Delivered Nov. 15, 2010 - Brandon University · 2016. 6. 21. · 1 Competing Virtues: the Right,...
Transcript of Delivered Nov. 15, 2010 - Brandon University · 2016. 6. 21. · 1 Competing Virtues: the Right,...
1
Competing Virtues: the Right, the Wrong and the Possible in the Jesuit Missions of Canada
Delivered Nov. 15, 2010
Thank you very much.
Christianity began with the breaking of an old order. Time and time again the Jesus of
the Gospels is given these words to say: “You have heard it said… but I say unto you…” In the
Church’s view, this breaking point was not so much the destruction of what had gone before, as
its fulfillment. Yet this fulfillment always had to include breaking, both symbolic and concrete:
every priest broke Christ’s body in the sacrament of the Mass, and ardent missionaries of the
early Middle Ages such as St. Boniface smashed idols as they moved through the forests of
pagan Europe.
The baroque Jesuits both broke and built as they traveled around the world. On a
personal level, each Jesuit broke with the totality of secular existence upon entering the
Society, and continued to cultivate the breaking of his own bodily desires through acts of self-
mortification. Jesuits arriving among peoples whom they hoped to evangelize came armed
with the dichotomous vision of breaking and fulfilling, a two edged sword that they applied as
they reacted to circumstances influenced by both their ethnic, racial, and linguistic biases and
as they responded to the pressures applied by colonial power that supported their missions.
At the same time Jesuits were sustained by their awareness of being part of an indivisible unity,
the Society of Jesus, which claimed over 20,000 members by the middle of the eighteenth
2
century. Among the concepts that held this large and widely dispersed Society together were
the notions of virtue, and its inverse, vice.
Jesuit culture in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was saturated with the
notion of virtue. Jesuit dramas extolled virtue, the Society’s visual arts stamped images of
virtuous action on the environment of school, church and residentia, and Jesuit polemical and
devotional writings provided examples of right action to the lay population. Virtues were also
represented symbolically in books of emblems produced by Jesuit presses. Contrasted with
Christian virtue was depraved or disordered action. Vicious acts, i. e., ones lacking or, more
often opposing virtue, as described in Jesuit historical documents, did not merely require
correction, but they provided a necessary narrative counterpoint to the right actions of the
Jesuits and those that accepted their doctrines. The Society’s self-composed narrative moved
forward through the unceasing rhetorical presentation of good and evil, virtue and vice,
elements which both sustained the reader’s interest and also provided guideposts to the
didactic message of the text.
In trying to assess what the Jesuits active in North America believed they were doing, it’s
most important to keep this self-conscious presentation of virtue and non (or anti-) virtue in
mind for two reasons. First, because this dichotomy is a salient feature of the Jesuit Relations,
a vast French language document that has long been a major source for scholars of
seventeenth century Canadian history. The Jesuit penchant for categorization is evident in the
descriptions of the players in the drama of the struggle for the souls of the aboriginal
3
inhabitants of North America. The presence of “vicious” behaviors among those opposing the
Jesuits also led to the conclusion that the Devil was at work, attempting to thwart the Jesuits’
undertakings. And while this opposition of this kind might not seem like a good thing, the
efforts of the Evil One could be regarded as proof that the Jesuits were on the right track, or
else why would he bother? And the Relations, intended as they were for a lay audience,
become spicier with the inclusion of vice. The contrast between virtue and vice is also essential
to an understanding how the Jesuits created the categories within which they located all of
their experiences and with which they constructed their worldview, a worldview that would
guide the direction of their enterprises. The categories of virtue and vice intersected and
overlapped with those of barbarus and nobilis, creating a nexus of expectations that
contributed to the success or failure of the Society’s missions.
The identification and correction of vice were Jesuit preoccupations in part because
these endeavors took place on a material plane where so much of the Society’s work was
conducted. While famed as a religious order of intellectuals who delved into abstract matters,
the Jesuits had always paid attention to physical acts that signified breaks with the past and
that promised commitments to a redirection of one’s life in a more spiritual path. The
founding mythology of the Society and its later annals was replete with examples of this
redirection. St. Ignatius, the professional soldier who became the founder of the order, had
taken off his sword and hung it on an altar dedicated to the Virgin Mary as he had taken up a
new path as a “pilgrim”. St. Francis Borgia, one of the most powerful grandees of Spain,
4
repudiated his wealth and titles to become a Jesuit and went on to serve as the Praepositus
generalis or head of the Society. Rejection of earthly pleasure and power was of course not a
Jesuit invention—St. Francis, and many others before him, had established the pattern of
turning away from worldly life to seek God’s will- but the Jesuits both wove this theme into
their institutional narrative and established it as a visible goal for both members of the Society
and also for the externi or students in their schools who would not become Jesuits. Thus a self-
conscious pursuit of virtue meant both engagement with and separation from elements of the
European culture from which the Society had sprung. The engagement came when Jesuits-in
training and their lay counterparts took up the study of classical authors such as Cicero or Virgil.
The Ratio made recommendations of authors to study based on the criteria of intellectual
challenge and practical application, asserting,
Scholarly learning should be employed moderately, so that now and then it stimulates
the mental powers and refreshes them without impeding the learning of the language.
These two themes, intellectual challenge and useful skill, would flavor both the Jesuit approach
to missionary work, and the techniques that Jesuits would use to cultivate virtue among the
peoples they met. And despite the expectation that a Jesuit be humble, being human beings,
some Jesuits must have felt a thrill of accomplishment and even a sense of superiority over
others because of the mastery of these skills.
5
Yet, simultaneously, a separation from important aspects of secular European society
was evident at every step as Jesuit scholastics were conditioned to think of themselves as
members of an organization whose ties were not maintained be the restrictions of cloister walls
but through a culture bound by the invisible power of discipline and obedience. Tied up in this
complex relationship was a double notion of maleness that the word “virtue” implies. The
Latin root of this word is “vir” which gives us the English words “virile” and also “virtuoso.”
(Just as a side note, the word is also more distantly related to “werewolf” or man-wolf.) The
first of these words, “virile,” describes a man in terms of his physical masculinity; the latter,
“virtuoso,“ which comes to us through the Italian, suggests consummate mastery of an activity
that can be appreciated by others. Both notions are applicable to Baroque Jesuit culture.
Jesuits were celibate, but they were conspicuously and exclusively male; unlike the cloistered
contemplative, the Jesuit struggled openly in the world, testing himself physically, not only with
mortifications practiced in private but also by long dangerous journeys, exposure to harm on
the battlefield, physical temptations, extremes of climate, and exposure to the dreaded plague.
To these physical demands were added the tortures inflicted on Jesuits in every corner of the
globe and of course the martyrdoms glorified in the Society’s annals. Taken collectively these
masculine traits describe a “tough guy” such as might be found in many occupations of the day,
from mercenaries to slave traders, but complementing this toughness characteristic of the
“Christian athlete” were two other components that Jesuit teachers cultivated in their students:
skill in controlled rituals of competition and the ideal of practiced public performance. The
Ratio specified competitions between students and between teams of students for which prizes
were awarded. The competitions were verbal, not physical in nature but the symbolism
6
employed suggested the ancient Greek pancration or the Roman arena. In these competitions
future Jesuits and externi alike were reminded of both the relationship among right behavior,
public performance and competition, and of the classical models that provided the examples of
virtue Jesuits were called upon to emulate. And these competitions, unlike the exertions of the
slaver or mercenary, were self-consciously undertaken for the ideal expressed in the Jesuit
motto: Omnia ad maiorem Gloriam Dei: All things for the greater glory of God.
In the act of public performance Jesuits drew upon the second element of male virtue,
that of demonstrated skill and understanding of a medium of communication. In fact virtuoso
originally had a broader meaning and included those who excelled in the humanities or
sciences, and was therefore construed in a manner close to the Greek aretē or excellence. The
Jesuit conception of virtuosity as including both great expressive skill demonstrated before an
audience and mastery of an intellectual discipline drew upon classical Pagan models at least as
much as on Christian ones. But it made very little allowance for understandings of
performance, knowledge or right action that had developed outside Greco-Roman or medieval
contexts, something that would place Jesuit missionaries at a disadvantage when they arrived
in North America.
It is not easy to generalize about the moral universe of all of the scores of individual
aboriginal peoples of North America. Different communities had evolved distinct perspectives
on the relationship, for instance, of the individual to the group, and on the connection between
7
humans and what Europeans would later call “Nature” with a capital N. But generally it may be
fair to say that while solitary performance was important in many contexts within aboriginal
communities, relation was as least if not more so. For example, among the Huron people each
member of a community was in relation to others within that community, both through kinship
ties and through shared tasks, commonly held memories and proximal living conditions. When
for example, the celibate Recollects, another Catholic religious order working in seventeenth
century North America, rejected the offers of matrimonial alliances put forward by the Hurons,
the Europeans’ disgusted responses were seen as a grave insult to the community, who had
made the offer to demonstrate the Hurons’ acceptance of the Europeans and their desire to
enter into a real and lasting relationship with them. There is no exact equivalent for “virtue” in
this context, but what might be called “right action” in a Huron community always included
relation to others. The Jesuit notion of virtue, although it was tied to public performance,
which involved others also had a strand that emphasized isolation from others as well. The
priority the Jesuits and other Catholic clergy placed on daily devotional activities, which
absented them from the collectively undertaken tasks that kept a community going, created a
further gulf of understanding, one that linguistic barriers only heightened. Thus the Jesuit
performance of a “good” activity, as they understood it, might have been easily interpreted as
irresponsibility or arrogance. Stated another way, what was a demonstration of “virtue” for
European Catholics failed the test of “right action” in the context of an aboriginal community.
(I might add that in Europe, Jesuit priests were able to pursue such devotional activities in part
because of the support they received from Jesuit brothers who performed many of the practical
tasks of the community.)
8
The part of the Jesuit ideal of “virtue” specifically demonstrated through public
performance was, on one level, not entirely alien to some aspects of aboriginal culture. The
special position occupied by the shaman within the Huron community derived in part from his
or her performances in a public setting, in which familiar formulae and behaviors were
repeated and collective memory was expressed through the actions of an individual. A rough
parallel might be drawn between such a performance and the celebration of mass by a priest.
But the shaman was always in kinship or other relationships to the people witnessing his
performance, while a Jesuit priest, even while working in Europe, often came from far away
and had disavowed the claims of kinship and historic connection to the community that a pre-
Tridentine parish priest might have possessed. Indeed, the priest could only serve in this role if
he had broken with the community in a serious and irreversible fashion.
(I would like to emphasize how different the formation of all clergy, not just that which
Jesuits underwent, became after the Council of Trent, which took place in the mid-sixteenth
century. For previous to this ecclesiastical council, many parish priests lived lives much more
similar to the laypersons they shepherded.)
And although the skills and performance of the shaman were derived from both a
remembered lore and perhaps from the shaman’s identification as a “vir” in a sense close to
9
that employed by the Jesuits, the orality of the shaman’s performance was not derived from
the written word, nor could it be measured against it. This was not an omission or the result of
an insufficiently developed aesthetic sense. For the Hurons and for many other native
communities the application of absolute, externally existing standards to the execution of a
healing process simply would not have fit the expectations of those involved, nor would the
application of such standards have conveyed the understanding held by the community as to
the significance of the event and way it should be experienced. Unlike a Jesuit school drama,
whose script, it is true, might be modified from performance to performance but which as a
performance still had to be in strict relation to some written record, the performance of a
shaman’s dance was a totality in itself, and not dependent upon any external factors, such as a
documented record of how a similar dance had been executed a century earlier in some remote
location.
The difference in these two approaches to performance is directly related to the gap
between the Jesuit conception of good and evil and a differently perceived valuation of
experience as held by some aboriginal communities. The sequence of inquiry for a Jesuit was:
There is a performance: How does it measure up to long-established criteria for this mode of
expression? How does it compare with other more or less equivalent performances? And from
each of these questions, how is this performance situated within the institutional culture of the
Society whose goals the performance must always serve? For a seventeenth-century Huron
(and we must proceed carefully here when claiming knowledge of a social organization that
10
disappeared long ago) the application of criteria to judge the “goodness” of a performance may
have been included such factors as the efficacy of the curative effort, the relation of the
performance to a dream or vision, or the collective experience of the witnesses, or the idea of
self-consciously evaluating such a performance may not have occurred to any of the
participants. Nor was a shaman’s performance calculated to teach a specific lesson or to
reinforce one of multiple competing versions of a historical narrative, as was a Jesuit school
drama performed amidst the inter-confessional conflict of Europe.
In contrast to performances occurring in aboriginal communities , the reference point of
every public display of oral virtuosity undertaken by the Jesuits was the written word, which
not coincidentally, was also the point of reference for moral evaluations. The texts that Jesuit
dramatists used were not subject—as far as scholarship has been able to determine—to
improvisation, and deviations from the written record would have been regarded as errors by
Jesuit teachers watching the performance. On a deeper level, the models for Jesuit oral
performance, whether they were the speeches or Cicero or the tragedies of Seneca, had existed
in written form and had been carefully recopied for centuries. Even newly composed Latin
texts destined for use in Jesuit performances (and here I include homilies and polemical
writings, as well as texts recited in processions) would be judged against the standard of the
classical Latin taught to every Jesuit in the Society’s schools. This emphasis on evaluation
extended to competitions among students in Jesuit schools, including each of the boys who
grew up to become the missionaries who journeyed to North America.
11
The employment of an absolute standard in virtuoso performance paralleled the
absolute moral standards that were the starting point of Jesuit discernment and action
regarding the conduct of the people they met in North America. I say “starting point” because
in reality the experience of the Jesuits in this new environment was more than the application
of absolute standards to an unfamiliar setting. It was also an interface between a European-
based organization that during the seventeenth century had in fact been criticized for what was
seen as its excessive flexibility and pursuit of the possible. Specifically, Jesuit confessors were
faulted for telling penitents that they might look to a wide range of writers on morality to find
even just one that might justify the actions the penitent had taken. This approach to morality,
called probablism, caused immense scandal to many Catholics and partly inspired Blaise
Pascal’s attacks on the Jesuits in his Provincial Letters.
The controversy surrounding the Jesuit approach to ethics and morality is germane to
the missions to North America because it shows how despite its seemingly rule-bound nature
the Society had the potential to adapt to conditions on the ground—in this instance penitents
who the Jesuits believed would be more likely to come to conform if some sort of moral
justification might be found for their actions. How much adaptability and “inculturation,” as
practiced by seventeenth-century Jesuits from Nancy to Nagasaki is in evidence in these early
Jesuit encounters with aboriginal Native Americans? Records produced by the Jesuits
themselves contain little evidence of inculturation in this context, while the considerable
12
number of Huron who converted might be interpreted as a consequence of Jesuit adaptability--
but also of possible coercion or mutual misunderstanding. It is safe to say that the Jesuits
working in the forests of Canada did not cut the aboriginals whom they met much slack,
perhaps because they were too busy reacting negatively to what they saw around them. Or
perhaps also because they were conscious of the criticism directed at their colleagues in France
and wished to appear more demanding in their apostolic work.
The roots of the often expressed Jesuit antipathy towards and even horror of Huron and
other aboriginal cultures are buried among a number of contradictory forces present in Jesuit
formation. It is easy for us to spot the Jesuits’ abhorrence of aboriginal sexual practices but
more than mere prudery is at work here. Because Jesuit formation placed such a priority on
demonstrations of self mastery, behavior of any kind that seemed to indulge the passions was
regarded with a genuine horror. From the perspective of a Baroque Catholic, man’s fallen state
was both the result of such self-indulgence (meaning Adam’s fall) and a place of peril (in Latin
“periculum”) in which further moral defeats might be suffered. The notion of danger in fact is
one of the most important elements of the Jesuit conception of virtue, and thus of the
construction of the Jesuit side of this story. Without danger, virtue is not so easily identified
and perhaps less important as well. Periculum, either explicitly physical, or of the more subtle
moral variety, is the test that proves the worth of the Christian, and is also an inescapable part
of the history of the Church, for of what use is salvation if there is not something from which
we must be saved?
13
In the novel Skippy Dies, by Paul Murray, an Irish history teacher tells his students
But history, in the end, is only another kind of story, and stories are different from the
truth. The truth is messy and chaotic and all over the place. Often it just doesn’t make
sense. Stories make things make sense, but the way they do that is to leave out anything
that doesn’t fit. And often that is quite a lot.
The inconvenient possibility of a messy truth also has to be part of our consideration of this
encounter. Here I am not talking about the problems of methodology, but rather about our
holding of the history after the methodology has already been employed and story has begun
to make sense to us. There are quite possibly parts of this story that aren’t going to fit, or will
fit only if one accepts a worldview that seems to us to be lacking integration. Some of these
things may be known to us through surviving records, and others not. Among the things that
seem to jar is found in the account of Isaac Jogues, one of the Jesuits killed by the Hurons in
1646. Describing the conditions of his and his fellow Jesuits’ earlier captivity among the
Mohawks, the priest writes “I saw our Egyptians sitting above pots of meat, which we could not
touch.”1 But what can Jogues mean? The answer is that this Jesuit likened the captivity of his
colleagues to the bondage experienced by the Children of Israel in Egypt. OK, just another
belabored Old Testament metaphor, you might say. But once this rock is flipped over, there are
a number of disconnected oddities on view. First, the Jesuits are comparing themselves to a
population (the Jews) that in day-to-day life they scorned as practitioners of a “superstition.”
1 Tanner, Societas, p. 521.
14
(Devoted Jesuit brothers were sometimes referred to in their obituaries as “true Israelites”, a
term that really threw me the first time I saw it.) To do this the Jesuits had to segregate the
real flesh and blood Jews they might meet from the metaphorical Jews who were part of God’s
plan—a plan that included the Jesuits. This fact, and not the absence of real “Egyptians” in the
North American forest, is part of the messy truth. Reading this passage, and many others like
it, we are compelled to confront a Jesuit who divorced his living experience from his linguistic
knowledge, and in doing so we enter a terrain of messy truths that do not fit well together.
And among the additional truths that do not fit well together is also the disconnect between
the Biblical journey of the children of Israel and the urbane and polished political philosophy of
the Jesuits’ pagan idol Cicero. The former is a narrative dominated by fear, miracle, and
vengeance, and by the backsliding of a weak willed people. The latter expounded the ideal of
the politically engaged citizen of the Republic in terms largely devoid of theology.
Steeped in both literary traditions, Jesuits were stuck trying to balance these
incompatible visions. Yet just as the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt provided the Jesuits with a way
of making sense of the torment they underwent in the North American wilderness their
understanding of Cicero gave them a guidepost in the ongoing articulation of their experience
in Baroque Latin. The interaction of these two elements makes for a complex brew, one that
may have confused the Jesuits themselves at times.
How can the apparently real concern the Jesuits held for the salvation of souls be
reconciled with the fathers’ capacity to disconnect cultural connections that seem so obvious to
15
us today? We find the explanation, I believe, in the Jesuit understanding of virtue. Virtue, as
described by Cicero (and Cicero is never too far in the background in an investigation such as
this), consists of what were later called the Four Cardinal Virtues: justice, prudence, fortitude,
and temperance; the key here is the virtue that might seem the least familiar to us: fortitude.
Fortitude is both the quality that keeps the individual unmoved by the enticements of pleasures
and also the characteristic that removes emotional blocks to performing what reason requires.
Jesuit literature of the seventeenth century built upon this notion and extols a detachment
from the pains and pleasures of the world. But unlike a medieval hermit who fled from other
people in order to escape temptation and periculum, the Jesuit sought out the place where
people gathered and deliberately placed himself in situations where his fortitude would be
tested. Indeed, the most admired Jesuits were those who appeared supremely indifferent to
both pain and pleasure—and yet the story of their accomplishments was spread through
appeals to the senses; painting, sculptures and dramatic performance. Reconciling these two
facts is one of the biggest challenges to understanding the Jesuit mind of this period.
The raison d’etre of the Society of Jesus was (notice I do not say “is”!) the propagation of the
Faith. It is both motive for action and a rational program of that action. So, while it may be
difficult for us to grasp, the denial of a connection between what had been learned from books
and what was encountered in the material world aided the Jesuits in carrying out their mission.
For the Huron shaman, the idea of divorcing oneself from the evidences of the world
(which for him included knowledge gained from memories, dreams and visions) around one
16
would have seemed bizarre and pointless—and impossible as well. Again, the notion of
relation and the absence of a written record are key features of how the shaman’s performance
relates to an ethical point of view. I’ll also venture to speculate that the force that propelled
the shaman’s actions also enlightened and animated experience for other members of his
community: a non-rational way of knowing that had kinesthetic and multisensory aspects as
well as affective ones. The Jesuits would have acknowledged the value of some of these
components of experience, but ultimately they depended upon the written word to express
and evaluate all such experiences. By connecting the act of writing to virtue, the Jesuits
gained the power to condense and codify their understanding, and to connect it symbolically to
the understandings of those who had lived long before. But they ran the risk of losing track of
those aspects of experience for which there are no concise Latin definitions. They also
inevitably if perhaps unintentionally devalued the experiences of others and thereby relegated
other ways of understanding right action to the periphery.
From the distance of almost four hundred years it is impossible to separate the religious
convictions of these Jesuits from whatever cultural prejudices they also brought with them to
North America. No doubt they would have been unable to make such a separation themselves.
And therein lies the most important lesson we can glean from an examination of this
encounter.
The Jesuits told their story in terms of and in the idiom of their religious convictions.
But religious convictions cannot be divorced from their cultural milieu that gave them birth. In
17
the case of the meeting of aboriginal and Jesuit, the communities of each participant gave
support and validation to experience. As subjects of the King of France, Jesuits active in the
seventeenth-century missions to North America came from a world that even if it had
abandoned the political ideal of a united Christendom, nevertheless had elevated the image of
the individual European Christian as opposed to the “barbarian”’ or savage.” Racial categories
as they came to be known in the nineteenth century did not yet exist and Jesuit records
generally have little to say about the biologically derived features of the non-European they
met. By contrast, the nakedness of non-Europeans or their sexual or eating habits marked such
people as the Huron as “barbari.” (And if aboriginals had seemed to accept at least some of the
Jesuits’ teachings they might be called “nostri barbari” or “our barbarians,” but they were still
barbarians.) The lines dividing the civilized or “potentially virtuous” from the savage and
probably vicious had to do with the application of physicality, and its description in
propositional language, which brings me to my final point.
The Jesuits’ emphasis on the application of skills, and therefore on achievement, runs
through the entire culture of their order. Training in eloquence, fastidious recording of
conversion statistics, and the assembling of collections of technological wonders such as clocks
and prisms with which to dazzle courtiers of the Chinese Emperor were all expressions of the
Society’s willingness to apply skills and knowledge. Less visible to us surrounded as we are
with a culture that extols achievement is the Jesuit emphasis on externally visible
accomplishments, something that set them apart from many strands of the Christian tradition.
18
Men of action, Jesuits forever noted the actions of others, and sought to transform the material
world. This tendency, coupled with the conviction that God regularly intervened in the natural
world meant that Jesuits framed questions of virtue and vice in terms of ordered versus
disordered action. The distinction is brought home in the artwork portraying Jesuit martyrs.
These are shown as calm, balanced and harmonious, even in the moment of their deaths, while
their tormentors reveal through their gestures their internal disorder.
In this dichotomy between order and disorder we find the key to the Jesuits’
understanding of the world in which they found themselves in North America, and thus to the
ways that they used to approach aboriginal peoples. This division also sheds light on the ways
in which they recorded the consequences of these encounters, using the rules of Latin grammar
and syntax. For the Huron, and many other aboriginal peoples, this separation of experience
into order and disorder, like so many other constructions proposed by the Jesuits, was largely
meaningless, since the concept of “order” and the self-conscious effort required to bring it into
existence was of little practical use in a world experienced and accepted in its totality and not
always in a linear fashion. At the same time, no aboriginal language was analyzed by its own
speakers in the way that future Jesuits analyzed Latin as they were learning to use it. Thus
while these future Jesuits were gaining mastery of the second language that would be a
building block of their institutional culture, they were also breaking it apart.
Dividing and breaking can be very similar—some might say almost identical—
activities. Breaking can transform the object of one’s attentions, and also make it more
19
manageable, by decreasing its complexity. The general human tendency, possessed by
aboriginals as well as Jesuits, to group and categorize was expressed through incompatible
vocabularies, and driven, in each instance, by differing moral imperatives. We may look back
at the world of the seventeenth-century Jesuits and think that we see “olden times” when
things moved more slowly and life was less complicated, but for Europeans living then those
times were very fast paced and unsettling, both for practical reasons such as war and plague
and also because of the challenges pressed forward by thinkers such as Hobbes and Galileo. To
some this world seemed both unmanageable in its brokenness and in need of reduction that
would make it manageable again. So the Jesuits dreamed of a cosmos converted and a Church
universal, goals to be achieved through the dividing and mastering of the world they found. In
North America, they found cultures that they divided and ultimately helped to break, although
not in ways and not with the consequences they had hoped for. This sacrifice of a culture on
the altar of virtue is the greatest conundrum and the greatest tragedy in the story of the Jesuits’
first sojourn among the aboriginals of this land.
Thank you.