhere. Because the text of the Constitutions of 1829 is sufficiently clear, we will add comments only when necessary.

3.1.      Free Schools

247. Free elementary schools are intended for the Christian education of the poor. This is the work most dear to the Society, since it is the most precious in the eyes of the Savior, who wanted this religious education of the poor to be one of the characteristics of his own divine mission: pauperes evangelisantur [the poor have good news brought to them] (Luke 7:22).

248. Free schools will be set up in the communes which ask for them and which will be able to provide a locale arranged as stated in the General Regulations of the Schools, and to provide for the expenses of the religious who will be employed there.

249. These establishments will never be made without the consent of the ecclesiastics of the place, and with their promise to listen to the Confessions of the children, to say Mass for them every day at a fixed hour, and not to call the children to catechism during the hours intended for their classes.

250. The religious do not meddle with the sacristy, or with the singing from the lectern; they will never wear ecclesiastical garments.

251. No subject will be sent to schools to teach who has not undergone an examination and has not been recognized as fit to receive the certification which the civil authority requires. The formalities required by law will be fulfilled in this respect.

252. It will be especially advisable for the religious to be sent to a free school to be warned that he is going to do a work of which all the consolations are in heaven, and that he must arm himself with courage to endure all natural repugnancies and to prove to God that he is sincere in offering himself as a sacrifice.

3.2.      Preparatory Elementary Schools

253. The purpose of preparatory elementary schools is to rear in a Christian manner and to prepare for the level of study the children who will be sent to the collèges.

255. These schools are either independent or annexed to free schools or collèges.

256. In all cases, they are not free of charge. There must be a tuition income sufficient for the maintenance of the house and the teachers.

257. If the school is independent, the premises belong to the Society, and a request from the civil and religious authorities is not necessary. Their approval will be obtained where necessary and the laws and regulations of elementary schools owned by private individuals will be complied with.

258. If the preparatory school is annexed to a free school, it will be at least so distinct that there can be no mixing or communication between the pupils of the two schools.

259. The brother who directs the preparatory school will not be at the expense of the commune.

260. If the school is attached to a collège, the same measures will be taken to ensure that the children attending the preparatory school do not mingle with those of the collège.

261. The teachers of these latter schools live together and religiously, keeping themselves away from the company of any secular person.

3.3.      Special Schools, Also Known as Joint Schools or Middle Schools

262. Special schools are open to young people who, having been unable to attend courses at a collège, require at least an education which enables them to engage in commercial or industrial occupations or to manage their properties.

263. These schools may receive boarders by complying with the formalities prescribed by law, and as necessary, the principal may even acquire the diploma of Boarding School Headmaster.

264. Special schools are usually accompanied by a preparatory elementary school, and even in the places where one of these latter schools would be annexed to a free school, it should be detached so as to annex it to the special school.

265. In the special schools external lay teachers may be hired who will come to the house at certain hours to give lessons in science or the fine arts and have no other relationship with the pupils or with religious personnel. They will always be chosen from the most honest and the most Christian people.

266. If the head of the school has the title of Boarding School Headmaster or Head of Institution, he may use all the rights conferred by these titles.

In addition to the special schools (special classes existed from the beginning at the Institute in the Rue des Menuts), “night classes” were also developed. As the editors of the New Method of Teaching (1830-1831) wrote, “(196.) As the exercises of the linear drawing class are strictly speaking only preparatory, outside the hours of the ordinary exercises and nearer to evening a special course of linear drawing in which the instruction of the pupils is completed by applying the lessons to the particular processes of the profession to which they are destined. (197.) Alumni already in apprenticeship are preferably admitted to this course.” These adapted courses developed especially in Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines and in Saint-Dié.

3.4.      Trade and Agricultural Schools

267. Trade schools and agricultural schools receive for apprenticeships children who leave free schools.

268. These are usually annexed to free schools, but they may be independent.

269. Apprenticeship is not free unless cities set up scholarships.

270. The schools may be helped by workers or farmers as teachers who do not belong to the Society, but whose morality is well known.

271. In the particular regulations of these schools, care must be taken that the exercises of piety attain their end, without prejudice to the continuity of the work.

Unfortunately, these schools could not develop as much as Father Chaminade would have wished. Saint-Remy was the work where the “trades” (which could be translated today by the art of learning and practicing an occupation) developed the most. The Administrative, Historical, and Statistical Yearbook of the Department of the Haute-Saône of 1842 (Vesoul: Suchaux, 466) states, “At the boarding school of Saint-Remy various workshops were annexed, where some 60 pupils are prepared for the trades of mechanics, stone carvers, cabinetmakers, wheelwrights, knitters, weavers, binders, tailors, shoemakers, etc.”

3.5.      Normal Schools

As mentioned above, it was difficult to develop teacher training schools in France. Among the Marianists, the project of normal schools seems to have sprouted during the acquisition of the Saint-Remy property. In the beginning, since 1821 the rector of the Academy of Besançon, Désiré Ordinaire, had asked Fr. Jean-Etienne Bardenet, Missionary of Beaupré to provide retreats for teachers in which the pedagogical dimension would also be presented. He had even obtained funds for this from the General Councils of the departments. Matters dragged on; these long-awaited retreats did not appear until 1824, when the Society of Mary moved to Saint-Remy. The idea had attracted Father Chaminade, and he had made it his own with enthusiasm. He saw in the perspective of opening normal schools the means of “regenerating” France in depth and renewing it in faith. The normal school of Saint-Remy opened that same year, 1824, and was followed by that of Courtefontaine in 1829. This project was so strong that Father Chaminade did not hesitate to prepare a “Brief Summary of Normal Schools of the Society of Mary To Be Presented to the Minister of Education in January 1830,” which was done. He saw in the normal schools a rapid and effective means of transforming France and rechristianizing it. Other contacts with the minister took place through Father Lalanne. Plans for the opening of Marianist normal schools were aimed at several departments, particularly at Colmar, when the Revolution of July 1830 came to ruin all these projects, which then never saw the light of day. Nevertheless, Father Chaminade remained convinced that that mission was essential, as he wrote to the Archbishop of Bordeaux on September 4, 1843. “The normal schools were, and still are, our most cherished work.”

In Sion, Switzerland, in 1845 the Society of Mary again took up this project which was so dear to the Founder, taking charge of teacher training for the teachers of the Valais during the two months of vacation. The normal school of teachers of the Canton of Valais opened its doors at Sion on January 7, 1876, and was entrusted to the Marianists. They remained in charge until 1987. Other normal schools were entrusted to the Society of Mary, especially in Vienna, Austria, from 1891 to 1901; in Eisenstadt and then in Mattersburg from 1932-1938; and in Brazzaville in French Equatorial Africa/Republic of the Congo from 1946 to 1965.

Here is what the 1829 Constitutions say about them.

272. The aim of the normal schools is to spread Christian education more rapidly by teaching the methods and processes of the Society to young people destined for the profession of elementary teacher.

273. In the midst of the solid and complete instruction given to these young candidates, they are penetrated with the truth that a teacher, like anyone who engages in education, practices a religious ministry and therefore cannot limit himself to a merely common piety.

274. They are trained in mental prayer and in the practice of frequent Communion.

275. The normal schools admit only boarding students. The room and board, reduced to the just cost of their expenses, plus that of the maintenance of the teachers and the premises, will be paid by them or by scholarships which they will obtain from the authorities.

276. To this end, a normal school will not be established without the consent and assistance of the principal administrative authorities of the place, namely the bishop or archbishop of the diocese, the prefect of the department, the rector of the academy, and if it is in a city, the mayor, and the school remains under the supervision of these authorities, each for his proper field of authority.

277. At the beginning of each school year, the Prospectus of the school will be sent to all the communes indicating the date of the opening, the topic of the term, and the conditions of admission.

278. Students will be invited to attend at the beginning of the academic year and to remain there until the end. It will last ten months.

279. The normal school year, as well as the regulations of the school, will be synchronized with the school year and regulations of the elementary school so the teachers may rear the children as they have been themselves. Moreover, in order to remove all the difficulties which might arise from the different scope of the pupils in the transposition of the methods of the normal school to those of the elementary schools, each year toward the end of the term simulated classes or practical exercises on the operation of and teaching in elementary schools are offered.

280. Every year in the month of October when the candidates return, they are given a nine-day retreat if the authorities agree and want to pay for it.

The alumni of the normal school and the other teachers of the diocese will be invited to attend this retreat; in order to attract them, to the spiritual exercises will be added some ideas on the methods of teaching and the operation of schools. This work, upon which divine mercy has showered great blessings until this time, will always be dear to the Society.

The priests will take a lively interest in it; they will not ask the help of other ecclesiastics unless they alone are not sufficient for preaching and hearing Confessions. In the specific cases in which the authorities would not provide for the expenses of this retreat or would pay for only a portion of it, the Society will make up for it with its available funds, and it could not better employ the fruits of its savings.

Curiously, in the listing given in the Constitutions of 1829 there is no section devoted to the collèges, no doubt because of the Civil Statutes of the Society of Mary. It must also be noted that freedom of secondary education would not be effective until 1850. In the Constitutions of 1839, article 362 mentions the collèges, insisting upon the unity which must prevail among the religious, wherever they teach. “The Society also opens schools of higher education, of humanities, and of the sciences, but there is no other distinction between all the teaching laymen than that of their destination. Moreover, the same modesty, the same simplicity, the same costume for all—complete uniformity. Let each one seek to preserve himself from the puffing-up of science, and let him be edifying through concord and fraternal charity!” The Constitutions of 1865 will add the operation of orphanages and trade schools (article 254).

Alsace had the distinctiveness of bilingual education, in French and German. After the annexation in 1870, a German Inspector could not refrain from confessing to the director, “It is an enigma for me to see your students more advanced in both languages than ours in the one they study.” The Bishop of Strasbourg wrote in a letter to the Founder, “The towns which have your institutions never cease to praise the manner in which these good brothers form the minds and hearts of the children; knowing how to get them attached, they stimulate them to study, and get them to perform their duties almost without punishment or constraint.

In addition to the schools, we should not forget all the “works of nonformal education,” as they are called today, especially oriented toward the poor: the work with the little Auvergnat chimney sweeps, the work of delayed First Communions, the work of the catechism in the hospices, the work with young prisoners, the orphanages ... not to mention the work dear to the heart of Father Chaminade, the Sodality.

4.      Various Teaching Methods and the First Marianist Pedagogical Publications

This section is taken from the book of Fr. Paul-Joseph Hoffer, SM, Pédagogie marianiste. It gives a complete overview of the development of the pedagogical methods and publications of our first brothers.

With a sometimes surprising competency, Father Chaminade himself was involved in the elaboration of the Method; no detail escaped him. With wisdom and good sense he annotated the projects submitted to him. Concerning the system of emulation, somewhat artificial, school banks with a capital made up of “good points,” he took time to describe in minute detail a complicated organization of shareholders. The various systems of reading, writing, or drawing held no secrets for him, and he always judged them with the good sense of a practitioner. He did not particularly like the global method of reading, still in its beginnings at the time. Nihil novi sub sole! [There is nothing new under the sun!] He personally composed the 14th table of the reading method for the religious of Alsace. During his travels, he stopped to visit famous schools. His library contained all the pedagogical books of the time, sometimes with a dedication by the author, and he did not overlook a chance to send copies to the principals. No one learned the school laws better than he did. As soon as Bro. Benoît Franz Josef Enderlin arrived in Switzerland, Father Chaminade asked him to send the compendium of the school laws of the Canton of Fribourg. The advice he gave on bilingual education in Alsace has not lost its relevance. He had such confidence in the value of a good method that he was convinced that it would “as if necessarily bring” young men to virtue itself. Thus he stimulated his best teachers to develop the Marianist Method for elementary schools. He did not balk at any expense, and he often gathered the principals during the holidays.

This famous Method, the name of which our elders only pronounced with respect, underwent four principal editions. The first, commonly referred to as the Former Method, owed its first inspiration to Bro. David Monier. At the request of Father Chaminade, relying on that first sketch of Brother David and especially on his own experience, in 1824 Brother Laugeay, the eminent founder of the Agen school and later director at Villeneuve, drew up a complete text which was discussed at Bordeaux, where the best teachers of the Midi met. He himself had brought the results of the discussions of the teachers assembled at Villeneuve. Fr. Georges Caillet, who had come from Saint-Remy to participate in the deliberations, had brought the notes and suggestions of Bro. Dominique Clouzet and Bro. Bernard Gaussens.

This first method was from the outset a triumph of common sense and equilibrium. The choice was between two methods then principally in use, the “simultaneous method” and the “mutual method.” To which of the two would the Society give its preference? The first was generally in use among the Brothers of the Christian Schools. The pupils were continually in contact with the teacher, who spoke to all at the same time, and were constantly kept in suspense and always learning new elements; then the instruction could be pushed further. If in a school the pupils were very numerous, such a method required several classes and consequently several teachers, resulting in considerable expenditure for the communes. To remedy this financial inconvenience (and perhaps also in reaction against the Brothers of the Christian Schools, who easily solved the difficulty by always sending at least three brothers to a school) the public education establishment, especially the liberals, pushed the mutual or monitorial system—a Hindu method perfected by Andrew Bell and Joseph Lancaster. This consisted in having the weakest pupils instructed by the strongest; this allowed a single teacher to instruct several hundred pupils. From 8 to 10 o’clock in the morning, the teacher explained to these improvised instructors what they, in turn, must teach their fellow students during the rest of the day. Sitting on a high “throne,” the teacher silently directed the entire operation, without teaching anything himself. The disadvantages of this method are obvious: the teacher had no contact with the pupils to educate them, and the instructors often taught without themselves actually understanding the material and without their teaching being checked. The moral disadvantages were even more serious.

Instead of exclusively choosing one or the other method, our veterans “avoided, as if by instinct,” the defects of both, while securing the advantages of each. Moreover, Father Chaminade never sent less than three teachers to a school; and as he rarely accepted any schools outside important centers, each teacher always had a minimum of 100 pupils. Although they were aided by their best students, our religious taught directly, thus keeping close and permanent contact with all. This was a “mixed method,” within which the simultaneous method nevertheless remained dominant. Let us point out in passing a novelty which the Moderns boast of having discovered: the special class destined for a limited number of pupils who are less gifted or slower, called a “doubling” class, “a type of hospital, to use the picturesque definition of a later method, in which the sick seem sequestered for everyone’s health, but not abandoned at the risk of giving them more unsuccessful care because their numbers are more considerable. The best medicines are administered to those separated by the most skillful teachers.” Again, we could describe a distribution of prizes, the program of which was no different from what we still do today.

It is probable that the Method provoked criticism. However, before the Christmas holidays of 1830 Father Chaminade called in Brother Mémain and Brother Gaussens and asked them to write down their experiences and their pedagogical reflections. These were experimented with in the communities of the Midi before being imposed upon the entire Society.

Brother Mémain left today for Agen; he is going to implement them. I will prescribe them only after they have been put to the test on a large scale, as it is relatively easy to do in Agen where there are more than 400 pupils in the schools, without counting those of the special school. If things go on exactly as planned, and I have reason to believe they will, Brother Mémain will go from Agen to Villeneuve, where he will do the same thing as at Agen, then to Moissac and then to Lauzerte.

To draw up the results of these experiments, they resorted to the fine pen of M. Joseph-Justin Lacoste, a former councilor of the Prefecture of Agen and an intimate friend of the Society. To do this, the editor also consulted the method Father Lalanne had just composed at the request of Father Chaminade, who was not very satisfied with it. The new Method, however, owes its spirit and life, its breadth of conception, and its supernatural spirit to the Founder himself. While the “Former Method” was limited to indicating procedures for teaching reading, arithmetic, spelling, and catechism or for assuring discipline and emulation, the New Method was concerned with the formation of the mind itself. From words, it rises to ideas.

The words “Adam,” “Eve,” “Cain,” “Abel,” “Noah,” etc., will provide the text of a history lesson. The words “meteor,” “volcano,” “elements,” “storm,” “rain,” “hail,” etc., will be the occasion of a lesson in physics.. The words “line,” “point,” “circle,” “radius,” and “axis” will provoke lessons in geometry and linear drawing. The names of the sciences to which these examples relate will not even be pronounced in the class; and yet these lessons will dissipate a multitude of prejudices in the minds of the children; they will furnish their young heads with a multitude of useful ideas and will dispose them, without their suspecting it, to higher lessons (arts. 162-163).

This exercise, known today as the “lessons on things,” was then called a “general exercise.” This is the principal originality of the Method, and in vain a person would seek the equivalent in the methods known at that time. With apparent digressions, rich in cultural elements, every teacher will find “the means of capturing in the highest degree the attention of his pupils, by the great variety of instructions which he can bring out, without ever exceeding the scope of the children’s intelligence” (art. 89).

What pleased Father Chaminade about this Method is the means by which teachers form the minds and hearts of pupils, while at the same time teaching them to read and write. In fact, the texts used for the reading and writing exercises were drawn only from the Scriptures, especially from the Psalms. M. Lacoste had attached to his text a rather critical note which stated that “in all probability, the Method would prove defective in practice on more than one point. Nevertheless, it had to be executed as it was, and no change should be made before a decision by the Superior General. It was necessary for the teachers to faithfully submit to putting into practice everything prescribed by the Method without adding anything to it or subtracting from it. Removing a simple peg can dismantle the best-constructed scaffolding.”

Before obligating all the schools to use it, Father Chaminade had it tested in a class of beginners composed of 150 children of nine to ten different ability levels.

“This method will make the fortunes of our schools when properly applied," wrote Father Chaminade. Before sending Brother Enderlin to Switzerland, he sent him for a few weeks to the school at Salins, where the Method was practiced with the greatest perfection. However, as nothing is ever definitive, it is not surprising that the Method was once again examined with a view to improvements. The Founder himself reworked it in 1833. After a series of teachers’ meetings, Brother Gaussens wrote a new text, commonly known as the “Mixed Method” (1841). It does not differ substantially from the New Method, except in its tendency to eliminate remaining elements of the mutual method and by the addition of a special method for middle school education and the training of monitors. It shows greater experience in teaching, and (not without pride) in its introduction the author emphasizes this superiority.

The Method we present is not, as too often happens in this type of work, the work of arbitrariness, hypothesis, and lack of thought; it is not the practical result of an endless theory of human nature, of its supposed indefinite perfectibility, and of the means of developing it through education. It is the conscientious work of simple and modest men who, encouraged by their personal experience and that of their associates, state practically what they do to obtain the results for which their friends and even their enemies together congratulate them.

In order to introduce a picturesque note into this listing of names of methods, we may mention in passing three methods of emulation or penalties, somewhat unique, which could only germinate in the brain of the former soldier, Brother Gaussens. These were the “Shame List,” “Degradation,” and “Inscription in the Journal.” On the Shame List, set out in the parlor, names of consistently lazy pupils and of those who had committed some serious moral fault were inscribed every week. Degradation consisted in removing the Cross of Honor from the delinquent pupil before all the assembled pupils, erasing his name from the Honor Roll, and notifying the parents of the penalty incurred. Last, there was inscription in the Journal de l’Ecole; this eternal monument to the misconduct and essential defects of those who have incurred the misfortune of being listed in it would testify forever that the obstinate culprit had raised the banner of insubordination and vice. During the examinations and visits of the authorities, this book was open for all to see. If they wished, in its pages everyone could read the titles of shame conferred upon the incorrigible subjects.

A contemporary psychologist would probably smell some unconscious sadism behind this torture. He would no doubt be mistaken, for the good heart of the pedagogue and the religious quickly regained the upper hand. Brother Gaussens adds at once,

The teachers must take great concern in regard to the poor children against whom it has been necessary to act so severely. Then with prudence and discretion they make every effort to bring them back to better attitudes, and they are far from seeming out of reach of clemency when they see them on the path of repentance. An unequivocal amendment and a sufficiently tested conversion deserve the removal of the punishment.

Had they finally attained the perfect method? To think so would be to contradict the principles laid down by the Constitutions. Almost every year, the directors were assembled for pedagogical conferences. Our archives preserve a series of reports from several of these annual meetings, which sometimes lasted several weeks. Thus, from September 13 to October 1, 1842, the directors met in Bordeaux under the presidency of Fr. Narcisse Roussel. In particular, they called for the introduction of a history course and categorically rejected the system of school banks, shame lists, and degradation. In 1847, a meeting of the brothers of Alsace took place in Ebersmunster. Among other topics, they discussed the suppression of any movement during the class, and this prolonged immobility was considered to be detrimental to the physical and moral health of the children. They also remarked—and this remark denotes an alert pedagogical sense—that the prepared models of writing are harmful because they exempt teachers from applying themselves to writing, no longer having to prepare models themselves. They also found that it might be wiser not to take the children to Mass every day, in order not to accustom them to routine. Finally, it was unanimously agreed that the classics should be developed by the most skilled (Marianist) teachers. Therefore, they would appoint one teacher for each classic and a committee to check that classic, which would be sent for printing only after correction.

During the holidays of 1851, Fr. Jean-Baptiste Fontaine, then Head of Instruction, assembled in Bordeaux the principal directors of the Provinces of Alsace, Franche-Comté, and the Midi. The pedagogical meetings lasted more than six weeks. “The result,” wrote Father Chevaux, “was the printing of a teaching method for the Society of Mary, with a small grammar for the beginners, a larger one for the intermediates, and a complete one for special schools. It also dealt with the other branches of education; but the works will appear only next year, if the Good Lord permits.”

The Good Lord permitted the Method to be printed before the end of the year. In his Circular of January 20, 1852, Father Caillet, who had himself pushed its completion, presented it to the religious “as the rule to be followed henceforth in the direction of the classes.” This first printed Marianist Method is therefore the result of over 30 years of concerted efforts. Our elders could be proud of it, for at the time it was a small masterpiece, of which many pages would still do honor in a book of contemporary pedagogy. The supernatural spirit which animates it surrounds the value and precision of the methods with a halo. When compared with previous editions, there is the impression that the tone is more elevated. The use of technical words clearly indicates that the pedagogical experience tends to organize itself scientifically. We will briefly explain the simultaneous use of the four major teaching methods.

The process of intuition, which consists in making as materially sensible the ideas one wishes to bring the children to understand… The process of exposition or mental intuition, (in which) the object is presented to the eyes of the mind, using words that recall the idea... The process of interrogation, (which) imperceptibly leads pupils from the known to the unknown through well-chosen questions adapted to their level... Finally, the process of discovery, (which) consists of giving children a general idea to be developed, that which can be done only in the large class and in that of the monitors.

The “general exercise,” one of the novelties of the Method of 1831, evolved; it was upgraded to the dignity of a “conversation,” presented as “the most natural way, the simplest and safest way to awaken and maintain the children’s attention, to make them observant and thoughtful…. It is also the unique and necessary way to give them knowledge of a multitude of things which it is shameful and sometimes even prejudicial to ignore.”

Those conversations with the students turned on items they could immediately see, or of which they already had an idea—“about the perfections of God” in creation,” “on the duties of mortals,” “on causes, effects, ends, and means.” The teacher “will also draw the attention of the children to what makes them happy or sad, to the motives they have for acting in this or that way.”

Another novelty of this 1851 Method was the systematic lessons in history and geography, which until then had been only intermittent, although the Method of 1841 had already begun courses in geography. In elementary education these courses were an innovation; in public secondary education they did not exist until 1833, although Father Lalanne had introduced them since 1819. It reads as follows.

History is the memory of the past, the lesson of the future, the light of the times, the depositary of events, the faithful witness to the truth, the source of good advice and prudence... But to make this study truly profitable, it is not enough to require (the children) to memorize dates, the proper names of men and kingdoms, of battles, and so on. All these details belong to history, it is true; but what moral teaching does it bring forth if we do not show Providence governing the peoples of the earth as well as the stars of heaven; if we do not make known the genius, the vices, the virtues, and the character of the people God has used as instruments to accomplish God’s designs on the nations; if we do not show the hand of God directing all events toward the same goal, the establishment and triumph of God’s reign; if we do not use it to illuminate the instability of human affairs, the evils caused by the forgetfulness of duties and the unleashing of passions, but also the beauty of virtue and the true glory which accompanies it always.

From the outset, the philosophy of history was approached by looking at it essentially as an instrument of culture. Have we not always followed that way of wisdom! The concern for culture outranks that of knowledge, even in the elementary teaching of our first religious. An identical preoccupation rules the teaching of geography.

The geography lesson is not simply a recitation of the proper names of peoples or countries. The remembrance of the historical facts, at least the most striking, is attached to the scene; children are acquainted with the appearance and products of the countries they pass through; through exercise, they are accustomed to find promptly the absolute position of the places on the globe and their relative positions to each other; they are caused to travel by memory from one country to another, and they must indicate the principal cities, streams, and mountains they encounter on their route. From time to time, these geographical journeys may become the subject of a written assignment. Sometimes the pupils are also assigned to make maps, but from memory and without a model before their eyes; otherwise, this would be merely a copy.

Moreover, geography furnishes considerations clearly calculated to elevate the soul toward God. It makes known the productions of the different countries of the globe, the nations which inhabit it, their governments, their religion, their customs, and their civilization.

The Method of 1851 is only a methodology and deals only with didactics. A manual on general pedagogy was still lacking in the Society. This appeared in 1856, the work of Fr. Jean-Baptiste Fontaine, then Head of Instruction, under the following title: Manual of Christian Pedagogy for the Use of the Teaching Brothers of the Society of Mary. The first volume, rich with thought and experience, is a true treatise on general pedagogy; we will often return to it. The second volume reproduces, with some enrichment, the Method of 1851. These are the last official books of the Society on pedagogy; this does not mean that our religious ceased to deal with the question, for in his Circular of November 30, 1869, Good Father Jean-Joseph Chevaux announced to the directors that the General Administration was “actively working on the development and improvement” of the methods and requested their suggestions for a “more complete edition of the Manual.” But this project was never carried out. In 1875, however, Fr. Joseph Simler, then Second Assistant, also composed a Teacher’s Guide to Elementary Education. He sent lithographed copies to the various communities in order to receive suggestions, intending to retouch his work for printing as soon as he returned from his canonical visit to America. Upon his return he was elected Superior General, and his guide was neither edited nor printed. Despite a more modern look and its merits and borrowing from several contemporary pedagogues, this teacher’s guide left few traces in the history of the Society. Were the enthusiasm and fidelity of our religious to follow a strictly Marianist pedagogy truly diminishing? The cause of this change of attitude no doubt lies elsewhere: by becoming international, the Society could hardly recommend universally valid methods. It is therefore understandable that for this reason, its leaders would have ceased to require the application of a uniform method.

However that may be, it must be admitted that the success of the Method can be attributed to the persistence of the Founder and the leaders in making its application obligatory. As the Founder wrote in his notes on the Constitutions, “The members of the Society have been furnished with a method of teaching for both the primary [elementary] and normal schools which embodies not only the rules for the good management of the children, but also the best manner of instructing them, and it is my desire that they do not deviate from it under any pretext whatsoever.”

He reaffirmed the same wish in his Circular of August 20, 1842. “A Teaching Society,” he says, “will obtain only halfway successes as long as the teaching is not done in its schools according to a method practiced by all the teachers; unity of method is an absolute condition for a future for our institutions.”

In the circular in which Father Caillet presented the Method of 1851 to the religious, he made it a strict obligation for them to follow it.

You will regulate the exercise of your functions as teachers faithfully according to the Method. The provincials are especially charged with having it put into practice in the institutions of their provinces and supervising its exact observance. At first glance, it would appear that there are certain schools in which it cannot be applied literally on all points; because of the considerable number of pupils, they are forced to permit another type of division than that indicated. But it is easy to see that however numerous the classes may be, nonetheless the pupils composing them belong to one of the three ability levels which served as the basis of the classification adopted by the Method.

On January 1, 1874, Father Chevaux wrote to the Inspectors, “The Inspector is urged to ensure that the Manual of Pedagogy edited by the Society will be studied and put into practice. In the case of dispensations or exceptions to the Method, he will come to an understanding with the General Administration on this point.”

From that time on, we hear hardly any mention of this Method, and no one any longer pushed its application. This is regrettable because it can be said that the reputation of our schools during the first two generations was mainly due to the convergence of all efforts, either for the elaboration or for the application of the Marianist Method. Yet there were very few men of high culture among the brothers. Often, as elsewhere, obedience improvised teachers from young men who had just completed a hasty novitiate. But their devotion and self-abnegation, combined with their religious docility to follow the methods proven by common experience, allowed them to produce the maximum—while if isolated, left to themselves and abandoned to their own choices, they would have fluctuated without discernment among the most diverse educational systems which were already creating a noisy propaganda and would have stagnated miserably, or even failed. Even if imperfect, a method to which all submit their individual impulses leads more certainly to success than the most generous but disordered initiatives.

5.      Appendix. A Day in the Classroom, Around 1830

Before leaving elementary education, it is not unimportant to outline, as in a documentary, the appearance of a Marianist elementary classroom around 1830. It will be remembered that in the large schools a single teacher was in charge of 100 to 150 pupils. The benches were usually arranged in a semicircle, in the center of which the teacher’s platform rose like a throne. The pupils were arranged in groups of similar abilities with the weakest in the center, close to the platform. In addition to the crucifix and an image of the Blessed Virgin, on the walls were hung tablets of penmanship and conjugations, as well as large placards bearing some pious maxims in large letters: Deus meus et omnia; Monstra te esse Matrem, [“God is my all.” “Show yourself a Mother.”] and other similar ones, according to the taste of the teacher. The blackboard was usually small. The morning class was always preceded by Mass in the church, where after meeting in the courtyard of the school, all the pupils went two-by-two in rows and in silence. As soon as they were installed in the classroom, they recited a morning prayer. In the evening before departure, an evening prayer was recited.

How could one single teacher control up to 150 pupils? How could his voice last all day in such vast rooms? He was assisted by a certain number of pupils, called chefs de forces [heads of ability levels], chosen from among the best and to whom he gave special training after the evening class. Each was charged with a section or ability level and sat at the end of the bench. However, it was the teacher who taught everything in our mixed method, whereas in the mutual method it was the monitors who taught their companions. In the Marianist system, the chefs de force were there only to recite the lessons, to do sums on the blackboard, to show the places on the geography maps, to check the calculations, to spell out the dictations, and to mark the spelling errors according to their own notebooks, already corrected by the teacher. But he monitored and controlled everything. “What a zoo!” a reader will doubtless say. But this would be a mistake. An almost religious silence prevailed in the classes. “The teacher speaks very little; in general, the disciplinary means advantageously dispense him from this. If he wishes to give a warning, it is by agreed signs; if he wishes to reprimand a fault, this is still by signs; finally, if he wants to make a change or have a movement begin again, this is always by signs.”

Suppose the teacher wants to call up a pupil, the eighth in the sixth row or ability level, for example. To do so, the places the end of his rod on the number “6” of the paper strip placed inside his desk, corresponding to the number “6” of the paper strip placed outside; this first movement of the wand indicates the ability level. The teacher then places the end of his rod on the number “1”; this second movement indicates the bench. The teacher places the end of his rod on the number “8”; this third movement indicates the pupil.

There was a complicated system of rod-strokes, of which the pupils knew the meaning. In a writing lesson, at a given signal the pupils all grasped their various instruments with their right hand and in the manner taught them—namely those in the rows with the sand tablet, a wooden stylus, shaped to indicate the position of the fingers; those in the rows with the slate tablets, a pencil in which the position of the fingers is also indicated but less prominently; to the last rows with tablets and sharpened quills. At the second signal all children raise their hand and hold it at eye level until the teacher, having made certain they are holding their styluses, pencils, or quills correctly, as well as their bodies, gives another signal and they begin to write, etc. After a few minutes the teacher passes by all the desks, a quill in his hand. He mentions each one of the errors the student has committed, and joining the model to the precept, he himself traces the letters which have been badly formed or the words which have been badly written.

There is the same silence of the teacher for the reading lesson. He makes a sign; each student takes out his book. At a second sign, the first child of the first bench begins to read; the others follow in their book, for they risk every moment being surprised and obliged to continue. “In each bench the strongest pupil corrects a reader of his bench when he makes a mistake; the teacher warns the monitor with small strokes of a ruler if he misses an error.” They went so quickly that in a few minutes each one successively had read one or more sentences. On the other hand, if a student is tempted to talk, bad things happen to him; he comes up against a very ingenious system, which today a more scientific psychology no longer allows us to employ. A child who has gossiped has to take the Silence Card, then he will stand on a stool in order to watch half the class. If he sees someone speak or leave his place without permission, he carries the card [to them] and goes to sit without saying anything. The person to whom he has just carried the card must immediately take it without saying a word and stand with his arm raised, showing the card to the teacher; he waits in this position for the teacher to look at him and beckon him to climb on the stool or come to seek a punishment.

And so on. But woe to the one who holds the card at the end of the class! No detail is forgotten in the first methods; the child could not make a movement that was not foreseen or make a gesture that was not controlled. These methods make us smile today and think of a discipline of puppets. However, they were considered the best not only in France, but also elsewhere; and notwithstanding the moderns, the children were happy and attached to their teachers, whose disinterested love was able to alleviate the narrowness and the precision of this mass discipline. Fr. Joseph Hiss suggests that we have for them feelings of admiration and gratitude!

Because of our vocation, we are the heirs of these departed whom we venerate, whose labors we admire, and by whom we feel ourselves protected and loved. At the present time we are reaping the benefit of the immense labors these three or four generations of religious have furnished and accumulated; by the sweat of their brow they have cleared the soil that we are cultivating today; they have opened the avenues along which we are advancing. Their only too-small number increased their task tenfold, in which they had to spend themselves and be efficient without having the professional formation we receive at present. What heroism on their part!

6.       In the Constitutions of 1829 and 1839

I invite the reader to refer to the first volume of this series of books, written by Fr. Joseph Lackner, which contains all the articles of the Constitutions of 1839. I add, however, a word on the “Assistants for Education.”

As we said above, the Daughters of Mary and the Society of Mary are governed by the superiors and what we call the Three Offices. Briefly, the Office of Religious Life is in charge of everything that concerns religious life; the Office of Temporalities, all that concerns the temporal and the economic; and the Office of Education, everything concerning formation and education. Formerly, the Assistant for Education was often called the “Inspector” because he had among his duties the inspection of schools and teachers.

Here is how the Constitutions of 1839 describe his mission (the articles are nearly similar to those of the Constitutions of 1829, articles 387 to 392 and 428).

On Assistants in General

412. The Head of Instruction continually sees to it that each subject of the Society has all the instruction, whether of religion or of human knowledge, that pertains to his state and to his employment.

§ 4. Of the Second Assistant, the Head of Instruction

427. Teaching, supervision, and improvement of methods are the special responsibilities of the Head of Instruction and of his office.

428. No one is employed in teaching without an authorization delivered by him after the examination he has made or has had made of the subject.

429. This examination determines two things: (1) that the subject is sufficiently instructed in the subject matter he will need to teach; (2) that he knows the method by which he should teach.

430. Literary exercises in the novitiates or other houses of probation are regulated by the Head of Instruction in accord with the Head of Zeal, so that on the one hand, the probationers do not forget what they have learned and that on the other hand, their studies do not preoccupy them to the prejudice of their spiritual advancement.

431. The Head of Instruction receives a report on the result of the examinations and of the visitations to the schools; he sees to it that no head of office introduces new modifications to the method of teaching or in the procedures of education.

432. He sets up and reviews each year the catalogue of the books that should serve for the instruction of the teachers and the students, and also of books that may be given as prizes; he reviews the catalogues compiled by the Head of Zeal. No book may be introduced and read in the houses or in the schools of the Society without his approbation.

The mission of the Assistant for Education will become more focused with each of the various revisions of the Constitutions.

7.      The Vow of Teaching Christian Faith and Morals

The priests of the collège/séminaire of Mussidan were strongly committed to the education of youth, as we can see in the Abridgement of the Rules of the Congregation of Saint Charles.

(1) To regard the education of youth as one of the first and principal means of procuring the salvation of souls. (2) To work at the education of youth, without the ambition to be employed in other works of zeal such as preaching or Confessions, (3) To be attracted by the fact that throughout life, he has only to work at the education of youth. (4) To ask to apply all his life to the education of youth, if he does not feel a talent for other things. (5) To neglect nothing in order to be able to give a good Christian education to youth. (6) A good literary education. (7) When he teaches, to properly observe the rules of the regents. (8) To be qualified to give a good civil education. (9) In teaching, to have feelings of the deepest humility. (10) To associate a hidden and interior life with teaching.

These rules which permeated the life of young William Joseph undoubtedly influenced what is called “the vow of teaching Christian faith and morals” which, as we will see, has a wider meaning.

To present this vow, we can take almost the entire text composed by Fr. Bernard Vial for the annual retreat of the Province of France in 1994.

“Teaching” involves a twofold aspect: to teach every creature the content of faith (which states that they are children of God), and to educate them to adopt the behavior that corresponds to this faith (to act as children of God).

As often, here Chaminade takes his grain from the granary of tradition. This vow is common to other religious orders. In fact, it originated with the Brothers of the Christian Schools with the precise meaning of opening free schools for poor children in order to bring them up in a Christian way. But the Jesuits have a broader interpretation of this. “Under the general title of education are included the various works of zeal of the Society, which excludes almost none”—and this in reference to obedience to superiors.

But with this common grain, Chaminade was going to bake a bread truly his own, stuffed with a completely Marian spirit. The episode of Cana is the beginning point, with a universal apostolic goal.

7.1.      Not Just a Passing Idea for Chaminade

With a rare stubbornness, Chaminade made this vow what we might call the backbone of his foundations.

In the State

The religious State in the world. A person professed the vow of zeal, to which was added that of stability in the Sodality. Note the explicit link between education and Marian stability in the Sodality. “The object of the ... vow is ... like the special end of the State ... the other vows are only the means to attain it” (cf. The Spirit of Our Foundation, vol. 1, no. 72, p. 99).

In other words, a person’s entire life is directed toward this goal; all the efforts toward holiness are directed toward this missionary end. “If a religious is obligated to undertake a long journey or to absent himself for a length of time, the superior will decide how he can fulfill this vow” (Spirit, as above).

Note here the sense of the word “religious” and the word “superior,” as applied to the State—at a time when there was no question for Father Chaminade of founding a religious Institute.

In the Institute of the Daughters of Mary Immaculate

This vow was present from the beginning in 1816: “I make a vow and promise to God ... to work under the authority of the superiors to preserve Christian morals and the Catholic faith...” Chaminade himself changes the formula to read, “work in teaching to preserve...”

This vow united sanctity and mission. “The vow of preserving Christian morals and faith engages those who make it—not only to preserve for themselves these holy morals and Christian piety, but also to work at communicating it to our neighbor, especially to the rising generation in this dangerous world” (Grand Institut, article 299).

This vow reigns over others. “This third vow eminently contains the three purposes of the Institute.” “The others are, in many respects, only the means for it” (Grand Institut, article 300).

The Constitutions of 1839: “Through the vow of teaching, we dedicate ourselves to instructing youth and all who have a need and the opportunity for it, not specifically in the humanities, but in the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church” (Constitutions of 1839, article 70).

In the Society of Mary

No doubt under the influence of Father Lalanne, the Constitutions of 1829 accorded great importance to education in schools, and the object of the vow was restricted by this fact. But that of 1839 returns to its universality.

The vow of teaching Christian faith and morals obligates all the members of the Society to take the greatest interest in the preservation of the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman, etc., religion, and to the upholding of morality. Because the majority of the members devote themselves to the teaching of the humanities, the sciences, and the arts, they make of this teaching only a means for multiplying true Christians (article 22).

All are concerned with this mission. Those who do not fulfill this last vow by direct works observe it by working with the intention of furthering it (article 23).

7.2.      The Vow of Teaching Christian Faith and Morals Arises from the Contemplation of the Mystery of Redemption

“There is a mystique which takes over a person’s entire life” ... “Calvary is the place where our Founders loved to stand with Mary, to draw with her from the heart of the Savior love and devotedness for all.” … “For Chaminade, teaching Christian faith and morals could never be reduced to the transmission of a knowledge of the truths of faith and of a consequent moral practice.” But the carrying out of the vow will consist in bringing the person addressed to the foot of the Cross, to meeting Christ the Redeemer in the bosom of the Church, here eminently represented by Mary and John.

In other words, for Chaminade education in faith has its end only in the adherence to Jesus Christ in the bosom of the Church, in a community of the Church, in union with Mary, and in offering ourselves through Mary for the fruitfulness of the redeeming sacrifice.

This mystical root of the vow justifies the two characteristics which Chaminade gave it—its universality, an extensive fullness; and its “totalitarian” character, an intensive fullness.

I conclude this chapter by quoting the two headings of Father Vial’s article, without expanding on them. It seems to me they speak for themselves. “Universality of the vow: reaching all people and all of humanity” and “because it aims at the universality of all people, this vow will touch the entire personality and the entire life of the teacher. It is ‘totalitarian’ and ‘globalizing.’”

Part Two - Heirs of a History

Chapter 6 - Growth and Consolidation of Marianist Education

1.The Agricultural and Trade School Tradition at Saint-Remy, Grangeneuve, Yzeure, and Sainte-Maure

Saint-Remy

Saint-Remy in Haute-Saône was a central location of the Marianist mission. The first religious arrived there in 1823, discovering a magnificent castle, much of which was transformed into a “fresh air” hall. What would be the mission at Saint-Remy? The Missionaries of Beaupré wanted a place to “receive men converted through missions who would have need of a retreat for a short time, or continually.” Urged by the rector of the Academy of Besançon, Fr. Jean-Etienne Bardenet thought of retreats and teacher training for teachers and the foundation of a normal school; to all this was added the idea of creating a trade school, oriented toward agriculture and supported by the prefect of the department. The combination of these different expectations did develop at Saint-Remy, along with the addition of a novitiate. When it was no longer possible to continue the normal school, a boarding school was developed with innovative teaching methods.

At the meeting of the General Council of the Society of Mary on April 12, 1824, it had been decided “to establish a test farm.” A great deal of work needed to be done; everything had to be cleared, and the fields were scarcely productive.

Quickly workshops were developed which produced farm implements, especially plows, which were appreciated in the region. At the same time, the farm and agricultural production increased. New techniques were employed. Apprentices worked in the workshops, at the farm, at the mill, and on agricultural land. The reputation of Saint-Remy spread throughout the countryside, and when the government created the “farm schools, or elementary agricultural schools” in 1848, the department turned quite naturally to Saint-Remy, which already offered the conditions necessary for its installation. The farm school opened its doors June 1, 1850, and was officially authorized on January 20, 1851, by the Minister of Agriculture and Trade. This recognition and the related subsidies enabled a great development of the school, with modern and adapted buildings, a selection of the best varieties of plants, an improvement of local breeds through the introduction of new breeds, subsoil plowing and use of natural and chemical fertilizers, use of adapted tools, etc. The training of farm workers was not targeted, but that of the farmers themselves and the property owners. Each year the establishment participated in the general agricultural competition in Paris which began in 1870 and several times received awards. By order of the Minister of Agriculture and Trade of December 18, 1876, the farm school became a “practical agricultural school.” The students to be welcomed were to be 15 years old and were admitted by competition. At that time the farm school, with three-year courses, had received 469 regular (government-funded) students and 460 free pupils.

Although the anti-congregational laws were about to strike at the Society of Mary, Saint-Remy was doing well with “a model pigsty, a fish farm laboratory, a distillery, a cheese dairy, etc.” To make pupils capable of self-sufficiency under a variety of circumstances, they moved through the wheelwright, carpentry, forging, and baking workshops—in a word, they were employed in all the various labors which circumstances so often impose on a careful and farsighted farmer.” At the pedagogical level, pupils in the second year introduced the new pupils to the spirit and the studies. Responsibilities were assigned to students in different areas of the farm, depending on their level. On the theoretical and practical level, the teachers accompanied their pupils closely to help them to do their best in their studies.

The storm broke in 1903. Despite the appeal made to the Conseil d’Etat, the sentence had come down: the property of the Society of Mary was seized and the religious had to become secularized or exiled. Negotiations with the Canton of Fribourg in Switzerland were underway through Bro. Louis Cousin, Assistant General, which culminated in relocation from Saint-Remy to the ancient abbey of Hauterive in late July or early August of 1903, before the arrival of the liquidator, Edmond Duez. Almost all the belongings had been saved; only land and buildings would be sold.

Hauterive-Grangeneuve

Many pupils followed their masters to Hauterive-Grangeneuve, where a dairy station and a cheese-making school already existed. The fields were put into cultivation, and the courses were resumed. Antoine Walter, director of the Saint-Remy practical school, became the director of the new works.

The distance between the Abbey of Hauterive and the site of Grangeneuve required constant travel, so it was necessary to build closer to the farm. This was done in 1907 and 1908 under the leadership of Louis Cousin. The reputation of Grangeneuve grew rapidly and attracted students from all over Europe and beyond. Important people came to visit the establishment. The First World War slowed the activities because several teachers and pupils were mobilized, but courses started again after the war. “In spring 1921, students and teachers came to Grangeneuve to take theoretical and practical courses in arboriculture and to take various lessons in agriculture, apiculture, and the study of agricultural equipment.” In 1923 during the revision of the agreement between the Canton of Fribourg and the Marianists, a closer collaboration began between the Agricultural Institute and the School of Practical Agriculture. The facility flourished and worked with other partners, such as

the Sarine [a local river] Breeders’ Union for the selection of wheat and potatoes and variety testing. The Federal Testing and Control Station in Mont Calme, near Lausanne, provided its help. This was the first step toward the creation of cantonal stations. In addition to the “tests” proper, questions of health were not neglected. Thus a case of “black potato gall” gave rise to activity in conjunction with the Federal Station. Experiments on the cultivation of potatoes in the mountains were also organized and, on the whole, were conclusive. These various research projects and tests were carried out on the property.

As at Saint-Remy, workshops were attached to the farm, especially a forge and carpentry. Whether in Saint-Remy or Grangeneuve, the State asked that teachers be agronomists. Indeed, some brothers were trained in National Schools of Agriculture.

Yzeure

When the Second World War broke out, several brothers and pupils were mobilized, in particular Jean-Marie Lemaire, the director, who returned to Grangeneuve after being demobilized in 1940. Several pupils could no longer return to France, and a difficult period began. Moreover, the contract with the Canton of Fribourg expired January 1, 1943, and if it was to be cancelled, the canton must be informed one year before. The Minister of Agriculture of the Vichy government was in favor of the return of the Marianists to France. An estate in the center of France with a focus on breeding was sought. The estate of le Vigier, located at La Ferté-Hauterive in l’Allier, was proposed; however, the occupation of the “Free Zone” provisionally ended the project, although a proprietary corporation was set up. At Grangeneuve, “the difficulties of recruitment—foreign staff and students and financial problems—prompted the Society of Mary to seek a solution for transferring the school to France.”

The property of La Ferté-Hauterive, acquired by contributions from our alumni, existed; essentially they wanted us to take charge of it. On one hand, the difficulty was the absence of school premises. We could no longer rely on help from the French government to finance the construction. On February 21, 1952, at a meeting of alumni at Moulins-sur-Allier, one of them spoke of the likely sale of the Jesuit seminary at Yzeure, two kilometers from the city. After much discussion, debate, and hesitation, the Society of Mary decided to buy that 10-hectare property and to leave Grangeneuve in 1953.

Therefore at the beginning of the school year in 1953 the Institut Agricole du Centre opened its doors. This institute became an extension of the Institut Catholique de Lyon and was able to issue a higher diploma in agronomy. The La Ferté-Hauterive application farm, about 30 kilometers away, was used for practical work. Difficulty in recruiting competent staff did not allow the long-term survival of the work that closed in 1960, along with the Ferté-Hauterive farm in 1961.

Sainte-Maure

Another adventure began with the creation of the school of agriculture, Notre Dame de l’Aube, in Sainte-Maure. In 1944 the Bishop of Troyes, Julien-François Le Couëdic, received an estate of 200 hectares with a castle from a Madame Morin in order to found a school of agriculture for his diocese. He had deeply immersed himself in this mission and had even gone so far as to donate one of his episcopal rings for sale to support the establishment. He wished to find a religious congregation to look after this foundation. After several interviews, it was decided that the Marianists would take charge of the school. In September and October of 1948 a small community of three Marianists was sent: Bro. Joseph Fimbel, director; Fr. René Schweitzer, chaplain; and Bro. Henri Rey. At the time of the founding of Sainte-Maure, Fr. Adolphe Barb, then provincial, gave this instruction. “Do as at Grangeneuve ... with a lower beginning level, and maintain a close union between school and farm.” This was how an apprenticeship center was developed, alternating and then continuing thanks to the boarding section, a correspondence course, and a training course for adults (Centre de Promotion Sociale, later renamed Centre de Formation Professionnelle pour Adultes). Today, the Lycée Privée Sainte-Maure prepares for different professional and general baccalauréats: “conduct and management of the company”; the horse option; vegetable production option; livestock option (animal breeding); baccalauréat in “management of natural environments and wildlife”; scientific baccalauréat; baccalauréat in “science and technology of agronomy and animals,” as well as two higher technical diplomas [brevets] in “agronomy and crop production” and “management and water control.” The fourth and third classes allow students who are unmotivated to find an incentive for studies, thanks to pedagogy and accompaniment adapted to them. Bro. André Brissinger was the last Marianist head of the establishment, until 1990. Since then it has been headed by lay people who continue the mission under the Marianist Tutelle.

Saint-Remy had had a great influence among the Marianists. Upon the founding of the Society of Mary in the United States of America, Fr. Léon Meyer was thinking of making the large, nearly 740-acre estate he had purchased in Dayton into a new Saint-Remy. He named this estate “Nazareth,” but little by little the project was transformed.

We have had other agricultural centers in the world: at Givenich in Luxembourg from 1899 to 1907 and at Rutherford in California from 1911 to 1917. Today, brothers perpetuate this tradition in particular in Congo-Brazzaville, the Ivory Coast, and Togo.

What is original in the agricultural training proposed from the beginning is an openness to the world and other professions necessary for agriculture—a social, cultural and religious dimension—in short, the formation of a whole person ready to deal with life.

2.      The Tradition of Orphanages in the Society of Mary

From the restoration of the Marian Sodality of Bordeaux by Father Chaminade, the care of abandoned children was present with the work of the small chimney sweeps from Auvergne or Savoy, which continued under the guidance of the brothers at the Madeleine, Agen, and Besançon. Another work, less well known, which seems to have been of short duration but which was well within the ideas of Father Chaminade was that of homes for juvenile prisoners. Requests had come to the Founder from Bordeaux, Strasbourg, and especially Besancon, and the work of the prison at Bellevaux had almost become a reality in 1830; however, after the July Revolution and with the lack of religious, it could not be taken up. Finally in 1862 and 1863 our brothers could be present in Bordeaux, in the Saint Jean Penitentiary.

During Father Chaminade’s visit to the “northern” establishments in 1826, it was agreed that he would pay a visit to the city hospital in Besançon and to the orphanage within its walls. Here is what he wrote.

I thought I could entertain the hope that we could take charge of the direction of the entire place, as well as of the teaching of reading and writing and of the four trades followed there. Six brothers seem to suffice for everything, one for teaching of religion, writing, and reading who is known there as the primary [elementary] school teacher; four brothers for the four trades: hosier, weaver, carpenter and shoemaker; and cook… As I see things, this establishment will be both the cause and the model of several other establishments of nearly the same type in several other large cities, and especially in Paris, where they are particularly necessary.

At the beginning of 1827, a first community had taken charge of the Saint-Jacques Orphanage of Besançon, with the particular situation that the religious depended on the hospital sisters, which was not without some conflicts. The brothers found the orphans in a state of catastrophic “disorder and corruption.” “The lay teachers who cared for them had to employ the whip, the foot-irons, and several other punishments of this type to control them, but those means were more likely to brutalize than to correct them.” Some orphans had even been planning to poison the brothers, who were ready to leave their posts. Encouraged by Brother Clouzet, they appealed to “honor, reason, and above all to religion. They felt these means would have happier and more beneficial effects, and they were not mistaken. In a short time vice gave way to virtue; from then on the committee administering the orphanage understood how great the ascendancy of religion is when it holds sway in the heart.”

In this spirit our brothers continued their mission until the night of April 7 and 8, 1840, when a fire devastated the Saint-Jacques Hospital. The orphans took the road to Ecole, where they took refuge in the house of the Missionaries of Beaupré. The benefits of outdoor life for the children caused the orphanage administrators to decide not only to extend their stay, but also to consider building there. A section of agricultural industry was added to the tailor, hosier, and shoemaker workshops. Soon after, apprenticeship in horticulture was taught. In 1860 the orphanage consisted of 22 charity case children and 61 children assisted by the department, a total of 83 children. Six religious ran the orphanage: two teachers, a master shoemaker, a master tailor, and two master gardeners, to which were added three hospital sisters, two female teachers, a carriage boy, and a kitchen girl.

How was a day spent at the orphanage? “For all children, time was divided between class and work.” “At four o’clock, rising for teachers; at seven in the morning, Holy Mass; at 7:30, breakfast; from 8:00 to 11:15, work; at 11:30, dinner followed by a recess; from 1:00 to 3:00 in the afternoon, class; then work until 7:30 p.m., when the evening meal was served.” In 1870,

three-quarters of the children were engaged in farming or gardening. They were divided into three sections: large, medium, and small boys. Each of these divisions was led to work by a leader chosen from among those who had obtained the highest marks. The master gardener explained the work to be done to this leader; he also graded the work of those children who worked under his direction, but after an inspection by the master gardener and the supervising brothers. These grades were not purely honorary, but entitled the pupils to a graduated scale of rewards, the total amount of which was paid to the child at the time of his departure [at the age of 18], providing that this discharge was regular. Those of the children who behaved well succeeded in receiving a few hundred francs upon their discharge. In addition to the cultivation work, there were two workshops for tailoring and shoemaking; 24 children were divided between these two workshops, 12 for each. Like gardeners, these children received their grades, and consequently their rewards.

The Ecole orphanage continued until the administration decided to move it to Châteaufarine in 1898. The provincial at the time announced the departure of the brothers to the president of the Commission of the Hospices of Besançon in these terms. “We have looked at the premises of Châteaufarine; it does not correspond to what our regulations require, so I have the honor to inform you that we must regretfully withdraw. Please let me know which day our brothers will become free, so that we can make plans for them.”

Other orphanages were held by the Society of Mary, sometimes for a short time for lack of financial means or religious: Willerhof in Alsace, in the commune of Hilsenheim (1850-1851); Le Mesnil-Saint-Firmin in Oise (1854-1855); Sion in Switzerland (1858-1869); Kembs in Alsace (1863-1870); the Paulinum in Graz (1857-1935); and Linz (1927) in Austria; Klein-Zimmern (1902-1921) and Drais in Germany (1903-1923); Cortil-Noirmont in Belgium (1916); Vitoria in Spain (1903-1905 and 1923); and Cincinnati, Ohio (1854-1855) and Rutherford, California (1911-1917) in America.

At the time of the suppression of religious congregations in France in 1903, the Society of Mary directed the agricultural orphanages of Merles sous Rouvroy (Oise) [1853-1903], Luché-Thouarsais (Deux-Sèvres) [1867-1903], Coubeyrac (Gironde) [1872-1903], and La Peyrouse (Dordogne) [1899-1903], and in each of these institutions it supported and prepared for farm work the children entrusted to it by various works of assistance.” These houses were roughly similar in spirit to what was carried out at Ecole.

In 1937, the Province of Cincinnati agreed to take over the large St. John’s Orphanage in Brooklyn, New York.

As a result of the economic crisis of the country and with a view to counteracting the increase in the number of unemployed resulting from this, legislative measures had been taken to prolong the years of education in orphanages. The result created a delicate situation from a disciplinary point of view for the Sisters [of Saint Joseph who took care of 750 orphaned boys], who until then had been responsible only for children under 15. The bishop decided that the children who attended Grade 5 and below classes at the St. John’s Orphanage would be “distributed in other institutions, and that pupils in grade 6 and above […] would be joined to those of the St. John’s Orphanage, now entrusted to the direction of a Society of Brothers”—the Society of Mary.

Of the 500 students present, 15% are entirely orphans, 10% have lost a father or mother, and 75% come from separated parents; they are entrusted to the work by various charitable organizations of the city or by individuals. A carefully studied plan has been implemented to give these 500 pupils between 12 and 18 years of age a manly education, preparing them for a healthy use of liberty in life. This is why an effort has been made to create a true family spirit in this environment according to the traditions of the Society, favoring the spirit of conscience and the spirit of initiative. The 500 pupils were divided according to age into six groups, each with their own space and life.

Each pupil has his wardrobe and a desk which belongs to him, but for which he also has responsibility. Inside the institution he enjoys a certain freedom, but he must respect the rules of the work. A program of study and manual work is assigned to him, and every six weeks he must account for what he has achieved. Sports, cinema, and a brass band break the monotony of his existence, and twice a month he may receive a visit from his relatives. Thus the years of his education pass, after which he is able to enter life and make a career. He was taught—notes a summary of the very Christian and American programs of the school—that (1) each one must ensure the salvation of his soul; (2), he should try to be a man of character; (3) he must make use of every opportunity for his personal development; (4) he must develop his own initiative; and (5) he must take care of everything that is in his use in order to appreciate its value.

“St. John’s moved its activities from Brooklyn to Rockaway Park in 1948. At first St. John’s was known as the Roman Catholic orphanage in the borough of Brooklyn; but as the years passed, the situation of the children placed there changed. There were few genuine orphans (without parents), but in most cases youths were placed in St. John’s because of family problems—sometimes because of a death, but most often poverty, family tensions or breakdowns, or inability to attend school caused the placement. St. John’s went through several changes of name, from ‘Orphan Asylum’ to ‘Saint John’s Boys’ Home’ to ‘St. John’s Boys’ School and Residence’ to ‘St. John’s Boys’ Home.’ The latter is the current official name.” The Marianists left the institution in 2012.

In 1954 the bishop and the committee of the Region of Molise contacted the Italian Marianists to entrust them with the “House for War Orphans” from the region of Molise in Campobasso. At the time, it welcomed some 50 youths. The brothers had to care for the religious, moral, and physical training of the orphans. They accompanied them to the local schools. Soon after, the brothers opened the house after classes to the young people of Campobasso, to allow the orphans to avoid isolation. Thus new movements gradually emerged.

Here is Leo Leone’s story.

From 1954 to 1967, the Marianist community was well integrated into the fabric of the city. In addition to the evangelical testimony, it had given social and cultural inspiration to these youths who needed to rediscover human solidarity and affective relationships favoring their integration into society. The situation of isolation and ghetto life which the orphans had experienced in the past was only a bitter memory, to be transformed. In 1959, the “Virtus” Sports Group was born, culminating in the “Stella Maris” Village, which became one of the places where the orphans could fraternize and share their sports and life experiences with the young people of Campobasso. The war had retreated far into the past (thank God!), and the work was expanding naturally. It was then a matter of not abandoning a land made fertile and which, in fact, had expanded its borders beyond the capital of Molise. The idea arose that a Community Youth Center could be set up which could become a true laboratory for associative life for young people through various times of experiences, animation, and Christian and social involvement—from theater to sports to music and other forms of creativity and voluntary activity.

Thus in 1967 a “New Frontier” was born. The Marianists continue their presence in the parish of Mater Ecclesiae in Campobasso.

3.      Normal Schools

This has already been discussed chapter five, paragraph 3.5, to which we refer the reader.

4.      Villa Saint-Jean in Fribourg

Following the expulsions from France in 1903, many works took refuge in Switzerland. A unique work of education was created there, the Villa Saint-Jean of Fribourg.

The new institution was officially attached to the cantonal Collège Saint Michel: it became the “French section.” When settling into the new buildings, placed under the protection of the Apostle Saint John, Fr. François Kieffer undertook a pedagogical experiment which was dear to him: family life in the collège. His large family of about 200 people was divided into three sections, distributed into “pavilions” [houses]: La Sapinière for the large students, Les Ormes for the middle-sized, and Gallia for the small boys. In vast green spaces, each of these sections had its own material framework and formed a distinct whole, adapted to the needs and particular characteristics of the different ages. Proctors multiplied the intimate religious and secular meetings, and sports were emphasized. Instead of being lost in anonymity, each student lived at ease in an environment where he felt like he was among his own family. Many generations of students found the Villa Saint-Jean the perfect setting for their religious, intellectual, and physical development. The war of 1939-1945 nearly called into question the existence of the Villa Saint-Jean. It survived, however, and recovered its material prosperity; but the lack of religious personnel did not allow it to correspond sufficiently to the views of its founder. On the other hand, the Marianists of France saw themselves in need of regrouping. This is why in 1962 the superiors withdrew the French religious and replaced them with Marianists from the United States, who made the Villa Saint-Jean an American high school for English-speaking youth. Eight years later, the Society of Mary abandoned this work. In the spring of 1971, the government of Fribourg bought the Villa Saint Jean for the construction of new buildings and the transfer of certain sections of the Collège Cantonal Saint Michel.

Among the most illustrious students of the institution, we mention Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Juan Carlos I, King of Spain.

5.      The Place of the Church’s Social Teachings Around 1900 in Marianist Educational Works

The history of the Society of Mary before 1903 is linked to the Collège Stanislas in Paris, where the Sillon of Marc Sangnier and his friend Paul Renaudin was developed. As the “social Catholicism” to which the encyclical Rerum novarum of Pope Leo XIII gave guidelines in 1891 developed, some Marianist religious also committed themselves in that direction. As early as 1894, in the “Crypt” of Stanislas under the benevolent eye of Fr. Joseph Augustin Leber, SM, students of the collège regularly met with Marc Sangnier. These meetings gave rise to the Sillon movement and its review. Circles of popular education and other groups were developing, intending to create a real fraternity among individuals beyond social class limits, supporting each other and recognizing each other in the simplicity of tutoiement [familiar forms of address]. While France continued to be divided between Monarchists and Republicans, this movement bore within it the hope of a national reconciliation by proposing a democratic republic.

We cannot trace the history of that unique movement here. We simply want to point out the influence it had on the education of young people in our institutions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, creating a spirit of openness, dialogue, and critical thinking on social issues. Unfortunately, the condemnation of the Sillon by Pius X in 1910 put a halt to that adventure, which nonetheless continued in another fashion. Unfortunately, we do not have a study on the influence of the Sillon and the “study circles” on Marianist education—this is a topic that should be explored further. It would also be important to see whether these movements had an influence on the Marian Sodality, which continued to exist within our institutions and among our alumni.

Social concern was not the prerogative of Stanislas of Paris alone. Following a congress at Besançon, Léon Harmel, “apostle of the Christian factory, father of the workers, and worthy collaborator of the Count Albert de Mun in the organization of Catholic Workers’ Circles, in the propagation and application of the teachings of Leo XIII concerning labor and social questions,” agreed to pass through Saint-Remy on March 7, 1893, to give a lecture to all the pupils of the practical school of agriculture and the older pupils of the secondary school. After having spoken of the pontiff and the workers, Léon Harmel had before him “young Christians belonging to the well-to-do classes who, one day, will have to fill a more or less important role around them, a social mission for which they must prepare themselves by endeavoring to become people useful to society in the various positions to which they may be called, and not egoists solely occupied with their own pleasures or their own personal interests.”

The person who is rich is so not only for himself, according to the views of Providence. If Providence has distributed the wealth of fortune to him more abundantly than to many others, it has been confided to him only as a repository for which he will have to account, and of which he must give a share to those who are deprived of this. And to render even more discernable all that is guilty in the selfish use of their possessions by too many pleasure seekers, he has shown us the wicked rich man of the Gospel as being a good rich man, comparable to so many wealthy people who live in the bosom of abundance, luxury, and excess—but, insensitive and disdainful, pass by the poor person who is deprived of all resources, insulting a misery as horrible as it is undeserved, a misery they could and should relieve.

6.      A List of Innovative Marianist Educators at the Turn of The Twentieth Century

The Villa Saint-Jean and the teaching of the social doctrine of the Church are the work of Louis Cousin and François-Joseph Kieffer, two innovative Marianists already mentioned. Both were outstanding educators who earned exceptional reputations.

In fact, under the direction of Father Simler, Louis Cousin, Inspector General of the Society of Mary, and Fr. Charles Klobb, private secretary of the Superior General, developed the Villa Saint-Jean project. Louis Cousin conceived the architecture of the “pavilions,” an architecture which represented within the walls an innovative pedagogical concept. He knew how to take advantage of the situation in Fribourg on the frontier of two languages, German and French, to ensure a contact of Marianists with foreigners—in fact, their language and their culture—and establish a “humanized and family-style” boarding school. Without making the collège a “sports academy,” he devoted a large portion of the schedule to physical exercise; developed a flexible discipline which did not resemble that of the Napoleonic barracks; and provided a solid and broad education, insisting on character formation, concern for the correctness and integrity of beliefs, and the accuracy and diversity of knowledge.

We owe the entrance of the Society of Mary into Spain to the same Louis Cousin with the foundations of San Sebastián and Cádiz, establishments of which he was in turn the director. An indefatigable educator, under the pseudonym of Louis Alain he was the editor of various works of history and geography for elementary schools, and under his direction textbooks in all other disciplines were developed. Until the end of his life, he was a mentor to the Sillon of Marc Sangnier, and he wrote various works on the social doctrine of the Church: the Catechism of Social Economy, The Sillon and the Catholics, Catechism of Social and Political Economy of the “Sillon,” and How I Raise My Child, as well as several other books on Mary, the Marian Sodality, and Father Chaminade. Fr. Louis Gadiou, SM, wrote his biography, which was reissued at the Chaminade Center of Bordeaux under the title A Marian and Social Apostle of Youth, Louis Cousin, 1855-1931.

As for Fr. François Kieffer, his name remains attached to the realization of the project of Louis Cousin, incarnated in the Villa Saint-Jean of Fribourg. The person who was to be the seventh Superior General of the Society of Mary had asserted himself as a leader in pedagogy. After his beginnings at the Institution Saint-Jean in Besançon, teaching philosophy at Stanislas de Cannes, and studies in Rome for a doctorate in theology, he taught philosophy at the Institut Fénelon in La Rochelle and then assumed the direction of the Marianist Seminary in Antony before being appointed director of Saint Charles de Saint-Brieuc, an institution comprising, in addition to the classical secondary classes, a preparatory class for the prestigious Ecole Navale. The persecution which led to the closure of that establishment made Fr. François Kieffer available for Fribourg and the creation of the Villa Saint-Jean.

As a pedagogical expert in the field, Father Kieffer circulated with ease among the young people of the institutions where he taught or directed, provided talks or correspondence with the parents, assiduously animated the team of Marianist teachers, and directed the collège magazine. On the strength of this experience, in 1916 he published L’Autorité dans la famille et l’école, a work which obtained immense success. Crowned by the Académie Française, the work was translated into several languages and was republished without interruption until the Second World War. The copy currently in the library of the Madeleine in Bordeaux is part of the 11th edition, published in 1934.

At the end of the First World War, Alsace having once again become French, the Bishop of Strasbourg appealed to the Society of Mary. Father Kieffer then took charge of the Collège Épiscopal Saint-André in Colmar and in the following year that of the Collège Épiscopal Saint-Étienne in Strasbourg, which in a few years he had increased from 600 to nearly 1,000 pupils. The pedagogical influence of Fr. François Kieffer was evident in congresses such as the Alliance des Maisons d’Education Chrétienne, the Société d’Education Familiale, and the Association du Mariage Chrétien, as well as in reviews such as the Revue Catholique d’Alsace, l’Enseignement Chrétien, la Revue Apologétique, Le Prêtre, Educateur, and l’Apôtre de Marie.

The General Chapter of 1934 elected him as the seventh Superior General of the Society of Mary. He still had the leisure to write a new work, the fruit of his experience: Education et Equilibre, published in May of 1939, the success of this equaled that of his previous works. The Revue Belge de Pédagogie gave a more than praiseworthy account, and Professor Devaud, holder of the chair of pedagogy of the University of Fribourg, took it as the topic of his seminar during the year 1940. Father Kieffer had begun the drafting of a Directory for Directors, of which only the introduction was completed when on March 19, 1940, a heart attack called him to the Lord. An unnamed religious, probably Fr. Henri Lebon, devoted a biographical note to him, Le T.R.P. François-Joseph Kieffer, septième supérieur général de la Société de Marie, 1864-1940.

Chapter 7 - Worldwide Expansion

The reputation of Marianist institutions quickly crossed borders. During the lifetime of Father Chaminade, the Society of Mary had settled in Switzerland as early as 1839 and in the United States of America in 1849. Marianist expansion was to continue with the foundation of Mainz in Germany (1851) and Graz in Austria (1857).

Sometimes there are unexpected turnarounds in history: the Kulturkampf of Bismarck forbidding the teaching of the Marianists in the annexed regions of Alsace-Moselle freed up religious for new missions. Many works were strengthened, in particular the houses of the United States of America, Austria, France, etc. New foundations also became possible, as in Belgium in 1874.

In Rome, Pope Leo XIII asked the Marianists to settle in the Eternal City. The Colegio Santa Maria opened its doors in 1887. In Spain,

after the normal negotiations, the first Colegio Santa María was opened in San Sebastián in 1887. Catholic Spain fell in love with the religious family that took its origins at the shrine of Our Lady of the Pillar. The influx of vocations made it possible to open successively the foundations of Jerez in 1888, Vitoria in 1889, Cádiz in 1892, and Escoriaza in 1895. In less than ten years there were nearly 100 Spanish members of the Society of Mary. A Province of Spain was erected.

After an initial evangelization, the mission countries sought missionary educators to stabilize and cultivate what had been sown (there was a great deal of talk at the time about bringing “civilization.” Thus requests came to the superiors from various parts of the world. The first Marianist religious left for the Great Lakes region of Canada in 1880; others left for Tripoli [later part of Libya] in 1881, then to Tunisia, Sfax (1882), Tunis (1883), and Sousse (1885), all in Tunisia. Later, the Spanish brothers settled in Tétouan and Tangier, Morocco. In 1883, the brothers of the United States founded schools in the Hawaiian Islands at the request of the Picpus Fathers. A Mass of Thanksgiving was celebrated on the occasion of their arrival by the saintly Fr. Damien de Veuster, apostle of the lepers. In Sub-Saharan Africa, in 1946 the brothers opened what would become the famous Collège Chaminade in Brazzaville. The Canadian brothers arrived in Abidjan in 1961 and were joined in 1966 by brothers who had to leave Brazzaville because of the nationalization of education and who then succeeded the Assumptionists at the Collège Notre Dame d’Afrique. On its part, the Province of Switzerland invested in Togo from 1958 on, creating the Collège Chaminade of Lama-Kara.

Being a missionary in Japan was not easy for Westerners. Because the Marianists wore a religious costume not very different from that of lay people, they provided less of a shock to the Japanese authorities; thus they were invited to assist the priests of the Foreign Missions of Paris. They landed in 1888 in Yokohama and began by settling in Tokyo. The beginnings were difficult, but with the brothers’ great perseverance the results were not long in coming. These schools were subsidized by the French government and the Alliance Française, just as in Tripoli. At the time of the confiscation of property from the congregations in 1903, here is what was presented for the defense of our establishments: in Tokyo, the School of the Morning Star, founded in 1889.

It has received the privileges of the lycées of the State and is officially entrusted with the teaching of the French language in the capital of the Empire; also, the Japanese government has asked for professors of French from the staff of this school for the Imperial University and the Military Academy of Tokyo. The teachers of the Morning Star School have published for the use of the Japanese (1) a complete French-language course, in three volumes, which has already reached its third edition; (2) a selection of annotated French readings; and (3) a definitive account of universal history.

In the same document we learn that the Star of the Sea School at Nagasaki was founded in 1892; the Shining Star School (a business school) in Osaka in 1898; in Yokohama the Saint Joseph School, founded in 1901, was reserved for foreigners. In 1907 an apostolic school [postulate/minor seminary] opened in Urakami to support vocations and provide for the formation of Japanese clergy and religious.

Preparation for grandes écoles [elite institutions of higher education for professional or technical training] is, it seems, a French specialty. Thus before 1903, the Collège Stanislas in Paris was preparing students for the Ecole Polytechnique, the Ecole Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr, the Ecole Navale, and the Ecole Centrale Paris, and Saint Charles de Saint Brieuc until 1933 prepared them for the Ecole Navale. Today Institution Sainte-Marie in Antony and Ecole Sainte-Marie Grand-Lebrun of Bordeaux have preparatory classes for the grandes écoles.

In the same spirit of emulation, while many parochial schools had been entrusted to the Society of Mary in the USA, many were transformed into high schools, and beginning in 1920 the first Marianist university was founded in Dayton, Ohio, followed by that of San Antonio, Texas, and then that of Hawaii. The Society of Mary had foundations in many other countries—for example in China from 1903-1909 and from 1935 to 1947, as well as in Korea, Mexico, Latin America, and East Africa, etc. In 2015 it is present in 34 countries on four continents.

This overview, inspired by the book Marianists in a Continuing Mission, gives an idea of the expansion of the Society of Mary in the world. For those who wish to look deeper into this development of the Marianists, we refer them to the various volumes of the General History of the Society of Mary of Fr. Antonio Gascón Aranda (the English editions are currently going to press). The author concentrates principally on the most important institutions entrusted to the Society of Mary. We should not, however, forget all the small primary schools and the collèges in small towns; these have touched all classes, but little about this is to be found in that work. Trusting in Providence, many brothers have devoted their lives to them. Indeed, those institutions had great difficulty balancing their budgets, and some parents paid their children’s tuition in kind—a chicken, a bag of potatoes, and so on. Many of those communities did not have a Marianist priest. In those works, the religious were often close to the people, and those schools prepared many citizens to be able to give the best of themselves in society and in the Church.

Today, all this idyllic past seems to be tottering on the older European continent. Many works would no longer operate if lay people had not taken up the Marianist torch. The lack of religious vocations in the West is leading to a restructuring and is pushing us to develop the formation of the laity in the Marianist spirit. The work begun in the developing countries continues with brothers from those countries who are inculturating the Marianist tradition, giving it a local identity. We must thank the Lord for this new expansion and humbly acknowledge our gratitude to their predecessors, who gave a true identity to our educational works.

Part Three - Marianist Education Today

As an introduction to this third part, we draw attention to a problem of vocabulary and the distinction between “pedagogy” and “education.”

The expression “Marianist pedagogy” should probably disappear today in favor of “Marianist education.” The term “pedagogy” designates the professional and technical aspects of the art of teaching, bringing it closer to the term “didactics,” even more technical and specific to each discipline taught.

The term “education” (like its derivatives, “educator” and “educational”) concerns teachers, but also supervisors (who are rightly called educators) and in the end, every adult in the educational community, as well as any parent. “Pedagogy” would be rather the art of teaching, whereas “education” is the art of accompanying the growth of another.

Among the Marianists, we speak more today about “education in faith” than about pedagogy of the faith. It should be the same in the school or “educational” field in general. We do not believe Marianists have developed profound skills in pedagogy sensu stricto [in the narrow sense]. On the other hand, we are convinced that they have a strong tradition and a great expertise in the field of “education.”

Therefore we will reserve the term “pedagogy” to speak of the methods of teaching, of transmission of knowledge, and let us replace in contemporary discourse the word “pedagogy” with that of “education,” especially in the expression “Marianist education”!

Chapter 8 - Throughout Our History, Our Educational Tradition Has Been Articulated in Documents Characterized by a Constant Fidelity to the Original Intuition

Chaminade was a happy student at St. Charles de Mussidan. This meant there was an atmosphere of freedom, flourishing, camaraderie, and attention to others, both between teachers and students and among the students themselves. That experience is undoubtedly at the root of the Father Chaminade’s educational convictions.

Without risk of unfair extrapolation or error, it is possible to designate this atmosphere by the expression “family spirit.” Father Chaminade experienced this as a child, as a teenager, and then as a young adult who was soon entrusted with responsibilities.

1.      Our Earliest Documents Concerning Education Flowed from That Experience

The Constitutions of 1829 and 1839 explicitly bear the hand of the Founder. We can point out the following traits, which have never ceased to assert themselves throughout the existence of the Society of Mary: a clear evangelical aim, the primacy of the quality of the educator over the methods, and the patience and trust of the educator in those entrusted to him.

With all his talent and his inventiveness, Lalanne was wonderfully in tune with these traits. The Founder entrusted him with the drafting of the Constitutions of 1829. The Constitutions of 1861, from the pen of Father Simler, expressed those earlier texts in very beautiful language about the educational mission of the Society of Mary. At that time Father Lalanne was still alive and venerated, and his errors during the time of the Founder were forgotten. He was entrusted with important pedagogical inspection functions. The two chapters of the Constitutions on “Education” and “Instruction” reproduced his texts, often word for word.

This understanding of education was being implemented in many small schools throughout the 19th century as well as in prestigious collèges, of which Stanislas would long be the model, not to mention schools of agriculture and orphanages. It was the understanding of all Marianist educators during that period with each one, according to his origin, his country, and his charism, bringing his small touches and his enrichment.

We note in passing that as it was implemented in France, the school model was exported to the new countries that opened up in the apostolic field of the Society of Mary, sometimes even as an exact copy: Switzerland, Spain, Japan, Italy, Belgium, the United States of America, North Africa, and the failed attempts in China and Mexico (Durango). Differentiated according to the political or cultural systems of the countries, the schools and the education they provided were marked in particular by a hierarchical discipline; the separation of boys and girls; and the use of biblical texts as read at that time as a tool in literary formation, even historical but especially moral, and not to teach only religious formation. It is even more understandable that the countries of Europe were at that time constructed along the same moral model and, in spite of the diversity introduced during the Renaissance, the same overall idea of religion. Other countries (and on this point Japan was typical) drew from this model the traits closest to their cultural and historical tradition, sometimes intensifying them, to develop from the school model inherited from abroad a model that harmonized completely with their sensitivity and values.

2.      The Beginnings of a Transformation

This situation of imitation continued until the 1960s, and even longer in some cases. It did in fact change only after Vatican II, with the moral upheaval of 1968 which shook almost all the countries of the world and the sometimes brutal emancipation of the countries formerly colonized by the European nations.

Some great Marianist educators found themselves on this fault line, of which they may not have been fully conscious but which they nevertheless sensed. Good examples were Fr. Paul Hoffer and his counterparts of this period, especially the Swiss, Eugène Claret and Albert Kessler. These men knew the Marianist tradition well, and they were recognized practitioners. But they also heard those who in the secular world were working to emancipate the school institution from the more or less Napoleonic model in order to integrate the contributions of the “New School,” many of them American, but not forgetting Montessori, Freinet, Decroly, and others.

In 1957 Fr. Paul Hoffer published Pédagogie Marianiste. This 526-page book, published by the Centre de Documentation Scolaire in Paris, has three parts.

•      The first section, “The Sources of Our Vocation as Educators,” is an excellent historical picture of our educational activity since its origins. Chapter three, “The Spiritual Climate of Marianist Schools,” carries three subheadings: “Family Spirit,” “Respect for the Person of the Child,” and “Wisdom of Adaptation,” which always distinguishes our way of educating. These pages have lost nothing of their relevance and today still deserve a reprint and translation into the languages used in the Society of Mary.

•      The second section, “The Marianist Pedagogy in Action,” covers more than 300 pages and has a more pedagogical and didactic content.

•      The third section, “The Marianist Teacher,” has about 50 pages; it devotes its first two chapters to the relationship between our religious consecration and our educational activity, with the third chapter recalling the human qualities demanded of a teacher.

In Switzerland in 1964, Bro. Albert Kessler, SM, published his doctoral dissertation, The Educational Function of the School, with the subtitle Traditional School/New School.

In Italy, let us mention the work of Bro. Pietro Monti, SM, in the same vein.

This fermentation around education touched all the provinces. Because it is impossible to cite the most prominent names in Europe and the United States, we refer the reader to the previously mentioned book by Father Hoffer, which contains abundant references to them.

Formation sessions were organized for the young religious which opened their eyes to a world well beyond the Society of Mary, sessions which were the occasion of the encounter with and the discovery of the contemporary pedagogical movements.

3.      A New Reality

A Period of Upheaval

The decade of the 1960s dealt a serious blow to traditional structures. After a decade of immediate post-war indispensable reconstruction of both buildings and structures, the world shifted from scarcity to the satisfaction of basic needs, and in developed countries to abundance and full employment. This was an era of prodigious discoveries in biological, scientific, and technical terms; an era of political upheavals, with the emancipation of “colonized” countries; the emergence of new states in a climate of the Cold War (China, Cuba); the spread of Marxism-Leninism in Africa, in Central and South America, and in Asia; the thunderclap of the Bandung conference (April 1955), in which 29 poor and assisted countries declared they wanted to be independent of the blocs that were then dividing the world and remain in control of their own destinies, sealing the split among the countries of the First World (aging Europe, stripped of its prestige by World War II), the New World (essentially the United States of America, the great victors of the war, and because of this convinced that their model was the ideal model for organizing all nations), and the Third World (essentially those 29 countries in rebellion, some of which were so poor that they constituted the Fourth World, that of those populations almost without hope).

The moral and religious upheaval was no less serious, being at the same time both the source and the result of the social and political upheavals mentioned above. One of these major changes was in the control of human fertility, which not only contributed to a radical change in the place of women in society, but also more obviously to a woman’s behavior and her image of herself and the image she presents to others. None of our pedagogical documents explicitly deal with this revolution, which has nevertheless substantially changed our educational policy in all countries.

The Aggiornamento of the Church

The Catholic Church probably would be the first to reflect upon the consequences of these upheavals, with the unexpected convocation of the Second Vatican Council by the pontiff referred to as “transitional,” Saint John XXIII. This older pope, called “transitional,” was precisely the “one who carried us” to the new world being born. The Council brought all religious congregations to reexamine their structures and mission and to direct their responses into a recasting of their rule. Catholicism went from a hierarchical structure to the constitution of a People, “the People of God,” in which each individual becomes an actor and is responsible at his or her own level. Obviously, the entire fabric of human relationships was being profoundly transformed by this new societal and religious concept.

The Society of Mary Takes the Step Forward

The Society of Mary was no stranger to the reflection of the Council on Christian education and the Catholic school—far from it. Our Superior General at the time, Fr. Paul Joseph Hoffer, was chosen by the Holy Father to become a member of the commission responsible for preparing the Declaration on the Catholic School. For two years he worked with other eminent representatives of the world on a considerable collection of documents sent from all parts of the Church by bishops and specialists. It bore fruit in his Circular No. 32 of December 8, 1965, entitled The Pastoral Role of the Christian School. As we see, it is explicitly about the school, and not only about Christian education, which can be provided through vectors other than the school.

This circular is so remarkable that Superiors General of teaching congregations, beginning with the Brothers of the Christian Schools, asked Father Hoffer to disseminate it more widely; the French text, which was barely revised, was published by Editions Ligel in 1967 under the same title, Rôle pastoral de l’Ecole chrétienne. Ten years after the publication of Pédagogie Marianiste, this work summarized in 120 pages the Christian concept of the school according to the Council. The times were in turmoil, and this text did not have the repercussions it deserved because to our knowledge, no equivalent work presents the subject with the same scope and depth.

Adaptation of the Rule of Life

The Society of Mary therefore began a review of its Constitutions. The General Chapter of 1961 decided to undertake this revision, created a drafting committee and enumerated the principles and the procedure to be implemented. The General Chapter of 1966 established the basic version and indicated the procedure to be followed for the finalization of the project, which led to the Constitutions of 1967.

The 1967 Constitutions still gave pride of place to education and schooling. After three chapters devoted respectively to “The Marianist Apostolate,” “The Marianist Apostle,” and “Apostolic Works,” the section on “Community of Apostolic Action” dedicated chapter 17 to “The Christian School.”

The ten articles of this chapter sum up the apostolic aims of the Society of Mary in its school works: reaffirmation of the choice of youth education; the role of secular education; the importance and necessity of religious education; culture, a way into the Gospel; family spirit; auxiliary works and associations; a center that radiates social and cultural influence; relationships with lay collaborators; the school as an extension of the educational activity of the family; and alumni associations.

The Constitutions published in 1967 was translated into English, Spanish, German, Italian, etc. It was meant for all the religious. But while reaffirming that the 1967 Constitutions was in force, the General Chapter of 1971 took advantage of a new period of five years granted by the Holy See to decide upon a new reworking of it. The texts voted in that Chapter covered all the subjects dealt with in the Constitutions; published in English (now the basic official language of the Society) under the title of Response, it was attractive to the Americans, who made it their new Constitutions. The 1976 Chapter continued the work, organizing two commissions, COMCO and REDCO, to prepare a new text before 1981. Their work was published in English under the title of New Call. The two texts were gathered in French under the title L’Ecoute et la Parole.

The General Chapter of 1971 consecrated section seven to the Marianist Apostolate, and in the second part of that text it discussed the problem of the school. After having recounted the difficulties and questions concerning this type of apostolate, the Chapter insisted on the need to make the school a rich and productive community of relationships; to overcome possible conflicts between the professional life and community life of Marianists engaged in that apostolate; and to fit into the mission of the Church and the culture of the population concerned.

The Time of Protests

While the Society of Mary was working on the new draft of its Rule of Life, in the “old” countries (Europe and the USA) there was a wave of questioning and contesting the choice of the school institution as a privileged apostolic means: was the school the proper way to rechristianize? On the contrary, was this not the reproduction and consolidation of social inequalities and injustices? In fact, even in our institutions did it not address itself primarily to the wealthy, or at least to the well-off classes, rather than to the poor classes of our so-called “developed societies”? Parishes, Catholic Action movements, new media, press, radio, television—should these not be the preferred means? Inevitably the chapter devoted to the educational mission of the Society was marked by these questions, which caused divisions within the communities. Witness this reflection of a Marianist priest: “I did not do six years of seminary just to sit on my butt on a chair in front of 35 kids!”

The New Constitutional Texts

The new Marianist constitutional texts on education showed notable differences from those of 1861.

Chapter 26 of the Constitutions of 1861, entitled “Education,” concerned only the school institution. “The Society devotes itself to the education of the youngest children, with a special love for the poor” (article 202). “Consequently, the principal works of the Society of Mary relate to education in all forms and at all levels, but especially to elementary education” (article 203).

At the time of the Second Vatican Council, this phrase in article 203 was no longer true; most Marianist school works were now at the junior high school, senior high school, and university levels and no longer primarily those of the elementary school.

Chapter 27 of 1861, entitled “Teaching,” indicated the ultimate aim. “The brothers ... educate children to make them good and fervent Christians.” The new version of 1983, in chapter five of Book I, “A Community in Mission,” refers to the educational field in article 69, but only as the second field, and in a broad sense: “Others work principally in the fields of education and culture.” A single article, number 74, was devoted explicitly to education. “For us, education is a privileged means of formation in faith. Through this means we aim to sow, cultivate, and strengthen the Christian spirit and help it flourish in the human race.”

That was all there was in Book I of the Rule of Life, which is the constitutional text par excellence; the development of the school theme is relegated to Book II, which was not subject to the approval of the Holy See and could be modified by decision of a General Chapter. The impact of this “degradation” of priority was not felt or noticed at the time.

Book II of the Rule of Life went in the same direction. Chapter five shifts focus and priorities: the title of the chapter is “A Community in Mission,” and the subtitle, “Apostolate of the Schools,” emerges.

“Our Basic Objective: Formation in Faith.” This subtitle rightly occupies first place; the aim of our apostolic action naturally goes before the means. This was faithful to the early years, when in addition to the traditional vows, the Marianist religious professed the vow of “teaching Christian faith and morals.”

The next paragraph, “Sharing Our Charism,” is new. This novelty was introduced by the Constitutions of 1967, but in a rather different form and spirit; it was less an apostolic objective than a concern which should animate every religious in his life of prayer and his apostolic mission. By making it an objective of action, a person runs the risk of turning it into a “thing,” of reducing it to “activities” (forming lay groups animated by our charism, for example), of making the problem of vocation a challenge rather than a grace.

The remainder of the chapter continues to overturn traditional priorities, citing first “pastoral works”: preaching, parish work, chaplaincy, house of prayer, religious formation sessions, apostolic movements, and ecumenical activity.

Only after this listing comes the apostolate of education. The six articles devoted to it have merely implicit pedagogical content; they list what in a later document will become the Characteristics of Marianist Education: quality of teaching (5.10), formation of an educational community (5.11), competence and qualities of the teacher (5.12), requirements for teaching the faith (5.13), formation of the whole person (5.14), and promotion of justice and peace (5.15).

Recalling what was had been said in earlier Constitutions in chapter 26 (Education) and chapter 27 (Instruction), it is clear that the substance and form differ widely in the two cases. It can almost be said that the new Rule only marginally addresses the profile of the educator. Rereading the texts critically and without an a priori, we can easily see that the earlier Constitutions relied heavily on the religious and spiritual quality of the educator, while the newer ones remain more superficially on the level of objectives and recommendations. The important thing was first and foremost the training of the educator and his constant improvement. The focus shifts to the tasks he must perform and how he should go about carrying them out. “Doing” has taken precedence over “being.”

Commentaries and Studies Which Followed

The implementation of the new Rule of Life generated various guidelines and studies. The Superior General of this new era, Fr. José-María Salaverri, commented on it and gave directions for implementation in a series of noteworthy circulars. After having reorganized the General Archives (AGMAR), Ambrogio Albano published or directed the publication of original documents on our works and our history. In particular, he conceived the Commentary on the Rule of Life of the Society of Mary (CRL), the chapters of which he entrusted to writers chosen for their knowledge of the fields considered. The book was published in 1988 in French, around 1990 in Spanish, and in 1994 in English, the three official languages of the Society. The article that concerns us here is “Education,” written by Fr. Bernard Vial from a diagram provided by the secretary of AGMAR.

In the meantime, protests against the school had almost ceased. Parishes and other pastoral works did not always yield the desired results; the essential part of our apostolate remained massively academic; vocations dried up in the older Marianist Units, while the new Units of Asia and Africa in particular correctly saw in education the ideal means of promoting the person, thus demonstrating that evangelization is also, and perhaps first of all, a service rendered to people. Especially through the voice of John Paul II, the Church herself firmly recalled this evangelical aspect, to the point of being accused by some of putting the human person at the center, in the place normally dedicated to God.

The Commentary on the Rule of Life

The Commentary article on “Education” and subsequent studies came within this more irenic context, intended to promote peace. Here we give the outline by highlighting the elements that have not been stressed so far in this volume.

•      In rivalry sometimes with political powers, the Church has always claimed the right to participate in the task of evangelization and education. Blessed Chaminade was within this thought for two reasons: evangelization and culture are intimately linked and are reciprocally illuminating. and an education which helps a person to accept and adopt in a responsible and critical way the culture of his environment is in service to humanity, and the Church’s mission is to be of service to humanity.

•      Vatican II renewed the Church’s discourse on the educational question in the declaration Gravissimum educationis; the text refers to Christian education in the broader sense, but several insistent reminders concern the Christian school, properly so-called. The subject is also mentioned in other documents: Gaudium et spes, in which a chapter is reserved for the growth of culture and for faith-culture relationships, in which the school is a key locale; the decree Ad gentes, On the Missionary Activity of the Church, which calls for “devoting special care to the education of children and youth through schools [which is] a service of very high value to humanity”; and finally, the decree Apostolicam actuositatem on the Apostolate of the Laity.

•      The “Brothers of Mary” have always been very close to the people whose children they have taught, and to their local environment. This simple familiarity in relationships, facilitated by clothing resembling the ordinary clothing of the populations, was a mark and an asset of our small rural schools in particular. This “living with” is part of our pedagogy.

•      Original concepts and initiatives marked the institutions: at Saint-Remy, as mentioned above, it was not so much the results obtained that were rewarded, but the efforts to achieve them; students could express themselves freely within a literary “academy”; swimming, riding, geology, botany, and astronomy were integral parts of the program.

•      From the very beginning, according to Father Chaminade’s wishes, the Society of Mary refused to position itself as a rival of the public schools but considered itself as an associate, a partner, accepting official programs and examinations and maintaining relationships with members of public education and school boards. This feature continues to characterize educational establishments of the Society throughout the world.

•      Today’s youth are freed from all morals and constraints; they often become the stakes of informal hidden forces—mass media, fashions, ideological or cultural trends, and economic enterprises. As religious educators, we are on their side to liberate them, first by helping them to recognize this creeping and all-powerful oppression of which they are unaware by leading them to acquire a critical discernment, by providing them with norms of conduct and behavior, and by enabling them to embrace certain values worthy of the human person. The immense changes of the contemporary world require a great effort of formation; as religious educators, we are in the thick of this fermentation where faith and culture are in dialogue. If we want the Church to evangelize this new world which is taking shape under our very eyes, it is important that we ourselves, at the heart of this Church, dedicate competent people and important resources so that some of us may reach the elevated level of the human, theological, philosophical, moral, and scientific culture required for this dialogue to be carried out profitably.

Having painted this picture, the author enumerates some features without which a school could not call itself Catholic today. “In a [Catholic] school, the Church must be able to recognize fidelity to the Gospel message. It will be able to call itself a Catholic school if

•      it contributes to a more just world;

•      it allows expression and educates for freedom;

•      it is open to life;

•      it fosters good relationships; and

•      it allows young people to give meaning to their lives.”

It should be noted that these traits are not claimed as proper only to the Society of Mary; these are dispositions that should be found in every Christian school, whether Marianist or not. Only in what follows does the author proceed to point out what could be our more specific contribution. He retains just four spheres of influence which seem to give a Marianist school a particular richness.

•      Family spirit is the most common characteristic. For Father Chaminade, the Society of Mary is the “Family of Mary,” and the “Mother” is there, the discreet mistress of the house with her qualities as a welcoming hostess, her availability, her faith in God and in human nature, and her mercy and hope. This conviction of faith justifies and explains our educational behavior, as well as its demands. Family spirit manifests itself in various ways according to circumstances of time and place. It cannot always be precisely defined, but it is immediately recognized by those who have the opportunity to move from one institution to another: spontaneity of welcome, interpersonal relationships not marked by position or social rank, and a conviviality which is warm and without discrimination, simplicity of lifestyle.

•      Our pedagogical effectiveness is based on the autonomy and the responsibility of the person. Family spirit facilitates its practice and gives it a special quality.

•      The Society of Mary has generally combined two requirements.

The school is a school. This requires that the educational institution be respected in its intrinsic purpose; it must not become a pretext for any other objective, even if that would be the apostolate. This is a matter of honesty and respect for the autonomy of the temporal facts of this world. This characteristic has attracted parents and has often won for us the respect of government administrators and those agencies devoted, as we are, to the work of education. In this sense, the school is the responsibility of adults.      But around this school, sub-groups spring up everywhere, with cultural, recreational, artistic, gaming, charitable, and religious ends, the responsibility for which rests essentially on the pupils, with the discreet and respectful assistance of adults. Students learn initiative, responsibility ‘for real,’ and not just in an imaginary or trial setting. No Marianist school in the world is foreign to this tradition, which dates from our origins and stems from the confidence placed in young people.

•      The Marianist School has always been “clear” about its goals and respectful of those who have sought its services. The Marianist school would be untrue to its mission if its personnel were to become simple information “factory workers,” according to Father Chaminade’s famous expression. Without aggressive proselytizing or shameful shyness, the Society of Mary presents the religious character of its works. It is in the name of the gospel that it acts in service to humanity. This clarity has earned the respect and esteem of government officials. In the ever-widening pluralistic context characteristic of our societies today, this clarity provides a positive opportunity for a Gospel which can be proposed only to free people. When parents in non-Christian countries choose an explicitly Christian institution for their children, they are well aware that they do not go against their personal convictions or their own culture. Thus they provide an implicit testimony to the Gospel’s respect for the human person and for that profound freedom necessary for our response to God, whatever our image of God may be.

A Consecration and a Providential Dissemination of Our Concept of Education

In passing, let us point out a fact which confirms our concept of education. This is a document simply entitled The Catholic School, published by the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education on May 19, 1977. This document, followed by several others over the years, was unanimously hailed as one of the most open and most inspiring to ever come from that Congregation. If we read it again, we immediately feel a profound agreement with its spirit and its recommendations. There is a simple explanation for this impression: the Cardinal Prefect of the Roman Curia’s Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education at the time was none other than Cardinal Gabriel Marie Garrone, a long-time friend of the Marianists, whom he had known in France. Like many bishops, he appreciated the personality and educational convictions of Father Hoffer, our Superior General. For that reason, he had asked the superiors to lend him as his personal secretary a Marianist noted for his pedagogical contributions, Bro. Albert Kessler. The document is signed Gabriel Marie, Card. Garrone, Prefect, and Antonio M. Javierre, Arch. Tit. De Meta, Secretary, the latter being the official Secretary of the Congregation; but we know this document is fundamentally the work of Bro. Albert Kessler. This text was obviously approved and accepted by the Cardinal, who also put his own imprint on it to make it truly his own; however, it remains in perfect harmony with our pedagogical sensibility. It can be found on the Vatican website,

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19770319_catholic-school_en.html; it will always speak to us in a special way. Albert Kessler was recognized in Switzerland as an outstanding educator; he served as Assistant Provincial of the Swiss Province, then as Assistant General of Instruction of the Society of Mary.

4.      The Characteristics of Marianist Education

The Characteristics of Marianist Education designate the major lines, the main features which characterize the physiognomy, the attractiveness, and the style of Marianist education. As the principal author of their formulation, Bro. Thomas Giardino, wrote,

Speaking of a common identity or “characteristics” is not to imply total uniqueness. We share many of these elements with other educational endeavors. However, the experience over the years reveals that there is a distinctive Marianist spirit and method or “family likeness,” as Fr. Chaminade called it. This distinctiveness develops from the original founding charism as it is lived out in the particular people and circumstances in the history of the educational effort.

Origins of the Document

This enterprise was a response to a request from the General Chapter of 1991. Restating the confidence and the hope it has in our works of education, the Society of Mary asked to “promote the formation of lay collaborators in the Marianist spirit and educational perspectives. On the basis of existing documents, to synthesize the common elements of our educational tradition and [to study] how they come to life in the various cultures in which the Society is present.”

A task force under the direction of the then Assistant General for Education, Bro. Thomas Giardino, undertook the task. It highlights five characteristics—five major orientations—that have become famous since then:

•      Educate for formation in faith

•      Provide an integral, quality education

•      Educate in family spirit

•      Educate for service, justice, and peace

•      Educate for adaptation and change.

As a whole, this constitutes a document substantiated, debated, and enlightened by numerous quotations taken from the Marianist tradition. It has been translated into all the languages used in the Society of Mary and widely disseminated and commented upon.

The General Chapter of 1996 approved the document, recognizing that it was in line with earlier chapters, and then expressed the following wish. “This contemporary elaboration of the common elements can serve as a guide to the Marianist educational spirit and pedagogy throughout the Society of Mary” [Partners in Hope, p. 37].

Conscious of the diversity of cultures in which the Society of Mary offers its services of education, the Chapter suggests that each institution adapt these characteristics to its particular situation. It also hopes the other apostolic works of the Society may be inspired by them in formulating their missions.

Clarifications About the Text from the Leader of the Writing Team, Thomas F. Giardino, SM

In the preface (dated March 25, 1996) he lays out the project, the hopes that inspired it, and the method; he reminds us that this document has its own place in an educational tradition which has been developing for a long time.

In fulfilling this call, the present document seeks in its turn to stimulate such learning communities around the Marianist world... The international team of Marianists which has written this contemporary elaboration of our tradition hopes it will serve as a source of energy and grace for all of us in Marianist education, as we seize the task of faithfully and fruitfully living out our common identity for the sake of the reign of God.

He invites the Society to take action on three levels: international, regional, and local. He recalls the praise and support of the then Superior General, Fr. Quentin Hakenewerth. “The second sign that gives me hope was the concern for having a clear and common direction for the Society of Mary ... aimed at formation in faith as a new evangelization. I cannot remember a General Chapter or a General Leadership Assembly in which the leaders of the Society of Mary consistently spoke of education primarily as a means of evangelizing in today’s culture.”

Education, Gift and Grace

For its part, the conclusion of the book strongly expresses the fact that our educational tradition is a gift and that if we strive to implement it, it can be a blessing and a very fruitful work for building a better world—a promise already in process in bringing about the Kingdom of God (cf. numbers 75 to 80 of CME).

The Wake Left by the Document

Twenty years later, where are we? We have not had the opportunity to undertake a documented study on the implementation of this work. But in our experience, we are pleased to see that this stage is bearing fruit. There are variations in how the document has been received and applied. Thus, in the United States the five characteristics are clearly displayed in the schools and the universities. This is a true foundation, a series of five pillars upon which Marianist education and its projects are constructed daily. In Europe and in the French-speaking part of Africa with which we are somewhat acquainted, it seems these characteristics have been taken seriously, that they are being worked on, and that efforts are being made to implement them, but with a different relationship to the document. For many, it represents a useful source, a strong and sufficiently operational reference text. We find these elements—written and lived!—in educational projects.

For many, however, it seems (at least in France) this document calls for a follow-up, which Bro. Thomas Giardino himself pointed out as necessary and which the General Chapters had wanted: the development of an attitude according to which we would be eager to form ourselves ever more in our charism, our history, our spirituality, and our educational tradition. An attitude according to which we would organize workshops on Marianist sources, on educational practices, and on our philosophy of education. We are moving in this direction—formation sessions by categories of functions exist at a national level; missionary projects, educational projects, and pastoral references are doing this right. Meetings of the educational teams are working to make known and update the Characteristics of Marianist Education.

The present collection, Marianist Education: Heritage and Future, which has brought together the work of teams including lay people and religious, constitutes a new stage. We hope these publications inaugurate an even more ample and vigorous movement of appropriation of our “educational treasure.” It is urgent to transmit this to the new generations of religious and laity (most of whom have not themselves personally known the brothers as involved in the schools). It is urgent to inculturate this in the new nations, and in the new times which the older countries are experiencing!

New Documents Generated from Characteristics of Marianist Education

Three years later, the three universities in the United States developed and published the document Characteristics of Marianist Universities.

At the request of the 2006 General Chapter, Bro. Edward A. Violett, SM, Assistant General for Temporalities, issued a document approved by the General Council in September 2013 and published on October 2, The Principal Characteristics of Marianist Administration.

This means that the shaping of what we might call the “contemporary corpus of the Marianist charism” is well under way!

Chapter 9 - Far from Stagnating, Reflection on Marianist Education Continues

Reflection on Marianist education continues. Far from being fixed information, the achievements accumulated over the years continue in the form of interpretations, conferences, and reflections of chapters to stimulate and enrich the Society of Mary’s thinking about its educational activity, in response to needs of formation and an ever-deepening understanding of our educational charism.

Over the last few decades, the Church as a whole has been working on this process of interacting with cultures, called “inculturation,” a process through which the Church seeks to learn about cultures while at the same time inviting those cultures to allow themselves to be challenged by the message of the Gospel. If it is to be alive and dynamic, our Marianist educational tradition cannot ignore this need. It must also know how to learn from the local cultures in which it finds itself, while at the same time calling upon them to question themselves. This attitude is clearly the most suitable for training teachers capable of reaching their students where they are, with the ambition of bringing them to a higher, more developed level.

This state of mind was evident and prevalent in 1996 when the text of the Characteristics of Marianist Education was adopted. In the preface, we find this.

This document acknowledges that there are Marianist educational writings that have come before and that will be needed later in order to complement and inculturate these principles. We need to be keenly aware of that rich diversity as we search for a stable unity in developing the expression and use of the characteristics of Marianist education. The next steps of the project, which will be developed by lay and religious educators from around the Marianist world, will include faculty and staff formation programs based on the content of this document. The necessity of elaborating the more specific Marianist pedagogy to infuse the day-to-day interactions of teachers and students and administrators with both Marianist spirituality and the special characteristics of Marianist education will be a major challenge.

This being said, it must be recognized that at this time there is a wealth of available resources to attempt to continue and enrich this reflection on our education. As an appendix in the form of a small anthology, we will take up certain reflections of some Marianist religious which have been presented publicly to educators wishing to update their understanding of our educational charism, but which have not been published elsewhere. There are, of course, many other reflections and works that we do not know as well, but we believe this sample gives a good view of the whole and reflects the dynamic character of a Marianist education still in progress.

Chapter 10 - The Teaching of the General Chapters Of the Last Thirty Years, from 1986 to 2016

The General Chapter brings together the “executive government of the Society of Mary” with elected delegates representing the entire Marianist world. Its role is to review what the Society of Mary has experienced since the previous chapter, to evaluate the activity of the General Council, and to give broad guidelines for life and mission in the years to come.

Delegates bring to the table the current experiential situation of the Society of Mary through the way each chapter is prepared: a General Leadership Assembly halfway between two Chapters, the back-and-forth of inquiry and work between the Preparatory Commission and “the base”; the opportunity to send in propositions; and reports of the members of the General Council who have visited the Units of the Society of Mary throughout the world.

On the specific topic which concerns us here, the reading of the capitular documents of the last 30 years makes it possible to see what fundamental movement animates the Society of Mary in matters of education.

Since 1986, the acts of the General Chapters have left us with a rich treasure of orientations and reflections. Here are the main references.

•      1986, Vision and Journey: 29-37

•      1991, Mission & Culture: 9-13 and 34

•      1996, Partners in Hope: (§§ 4-5 and 7), 48 (§ 1), 58 (§2d-2e), 64 (§2) and Reflection on the Characteristics of Marianist Education

•      2001, Sent by the Spirit: 9 (e), 18 (§ f), 25, 27 (§ e and g), 33

•      2006, In Mission with Mary: 2, 4, 19 (§ 3), 20 (§ 4), 22 (§ 3), 23, 3, 41

•      2012, To Enliven the Fire that Enkindles Other Fires: 17 (§ 2 (b)), 22 (§ b 2), Introduction of III, [text between 23 and 24, 5th bullet]), 26, 28-30, 32-33, 45.

Certainly at first glance, the Chapters seem to always take up the same questions. But a more careful reading allows us to grasp a certain number of stresses, changes, even turnabouts, suggested by the Chapters to the entire Society of Mary. Capitular thought probably gives the best perception of what the Society of Mary, as such, thinks of itself.

Through these pages, we see the emphasis on education as a “privileged means … to carry out its mission,” whose aim and aim is “formation in faith.” The Chapters constantly affirm (or reaffirm), loud and clear, the centrality of the educational mission and support for those who devote themselves to it.

Let us content ourselves here with emphasizing the questions studied by the General Chapters and which have not yet been considered in this work.

1.      A New Type of Problem

Among the difficulties which the Society of Mary must overcome, there is one which is far from being a minor one. It can be summarized as follows.

In the newer Units, many religious are engaged in education and sometimes find themselves at a very young age in positions of great responsibility, at the risk of “scorching their wings” as Icarus did by flying too close to the sun, when they have not yet become steeped in Marianist education as pupils, future religious, or young professed.

On the other hand, in most older Units the number of religious is decreasing drastically, while at the same time most educational works are developing exponentially. The number of lay educators is growing in the same proportions. But apart from those who have come from our own works, often a very minor proportion, the majority of newcomers are ignorant of everything about the Society of Mary and our educational culture.

This situation of contrast invites us to invent and strengthen the means of transmitting the Marianist educational tradition both to the religious, especially those of the newer Units, and to the lay personnel, especially those in the older Units. The gift of being a Marianist educator must be cultivated, preserved, and maintained for all the active personnel in our institutions.

Of course, this transmission is organized in the form of theoretical formation, through courses (for the young religious) and other sessions adapted to the various categories of personnel. But as necessary as these may be, courses and theoretical sessions are not enough. A practical competency and an educational sense are learned directly, by contagion. In the older Units, this “contagion,” and in particular the contagion of “family spirit,” can be achieved by contact with the staff already in the institution and steeped in this family spirit. And it is also necessary to ensure that this contagion is promoted by every means available.

For the newer Units, the Chapters often invited the older Units to release experienced religious to accompany for a set period of time the young religious or lay people in educational positions. Unfortunately, it does not seem this request has had much response or has been carried out on a sufficient scale.

Should we consider missi dominici [envoys of the Lord], who would travel the world of newer Units to give formation sessions? There is the difficulty of the languages to be overcome.

José María Alvira, Assistant General for Education from 2001 to 2012, often highlights this new challenge. He quotes a paragraph from a lecture by Fermin Gastaminza, SM, given a few years ago and since then included in a small book.

There is no reason to be a futurologist, but whatever direction our works might take based on the Chaminadean principle of universality, it will always be true that the fundamental disposition of a Marianist should conform to his deepest foundational roots, and his apostolic dimension keep in mind the achievements of a living tradition in the field of education. It would be good for the majority of young religious, even though they choose alternative projects, to have a pedagogical experience in a school setting…. Whoever becomes a guide or teacher, whether in a parish or school, the printing establishment or a mission, teaching or social work, should always have some pedagogical background. Even before the benevolent designs of Providence, discerned by the signs of the times, will channel one or another vocation into other needs in the service of the Kingdom, the pedagogical dimension should be present along with all the other aspects of formation of the young professed.

2.      Looking for Solutions

We believe that the capitulants, greatly assisted by the General Administration to grasp the reality of the situation, have identified these difficulties and have sought to formulate solutions and ways forward.

We can identify some aspects that seem to mark the last 30 or 40 years. We dare to think that during this period we have moved from the proclamation of our “faith in Marianist education” to an examination of what is necessary in order that it may not be eclipsed, erased, or diluted by the wear and tear of time or by the force of circumstances.

•      “The force of circumstances” would be the transfer of responsibility, without the necessary reflection, to religious insufficiently trained for it, or to lay people who will not have benefited from the formation necessary to enable them to carry out their tasks appropriately.

•      “The force of circumstances” is the mission entrusted to collaborators in spite of our desire to remain the principal actors, which probably can only lead to taking back with one hand the power we have conferred with the other hand.

•      “The force of circumstances” is the insufficient implementation of delegation, of teamwork, of the principle of subsidiarity—necessarily accompanied by its corollary, accountability, which is not synonymous with control.

•      “The force of circumstances” is also the insufficient intellectual, spiritual. and practical preparation of religious who are called to efface themselves in order that others might grow, while devoting themselves to what constitutes the essence of their vocation. We are thinking here, of course, of the older Units, where the repositioning of the religious and the questioning of just what may be the meaning of their life and mission, even though they no longer hold the reins of educational institutions and their different services, is an important issue with profound repercussions. This question certainly implies a “letting go” and a conversion, but neither can be realized under the sole impulse of recommendations, exhortations, or even admonitions; we believe this can come about much more through genuine spiritual and psychological work, collective and personal, nourished by a sound vision of the facts and made possible by the use of the social sciences, the human sciences, and the theology of religious life and of spirituality and mission, as well as through discernment and prayer. These last two aspects can have no chance of bearing fruit unless they are accompanied by (and we believe preceded by) human, psycho-anthropological work, without which spiritual work may well be only a layer of new varnish on a poorly-prepared substratum which would augur disappointments, crises, and suffering, supposing that the first obstacles had been overcome.

3.      Not Merely Observing, But Applying a Remedy

We believe that in its task of watchdog and guide, the Chapter throughout the years of which we speak has carried out this examination of the problems and has not simply remained stationary; this observation is followed by an effort of “remediation,” a search for remedies to treat the ailments and an effort to apply them. Indeed, it seems to us we see a number of ideas which seem to correlate with the evolution of situations. We believe we can hypothesize that the Society of Mary has become aware of the difficulties, the necessary evolutions and the decisions to be made in order to succeed in this indispensable passage, which for the religious we are can only be an Passover, with a death to what we know, to be born again to a life that is still largely unknown to us.

Chapter 11 - The Society of Mary in Publications and Multimedia. The Apostolate of the Book

In general, when we speak of Marianist educational works, those which spontaneously come to mind are the schools and universities, which rightly constitute the most extensive and well-known portion of our educational activity. Certainly our charism of education in faith takes on flesh mainly in the school, but not exclusively. Education goes beyond the formal framework of the school system. The fact that “the apostolate of education is a privileged means for the Society to fulfill its mission” is always associated with the principle of “the universality of works.” These are two principles which, far from being in opposition to each other, are maintained in a fruitful tension in which the heart of the Marianist charism and creative fidelity to the intuition of the Founder are simultaneously expressed.

From the beginning, Marianist educators not only have refined the Method which has been extensively discussed above, but also in all school disciplines they have published textbooks which have been used extensively and fruitfully in our schools.

Technical and societal evolutions have developed and enriched this area over the years and have caused it to acquire an invaluable importance: education through books and multimedia.

1.      Historical Approaches

An educational apostolate, not limited to schooling, existed at the beginning of the Marianist Family, as in the case of the apostolate of the book. In Blessed William Joseph Chaminade: Founder of the Marianist Family, Fr. Vincent Gizard writes about this.

Among the activities of the Sodality in this second period of its history, note must be made of the “Good Books” project. Originally, the idea was not from Chaminade, but he prepared, supported, and administered it. We know his zeal for religious instruction and his desire to make available to the young a great variety of good books. Providing suitable reading material was an important issue. The opposition took advantage of the liberty granted to the press and flooded the towns and countryside with publications hostile to religion and destructive to morals. (From 1817 to 1825, estimates are that about 2,741,000 publications of this type had thus been circulated throughout France.) Archbishop d’Aviau was greatly concerned. The response was to provide religious publications to offset the harmful materials, but an organization was necessary. At the church of Saint Paul, Fr. Julien Barault had been involved in this new apostolate of the press for eight years. He began a lending library, first for his parishioners and then for other parishes of the city of Bordeaux. This was the origin of “Good Books,” a project Archbishop d’Aviau was quick to approve and encourage on November 15, 1820. Father Chaminade and his disciples were actively involved in this work, organized as a religious association and placed under the auspices of Mary. From Bordeaux it spread to rural parishes, then beyond the diocese. It opened centers in Grenoble, Paris, other dioceses, and even in foreign countries. It is impossible to calculate the good which was done! In 1826, the association in Paris alone circulated 800,000 publications! Twenty years later, in the diocese of Bordeaux it had 173 main outlets; 11,000 readers; and 55,000 works in circulation. Pope Leo XII approved it in 1824, and Pope Gregory XV made it into an archconfraternity in 1832. In 1852 Fr. Joseph Hyacinthe Taillefer, who had succeeded Father Barault, decided the moment had come to turn over the administration of the Good Books project to the disciples of Father Chaminade. The work was centered at the Madeleine until 1870, when it was returned to the diocese.

In Jalons, Fr. Joseph Verrier explains the internal organization of “Good Books.”

In 1816 [the Sodality], always inclined to propagate good works, to bring young people to virtue, and to strengthen in this practice those members already in its bosom,” tried to organize a library. To begin with, it consisted of the books which “some sodalists kindly deposited as loans or gifts.” On January 12, the Council appointed a provisional librarian and decided

(1)      that all the books should be examined by the director before being catalogued in the library;

(2)      that they should be noted in a register by entering the name of the owner;

(3) that each work should be valued by the owner and the librarian, who would be the first to estimate certain works at a moderate price, so that they could easily be ceded to those who desired them;

(4) those which would be given to the library would be valued according to the same principles;

(5) whoever wished to borrow a book to read it at home would be obliged to pay the librarian the value of the book, and in the event that it would be lost, the money consigned would be used to buy others.

Did this past action in “Good Books” predispose the Society of Mary to spread its influence in this apostolate of education through books? We have reason to believe so, and two obvious aspects of the implementation of the Marianist educational charism seem to show this was so.

•      In the first place, we think of the Chaminadean proposal “to embrace the work of the Christian education of youth and especially of the poor, the work of the arts and trades, the work of Sodalities, of retreats and of missions. We undertake all the works of zeal.” And we also think of the many elementary schools that marked the first decades and, we might say, the first century of our commitment to the educational mission. Finally, we recall the assistance that W. J. Chaminade brought to the Brothers of the Christian Schools, of which we have already spoken in the first part.

•      Secondly, we think of the extraordinary dissemination and immense fruitfulness of the publishing house founded and animated by the Marianist religious of the Province of Spain: the Ediciones SM, now integrated into the Grupo SM and putting into action the social aspect of their educational project through the Fundación SM. The plan of this work is not only to print and disseminate works, however excellent, but also to work for the promotion of education and development through printed and digital books, through research in education, and through teacher training and the promotion of reading.

The project and the achievements of the Marianist publishing ventures, relayed by those of the Fondation SM of the Province of Spain, constitute a perfect updating of the work of “Good Books,” adapted to our present time and augmented—no small accomplishment!—by research in education sciences and pedagogy; by support for institutions, Marianist or otherwise, and their teams; and by international development and influence, as well as by the thoughtful integration of the best of current technology and management.

2.      Birth and Development of Grupo Editorial SM

With the Grupo Editorial SM, our brothers in Spain have developed a non-school but completely institutionalized educational work which is immense in terms of productivity and influence in Spain and in several other Spanish-speaking or Portuguese-speaking countries. Here is a selection of information we have taken from the group’s website at http://www.grupo-sm.com which we consulted on January 7, 2016.

The Grupo Editorial SM was born in 1937 on the initiative of several Spanish Marianist teachers who wanted to bind their lecture notes and documents into books. Thanks to the experience, creativity, and constant adaptation to change placed at the service of their cultural and educational vocation, this group is today one of the principal Spanish publishing companies, with offices in nine countries of Latin America.

The coherence of the Grupo SM project, its contribution and its major influence in the world of education and culture, particularly in the Spanish-speaking regions of the world, and its profound educational vocation are clearly reflected in its 2014 annual report. Here are some excerpts.

Through education, to fight ideologies that can lead to building a world based on exclusions, whatever they may be, on mass consumerism or cultural disparities; to banish from globalization any indifference to the marginalized; and to ensure that children and young people, their parents, teachers, and all those involved in education learn and understand the situation of the world to be able to take a stand and make a critical reading of what the world is going through so they may commit to its transformation, actively participating in building a better world.

The products of the work of more than a thousand professionals within the Grupo SM allow us to share education and culture.

The results of the choice of the thousands of educators who trust us thus enable education to be of a higher quality and more equitable.

Institutions which choose us as educational partners and who believe in the services we render make it possible for the principles of action of the Fundación SM to be put into action: research in education, teacher training, promotion of literature for children and adolescents, and the development of socio-educational programs in areas of exclusion and marginalization.

No shareholder receives a profit, but we give back to the society around us what we receive from it.

In Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Spain, Mexico, Peru, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic, we have carried out many activities … we ourselves have been recognized for our commitment to innovation in education.

Chapter 12 - A Current Panorama of Our Educational Activity

In this chapter, we present a quick glance at how today Marianist educational activity is occurring around the world.

1.      Lighting the Way Ahead

On November 21, 2014, the Feast of the Presentation of Mary, Pope Francis addressed an apostolic letter to religious men and women, at the beginning of which he invited them to “look at the past with gratitude ... live the present with passion ... embrace the future with hope.” Consecrated or lay, we can reflect with the same spirit on the work accomplished, on what is happening today, and on what we foresee and prepare for the future.

2.      The Workers

Although the Marianist mission was formerly carried out almost exclusively by religious, today it has been taken up by almost all vocations among the baptized members of the Church: laity (Marianist Lay Communities, often called Fraternités Marianistes in French-speaking countries); consecrated lay women (Alliance Mariale); religious sisters; religious brothers (who are not priests); and religious priests (ordained brothers). The Marianist Family is currently estimated at around 7,000 members worldwide.

To these are added the very numerous people who collaborate in the Marianist mission, mainly but not exclusively in the field of education. A very quick estimate would lead us to propose the number of 19,000 people with varying motivations and titles who work in the Marianist mission. Among these people are those who intensely live their jobs as a service to the Church; and some live it, consciously and explicitly, as a Marianist way of living their Christian life, as a true participation in the Marianist mission without, however, necessarily expressing a specific spiritual commitment.

3.      The Geographical Expansion of Marianist Education

We can get a quick overview of the expansion of educational works, outside of France, before the death of the Founder by consulting the maps in the French edition of the Lettres de M. Chaminade, volume 3, pp. 655-56.

The following table shows the dates when Marianist educational work began in various nations of the world.

1      Switzerland      1839

2      USA            1849

3      Germany      1851

4      Austria       1857

5      Belgium       1874

6      Canada       1880

7      Libya             1881

8      Tunisia      1882

9      Hawaii (USA)      1883

10      Spain            1887

11      Italy            1887

12      Japan             1888

13      China            1903

14      Argentina      1932

15      Peru            1939

16      Congo      Brazza      1946

17      Nigeria      1957

18      Togo             1958

19      Korea            1960

20      Ivory Coast      1961

21      Kenya            1961

22      Malawi      1961

23      Colombia      1965

24      Zambia      1965

25      Ecuador      1979

26      Chile            1982

27      RDC Congo      1998

28       Bénin            2007

This table, composed from data of the Personnel of the Society of Mary and of the Annuaire Pédagogique de la Société de Marie (Marianistes), 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 (Nivelles: Havaux, 1936 to 1939), gives an overall idea. For example, transitory episodes in Mexico at the end of the 19th century and in the Middle East in the middle of the 20th century are not included. Nigeria, Haïti, Cuba, Poland, the Philippines, and probably others are not cited. On the other hand, in the countries mentioned some no longer include Marianist works, such as Germany and Libya.

Dry figures and dates do not reveal the grand scope of prosperous works cruelly swept away for political reasons; after the war of 1870, all the schools of Alsace were victims of the Kulturkampf, the Society of Mary being a congregation whose General Administration was not located in German territory and consequently, according to the leaders of the Reich, not entitled to form good citizens for the German Empire. The Sonderbund War in Switzerland; the 1882 Jules Ferry laws in France forbidding religious congregations to teach in the public elementary schools and then in 1903 the exile of religious men and women from France; and closer to our time, the closure of the schools in Congo (Brazzaville) following the revolutions of the 1960s, etc.

No, the educational work of the Society of Mary has not been a “long, quietly flowing river,” nor will its future be any more so.

4.      Schools and Universities

These are the most well-known works of an explicitly educational nature, those which come to mind spontaneously upon reading the expression “Marianist Education.” Let us not forget that this concept is much broader, that the Marianist charism is a charism of education in faith. The charism is embodied mainly in school works, of course, but not exclusively. The following developments, when they speak of educational works without further details, will focus on school and university institutions.

•       Civil and Political Constraints Vary from Country to Country.

Civil authorities generally consider that the education of youth falls within their purview (often exclusively), and they jealously guard against any other power that might oppose them.

In Italy, Catholic education is “free,” i.e., without any public commitment or subsidy, a situation justified by the government by indicating that there is religious education in the public institutions.

In France, through a system of contracts obtained after many conflicts and tensions, the State contributes to the payment of teachers and within certain limits to the operating costs of institutions. But the construction and maintenance of buildings and properties is the exclusive responsibility of Catholic education—that is to say, ultimately of the families. The choice of teachers and their training is very limited; official programs and methods are imposed.

In Belgium, on the other hand, contracts with the State leave more freedom in the choice of teachers and pedagogical orientations.

The situations are equally varied, sometimes more favorable or more restrictive, in the United States of America and in the countries of Africa, Asia, or South America.

These differences in the civil status of schools largely explain the differences in the application of pedagogical principles and methods and, to a more or less favorable degree, influence the styles of education.

•      A Great Openness to Freedom and Initiatives

Father Lalanne has left the Society of Mary with an infinitely precious heritage: in all the establishments he led, he consistently proposed “little societies” in which students could exercise their responsibility and demonstrate their talents and interests.

Since its beginnings the Society of Mary has been faithful to this intuition, and it can be said that all its schools around the world know how to create these “little societies” in the most varied fields: sports teams, academic clubs, glee clubs and professional-level children’s choirs, activities in favor of justice, peace and environmental protection, assistance and meeting with marginalized and poor populations, church services and liturgies, summer camps, theater and artistic activities, “twinning” and exchanges between schools, Christian movements, etc.

Some of these activities have a lasting status, such as recreational glee clubs and trained choirs [e.g., petits chanteurs], sports teams, and others. Some are limited in time, such as a Talents Day when the pupils show their companions one of the passions they cultivate (model airplanes, flowers, studies of rocks, Egyptology, First Aid, etc.). The list is infinite, constantly renewed, from one year and one person to the next.

Almost all secondary schools (lycées, high schools, and other designations) organize courses or activities for older students to meet people from other social classes than their own: “Volunteer Teams” which dedicate weekends to improve the living situations of people virtually without resources or without relationships; internships in businesses; participation in collections for a food bank which supplies the Restos du coeur [restaurants that serve meals to the needy]; and others.

These initiatives bear the most unusual names, according to the imaginations at play. Let us quote the last one found on the web, “The Way of the Spoon”; every Wednesday evening for 16 years, representatives of the Colegio Miguel León Prado in Santiago de Chile, parents, teachers, educators, religious, and pupils, meet homeless people, bring them meals, spend time with them, or invite them to celebrations such as Christmas. The colegio undertakes this action of solidarity with both parents and students. Each class is asked to take responsibility for finding food, preparing meals, spreading out through the streets, and washing the pots and pans properly. Along the way, they converse with the people we call the “tatas of the street,” a term of affection [“Daddy” or “Papa”].

Unfortunately, there is no overall account of these initiatives, and this is very unfortunate. Perhaps the zonal councils could list these activities and make them known, not so much in order to imitate them, but to encourage other initiatives by offering ideas.

5.      Nonformal Education

Formal (we prefer to call it institutional) education is provided within the school system and the university system of the country and is deployed in school or university institutions, whether public or private (and among these are the Catholic and Marianist institutions).

Non-institutional (‘nonformal’) education is that defined by UNESCO as follows. “We define nonformal education as any organized educational activity outside the established formal system—whether operating separately or as an important feature of some broader activity—that is intended to serve identifiable learning clienteles and learning objectives” (World Education Report 2000, p. 45). The Society of Mary is involved in this type of education. In SM Three Offices, #113 of February 15, 2005, José María Alvira, then General Assistant for Education, gave a broad recognition to non-institutional education in these terms.

During recent years the Marianists have developed different initiatives in works of nonformal education in different countries and in various ways. They are responding to the needs for an education different from that of a school, or where this is not possible.… Normally, those “identifiable people” are persons who are evidently clearly lacking or “poor” economically, culturally, or in personal capacities. It is a question of providing better education, in the best conditions possible, to needy people for whom education is a unique opportunity.

A Partial List of Marianist Nonformal Works

For recent works, often not truly comparable to other known works, there is no complete listing. But by paging through the International Personnel published by the Society of Mary each year, some may be identified as examples.

o      M.I.R.A.C.L.E. (Marian Institute of Rural Artisans and Cultivators for Life Skills Education) in Karonga, Malawi, which is involved in the vocational training of rural farmers and craftsmen.

o      UJAMAA Family Center and I.M.A.N.I. (Incentive from Marianists to Assist the Needy to be Independent), in Nairobi, Kenya, are involved in helping families and “needy” people to promote private initiatives which can lead them to self-sufficiency for their daily necessities.

o      The Kindemba Agricultural Center and the Voka Agricultural Center (both in the Republic of Congo), established to encourage and assist farmers to set up and manage a small farm, can be included in this section.

o      The Père René Health Center in Brazzaville has an important part in training mothers in the hygiene and education of small children.

o      Italy has Il Centro Giovanile Valerrio Rempicci in Condofuri Marina, the Opera Promozione Sociale Rom and the Tipografia Chaminade in Lezhe, Albania, and the Artigiana San Giuseppe Lavoratore Co-op.

o      Peru has a number of these informal formation structures in Otuzco: Asociación Marianista de Accion Social (AMAS), the Centro de Formación de pastoral Rural María Madre del Buen Consejo, Radio Chamiradio La Libertad 120.

o      The Agricultural Farm in Sotouboua, Togo, works to support the agricultural promotion of rural youth.

o      In India, the Chaminade Rural Development Project (CRDP) and the Rag Pickers Education & Development (REDS), which operate in several parts of the country, are working to reintegrate street children socially and professionally.

o      Manos de Maria in Mexico and Marianist Social Justice Collaborative (MSJC) in the USA are also listed under this heading.

Again, the works cited are only examples. There are others, of all levels and types. We repeat our wish that an exhaustive and descriptive list of these works would be made available to all Marianist educators. That would be a source of ideas and initiatives and a means of strengthening solidarity between institutions and institutional works and non-institutional works.

These Works Are no Longer a “Sidebar” of Our Educational and Missionary Activity.

In the Acts of the General Chapter of 2012, we see at number 45, “Recognizing their importance, their relatively recent emergence, and their significance for service to the poor, the Chapter recommends that the General Assistants for Education and Temporalities continue to coordinate and promote reflection on our works of social development and nonformal education.”

We will borrow José María Alvira’s analysis of this situation, published in SM Three Offices # 113 (February 2005).

There are many ways to be present to the reality of poverty, to work to eradicate it, to raise living conditions and the dignity of persons. Although not exclusively, probably the best service Marianists can give to this cause is through education.

Education for justice and peace is one of the characteristics of Marianist education. First of all, we should make certain both are a reality in the school environment. In addition, we must know how to take advantage of opportunities to do things that will promote them (volunteer work, services to the community, etc.) with reflection and a serious study of the causes which prevent them in our world. In this way, we can contribute to creating both attitudes and knowledge which will bring real progress toward justice, peace, and the integrity of creation.

I think we should continue to support these works where it is necessary. At the same time, we should continue to reflect on how to face the challenges which are presented. One of them is finances. This is not easy, precisely because of the conditions of the environment in which the work takes place. We should not overlook help from other parts of the Society as another sign of solidarity, but we must find ways to avoid a dependency which would make some of the works nonviable in the long run.

On the other hand, in some cases we should study the suitability and possibility of their being transformed into works of formal education, as has happened in some places. In any case, it would be necessary to maintain the objectives for which the works were created and even to take them beyond the initial purposes which motivated their establishment.

6.      The Current Situation and the Future of Marianist Education

To continue from the introduction to this chapter, at the invitation of Pope Francis we wish to look forward to our future with hope. Hope does not mean blindness; quite the contrary. The present will mark the future, but only if we have the courage and lucidity to question it.

Here again, we refer the reader to the two issues of Three Offices by José María Alvira, SM, already mentioned several times.

The Question

José María Alvira poses the question this way. “Does education continue to be a valid means for our apostolic purpose, that is, for the formation in faith? Do the Christian—and Marianist—educational institutions have meaning today and in the years to come in the different social and cultural environments in which we are present, or in those requesting our presence? And if this is the case, what role should they play?” He replies by recalling that for us, education is a field of mission. And he insists, “Education is a missionary field in which we are quite successful.” He highlights two strengths that are part of our tradition and our charism.

o      Our origins and spirituality give us a positive and affirming perception of the laity, which allows us to be “incarnated” in today’s world and helps us to discover the meaning the gospel gives to life and to society.

o      We are also convinced that our constant respect for the public character of the school is an asset that enables us to serve both the Church and civil society in a positive way.

Various Forms of “Temporary Substitution”

Undoubtedly in many countries, the State provides education and contributes to education. In this sense, the role of “temporary substitute” which has been played in certain periods of history by the teaching congregations and the Church is no longer the same.

But on closer inspection, other “substitutes” are more relevant than ever, even if in order to ensure them they must be imaginative and in some cases require character and perseverance, sometimes at the cost of taking positions against the policies of certain governments. We will mention just two.

Mandatory Attendance

Education has become “compulsory” under laws enacted, including by developing countries. But this obligation comes up against customs and habits, and also often against the economic conditions of families where children must be a source of income at an early age. Let us cite, for example, how in India the Society of Mary awakens in families the desire to satisfy compulsory education for the good of their children. In Bangalore (but certainly elsewhere as well), there are almost 20 small places in the city where (usually) a woman gathers some 30 boys and girls ages three to five. Parents are relieved and can go about their work; but they also see the joy of their children, who learn to sing nursery rhymes, to correctly speak the official language of the region, and to constitute under the attentive eye of the “teacher” a society in which there is self-respect and mutual assistance. So the desire naturally arises in these parents to offer their children a schooling that will ensure a better and safer future.

The following extract from Circular No. 10 of Fr. David Fleming when he was Superior General supports the theme. “Where illiteracy is generalized and social change is chaotic, simply founding a school that functions efficiently and regularly, that shows a personal interest in every student and strives to form each one in basic human and spiritual values, sustaining human community and faith—such an effort is unmistakably a missionary endeavor.”

Dialogue Between Faith and Culture

Today more than ever, there is an urgent need for still another dynamic: the dialogue between faith and culture. Again, José Maria Alvira, SM, correctly situates the problem.

In many countries, we live in a secularized society which has little place for the religious or Christian. Religion is respected, but with the understanding of relegating it to the private sector….

The relationships between faith and culture continue today (several years after Paul VI qualified them as the drama of our time) to be a constant and pressing question for the Church. To be in the world of Christian education is to be in this environment of relationships and contribute, as Vatican Council II pointed out, “to promoting a dialogue between the Church and human society which is beneficial to both.”

Educational centers, of whatever type, attempt to transmit culture in a systematic and critical way. They not only teach a series of disciplines, but they also should lead the person to full development… This is where the evangelizing process of a Christian center comes in. Evangelization always comes through some means, and in the case of a school it comes through the culture, knowledge, and the process of teaching, a teaching which evaluates and is itself a bearer of values…. Understood in this way, we can say that the Christian school achieves what other entities are not able to do. We cannot consider education and evangelization as two different alternatives. An educational center which is not evangelizing, in the sense I just pointed out, will be neither Catholic nor Marianist…

A Christian work of education tries to make possible a dialogue, so necessary today between faith, culture, and life. And it should do so, being totally respectful of the character and purposes of every educational institution without trying to manipulate any.

Economic Challenges

Again, we take up again the relevant reflections of José Maria Alvira in another document already cited.

Some situations require reflection and concrete decisions because they pose risks or predict future difficulties. These include the challenge of economic issues.

[This] is a fundamental aspect in the functioning of all our works…. It determines not only the possibility of fulfilling the mission, but also its very survival….

From an economic point of view, the situations of our works are enormously varied. There are countries in which the works can be maintained through support from the families of students. This, of course, is a constraint on the population we can serve. On the other hand, often there is a generous fund to grant scholarships to students who cannot cover full or partial costs, in order to keep our schools open to people of varying economic means. Usually the intention is that costs not become so high that only families with great economic resources can pay, or that these costs rise to the degree that they threaten the continuation of the center. This is for practical reasons, as well as to be consistent with our principles. In some countries these, along with other internal factors, present serious difficulties as our schools strive to maintain their existence.

Elsewhere, especially in Europe or Latin America, the government is responsible for much of the cost. This policy, not always understood or supported by all sectors of society, allows the operation of some facilities to remain open to the majority of families who wish to have access to them. This policy provides relatively secure assurance of survival and operation under adequate conditions. Another solution, which has long been successful in some countries, is to work in collaboration with private entities which provide at least the minimum financial funding.

In poor environments, activity and development work, including almost all those works we have opened in recent years, and all works of nonformal education normally are only possible thanks to foreign aid. This aid comes from private donations, grants from private or public organizations, and in most instances from other Units. They take on a dependency that sometimes creates serious doubts about their ability to continue. The aid is not only to enable the construction and maintenance of facilities and the normal operation of the works, but also to ensure that the religious themselves are compensated for their work. This uncertainty about their works, coupled with an already very fragile economic system within some of the young Units, becomes particularly worrisome as these Units seek independence from the Provinces which founded them.

We must be highly conscious that the resources of the Society of Mary itself are decreasing and that it will be difficult to ensure this assistance in the future. This is undoubtedly one of the most worrisome issues at this time, not only for Marianist education in some countries, but also for the autonomy of the Units themselves. This problem needs to be given special attention, as indeed we have done for a long while. It is essential to continue to seek new sources of financing, public or private, beginning within each country itself if we are to ensure that all Units are viable for the long term.

7.      To Conclude the Chapter

We do educational work not only when we teach or when we administer an educational institution. Whatever our position in a Marianist work, from the moment our action contributes to its life and to maintaining our foundational charism, we are contributing effectively and efficiently to the work of Marianist education and, even if indirectly, to its evangelizing mission.

Epilogue- Where is the Guarantor Today, “The Man Who Never Dies”?

On the basis of the fact that Marianist education is provided by people (educational staff, teachers, educators, board members of the proprietary body or operators, workers who take care of cleaning, meals, reception, maintenance of equipment, etc.) who do not belong to any of the branches of the Marianist Family, we must admit that our educational coworkers are not limited to the membership boundaries of the four branches. A multitude, if not a great majority of our people, work with us in the educational field without being integrated into a spiritual system, while in fact sharing our educational concepts and our spirit.

The General Chapter of 2012 evokes this situation. “Because throughout our world we have many collaborators who are neither Catholic nor Christian, we are called to discover effective and appropriate ways to strengthen their relationship to our mission.”

Blessed Chaminade had in mind the idea of a “man who never dies” to ensure the perennial spirit of the Sodality. Today our works cannot be reduced to the Sodality, whatever the new names for that organization. Most of our works, if not almost all, are full-blown institutions within a secular and professional world which provides similar works. We are well aware that those for which we are responsible have a particular spirit which assures their richness and which we wish to maintain carefully. Today, who or what is “the man who never dies” to guarantee this indispensable transmission?

In many countries, especially in the older Units, some organizations have appeared with various names (Tutelle, Sponsorship, Patronato, Fondaciones) and with various functions that determine their rules, their programs, and their requirements. These organizations may be external to the Society of Mary and may blend their oversight with ours for our works. In France, the Tutelle’s main goal is to guarantee the ecclesial character of schools, so that they do not become “teaching factories” producing brains entirely concerned with social situations or whose secular teaching, reduced to immediate utilitarianism, leaves no door open to transcendence, and so on. This Tutelle is also accountable to the bishop of the diocese, to whom we too must report on our mission.

In any case, an educational enterprise can no longer remain isolated. It must join associations, the only entities capable of ensuring more and more specialized training, defending its interests, representing it appropriately with public authorities, administrative or financial agencies, etc.

How can we maintain ourselves in these associations, of which we are often only an infinitesimal part? How can their policies and policies be influenced so that they remain in harmony with what is essential for us?

In the new Units, curriculums and course content respond to different priorities. These countries have shifted directly to new technologies. Religious are placed in positions of responsibility too early. Nonformal education is an important part of the Society of Mary’s educational efforts in some countries (India and East Africa, among others).

How can the unity of the Society of Mary be maintained over geographical, national and linguistic boundaries? The Charism and Horizons programs, “twinning” between institutions in different countries, mutual aid activities during school vacations, and other various initiatives are striving to find solutions.

We are clearly aware that the variety of situations and their continual evolution must warn us against setting up universal organizations capable of regulating everything. We need to trust the “small steps,” the concrete solutions imagined here and there, test them, and draw inspiration from them for other places—without, however, merely copying them. But it would be profitable for the entire Society to be acutely aware of all these efforts so everyone might be proud of them, draw ideas from them, and ensure a healthy emulation and an alert inventiveness. We receive the death notices and a short biography of our deceased religious; through Via Latina 22, we have knowledge of the professions and ordinations or festive celebrations of the Units. There is an internet domain where articles of spirituality are regularly published. Would it not be desirable to have a constant sharing of information, descriptions, as well as evaluations, of all the pedagogical initiatives which abound in our Marianist world?

But beyond this sharing we cannot ignore two issues that are actually connected.

The Marianist Family, how to define and determine its composition today?

The Man Who Never Dies, who ensures fidelity of our works to the charism, who or what can he be? How must this be constituted in each Unit in a pragmatic and effective way, with the local means and according to the local problems?

Without pretending to answer these, we would like to suggest some directions. If we believe that our mission is widely shared by the laity, we must broaden our concept of the lay Marianist branch and not reduce it to lay communities. Perhaps it could be divided into two entities.

First group: the M.L.C. (Marianist Lay Communities), which may take on various forms arising from the existing embryo: the Fraternitiés (whatever their names) and the CEMI, which is something different. This should help us to create other forms of lay “communities” with an officially recognized belonging. Let us think, for example, of the “Faustino” groups, the “young fraternities,” and no doubt many others. It would probably also be necessary to accept that one or the other of these “communities” would not be immutable or perennial, our times being as fertile in unexpected abandonments as in new initiatives.

Second group: other lay people (teachers, administrators, services, etc.) who do not share in all our spirituality but work with us, in full accord with the spirit that animates us. Perhaps this is not all the lay staff in a school or a work, perhaps not automatically; but in each work organize a nucleus of well trained, motivated lay people, able to win over their colleagues by “contagion.” We once had “affiliation,” which allowed us to recognize and to retain some. Would it not be possible to reinvent a certain way of encouraging and recognizing a certain number of these lay people at the heart of each work as individuals, rather than as a community as in the first group?

On the basis of this new concept of the Marianist Family, each Unit could constitute a “Man who never dies,” the majority of whose members would be these lay people recognized as having truly entered into our educational perspective (this could also exist for all types of works).

This entails a large effort of formation. Such formation programs already exist in many of the Units, where regular sessions and meetings are held for teachers, educators, business managers, administrators, etc.

It also moves us from a pyramidal concept of authority and government to a more flexible “network” design, more suited to each particular situation.

One essential idea never to lose from our sight: before giving recipes or proposing goals, be concerned to form the people first, to appreciate them, to give them confidence, and to make them proud of their activity and their belonging. In “making faithful,” we see the word “faith.” Would we be so far from what Chaminade desired?

We ask how to judge our educational action. It seems that the true criterion of judgment would be this: what becomes of the workers who participate in our educational mission? What is their participation in civil and ecclesial society? Have they become competent, open, proud, and happy? If so, our students will become so, too. And we with them.

Appendix - A Small Anthology of The Most Recent Reflections on Marianist Education

Significance and Origin of The Teaching Apostolate in the Missionary Charism of The Society of Mary Antonio Gascón, SM

International Meeting of the Assistants for Education, Rome, Wednesday, November 12, 2008

1.      Introduction

The revised Rule of Life of 1983 teaches in article 71 that “Our primary objective is formation in faith.” And article 73 affirms that “The Society of Mary is open to all means of evangelization which lead to the fulfillment of its mission.” Nevertheless, article 74 indicates that “for us, education is a privileged means of formation in faith.” All this means that the Society of Mary is not merely a religious teaching Institute, but a missionary one. We are missionaries of faith; men of faith sent to proclaim faith in the new historical situation of Modernity. But in our Marianist tradition, since the time of Father Chaminade and his followers who founded the Society of Mary, the most important instrument for proclaiming faith in modern times has been the Catholic school.

In fact, by Royal Order of King Charles X, of November 16, 1825, the French government of the Restoration approved the Civil Statutes of the Society of Mary as a society that “dedicates itself to primary [elementary] education.” Consequently, in the first Marianist Constitutions written by Father Chaminade and which merited the Decree of Praise of April 12, 1839, from Pope Gregory XVI, Chaminade taught that by Christian education we must understand “all the means by which religion can be inculcated into the minds and into the hearts of all people” (article 251)—that is, “zeal for the salvation of souls” (article 252). Chaminade writes in article 254, therefore, that “its principal works [of the Society of Mary] relate to teaching.” To do so, the same article explains that the Society “takes charge of Free Primary [elementary] Schools, Preparatory Primary [first grade] Schools, Special Schools, Normal Schools, and Arts and Crafts [trade] Schools.” And he draws a masterly conclusion in article 256, affirming that “The Society of Mary teaches only in order to raise souls in a Christian manner; this is why we have placed all works of teaching under the title of Christian education.”

That was the first characteristic of the mission of the new Institutes or religious congregations born in the 19th century. These new religious evangelized modern society through institutions of a strongly lay character, such as a school; a hospital; a vocational training workshop; the publication of newspapers and books; the management of social centers for women, the elderly, juvenile delinquents, or orphans; and other works for cultural and social betterment. Thus evangelization, the moral formation of the person and the civil development of society are all intimately united in our pastoral activity. This is the thesis I wish to propose in my presentation of the Marianist school mission.

We want to know why the first Marianists dedicated themselves from the moment of the foundation of the new religious Institute to the education of youth in schools, as the most suitable means to proclaim the faith in the modern society that had arisen from the political and cultural Revolution of 1789.

2.      Missionary Identity of the Society of Mary in the Context of Nineteenth Century Religious Congregations

he Society of Mary was not an isolated or unique socio-religious phenomenon in the 19th century. Its foundation and expansion in France and in other countries which experienced the political, economic, and cultural revolutions of Modernity (Western Europe, the United States, and Japan) responded to a series of legal and political factors and to cultural and religious mentalities that conditioned the emergence of a new form of religious life: those called congregations with simple vows, under a superior general and dedicated to a work of a strong lay character as a means to evangelize individuals and social groups in modern society.

a)      A new form of religious life

In the Concordat of 1801 between Napoleon and the Holy See, the former monastic and conventual Orders with solemn vows, the only form of religious life known until then, were not recognized. The revolutionaries had suppressed religious life because they regarded solemn vows as contrary to human nature. In the new liberal society, citizens could alienate neither their right to property nor their will, and they always had to maintain their freedom to choose and to change their state of life and their profession. Moreover, to the liberal mind monks were considered an unproductive class, the so-called main morte [dead hand], and their contemplative lifestyle was viewed as a fuga mundi [flight from the world]. For this reason, the politicians of the new liberal states gave no civil recognition to solemn vows and did not accept the restoration of the former Orders. This explains why the brothers and sisters of the new congregations (called in 19th century French congréganistes and not religieux) dedicated themselves to evangelizing the impoverished masses through social works, such as schools or hospitals. Those undertakings meant that the new Institutes gained recognition for their social usefulness, which in turn brought acceptance from the new liberal rulers. It should be remembered that Napoleon authorized only the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul and tolerated the La Salle Brothers of the Christian Schools for teaching. Consequently, the new religious groups were born with simple vows, canonically considered private and temporary vows which maintained the person’s civil status and which he or she could retract at will. Thus Canon Law of the time did not recognize the new religious congregations as a true form of religious life. Only in 1900, when by the apostolic constitution Conditae a Christo, did Leo XIII recognize the women’s simple vows as an authentic form of religious life.

By the law of May 24, 1825, the government of the restored French monarchy legally approved the new women’s congregations for their social usefulness. The “Catholicism of works” was born; that is, Christianity, the Church, and religious organizations were accepted by the liberal mind for their public usefulness, inasmuch as the Catholic institutions collaborated for the good of society. At the same time, the Church was separated from the new liberal State, and religious Confession was no longer the bond of the political-civil unity of a nation; now, citizens were united to the State by the Constitution and the Code of Civil Law. Thus the Church had to find its place in that new liberal society where it might live and carry out its mission. If the Church could not now use the State to carry out its evangelizing mission, then the social place for its mission had to be among the people—that is, within the great throng of peasants who then populated France and other European nations, except for England, where the Industrial Revolution had already begun. Therefore, from the former privileged situation enjoyed by the Church under the ancien régime, in a Christian atmosphere where it was necessary only to preserve the sacramental religious practices, after the Revolution in the new bourgeois order it had now become a Church in mission among the peasant masses and small-town trades people. Some historians have called this step “a new Exodus toward the poor,” to whose moral, social, political, economic, and cultural redemption the sisters and brothers of the new religious congregations of the 19th century were dedicated.

Disregarded by secular historians, an army of thousands of women and men consecrated to God with simple vows and under direct obedience to a superior general dedicated themselves to educating the children of the rural areas of France, to caring for the elderly, to nursing the sick, or to assisting orphans and women as a public or social way of exercising charity. This exodus toward the poor, which created the new religious life born in the 19th century, is what has been called the “congregational movement.” And within this ecclesial and social context we must situate the foundation of the two new religious Institutes by Father Chaminade and his followers and their dedication to the apostolate of teaching.

b)      The Missionary Identity of the Society of Mary

The process of creation of the new men’s religious Institute directed by Father Chaminade took place during the year from October 2, 1817, the end of the retreat at Saint-Laurent, to the profession of simple vows by the new religious on September 5, 1818, at the end of the second retreat at Saint-Laurent. In that trial year of the new religious Institute, it was urgent to specify the type of work the missionary program of Chaminade and his followers should carry out, for upon that decision would depend many elements of the internal and public life of the new religious association, such as the organization of daily life, the formation of new members, the sources of funding to support the works, and obtaining the necessary legal recognition from civil authorities to enable them to legally exercise their apostolic mission. And beyond all that, they had to obtain the canonical approval of the new religious Institute by the Archbishop of Bordeaux and by the Holy See.

As we have said, strictly speaking the Society of Mary is not a teaching congregation. As in the entire complex of apostolic works that arose from the missionary project of Fr. William Joseph Chaminade, it was created to announce and sustain the Catholic faith in order to counteract the new social phenomenon of the massive loss of religion in the cultural context of Modernity; but this mission could be exercised by all types of means and works. In fact, at the beginning of the foundation Father Chaminade believed the best way to spread the knowledge and practice of Catholic doctrine and morality was to have his brothers and sisters support the work of the Marian Sodalities of lay people. Mother Adèle de Batz de Trenquelléon explained this to Emilie de Rodat, Founder of the Sisters of the Holy Family of Villefranche de Rouergue, in these terms: “Our main objective is the foundation and development of Sodalities. You would find it hard to believe all the good the Sodalities accomplish” (Agen, June 21, 1819, in Letters of Adèle, vol. 2, no 334).

3.      The Meaning of the Marianist Dedication to Schools

The choice of the school by Father Chaminade’s followers as an instrument to restore the Catholic faith in French society after the Revolution was due to a complex of intricately-related causes which contributed to the spiritual and missionary identity of the Society of Mary. In my opinion, there are four causes which contributed to choosing the apostolate of the schools.

a)      The school as an instrument for the formation of modern France

The first cause must be seen in the cultural and social situation of France during the Restoration of the Monarchy (1815 to 1848). In those years, the educated classes, entrepreneurs, politicians, clerics, and liberal government officials had arrived at the conviction that education of children was necessary if the French population could be integrated into the political, economic, cultural, and military organization of the new liberal State, as a condition for the proper functioning of the new parliamentary regime and the advancement of the material progress of the nation. To this end, they proposed to school the population, the vast majority of whom lived in rural areas dedicated to agriculture. This policy of school instruction was called “the raising of moral standards of the people,” or “moralization”—that is, to extricate from the so-called “culture of poverty” the horde of peasants which formed the French society of the time. Consider that in 1845 France counted 34,750,000 inhabitants, of which 26,750,000 lived in rural villages and only 8,000,000 inhabited cities of more than 2,000 souls, and that in 1850 the French population had reached 35,800,000, of whom 26,650,000 continued to live in the countryside dedicated to agriculture and only 9,130,000 lived in cities. This peasant population lacked hygiene, medical care, childcare, eldercare, and nursing for the sick; abuse was common in family relationships. In short, it was a population plagued by illiteracy, lack of communication, isolation, and ignorance of everything that happened outside their small rural neighborhoods. The school, therefore, became the instrument for the moralization of the people, as a means to move the peasant social classes out of their centuries-old backwardness and abandonment and to socialize them into the new lifestyles of the liberal State.

Thus throughout France during the first half of the 19th century, there was a massive demand for religious teachers to direct the rural schools owned by the communes and parishes. The period of creation of the greatest number of rural schools was from 1820 to 1859. This led to a strong demand for elementary school teachers. Town councils and the whole of society had recourse to the brothers and sisters of the new congregations who, for low salaries, dedicated their lives to the education of children. The new religious constituted an army of charitable workers who, without a great deal of fanfare, extended their activities of education and assistance throughout the rural and urban centers of France, contributing to the moral and cultural betterment of the people. One historian has called this outburst of religious life in the 19th century a “silent revolution.”

This entire school movement received its legal recognition from the Guizot Law of June 20, 1833. The law provided for an elementary school supported by the commune in each municipality. Students had to pay, but the City Council would help the poorest. The law recognized the freedom of elementary education; that is, given the lack of trained teachers, the small rural communes could resort to the brothers of the new congregations, who were hired for a low annual salary. This is how elementary education fell into the hands of the Church, in the persons of the members of the congregations. The almost 31,000 religious living in France in 1830 constituted an army of brothers and sisters devoted to the schooling of children in small French towns and “villages.” The Guizot Law responded to the political program of the reign of Louis Philippe (1830-1848), based on the defense of internal order, international peace, and the economic development of the country. François Guizot, Minister of Education, believed that education could produce the moralization of the rural world and the end of rustic superstitions and customs based on a rigid patriarchy. Finally, the schooling of the peasantry, the most numerous, poor, and illiterate group in the country, would produce its integration into the overall environment of the nation, promoting social cohesion.

Thus through their dedication to teaching the Marianist brothers, especially in the municipal elementary schools, participated in the enterprise of French Catholicism to moralize, instruct, and rechristianize the great impoverished masses of rural people, integrating them into the new political and cultural context of liberal society. Thus the entry of the Society of Mary into the apostolate of teaching provided the Marianists with an integration into modern culture and gave them a socially institutionalized environment in which to effectively instill the Catholic faith in the new generations.

b)      Clerics and the French school situation

The 19th century French ecclesiastics participated in the political, social, and cultural plans. In this sense, the second reason the Society of Mary directed its missionary activity into school work must be related to the concern of the entire French Church for the religious education of children and youth. Clerics and popes in modern times have seen the school as the means for the moral formation of the person of the child and the place in which to transmit the contents of the Catholic faith in dialogue with the humanities and the modern sciences. Catholic schools became social settings where students, their religious teachers, their families, and the alumni could experience Catholic religious practices and other social activities of a cultural and recreational nature, preserving their Catholic faith from the secularizing influence of modern culture. In this sense, Father Chaminade calls the Marianist school a “permanent mission” because it allows the Catholic faith to be experienced in the form of a moderate Modernity.

Foundations of religious teaching congregations abounded in France during the 19th century, and there were various attempts to create a Catholic school league. In this regard, it should be remembered how the Founder of the Brothers of Christian Doctrine of the Diocese of Strasbourg, Fr. Ignatz Mertian, asked Father Chaminade in 1822 to combine their two religious Institutes to form a teaching society of religious men under the title Petits Frères; they would be active among all the rural settlements of France. Again, the parish priest of Colroy in the Vosges, Fr. Joseph Fréchard, founder of another religious congregation, the Brothers of Christian Doctrine of Nancy, also wanted to unite his religious to those of Chaminade. Similarly, Fr. Jean-Etienne Bardenet convinced the Marianists to purchase Saint-Remy in 1823 to take care of the normal school of the Diocese of Besançon, then headed by the Diocesan Missionaries of Beaupré.

This pastoral goal of the French Church greatly touched Father Chaminade’s sodalists also; they had been very impressed by some conferences that the famous orator, Fr. Denis-Antoine-Luc Frayssinous (1765-1841), the future Minister of Public Instruction and Director General of the Université, had given in 1817 in the Cathedral of Bordeaux during Lent. In those conferences the priest claimed that the public lycées had been converted into schools of immorality and atheism, so that the Christian education of youth was a pastoral emergency. Those conferences gave a very strong orientation to the thinking of the future Marianist religious about the apostolate of education.

c)      The Thought of the Founder of the Marianists

A third determining cause in the same direction shows us how the orientation to schools of the first group of Marianist brothers was due to the thinking of Father Chaminade, without whose approval the members of the new Society of Mary would not have directed their activity toward work in the schools. On this point, I would dare to say that the Marianist teaching mission is at the heart of the founding charism of forming new generations in the Catholic faith and was not a merely circumstantial opportunity for the new religious to earn their living, as is sometimes encountered in some readings about the history of Father Chaminade.

Father Chaminade himself had been a math teacher in the collège-séminaire of Saint. Charles Borromeo in Mussidan. In their Rule the priests of St. Charles took an oath to dedicate themselves to the evangelization of youth through school teaching. Imitating the schools of the Society of Jesus, two priests and a layman in 1744 founded the Collège Royal de St Charles for the Christian education of youth, intending to recover for the Catholic faith the population affected by the new teachings of Deism and religious indifference coming from the Enlightenment. Father Chaminade always maintained that apologetic attitude of the Catholic faith against Enlightenment thinking.

In fact, Chaminade understood that the young Society of Mary needed to direct its pastoral activity toward teaching the middle classes and the free elementary schools for the lower classes, who were subjected to the propaganda of deistic and liberalist ideas. In the lycées and in the municipal schools, teachers were educating the young into ways of thinking that were non-religious, if not contrary to Christian doctrine and virtues. Father Chaminade suffered deeply from this situation. “The philosophic spirit is being introduced even into the tiny villages, corrupting young and old of all conditions, both men and women, and this by the clever use of every type of means,” he wrote on June 11, 1824, to the rector of the seminary of Besançon, Fr. Jean-Maurice Breuillot. And on February 22, 1830, he warned Father Lalanne, “We are in a century in which everyone is called upon to reason or to talk nonsense, even the simple country peasants and the housemaids of the cities.” In addition, in a letter to Fr. Georges Caillet on June 28, 1825, he wrote that “[M. d’Amécort] will see that this work of the normal schools is directly in opposition to the path traced out by [Jean le Rond] d’Alembert, to introduce philosophism by means of schoolteachers into places even the farthest away from the cities.” Finally, in his request of September 16, 1838, to Pope Gregory XVI requesting approval of the Constitutions, Chaminade wrote, “Philosophy and Protestantism, favored in France by the ruling power, have taken hold of public opinion and of the schools.” For that reason, “I have believed before God ... that it was necessary to found two new Orders, the one of virgins and the other of young men, who ... would challenge the propaganda ... in the battleground of the schools by opening classes of all levels and subjects, especially for those classes of people most numerous and most abandoned.”

This thinking was summed up by Chaminade in the Constitutions of the Society of Mary of 1839. “How many conquests modern philosophism has made in the kingdom of Jesus Christ! Faith has become enfeebled… How little Christian education there is! The rising generation finds so few teachers who strive to form the mind and the heart in favor of Christianity” (article 339). This continues, “Among the means that in his mercy the Spirit of the Lord has given to mortals for arresting the progress of impiety and of libertinage, God has deigned to inspire an association composed of all talents and of all states, priests and laymen, whose principal objective is to form childhood and youth of every class—it is the Society of Mary” (article 340). Thus in those Constitutions he defined the work of “Christian Education” (Title Two) as one of “the means by which religion can be inculcated into the minds and into the hearts of all and by which they can thus be trained from tender infancy to the most advanced age in the fervent and faithful profession of a true Christian life” (article 251). A bit later, Chaminade concludes in article 254, “As an effect of this predilection for early childhood and those little children upon whom Jesus showered his divine caresses, the Society of Mary has declared in its Civil Statutes that it devotes itself to primary [elementary] education.”

In the face of this situation, Father Chaminade considered the Christian education of youth as the implementation of his missionary project to rechristianize France. He expressed himself thus on all occasions on which he had to explain the raison d’être of the Marianist school apostolate; on June 18, 1822, he wrote to Father Fréchard, the pastor of Colroy, explaining to him that “Christian schools directed according to the method adopted by the Institute of Mary and conducted by its religious destined for this good work are a powerful means of reforming the people. The children there generally make such rapid progress and become so docile and Christian that they carry the good odor of virtue and religion into their respective families. The children become, as it were, apostles to their parents, and their apostolate always produces some happy fruit. That is what makes me call the schools a means of reforming the people.” And in the key letter of August 24, 1839, to Marianist priests who were to preach the spiritual exercises of that year to their religious brothers in September, he told them, “Thus, the vow of teaching which we make in common with other Orders is however, far more comprehensive in the Society and the Institute than anywhere else. Its object is to carry out the words of Mary, ‘Do whatever he tells you,’ and therefore extends to all classes, to both men and women, and to all ages, but to the young and the poor especially, so that it truly sets us apart from all other Societies which make the same vow.” This means that for us the school is an instrument of evangelization.

d)      Collineau and Lalanne: The Seminarians’ Dedication to the School

Consequently, in the context of the contemporary thinking of the French clergy, of Father Chaminade, and of the social need to “moralize the people,” the founding group understood that the most suitable pastoral means at the time to proclaim the faith was teaching children and youth in schools. Of the same opinion were Bro. David Monier and the seminarians Jean-Baptiste Collineau and Jean-Auguste Lalanne; the latter two were employed at the Estebenet school. Of course Chaminade was of the same opinion, and without his approval this very important institutional decision could not have been made.

We can say that the fourth reason which favored the teaching orientation of the Society of Mary was the fact that the seminarians Collineau and Lalanne and Bro. Auguste Brougnon-Perrière were teachers in the boarding school of M. Estebenet, himself one of Father Chaminade’s sodalists. We will discuss this point in its own proper section.

4.      The First Schools of the Society of Mary

The deplorable religious and moral situation of the children of the peasant families and of the lower classes in the city, together with the demands from the families of Bordeaux merchants for instruction for their children so the latter might devote themselves to their family businesses, contributed to the inclination of Chaminade and the early Marianists to take on teaching as the apostolic work of the “Little Society.”

a)      Pension Auguste (Rue des Menuts) and       Institution Sainte-Marie (Rue du Mirail) (1819)

In meetings held during the first year of community in the Impasse de Ségur to decide upon the apostolic orientation of the new Institute, David Monier insisted on the usefulness of opening a boarding school under the direction of Auguste Brougnon-Perrière. At that time there were no such centers in Bordeaux other than the Collège Royal, the Jesuit minor seminary, and the Pension Estebenet. A primary and secondary school with boarding sections run by religious would be welcomed by bourgeois families who sought a Christian education for their children. At the same time, Brother Lalanne realized that the commercial activity in Bordeaux demanded a study program in which, in addition to the classical subjects, more time was devoted to teaching history, geography, mathematics, physics, and chemistry, French and foreign languages, and accounting. Such a novel educational offering would guarantee numerous pupils at the school they were planning to found. With these conditions, the decision in favor of teaching was consolidated.

After the vows of the first religious on September 5, 1818, the first Marianist community was established in the house in the Impasse de Ségur, formed by Bro. Auguste Brougnon-Perrière as director, working brothers Jean-Baptiste Bidon and Antoine Canteau, Bro. Dominique Clouzet, seminarians Jean-Baptiste Collineau and Jean Lalanne, and Bro. Bruno Daguzan; there were two aspirants as well, M. Pierre Bousquet and M. Bernard Laugeay. The house was too small for them all, and they sought more appropriate accommodations where they could open a boarding school, the apostolic work they had decided to undertake together. In addition, the new building would be large enough to accommodate the eventual candidates for religious life.

A favorable opportunity arose when two sodalists, M. Changeur and M. Bardinet, placed at the disposal of Chaminade a considerable sum of money to acquire an establishment to use as a school. M. Estebenet proposed that they buy the house at no. 46, Rue des Menuts, next to his school; there they could begin to offer classes for their future school. The proposal seemed good, so on October 29, 1818, the Society signed a lease for the house and on November 14 signed the purchase contract. On November 4, in a letter from Bro. Auguste Brougnon-Perrière, Father Chaminade asked the rector of the Université of Bordeaux to legally authorize the opening of a secondary boarding school. Permission was given May 11, 1819. Then on June 15, Father Goudelin presided over the Holy Spirit Mass and the school year ended with 15 students. Once the collège was inaugurated, in the Council of the Society of Mary of September 2, 1819, “the principle was established that it would have for its main works the education of middle-class youth, missions, retreats, and the foundation and animation of lay congregations” (according to Lalanne, in The Spirit of Our Foundation, vol. 3, 5 [n.b.]).

The school founded, an unexpected turn of events would provide the occasion for the Estebenet boarding school to become the property of the Society of Mary. It turned out that M. Estebenet was unable to buy the building on Rue du Mirail where he planned to move his own educational institution. With the two schools adjoining one another, they came to a mutual agreement to unite them under the direction of the Society of Mary. In return, the Society would pay M. Estebenet an annuity of 1,500 francs; Chaminade agreed, and the contract was signed October 29, 1819. With this contract the Society received the oldest and most prestigious private educational institution in Bordeaux. M. Estebenet continued as a teacher in the school, now under the direction of Bro. Auguste Brougnon-Perrière, so that the institution was now called Pension Auguste, at no. 46 and no. 47, Rue des Menuts. The other religious worked there as teachers and proctors. The new institution for elementary and secondary education opened its classes on November 3 under the direction of Bro. Auguste Brougnon-Perrière, with Fr. Louis Rothéa, who had just made his religious profession on August 15, in the position of bursar and Brother Lalanne as Head of Zeal and Instruction. But the governmental Education Administration (Université) refused to authorize the teaching of the subjects of superior instruction, Latin and rhetoric. This provision obligated the Marianist teachers to send their older students to the Collège Royal, enrolling them there as external students to take classes and pass their examinations before the public school teachers. The Marianists limited their own work to supervising the discipline of those students and their hours of study and review at the school.

The school year of 1820-1821 was difficult because of the need to take students to the Collège Royal and because there were no trained educators among the religious. But the brothers overcame this difficulty by developing methods and regulations to provide a better organization for the management of the school. After his priestly ordination on December 22, 1821, Father Lalanne was able to devote himself entirely to the school. Thus, the new school year of 1821-1822 began with good prospects, with Lalanne assuming the dual responsibility of Head of Zeal and Head of Instruction and becoming the soul of the school, while Auguste Brougnon-Perrière retained the administrative and financial management. With these two men, the Pension Auguste acquired an immense educational prestige in Bordeaux.

From that point on, Father Lalanne put into operation all his pedagogical creativity, with a curriculum in which classic letters were accompanied by modern subjects. At the same time he enlivened teaching methods for the various subjects through the use of activities, stimulating students to study through emulation instead of punishment, instituting honor societies, and creating the Literary Academy, recreational-cultural evenings, and celebrations for the awarding of prizes. As important as school organization was the attention given to good social manners. This solid and innovative organization produced good educational results and brought the enrollment up to more than 100 pupils, a considerable figure for private schools of the time, Thus the school came to be numbered among the most renowned of Bordeaux, which in 1824 had 23 non-state establishments. Archbishop Charles-François d’Aviau showed the school enthusiastic support, and every year he presided over the awards ceremony and the sessions of the Literary Academy which, together with the sessions of the Marian Sodality, were true cultural feasts attended by Chaminade, surrounded by the most notable people of the city.

In 1824 the school location had become insufficient to handle the number of students enrolled. So Father Chaminade purchased the Razac mansion on Rue Mirail. At Easter of 1825 the transfer was made; the school took the name of Institution Sainte-Marie. In this new location, Brougnon-Perrière and Lalanne were able to apply fully the teaching methods of the Society, but they still did not persuade the Université to grant the teaching of Latin and rhetoric. Nonetheless, the Society of Mary had set up its first school of secondary education and had consolidated its teaching prestige among the bourgeois class.

b)      First Public Elementary School in Agen (1820)

In 1820 the Society of Mary accepted the direction of its first elementary school owned by a municipality, in a field truly urgent for the spiritual recovery of French society. The evangelization of the youth and the children of peasant families through the school was carried out in tandem with the social and economic development of the country. The first 30 years of the 19th century witnessed a true war over the schools in France. The Restoration government, relying on the Church, wanted to seize education from the liberals, but without suppressing the state monopoly in order to avoid political confrontation. In this same context, we find Father Chaminade with similar concerns, allowing Mother Adèle de Trenquelléon and the first community of Marianist sisters to dedicate themselves to the free education of young girls in Agen. The Marianist brothers also embraced the work of elementary education.

The occasion for the Society of Mary to receive from the municipality the operation of a public school arose in August of 1819 when the General Council of the department of Lot-et-Garonne made the decision to call in the LaSalle Brothers of the Christian Schools to take over the Agen elementary school. The City Council promised to pay the teachers but, unable to come to an agreement with their superior general on the annual salary of 2,000 francs for the community of Lasalle religious, it is probable that the mayor turned to Chaminade to take charge of the school as mandated by the department. Chaminade saw the possibility that the presence of the Society in Agen would enable the suppressed Marian Sodality to be rebuilt, precisely in a city where so many sodalists lived. Father Chaminade accepted and sent three Marianists to Agen; Bro. Bernard Laugeay (age 24), a perpetual professed, was appointed director, accompanied by Jean Armenaud (age 26) and Jean-Marie Mémain (age 22), who had just completed the novitiate, with the latter two in the position of adjunct teachers. The school opened November 29, 1820, with three classrooms, teaching reading, writing, arithmetic, catechism and sacred history. The economic resources were advanced by the City Council, and the legal status before the Université was achieved thanks to the work of a M. Dardy, a former sodalist and director of another school in the city. In January of 1821, the elementary school had 148 students, and at the end of the month it numbered 221 children. The enrollments continued until the end of the year. Bro. Bernard Laugeay gained the affection of his students. He transformed these troublesome children into disciplined and polite boys who were eager to learn, thanks to his awarding of prizes and setting the practice of emulation among them instead of using beatings and threats.

5.      The School Apostolate in Marianist Spirituality and Mission

I would like to conclude this conference with the enumeration of the interconnected six theses which, in my opinion, define the school work of the Society of Mary as an intrinsic part of Marianist spirituality and mission. Each of the theses deserves its own explanation.

First. Modern thought has established the principle that without schools there is no democracy or economic development. If we wish to live together in peace and move forward together, we must firmly believe in the civilizing value of the school’s educational work—what in the 19th century was called “moralizing the people.”

Second. The Marianist sense of evangelization is intimately linked to the moral and social development of the person and of the social groups toward which we orient our schools. According to our beginnings within the Sodality movement, we must transmit the faith through works and institutions that promote the betterment of society. In this sense, Marianist educational institutions are powerful agents of civilization and of material and moral development.

Third. I hold that a Marianist scholastic institution is a permanent mission because it is a place where the Catholic faith can be transmitted to students, their families, alumni, and lay teachers. A Marianist school is not just a workplace, but a setting of common life and human relationships within which the person of the child and the adolescent is formed and an experience of Christian, church-inspired communitarian life is offered.

Fourth. A Marianist school allows for the expression and exercise of our mixed composition, both in its strictest sense of cooperative work of lay religious with priest religious and in the larger Marianist Family of religious with lay Marianists. In this sense the Marianist school is a Catholic Church presence in the field of education where we religious and the lay people evangelize and contribute to the building up of civil society. The school allows us to act in the secular context (non-clerical, as opposed to other works of the life and mission of the Church). It exists in this secular world into which we were born and where we are called to evangelize with our teaching work.

Fifth. I would say that in order to fulfill our mission of evangelization, we must have a historical and institutional incarnation. This means we must have educational works, if possible owning them, as a condition for the possibility and real effectiveness of our activity, where the management, the regulations, the economics, and the teaching work are intrinsic components of the life and mission of the Marianist charism and where these elements are intrinsic to the Modernity into which we have been born. Moreover, precisely because of the fact of their institutional presence, Marianist schools allow us to implant the Society of Mary, and by extension the Marianist Family, within a country or a locality.

Sixth. Finally, I am speaking to you as the Postulator General of the Society of Mary, interested in Marianist holiness and in the sanctification or spiritual life of lay Marianists. I wish to point out to you that the new spirituality or form of holiness arising from the Second Vatican Council takes its orientation from the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes. Our contemporaries have the experience of the presence and action of God in the world through our working at the transformation of temporal matters, recognizing the proper autonomy of these matters, ordering them to the horizon of salvation of the Kingdom of God (Gaudium et spes, 33-39). By virtue of its secular nature, for religious Marianists the work of teaching in the schools has been and is a powerful instrument not only of mission toward others, but of personal sanctification.

Marianist Spirit and Education - Manuel Cortés, SM

To the Administrative Teams of the Marianist Institutions of Europe - Rome, October 31, 2012

It is with joy and a great sense of satisfaction that I am meeting with all of you here today, at the beginning of this meeting of the leaders in charge of the Marianist schools of Europe. The joy and the satisfaction come mainly from two sources. First of all, because being with you gives me a sense of the great service of education we Marianists have been offering and continue to offer to our old continent, where we were born and from which we have expanded throughout the world.

Second, because in saying “Marianists” I am looking at all of you, I am addressing not only the religious brothers and sisters, but an enormous group of people who share the same vision and the same missionary enterprise with us religious. If our Founder, Blessed William Joseph Chaminade, were physically here present with us he would be jumping for joy, seeing how his dream of educating youth continues to be alive and active, shared by both of us, religious and laity. Thank you, therefore, for having invited me to experience this profound joy and to share with you some reflections on the educational project which inspired his life, and indeed our own.

For us as Marianists and for all those who collaborate in our mission, it is very important to keep his memory alive. If Chaminade had not existed and had not lived as he did, neither would we Marianists exist. If we are here today in the world and in the Church, it is to continue the spirit of his life and his mission. In a sense, we are “children” of our Founder. For us, therefore, to invoke his life and his thinking is not a mere tribute to an historical memory but a necessary effort to better understand own vocation, to have a clearer consciousness of the reasons from which—and for which—we live and work as Marianists. To sum this up, it is an effort that is needed for deepening our own identity.

These reflections I want to share with you today are inspired precisely by this desire to return to our roots in order to maintain our identity and to examine how according to this we can and must continue to serve our world. I will develop this topic in three sections.

1.      In the first part, I will try to explain the fundamentals of what we call “Marianist Spirit”—what characteristics define it, what is their origin and their purpose, and upon what are they based?

2.      In the second part, I will reflect on how these characteristics affect educational work, leading to what is our own particular style—Marianist education.

3.      Third, I will attempt to show how these characteristics, inherited from our tradition, are still highly applicable today in the face of educational needs of society and the world as we know it.

1.      What do we mean by “Marianist Spirit,” and what is its basis?

From the outset, and as a sort of synthesis, we can say that Marianist spirituality is a form, a particular style of living the Gospel. Before all else, Marianist life is a Christian life and therefore, like all Christian life, its fundamental reference point is the person of Jesus. What we live and what we do have their source and their end in the life Jesus lived and the deeds he performed.

This said, the following of Jesus always has certain nuances and styles of life, based on the aspects of Jesus’ person and his message which most greatly impact an individual. These may flow from the personal characteristics of the follower of Jesus and/or the circumstances in which the follower lives. Some followers of Jesus have created schools, and some founded communities and works to which this particular way of living the Gospel has been transmitted. Thus different “spiritualities” have emerged throughout the history of Christianity. We all know how Saint Francis of Assisi, while living in the midst of a society and a Church which sought power and riches, was struck by the poverty of Jesus; or how Ignatius of Loyola contemplated Jesus in his total obedience to the Father although his own time, the age of the Renaissance, was a period of rebellion and necessary reforms; or how Theresa of Calcutta discovered the suffering face of Christ in the dying people she encountered in the streets. Throughout our history, this is the way the Franciscan, Jesuit, or Missionary of Charity “spirit” came into being. And there are so many others. This is also the way the “Marianist Spirit” emerged—as the fruit of the evangelical experience of one man, William Joseph Chaminade, our Founder. From his particular way of being and from the historical context in which he lived, he also felt attracted in a special way to a certain aspect of the person of Jesus, which he tried to live intensely and to convey to those around him. What was his historical experience? What aspect in the person of Jesus particularly struck him in these circumstances? These are the questions to which we must respond in order to understand the “Marianist Spirit,” the style of Christian life bequeathed to us.

His Historical Experience

It is well known that Father Chaminade experienced the French Revolution fully and “in the flesh.” He was a young priest (age 28) when it broke out. Moving from the country into the big city, Bordeaux, he witnessed, firsthand the persecution against the Church. He lived in hiding and in exile. And during this same period, he lived with the emotional pain of losing both his parents.

As we know, the French Revolution was one of the great milestones in human history, a true historical upheaval which changed the culture and the mentality of the people and their social structures. A new way of viewing the world, social relationships, and the organization of the State came into existence. It had a profound effect on history. Therefore, we can imagine the impact all this would have had on the life of this young priest, a newcomer to the city of Bordeaux.

Among the many effects of the French Revolution, two touched him in a particular way, especially from his point of view as a priest.

-      The Revolution’s Impact on People’s Faith

The French Revolution culminated a period of affirmation of humanity before God; this had already begun in the Renaissance. Human beings constitute the center of all that exists, affirming the primacy of human reason over all other reason, including divine. The Jesuit scholar and artist, Fr. Marko Iván Rupnik, has very graphically described this effect, based upon the frescos in the Sistine Chapel.

The Renaissance gives birth to a new European culture in which humanity becomes the new universal center. This key step in the European consciousness is paradigmatic in the frescos of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel, specifically in the cycle of the creation of man and of the world. In the first painting a mighty God is presented who begins to create the world. God is a figure which fills most of the pictorial field. Little by little, God begins to withdraw and begins to age. When creating Eve, God is now relegated to a corner of the fresco, appearing as a stooped, crouching older man with a long white beard. And, before he stops to rest, he goes on to bless the man with an already trembling hand.

As we have said, this phase which began in the Renaissance, culminated with the French Revolution. With the deification of human reason, God is not even an old man in the corner; God has simply disappeared from the scene. And with this disappearance, faith, of course, disappears as well.

The impact of the French Revolution on people’s faith was felt deeply by Father Chaminade, who immediately saw reflected in that reality the original moment, the “original” sin of humanity, Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God.

-      The impact on Institutions, Especially the Church

The French Revolution not only affected the way people thought, but it also had a strong institutional impact. The cry of emancipation, “Liberty, equality, fraternity,” provoked a profound change in those institutions which through mutual agreement had governed society and protected the individual: the State and the Church, the State with the Church, the Church with the State. The monarchical modal collapsed, and the Church-State alliance was broken for the first time in the history of Christianity.

That break was also belligerent. The State not only proclaimed its independence with respect to the Church, but it took up a position against her, attempting to dominate her through what was called the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Now is not the time or place to go into detail about this. It is enough to say that this was an attempt to create a type of national church, stripping power from the Holy See and giving it to the State. Priests who would not swear allegiance to this law were persecuted, as was Fr. Chaminade himself. He lived this dramatic era very personally, not only suffering persecution but also because after the Revolution he was one of the priests in charge of reconciling those priests called “juring priests,” those who had taken the oath.

Already strongly impacted in the Renaissance by the Reformation and its consequences, the Church found itself suddenly facing a new situation—one in which it had lost its traditional mode of being present and active. “How has the Church reacted during these centuries?” asks Father Rupnik. He continues, “Accustomed to its influence in society, nowadays the Church has felt like God as represented in the Sistine Chapel, more and more relegated to the corner of insignificance, like a ‘second-class citizen.’” Fr. Chaminade is strongly challenged by this crisis within the Church. He experiences a stunned Church which shows symptoms of starvation, its presence in the world running the risk of fading away when it loses its power.

His Experience of the Gospel

In this historical context and with this personal experience as background, in his concern for the recovery of faith and the Church as an authentic community Chaminade turns his attention to the Gospel. Two particular aspects especially strike him.

-      First, the role of Mary in Salvation History and, more concretely, her role in the coming of our Savior, Jesus, into our history. In other words, the fact that Jesus, Son of God, could become Son of Mary. This is what we Christians know as the Mystery of the Incarnation.

Mary was God’s gateway in the salvation of the world. It happened with Jesus Christ, Son of God, but it could not have happened without Mary. She is the human person indissolubly linked to the Son of God in history. Thanks to her response in faith, the Son of God is a reality, he is part of our history—and our history stands redeemed through him, with him, and in him, according the God’s plan. She is the believer, the “woman of faith,” that faith God looks for in humanity in order to generate the redeemer within that humanity, through the action of the Holy Spirit.

This means, therefore, that in order to redeem our present moment it is necessary to reintroduce God’s saving plan, thought Father Chaminade, and to do this, once again humanity needs Mary. This means, therefore, that in a certain way we must become like Mary in our world. This means we must further her mission, her role in Salvation History. Thus, following the inspiration of Father Chaminade, we Marianists make an alliance with Mary “to assist her in her mission.”

-      The second aspect is the fervor and authenticity of the first Christian community, a true witness to evangelical fraternity, which spread because of the life that was led.

Father Chaminade was deeply convinced that the world could not be converted to the Gospel unless we offer it the witness of that first community, the spectacle of a “communion of saints.” From this conviction flows the strong community character which he gave to all his foundations, from the Sodality of Bordeaux to the religious Institutes. In his missionary work to evangelize and gather, convert and build up, all go together. As we said in our presentation of the Rule of Life to the Society of Mary,

Inspired by God’s Spirit, Father Chaminade understood the rich creative possibilities of a Christian community for apostolic service. Such a community could bear the witness of a people of saints, showing that the gospel could still be lived in all the force of its letter and spirit. A Christian community could attract others by its very way of life and raise up new Christians and new missionaries, thus giving life in turn to still other communities. A community could thus become the great means to rechristianize the world. It was this insight that gave rise to the first groups of men and women founded by Father Chaminade as Sodalities.

Father Chaminade found the basis of this missionary principle in the Acts of the Apostles within the first Christian community, by the way they “built up” new members through the witness of holding all things in common, of living with but one heart and one soul.

So when referring to his biblical inspiration, we can say that Father Chaminade felt enlightened by the beginning of the two books of Luke: the story of the Annunciation and Incarnation of the Son of God in the first chapter of his Gospel and the emergence and development of the first Christian community in the opening chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Both biblical passages inspire and define the two characteristics of Marianist Spirituality—the spirit of faith, as in the faith of Mary, and vibrant community life.

If Mary is the icon of humanity open to redemption, community is the sign of humanity redeemed, and at the same time its maternal womb, generative, formative, and enlightening. These two principles constitute the essence of the Marianist Charism. By these, all our work and all of our works are inspired.

2.      “Marianist Spirit” and Education

Following these considerations on the spirit and the Marianist “charism,” the question is this. How can a charism, a spirit, a spirituality, inspire a way of educating? The answer is obvious: through the anthropology underlying that spirituality. Marianist Spirituality itself contains a certain conception of the human person, ant from this conception certain educational characteristics develop. This is what I will try to clarify during this second part of this talk.

We begin by recognizing that all education emanates from anthropology.

If education is for the integral formation of the person, then certainly it depends upon the notion “person,” on the concept of what a person is and on what a person is called to be. It is clear that behind the task of education is always an anthropology which inspires it. Therefore, we have as many types of education as we have anthropologies and as there are conceptions of human beings. Education is never “neutral.” It is always at the service of a determined “vision” of the person and the meaningfulness of that person. Good educators are conscious of the anthropology they serve and act in harmony with it. A good educational institution always explicitly expresses its educational vision and ensures that the different forces at work within it are united with that vision.

We can speak, for example, about “Christian education.” We understand, therefore, that it extracts from the Gospel the anthropology that inspires it. This anthropology is not contained in a philosophical manifesto, but in a concrete human life, that of Jesus. For the Christian, God’s Revelation in the person of Jesus is not only a revelation about divinity and things divine, but it is also (and I dare even say “before all else”) a revelation about a human being. In Jesus, we Christians discover “the way, the truth, and the life” of our humanity. In him we contemplate the fullness of what it means to be a human being and, therefore, the reference point of all our educational work.

If behind all education there is an anthropology, then so too, there is an anthropology behind all spirituality.

What is the anthropology behind Marianist Spirituality? Of course, it is Christian anthropology, that which is revealed in the person of Jesus. Now as I have tried to explain in the first part, in contemplating the person of Jesus there are various accents, nuances, and aspects according to various spiritualities. Specifically, I added that Marianist Spirituality, following our Founder, concentrates on the fact that Jesus is the “Son of Mary.” Therefore, Marianist anthropology derives from the contemplation of a particular aspect of the man, Jesus: his own generation—that is, where he comes from—how he appears in history, and how his humanity is conceived and developed. Marianist anthropology is what is revealed to us in the mystery of the Incarnation, narrated in the story of the Annunciation in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke. From the outset, it may seem odd to say that this episode contains an entire anthropology, but if we stop to analyze it calmly, we will see that yes, it does include this, and also that we can deduce from this episode the two great principles of anthropology which sustain Marianist Education, and therefore the characteristic principles that define it.

1)      The first fundamental anthropologic principle is the supreme dignity of the human being.

We deduce this principle from the way the human being is sought out and treated by God, in the person of Mary. In the Old Testament, Psalm 8 already marvels at the dignity of human beings. “What is man that you are mindful of him? … You have made him little lower than the angels and crowned him with glory and honor,” says the psalmist. Through the contemplation of the Annunciation, we can even add more admiration. “What is man that you not only have concern for us, but even more you search us out, and you present your request that you, also, may become one of us?”

It is very interesting to place in parallel the story of the Annunciation from the beginning of Luke’s Gospel and the story of original sin at the beginning of the Bible. This was magnificently done by Fra Angelico in his painting of the Annunciation. In the Book of Genesis, Adam and Eve turn their back on God. Tempted by the serpent, they lose trust in God and disobey God’s word. Later, the biblical story goes on to tell us, God looks for Adam, but Adam hides himself from God. “The Lord God called Adam and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ He answered, ‘I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid myself’” (Gen 3:9-10). Fully conditioned by his distrust in God, he thinks God is his enemy and that therefore God seeks to punish him, to “get even.” So Adam hides. Adam and Eve are victims of a double error: One error we can call a “theological” error: their perception of God. The second error, derived from the first, is an “anthropological” error: their perception of themselves. A misconception of God leads to a misconception of themselves. So they hide—from God; fleeing from God, and also from themselves, putting on clothing, covering the nakedness of truth.

The episode of the Annunciation comes about as a corrective in the story of the error of Adam and Eve. God searches for humanity, not for the purpose of annihilation but rather so humanity may be recreated in the Spirit. And this is not brought about by force, with God imposing power and forcing submission, but by request. This is not a God who imposes, punishes, or subjects. “Rejoice, favored one, the Lord is with you,” “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God” (Lk 1:28, 30). These were the words of the angel. The God who acts in this way with Mary is a God who deeply loves humanity. And because of this love, God does not use force, but rather respects the person’s freedom. Instead of imposing himself God offers himself, with complete kindness and complete love. In the episode of the Annunciation God appears to us, actually looking for us and offering himself to us through the person of Mary, as a real lover. Thus Mary corrects the double error of Adam and Eve: the “theological” error (Mary perceives the true face of God, that of the lover who gives of himself to the beloved) and the “anthropological” (Mary perceives herself as she truly is through the loving gesture of God: great in her lowliness, as she proclaims in the Magnificat). In Mary, humanity ceases to hide before God and before itself in order to discover, at last, its greatness and its dignity. God’s way of acting reveals to Mary her supreme dignity. Fra Angelico wanted to show her in her beauty, before which the angel bows in reverence, almost in adoration. Chaminade also saw reflected in Mary the beauty and immense human dignity of someone showered with God’s respect and love.

Inspired by contemplating the Annunciation, Marianist educators understand that their task is something divine. In a way, they see themselves reflected in the persona of the angel. Like the angel, they feel sent by God, in their case, to help their students discover their dignity and their vocation. And they go about doing this just as the angel did in the Gospel story. Thus they take care to make sure the first message the student perceives, at their first interaction is the same as the one the angel transmitted to Mary in the name of God: “Rejoice, favored one., I am with you. Do not be afraid because you have a place in my heart; I love you.” This divine mode of entering into the life of another inspires the teacher’s own way of educating. Permit me to point out some of the particular characteristics of the Marianist style of education which flow from this.

o      Marianist education flows from the heart and is based on respect and love.

It is enough to recall some passages from the Constitutions our Founder left to us Marianist religious in a marvelous chapter about education.

On the students’ behalf, the religious permeates himself with the sentiments of the Savior and with all the tenderness of Mary. Regardless of their number, he expands his heart to include them all and to carry them with him unceasingly. (art 259)

The manner of teaching religion is one of the objects of the method (meaning the “method of instruction”)… But the religious who follows the method and the regulations exactly is convinced that no method, however ingenious, or any exercise of piety, can inspire religion in children. This happens only when the teacher’s heart is full of God and in sympathy through charity with the hearts of his pupils. (art 260)

It is evident that for Chaminade, Marianist education derives its inspiration from the behavior of the loving God who was made manifest to Mary and became incarnate in the humanity of Jesus.

o      From this deep love and respect for the person, given that person’s own uniqueness and freedom, Marianist education is developed in and for dialogue.

Respect for the dignity and freedom of the person leads the Marianist educator not only to respect individuals, but to love them and to interact with them as God does. That interaction, from love and respect, requires dialogue instead of imposition, and collaboration instead of authoritarianism. Let us listen to our Founder in his Constitutions.

God is patient, calling several times without being deterred by refusals; God awaits the hour of repentance, and while waiting God preserves with the same goodness those who offend him and those who serve him. This is what the religious does in the education of children; he does not expect to see them suddenly reach the perfection of the evangelical virtues; he does not lose sight of the fact that it is his task to sow and not to reap. (art 261)

[The religious] is careful above all not to reject as bad what is not absolutely good; we do not all received the same measure of graces and the same destination. It is enough for everyone to be as God wills him to be. (art 262)

This type of interaction with the pupil, from love and respect, requires dialogue instead of imposition, collaboration instead of authoritarianism.

Dialogue is not the same as verbal contest or debate. It is a walking together with another in search of truth and from respect for the other’s dignity and freedom, renouncing the preconceived notion of being right and the desire to impose that judgment. It is not a sign or manifestation of relativism, nor does it lead to that. In education we do not make dialogue our method because we are confused or disoriented and do not know where to find the truth. As believers and educators, the truth guides us. If this were not so, we would be neither believers nor educators. If we dialogue, it is because we do not own the truth and, even less, the way the truth is communicated. The truth is free and can only be communicated in freedom to the free will of the person who receives it. Because this is the case, the only attitude that resects this dynamic and its possibilities is dialogue.

o      Marianist Education is integral, that is to say, it is aimed at the whole person.

Marianist education concerns itself with all the aspects that make up the person as such, the intellectual but also the physical and spiritual. God searched out Mary, the person, the integrated woman. God did not appeal only to her mind (God is not an idea, an abstract concept), or to her heart (God is not a sentiment). God is life in all senses. Therefore, God appeals to the mind, the heart, and also to the body of Mary, with all her femininity, with all her generative capacity as a woman.

To educate is to form persons, to develop in them all the potential with which they were born. It is more than instruction. In education, instruction is important—that is, the transmission of knowledge and instrumental aptitudes that enable all people to function in the environment in which we live. Instruction aims at the development of intelligence, skill, and knowledge. But the human person is more than intelligence. An identity as this or that person, a way of being and being in the world, of interacting with our surroundings, depends not only on our knowledge. Many other factors come into play: our conception of the meaning of life, our values, sensibilities, and habits Education cannot neglect these, it must integrate them into its task. Hence the insistence of Chaminade from the beginning of his work: “The Society of Mary teaches only to raise souls in a Christian manner” (art 256). Or to put it another way, we Marianists are not mere teachers, but educators.

o      Marianist education adapts to the person’s concrete situation, in accord with that person’s circumstances.

In the story of the Annunciation, God does not communicate with humankind in general, or with an abstract model of womanhood, but with a specific woman, in specific geographic circumstances and a concrete cultural context. Her name is Mary. She is young. She is Jewish, and she lives in Nazareth, in the time of the Roman Empire, “in the days of Herod,” to be more exact (Lk 1:5).

Marianist education also attempts to direct itself toward specific, individual people, in their own circumstances. These circumstances change from one place to another and from one time to another. From this that we draw another of its characteristics and its goals: “to educate for adaptation and change.”

Once clearly grasped, the principles of education can no longer vary; however, the procedures by which they are applied and the methods of teaching must necessarily follow the progress of human societies and be adapted to their needs and their wishes. To establish as immovable principles the forms and methods would be to limit to a very short time their usefulness and their existence. (art 267)

Not only do the times change, but cultures change. Education for adaptation includes education to live authentically in a culturally pluralistic society, in which it is necessary to interact with people who are different.

2)      The second fundamental anthropological principle of Marianist Spirituality is the key role of faith in the development and in the mission of the human person.

Offering himself with deep respect and love, God looks for acceptance by humanity. God desires a free gesture of openness and of trust on the part of humanity, a “yes,” which fortunately could be found in Mary. As I have previously explained, we see Mary in this story as the believing woman. She is the true icon of faith, a faith that consists above all in trust in God, in God’s promise, and in God’s word. “Let it be with me according to your word,” Mary said to the angel (Lk 1:38).

In the story of the Annunciation, if we turn our gaze toward Mary we will understand what faith is. In essence, this faith is much deeper than what we usually mean when we speak of “religious” faith, of the faith of a believer. It is not an adherence to a creed, a set of truths proposed by a religion. In Mary, we understand that genuine faith is an existential attitude, not only religious but also deeply human, an openness to the “Other,” with capital letters. It is to allow this “Other” with capital letters to enter into my life and make it as much that Other’s as it is mine. Through this faith, Mary opens her life to God and interacts with God in the generation of the new man, a new humanity.

In our world, sometimes faith is criticized on the grounds that to give our life over to another is alienating. But to believe in someone, to place our faith in someone, is not alienating. It is not faith, not the act of believing, which can alienate us, but the relationship in which we believe, the relationship to which we give ourselves when we believe in someone or something.

Christian anthropology is based upon the principle of relationship. It is true that the human person does not create itself by itself. We are the fruit of the relationships we live, that we have lived, and that we go on living. Certainly there are relationships that are oppressive or alienating and those that destroy the person. How many people are ravaged by indifference, neglect, injustice, tyranny, or violence! But, thanks be to God, there are also liberating relationships, those which draw forth the best of our human possibilities, going beyond what is purely instinctive. These are relationships based on mutual love, a mutual surrender which always seeks the good for the other. Family relationships, friendship, brotherhood, and committed couples are examples of this when they are based upon love. Far from being alienating, these relationships are indispensable in our lives. Without them, we could not know our dignity or develop as persons.

Therefore, the possible alienating factor is not the faith itself, but the relationship to which we have surrendered. In Mary, we see that faith in God, who loves us and gives himself to us, is not an act of depersonalization or alienation, but completely the opposite. From the mutual interaction between the faith of Mary and the power of the Spirit, a new humanity springs forth—Jesus, the man, the New Adam of the new creation. In this way, Mary reaches the fullness of her being and fulfills her own mission in the world and in history.

So with its gaze set on Mary, Marianist education will proclaim as one of its most important purposes, “to educate for formation in faith.”

From all we have said, we can conclude that this formation in faith demands the following.

o      Forming in openness to the other

This is the immediate and logical consequence of what we have just said. To form in faith, we must form to openness to the other, to God (the “Other” with capital letters) and to the neighbor (the “other” with lower case letters). Both openings go hand in hand, as the Gospel shows us. We cannot love God without loving our neighbor, and vice versa. Marianist education should help people to decentralize themselves, to focus on the relationship of love which comes to us in the Gospel and which we have seen reflected in the Annunciation.

o      Formation in and for personal relationships

One of the most important characteristics of Marianist education, “to educate in family spirit,” has its raison d’être here. To create a true family relationship in which the person grows and develops as such-—this is an educational imperative when it comes to education in faith. On the one hand, family spirit fosters and promotes the openness, trust, and commitment which is the basis of faith; on the other hand, it is the fruit of that faith, openness, trust, and commitment that promotes family spirit.

From this principle flows the importance Chaminade gave to community in his mission. Community is the essential context for formation in faith, and at the same time it is the visible fruit. Therefore, we strongly affirm in our Rule of Life that in our mission, “Our primary objective is formation in faith. In particular, we aim to motivate and train apostles and to foster communities of dedicated lay people” (RL, art 71).

o      Attention to a deep and correct intellectual formation, in which reason may fully develop its potential without ignoring its limits at the same time.

Father Chaminade has already warned that “The importance which the Society gives to Christian education does not lead it to neglect instruction; on the contrary, because a person can give an education only on the occasion of instruction, the Society places even more interest in the good management of its schools and in the perfectimg of its methods because it desires even more to extend the benefits of Christian education to a very large number of pupils” (art 266).

Marianist education seeks excellence in knowledge, trying to educate wise people, without forgetting that truly wise people not only know many things, but above all they know the limits of that knowledge—that is to say, these people know how they know, and how far their knowledge can take them. With that knowledge, the true sages keep their reason always open to the “Truth,” in capital letters, which always exceeds and transcends them. Supported by the condition of reason, Marianist education is characterized by offering a solid theological formation cultivated in the dialogue between reason and faith, between faith and culture.

o      Promote the Christian life in its integrity as a life called to seek fulfillment, entering into and collaborating in God’s redemptive plan for humanity.

Education in faith is not limited to simply promoting an attitude. Marianist education is also concerned about the fruit of faith—that is, the Christian life in all its dimensions. As we have already seen in Mary, faith involves and commits our entire life, and our life reflects this. Thus, education in faith does not end with good intellectual training, with the teaching of theology. The Christian life is not made up solely of knowledge, but it also cultivates a personal relationship with God (prayer) as well as action, commitment in service to others. In our Rule of Life, speaking of our mission Marianists affirm that “We are committed to the multiplication of Christians, forming persons and communities in a lived faith expressed in service responsive to the needs of the times” (RL 63).

The Christian life is a life oriented toward the neighbor. In the story of the Annunciation, we see repeated once again a principle present in all manifestations of God throughout history. This principle is that God does not want us for himself, but for others. If God offers himself to anyone who might accept this offer, it is for the purpose of transforming that person into an instrument for bringing salvation to others. This is how it was with Abraham, with Moses, with David, with the prophets; this is how it was with Mary. The story of the Annunciation ends with Mary’s hurried departure to visit Elizabeth. People who accept being “touched” by God cannot remain closed inside themselves. To believe and to place ourselves at the service of others go hand in hand.

With her faith, Mary surrenders her entire being and her entire life to the service of a mission: to open the doors of humanity and of history to the Kingdom of God, the promised Kingdom (“The Lord God will give him the throne of David, his father,” said the angel to Mary” [Lk 1:32]), the long-awaited Kingdom, the kingdom of justice and peace, the, kingdom that became present in the person and the life of Jesus, whom she engendered, educated, and served.

From this important aspect of the life of faith, Marianist education draws another of its principal characteristics and goals: “to educate for service, justice, and peace.”

After this contemplation of the Annunciation, we can more completely understand the scope and implications of what we Marianists say in our Rule of Life: “Our primary objective is formation in faith” (RL 71).

As we have seen, Mary’s faith, that which confidently opens us to the God revealed to us in the Gospel, is the indispensable condition and means necessary to perceive the full dignity contained in a human being and what is that person’s rightful place in the world and in history. “In order to attain this objective,” the Rule of Life goes on to say, “we work at the direct proclamation of the gospel and also at the enrichment of culture and the transformation of society in accord with the message of salvation. Faith leads us and the apostles we form to conversion of heart and to unity with those who struggle for justice, freedom, and dignity; it moves us always to work for peace through reconciliation and healing of peoples and communities” (RL 72).

3. An Answer to the Educational Challenges of Our Time

Two hundred years after the revolution in France, in whose land our Marianist charism developed, we are living another revolution with as much, or even greater, cultural and social impact. No one is unaware that we are going through a time of profound crisis in the conception of the world, of humanity and our relationship with our surroundings. A new form of civilization is emerging. As in the time of Father Chaminade, this new reality has a dual impact—on people and on institutions.

Regarding persons, the apostasy and rebellious unbelief which prevalent during Father Chaminade’s time has given way to what is perhaps even worse: indifference. On the issue of faith, the problem is no longer responding to questions raised by reason (giving rise to all of the apologetics of the 19th and 20th centuries), but rather the problem of even raising the questions so they might have the possibility of being addressed by a believer. People of today no longer rebel against the faith or even question it; they simply place it in the margins, and they remain indifferent to it.

The present institutional crisis is also evident. Whether we begin with the family or with the State, institutions are in crisis. What is becoming of marriage and parenthood except a game of private impulses, without a structure to give them form, without institutional commitment? What is becoming of social institutions and policies that keep the state functioning? When we look at the landscape of public administration, it is easy to see that it is no longer focused on the social question of the common good, but is concerned only with financial administration, the sole purpose of which seems to be financial gain. The last generation of true politicians, in the full sense of the word (managers of the “polis”) ended in the last quarter of the last century. And what about the Church? Just remember the results of opinion polls, especially among young people. As is seen in sociological studies, “They believe, but do not belong.”

The institutional crisis drags along with it a crisis of belonging which seriously affects the individual person. The person remains isolated, without external points of reference and without relationships which, as we have seen earlier, are formative.

Faced with this crisis, institutions are disorientated, perplexed, and do not know how to cope. Preoccupied with the fear of bad press, they focus all their efforts on image campaigns. They think the problem is that they do not know how to present themselves, that they do not know how to explain; but the problem is something else, and much more profound. The problem is a loss of meaning.

After the French Revolution, with the deification of reason over faith, people rejected any meaning that did not have its foundation and its source in reason itself. This opened a new era in history, that of the pride of reason in which the people, liberated from any other protection beyond the self, tried to construct that very self and the surrounding world from their own subjective knowledge and logic. The historical experience of the two centuries since then has shown humanity the lights of this pretention, but also, and above all, the shadows.

With the exaltation of reason came the uncertainty about meaning. What is worse, also the tyranny of ideology, absolute and closed systems of thought which were imposed by violence and force, stifling freedom. The two world wars demonstrated the irrationality of human reasoning, and the fall of the Berlin Wall dealt the final blow to the little prestige that was left to the ideologies which sought to explain the world.

As with the “modern” person who emerged from the French Revolution, the “post-modern” person, the one who emerges from this recent history, remains a person whose referent is the self, who looks within the self for meaning and the reason to exist. But, tired of—and I would add “disappointed by”—reason and logic, these people live lives devoted to feeling and the senses or, plain and simple, to sensuality. For them there are no longer “reasons,” but only “opinions,” whose truth is not based on objective reality (not even pretending to do so), but on the mere perception of internal sentiments. “That is your opinion; I have mine.” The only real world is that of inner feelings, and in these truth and meaning reside. And if reality does not correspond to what is felt internally or desired to be felt, for that there is a technique to fix it.

Post-modern people no longer believe that the power to dominate and deal with reality lies in reason, but rather in technique. They live obsessed by it and committed to it, to anything that will give them the capacity to manipulate reality, without asking themselves what this reality is or what it requires of them. Life is thus converted into a type of computer game with which they pretend that the virtual reality has ended up dominating what is real. The highest goal is to have the tools to do it, namely the economic means, and the technique to achieve it. The question is no longer “why” and “for what purpose,” but “how.”

From this self-referential attitude, today’s person designs and even programs personal social networks, apart from the institutional social networks. “Chats,” “blogs,” and “Facebook” and the like within the vast virtual network replace family, neighborhood, town, and even the community. The socialization of the person is not carried out in relationship to the real world surrounding that person. Rather, people project their own network and choose from within themselves. Institutions which used to provide socialization (family and school, especially) sense how their influence has been diminished and weakened or has even disappeared. We have the feeling of being in the midst of a confused world in which we do not understand one another because we do not belong to the same social network—we do not speak the same language.

In light of all this, as we said in the previous section, we clearly see that today’s educational effort needs to be concentrated on setting people free from the prison of subjectivism in order to return to the relational world, from which they cannot escape without condemning themselves to perdition. After the assassination of Abel, Cain became a solitary wanderer. "You will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth,” the Lord said to him (Gen 4:12). And at that moment he realized that by killing his brother, he had condemned himself. “Anyone who meets me may kill me,” he acknowledged in anguish (Gen 4:14). Those initial accounts of Genesis admirably show a fundamental anthropological truth: in breaking with God and killing his brother, Cain remains merely self-referenced and is lost, condemned to hide, to “clothe himself," to defend himself, to protect himself. The two great questions of God to the man thus lost continue to resonate in the history and in the life of each one of us: “Where are you?” (Gen 3:9) and “Where is Abel, your brother?” (Gen 4:9). As we have seen, the human person is a being in relationship; we become ourselves within that relationship, and therefore we deny our very self when we are locked within ourselves and project the world from within ourselves.

As Marianists, we affirm that the only means we have to release modern people from their self-absorption is to lead them to discover that full realization happens by recovering that “basic” relationship that is the only thing that can make them true persons: that which seeks only the good of others, that which is offered without overwhelming, that which is requested without dominating, that which gives without asking anything in return, and that which always respects the freedom of the other. In a word, that which is offered to us in the love of God.

It is evident that a return to Mary in the episode of the Annunciation and Incarnation of the Son of God has become quite urgent in our day and age. It is and will always be the root story of salvation, the one that began the evangelization of the world. And if the return to Mary is essential today, it is equally essential to once again promote true, Christian communities, as areas in which the love of God is alive, is evident, is celebrated, and is served. In short, it is the scope of communion in the Spirit, in which everyone experiences and lives as true sons and daughters of God, and therefore as universal brothers and sisters.

Dear friends, this time in which we live is more of a disappointment than a rebellion. Disappointed by so many empty words and so many failed projects, people of today have chosen to close in on themselves. But that is not their real home. As prodigal children, they will miss the Father’s house. Moreover, there are already symptoms, believe me, that they are beginning to miss their Father’s house. But when they freely decide to return, they need to find the true house of the Father waiting for them, and not that of the older son. They need to find a community, a Church, which is regenerative, maternal, and Marian. Marianists can, and we must, make every effort that it will be that way.

Mary, Inspiration and Model       For the Christian Educator - Manuel Cortés, SM

Sixth International Congress of Catholic Education for the 21st Century On Faith and Education

Universidad Católica San Vicente Martir, Valencia, April 11, 2013

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the San Vicente Martir Catholic University of Valencia and, in particular, to the organizers of this Sixth International Congress of Catholic Education for the 21st Century on Faith and Education for having invited me to share with you some reflections on the Christian educator in the light of the contemplation of Mary, the mother and therefore the educator chosen by God for his Son. You can easily understand that given my status as a Marianist religious, consecrated to the Lord and at the service of the Gospel in an Institute whose mission is above all educational and Marian, for me this is an honor, a joy, and a great satisfaction to have been offered this opportunity.

What I share with all of you today is nothing more than a simple evangelical contemplation of Mary, the fruit on the one hand of the Marianist charismatic tradition which from its origins has always understood its mission as a call to prolong Mary’s educational mission in history, and on the other, of the experience of the challenges our world poses to education. I hope that I can help you to deepen the Christian sense and modus agenda [method of operation] of this most important and noble task of those who are educators of children and youth, a task to which all of us here are committed.

1.      Justification of the Contemplation of Mary from an Educational Perspective

The person of Mary occupies an eminent, unique, and unavoidable place in our Christian faith. From the Gospels to the present day, the Church has not ceased to consider her place and role in the history of salvation as one of the fundamental keys to a correct understanding of the core truths of our faith: Christ, the Spirit, the Church. From the very origins of Christianity, tradition has had to approach it to shed light on such important aspects of revelation as the mysteries of the Incarnation and the Redemption, or that of the action of the Spirit in the new covenant of God with humankind.

There are many different motives, and so many other perspectives in approaching Mary. Today we approach her to enlighten our very being and our mission as Christian educators. Therefore, our interest in her person is necessarily more anthropological and pedagogical than theological. Now, is it justified to approach her from this perspective? Why? What is the basis of our claim to seek in her the light to illuminate our educational task?

We begin by recognizing that all education emanates from anthropology. If education attends to the integral formation of the person, it is clear that it depends on the notion of “person,” the concept of what people are and what they are called to become. It is clear that behind the task of education there is always an anthropology that inspires it. Therefore, we have as many types of education as we have anthropologies, as there are conceptions of human beings. Education is never neutral. It is always at the service of a determined “vision” of the person and the meaningfulness of that person. Good educators are conscious of the anthropology they serve, and they act in union with it. A good educational institution always explicitly expresses its educational vision and ensures that the different forces at work within it are united with that vision.

We can speak, for example, about “Christian education.” We understand, therefore, that it extracts from the Gospel the anthropology that inspires it. This anthropology is not contained in a philosophical manifesto, but in a concrete human life, that of Jesus. For the Christian, God’s revelation in the person of Jesus is not only a revelation about divinity and things divine, but it is also (and I dare even to say “before all else”) a revelation about being human. Let us recall in this regard the categorical words of the Second Vatican Council.

The truth is that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of humanity take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of him who was to come, namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear. … He who is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15) is himself the perfect man. To the sons of Adam he restores the divine likeness which had been disfigured from the first sin onward. Since human nature as he assumed it was not annulled, by that very fact it has been raised up to a divine dignity in respect to us, too. For by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, he thought with a human mind, acted by human choice, and loved with a human heart. Born of the Virgin Mary, he has truly been made one of us, like us in all things except sin.

All of us human beings, not only Christians, are called to discover in Jesus “the way, and the truth, and the life” of our humanity. “Here is the man!” Pilate will say when presenting Jesus to the people. In him we contemplate the fullness of what it means to be a human being and, therefore, the point of reference for all our work in education.

Now, anthropological reflection on Christ, the revelation of what it means to be human, cannot ignore a very important fact: this man is “the son of Mary.” This fact becomes particularly relevant when, as in our case, the interest guiding this reflection is educational. The Son of God became human in the womb of Mary. The Father entrusted to Mary the mission of bearing him and of forming him as a man. Together with Joseph, she created a human family in which the New Adam, as “one of us,” found the appropriate educational environment. “He went down with them and went to Nazareth and was obedient to them... And Jesus increased in wisdom and age and in divine and human favor,” as Luke points out in his Gospel. By a singular vocation, she (Mary) saw her son Jesus “growing in wisdom, age, and grace.” In her lap and then listening to her, throughout the hidden life in Nazareth this son, who was the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, was formed by her in the human knowledge of Scripture and history of God’s plan for his people, and in the adoration of the Father.

Thus the Christian educator cannot fail to refer to Mary. Without her maternal and educating function, Jesus, the “new man,” would not have happened in our history. Therefore, if what is involved in Christian education is to continue to generate and educate the new humanity of which Christ is the firstborn, Mary must be taken into account. “She is the first educator, that of Jesus, the Son of God incarnate, and of Jesus within us, she is the supreme educator,” one of the great Mariologists and scholars of our Marianist tradition wrote more than half a century ago. And he concluded accordingly, with a lucidity that does not lack a certain audacity, “She is the raison d’être of the all other educators because without her Son and the one who gave him life, there would be no human creatures to educate.” Not because the population would have ended (obviously this is not what the author means), but because without Christ and without the woman who bore and educated him as a human being, we would have been without the necessary anthropological references, without a point of support, and without direction in our educational work.

Christian educators find in Mary the icon of their own identity as such. Their mission in this world is only the prolongation of Mary’s mission. In order to generate and educate the children of God, brothers and sisters of the firstborn, to continue in history God always needs Mary’s action. Christian educators (parents, teachers, catechists, teachers, pastors, etc.) are called to continue this, to follow it up by being and acting in the world as Mary did. By considering themselves associated with Mary in her mission, Christian educators discover all the meaning and value, all the dignity and greatness of their task in God’s plan. “For Christian educators, this collaboration with the mission of Mary is simultaneously a source of greatness and responsibility. This is an incomparable greatness, for a person is to be associated with the very mission of Mary, to make poor human creatures live the very life of Christ, to help the Virgin lead that life to its full development! What can be more wonderful than cooperating with her in the generation and growth of Jesus in souls, to make of them another Jesus?”

From all we have been saying, an evident conclusion follows: Christian education, if it is to be such, must continue to reproduce the traits of Mary in present-day history. The face of Christian education must necessarily be Marian. Therefore, all Christian educators need to seek and know her face, to model themselves as such in her image and likeness. So let us open the Gospel and contemplate Mary. We find her present and acting in different ways and in different episodes. Today I propose that we focus on three of these: the Annunciation, the Wedding at Cana, and the Loss of Jesus in the Temple.

2.      In the Genesis of the “New Man”

The “new man” is begotten in the mystery of the Incarnation, narrated in the story of the Annunciation in the first chapter of the Gospel of Luke. From the outset it may seem odd to say that this episode veils an anthropological revelation, but if we stop to analyze it calmly, we will see that yes, it does contain this, and in addition, we can deduce from this episode the two great anthropologic principles which sustain Christian education and, therefore, the characteristic principles which define it.

The first fundamental anthropologic principle in Christian anthropology, and therefore also in education, is the supreme dignity of the human being.

We deduce this principle from the way the human being is sought out and treated by God, in the person of Mary. From this anthropological principle, revealed in the way God seeks out Mary and enters into her life, we can deduce some educational principles that cannot be lacking in Christian education.

-      Christian education springs from veneration and respect for the human person.

The relationship of the educator to the student, as in the image of God’s relationship with Mary, must be rooted in God’s love for the student and consequently is always imbued with the same respect for the dignity and freedom of the student.

-      Christian education is integral. That is, it is oriented toward the person in his or her integrity and cares for all the aspects that make up the person as such: the intellectual, but also the corporal and the spiritual aspects.

-      Christian education is adapted to the specific condition of the actual person, in their particular circumstances. It is not generic, but personalized and incarnated.

The second fundamental anthropological principle of Christian education is that faith is key in the development of the human person and in the discernment of his or her mission in the world.

Looking at Mary, we understand what faith is. In its essence, this faith is something much deeper than what we usually understand when we speak of "religious" faith, the faith of a believer. It is not an adherence to a creed, a set of truths proposed by a religion. In Mary we understand that faith, at its root, is an existential attitude of openness to the other. It is to allow that other to enter into my life and make it as much his as it is mine. Through this faith, Mary opens her life to God, the Other in capital letter, and interacts with him in the generation of the new man, the new humanity.

As we contemplate Mary in the Annunciation, we understand not only what faith is, but we also perceive its essential role in the generation of Christ. Mary’s faith was the human prerequisite of the Incarnation. “By her belief and obedience,” says the Vatican Council, “she brought forth on earth the very Son of the Father.” Thanks to her response of faith, the Son of God is an event, is history ... and humanity is thus rescued. The “new man” appears, begotten in Mary’s faith. To keep generating this person, God continues to look for faith. Faith, then, is not something accidental or added to Christian education, just one more section in the curriculum. It belongs to the very heart of it. The person who seeks to educate is generated in faith and develops in faith.

Now, we know that faith is not the fruit of human pedagogy but a gift of God, a grace. In itself education, however good and Christian, cannot guarantee the transmission of faith; but it can and must guarantee the formation of the person capable of faith. We will not always find faith in the learner, and therefore we may not always be able to educate in the faith, but we can and should always educate for faith. In other words, Christian education will always pay attention to the development of the aptitudes and capacities that open the human person to a true relationship of faith with God, to that relationship which is manifested to us in Mary.

Therefore, here are some of the most important aims and traits in any Christian educational project.

o      Formation in openness to the other...

o      Formation in and for personal relationships. A healthy relational atmosphere in which the person grows and develops as such is an indispensable educational medium for the education of faith. We will discuss this more extensively later.

o      Attention to a deep and correct intellectual formation, in which reason may fully develop its potential without at the same time ignoring its limits. Christian education does not aim at ignorance, of course, but quite the contrary. It seeks excellence in knowledge, trying to educate wise people, without forgetting that the truly wise person not only knows many things but above all knows the limits of that knowledge; this is to say, these people know how they know, and how far their knowledge can take them. With that knowledge, the true sage keeps his reason always open to the “Truth,” in capital letters, which always exceeds and transcends it. Supported by the condition of reason, Marianist education is characterized by offering a solid theological formation, cultivated in the dialogue between reason and faith, and between faith and culture.

o      Promotion of the Christian life in its integrity, as a life called to seek fulfillment, entering into and collaborating in God’s redemptive plan for humanity. Education in faith is not limited to simply promoting an intellectual attitude. As we have already seen in Mary, faith involves and commits our entire life, and our life reflects this—a life oriented toward our neighbor. In the story of the Annunciation, we see repeated once again a principle present in all manifestations of God throughout history. This principle is that God does not want us for himself, but for others. If God offers himself to a person who may accept this offer, it is for the purpose of transforming that person into an instrument for bringing salvation to others. This is how it was with Abraham, with Moses, with David, with the prophets. This is how it was with Mary. The story of the Annunciation ends with Mary’s hurried departure to visit Elizabeth. Those who accept being “touched” by God cannot remain locked inside themselves. Believing and placing ourselves at the service of others always go hand in hand. Hence the importance of education for service, justice, and peace in every Christian educational undertaking.

3.      Mary, the Teacher of Faith

In the gospel, Mary is not only the picture of the believer, the image of faith. Her mission is not merely to serve as an example of the believer, but also to stimulate and educate faith. There are, above all, two gospel episodes that contemplate Mary “on a mission.” In both, Mary’s action has as its effect the emergence of faith in those she addresses. One is the visit to Elizabeth, which provokes the first confession of faith in Luke’s Gospel, the recognition of Jesus as Lord through his mother: “Who am I that the mother of my Lord should visit me!” exclaims Elizabeth upon hearing Mary’s greeting. The other is the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana in John’s Gospel, a sign which causes the faith of his disciples to begin to grow. “This was the first of the signs that Jesus accomplished in Galilee; thus he manifested his glory and his disciples believed in him,” the evangelist writes.

Today, let us pause in this last episode to contemplate it from the perspective of Mary’s educational mission—a perspective which, in my opinion, is not entirely foreign to that of the evangelist himself. We could say that in this episode the Beloved Disciple contemplates Mary in action, fulfilling the mission entrusted to her by Jesus in his “Hour” of redemption when he gave him to her as his mother. It is not foolish to understand it thus. In a way, the Gospel of John is a gospel that can be read backwards, from end to beginning; it is even more enlightening to do so. Fundamentally, in chapters two to twelve, the Jesus who speaks and acts is more the Risen Lord than the Jesus of Nazareth. His miracles, few and very well chosen, are contemplated not so much in their actuality as in what they “mean,” as authentic “signs” of the new times begun by the Lord’s Passover when the Hour arrived. And among them, “the first of these,” as this same evangelist stresses, is the sign of the Wedding at Cana. On the third day, after the time of organizing the group of his disciples —this is a sign of what would happen to that other “third day” as the time of the Church begins, that of the superabundance of grace, the fullness of the marriage of God with his people.

Contemplated in this way, the account of the Wedding at Cana shows us the Woman and Mother (John never calls her by name) in fulfillment of the maternal, educational mission received from Jesus in the supreme “hour” of redemption (“Woman, here is your son” ) and allows us to capture how she achieved this. In my opinion, there are four features of her being and her actions upon which I invite you to focus your attention as educators: antecedent presence; compassionate and hopeful attention to poverty; zeal for faith—obedience to the word of the Lord; and the generation of the universal community of the Kingdom.

(a) “Antecedent Presence”

“On the third day, there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding.”

I have always been surprised by this beginning, in which Mary is presented differently from the way Jesus and the disciples are presented. These come invited; the mother of Jesus “was there.” She is part of the wedding, and her presence precedes that of Jesus and his disciples. Before “the sign” happened and gave an abundance to the wedding, Mary “was there,” in this wedding which was going become frustrated by the lack of wine.

If we stick to its literary form, the story makes us see that Mary is not a stranger to that frustrating reality; she does not come from outside. Neither is she there with a passive, merely invited presence. We see her going into action. And it is her action from within the banquet that saves it from becoming a frustration. Giotto emphasized this feature in his fresco Wedding at Cana, in the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua. Unlike most painters, who in contemplating this episode focus their attention on the relationship between Mary and Jesus and place them together, Giotto places them at opposite ends of the table, where she faces the servants she sets in motion.

If from the literary sense we rise to the theological, we can say that with his “was there” the evangelist presents Mary as belonging to the Old Covenant, which has become barren, but emerging from it as the first believer of the New. By virtue of her faith, of her recognition of Jesus, the New Covenant makes fruitful the Old. Thanks to Mary, who “was there,” thanks to her faith, the presence of the Lord becomes active and changes the ill-fated story of that banquet into a story of abundance. We can say that her presence thus becomes a turning point between the old and the new economy, between old and new humanity. Following the footsteps and teaching of Giotto and deepening the geometric perspective which he had so innovatively developed in his art, Giusto de Menabuoi (another mater, also in Padua but this time in the baptistery of the Cathedral) would place the banquet table in a clear “L” shape and Mary at the central corner, wearing a dress with its two halves of different colors, white and red. Let us pause for a moment with this image.

In this anterior, “antecedent” presence, which places Mary on the threshold between the old and the new, between needy humanity and the superabundance of the grace offered in Christ, we can see perfectly reflected the position of the Christian educator. No one knows as well as the educator what it is to move along the frontier between the failure and the triumph of humanity, between its punishment and its fulfillment. On the one hand, the educator knows the world, is immersed in it, in its culture, in its tendencies, and in its pretensions. On the other hand, the educator is a believer who knows that the way, the truth, and the life are in Christ. On the one hand, the world wants the educator to serve its interests. On the other hand, educators know those interests are not always in the service of God’s plan. It is not easy for educators, but with Mary and like Mary, they need to be there if they want this world to be open to faith.

This frontier position of the educator between culture and faith requires a great lucidity—especially in today’s world, where the border has become an abyss. “It is not oceans or immense distances,” said Benedict XVI, “that challenge the heralds of the Gospel, but the boundaries resulting from an erroneous or superficial vision of God and humanity; these stand between faith and human knowledge, faith and modern science, and faith and the commitment to justice. Thus the Church urgently needs people with a deep and sound faith, a well-grounded culture, and genuine human and social sensitivity, religious and priests who dedicate their lives to being on these very frontiers to bear witness and to help people understand that on the contrary, there is a profound harmony between faith and reason, between the Gospel spirit and thirst for justice and initiatives for peace. Only in this way will it be possible to make the Lord’s true face known to the many for whom he is still concealed or unrecognizable.”

“Being there,” integrated, has its risks, its dangers from which it is not always easy to escape. Solid and deep faith, serious culture, authentic human and social sensitivity—a good description of the qualities necessary in the Christian educator in order to live with and as Mary did, in her “antecedent presence.” Without them, their “being there” would not be significant; it would be a diluted presence which does not point to the Lord, does not precede him. It would no longer be “antecedent.”

(b) Compassionate and hopeful attention to poverty

“When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine.’”

The presence of Mary is vigilant and attentive, as befits the believer. Her faith shines a new light upon the situation in which she finds herself and gives a singular penetration to her gaze. It makes her clairvoyant. Thus she grasps the true deficiencies, those that prevent the wedding from concluding the feast with a fine banquet—those deficiencies, in short, that make it impossible for the Kingdom of God to be manifested with all its glory.

At the same time, her presence is “compassionate,” that is, lived in the solidarity of the one who “suffers with.” The deficiencies awaken in her the memory of her own. She herself is also in need, poor. But although compassionate, she is hopeful, open to hope because she has experienced in her own flesh how the Lord turns poverty into wealth when through faith we abandon ourselves into God’s hands. This is why she addresses him, saying, “They have no wine.”

At this time, when our own needs and the needs of others needs become more evident to us, whether they are social, ecclesial, or personal, it helps and comforts us to contemplate Mary’s attitude from this perspective. “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted—these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts.” These words which begin Gaudium et spes express the identification of the Church with the attitude of Mary we are contemplating here. Identified with her, the Church understands that her mission in the world is to be present in it with that special Marian sensitivity because of its deficiencies, and for those who suffer them.

In our world’s “banquet,” those deficiencies are abundant and manifest. No deep analysis is necessary to realize our humanity’s need for all those signs of the kingdom that happen with the coming of the Son of God into the world—peace, justice, brotherhood, forgiveness, reconciliation, solidarity, respect for the life and dignity of every person ... in a word, the love that comes from the Father. Through this mission in service of the human person, Christian educators are sensitive to these shortcomings and cannot fail to be so; they cannot help feeling concerned by them, as Mary did.

To be Marian, an active attention on the part of the Christian educator must be in solidarity with the needs of our world. Fortunately there are enough people in the Church and the world, although never a sufficient number, who are sensitive to its needs and even active in the commitment to remedy them, but few who do so from the experience of solidarity. Many of them are sensitized from the outside to this “true neediness”; few are incarnated within it. There are enough willing to act like “parents,” coming from outside, but few to act as “brothers and sisters,” from within. And this action must also be hopeful, full of hope, of the true, of what today’s world especially needs. With their eyes on the needs, there are many who denounce and few who announce; there are many who feed false hopes, and few who point the way to the true. Today’s people need educators who, like Mary, know where and in whom the true hope is to be found.

(c) The zeal for faith-obedience to the word of the Lord

“His mother said to the servants, ‘Do whatever he tells you.’”

With these words Mary opens the way of faith, and with faith she opens the shortage to the true hope, the deficiency of wine to the possibility of enjoying something better; even more significant, she makes it possible for the glory of Christ to be manifested and for him to be recognized as Lord, as savior, as the one and only true hope.

It is interesting to note that although on her part Mary’s words suppose and imply the believer’s recognition of the lordship of Jesus, they do not make it explicit or propose it first to those who are addressed. Mary’s words are a pure and simple command to obey his words (“Do whatever he tells you”), in which it is not difficult to recognize the echo of that “let it be with me according to your word” by which God entered into her own life and into her being, transforming her virginity into motherhood. Mary knows from her own experience that there is no manifestation of God without obedience to God’s word; that faith-obedience is a precondition for access to the grace of faith-recognition; in other words, that in order to reach the experience of the Magnificat, we must pass through the “yes” of the Annunciation. To fill the jars with water by obedience to Jesus’ words and to fill them up to the top, when what is expected is wine; to cast the net for fish when we have spent the night without catching a single fish, just because Jesus says it; to hand over the piece of bread and the few fish we have for ourselves because Jesus requires it to feed five thousand; to remove the stone from the tomb, obeying his command even though the dead man already has an odor ... so, and only thus, through faith-obedience to his word, is how people can open themselves to the saving action of Christ, experience it and come to recognize him as the Lord. “And he manifested his glory, and his disciples believed in him.”

In my view, here the Christian educator finds a very important lesson for the task of educating in faith, a task to which we alluded earlier. Contemplating this intervention of Mary at Cana, we see that in order to lead “the servants” to faith in Christ, she does not proceed from the explicit announcement of who he is in order to provoke faith-obedience to his word, but rather she does the opposite. She begins by provoking faith-obedience, thus allowing the word of Jesus to show all its regenerating power and consequently testify for itself who this one is who has pronounced it. Mary’s pedagogical path in faith education is more factual (“doing”) than doctrinal. Whoever does not listen and obey the words of Jesus Christ cannot have access to knowledge of him because they do not allow Christ to manifest himself, to reveal who he really is. “The steward tried the water turned into wine without knowing where it came from (the servants did know).”

Christian educators know from experience that to induce faith-obedience or, what is the same thing, the obedience of faith, is not easy in a world that proclaims the sovereignty of the self and considers every act of obedience to another to be alienating. But educators also know—and see this clearly in Mary—that far from being alienating, the obedience of faith is necessary for the development of the person. We are the fruit of the relationships we experience, those we have experienced and those we continue to experience, and every human relationship is based on an act of trust, of faith in the other. It is true that there are oppressive, alienating relationships which destroy the person. How many people are torn apart by indifference, abandonment, injustice, tyranny, or violence! But thanks be to God, there are also liberating relationships which cause the emergence in us of the best of our human possibilities, beyond the purely instinctive. Those are relationships based on mutual love, on that mutual surrender which always seeks the good of the other. Without them we can neither know our own dignity nor develop as people. Mary experienced in her own flesh that faith in God who loves us and surrenders himself to us, not in an act of depersonalization, of alienation, but quite the opposite.

(d) The generation of the universal community of the Kingdom

“After this, [Jesus] went down to Capernaum with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, but they did not stay there for many days.”

The first effect, and therefore the first sign of the new “wedding banquet,” is the generation of the community of the Kingdom, the emergence in the world of a new, integrating, and universal community. Integrating, because Jesus arrived at the “old wedding” with his disciples, with that “new family” that had been formed around him before that “third day,” and leaves the “new wedding” having integrated in it the “old family,” his mother and his brothers. And while integrating, the new community is geographically universal. Of course it is embodied in a space, Capernaum, but it does not lock itself away in it. “They did not stay there for many days.”

This last verse of the account of the Wedding at Cana clearly refers us to that first Christian community in Jerusalem described by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, in which the mother of Jesus and his brothers are incorporated, to which the Lord is “adding” those who are converted to him—that is, those who believe in him. The new community offers the world the testimony of the “new banquet,” in which there are no longer any needy people because no one considers their property their own, because everything is held in common, because communion reigns within it, “one heart and one soul.”

The community is a reality inherent to the gospel. At the same time, the community is its fruit and its essential context. The education of the faith of the believer cannot take place outside of it, or that of any other person if they wish to develop as such. Human beings are is formed in relationship with others and reaches their fullness in communion with others. Becoming our brother in the Son is how God revealed to us that we are called to a universal community, one which goes beyond the bonds of blood or race and embraces all humanity.

The Second Vatican Council strongly emphasized the communal character of humanity. As God did not create humanity for life in isolation but for the formation of social unity, so also “it has pleased God to make us holy and save us not merely as individuals, without bond or link between them, but by making us into a single people, a people which acknowledges God in truth and serves God in holiness.” So from the beginning of salvation history God has chosen us not just as individuals, but as members of a certain community. Revealing his mind to them, God calls these chosen ones “my people” (Ex. 3:7-12), even making a covenant with them on Sinai. This communitarian character is developed and achieved in the work of Jesus Christ, for the actual Word made flesh willed to share in the human fellowship. He was present at the wedding at Cana, visited the house of Zacchaeus, and ate with publicans and sinners. He revealed the love of the Father and the sublime vocation of humanity in terms of the most common of social realities and by making use of the speech and the imagery of plain, everyday life. Willingly obeying the laws of his country, he sanctified those human ties, especially family ones, which are the source of social structures. He chose to lead the life proper to a craftsman of his time and place. In his preaching, he clearly taught the children of God to treat one another as brothers and sisters. In his prayer, he pleaded that all his disciples might be “one.” Indeed, as the redeemer of all, Jesus offers himself for all even to the point of death. “Greater love than this no one has, that a person lays down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Jesus commanded his apostles to preach to all peoples the message of the Gospel, that the human race was to become the Family of God, in which the fullness of the Law would be love.

Christian educators cannot overlook this fundamental anthropological trait in their educational task, especially in a world like the present, in which individualism and the confinement of the person within himself or herself presents a serious danger.

A sign of this withdrawal of the person into self, as well as a cause and effect of this, is the current crisis of social institutions, from the basic institution of the family to the state and the churches. What has becoming of marriage and parenthood but a game of private impulses, without a structure that gives them body, without institutional commitment? What is becoming of the social and political institutions which sustain the state? When we look at the panorama of public administration, we find it has ceased to be centered on the social question of the common good, and has been reduced to financial management, whose only purpose is economic profit. The last generation of true politicians in the full sense of this word (the managers of the “polis”) ended in the last quarter of the last century. And what about the Church...? Just remember the results of opinion polls, especially among young people. As sociologists often say, “They believe but do not belong.” In other words, they do not reject faith but have no confidence in institutions. The crisis of institutions carries with it the crisis of belonging, which seriously affects the person. The person is isolated, self-referenced, i.e., without external reference points and therefore without the relationships that, as we have seen, form it as such.

From this self-referential attitude, today’s individuals project and even program their own social network, apart from institutional social networks. “Chats,” “blogs,” Facebook, Twitter, and other networks within the large virtual network replace the family, the neighborhood, the town, and even the community. The socialization of the person is not realized in the relationship with the surrounding, physical world. Individuals project their own network and choose it for themselves. Institutions that seek to accomplish a person’s socialization (especially family and school) feel how their influence diminishes, weakens, or even disappears. There is a growing feeling of being in the middle of a confused world in which we do not understand each other because we no longer belong to the same “social network”; we do not speak the same language.

In the light of all this and in the light of everything we have been saying about Christian anthropology, it is clear that our educational efforts in today’s world must be centered on releasing the person from the prison which this subjectivism creates to return this person to the relational world, from which people cannot withdraw without condemning themselves to perdition. After the assassination of Abel, Cain became a solitary wanderer. “You will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth,” said the Lord. And at that moment Cain realized that by killing his brother, he has condemned himself. “Anyone who meets me may kill me,” he admits in anguish. The initial accounts of Genesis admirably show a fundamental anthropological truth: in breaking with God and killing our brother, we remain centered upon ourselves and are lost, condemned to hide, to “clothe ourselves,” to defend ourselves, to protect ourselves. The two great questions of God to humanity, thus lost, continue to resonate in history and in each of our lives: “Where are you?” and “Where is Abel, your brother?” As we have seen, we are people in relationship, developed in relationship, and therefore deny ourselves when we lock ourselves within the self and project the world merely from this self.

In our duty to form the person as a social being, called to develop and to attain completeness in fraternal communion with others, we Christian educators have a difficult but important challenge in today’s world: to free people from the “cocoon” of individualism, leading them to discover that their full realization is to recover that “founding” relationship which is the only one that makes them truly a person, one who seeks only the good of the other, one who imposes himself or herself without overwhelming, who gives without asking anything in return, and who always respects the freedom of the other. In a word, all that which is offered to us in the love of God.

One of the most urgent tasks for Christian education today is to educate in and for communion, in and for the construction of true Christian communities as environments in which this love of God is lived, recognized, celebrated, responded to, and served—in short, environments in which each person can experience and live the condition of a child of the Father and, consequently, as a universal brother or sister. This time in which we live is more a time of disappointment than of rebellion. Today’s individual, disappointed by so many hollow words, by so many failed plans, has chosen to close in upon himself or herself. But this is not a real home. Like the Prodigal Son, this person will again long for the Father’s house. In fact, there are symptoms already, believe me, that people are starting to miss it. But when they freely decide to return to it, they need to find the true house of the Father (not, of course, that of the “elder son,” by the way), an authentic kingdom community, a regenerative, maternal, Marian Church. Christian educators are called to bring all their educational endeavors into play so this might happen.

4. Mary, the Educator Disciple

Finally, in our journey of contemplating Mary I invite you to dwell on the second chapter of the Gospel of Luke, and in particular on the episode of the loss of Jesus in the Temple, an episode with which the evangelist concludes what has come to be called “The Infancy Gospel” of Jesus.

In this second chapter, following the Marian triptych of the first (Annunciation, Visitation, and Magnificat) which we have already contemplated, Luke shows us a pilgrim Mary, on the way from Nazareth to Bethlehem, from Bethlehem to the Temple of Jerusalem, from the Temple of Jerusalem to Nazareth, from Nazareth again to the Temple, back and forth… with a very important fact to bear in mind: along that route and in the events that mark it, she is no longer the protagonist. Now the protagonist is the Son. She is not the one who traces the route; the path is that of the Son. He is traveling in obedience to the Father, who is like the “driver in the shadows.” Mary travels it too, but behind the Son, in his following. The events of the Son’s life will lead her to discover the true meaning of the words of the angel at the Annunciation, in the plan of God what that throne and that endless reign really were which the angel had promised for her Son and what all this would imply, not only for the life of her Son but also for her own. Mary shows herself here as a true disciple. Luke admirably sketches her position as such by presenting her “surprised” and “astonished” at what was happening, step by step, until the final episode of the loss of and reunion with Jesus in the Temple, in which her own Son reproaches her for her ignorance, leaving her perplexed. “When his parents saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, ‘Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been looking for you in great anxiety.’ He answered them, ‘Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ But they did not understand what he said to them.” The message is clear: although the Father has placed the life of the Son in her hands, she does not own it or govern it. That is the Father’s business.

This contemplation of Mary reveals to the Christian educator an important principle which must never be forgotten. We do not own the student. Our function is not that of the sculptor, who shapes his work into the image he desires. Every person is singular, unique, created and called by God to develop a particular mission in the world, to walk their own way and attain their own destiny.

This fundamental principle prolongs and completes that first anthropological principle of the supreme dignity of the human person which we deduced from the contemplation of Mary in the genesis of the “new man.” From it we can continue to extract other characteristic features of Christian education; these extend and complete those we pointed out there, and in this case these refer above all to the way in which the educator must live it.

o      Christian education is an exercise of personal accompaniment along the path of life.

Like Mary, Christian educators do not know and do not understand the student’s path in advance. They will discover it as they walk with the student. The function of the educator, therefore, is not that of guide, but of companion. It is this companion on the road whom students need at their side to teach them to be a good traveler, to know how to see the road, to discern the goal, to interpret the signs, to overcome the difficulties, to orient themselves at the crossroads, to avoid obstacles, and to persevere along it. From their experience along their own path and in accompanying others on their own, educators have become an expert in the paths of life, but they are not the ones who lead the students. They do not move ahead of the students, but walk next to them. Their own path is not that of the student. The student’s is always new to the educator.

It is not easy for the educator to accept this principle and act accordingly, just as it is not easy to venture forth to walk along unknown paths. It involves sacrifice. It presupposes being willing to go out of ourselves and to risk our own lives, to face moments of doubt, disorientation, perplexity, darkness, suffering, or of a sense of failure, as we have seen that Mary needed to face in her relationship with Jesus. Hence it is not easy to find educators who have understood and assumed their status as travelers “with.” There are those who because of fear or error give up being true educators, allowing the learner to walk alone, in a vacuum, for life. Unfortunately today, in a culture such as ours which denies its roots, in a society without reference, such people abound. They are the cause and at the same time the victims of this principle, so widespread in our time, so seriously threatening to education and therefore to the individual person. We could formulate the principle this way: in order not to condition the student, the educators do not try to “educate,” they just instruct. On the other hand, there are also those who, on the contrary, protect themselves from the inclement weather and the insecurity of walking “alongside” by way of power and dominion, confusing education with imposition and obedience with submission.

o      Christian education is exercised in dialogue.

From this condition of companions who respect the personal vocation and place themselves at the service of it, Christian educators always prefer dialogue to imposition, mutual collaboration to authoritarianism. Dialogue moves away from verbal strife, from argumentation as a power struggle, and from pure and hard dogmatism. This is a walking alongside the other in search of the truth, renouncing being right ahead of time, and from respect for the other’s dignity and freedom imposing this without losing sight of the fact that educators do not appropriate the dialogue as method because they are disoriented, without a compass, and do not know where the truth is found. True dialogue does not spring from relativism, and it does not lead to it. The truth guides us as believers and educators. If not, we would be neither believers nor educators. However, we do not own the truth, much less how the truth communicates itself. The truth is free and only communicates itself, in freedom, to the freedom of the recipient. Thus the only attitude that respects and enables its own communicative dynamic is dialogue.

o      Christian education is lived out in prayer.

As we said above, if the Christian educator feels sent by God as the angel at the Annunciation was sent, to help students discover their dignity and their vocation; if, as we have just seen, the educator is a companion on the way in the search and pursuit of what God desires for the student, the status of educator as such places this person in the position of disciple and apprentice; if the educator is not the leader, but a human servant of a plan which ultimately is divine and has in Christ its “foundational” point of reference, the Christian educator needs to live out this task through prayer. The educator needs a praying heart like that of Mary. “For her part, Mary kept all these things in her heart.” “His mother kept all this in her heart,” repeats Luke as he contemplates her taking the surprising and “questioning” path of the Son. In prayer, in allowing our life and our experiences resonate in contact with the Word of God, we Christian educators find the light and the encouragement needed to live the mission and, simultaneously, the nourishment of our own formation as educators and as Christians.

We have been accompanying our Marian contemplation with some significant works of pictorial art so what we are saying emerges not only from the text but also from the image, and this will remain engraved both on our retinas and in our minds.

I leave you with another of these. This time it is one of the last paintings of Simone Martini, in which through the attitude of each of the three characters in the scene the artist traces a masterful and very personal contemplation of the reunion of Jesus with his parents after he became lost to them in the Temple. The contrast between Joseph and Mary is immediately striking. Joseph, in the last plane of perspective, is standing, in a higher position and somewhat above the other two figures. The artist reflects his indignation, his reproach, even his anger. On the other hand, Mary is in the lowest position, sitting and occupying the lower left corner. The artist knows that the adult spectator, a parent or an educator who already knows the story now completed, will spontaneously sympathize with Joseph. But he wants us to turn our gaze to Mary, placing her in the foreground of perspective and in direct relationship to Jesus—who, curiously enough, seems to disregard Joseph. Mary and Joseph had sought him out, “distressed.” Like Joseph, she also may have been outraged and even offended. But the artist sees it differently. She is not the one who reproaches, but who receives the reproach of Jesus. Humbly sitting before the Son, in the position of the disciple before the teacher, with the book of the Word of God in her lap where she has so many times held the Word made flesh, Mary is listening; she lets herself be challenged, while she herself questions and asks, inquires, and discerns. In a word, she is praying. The evangelist tells us that both she and Joseph “did not understand his response.” We find very different feelings and different reactions occur when we do not understand what is happening to us in our lives and our work. The artist leaves the perplexity to Joseph and instead, contemplating Mary, he recreates her acceptance and openness to allowing herself to be instructed by the Lord; with great depth and mastery, he is giving us an image of what Luke wants to show us about her when he repeats, “His mother kept all these things in her heart.” Mary’s wonderful example is a challenge for the Christian educator.

We have reached the end of the road. We began by asking whether it is justifiable to turn to Mary for some light on Christian education. Once again, as always when we draw near to her, we can say, using an expression of Saint Bernard, that we have rediscovered her as a “sparkling and singular star over the great and spacious ocean of life,” and in a particular way today, of the life of the educator. And once again we have seen the profound wisdom contained in this counsel of that great contemplative of Mary.

All of you, who see yourselves amid the tides of the world, tossed by storms and tempests rather than walking on the land, do not turn your eyes away from this shining star, unless you want to be overwhelmed by the hurricane.

If temptation storms, or you fall upon the rocks of tribulation, look to the star. Call upon Mary!

If you are tossed by the waves of pride or ambition, detraction or envy, look to the star, call upon Mary.

In dangers, in anguish, in doubt, think of Mary, call upon Mary.

Following her, you will not stray;

invoking her, you will not despair;

thinking of her, you will not wander;

upheld by her, you will not fall;

shielded by her, you will not fear;

guided by her, you do not grow weary;

favored by her, you will reach the goal.

Characteristics of Marianist Education. Reflections on Their Application Today At the High School Level in the USA - James Heft, SM

August 2015

Preliminary Reflections

I believe that now is as good a time as any to offer an interpretation of how the Characteristics of Marianist Education (CME) might best be interpreted and applied in our highly commercialized, media saturated, and pluralistic culture. Originally written 20 years ago for a global audience of Marianist educators, the characteristics need to be applied in ways which truly engage local cultures in their actual forms. In the following five pages, I will offer a personal interpretation—no more than that—of how I think each of the characteristics might apply at the high school level today. My purpose is simply to renew a discussion of how well we meet the challenges posed by any attempt to implement the Characteristics of Marianist Education. Others may see other applications. All suggestions are welcome.

The Necessity of Enculturation

Alisdair MacIntyre, the Catholic philosopher, famously described a tradition as a socially embodied and historically extended argument. Philosophers, of course, are prone to argue. Traditions take many more forms than that of an endless argument. Those forms include celebrations, art, ways of thinking and governing, architecture, technology, and assumptions about what is most important in life. But if it is a living tradition, one that has vitality and nourishes one generation after another, it needs to speak persuasively to each generation within its distinctive culture. To relate a universal message to a local culture at a specific time is not as easy as it might seem. As Bob Dylan reminds us, “The times are a-changin’.” Therefore, traditions need to exist in a process of constant adaptation, without losing their core convictions.

Tradition Versus Traditionalism

It might be useful here to recall that there is an important difference between a tradition and traditionalism. Tradition is the living faith of the dead, while traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. Tradition is the living faith of the dead in that even though it was lived by those who are now dead, some even long dead, it continues to give life today.

By contrast, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living. It is frozen, lifeless. It simply repeats itself, oblivious to the changing circumstances which might call for a fresh application. In 1864 Pope Pius IX condemned religious freedom. Why? Because those who were promoting it attacked the Catholic Church by claiming that religious freedom meant people’s freedom to believe whatever they wanted, and they stressed opposing many of the claims of the Catholic Church. One hundred years later, Vatican II endorsed religious freedom. Why? Because the Church said no one should be coerced in matters of religious belief. A different historical context required a different understanding of the same phrase, “religious freedom.” In 1864, those calling for religious freedom were attacking the Church; in 1964, the Church was affirming that no one should be forced to believe.

“Inculturation”

In recent years, the Church has described this process of interacting with the culture as inculturation. In this process, the Church learns from as well as challenges the culture. Christians need to be in the world, but not of it. But if they are not “in it” in some real sense, how can they speak to others who are? Wouldn’t they just be, well, “out of it”? On the other hand, if they are only in the world, they have no good news to bring to it. Being “with it” is not always a compliment. Good teachers meet their students where they are, but they never leave them there. If it is to remain living and vibrant, the Marianist tradition of education must engage the local culture, both to learn from and to challenge it. When that continuing process is thoughtful, then we speak of a living tradition, not traditionalism.

The Necessity of Adaptation

The United States has a Constitution and a Supreme Court. A constitution, however well-crafted, cannot anticipate every situation in which it must be applied. Nor are its basic affirmations (e.g., “all men are created equal”) fully understood or fairly applied when originally written—as we have so painfully had to come to grips in the mid 19th century with slavery, the various forms of racism that afflict us still today, and the rights of women. Given how circumstances can vary, judges need to make prudential judgments (“jurisprudence”) to ensure that the law’s application is just. Indeed, sometimes even new laws are passed. The same is true with Church law and teaching. Saint John Paul II, in his preface to the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, wrote that the catechism was not meant to replace the local catechisms written for the more specific application in different countries.

In our culture, a great deal has changed since the characteristics were drawn up. We need go no further than to recognize the consequences of the internet, social media, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the power of globalization, the incredible advances in genetics and neuroscience, and the polarization of public discourse, to say nothing about the continuing violence worldwide, and especially in the Middle East. Also, the best ways to apply the Characteristics in India will be different than in New York. The way to understand formation in faith will be different in Japan than in Chile. The next few pages represent an effort on my part to suggest some ways the five characteristics might be applied today in our high schools in the United States (although they too are different: affluent or poor, African American or white, Hispanic or Anglo, or various mixtures).

The original text of Characteristics of Marianist Education generously offered between four and seven ways to understand what each of the characteristics means. I will focus more sharply on a few I believe are most important today in U.S. Catholic and Marianist high schools. For each of the five, I will quickly summarize the original emphases and then move to a more focused, contemporary application. Our culture poses particular challenges: religious pluralism, secularism, the powerful entertainment culture, the privatization of religious beliefs and practices, and finally, widespread religious illiteracy. In commenting on each of the five characteristics, I will refer to Steve Glodek’s helpful recent book, Marianist Praxis (North American Center for Marianist Studies, 2012), in which he offers a short description of what the characteristic means today. Brother Glodek was the provincial of the former New York Province and the first provincial of the new American Province of the United States. His applications are worth keeping in mind, as will be those of others who enter into this important process.

The 2012 General Chapter of the Marianists offers one more example of “inculturation.” About fifty Marianists from all over the world met for three weeks to read the “signs of the times.” They then asked themselves how our Marianist tradition might respond to those signs in the most relevant way. The delegates acknowledged that religious pluralism exists in our own institutions. They also acknowledged the religious illiteracy of most Catholics and called for a “new evangelization”; many Catholics who have been Baptized have not undergone a basic conversion to Jesus Christ. They called Marianist educators to engage positively the religious and cultural diversity of our collaborators, all the while keeping clear our Catholic and Marianist mission. The chapter called for educators who are skilled in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. “One of the most effective ways to pass on the beauty of our own Catholic faith and Marianist Charism is to respect others who are of a different faith.” How to respond to the religious pluralism of our collaborators and students is one of the major challenges we face today.

Conclusion

Finally, board members are in charge of policy. To fashion good policy, they need to have a good sense of what is going on in the school. So one key question is, “How can board members know what is actually going on in the school with regard to these characteristics?” In short, to what extent are the Characteristics of Marianist Education ... characteristic?

1.      Educate For Formation In Faith

1996 Emphases

“A personal and committed faith which touches the heart.” Young people have “a mission to form others in faith.” “Promote a faith-and-culture dialogue.” “From the perspective of the gospel.” “Form students in the gospel’s values and Christian attitudes.” “Foster a free and authentic response to the gospel’s call.” “Bear witness with a faithful commitment to the Church.” And “Make present the example and influence of Mary.”

Glodek’s Interpretation

“They (Marianist educated people) have a basic, critical understanding of the tenets of the Catholic faith. They understand the Marian dimension of this faith and experience Mary as a model of Christian discipleship. Their study has helped them to achieve a correctly formed conscience. They pray daily, and they exhibit Christian attitudes in all their relationships and behaviors. They are people of integrity, honesty, fortitude, and justice in their personal and community lives.”

Further Considerations for Today

The 1996 text of Characteristics of Marianist Education presumed that most everyone in our schools were Catholic; it rarely emphasizes the importance of knowing the tenets of the Catholic faith, as Stephen Glodek, SM, recommends. It repeatedly refers to “gospel values” and the “gospel’s call”—meaning, I presume, being an authentic Catholic. What is missing is the awareness of the degree of religious illiteracy and religious pluralism, or to put it another way, the “education” necessary for formation in faith. Formation in faith is not just information about the faith. To be formed in the Catholic faith must also include practices, such as prayer, the reception of the sacraments, practices of building community, skills in leadership, and so on.

To what extent do our educators teach a clear understanding of Catholicism, as well as of other forms of Christianity and of other religions? Do our educators keep talk about faith “generic,” so as not to “exclude” anyone who is not Catholic or Christian? To what extent do our religious educators know of the extensive dialogues between Catholicism and other Christian Churches, and with other religions? Do we emphasize only what religions have in common, and not their differences? How significant are those differences? What difference does Jesus make for Christians, as distinct from Jews and Muslims? How rigorous are the curriculum and the course expectations in religion? What do our educators teach about Mary and her “apostolic mission”? About Father Chaminade and the Marianists? What religious practices are fostered?

2.      Provide An Integral Quality Education

1996 Emphases

Educating “the whole person.” The promotion of a “solid liberals arts education,” along with professional and technical education. Teaching styles that take into consideration learning styles develop habits of silence and reflection. The evaluation of “technology as a tool, useful in the stewardship of the world’s resources and the service of humanity.” And finally, following the example of Mary at Pentecost, educators are to “collaborate in the Church’s evangelical mission.”

Glodek’s Interpretation

Our graduates “leave a Marianist educational environment proficient in basic academic or technical skills. They understand the interconnectedness of the various academic or technical areas of study which they have pursued. They are capable of critical thinking and are able to apply this critical thinking to the dialogue between faith and culture as it will apply to their lives in the future. It is the expectation that they will have acquired some basic leadership skills which they can successfully apply in their families, church communities, and society. They enthusiastically embrace lifelong learning as a gift for their future.”

Further Considerations for Today

There are at least three reasons the liberal arts are of special importance today. First, given the dominance of social media, skills for writing and self-expression have atrophied. Second, a Catholic tradition, which includes important liturgical rituals for creating and sustaining community, weakens when individuals (readers, singers, musicians, and speakers) lack the skills to communicate and celebrate and know little of that tradition’s rich musical heritage. Catholic schools should be distinguished by their artistic, musical, and dramatic programs. It is one thing to send a text electronically; it is quite another to speak face to face from the heart. Third, United States culture is enthralled with technology and promotes the study of “useful” subjects. Catholic schools, however, should be known for their success in teaching the importance of the word—spoken, written, and performed. Without such skills, technology lacks its appropriate but secondary role within the human community.

It should be asked how well the school teaches writing and public speaking. How often are the students given the opportunity to lead their peers and encouraged to lead in their parishes and religious communities? Are they taught not only what to study, but how to study? How much reading is required? Writing? Are most exams only “objective,” with no essays? Do teachers make connections between different subjects? If ignorance of history is being condemned to repeat it, how much history is taught in such a way as to give students a perspective that being only contemporary never provides?

3.      Family Spirit

1996 Emphases

A school that fosters “a climate of acceptance, discipline, and love ... a second family.” “All members of the educational community ... communicate respectfully.” “Clear lines of authority and respect for the principle of subsidiarity.” Schools with “a democratic and harmonious atmosphere.” “Religious and lay Marianist communities ... should be a source of family spirit and a model of Marian virtues.”

Glodek’s Interpretation

“They are capable of developing balanced interpersonal relationship and successfully maintaining those relationships. They understand and have some personal experience of community. Their personal experience of community has taught them the importance of community for ongoing personal development. They have come away from their Marianist educational experience with some basic skills in the formation of community, in whatever circumstances they will find themselves. They have commitment to and have skills in ‘staying at the table’ when relationships or community life are strained by conflict.”

Considerations for Today

One of the most ironic images of today is a small table at which four students are sitting, none speaking to the other but each glued to their iPhone. As Brother Glodek suggests, skill in the formation of community require some “basic skills,” among them “staying at the table,” presumably talking and listening to each other. How do we teach our students to communicate not just information, but also themselves? How do we teach them to avoid cliques, to reach out to the loner, to take the initiative to overcome misunderstandings? How do we teach our students to avoid bullying, “sexting,” and rudeness? It has been widely documented that media addiction weakens interpersonal relations.

Given the degree of fragmentation in the culture and in the family, how do we enhance emotional intelligence, the desire to trust others, the capacity to make judgments that are loving and still truthful? In an age when as much at 30% of internet traffic is pornographic, how to do we help students use media in ways that strengthen their self-respect and dignity?

4.      Educate For Service, Justice And Peace

1996 Emphases

“Drawing on every available educational resource, we work to transform our schools into living testimonies to the new evangelization.” We therefore “give a certain priority to the direct service of the poor ... through establishing educational institutions directly serving the poor and by preparing people for genuine service to the economically disadvantaged.” “Marianist schools promote women’s equality ... and “acquaint students with their local communities and create the sensitivity and skills they need for future leadership.”

Glodek’s Interpretation

Our students are “willing to share themselves and their material possessions with others. They have been taught the basics of Catholic social justice doctrines and have promoted justice in their interpersonal and professional relationships. They are capable of identifying both the persons suffering injustice and some of the systemic structures that cause injustice. They demonstrate a willingness to work with others to change unjust structures. They are able to resolve personal and professional conflicts in a nonviolent manner.”

Considerations for Today

The 1996 text emphasizes serving the poor; Glodek emphasizes correcting social injustices. The more affluent a school’s student body is, the more difficult it is promote Catholic social teachings (CST), those teachings based on Catholic theology: the dignity of every human being; that no one should have more than they need when others do not have what they need; respect for the environment; and a commitment to education for the poor, which is arguably the best way to overcome poverty. How well do our schools communicate Catholic social teachings, often referred to as “the Church’s best-kept secret”? Do our faculty know and accept these teachings? How many of our faculty and students know the position of the Catholic bishops on immigration, health care coverage, economic justice, and “just war”? Are these political issues in which the Church has no competence?

Does an emphasis on Catholic social teachings inevitably lead to conflict? Are high school students even ready to take on critical analysis of society as a prelude to organized action? Should they be? Or are our schools concerned first to prepare students to score well on tests which will get them admitted to the college or university of their choice? We need to remember that what we teach in our schools should never be partisan politics; at the same time, if the Gospel does not have some political impact, it is anemic. Jesus was especially concerned about the poor. He was not crucified because he pleased those in power. Needless to say, this Catholic Marianist Education is very challenging.

5.      Educate For Adaptation And Change

1996 Emphases

Father Chaminade famously said that “new times call for new methods.” It is necessary that “school personnel employ new types of learning and new technologies to enhance their administration and teaching.” Students need to learn how “to appreciate cultural difference and how to work with people very unlike themselves.” Marianist schools “encourage the study of foreign languages, along with international student and teacher exchange programs, especially within the Marianist educational network.” “The Marianist school, itself a communal learner, discerns what present needs call for, open to adapting Marianist pedagogy as needed in the service of our mission.”

Glodek’s Interpretation

Students “leave a Marianist educational environment with the ability ‘to read the signs of the times’ and to critically evaluate the need for and the steps toward positive change. They have the basic leadership skills to engage in collaborative efforts for positive change in society and in their personal lives. They can critically evaluate and use technology and understand its disposition to embrace change and to be a positive agent in the community for change.”

Considerations for Today

Our own time is arguably a time of very great change. Just ten years ago, who would have predicted that the people of Ireland would overwhelmingly vote for gay marriage? Who would have predicted that over the past 50 years that the average size of the family in the United States (recent immigrants excluded) would change from 4 to 1.7 children? Who would have predicted that since Vatican II, the number of religious sisters in the United States would decrease from 185,000 to 68,000? Who would have predicted the creation of the internet? Who would have predicted that interracial marriage (illegal until 1967) would be as common as it is today? And who is surprised that the average American spends at least eight and a half hours a day in front of a screen? Which of these changes should be applauded? Which should be resisted? Which are dangerous?

How do our educators teach students the proper use of technology, as a support but not a substitute for speaking, forming community, taking time to get to know other people, and fostering practices of silence and self-reflection? Thomas Merton once wrote that “when things come at you very quickly, naturally you lose touch with yourself.” What are the skills we need to remain in touch with ourselves? With God? With others? In this environment, how do we teach students to conduct themselves?

Interpretations and Adaptations of The Characteristics of Marianist Education To the French Context - Bernard Vial, SM

Summary of Conferences Given to Teachers and Educators Since the Publication of the Characteristics of Marianist Education (1996 to 2010)

The original document Characteristics of Marianist Education, published in 1996, enumerates the five characteristic traits of Marianist education, each in a different chapter. This approach runs the risk of “leveling” those characteristics, placing them all on the same level; but this is not the way they work. These characteristics form one organic whole, not merely a simple listing.

The reflection proposed here by Fr. Bernard Vial, SM, shows, rather, the internal logic and dynamism of the Characteristics of Marianist Education. Father Vial is a French priest who handled the leadership of Marianist schools for 27 years. As such, he was a regular speaker and writer about Marianist education. Let us try to explain the content of all this reflection.

1.      The Beginning Postulate

A pedagogy presupposes a certain conception of the human being. Article five of Characteristics of Marianist Education summarizes clearly the anthropology which will undergird the philosophy of our idea of education. “Each person has been created in the image and likeness of God. Basically good, the human person is also weakened by sin and must acquire good habits through personal discipline. Nonetheless, human worth is inherent and not reducible to occupation or achievement. Endowed with intelligence and freedom, a person becomes more fully human by serving and loving in community” (CME, § 5).

•      Because we are created in the image of God, every person has a unique, non-interchangeable value which cannot be reduced to an economic and cultural usefulness. Every person is a “crèche where God wishes to be born.” Therefore, each person is entitled to an immense respect.

•      Everyone is weakened by sin—that is, marked by its limitations and by its primeval anarchy. Education necessarily involves opposition to instinctual tendencies. It cannot permit laxity or be a solitary matter. Education is not only accompaniment, but also a direction and pruning. Asceticism is the necessary path for access to trust, the key to a genuine interchange between people, and to interiority, the key to happiness. Education therefore involves a certain discipline to observe and to make observed.

•      The person is communitarian. We discover our originality, our own unique value, and our blossoming in our relationships with those around us. Education cannot be reduced to individual development; it is the constructing of a social person. Being communitarian, the person is a being capable of love.

From this initial postulate comes the architecture of Marianist pedagogy and the set of the five educational characteristics.

2. Using the Five Characteristics

1)      To begin: an educator is animated by faith. Marianist educators look at the world with the eyes and heart of the creator on the evening of each day of creation. When this is the case, their hearts are shaped by the good news, and God identifies “his cause with the cause of humanity” (Letter of the Conference of Bishops to the Catholics of France).

o      We love the world in which we live and react spontaneously in an appreciative way, without renouncing our critical sense; we can be tired the end of our career, but never bitter or deadened, completely happy with the enrichment which we have experienced day after day.

o      Living in a world that juxtaposes different traditions, cultures, and political systems, educators are people of dialogue, tolerance, and openness; they prepare young people to take up today’s great challenges; educators know children have one desire, to become “big” in the image of the “big people” they see; educators educate more by who they are than by what they say.

o      Because educators are profoundly free in head and heart, they know how to educate the young to freedom; like Mary, the Mother of Jesus, we do not impose our own idea of what the children should be, but we efface ourselves before their vocation, which we help them to discover by giving them the instruments to achieve it.

2)      Educating involves a vision, that of guiding children to become more than they are at the point of departure, helping them to discover their potentialities and accompanying them in their development, without any loss (Integral Education). This is understood.

o      The educator creates paths of hope in order to bring about a world in which people will reach their full blossoming. Education is the key to the future.

o      Education is not limited to providing instruction. “By definition, it must awaken the students’ creative powers, provide them with the ability to regenerate themselves, forge behaviors of tolerance and understanding, and provide everyone with the ability to master their destiny” (Frederico Mayor, former UNESCO Director).

o      We do not educate simply for school, or merely for the years spent in school (F. Armentia, SM). As stated in CME § 34, “Because Marianist educational communities exist not only for the benefit of their members, concern for human rights and responsibilities and for the meaning of life permeate the curriculum and the daily life of the school.”

o      Because they see in the boy and girl of today the man and woman of tomorrow, educators are concerned to develop all their latent potentialities: a critical mind, solidarity, care for the environment, a sense of service and generosity, wonder, and a sense of transcendence.

3)      The Path: A School Governed by Family Spirit

This school will produce its fruits of life only to the extent that there will be a climate of formation, a true family spirit, not merely reduced to the harmony of interpersonal relationships. In a family, there are a father, a mother, and children, each with a specific place and role. Diversity, complementarity, and synergy create a strong sense of belonging and a legitimate pride. As in the family, in the school the young person lives with adults in an interactivity where everyone can receive, insofar as they have the capacity and the opportunity to give.

o      A classroom, a school, is always a social place. The educator has a responsibility to make this environment educational, to allow the young person to gain self-confidence, to discover the meaning and pride of belonging, and to play a role that complements those of others.

o      The classroom, the school, is a society with its system: a charter, regulations, class council, school council, pedagogical and pastoral councils, bulletin boards, and disciplinary and relational requirements. This structure is the guarantor and educator of freedom within the society. The system is a common good, and each person has a responsibility to make it all work well. This is the learning of citizenship.

o      The classroom, the school, is a society where young people and adults meet. All the adults have a share of authority, and they are determined to play their respective roles without shirking or demagogy.

o      The school is not a protected society; behaviors, problems, and agents from outside come within its walls. Adults need to ensure that those external factors do not create a replica of the Mafiosi, fascists, the “solely utilitarian” behaviors of the surrounding society with “little internal chiefs” who make the law.

o      The school is a provisional society; the child is not trained just to get along in school, but in future society. This temporary society makes it possible for children to make their “drafts,” to repair errors. They learn forgiveness (received and given) and hope. Thus the school, a provisional society, is the matrix and the indication of the society of tomorrow which will become a society where everyone can find a rightful place.

4)      A society in which the individual can find a rightful place. Preparing for a society of justice and peace means preparing young people to find their places in this society as active, responsible agents in the midst of others, responsible with them and like them. The following are some of the different means.

o      Participate in the creation of one-off projects (a theater play, a spiritual retreat in a monastery, a drawing contest), or a permanent one (belonging to a schola of liturgical chant, a Scout troop, a sports team, a reflection group) by accepting responsibilities, by knowing how to keep commitments, and by discovering a rapport with relatives and friends—projects where students give their word, where they keep their word.

o      Maintain regular and direct contacts with the poorest people (handicapped, sick, ill-housed, elderly people, etc.) either in extra-curricular activities (self-help, charitable organizations, individual projects, etc.), or within the school (reception of mobility impaired or psychologically disabled in the classroom, assistance for students in difficulty, catechesis for the younger pupils, etc.).

o      Learn to understand and to make the functioning of the school as a society work—its structure, its regulations, etc. Learn to respect these, to engage in participation when it is requested—everything that is actual learning about a life of responsibility. “In this small world of the class or the school we progressively initiate the child into the sense of the common good” (Paul Hoffer, SM).

5) Preparing for the society of tomorrow will also prepare for a society of freedom where each person controls his or her destiny. To prepare for a society of freedom is to prepare young people to master their destiny without becoming its blind toy, even by conformity, and to adapt to the rapid changes of our time with reflection and critical thinking.

o      “We accept change in faith, at the same time responding through strategic planning based on Marianist pedagogy and Christian wisdom. For example, fulfilling the school’s mission in changing times requires that school personnel employ new types of learning and new technologies to enhance their administration and teaching. Our intention is not acquiescence to the future, but to the hope-filled shaping of it. We encourage the same attitude in our students, educating them to be bearers of the best of our tradition and to meet change actively with discernment and reflection. We view the signs of our times in faith, prayerfully open to their possibilities” (CME § 65). “New times call for new methods” (Blessed Chaminade).

o      “As the people of the world come increasingly into contact with one another, differences among them become more apparent. If the world of the future is to be peaceful, students of today must learn how to appreciate cultural difference and how to work with people very unlike themselves. To this end, we cultivate in our students both skill and virtue: the skills required for dialogue, consensus, and teamwork depend on the virtues of loving acceptance of others and faithful dedication to a collaborative, honest, and hopeful search for truth” (CME § 66).

o      As Pope John Paul asserts, “Children, properly assisted and loved, can become witnesses and masters of hope and peace for the benefit of the adults themselves” (John Paul II).

o      “In Mary’s fiat, we see her openness to the signs of her times, her “yes” to the mystery of the future. In her counsel at Cana to “Do whatever he tells you,” we hear Mary urging us today to be equally available to God’s call. The Marianist school, itself a communal learner, discerns what present needs call for, open to adapting Marianist pedagogy as needed in the service of our mission” (CME § 69).

o      “Convinced that, in order to influence the world we must know it, we have spent our lives, mingled with all the movements that have influenced the spirit of the time and that have brought about a new order of needs” (Jean Lalanne, SM).

Bibliography

1.       “Source” Documents

Accessible in the three official languages of the Society of Mary and often in others.

-      The Letters of Father William Joseph Chaminade, nine volumes

-      The Chaminade Legacy (Ecrits et Paroles), five volumes

-      The Spirit of Our Foundation, four volumes

-      The successive Constitutions and Rule of Life of the Society of Mary

-      Circulars of the Superiors General

-      Ambrogio Albano, SM (Gen. Ed.), Commentary on the Rule of Life of the Society of Mary

-      Joseph Verrier, SM, Jalons. Jalons d’histoire sur la route de Guillaume-Joseph Chaminade, 4 volumes

-      Antonio Gascón, SM, General History of the Society of Mary (English edition in preparation).

2.      Official Documents of the Church

-      The Acts of Vatican Council II

-      Declarations of the Congregation for Catholic Education, certain papal documents on the topic.

3.      Various Authors (in alphabetical order)

-      Agora marianista, rubrique “Espiritualidad católica marianiste,” accessed January 13, 2016, at: http://espiritualidad.marianistas.org/domingo-lazaro .

-      Alvira, José María, SM. Marianist Education Today, S.M. Three Offices, no. 113, February 15, 2006. Marianists, General Administration, Via Latina, 22, 00179 Rome, Italy.

-      Alvira, José María, SM. Some Considerations and Proposals concerning Education, S.M. Three Offices, no. 126, November 2009. Texts available in Spanish, English, and French at http://marianist.org, accessed December 6, 2015).

-      Anonymous. Manuel de Pédagogie chrétienne à l’usage des frères instituteurs de la Société de Marie. Bordeaux: Imprimerie Gounouilhou, 1856.

-      Anonymous. Manuel de Pédagogie chrétienne à l’usage des frères instituteurs de la Société de Marie, part two, Méthode d’enseignement. Bordeaux: Imprimerie Lafargue, 1857.

-      Barault, Abbé Julien, and Abbé Joseph-Hyacinthe Taillefer. Manuel de l’œuvre des Bons livres de Bordeaux, 1834, with introduction and epilogue by Noël Richter. Bassac: Editions Plain Chant, 1996.

-      Bec, Marie-Joëlle, FMI. Le développement des Filles de Marie au travers des lettres de Mère Adèle, (1816-1828), I. Bâtir sur la croix, p. 5 Document available on DVD at CEFM, Centre Européen de Formation Marianiste, 2015).

-      Bichelberger, Roger, MLC. La spiritualité marianiste et l’éducation, Conférence à l’équipe éducative de Petit Val, Sucy-en- Brie, Septembre 2001?. Copy available upon request from Centre Européen de Formation Marianiste, Bordeaux.

-      Commissione Educazione della Provincia d’Italia. L’educazione marianista nell’opera del P. Chaminade il fondatore. Collana documenti di pedagogia marianista. DPM N. 2.

-      Commissione Educazione della Provincia d’Italia. L’educazione nella regola di vita marianista, Collana documenti di pedagogía marianista. DPM N. 1.

-      Fernández, Felix, SM. Así educan los Marianistas. Atenas, May 1946).

-      Cortés, Javier, SM, Educateurs dans les collèges marianistes, conference given at to the Équipes de Direction, lors de la Rencontre Européenne des Établissements Marianistes. Madrid, October 31, 2009.

-      Cortés, Manuel, SM. Education and the Marianist Spirit (El Espíritu Marianista y la Educación), conference given at the meeting of European Marianist Educators, Rome, October 31, 2012.

-      Cueva, Bernardo, SM. Breve biografía del siervo de Dios R.P. Domingo Lázaro y Castro SM. Madrid, 1987, Pro manuscripto.

-      Gastaminza, Fermín, SM. “Pedagogía marianista,” in volume on Congreso Pedagógico Marianista. Madrid: S.M., 1988.

-      Cousin, Louis, Francisque Gay, Etienne Besson. Comment j’élève mon enfant. Puériculture, éducation, enseignement jusqu’à sept ans. Preface of His Eminence Cardinal [Louis Ernest] Dubois, Archbishop of Paris. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1927, several editions).

-      Giardino, Thomas F., SM, et al. Characteristics of Marianist Education (Rome: Society of Mary, General Administration, 1996.

-      Grupo SM. “nuestra historia” at http://www.grupo-sm.com/grupo-sm/historia-editorial.

-      Grupo SM. Memoria 2014, available online at http://www.grupo-m.com/sites/default/files/corporative_material/files/memoria_sm_2014.pdf

-      Hakenewerth, Quentin W.-J., SM. Réflexions finales, Assemblée Générale des Supérieurs, July 24, 1994, Nairobi, Kenya.

-      Heft, James, SM. Characteristics of Marianist Education: Personal Reflections on Their Application Today. August 2015 (to be published).

-      Hoffer, Paul-Joseph, SM. Pédagogie marianiste. Paris: Centre de Documentation Scolaire, 1957.

-      Hoffer, Paul-Joseph, SM. Rôle pastoral de l’école chrétienne. Paris, 1967.

-      Hue, Philippe, SM. Contribution à la réflexion commune. Rencontre de Sucy [-en- Brie] au sujet des caractéristiques de l’éducation marianiste. 2003, five pages. Text available at C.E.F.M. (Centre Européen de Formation Marianiste), Chapelle de la Madeleine, no. 7, Rue Canihac, 33000 Bordeaux. Available on DVD at the Center.

-      Kieffer, François, SM. L’autorité dans la famille et à l’école. Paris, Beauchesne, 1916.

-      Kieffer, François, SM, Education et équilibre. Paris: de Gigord, 1939.

-      Kessler, Albert, SM. La fonction éducative de l’école: école traditionnelle/école nouvelle. Fribourg Switzerland: Editions universitaires, 1964.

-      Kessler, Albert, SM. In the collection edited by E. Montalta, Travaux de psychologie, pédagogie et orthopédagogie, vol. 5. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires.

-      Kessler, Albert, SM. La valeur éducative et apostolique de l’enseignement. Rome, 1967.

-      Laboa Juan María. Cien años de educación. En folleto del Congreso de Pedagogía Marianista, Madrid: Ed. SM, 1988.

-      Labrador, Carmina. La Compañía de María (Marianistas) in Buenaventura Delgado, Historia de la educación en España y América, vol. 3. Madrid: Ed. SM and Ed. Morata, 1994, 890-95.

-      Lackner, Joseph H., SM. Components of Marianist Educational Culture in a Content Analysis of published Works of William Joseph Chaminade and in Phenomenological Interviews of Persons Designated as Best Experienced in Marianist Education. San Francisco: UMI, 1997.

-      Lalanne, Jean, SM. Notice historique sur la Société de Marie de la Congrégation de Bordeaux, 1858.

-      Laurent, J. [pseudonym of Joseph Kleitz, SM] and A. Prevost [pseudonym of Louis Cousin, SM]. Le tour du monde de Pierre Dubourg, cours moyen et supérieur, awarded a prize by l’Académie des sciences morales et politiques. Iillustrations by G. Fraipont, L. Maitrejean, G. Garcia. Paris: Bloud et Gay, 1925; first edition 1921.

-      Lemaire, Jean-Marie, SM. Guide du maître-éducateur d’adolescents. Paris,1968.

-      Lizarraga, Luis María, SM. La educación marianista. Antología de textos. Madrid: SPM, 1995.

-      Lizarraga, Luis María, SM. Educar. Rasgos de la pedagogía marianista. Madrid: SPM, 1997.

-      Lombardo, Luigi, SM. L’opera pedagogica di J.-P.-A. Lalanne, Marianista (1795-1879): Un precursore del rinnovamento degli studi in Francia nel secolo XIX. Rome, 1935. Doctoral thesis at Università degli Studi di Roma, dactilografiada (Publicada como, L’Opera pedagogica di Giovanni Filippo Augusto Lalanne (S.M.) Marianista (1795-1879. Un precursore del rinnovamento degli studi in Francia nel secolo XIX, Quaderni marianisti, no. 16, Verbania: Marianisti Provincia Italia, 1961.

-      Magnan, Maximin, SM. Three Offices, no. 139. General Administration of the Society of Mary, Rome, January 22, 2014.

-      Magnan, Maximin, SM. Three Offices, no. 141. General Administration of the Society of Mary, Rome, October 2, 2014.

-      Martínez, D. Antonio, SM. Caracteres y notas salientes de la Pedagogía marianista. Atenas, January 1950.

-      Moulin, Charles-Henri, SM, and a group of collaborators. Identité de l’éducation marianiste, April 2016, 868 pages. From the author, no. 44, Rue de la Santé, 75014 Paris. Available on the internet at www.marianist.org

-      Moulin, Charles-Henri, SM. Les indifférents: qui sont-ils et en quoi croient-ils? Mémoire de théologie pastorale, sous la direction de Jean-Marie Donegani, Institut Supérieur de Théologie Pastorale, 2016 (in preparation).

-      Moyer, Isabella, MLC, President of the International Organization of Marianist Lay Communities (IO/MLC). Being Marianist, Being Family, Circular no. 1, 2010. Text available online in three languages (English, French, Spanish) at http://www.clm-mlc.org/home. English text available for download at http://www.clm-mlc.org/ Circulars/Being_Marianist_Being_Family_eng.pdf

-      Otaño, Ignacio, SM. Enseñar para educar. El espíritu marianista en la educación. Madrid: SPM, 1998.

-      Salaverri, José María, SM. Domingo Lázaro. Un educador entre dos grandes crisis de España. Madrid: PPC, 2003.

-      Schelker, Nicolas, SM. La Société de Marie (Marianistes) en Alsace entre 1824 et 1870: Une congrégation enseignante masculine dans l’Alsace française du XIXe siècle. Mémoire de maîtrise d’histoire contemporaine sous la direction de Catherine Maurer, U.F.R. de Sciences Historiques de l’Université Marc Bloch. Strasbourg, December 2003.

-      Vasey, Vincent, SM. Marianist Presence in Education. Gerald T. Chinchar, ed. Dayton, Ohio: North American Center for Marianist Studies, monograph no. 23. Marianist Press, 1979.

-      Vasey, Vincent, SM. Last Years of Father Chaminade (1841-1850). St. Louis: Maryhurst Press, 1969.

-      Verrier, Joseph, SM. “The Entry of the Society of Mary into Primary Teaching,” in Chaminade Miscellany, monograph no. 20. Dayton, Ohio: Marianist Resources Commission, 1975.

-      Weltz, Émile, SM. Les premières œuvres apostoliques de la Société de Marie (1818-1821), in Revue marianiste internationale, 6 (October 1986), 21-30; RMI, 7 (April 1987), 28-34; RMI, 8 (October 1987), 14-27.

-      Zind, Pierre. Les nouvelles congrégations de frères enseignants en France de 1800 à 1830 (thesis). Centre d’Histoire du Catholicisme Français de l’Université de Lyons, vol. **, Cartes, 1969, [For sale from the author at Le Montet, 69-Saint- Genis-Laval; available for consultation at the Provincial Administration of the Society of Mary, no. 44, Rue de la Santé, 75014 Paris.]