The Black Pope – By M. F. Cusack

James Japan Posted on February 5, 2023 by James ArendtFebruary 26, 2023  

There is something infinitely pathetic in Lord Petre’s allusions to his love for his church. For him there is but one church, but one ark of safety, for the whole world. But he cannot help seeing her evils, or rather—for he would scarcely call those things which he so strongly deplores evils—he would have the blots removed from her fair face. How noble this man is and how grand is his love for truth, and desire for the triumph and advancement of the cause so dear to him, even at any sacrifice of his personal feelings or interests. In one of his pamphlets he compares the Benedictine method of teaching and training, which he considers all important, with the methods of the Jesuit.

The Religious Orders never Agree.

But he says, “though the public are dissatisfied, the religious orders will never agree.” There are too many pecuniary interests mixed up in this question, and though the religious orders possess enormous wealth, they will not pay teachers to impart knowledge of which they are deficient themselves. They spend money on buildings, which may be an ornament to their particular order, but something more is wanted at the present day than mere material work. One cannot but think of Lourdes and the millions of money hoarded by the Fathers of the grotto, when the poor parish priest, the founder of the shrine, could not get sufficient to build a modest and much needed parish church.

Strange as it will seem to some, Lord Petre comments strongly on the failure of Roman Catholic schools to impart a good religious education. Catholic boys show a marked poverty of results, and what they do learn is “parroted.” This statement corresponds with the statements of M. Gleize as to the education given in French Jesuit colleges. The system of espionage as practised in Jesuit colleges is spoken of by him with stern reprobation (censure). He says, “Espionage is yearly,—we speak advisedly, irritating our boys out of all balance of intellect and out of all dignity of character. Where this distortion of supervision is practised, it would seem that Catholic boys must be supposed to come to school so degraded and brutalised, so inferior in purity and rectitude to their Protestant fellows, that they must be treated as meditating the worst kind of evil, at every hour of the day or night.

“There have been many who have come from the peace of tender and gentle homes, and who have found themselves cast suddenly into a world where suspicion, reserve, the extinction of the natural affections, severe and frequent punishments, have rudely displaced paternal advice and maternal gentleness, and under the oppression of an asceticism for which quaint is a term too mild, many have learnt why it is in countries not our own, the character of the priesthood has already become odious and abhorrent to the feelings of boys, ere yet they were in full possession of their reason.

“Under such a discipline many beside myself have become desperate by too quick a sense of a constant infelicity. There have I noted the hardening and souring of childhood’s sweetness. There have I seen in its working a process all too apt to foster the growth of artificial and constrained habits in some, of rebellious protest and decay of self-respect in others, of a senseless and uncultured Spartanism in very many, of development more or less distorted in all.

English Public Schools compared with Catholic.

Whose mind can expand when its path is cut between adamantine rocks? Whose aims should be definite when his natural and laudable objects are beset with clouds of suspicion and mistrust? Whose purpose shall find time to concentrate itself upon natural objects, when its whole energy is focused on avoidance of trumped up moral dangers which, had they never been suggested to him, would by the grace of God never have been seen, or felt, or known?” These are indeed strong words, and coming from such a source, they demand the earnest and careful consideration of those who would place the education of English youth in the hands af Roman Catholic teachers, whether lay or clerical.

Lord Petre thought that more could be done to improve or rather to form the character of a boy by general care and religious advice, than by the compulsion which the system of espionage involves. He would have youth trained to the love of virtue and to high and lofty ideas which they should put in practice while young, thus forming habits for the future. He says, I think we do not come near Eton, Rugby, Cheltenham, Wellington and some other non-Catholic schools in these particulars, viz., in scholarship, secondly, and much more in composition, thirdly in expansion of mind, earnestness of purpose, definiteness of aim.”

Lord Petre compares the English public school system with the Jesuit system, and very much prefers the former. He says, “Catholic boys are wanting in definiteness of aim, and earnestness of purpose.” All personal manifestation of character is sternly repressed. There can be no special aim of life. Boys are obliged every hour of the day and even of the night to move about like automatons, yet he is not without a glimpse of the cause of the evils which he deplores, though naturally he does not see far enough. He does not realise that the religion which he so much loves is the actual cause of the evils which he so honestly deplores. He pays the usual and almost fulsome compliments to the ecclesiastical authorities of his church, but he does not see, or if he sees, he considers it either prudent or loyal to conceal the self-evident fact, that, the bishops of his Church could remedy all these evils if they pleased to do so.

The Jesuit System Condemned.

But in the case of Jesuit education, he certainly has the courage of his opinions. It is a matter of no little importance, when the education of the youth of this country is being placed more and more in the hands of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, that we should show on such high and indisputable authority what are the characteristics of that education. On two points his condemnation of the Jesuit system is emphatic and clear, and as one who received his entire. school education at Stonyhurst, he speaks with authority. He says, “The theory and practice which I found in acceptance at Stonyhurst were, at no hour of the day or of the night should boys be away from the eye of a master. Stonyhurst College consisted in my day of a community of some twenty five Jesuits, and ‘exclusive of Hodder,’ a school of some hundred and seventy boys—perhaps more, perhaps less.

The community consists of the following —

“The rector is the head of the whole establishment, but his office cannot be compared to that of a head master, as it comprises two distinct sets of duties. He is, first of all, a religious superior, having under him a religious community, bound by vows to obey him.”

Father Petre, to give him his religious title, saw plainly the incompatibility of the monastic life with secular teaching. The combining of the two is a relic of the middle ages, and an anachronism.

“The rector does not teach, but he occasionally sees the boys individually, but on matters of business, rather than with a view of exercising moral influence over them, he conducts all, or nearly all the correspondence with the parents. He is invariably a priest: he is sometimes a scholar.

“2. The minister, 3. the sub-minister, 4. the procurator, are concerned with the temporal affairs of the house, with the commissariat, not being concerned with either spiritual, moral, or intellectual discipline. All three of these officers are priests.

5. The spiritual father. He is a confessor, his relation with the boys is theoretically very close, practically it may not be so. As far as my personal experience has extended, I have not found generally that the spiritual father has usually been chosen with reference to his breadth of sympathy with boys, in their eccentricities, troubles, moods, and difficulties, but rather with reference to the vehemence of his personal piety, his zeal for and devotion to the, special ascetic spirit of St. Ignatius.

“As a rule, perhaps, the spiritual father may be said not to be successful in gaining the confidence of any boys, excepting those of a decidedly devotional turn.

Jesuit Teaching Old Fashioned.

The spiritual father does not teach. The prefect of studies is charged with the complete management of the intellectual work of the school. He is a priest, he is not in any way concerned with the boys out of school. He is always a sound scholar, but is in a great degree bound to conduct the studies according to the tradition common to Jesuit schools throughout the world, and which is of ancient origin.”

This method of teaching is also especially condemned by M. Gleize.

“Into the merits or demerits of that tradition, I do not hold myself competent to enter. The prefect of studies has under him a staff of masters, who are all Jesuits, and for the most part, junior ecclesiastics. Elements is the lowest class or school, which contains two classes. Elements is usually a very large class. It is entrusted to the almost entire control and care of a young Jesuit, generally a man of two and twenty or three and twenty. He has had no previous experience of teaching. He teaches nearly all subjects to his boys.

“In the schools conducted by monks, the professors must necessarily be drawn from the narrow limits of the Order, and are generally young scholastics, who are appointed to teach, not because they have any special taste or talent for it, but simply because they are scholastics, and take to teaching as a matter of course, as part of their training. If at the end of the year, one is found to be notoriously incapable, doubtless he is removed. But what, meanwhile, has become of the victims of the experiment, the twenty or thirty boys he had to care for? They have passed another year of their lives, and it will be well if it has only been wasted.

“If by chance a body of professors has been found who display an aptitude for their work, it will not avail the students long, for as scholastics they must be called away to other and more pressing duties. So the weary round goes on, continual experiments are made on the boys, and masters are formed, and if some good material is wasted, if some young lives are spoiled in the process—why, then it is a part of the system.

“The master who begins with elements, if tolerably successful, rises in the following year with his boys to figures, thence to rudiments, and so on until he reaches rhetoric, when he prepares the rest of his class for the London University Matriculation Examination. He has worked hard day and night for seven years, and as a chief result (intellectually) some of his pupils pass their examination with more or less credit.

“His career as a schoolmaster is at an end, he goes to study theology for four years, during which time he is ordained priest, and, in the majority of instances, he then takes joint charge of a parish, or is sent abroad on the mission. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to the rule. Mean while his place is always supplied from below by a constant stream of junior members of the Society of Jesus.

Severe Corporal Punishments.

“I have now to describe the prefects. These are three gentlemen called respectively first, second, and third. The first is usually a priest, the other two are junior ecclesiastics. It is the business of the prefects to keep their boys at all times under their eyes. This duty is conscientiously performed, and is assisted by the fact that during play time boys are confined within a square of gravel surrounded by railings. A boy is not permitted, except under the most exceptional circumstances, to leave this square of gravel during his recreation time. The entrance to it is guarded always by one and generally by three prefects.

“There were three playrooms, in two of which were billiard tables, and a bagatelle table in the third. These rooms were dirty and ill-ventilated, there was a reading room for the higher line older boys. All novels were strictly forbidden, and books, were mercilessly expurgated. The infliction of corporal punishment was frequent and severe, and administered not by the masters but by the prefects.

“Everything in the system they work is so thoroughly mechanical, and the fear of anything like particular friendship or favouritism is so strong, that it is difficult indeed for them to do more than energetically and conscientiously act by their card. They are much overworked. It must be further considered that the lower masters and the lower prefects are not priests, but. quite incipient ecclesiastics, and very young, whereas intercourse with matured piety and virtue, combined with some experience of life under varied aspects, may be thought for boys manifestly desirable.

“The boys now have a good cricket ground and play football.

“Baths were very rare, and cleanliness and tidiness were not the prominent characteristic of the boys.

“The boys were not allowed to walk in couples, they were liable to arbitrary separation on the part of the prefects. There is a special fear of particular friendships in the school of which I am speaking. This fear amounts almost to superstition, and is of obvious foreign origin.

“Any kind of demonstration of affection was regarded with marked suspicion. In all these matters we were surrounded by a close atmosphere of suspicion. There were no monitors, big boys were occasionally put in charge of little boys—but always watched by a prefect.

Silence and Espionage.

“They rose at 5.30, and were watched washing and dressing by prefects, while strict silence was enjoined. At 6.30 to Mass, which lasted forty minutes, chapel over, into the classroom, prepared lesson alone and silently, at 7.45 breakfast—strict silence, 8 o’clock lessons, morning school which lasted until ten. Play until 10.30, school until 12 o’clock—dinner 12.30, strict silence play until 2.36, lessons until 4.30, when bread and beer were served in the refectory. At 8 o’clock chapel, back to schoolroom for night studies, 7 o’clock supper, recreation until 8.30, back to chapel for night prayers. In all the coming and going, all the roads were sentinelled as usual. The last sentinel was the spiritual father, who was posted outside the chapel door. Fifteen minutes allowed for undressing. The rule of silence was en forced in the dormitories with a jealous strictness which could not be exceeded. The prefects remained on guard until the boys were well asleep. Then two of them retired, but by turns each one maintained the watch throughout the night armed with a dark lantern. There was also another night watch man. Vigilance was Stonyhurst’s predominant characteristic.

“There were a very large number of foreigners at Stonyhurst, mostly Spaniards, West Indians, or Spanish Americans. The college is decidedly cosmopolitan; so, I believe, are most of the Jesuit colleges in England. Added to this it remains to notice the philosophers. They were a body of some thirty or thirty-five young gentlemen, who lived in a separate part of the house, and have altogether superior accommodation to the boys. It is also open to students at some of our colleges—e.g., Stonyhurst—to follow the course.of philosophy. This is a three years course of logic, metaphysics, and ethics, with natural science. At the same time they have the opportunity of learning Italian and German, and perfecting themselves in French.

“At present there are at Stonyhurst thirty-two ecclesiastical students of Philosophy and thirty-two lay philosophers.

“Even still and at all Jesuit schools it is considered necessary that up to the age of seventeen or eighteen a boy should be always under the eye of a master by day and by night. If such discipline be for the advantage of the Catholic youth of England let it stand, if not, the sooner it is modified the better.*”

Father Petre points out very plainly the serious difficulties in the way of improving Roman Catholic education, especially as conducted by the Jesuits. His points may be summarised briefly —All Roman Catholic education of the middle and higher classes is conducted exclusively by the clergy. The clergy are naturally jealous of each other’s success, but as Rome never permits any of her family quarrels to come before the public, and has sufficient control of the Protestant Press to have silence preserved, she is safe from public censure. But all the educating clergy agree on one point, and this unanimity is their strength, they are determined to keep education in their own hands, and make a close corporation which excludes even the Roman Catholic laity.

* The Rev. Lord Petre’s pamphlets were published in 1878.

A Close Corporation.

It is therefore impossible that Roman Catholic educational institutions can be improved or reformed from without, “because no college under the charge of religious could, even if they would, submit to a system of inspection and interference from without. Though the public (Roman Catholic) are dissatisfied, the different religious orders will never unite, nor make any change, nor will they pay qualified lay teachers.” But there is yet another difficulty in the way of reform in monastic or quasi-monastic teaching institutions. The rule of each order is jealously guarded by the priests, and as the rule must always be the first consideration, the benefit of the pupil takes second place. That this is true, and that its serious inconvenience is felt, and even resented by the Roman Catholic bishops who take a larger view of affairs, may be seen from a touching letter of the late Cardinal Wisemans, which is published in the biography of Cardinal Manning. Cardinal Manning also protested, but protested in vain, against the selfishness of the religious orders, who would not make the least sacrifice for educational or other work, the requirements of their Rule being their plea for refusal. Of this plea the Cardinal makes very little account. It may be added, however, that whenever there is question of getting a further grant from government for Roman Catholic schools or colleges, there is a unanimous silence on these points. But the thinking public should pause before consenting to place education in the hands of those who are reprehensibly incapable of doing justice to their pupils, above all when this incapacity is deplored by Rome herself.

It has been admitted by a leading Catholic journal that the condition of the Catholic youth of what are called the higher classes is such as to warrant the belief that there exists, either in our domestic or collegiate and public education, some grave defects which need a remedy.”

Another and valuable source of information as to the training in Jesuits colleges has been given to the public lately in Germany. Count Paul Von Hoensbruck has published his reasons for leaving the Jesuits and his experience while with them. He notes especially how their system of training destroys the individuality of those who are subjected to it, but this is precisely what the training is intended to do. The mechanical routine, never varying from day to day, the perpetual silence, the severe and frequent repression, and the continual introspection soon kills the personal vitality, and the “cadaver” takes the place of the living and sentient being.

Jesuit Training stultifies the Pupils Mind.

Not one action of the day is left to the free will. The Jesuit novice cannot take a drink of water, he cannot use a pen, or paper, he cannot go from one room to another, without first asking and obtaining permission from his immediate superior. How can men who have been and are subjected to this system of intellectual slavery have the nobility of character to educate youth for a world where he must think and act for himself, not only in domestic affairs, but in the most momentous subjects of the day.

In 1878 the late Lord Petre published another pamphlet in two parts, on the “Position and prospects of Catholic liberal education.” As the whole system of Catholic education is sharply, though respectfully criticised, it need scarcely be said that the edition was soon bought up by those who had an interest in suppressing it. To the present generation it is absolutely unknown, but the information which it contains is none the less important. Today, indeed, it is of possibly more value, since the so called liberality of public men and politicians has placed the education of a vast number of English youth in the hands of men whom some of their co-religionists have declared absolutely incompetent to conduct it.

It may be thought that the state of affairs here described, is now past, and that Roman Catholic education has advanced with the times.

The recently published life of Cardinal Manning which has aroused such a storm in Roman Catholic circles, gives undeniable evidence to the contrary. Men who were daring enough to say that Dr. Newman’s spirit “must be crushed,” were not the men to uphold or desire liberal education. Hence we find Ward and Manning so determinately opposed to anything like higher culture. Rome dare not allow discussion or investigation. She decides every subject for her followers, and when she has the power to do so, she removes, by destroying or mutilating it, all the literature which might supply facts or inferences which would tell against her claims. We have already shown how history is “peptonised” for the Roman Catholic youth in Jesuit Colleges. How can men, who in their youth have been deprived of all that is necessary for the formation of a just judgment on the most important affairs, be able to judge fairly of any subject, literary or religious?

Peptonised History.

Attempts are made from time to time to attract the attention, to gain the admiration of the public for the Jesuit college at Stonyhurst. An article written with this object has been lately published in the Pall Mall Magazine. But though the writer does not say a word of criticism, there is quite sufficient statement of fact to show that there has been no advance since Lord Petre’s opinions were published. The writer frankly admits that “an average public school boy would feel like a fish out of water,” in the playgrounds.

Every school time is begun and ended with prayer. There is a three days retreat at the commencement of each session. The masters, as in the time of Lord Petre, are appointed to teach because it is a part of their religious training, without any regard for their fitness for such an important duty. Their inclination is never consulted, but a Jesuit is supposed not to have any inclination.

A great effort is made to produce a show of distinguished men who have been educated at Stonyhurst, but the result is a dismal failure. One general, unknown to fame, one admiral, who looks like a Jesuit out for a holiday, and doubtful whether he should enjoy himself or not, the editor of a comic paper, which is going fast to decay, because he dare not admit a joke not approved by the Church, and the Church is particular as to what shall be said in this direction, for all roads lead to Rome, and Rome leads to the inquisition. Today this does not mean the stake, but there are social inquisitions, all the same. An astronomer of no special note, and who would scarcely have been mentioned in any scientific journal, if the public at present was not so specially bent on complimenting Rome. Last, though not least, we find the name of the naturalist Waterton. He may be considered a star of great magnitude in the Roman Catholic church, but what has he contributed to science in comparison with what he might have done if he had been a free man? Of him an amusing story is told of how he could hoist a Jesuit father with his own petard.

Waterton proved incorrigible in the matter of breaking bounds, and gave the prefects many a chase in consequence. On one occasion, when hotly pursued by the authorities, he managed to double back, and ran to the friendly shelter of one of the farm servants, who promptly covered him with litter in the pig sty. Waterton has himself related the story, which concludes thus —

“The man had hardly complied with my request when in bounced the prefect by the same gate through which I had entered. ‘Have you seen Charles Waterton?’ said he, quite out of breath.

“My trusty guardian answered, in a tone of voice which would have deceived anybody, ‘Sir, I have not spoken a word to Charles Waterton these three days, to the best of my knowledge.’ Upon this the prefect, having lost all scent of me, gave up the pursuit and went his way. When he had disappeared, I stole out of cover as strongly perfumed as was old Falstaff when they had turned him out of the buck basket.”

Jesuit Boys taught Deceit.

The anecdote is amusing, but it is far from amusing to know that English boys should be subjected to moral training which teaches them how to be expert deceivers.

It is to the credit of our poor humanity that there are men, some of whom at least are better than their creed.

As regards the intellectual training at Stonyhurst and elsewhere, Lord Petre complains sadly that while enormous sums of money are spent on buildings and halls, nothing will be expended on securing the services of lay teachers who have been properly educated for their work. But such teachers could not be found easily in the Roman Catholic church as witness the difficulties of the late Cardinal Newman in Dublin, and of Cardinal Manning in London. In each case it was found necessary to fall back on converts who had received their education at Oxford, before entering the Roman Catholic church.

All Roman Catholics who have written on the subject of education have either implied, or said expressly, that the religious orders in their Church are selfish and exclusive, and will not allow strangers, even of their own faith, to be admitted to their cloisters. The late Cardinal Wiseman complained bitterly, that though “religious” asked freely for dispensation from Rome in matters which concerned their own comfort, they would neither ask nor take dispensations, which would have enabled them to do more good, to do work which was urgently needed for the Church.

The present writer knew of a case in Ireland where the sisters absolutely refused to receive broken meat and other food from a nobleman’s house in their neighbourhood, because it would have given them too much trouble to distribute it to the poor.

A book of Rules for the Jesuits was printed in Rome with the approbation of the General in 1607.

We give some extracts from this, as showing the spirit of the Order.

RULE 5.—You must not read prohibited books without leave, nor meddle with anything which does not concern you.

RULE 6.—You must learn to be very ready in the language of the country where you dwell, or may be ordered to dwell.

RULE 7.—While residing in any college, your chests, boxes and trunks, and your chamber doors, must never be locked, you must not sleep at night with your chamber window open, nor lay naked, nor go out of your chamber undressed.

RULE 13.—You must not complain of one superior to another.

RULE 17.—No brother must go into the office or chamber of another without leave.

Rue 18.—While two of the order are in one chamber the door must be open.

RULE 20.—You must not hold discourse or have — any correspondence by letter with any person, without your superiors leave.

RULE 21.—No person must hold idle talk, or discover without what is done within the college or house.

RULE 24.—No person must go out without leave, and telling why he goes out. He must write his name down and tell the doorkeeper where he goes to, he must return before night, and give notice to his superior on his return.

RULE 25.—When on a journey, you must always lodge at a Jesuit college, if there is one in the place, and while there, must pay the same obedience to the superior as unto your own.

RuLe 28.—You must divest yourself of all worldly, irregular love towards your parents, relations and friends, and of all worldly affairs.

RULE 29.—You must renounce entirely your own will, and embrace and follow the cross of Christ, you must aspire to humility, perfection and every virtue.

RULE 32.—You are diligently to aspire to true obedience, and never contradict whatever your superior commands you.

A series of special rules follow for each office.

THE RULES FOR THE PROVOSTS OR RECTORS. (Of which Rules there are eighteen.)

RULE 2.—You must impose common penance on those who fail in, or are wanting in their duties, or punish them publicly, either by making them eat under the table, or in making them kiss the others feet, or by praying in the refectory or by fasting.

RULE 13.—You must hold a conference twice a week on cases of conscience at which every priest in the house must assist.

RULE 18.—You must not permit any Jesuit to go out of your college or house without a companion with him.

THE RULES FOR THE MASTERS OF NOVICES. (Of which Rules there are fourteen.)

RULE 5.—You are to appoint each novice a companion by whom he may be improved.

RULE 7.—You are to be careful that no novice shall speak to any of his relations without your leave, nor even these without some person being present, for which end you must not suffer any novice to be in any office by which they have any intercourse with strangers, such as purveyor, porter.

THE RULE FOR THE MONITORS.

There are only three rules for them, which are as follows —

RULE 1.—As monitor or admonisher, you are obliged to put the superior in mind whenever he has failed in his office, but you must represent this with humility and respect, with the advice of the council, and not let any other person know what is done upon such an occasion.

RULE 2.—If after several admonitions the superior remains incorrigible, you must then acquaint the higher powers.

RULE 3.—You must have a seal for the letters. sent to the superior.

Rules for Jesuit Priests.

THE RULES FOR PRIESTS. (There are six of these.)

RULE 2.—You must be very expedient in cases of conscience, and diligent in hearing confessions.

RULE 4.—When you confess a female, there must be a third person as an eye witness, though not so near as to hear what is said.

RULE 6.—You must admonish all your sick patients to make their will, but you must not be present when they are making it. In everything else you must observe the general rule.

THE RULES FOR THE PREACHERS. (Twelve Rules are given.)

RULE 7.—When sent on mission, or to preach afar off, you must, if able, go on foot, live upon alms, and lodge in religious houses, and also keep a memorandum of the most pious and devout people in each place that you come to.

RULE 8.—You must not only preach, etc., . . . but seek to make all men your friends.

RULE 10.—You must write every week to acquaint your superior what progress you have made in your mission.

THE RULES FOR THE LIBRARIAN. (Four Rules.)

Rule 1 states you must always have by you the “Index Expurgatorius,” and not keep any forbidden books.

Rules about Letters.

RULES FOR THE PORTER. (Six Rules.)

RULE 2—You must not permit any person to go out without the superiors leave.

RULE 3.—You must deliver to the superior every letter you receive for any person in the house or college, and you must not let any person in who comes out of the country, without the superior being first acquainted.

RULE 5.—You must every night lock the doors and give the keys to the provost or regent.

Rules are given for the wardrobe keeper, house steward, cook and purveyor.

THE RULES FOR THE WATCHMAN.

It states that he must wake every individual, if they do not get up he must report them to the superior.

Four Rules are given of which in Rule 4 it states

RULE 4. —At night you must visit every chamber, and ring or knock to advertise each person to examine his conscience. A quarter of an hour after, you must ring the bell for them to go to rest, and in another quarter of an hour you must go to every chamber to see if the light is extinguished, if not you must acquaint the superior.

THE RULE CONCERNING THE WRITING OF LETTERS.

RULE 1.—The superior or regent of each house or college must write every week to the Provincial (and also to those of the house who are sent to preach on mission) acquainting him with every affair of consequence that regards the Society.

RULE 2.—He must also write every three months to the General.

RULE 3.—The Provincial must write every month to the General, and also to the provost, regents, and those who are sent on any business of the province.

RULE 4.—The General is to write every two months to the provincials, but only twice a year to the regents, etc., unless some affair of consequence obliges him to write oftener.

RULE 5.—That no letter may be lost or miscarry, several copies must be wrote of each, and they must also be copied into a letter book.

RULE 6.—Every secret order or affair must be written in characters or cypher.

RULE 7.—The letters which are written by the General at Rome must be read and carefully preserved in the house or college to which they are sent.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: