Duties of Masters and Scholars

308. By the name of teachers here are understood those who in lower schools are constituted by office to instruct and educate boys and youths. The obligations of teachers and pupils are taken from the mutual relation which exists between them; and this mutual relation arises from the contract which parents enter with teachers, whether spontaneously or compelled by the civil power. But since by force of this contract parents substitute teachers for themselves in instructing and educating their children and communicate to them their own authority, the obligations of pupils and teachers are nearly the same as those which fall upon children and parents.

On mutual obligations. 1. Pupils ought to show teachers love, reverence, and obedience in those things which pertain to studies and good morals.

Hence pupils, according to the measure of the matter, can sin gravely either against charity or against observance: a. if they mock teachers, speak irreverently about them, conduct themselves insolently and provoke others to irreverence and insolence, affect them with annoyances and provoke them to anger; b. if they do not comply with teachers seriously commanding in those things which pertain to studies, to good morals, and to the discipline of the school; but pupils are for the most part excused from mortal sin on account of levity and inadvertence; c. if in the time of lesson they do not attend and pass the time of study uselessly. For judging the gravity of this sin, attention must be given both to the quantity of time which is spent inattentively and uselessly, and to the object of instruction and study, and to the condition of the persons: for there will not be grave sin unless they are notably impeded in acquiring those things which are necessary to their state and condition.

2. Teachers owe pupils instruction and education, and this from piety, because in place of parents they take this obligation upon themselves, and from justice, because both by reason of office and by reason of the stipend received they ought to furnish it.

Hence teachers can sin: a. if they do not perfect themselves in letters insofar as there is need; if they do not employ due diligence so that pupils be well instructed; if they teach them false and inept things; b. if they do not correct their bad morals, do not exclude from their schools boys imbued with bad morals where they can, or at least do not turn others away from these; c. if they punish them unjustly or indiscreetly; d. if by bad example they harm their morals.

Note. a. Once the relation between pupil and teacher has been dissolved, sins which are committed against the teacher do not differ in species from sins which are committed against another neighbor.¹

b. Over adolescents who are instructed and educated in boarding-schools, strictly only superiors hold authority in place of parents and the power of commanding. Hence if pupils do not obey their prefects from a certain contempt, they are more easily excused from mortal sin, because those prefects lack the authority by which they can command and which can be contemned by pupils.

c. If a teacher seduces to sin a pupil whose care he has taken upon himself in place of parents, for example, to theft, he offends not only against justice but also against piety, and therefore commits a twofold sin.

¹ Lehmkuhl, I, n. 880.

SCHOOLMASTERS and schoolmistresses are put in the place of the parents to educate children in letters and good conduct. They therefore to a certain extent share the obligations and the rights of parents. Furthermore, they are bound in justice by contract to fulfil the special duties which are annexed to their office of training the children committed to their charge.

Pupils are bound to love, reverence, and obey their masters and mistresses in all things that pertain to their education in letters and morals. However, in estimating the gravity of sins of disobedience toward masters and mistresses, we must consider not only whether the matter be grave and there be a serious intention of imposing an obligation, as in other cases of disobedience, but also whether the authority of the master or mistress enables them to give a precept which binds under pain of grave sin. Such ample authority is usually not committed to inferior masters and mistresses.

I. Duties of teachers. 1. Teachers, when and so long as they enjoy true authority over pupils, authority, I say, received from parents or from those taking their place, with due conditions observed, are held to the same duties by which parents are held toward children; for they truly take their place (St. Alphonsus, III, 362). These things are especially to be applied to teachers of institutions, and to instructors of the lower disciplines.

2. Teachers are bound diligently to care for the instruction of pupils; and they can violate this obligation even by negligence. Likewise they are bound, even if they do not fully take the place of parents, according to the circumstances, to provide for moral education; for example, while the pupils are subject to them, by watching over their morals, protecting good morals, correcting delinquents, and so forth. Yet these things have greater force for instructors of lower and middle-level discipline than for teachers of the higher sciences.

3. As regards the latter teachers, I note especially:

a) Teachers of the higher sciences sin if they teach the false as true; and indeed gravely, whenever from the doctrine handed on damage for faith or morals follows.

b) They are bound to obey if legitimate authority, whether a Rule or a competent Superior, imposes on them some system or weighty doctrine of some Doctor to be taught, that is, to be set forth together with the arguments which support it; they are bound to obey, I say, even if they themselves adhere to another system or doctrine. For it is lawful for them to obey, because the doctrine imposed, as we are supposing, can safely be taught. Now if it is lawful, there is an obligation of obeying; yet they should not propose the doctrine as their own if they do not admit it. But if a higher Authority has imposed another doctrine to be taught, let obedience be given to this. Hence obedience must be given to the Code when it establishes: let professors in every way treat the studies of rational philosophy and theology, and the instruction of students in these disciplines, according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor, and let them hold these sacredly (can. 1366, § 2; can. 589, § 1).

c) Likewise they are bound to obey if legitimate authority for a time forbids teaching or disseminating a doctrine which is apt to disturb peace or promote abuses. I said for a time, because we are supposing that it concerns a doctrine which, in itself, can safely be taught; on that supposition, one should abstain from a definitive prohibition. As regards our assertion, however, observe: the act of teaching is an act of beneficence or charity, which is lawful for anyone, unless per accidens he is impeded from the use of this natural liberty, whether: 1. because of reservation of the matter, as faith has been entrusted to the sole authority of the Church; or 2. because of injuring the right of a third party to reputation or to secrecy; or 3. because of the legitimate prohibition of a Superior, of a Superior, I say, who must attend to dangers which can threaten the community.

II. Duties of pupils. Pupils owe teachers, from the virtue of observance, reverence and obedience. They owe them reverence and obedience insofar, namely, and because, they are subject to them (n. 397 sq.). Moreover, that these duties are owed from the virtue of observance follows from the notion of that virtue handed down above (n. 397).

As regards pupils who, considering the circumstances, are not truly subject to teachers, these words of St. Thomas have force: "There is a moral debt, which is owed from a certain honesty; and in this way we owe worship and honor to those who are constituted in dignity, even if we are not subject to them" (II-II, q. 102, a. 2, ad 2). For pupils also with respect to teachers, more than the reverse, these words of the same holy Doctor cited above have force: "In anyone there is found something from which someone can regard him as superior, according to that saying in Phil. 2: In humility, considering one another as superiors; and according to this all also ought to anticipate one another in honor" (II-II, q. 103, a. 2, ad 3).

75. The family is an altogether natural society, which God Himself constituted, and it is presupposed to ecclesiastical and civil society; for each, without the family, which is the first society and the foundation of the others, can neither be nor be conceived in the present order of things. Hence at once and easily the conclusion is deduced that children belong first to parents, and that the civil state cannot claim them for itself, in order to educate them both corporally and morally, with the work of parents excluded. Those who assert this and do this deny and violate the rights of nature itself. Wherefore parents at the same time have both the right and the obligation to educate children in a Christian manner, according to their own Christian and Catholic religion, which alone is true. The right education of children consists in truth, not in error.

76. Civil society can in no way hinder this; on the contrary it is bound to furnish helping work. For the elements of political society are proximately families, which, since they are imperfect societies, are developed and unfolded by civil society, which is a perfect society. For this alone is sufficient and more than sufficient for fully satisfying human necessities, and for unfolding the powers by which man strives toward the perfection suitable to himself. Therefore, when the family grows into a city or kingdom, it does not lose its preexisting rights, but perfects them. And for this reason, from the civil bond superadded, it ought both to exercise them more easily and to unfold them more fully. In civil society that further perfection is sought which cannot be obtained in domestic society.

77. Therefore the aforesaid right and obligation of Christian parents to educate their own children in the Christian and Catholic religion cannot be suppressed by civil society; nor can civil society claim it for itself, just as it cannot claim for itself, for example, the care of the economic or domestic order. Hence in the Encyclical Quanta cura of Pius IX, there are expressly condemned those professing "that domestic society or the family borrows the reason of its existence only from civil law, and consequently that all the rights of parents over children, and especially the right of caring for their instruction and education, emanate and depend only from civil law." Aptly Leo XIII: "Paternal power is of such a kind that it can neither be extinguished nor absorbed by the republic, because it has the same and common principle with human life itself. Sons are something of the father, and as it were a certain enlargement of the paternal person: and if we wish to speak properly, not they by themselves, but through the domestic community in which they were generated, enter and participate in civil society." Enc. de Condit. opificum.

78. But how grave this right and at the same time obligation of parents is, of educating children in a Christian manner in the Catholic faith, is easily clear from this: although the inseparability of marriage pertains to the natural order of mutual justice to be observed among men, nevertheless in favor of the faith, divine authority intervening, the right which one spouse has acquired over the other from the contract of marriage, and which naturally is perpetual, is taken away; namely by reason of the higher supernatural end which God most wisely intends. "Marriage," says St. Thomas, 4 D. 39, q. 1, a. 2, "was instituted principally for the good of offspring, not only to be generated, because this could happen without marriage; but also to be promoted to a perfect state, because each thing naturally intends to bring its effect to a perfect state. But in offspring a twofold perfection is to be considered, namely the perfection of nature, not only as to the body, but also as to the soul, through those things which are of the law of nature; and the perfection of grace. And the first perfection is material and imperfect with respect to the second. And therefore, since those things which are for an end are proportioned to the end, marriage, which tends to the first perfection, is imperfect and material with respect to that which tends to the second perfection," and consequently because of the defect of that second perfection, namely of grace and faith, the marriage of infidels, although naturally inseparable, nevertheless has less firmness than the marriage of the faithful. "But always a firmer bond dissolves a less firm one, if it is contrary to it; and therefore the marriage which afterwards is contracted in the faith of Christ dissolves the marriage which had previously been contracted in infidelity." St. Thomas, 4 D. 39, q. 1, a. 5, ad 1.

79. Now if parents have this most noble right and most grave obligation of educating children in the Christian and Catholic faith, children on the contrary have no right to repudiate this education, but are bound to accept it with an altogether docile mind. And this is clear not only by natural reason, but is expressly asserted in Sacred Scripture. In Proverbs, chapter 1, verses 8 and 9, it is said: "Hear, my son, the discipline of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother. My son, if sinners shall entice thee, consent not to them." And again chapter 6, verses 20 and 21: "Keep, my son, the commandments of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother. Bind them in thy heart continually, and put them about thy throat. When thou shalt walk, let them go with thee; when thou shalt sleep, let them keep thee; and when thou awakest, speak with them." And the Apostle Paul to the Colossians, chapter 3, verse 20: "Children," he says, "obey your parents in all things; for this is pleasing in the Lord."

80. Parents can exercise the aforesaid right over children through themselves, and through others, who are in the place of parents and perform by delegation of parents. These regularly are the teachers of schools. Therefore schools must be chosen by parents for their children, in which they may be educated in a Christian and Catholic manner, according to the religion of the same parents. Besides, parents are bound to watch lest from teachers, from books, from fellow-students, their children undergo danger to their own soul. But if this happens, parents must promptly recall their own children from schools of this kind, perverse schools.

81. In the present state of society, however, without doubt a certain necessity is present for sons of families to frequent public schools, so that afterwards they themselves may be able to procure for themselves suitable aids of life. Even elementary instruction in letters, although it is not absolutely necessary for all, nevertheless is necessary: those who lack it are liable to many difficulties and inconveniences, neither few nor slight, for passing life in a fitting manner, and also for averting harms to faith and morals.

82. Wherefore in a Christian and Catholic nation its rulers are held by grave obligation to establish Christian and Catholic schools, both especially elementary schools, in which the first instruction of boys is had, and also middle and higher schools. For in all schools of this kind, even in middle and in higher schools, graver and most grave dangers can be present for boys and adolescents as to faith and as to morals. And if Governments fulfilled this grave obligation, it would yield to the supreme good of families and of the nations themselves. For as all atheists, indifferentists, free-thinkers, sectarians, Freemasons, heretics, modernists, and all wicked and impious men are to the immense harm of families, so also are they to the most mournful ruin of Catholic nations.

83. The rulers of society wander away from their most grave obligation, even for the public good, by establishing schools positively non-Catholic, in which infidelity, heresy, impiety, and iniquity are taught openly in the mouth and before the eyes of all, or by establishing neutral schools, which in the instruction of boys prescind from the positive teaching office of religion. But since this can scarcely be possible in practice, what in schools of this kind is said, often at least, if not always, concerning religion, is said against the Catholic religion. And although in neutral schools of this kind nothing is said against religion, nevertheless in reality they are not neutral; for by their very silence they keep boys away from religion, and of themselves lead them to indifferentism and atheism. This is confirmed everywhere in our time by patent fact itself.

84. Where there is present at the same time a Catholic school, a positively non-Catholic school, and a neutral school, parents cannot, without grave sin, send their own children to the latter, unless grave damage altogether were imminent for them or their children. This indeed can then be tolerated, yet on this absolute condition, that boys and adolescents not be exposed to proximate danger of eternal salvation. The proximate danger in schools of this kind must be rendered remote. Therefore diligent vigilance must be applied by fathers of families, lest their children suffer harm. They themselves outside school must instruct their own children in those things which it is necessary to know for the Catholic faith and for leading a Christian life, and especially teach them those things which are attacked in the aforesaid schools. But parents will be able to furnish this either through themselves or through other suitable persons, especially priests, by whose assiduous work they may provide for the religious instruction of their own children. Nor indeed is faith alone to be placed in safety, but honesty of morals also must especially be attended to. And this other danger to morals, certainly no less grave, is in those schools which are mixed, namely which boys and girls of each sex frequent promiscuously together.

85. Moreover, if to these things which have just now been established is added the precept given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and their successors: "Going, teach all nations... Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. 28:19, 20, it is easily understood that the following errors were altogether proscribed by law in the Syllabus:

"45. The entire government of public schools, in which the youth of some Christian Republic is instructed... can and ought to be attributed to the civil authority....."

"47. The best condition of civil society demands that popular schools, which are open to all children of whatever class of the people, and public Institutes, which are destined for teaching letters and the more severe disciplines and for caring for the education of youth, be exempted from every authority of the Church, from her moderating force and interference, and be subjected to the full judgment of civil and political authority, according to the pleasure of rulers and the exact rule of the common opinions of the age."

"48. That method of instructing youth can be approved by Catholic men which is separated from the Catholic Faith and from the power of the Church, and which looks only, or at least primarily, to the science of merely natural things and the ends of earthly social life."

86. The things which have been said hitherto are worth confirming by the doctrine handed down by Leo XIII in his Encyclical Letter to the Bishops of Gaul, Nobilissima Gallorum gens, of the day Feb. 8, 1884. With most grave words the Supreme Pontiff admonishes parents that their children be educated in Catholic and duly instituted schools. "And first indeed," he says, "as regards domestic society, it is of the greatest concern that offspring received from Christian marriage be early instructed in the precepts of religion; and that those arts by which childhood is accustomed to be formed to humanity be joined with religious instruction. To separate the latter from the former is the same as in very fact to will that childish minds be moved to neither side in duties toward God: which discipline is fallacious, and, especially in the first little ages of boys, most pernicious, because in reality it prepares the way of atheism, and blocks religion. Good parents altogether ought to take care that each of their children, as soon as they have begun to have understanding, receive the precepts of religion, and that nothing occur in schools which offends the integrity of faith or morals; and that this diligence be applied in educating offspring is established by divine and natural law, nor can parents be loosed from that law for any cause. But the Church, guardian and avenger of the integrity of faith, which, by authority handed to her by God her Creator, must call all nations to Christian wisdom, and likewise watch sedulously by what precepts and institutions youth, which is in her power, is cultivated, has always openly condemned the schools which they call mixed or neutral, also admonishing fathers of families again and again that in a matter of such moment they apply their mind to taking care. In these things, by obeying the Church, one obeys utility at the same time, and provision is made for the public safety by the best reason. For those whose first age is not instructed in religion grow up without any knowledge of the greatest things, which alone can nourish in men the studies of virtues and rule the appetites contrary to reason. Such are those notions of God the Creator, of God the judge and avenger, of the rewards and punishments of the other life to be expected, of the heavenly aids brought by Jesus Christ for diligently and safely keeping those very duties. These things not being known, every future cultivation of minds will be unhealthy: adolescents unaccustomed to reverence of God will be able to bear no discipline of living honorably, and, daring never to deny anything to their own desires, they will easily be drawn on to disturbing states."

87. Indeed so true is that which the same Supreme Pontiff asserts in the cited Letters, that all attempts which harm the Church are also pernicious and fatal to the republic itself, because it cannot happen that prosperity accompany a state when the virtue of religion has been extinguished. Therefore let this flourish, and flourish exceedingly, both in Gaul and in Italy and in Spain and in Lusitania, and in Germany and in Austria, and in England and in Russia, in Europe, in America, in the whole world; and in the whole world supreme peace will reign, and with peace the true prosperity of nations and the happiness of men: the beginning of eternal happiness.

167. Concerning obligations, a few things must first be said concerning Rectors of Colleges and pupils; then concerning the obligations of teachers and students.

168. The chief obligation of Rectors of Colleges and Boarding Schools is to see to it that pupils learn the rudiments of the Christian faith and are duly instructed in the offices of Religion; then that they are imbued with honest morals and become accustomed to the frequency of the sacraments; finally that they give work with progress to useful studies. - The reason is that for this end parents place their sons to be educated in Colleges and Boarding Schools. Therefore the Rectors of Colleges and Boarding Schools enter into the obligations of parents, who owe their sons especially corporeal and spiritual education. And although parents should fail in their office in this matter, nevertheless the Presidents and Rectors of Colleges and Boarding Schools cannot therefore be negligent in this matter; for they are obligated to have that care and diligence by force of the very office undertaken, which is a certain participation in paternal power itself.

169. Pupils of Colleges are bound to exhibit to their superiors love, and cult, reverence and obedience, in those things which look to their authority and care; likewise necessary support. - They owe love, because Superiors of Colleges have care of them as it were paternal. Hence "they are called fathers because of the likeness of care." St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 102, a. 1, c. They owe honor and cult. For their Superiors are truly constituted in dignity and truly have the office of governing. "By reason of excellence honor is owed to them, which is a certain recognition of someone's excellence. But by reason of the office of governing, cult is owed to them, which consists in a certain obsequium; namely, while someone obeys their command, and repays in his own measure the return for their benefits." St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 102, a. 2. Cf. also a. 1 and q. 103, a. 2. They owe obedience: for obedience is owed to all superiors. Obey, says the Apostle, Heb. 13:17, your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as if about to render an account for you. - Finally they owe support, or an honorarium or pension; for many expenses must be sustained, and their very work and care is estimable by price and most worthy. Let the priests who rule well, says the Apostle, 1 Tim. 5:17, 18, be held worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine: for the worker is worthy of his wage.

170. Acts of this kind, of love and obedience, are formally acts of the virtues of charity and obedience; but insofar as they proceed from the cult of Superiors, "they are contained in a certain way under observance." St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 104, a. 3, ad 1. But honor and cult properly look to the virtue of observance, which obligates subjects and superiors mutually, as the virtue of piety obligates those joined by blood mutually. For the relation of subject and superior founds a special obligation to certain acts of virtues, just as the conjunction of blood founds a similar obligation. Whence also the virtue of observance reductively pertains to the fourth precept of the Decalogue. But there are two kinds of men toward whom the virtue of observance obligates us. The first kind is of Superiors who have spiritual power over us, such as the Supreme Pontiff, Bishops, Pastors, or also Confessors. The second kind is of secular Superiors, who have temporal power over us, such as Kings, Princes, Leaders, or also Masters of a house, or fathers of families with respect to servants. Likewise Rectors or Superiors of Colleges. Struggl., tr. 7, q. 2, a. 4, n. 23. Finally the stipend owed pertains to commutative justice.

171. Since, therefore, the reason of superiority can be various, obedience likewise can be manifold: ecclesiastical, civil, sacramental, by force of the sacrament of penance to be received with respect to the Confessor, voluntary by reason of vow, domestic or economic, etc.

173. But by the natural law itself, in seminaries, colleges, and boarding schools, pupils are bound to denounce corrupters who bring great spiritual damage to others; nor can they be absolved unless they consent to a denunciation of this kind.

174. But here it is asked whether Superiors of Colleges and Rectors of Seminaries can, for the right discipline of the College or Seminary, establish rules or statutes obliging in conscience? - R. Affirmatively; for they have true authority, at least economic, and they have true care of the common good, for which it is especially expedient that determined rules to be observed be present, at least under a penalty to be undergone by transgressors. Yet this faculty, as is clear, is limited. For it extends only to those things to which their prelacy is ordained. St. Thomas, 2 Sent., D. 44, q. 2, a. 3. Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 361, says: "Students sin... if they do not obey in things pertaining to studies and good morals... if they do not observe the laws of their Gymnasium, or the statutes of the Academy, if indeed these oblige to sin."

175. Between teachers likewise and students there are in a certain way also the same obligations as between parents and children. The reason is that parents, whose proper right and obligation is the education and instruction of children, substitute teachers for themselves, who therefore in this matter hold their place toward the children.

Therefore teachers and preceptors owe to students love, good example, right education, correction, true doctrine. - Hence they are bound to perfect themselves in the science which they teach, for duly instructing others; to promote the progress of students in letters, as far as lies in them; to avert them as far as they can from others who are defiled with depraved morals, and whom they must in no way admit in their schools. - They can fail also gravely when they neglect the instruction of students, or punish them unjustly or indiscreetly; but especially if they seduce them by impelling them to sins; if they do not teach good morals; if deliberately they teach false things as true, or things harmful to salvation; if they retain pupils imbued with evil morals, who are pernicious to others, etc. - But they can fail gravely both by reason of office and by reason of the stipend which they receive. - L. 361.

If a teacher has undertaken special care of the education of his students by quasi-contract, by contrary sins, for example of scandal, not only charity but also justice is violated. Whence the condition of teacher must be explained in those things.

Students are bound in turn to exhibit to teachers love, reverence, and obedience, on account of the superiority and care of the same, while they are instructed by them in good morals and arts. The reason is clear: for the reciprocal obligation of students toward teachers imports this, since teachers would plainly be obligated in vain to instruct them, or to imbue them with good morals, unless students likewise were obligated to follow the admonitions and precepts of teachers. - But students sin, gravely or lightly from the very gravity or lightness of the matter and its various circumstances, if they do not obey teachers in things pertaining to studies and good morals; if they do not exhibit honor and reverence to teachers; namely, if instead of studying diligently they waste time in idleness, play, or other foolish things against the will of their teachers; if they detract from teachers, or ridicule them, mock them, afflict them with curses, calumnies, troubles, etc. - C. 1, ult., de Magistr. etc.; Clem. 2, e. t.; L. 361; St. Thomas, Quodl. 3, a. 10.

The condition of student must be explained in grave sins against due reverence and obedience. Otherwise grave malice against observance is not declared.

176. Does someone lawfully accept the office of Rector or Professor in the Universities of modern Governments, in which incorrect doctrines are handed on by other Professors?

R. Affirmatively, provided he himself reproves the false doctrines of the other Professors and in no way favors them; and fulfills his office of Rector or Professor according to the norm of Christian doctrine. The reason is that cooperation in such a University is merely material and very remote, since, if one refuses, and he an honest and Catholic man, many others will not be lacking, and they either unworthy or certainly less worthy and fit. Besides, a grave cause of cooperation of this kind is had: namely, not only on the part of the person himself, that is, the reception of an honorarium for the sustenance of himself and his own, but also, and especially, on the part of society itself, namely, the evil of the young to be impeded, and their good to be promoted; which certainly would be greatest if honest and Catholic men themselves would strive before evil and impious men to direct public schools, and to teach publicly in them. - S. O., March 21, 1866, Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 1294.

All public Doctors and Teachers of any discipline whatever, from Trent, S. 25, c. 2, de R., and from the Constitution Sacrosancta of St. Pius V, are bound, before they enter upon the office of teaching committed to them, to emit the profession of faith according to the formula prescribed by Pius himself, as also those to be promoted to the scholastic grades of doctor, etc.

177. May someone lawfully study in a University or other school of a modern Government, in which false doctrines are handed on by the professors, and receive in it the academic grades of Bachelor, Licentiate, Doctor?

R. Affirmatively, if there are no other Catholic schools, and provided there is no danger of perversion as regards faith and morals, and any false doctrine which is heard against Religion is reproved from the heart, and nothing is done by words or works to sustain it. The reason again is that material and sufficiently remote cooperation can be excused from a legitimate cause, which here is the reason of learning doctrine, the impossibility which is present of going to other schools, and which would be had for obtaining academic grades. - Leo XIII, to the Romans, Aug. 16, 1878; Instruct. S. C. de P. F., Jan. 16, 1841; June 30, 1875; S. O., Nov. 24, 1875; March 14, 26, 1895; Collect. S. C. de P. F., v. 2, n. 1449, 1890, 1260.

178. "Teachers and pedagogues sin: ... if they deny the insignia of the doctorate to the worthy, and confer them on the unworthy; which Navarrus says is mortal, especially in Theology, Canon Law, Civil Law, and Medicine; for in Philosophy Cajetan perhaps judges it to be only venial." Busembaum apud St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 361.

"Let no one hereafter be presented with the laurel of Theology and Canon Law who previously has not completed the established course in scholastic philosophy. But if he is presented with it, let him be presented in vain." Pius X, encyclical Pascendi, Sept. 8, 1907.

If someone in the same year is enrolled simultaneously in the Theological Faculty and that of Canon Law, even if in diverse Institutes, let him exist deprived of every right to receiving grades. But if he is presented with any grade, let him be presented in vain. S. C. Stud., July 11, 1896.

Academic grades obtained at Rome or elsewhere in Catholic Universities or Pontifical Institutes are to be judged altogether valid in other places without new confirmation or new taxes being exacted. - Monit. Eccles., v. 21, p. 398 seqq.

1. Vincentius has already rather often detected his male servant with the maidservant, occupied in lascivious intercourse; yet because he adverts that from the dismissal of the male servant, as being especially necessary to the domestic estate, no small detriment threatens him, hence, anxious, he asks whether he can dissimulate with a safe conscience.

Q. 1. What are the obligations of masters? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 693, 694. To the second. Vincentius cannot dissimulate the sins of the servants. For upon him, as superior and father of the family, there rests the obligation from justice of impeding the sins of subjects. And if, correction having been made, they are not amended, he is held under grave obligation to expel them from the house, if from such ejection it is prudently believed that they will return to good conduct. Indeed, even if this is by no means hoped, nevertheless he must altogether eject them, both because, since the servant has the concubine not outside the house but in the very house of the master, and sins with another maidservant, a present and far easier occasion of sinning is had from this; and also because of the grave danger and scandal of the family which is present, as is established by sad experience itself. Parents, retaining depraved servants at home, expose their own children most gravely to corruption. But it is scarcely credible that Vincentius, from the departure of the servant, can fear so great a loss that it would outweigh the most grave obligation of impeding the sins of subjects. And if danger and scandal to the family were present in fact, there certainly is no temporal detriment by which Vincentius could both dissimulate the sins of the servants and retain them at home. Indeed, the sins of subjects can in no way be imputed to a superior when he has tried according to his powers to impede them, by correcting, threatening, etc.; and for that reason only does he dissimulate something, because he cannot impede it without a graver, or certainly rather grave, detriment. But where danger and scandal are present to the family, to retain depraved servants at home is to constitute one's own children in a certain proximate and necessary occasion of sinning; and where servants advert that the masters know and are silent, and fear to expel them, they certainly become more bold for sinning and sin more securely, which is altogether illicit. - Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 2106; Elbel 17, 18, 19; Tambur., in Decal., l. 5, c. 1, § 4, n. 21; G. 374, 375.

2. Mathurinus, a student of Moral Theology, is pressed by grave anguish of conscience. For a disciple, he says, owes love, reverence, and obedience to a master. I have love toward my master; I also have reverence for him; but I cannot have obedience to him. It is impossible for me to admit all the opinions of my master. For there is some opinion on which the master always and much insists, and it seems to me contrary to dogma; but there are also other opinions which seem to me at least equally probable, and even more probable, than those which the master defends as most probable, as uniquely probable, as at least altogether to be held practically.

Q. 1. What are the obligations of disciples toward masters? 2. What is to be held concerning Mathurinus?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 700. - To the second. Mathurinus, before he forms and pronounces judgment against the doctrine of his professor, ought first to understand it well and weigh it with mature consideration, lest perhaps he himself consider and attack as handed down by his professor a doctrine which the professor in no way taught. By acting thus he would both form a rash judgment against his master and, by speaking with others, would harm his reputation. But if, after serious study, and after other learned men have also been consulted, the doctrine of his professor seems erroneous to him, he is certainly not held to follow it. Likewise, if the opinions of others seem to him probable, more probable, or most probable, and are commonly held as such by authors, he is not held to follow the opposed opinions of the master as most probable, or uniquely probable, or altogether to be held. But with due modesty he will be able to think otherwise. Appositely St. Thomas, Quodlibet 3, a. 10: "It must be said that diverse opinions of doctors of Sacred Scripture, if indeed they do not pertain to faith and morals, hearers can follow either opinion without danger; for then what the Apostle says in Rom. 14:5 has place: Let each one abound in his own sense. But in those things which pertain to faith and morals, no one is excused if he follows the erroneous opinion of some master... otherwise those would have been immune from sin who followed the opinions of Arius, Nestorius, and other heresiarchs... Therefore he who assents to the opinion of some master against the manifest testimony of Scripture, or against that which is publicly held according to the authority of the Church, cannot be excused from the vice of error."

Moreover, if the confessor himself cannot impose his probable opinion on the penitent, who wishes to follow another probable opinion, much less will the teacher of moral theology be able to impose his opinion on his hearers when another opinion is truly probable and commonly held by authors as probable. Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 26.

But this is directly confirmed from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 July 1831. For to the question: "Whether a professor of Sacred Theology can safely follow and profess the opinions which Blessed Alphonsus de Liguori professes in his Moral Theology?" it responded: "Affirmatively, without nevertheless judging that those are to be reprehended who follow opinions handed down by other approved authors." Therefore both the teacher of moral theology and his hearers can and are held so to defend their own probable opinions that they do not exclude the contrary truly probable opinions of other Catholic doctors. This certainly, especially in moral theology, would not be to build up, but to destroy.

3. Honoratus, a Catholic, never salutes the Prince, although others commonly salute him in the public streets and halt their step. For he says that the Prince is non-Catholic and by no means virtuous, but honor is owed only to virtue. - What of Honoratus?

R. Honoratus neither reasons rightly nor, of itself, acts rightly. "Honor is a certain testimony concerning the virtue of him who is honored; and therefore virtue alone is the due cause of honor. Nevertheless, it must be known that someone can be honored not only on account of his own virtue, but also on account of the virtue of another, as princes and prelates are honored, even if they are evil, insofar as they bear the person of God and of the community over which they are placed... and by the same reason parents and masters are to be honored on account of participation in the divine dignity, who is the father and master of all. But elders are to be honored on account of the sign of virtue, which is old age, although this sign sometimes fails... But the rich are to be honored on account of this, that they obtain a greater place in communities. But if they are honored with a view to riches, it will be the sin of acceptance of persons." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 63, a. 3; Quodlibet 8, a. 7. "If prelates are evil, they are not honored on account of the excellence of their own virtue, but on account of the excellence of dignity, according to which they are ministers of God; also in them the whole community over which they preside is honored." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; Quodlibet 10, a. 12. Cf. I. M. 701, 704.

4. "An infidel king lays snares for the Christians subject to him, or wishes to destroy them here and now and to blot out the Christian name in his kingdom. While he is meditating and preparing these things, other wicked men, by conspiring and warring against him, try to cast him out from his kingdom.

It is asked: Whether Christians are held positively to defend him, namely the tyrant who wishes here and now to slaughter them; or rather can behave negatively, neither warring against him nor helping him?

R. As it is set forth, negatively to the first part; affirmatively to the second part." S. O., 27 Jan. 1892; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 2099; I. M. 706.

384. • I. Teachers and preceptors owe disciples: 1. love; 2. example; 3. correction; 4. doctrine. The reason is both because in a certain way they conduct themselves after the manner of parents, and because they are instituted to teach disciples in sound doctrine of morals and letters.

Therefore they must: 1. perfect themselves in the science which they teach, for duly instructing others; 2. promote the progress of the disciples in letters as much as lies in them; 3. turn them away, as much as they can, from others who are disgraced by depraved morals, and whom they ought in no way to admit in their schools.

Hence preceptors can offend even gravely when they neglect the instruction of disciples, or punish them unjustly or indiscreetly; but especially if they seduce the same, by impelling them to sins, for example carnal sins; if they do not teach good morals; if on purpose they teach false things as true, or things harmful to salvation; if they admit or retain pupils imbued with evil morals, who may be pernicious to others, etc.

385. • II. Disciples are bound to show teachers:

1. Love and reverence, on account of the superiority and care of the same.

2. Obedience, while they are taught by them in good morals and arts. The reason is clear: for this is implied by the reciprocal obligation of disciples toward teachers, who would plainly be bound in vain to instruct them or imbue them with good morals unless the disciples were likewise bound to follow the admonitions and precepts of the teachers.

Hence disciples sin if, far from studying diligently, they wear away time in idleness, play, or other foolishness against the will of their teachers; but much more gravely if they detract from the teachers, deride them, mock them, or affect them with curses, calumnies, annoyances, etc.

597. 1. Teachers take the place of parents as regards spiritual education, and consequently have obligations similar to those of parents in spiritual education; namely, they must diligently instruct pupils in knowledge and good morals and, if it is necessary, also correct them. These obligations arise not only from the virtue of piety, but also from justice, both by reason of the office undertaken and by reason of the remuneration accepted. Hence teachers gravely fail in their office who disseminate depraved doctrines or give a bad example; who induce pupils to sin; or who are very indolent in imparting instruction or in administering necessary corrections.

598. 2. Pupils are bound to render teachers reverence, love, and obedience in all those things which pertain to studies and good morals. Accordingly, pupils sin if they detract from their teachers, deride or mock them, afflict them with calumnies and useless annoyances, or provoke others to irreverence and insolence. Likewise pupils sin if, against the will of the teacher, they waste time in idleness or play, if they do not attend during the lesson, or if they do not obey the commands pertaining to the discipline of the school. In practice, however, sins committed by pupils against teachers are quite rarely mortal, both because gravity of matter is absent and because sufficient deliberation is lacking.

709. Principle. Disciples, both from piety toward parents and by reason of the pact entered by parents, owe to their teachers love, reverence, and obedience in those things which pertain to studies and good morals. The reason is that parents, by this very fact that they have committed children to teachers to be educated, have delegated their own authority to them for obtaining this end. - In Religion, a similar office toward professors is founded in piety toward the Order.

Therefore disciples sin: 1. "Who mock their teachers, deride them, detract from them, affect them with curses, calumnies, troubles, provoke them to anger, and then they sin by a double sin. In these things, however, Sporer adverts, for the most part children are excused from mortal sin, because of levity, imprudence, or passion." - 2. "Who do not comply with teachers seriously commanding in a matter regarding good morals, studies, or the discipline of the school. But the sin is light

or grave, according to the reason of the matter," although inadvertence more often excuses them from mortal sin. - 3. Those who spend time in idleness, in play, or in other follies; "who during the time of lessons attend to nothing or little, the mind distracted elsewhere and preoccupied with various useless cares. In these and similar things, disciples sin gravely if by this manner of acting the acquisition of sciences necessary to status or condition is notably impeded. For estimating this, two things must be attended to: namely the quantity of time uselessly consumed, and the quality of the things which the teacher then hands on" (cf. Jaugey, n. 620).

Note. Disciples who are of their own right, and enter Institutes or Colleges in which they live under the authority of a Superior, are altogether held to observe the statutes of the Institute and to furnish obedience to the Superior, from the renunciation of their liberty freely furnished.

710. Principle. Teachers, both by reason of office and by reason of the stipend received, are held suitably to instruct and educate pupils. The reason: the contract entered with parents so wills.

Hence they must: 1. Hand on sound doctrine and one fit for the intended scope. If in the books which one is compelled to use there are found certain things less right or adverse to religion, the teacher must amend the ambiguous and suspect things by opportune explanations (Kenrick, tr. 13, n. 38). But if the books are by profession contrary to faith or good morals, it will by no means be licit to introduce them and use them. - 2. Teach by a convenient method and one accommodated to the capacity of the disciples, so that their minds are not overwhelmed, nor affected with weariness. Cf. St. Thom., opusc. de Virt., c. 2. - 3. Insert into the souls of the disciples the seeds of Christian virtues, be to them of good example, and watch attentively over their morals. For they are in the place of parents for spiritual education.

711. • Therefore they sin: 1. If they dissemble the sins of disciples, and do not correct them. - 2. If they do not promote their progress in letters. - 3. If they do not teach good morals. - 4. If deliberately they teach false things as true, or superstitious things and things harmful to salvation. - 5. If they themselves do not study so that they may satisfy the office. - 6. If they exact a stipend greater than just, or than the laws or custom of the gymnasium permit. - 7. If they deny the insignia of doctorate to the worthy, or confer them on the unworthy. - 8. If they are of evil example to disciples. - 9. If they admit to schools those imbued with evil morals and pernicious to others, or do not dismiss them from those schools (III, 362).

Cf. the Pontifical documents cited below; Jansen, de Facult. doc.; Zitelli, App. Jur. eccl., p. 499; Pierret, L'esprit moderne; Goyau, L'ecole d'aujourd'hui; Hammerstein, Die Schulfrage; Willems, Phil. mor., III, p. 487; Aertnys, Fasc. theol. mor., I, n. 38; Ami du Cl. (cf. Gen. Index, v. Enseignement); Stimmen aus Maria-Laach; Questions actuelles, where there are many things; Wernz, Jus Decr., III, 66.

712. • Notions. 1. A school is called depraved if it is not conformable to the principles of the Catholic religion concerning educating youth. - 2. Schools of this kind a) sometimes are ruled by a depraved spirit or according to the tenets of a heterodox sect, and are impious; b) sometimes prescind from every positive religion, and are called neutral; - c) sometimes admit children pertaining to any sect whatsoever, and are named mixed.

There will not be discussion here of impious schools, since in relation to these the principles are too plain. The question is only agitated concerning schools which they call neutral; and the principles which we shall establish concerning neutral schools it will also be licit to apply to mixed schools, since regularly in them positive religion is not taught.

713. Principles. I. That manner of instructing youth which excludes every religious education is of itself most adverse to the Catholic cause. The reason is because 1. it induces, of itself, into contempt of religion, as if namely religion were to be esteemed nothing; 2. it is separated from the authority of the Church; whence it can happen that teachers are placed over schools and books are used which pour errors and seeds of vices into tender minds; 3. it is impossible to hand on precepts of morals without religion, and to teach certain sciences, for example history, without the teacher saying something incidentally concerning revelation and the Church, and either patronizing or opposing them; - 4. the authors themselves of this instruction have confessed that one of its ends is the overthrow of religion. Thus from the Instruction of the S. C. de Prop. F. to the Bishops of North America, 24 Nov. 1875 (A. S. S., XI, p. 44).

And Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Letter Nobilissima directed to the Bishops of France on 8 Feb. 1884, confirmed these things: "The Church ... has always openly condemned the schools which they call mixed or neutral, again and again admonishing fathers of families that in a matter of so great moment they should attend their mind to taking care."

714. II. Of schools which they call neutral, some are positively, others negatively harmful. Therefore not all bring equal danger. This is gathered from the cited Instruction.

Now: 1. Those are negatively harmful in which nothing adverse to faith or morals is taught. 2. But those are positively harmful in which the integrity of faith or the honesty of morals, or both together, are exposed to proximate danger.¹

Moreover, the causes on account of which they become POSITIVELY harmful are three of themselves and regularly: a) books, which little by little destroy religion or modesty, or both, in the souls of children; - b) teachers, who instill the poison of error into the souls of children, if not openly, at least craftily and gradually; - c) fellow-disciples who cultivate either a false religion or none, and are furnished with such morals and accustomed to such license of speaking and acting, that from this the faith of youths, although excellently instructed at home, is shaken, or certainly modesty and piety are consumed. It is plain that, besides these sources of dangers, which are given as regards schools in general, others can be present in this or that school, if namely boys with girls are ordered to sit on the same bench. It is plain also that in higher schools, because the mind is more imbued with religion, the influence of evil is often less than in others, especially elementary ones.

715. III. Schools called neutral cannot be frequented with a safe conscience unless a sufficient cause is present and opportune cautions are used.² This the natural law itself and divine law proclaim.

We have said: 1. A sufficient cause is present. This is plain from the fact that great danger of perversion is feared. But from the magnitude of the danger, weigh what cause can be called truly sufficient: a) If the neutral school is negatively harmful, the danger ordinarily will be remote, and therefore ordinary grave causes will be sufficient, for example if a neighboring school is found little fit for educating children conveniently to their condition, and the means are lacking of educating offspring Catholicly in another region. b) If the school is positively harmful, the danger ordinarily will be proximate, therefore urgent reasons are required, for example if no other school were at hand, if continual vexations from the Government were feared, etc. In each case, mentioned under a) and b), cautions are required more or less rigorous according to the gravity of the danger. c) If the school is so positively harmful that necessarily, even with cautions used, perversion infects souls, no cause can be called sufficient, and such a danger must altogether be avoided, with any temporal harm whatsoever, even of life, as is from the cited Instruction.

2. Opportune cautions are used. For by these means the danger must be made remote, insofar as it can be (cf. cited Instruction).

716. • To use cautions pertains to the parish priest, to parents, to the scholars themselves. And indeed: a) Let the parish priest devote himself much more diligently to catecheses, attending especially to those things which are more frequently attacked by the enemies of our faith. Let him teach not only publicly and through houses, but admonish each one; let him help in resistance against perverters one whom he knows to be placed in such straits (cf. Acts Ap., c. 20). b) Let parents watch solicitously over their children, through themselves or through others carefully question them concerning the lessons heard, recognize the books handed to them, and if they detect anything harmful there, furnish antidotes. But if books handed on by the teacher have been condemned by the Bishop, let them altogether forbid the children to use such books, and from competent authority strongly and persistently demand their removal. If any societies established by fathers of families, associations des peres de famille, exist in the region, let them give their name to these, so that thus, with a juridic person intervening, complaints may become more effective. c) The scholars themselves, on whom harmful books are imposed, or whose teachers or fellow-soldiers labor to infect them, should know that they themselves personally, independently of parents, are held to cautions (Ami du Cl., 1912), yet in ways convenient to their age. They cannot retain with themselves harmful books prohibited by the Bishop, and, in the case in which such things are imposed on them, they are held to resist internally, indeed also externally; internally, by not approving, strengthening their will in good; externally, by not accepting the books without protest, by using them only for the time necessary, and by similar acts by which they make manifest horror of evil and aversion from dangers.

Note. He who desires to know more very useful things should read the Decrees of the Third Council of Baltimore, n. 194 seqq., confirmed by Leo XIII, 31 May 1893; the Responses from the Secretariat of State, 5 May 1911, in relation to books prohibited by the Bishops of France (in Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 598); he should also weigh the very many practical solutions which are to be found in the above-mentioned commentary, years 1908-1913, v. Manuels condamnes, peche scolaire. Cf. also Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 45, p. 47.

717. Consequences. 1. TEACHERS, teaching in a neutral public school, cannot of themselves introduce and explain harmful books. But if such books are imposed by office, and at the same time they foresee that resistance would be useless, they must necessarily read them in such a way that they provide an effective antidote to disciples, or, better, read those things alone which would be harmless. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1908, p. 846; 1911, p. 598; Linz. Quart. Schr., 1907, p. 375, diverse cases.

2. INSPECTORS should undertake their office with this mind, that they are prepared according to their powers to impede evil in positively harmful schools. The hope of good which they have must be founded; otherwise they would cooperate with evil (Konings, n. 440).

3. YOUTHS cannot go to schools called normal schools if they are positively harmful and they themselves remain exposed to depraved influences; if they are negatively harmful, access is not forbidden to youths, provided they form a firm purpose, in carrying out the office of teacher, of avoiding those things from which a Catholic teacher must abstain. But if they seem not about to be tenacious of this purpose, they are earnestly to be exhorted that they dedicate themselves to another office or art (Konings, l. c.).

As regards Colleges, Gymnasia, Universities, the rules handed on above can and must be applied, nevertheless with regard to the danger preserved. It is known that the Holy See has forbidden that clerics go to Government Universities without license of the Bishop, and Regulars who must teach without license of the Superior. Let especially the Encyclical Pascendi be read, by which those things are extended to the universal Church which in the year 1896 the S. C. Ep. et Reg. had sanctioned. Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 40, p. 750; A. S. S., vol. 29, p. 360; Ami du Cl., 1907, p. 1135.

If the University is non-Catholic, the Bishop must prescribe greater cautions as regards removing the danger. Only in recent times did the Holy See concede that Catholic youths go to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (S. Off., 26 Mar. 1891; S. C. de Prop. Fide, 17 Apr. 1895).

4. PRIESTS can hand on the teachings of the Christian faith in the mixed schools of heretics, or carry out the office of chaplain. The mind of the Holy See is that, not only over schools of handing on the faith, but also over schools of other disciplines, as much as can be done, priests or honest laymen be placed. S. Off. to the Bishops of Switzerland, 17 Jan. 1866 (in Bucceroni, Enchir. morale, p. 79).

718. • PRACTICAL RULES. 1. To parents who, the cautions mentioned above being spurned, without sufficient cause send children into harmful schools, absolution must firmly be denied. A fortiori this must be done if severe decrees promulgated by the Bishop command that the threatening evil be plucked up by the roots. It will always be better to seek a uniform norm from the Ordinary.

2. To children, since they are not of their own right and are usually made conscious of the gravity of the danger only little by little, let the benefit of absolution not be denied at the beginning. With great prudence let them be taught concerning those things which natural and episcopal law demand of them, and then only let them be dismissed unabsolved when sufficient knowledge of the obligation and evil disposition of the will are present.

3. Parish priests, so that they may more easily avert evils from children, have the office of often admonishing parishioners concerning the gravity of sin committed in this matter, so that thus the public conscience, as they say, may be formed according to the norm of right. But if certain persons from their parish, parents, children, or teachers, confess to an outside priest, and cautions as regards prohibited books, or sufficient causes as regards access to a harmful school, are in no way present, and this is publicly established, of himself the parish priest will be able to deprive the resistant, admonished once and again, of communion. But since public denial of communion is full of difficulties, let him do nothing without the Bishop being consulted. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1909, p. 1178; 1911, p. 198, 201, 503, 666.

450. • I. Teachers and instructors owe to students: 1° love; 2° example; 3° correction; 4° doctrine. The reason is both because they in some way stand in the place of parents, and because they are instituted for educating students in sound doctrine of morals and letters.

Therefore they ought: 1° to perfect themselves in the knowledge which they teach, for duly educating others; 2° to promote the progress of students in letters, as much as in them lies; to turn them away, as much as they can, from others who are disgraced by depraved morals, and whom they ought in no way to admit into their schools.

Hence instructors can offend even gravely when they neglect the instruction of students, or punish them unjustly or indiscreetly; but especially if they seduce them, by impelling them for example to carnal sins; if they do not teach good morals; if deliberately they teach false things as true, or things harmful to salvation; if they admit or retain students imbued with evil morals who are pernicious to others, etc. Cf. n. 437. case VI, 440. 1°.

451. • II. Students are bound to exhibit to teachers:

1° Love and reverence, because of their superiority and care.

2° Obedience, while they are being educated by them in good morals and arts. The reason is plain: for the reciprocal obligation of students toward teachers imports this, since teachers would be obligated altogether in vain to educate them or imbue them with good morals unless students were likewise obligated to follow the admonitions and precepts of teachers.

Hence students sin if, instead of studying diligently, they waste time in idleness, play, or other foolishness contrary to the will of their teachers; but much more gravely if they detract from teachers, ridicule them, mock them, afflict them with curses, calumnies, annoyances, etc.

Concerning these obligations we note these dispositions of our civil law. "The power allowed by law to the parent over the person of the child may be delegated to a tutor or instructor, the better to accomplish the purpose of education. A schoolmaster, who stands in that character loco parentis, may in proper cases inflict moderate and reasonable chastisement, even for acts done out of school, if prejudicial to its order and good discipline."¹

IX. Observation concerning pupils and teachers. - Between pupils and teachers there are obligations similar to those between children and parents. Wherefore they are to be questioned:

A. Pupils: 1. whether they have preserved reverence toward their teachers, or, on the contrary, have borne themselves insolently toward them, treated them irreverently, detracted from them, mocked them, or been troublesome to them;

2. whether they have given obedience to those strictly commanding as to studies, good morals, and scholastic discipline;

3. whether they attended to lessons, studied diligently, and did not waste time uselessly.

B. Teachers: 1. whether they have employed due diligence in preparing and giving lessons;

2. whether they have corrected the bad morals of pupils, and nevertheless have not punished them excessively or unjustly;

3. whether they have not given bad example and have not scandalized them.