historical writings 894 44. Finally, during all the years that the name and Order of the Pious Schools existed in Poland, a visitation was never conducted.185 For although the local Superiors were visited by the Provincials, I never was capable of noticing whether any of their faults were corrected. Rather, their cruelty toward their subjects was commended — or at least ignored. Such a visitation was thus either courteous or friendly, but not canonical; it served to plunder the poor treasury [of the house], but [it did not serve] to restore or strengthen observance of the Rule.186 45. And so, except Fr. Charles of the Mother of God, recently sent from Moravia primarily for the sake of acquainting himself with my case and that of my companions187 rather than for correcting Superiors, [no] General visitator during this entire time [even once] appeared in this Province.188 And, because he was the friend and compatriot of the Provincial, he used his power against me who was bearing [the persecutions] rather than against the persecutors. When, however, he had to investigate the reasons for my incarceration and the enmity of the Province toward me, he preferred to oppress the innocent one even more, so as to expel him as quickly as possible from the Institute of Pious Schools rather than help him. 46. The one who correctly understood and knew me and observed my external behavior, would not such a one be astounded, [seeing] that I was seized most severely by the Provincial, precisely when I should not have been subject to him on 185 This refers to the canonical visitation, which the Provincial should have made every year. Cf. ConstSP, Part III, Ch. V, n. I: ibid. Ch. II, n. VI. 186 It is difficult to verify this claim of Fr. Papczyński, because from this period (1642-1670), the decrees of the Provincial visitation of only one house have been preserved (in Podoliniec), and only from 1657, 1664, 1665, 1667 and 1669. It seems that of these five visits, only the one from 1657 can be considered truly canonical. In general, there were very few decrees to “restore or strengthen observance of the Rule'” and it can be assumed that the visitator did little to correct the shortcomings of house Superiors. 187 Cf. § 31. 188 Cf. §§ 6 and 11. However, the Piarist Constitutions did not require that the General or his delegate regularly visit individual Provinces, but only “how often it seemed right to the General.” Cf. SH, p. 65, n. 145.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjI2Mw==