Are The Jesuits a Viable Option for a Faithful Catholic???

[Swiss_Guy]

gonzagabulletin.com/homosexuality-catholicism-1.2163183?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The_Bulletin_2&utm_campaign=The_Bulletin_2_2011414146#.TnNxO81foYY

I saw this article in a link from RealCatholicTV. Unfortunately, this article contains such a mis-representation of Catholic doctrine that even I can spot it without effort. Assuming the article quoted people accurately, it is highly concerning.

Frankly, it is things like this which lead to people asking the types of questions that spawned this thread to begin with. From the article discussed above, it would seem that the SJ has gone a long way towards righting the ship, but when you see stuff like this, it becomes unfortunately obvious that there is a bit further to go.

The only thing in that article contrary to Catholic teaching is that the Church says nothing about homosexuality.

The article was correct when it says the Church doesn’t condemn homosexuality - it condemns acting on that homosexuality. So my guess is the student is misinformed by thinking that the Church teaches nothing about homosexuality.

 

[jwinch2]

The only thing in that article contrary to Catholic teaching is that the Church says nothing about homosexuality.

The article was correct when it says the Church doesn’t condemn homosexuality - it condemns acting on that homosexuality. So my guess is the student is misinformed by thinking that the Church teaches nothing about homosexuality.

Father Hightower is the first person quoted as saying that the Church teaches nothing about regarding homosexuality which is not even remotely true. This has, assuming the article is accurate, apparently led to a major misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine in the students in question. The Catechism says that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered. If something is disordered that means it does not come from God. The only things in the world that exist but did not come from God, come from sin and/or the evil one. Use of the word objective indicates that it is this interpretation is not open to opinion or discussion but rather is to be viewed as fact. Probably important information to mention to those young students don’t you think?

The Church also teaches that homosexual acts are gravely depraved which was not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Father Hightower did not seem to mention, again if the article is accurate, anything regarding the Church’s teachings on how persons with homosexual tendencies are called to chastity as they unite any difficulties from their condition with Jesus on the cross. Another couple of tidbits which one would certainly hope the students have been taught and understand.

From the information provided in that article, he came nowhere near teaching the true position of the Church on homosexuality. I am hopeful that the article was incomplete or inaccurate in its reporting and that Father Hightower is teaching all of the true Faith to his students.

Having re-read the article and my statement, I am willing to publicly back off my statement of how obvious it is that the SJ has a long way to go. I am willing to concede that this article could be inaccurate and not represent the teaching that Fr. Hightower is providing his students. However, my other statement stands that it is situations like this which give the perception that drives many to question the Society of Jesus. If that is the case, he should have immediately written in to the paper to clarify the teachings of the Church so that there would be no confusion.

 

[JReducation]

Father Hightower is the first person quoted as saying that the Church teaches nothing about regarding homosexuality which is not even remotely true. This has, assuming the article is accurate, apparently led to a major misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine in the students in question. The Catechism says that homosexual tendencies are objectively disordered. If something is disordered that means it does not come from God. The only things in the world that exist but did not come from God, come from sin and/or the evil one. Use of the word objective indicates that it is this interpretation is not open to opinion or discussion but rather is to be viewed as fact. Probably important information to mention to those young students don’t you think?

The Church also teaches that homosexual acts are gravely depraved which was not mentioned in the article. Furthermore, Father Hightower did not seem to mention, again if the article is accurate, anything regarding the Church’s teachings on how persons with homosexual tendencies are called to chastity as they unite any difficulties from their condition with Jesus on the cross. Another couple of tidbits which one would certainly hope the students have been taught and understand.

From the information provided in that article, he came nowhere near teaching the true position of the Church on homosexuality. I am hopeful that the article was incomplete or inaccurate in its reporting and that Father Hightower is teaching all of the true Faith to his students.

Having re-read the article and my statement, I am willing to publicly back off my statement of how obvious it is that the SJ has a long way to go. I am willing to concede that this article could be inaccurate and not represent the teaching that Fr. Hightower is providing his students. However, my other statement stands that it is situations like this which give the perception that drives many to question the Society of Jesus. If that is the case, he should have immediately written in to the paper to clarify the teachings of the Church so that there would be no confusion.

Actually, you may be confusing some things here.

When the Church says that homosexual orientation is objectively disodered she does not mean that it comes from the evil one. If you read very carefully in the CCC, the Church admits that there is no known cause. She does not blame it on the evil one.

The term “objectively” does not mean that something is not up for discussion. Objectively means that you’re looking at something without putting the face or the name of a person on it. For example, drunkaness is objectively wrong. However, John the alcoholic is ill. Once you put a subject into the situations, then pastoral judgment enters the equation. If John is ill, he cannot be culpable of sin.

Another way to look at it is that if something is objectively disordered, it does not mean that it’s a moral disorder. It can be morally neutral. That’s actually what the Church says about homosexuality. It is morally neutral as is heterosexuality. The former is a disorder, because it’s outside of the natural law. The latter is ordered, because it’s inside the natural law. That does not affect the moral culpability of the action. Impure acts, be they homosexual or heterosexual remain impure acts.

There are two different was of using the term disordered. Psychosis is objectively disordered, but it does not come from the evil one. However, it is not natural for a human being to be psychotic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

Actually, you may be confusing some things here.

When the Church says that homosexual orientation is objectively disodered she does not mean that it comes from the evil one. If you read very carefully in the CCC, the Church admits that there is no known cause. She does not blame it on the evil one.

The term “objectively” does not mean that something is not up for discussion. Objectively means that you’re looking at something without putting the face or the name of a person on it. For example, drunkaness is objectively wrong. However, John the alcoholic is ill. Once you put a subject into the situations, then pastoral judgment enters the equation. If John is ill, he cannot be culpable of sin.

Another way to look at it is that if something is objectively disordered, it does not mean that it’s a moral disorder. It can be morally neutral. That’s actually what the Church says about homosexuality. It is morally neutral as is heterosexuality. The former is a disorder, because it’s outside of the natural law. The latter is ordered, because it’s inside the natural law. That does not affect the moral culpability of the action. Impure acts, be they homosexual or heterosexual remain impure acts.

There are two different was of using the term disordered. Psychosis is objectively disordered, but it does not come from the evil one. However, it is not natural for a human being to be psychotic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It is my understanding that things like disorder (disease, conditions, etc.) came into the world via sin. I may be misunderstanding you but it sounds like you are disagreeing with that.

In addition, your use of the word objective is different than I how I believe them to be intending to use it in that phrase. One definition for the word Objective is “having a reality independent of the mind” in other words: its real whether or not one believes it to be or regardless of personal opinion. In that context, my interpretation makes sense.

Another way to interpret the use of the word is to approach it from a research design standpoint from the understanding of objective versus subjective data. Objective data can be obtained from a true experimental design approach while it cannot be obtained from quasi or non experimental design approaches. In order to make any claims about causality, one must have objective data. In that context, my interpretation still works, albeit differently.

 

[JReducation]

It is my understanding that things like disorder (disease, conditions, etc.) came into the world via sin. I may be misunderstanding you but it sounds like you are disagreeing with that.

All of these things enter human existence because of Original Sin. However, it does not mean that they are directly caused by the devil. Original Sin left man vulnerable to these disorders.

In addition, your use of the word objective is different than I how I believe them to be intending to use it in that phrase. One definition for the word Objective is “having a reality independent of the mind” in other words: its real whether or not one believes it to be or regardless of personal opinion. In that context, my interpretation makes sense.

Another way to interpret the use of the word is to approach it from a research design standpoint from the understanding of objective versus subjective data. Objective data can be obtained from a true experimental design approach while it cannot be obtained from quasi or non experimental design approaches. In order to make any claims about causality, one must have objective data. In that context, my interpretation still works, albeit differently.

The Church uses objective to mean that which is as it is, without mitigating circumstances. In this case, homosexuality is objectively disordered. It is outside of the natural order. The Church is not making a judgment saying that homosexual attractions are sinful. She’s talking about the homosexual orientation in relation to natural law. It’s also important to note that the Church uses the term “objectively disordered” instead of “immoral, sinful, evil, etc”

**Q. Why are homosexual attractions considered “objectively disordered”? Isn’t that a harsh term?

A. The term “objective disorder” is a philosophical term. It is used to describe homosexual attractions because such attractions can never lead to a morally good sexual act. It is objected that if a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder. This latter example is not an objective disorder, because, if the man or woman learns to control their heterosexual attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing.

The term “objective disorder” may strike some of us with same-sex attractions as being harsh, because we feel that we never asked to have homosexual attractions and we fear that this term is in some way condemnatory or derogatory. It is important to remember that “objective disorder” is a philosophical term which describes a particular inclination - it does not diminish our value and worth in the eyes of God.

It is psychologically understandable that certain people struggle with homosexual attractions. The Church recognizes this and does not condemn people for simply having these attractions; however, the Church also teaches that homosexual acts are always immoral, and therefore, one must also accept that the inclination to engage in such acts is, philosophically speaking, objectively disordered.

Above all, we must keep in mind that homosexual inclinations do not make up our true identity as rational or Christian persons. We are first and foremost men and women created in the image of God - we are exceedingly precious in God’s sight and we have been given the gifts of intelligence and free-will. We can live a life of union with Christ, through prayer, and we can know the peace of interior chastity. This is God’s desire for us, and He continually gives us the grace to live it.**

Courage Ministries

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[jwinch2]

All of these things enter human existence because of Original Sin. However, it does not mean that they are directly caused by the devil. Original Sin left man vulnerable to these disorders.

Fair enough, but it is also the reason I used sin and/or the evil one in my earlier post on the subject. If there was no tempter in the garden, would Adam and Eve still have sinned? If there was no sin, would we have disordered tendencies? I believe that saying things like that, with love and compassion of course, can make it easier to fight those tendencies. Ignoring where sin and disordered desires come from creates, in my view, the impression that they are simply part of our human nature. Seeing them as something that God did not intend to be there, I believe, is an important distinction.

The Church uses objective to mean that which is as it is, without mitigating circumstances. In this case, homosexuality is objectively disordered. It is outside of the natural order. The Church is not making a judgment saying that homosexual attractions are sinful. She’s talking about the homosexual orientation in relation to natural law. It’s also important to note that the Church uses the term “objectively disordered” instead of “immoral, sinful, evil, etc”

**Q. Why are homosexual attractions considered “objectively disordered”? Isn’t that a harsh term?

A. The term “objective disorder” is a philosophical term. It is used to describe homosexual attractions because such attractions can never lead to a morally good sexual act. It is objected that if a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder. This latter example is not an objective disorder, because, if the man or woman learns to control their heterosexual attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing.

The term “objective disorder” may strike some of us with same-sex attractions as being harsh, because we feel that we never asked to have homosexual attractions and we fear that this term is in some way condemnatory or derogatory. It is important to remember that “objective disorder” is a philosophical term which describes a particular inclination - it does not diminish our value and worth in the eyes of God.

It is psychologically understandable that certain people struggle with homosexual attractions. The Church recognizes this and does not condemn people for simply having these attractions; however, the Church also teaches that homosexual acts are always immoral, and therefore, one must also accept that the inclination to engage in such acts is, philosophically speaking, objectively disordered.

Above all, we must keep in mind that homosexual inclinations do not make up our true identity as rational or Christian persons. We are first and foremost men and women created in the image of God - we are exceedingly precious in God’s sight and we have been given the gifts of intelligence and free-will. We can live a life of union with Christ, through prayer, and we can know the peace of interior chastity. This is God’s desire for us, and He continually gives us the grace to live it.**

Courage Ministries

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Agreed with the use of “objective” here and I agree completely with the distinction between homosexual desire (disordered) and homosexual acts (sinful). And this still fits, I believe with my use of the term objective as well. If something objectively is disordered that could mean simply that it is not open to interpretation as to whether or not it is disordered. I see that as the church making a statement that despite popular culture heading in one direction, that does not make it correct. The tendency toward homosexuality is still disordered regardless of how society or individuals may feel about it. It also fits with my second description, that being causal relationships. The tendency to sin has both correlation and time course with sinful acts. That is what is needed to make the claim for causality.

It is also important to point out that yes, God still loves all of us despite our flaws and yes, this includes homosexual persons, both those who are fighting their urges and those who are not. Having said that, use of the term disordered is still important. That implies that those tendencies, while themselves not sinful, are still wrong. They are still against natural law and God’s plan, and that is an important distinction and it is a very different statement than saying that the Church really doesn’t have any statement on homosexuality. If one does not see the inclination to sin as against natural law, how are they going to work to overcome it?

Getting back to my original post on this subject, the bottom line is that I believe that this particular Jesuit priest did not accurately present the teachings of the Church on homosexuality (as described in the article I linked). You and I can split hairs with the use of the terms objective versus subjective and how they are intended to be interpreted, but the fact is that none of that was mentioned in the article in question. That, is a concern, regardless of how one interprets the relevant passages in the CCC.

 

[CradleCath]

Fair enough, but it is also the reason I used sin and/or the evil one in my earlier post on the subject. If there was no tempter in the garden, would Adam and Eve still have sinned? If there was no sin, would we have disordered tendencies? I believe that saying things like that, with love and compassion of course, can make it easier to fight those tendencies. Ignoring where sin and disordered desires come from creates, in my view, the impression that they are simply part of our human nature. Seeing them as something that God did not intend to be there, I believe, is an important distinction.

Agreed with the use of “objective” here and I agree completely with the distinction between homosexual desire (disordered) and homosexual acts (sinful). And this still fits, I believe with my use of the term objective as well. If something objectively is disordered that could mean simply that it is not open to interpretation as to whether or not it is disordered. I see that as the church making a statement that despite popular culture heading in one direction, that does not make it correct. The tendency toward homosexuality is still disordered regardless of how society or individuals may feel about it. It also fits with my second description, that being causal relationships. The tendency to sin has both correlation and time course with sinful acts. That is what is needed to make the claim for causality.

It is also important to point out that yes, God still loves all of us despite our flaws and yes, this includes homosexual persons, both those who are fighting their urges and those who are not. Having said that, use of the term disordered is still important. That implies that those tendencies, while themselves not sinful, are still wrong. They are still against natural law and God’s plan, and that is an important distinction and it is a very different statement than saying that the Church really doesn’t have any statement on homosexuality. If one does not see the inclination to sin as against natural law, how are they going to work to overcome it?

Getting back to my original post on this subject, the bottom line is that I believe that this particular Jesuit priest did not accurately present the teachings of the Church on homosexuality (as described in the article I linked). You and I can split hairs with the use of the terms objective versus subjective and how they are intended to be interpreted, but the fact is that none of that was mentioned in the article in question. That, is a concern, regardless of how one interprets the relevant passages in the CCC.

You aren’t the only one who thinks that Fr. Hightower’s article falls short of the full teachings of the Catholic Church:

Discussion of Homosexuality in Student Paper Omits Full Church Teaching
The Gonzaga Bulletin reports that Fr. Craig Hightower, S.J., the director of Campus Ministry at Gonzaga University discussed the “American Catholic Church’s view on homosexuality.” Campus Notes noted that the article did not publish any comments regarding the Church’s teaching on the objectively sinful nature of homosexual acts.

blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2011/04/15/discussion-of-homosexuality-in-student-paper-omits-full-church-teaching/

Also, this might help you. I was taught that the term “disordered”… when used as a moral description of homosexual sex acts…means that these acts are **not ordered **toward procreation which is God’s purpose for our sex organs.

 

[jwinch2]

You aren’t the only one who thinks that Fr. Hightower’s article falls short of the full teachings of the Catholic Church:

Discussion of Homosexuality in Student Paper Omits Full Church Teaching
The Gonzaga Bulletin reports that Fr. Craig Hightower, S.J., the director of Campus Ministry at Gonzaga University discussed the “American Catholic Church’s view on homosexuality.” Campus Notes noted that the article did not publish any comments regarding the Church’s teaching on the objectively sinful nature of homosexual acts.

blog.cardinalnewmansociety.org/2011/04/15/discussion-of-homosexuality-in-student-paper-omits-full-church-teaching/

Also, this might help you. I was taught that the term “disordered”… when used as a moral description of homosexual sex acts…means that these acts are **not ordered **toward procreation which is God’s purpose for our sex organs.

Thanks. I had forgotten about the “American Catholic” statements… ughh

 

[Ahimsa]

If God had wanted Ignatius and his sons to obey without questioning, he would have called Ignatius into the Franciscans.

What about this statement from Ignatius?
That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same;…

 

[JReducation]

What about this statement from Ignatius?
That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same;…

There is nothing wrong with this. We have to know several things about Ignatius and how he setup the Society of Jesus.

First, look at the wording that I bolded in red. He’s referring to what the Church defines. This applies to all Catholics. That which the Church defines, is what it is and cannot be anything different. In fact, that which the Church commands and which she says is not up for discussion for anyone but a Jesuit. Even if it’s not a dogma, is not up for discussion.

Second, Ignatius does not say that whatever the Church commands cannot be examined. There is a difference. He set the precedent by doing just that with many things. He never set out to examine something for the sake of finding a loophole or proving it wrong, but for the sake of knowledge.

Third, what I said about obedience is not covered by this statement. In the Franciscan admonitions, the norm is that even if the Church is wrong, the friar obeys without question and without pointing to the mistake. The only time that the friar may point and refuse to obey is if he is being asked to do something that is a sin. However, there is a condition. It has to be something that the Church herself has said is a sin, not something that I feel may be a sin or something that is not a sin, but I speculate may lead to sin. There is no wiggle room in the Franciscan admonitions.

This was never part of Ignatius’ statutes. He does not hold his clerks to these strict standards. In fact, Ignatius steared clear of the mendicant and monastic schools, because of their structure.

In addition, it must be known that the Jesuits are the only order in the Catholic Church that does not follow a rule of life. They are very interesting, because they are an order, not a religious congregation. However, they are organized like a religious congregation (ie. Redemptorists, Salesians, Passionists, Sisters of St. Francis, Sisters of St. Dominic, etc).

The Jesuits and religious congregations are self-governing. They make their own rules as they go along. Ignatius gave the Jesuits statutes that serve as the framework. He left them the freedom to make their own rules. They write a constitution that the General Chapter approves. Then it’s sent to the Holy Father who approves it. They govern themselves according to that.

The statutes give them guidelines as to what may or may not go into those constitutions. One thing that cannot go into those constitutions is control over the individual Jesuit. Whatever is not in the statutes, can be added to the constitutions by the Jesuits. They are also free to throw the statutes away and write their own. The statutes are not a rule. There are only six rules in the Church. The Jesuits don’t follow any of them. The rules are: Basilian, Benedictine, Carmelite, Franciscan, Augustinian and Trinitarian.

Like members of congregations, each Jesuit follows the constitutions. However, their constitutions allow them a great deal of latitude that is not allowed to other religious who belong to religious orders, despite the fact that they are a real order.

One of the areas of latitude is in the area of obedience. They are bound to obey what the Church defines. They are bound to obey Church law, Canon Law and other laws. They are not bound to silence in the face of law and authority. That’s why I said what I said about Franciscans. When the Jesuits were founded, Franciscans and Benedictines were the only religious who were bound to absolute silence in the face of authority. Everyone else was questioning and debating with Rome. It was allowed.

Today, there are other religious institutes that do not allow such dialogue with authority: Opus Dei, Missionaries of Charity, Missionaries of the Poor, FSSP, and probably others that I don’t know about.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ahimsa]

Does that help?

Yes, thanks. A few questions, though.

In fact, that which the Church commands and which she says is not up for discussion for anyone but a Jesuit.

So, you’re saying that what the Church commands, or defines, is not up for debate; however, Jesuits may debate what the Church commands or defines, but they must still believe in it?

Third, what I said about obedience is not covered by this statement. In the Franciscan admonitions, the norm is that even if the Church is wrong, the friar obeys without question and without pointing to the mistake.

That’s pretty hard-core. And you’re Franciscan, right?

One of the areas of latitude is in the area of obedience. They are bound to obey what the Church defines. They are bound to obey Church law, Canon Law and other laws. They are not bound to silence in the face of law and authority. That’s why I said what I said about Franciscans. When the Jesuits were founded, Franciscans and Benedictines were the only religious who were bound to absolute silence in the face of authority. Everyone else was questioning and debating with Rome. It was allowed.

Today, there are other religious institutes that do not allow such dialogue with authority: Opus Dei, Missionaries of Charity, Missionaries of the Poor, FSSP, and probably others that I don’t know about.

Were the Benedictines the first religious order to be bound to silence in the face of law and authority?

 

[CradleCath]

Yes, thanks. A few questions, though.
So, you’re saying that what the Church commands, or defines, is not up for debate; however, Jesuits may debate what the Church commands or defines, but they must still believe in it?

That’s pretty hard-core. And you’re Franciscan, right?
Were the Benedictines the first religious order to be bound to silence in the face of law and authority?

The Jesuits were the sharp edge of the Counterreformation in their reasoned defense of orthodoxy, but the keyword here is **WERE. **Catholics who see so many Soldiers of Christ still in the thrall of 1970s Kumbaya Catholicism and even heterodoxy, can only hope that the Order returns to that historical calling.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, thanks. A few questions, though.
So, you’re saying that what the Church commands, or defines, is not up for debate; however, Jesuits may debate what the Church commands or defines, but they must still believe in it?

Yes, because they are scholars. This is what scholars do. They are like the Devil’s Advocate. In this sense, they have been a blessing to the Church, because they have always challenged the Church to look at what she says and say it better or more clearly and sometimes retract somethings that are not fair.

That’s pretty hard-core. And you’re Franciscan, right?

Yes I am. I’m not sure what’s so hardcore about it. After he had written the rule, there were some brothers and sisters who tried to interpret the rule. Francis wanted to make sure that the rule was not interpreted in light of the times, unless he said so in the rule itself. So … he wrote the admonitions to get everyome back on track. One of them was on obedience. He says.

That man leaves all he possesses and loses his body and his soul who abandons himself wholly to obedience in the hands of his superior, and whatever he does and says—provided he himself knows that what he does is good and not contrary to his [the superior’s] will—is true obedience. And if at times a subject sees things which would be better or more useful to his soul than those which the superior commands him, let him sacrifice his will to God, let him strive to fulfil the work enjoined by the superior. This is true and charitable obedience which is pleasing to God and to one’s neighbor.

As you can see, the superior has complete control and you have only one. You must decide if what the superior commands is a sin. If it is not a sin, even if you know that there is something better for your soul, your work or the common good, you sacrifice and comply. For us, true obedience is doing what authority wishes. That’s why the SSPX hates us. Because we can’t support them.

Were the Benedictines the first religious order to be bound to silence in the face of law and authority?

They and the Basilians in the East were the first organized religious to embrace this form of discipline. Prior to Benedict, there were always communities of monks and hermits that observed strict obedience to authority. But Benedict and Basil are the first to put it into writing.

The Jesuits were the sharp edge of the Counterreformation in their reasoned defense of orthodoxy, but the keyword here is **WERE. **Catholics who see so many Soldiers of Christ still in the thrall of 1970s Kumbaya Catholicism and even heterodoxy, can only hope that the Order returns to that historical calling.

I think that’s an ufair assessment of the order. The phenomena of the 1970s was not unique to the Jesuits. If you read the acts of their most recent General Congregation, they are doing just that. They are working very hard to find their place in the modern Church.

You folks keep wanting to treat them as if they were a religious order like other orders. They are not. From the day that they were founded, they were given all kinds of exemptions. The most markedly different exemption that they had was that they did not have to follow a rule of lie. Every religious order before them was bound to a rule of life. Those religious orders continue to be bound to a rule of life. The Jesuits never had such a rule of life. It was the mind of St. Ignatius tha they evolve, not that they conserve as is the case with Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Benedictines and other orders.

Also, the Jesuits are an order that is allowed to live like a religious congregation. Religious congregations have an added freedom that religious orders do not have. They can change the course of direction anytime they want to do so. That’s why they are called congregations and not orders, even though most Catholics mistakenly call them orders too, because it’s hard to keep it all sorted out, who’s an order and who’s a congregation. Ignatius expected them to change as the world changed.

Finally, you must remember that they don’t have a communal life like we do. In our communities, the community itself keeps you on track. We eat, sleep, work, play, pray, retreat, meditate, build, travel and do most things as a unit. The Jesuits have never done that. Each Jesuit is an individual. Once he finishes formation, he’s on his own to live the Jesuit life and minister as he understands Ignatius.

A Benedictine or Franciscan may find someone tapping on his shoulders saying, “St. Francis/St. Benedict wants this and prohibits that.” They don’t have that for two reasons. They don’t have that type of community life and Ignatius does not have that kind of authority as do Francis and Benedict. Even Dominic did not exert this kind of authority over his friars. He always pointed them to Augustine.

Try to see the Jesuits as they are, the exception to the religious life. When you have that kind of freedom, there are going to be problems. To their credit, they have stayed in there and tried to deal with the problems one at a time.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SanAgustin]

Brother JReducation;

I don’t have to much to add to the discussion, but I really want to thank you for all your posts, specially in this matter. I admire the Jesuits quite a bit, the ones I have met in person reflected the light of Christ brightly and I couldn’t but be impressed by their knowledge and intellect!

I remember talking to a friend of mine that told me some Pastors study 3 years, because that’s how long Jesus stayed with his disciples. I liked to brag how the Jesuits would study up to 12 years instead, not people you want to enter into arguments with!

Anyways, please keep posting, I’m learning a lot from your posts.

God bless!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I, too am a product of a Jesuit education, but Grammar School through 9th grade. This school was closely supervised by the Priests of a Jesuit parish with Sisters of St. Joseph as the teachers. After the 5th grade, the religion classes were taught by one of the priests.
To give you an idea of how thorough their teaching was: I was completely away from the Church for about 50 years when I had a religious experience that led me back. Dispite all of the changes in the Church, after a general confession and receiving Extreme Unction, I was able to literally pick up where I left off upon my recovery.
In terms of their intellectual abilities, which are legend, a Jesuit is a priest who can take your premise in a debate and beat your brains out with it!

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I forgot to add: One of their most recent feats was that when the Communist Czechoslovakian Government fell, it was found that several of their high ranking government ministers were secret Jesuit priests, and that the Vatican had intimate knowledge of the goings on in the Eastern Bloc because of them.

 

[JReducation]

In terms of their intellectual abilities, which are legend, a Jesuit is a priest who can take your premise in a debate and beat your brains out with it!

Franciscans have always stood up against the world for the underdog. I never thought that one day the underdog would be Jesuits and that I’d have to stand up for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SanAgustin]

Franciscans have always stood up against the world for the underdog. I never thought that one day the underdog would be Jesuits and that I’d have to stand up for them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I imagine St. Francis and St. Ignatius in heaven having a good laugh about this thread!

 

[choliks]

Actually, St. Francis’ life story was in the book Ignatius was reading when he began his conversion to becoming a soldier for Christ. So it’s not far off that St. Francis influenced the former cavalier.

So, you’re saying that what the Church commands, or defines, is not up for debate; however, Jesuits may debate what the Church commands or defines, but they must still believe in it?

As one of the Jesuits I admire once said…
“If there is one thing you should know about us Jesuits, it is that we are not afraid of the dark side. We have been schooled to discern the shadows that lurk mysteriously, surreptitiously in our lives; and we have been trained to name them when we can in freedom and in all honesty.”

 

[JReducation]

While you people out there in the secular Catholic world have these wonderful discussions, Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits are the closest of allies and have a mutual admiration society between us.

Look back at American History, north and south. Who were the missionaries that came together? Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits.

Who fought with each other in the Inquisition?

Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits

Who founded the great pontifical universities of Europe?

Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits

To whom did the Council of Trent grant the privilege of exemption, placing them beyond the reach of bishops and laity?

Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits.

It’s like the three Muskateers.

1. 
   *]The Jesuits upset the apple cart.
   
   *]The Dominicans stand it up again.
   
   *]The Franciscans put the apples back in the cart.
   
   Then they all have a good laugh and a beer.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF