Jesuit leadership defends pro-abortion organization denounced by Mexican cardinal

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Jesuit leadership defends pro-abortion organization denounced by Mexican cardinal
BY MATTHEW CULLINAN HOFFMAN
Mon Jun 06, 2011 20:36 ESTComments (2)Tags: Abortion, Catholic, Ccodp, Development And Peace
June 6, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The leadership of the Jesuit order in Canada and Mexico is standing behind a pro-abortion organization sponsored by the order in Mexico, which was recently denounced by the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City and cut off as a grant recipient by the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace.

According to an open letter published on May 25 by the Jesuit provincial superiors (see English translation following article), the Miguel Agustín Pro Juarez Center for Human Rights (PRODH), is “a constant engagement in favor of the right to life of all” which “merits our support.”

The letter also claims that the PRODH’s center’s then-director, “is a religious with an excellent reputation with the Church” whose “expertise is recognized in the Church in Mexico.” The superiors add that Fr. Arriaga “acts in conformity with the directives which are given to him by his jesuit superiors.”

However, the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City, Norberto Rivera Carrera, had already expressed a very different view of the organization, in a letter to the Canadian bishops which was published following the Jesuit communique.

PRODH “does NOT represent the sentiments of the Church and has been characterized by its support and encouragement of groups and activities that are an affront to Christian values,” the Cardinal wrote, according to a translation of part of his letter published by the Toronto Catholic Register.

lifesitenews.com/news/jesuit-leadership-defends-pro-abortion-organization-denounced-by-mexican-ca

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Time to suppress the Jesuits again-bring on the Dominicans.

 

[JReducation]

Time to suppress the Jesuits again-bring on the Dominicans.

That’s a very unkind suggestion that neither the Church nor the Dominicans or any other religious would applaud.

Second, there is the possibility that what we have here is two Ordinaries looking at something from two perspectives and what they need to do is sit down and talk about what they’re seeing.

Do not forget that the Provincial Superior of a male religious order is an Ordinary as is a bishop, even if he’s not a bishop. The Church doesn’t just write-off major superiors of men, especially if that major superior belongs to an exempt religious order, such as the Jesuits. An exempt order has canonical rights and a lot of power. You can’t simply suppress an exempt order. Only popes can call for the suppression of an order of Pontifical Right, because the rights of the order are protected by the Papacy.

The appropriate path to follow here is for the Provincial and the bishop to compare notes. The former feels that the ministry in question is compliant with Church teaching. The latter feels that it is not. Both cannot be right. However, those of us who are simply reading an article are not in any position to decide who is or is not right. The one thing that is clear is that they are not looking at this through the same lense and they need to do so.

This is not the only time when there has been a difference of opinion between a bishop and a major superior of men. Were this about another subject not so contraversial, it would be resolved as all the other differences have been resolved and we would never hear about it. In other situations, the bishop and the major superior sit down and discuss their differences until they reach an agreement. Why not do so now?

Let us pray for that dialogue to take place, for the good of the diocese, the order and the people who are watching.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[manualman]

While it is certainly no layman’s job to judge the overall performance of any bishop, lay people ARE called to carefully discern who and what they are supporting with their tithe money. I’ve no personal experience with Mexico, but I did spend some time doing short term sister diocese mission work in Bolivia. In decades past, an awful lot of Jesuits embraced the errors that lie within Liberation Theology in South America. Their intentions were not evil, but the outcome often was anyways.

I’m not currently giving to any mission work in Mexico, but if I discerning giving right now, I’d sure take the word of the Cardinal and give to an organization with full, not disputed Church support.

 

[Tigg]

There is something so very wrong **“within” **and we all know it! We’ve been hearing of issues similar to this for years and it is scandalous. I am so grateful and continually pray for the courageous and orthodox Churchmen who are becoming more verbal and finally challenging that which is causing so much harm. May the good Cardinal be a man after God’s own heart and stand strong.

 

[pnewton]

However, those of us who are simply reading an article are not in any position to decide who is or is not right.

That was my thought. They both put a priority on promoting a pro-life position and credited this organization with that. Obviously, this is just a disagreement about facts, not morals.

 

[JReducation]

I’m glad to see that the bishop is not being slammed in this thread, as often happens on so many threads on CAF, where bishops are gratuitously hammered. However, I am sad that office and canonical place of the Provincial Superior of an Exempt Religious Order is not being afforded the same respect. They are both Ordinaries. This is not a question of sacraments, in which case the bishop trumps the Major Superior. This is a case that comes under Ordinary Jurisdiction in which case you have two people of equal rank and dignity. We should refer to both with the same degree of respect.

To say “The good bishop” and completely ignore “The Good Father Provincial” is not right. I say that we pray that both good men may be able to figure out exactly what is going and agree on what to do and how to do it.

In the end, if they do not agree, the bishop and his people lose. The bishop has no authority over the Society of Jesus or over any exempt order and its ministry. He cannot close it down. He cannot ask them to leave his diocese. The only thing that he can do is withhold money. That does not resolve a problem. It only creates resentment. The roles of bishops and religious superiors is not to create difficult situations for the people whom they serve and govern. Their role is jointly serve and govern. To do this, they must work together. As I like to say, they must look at this through the same window. How else can you know what the other person sees that you may be missing?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

That’s a very unkind suggestion that neither the Church nor the Dominicans or any other religious would applaud.

Second, there is the possibility that what we have here is two Ordinaries looking at something from two perspectives and what they need to do is sit down and talk about what they’re seeing.

Do not forget that the Provincial Superior of a male religious order is an Ordinary as is a bishop, even if he’s not a bishop. The Church doesn’t just write-off major superiors of men, especially if that major superior belongs to an exempt religious order, such as the Jesuits. An exempt order has canonical rights and a lot of power. You can’t simply suppress an exempt order. Only popes can call for the suppression of an order of Pontifical Right, because the rights of the order are protected by the Papacy.

The appropriate path to follow here is for the Provincial and the bishop to compare notes. The former feels that the ministry in question is compliant with Church teaching. The latter feels that it is not. Both cannot be right. However, those of us who are simply reading an article are not in any position to decide who is or is not right. The one thing that is clear is that they are not looking at this through the same lense and they need to do so.

This is not the only time when there has been a difference of opinion between a bishop and a major superior of men. Were this about another subject not so contraversial, it would be resolved as all the other differences have been resolved and we would never hear about it. In other situations, the bishop and the major superior sit down and discuss their differences until they reach an agreement. Why not do so now?

Let us pray for that dialogue to take place, for the good of the diocese, the order and the people who are watching.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I guess you don’t understand humour and I detect more than a little finger wagging in your posts.Lighten up.

 

[JReducation]

I guess you don’t understand humour and I detect more than a little finger wagging in your posts.Lighten up.

I apologize if I came across too heavy. The slamming of the Jesuits is a touchy point with most religious of most orders, especially male religious. We have a great respect for them and their work. They have always been very kind to the other religious orders and we have worked with them very fraternally. I think that sometimes it’s easy to forget that only that which is out of the ordinary gets publicity, while the ordinary and often holy goes unnoticed by the media, even the Catholic media. In a religious order as huge as is the Society of Jesus, you’re going to have problem children. Heck, my mother had only five of us and there was one problem child . . . I’ll never tell who that was.

The other thing to which many religious are sensitive is to the fact that often, the faithful (lay and secular clergy) sound almost dismissive of our major superiors. I think it’s because most people don’t understand or don’t know how much influence and authority they have in the daily life of the Church. These are good men who are trying to serve the Church and figure out what’s happening as much as anyone else. When there is an issue such as this one where the Provincial sees it one way and the bishop sees it another, both deserve the benefit of the doubt and both deserve our support and prayers for a resolution. In the end, nothing will be resolved until they sit down and try to understand each other. In the meantime, there are people in the middle.

My experience has been that when you have two good people describing the same thing very differently, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Let’s pray that if they have not already done so, they will sit down and figure out what’s happening.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

I do appreciate the apology and I apologize in turn that I have offended your sensibilities.I am an average devout pew potato who longs for unity and orthodoxy in our Church.

I don’t know if you are aware of the extent of the Development and Peace scandal in the Church in Canada but the fallout has been horrific with D+P covering up frantically and running to pro-abortion organizations like Unions for protection.The CCCB itself attacked the whistleblower and later under GREAT pressure issued a half hearted apology.The problem lies with Professional Catholics that the Holy Father spoke of either remiss in their duties or ignoring Church Teaching.

Catholics like me who have been scandalized by our donations going to organizations that are anti-life and anti-Church are sitting on our wallets and actively protesting and for that we are being referred to as Taliban Catholics by some clergy.

I have every right as it says in Holy Scripture to correct those who are erring.Abortion is the greatest crime happening today in the world and I will NOT be part of it nor will my Church however tangentially.I am SICK of phony tribalism in the Church.If one is Catholic one should submit to the Truth of the Teachings of the Magisterium no matter whether one agrees with them or not.As St Maximilian Kolbe said submission to Truth as taught by the Church is absolutely freeing.One is either an orthodox or heterodox Catholic.As Father Corapi says,“Grey is the devil’s favourite colour.”

 

[JReducation]

I do appreciate the apology and I apologize in turn that I have offended your sensibilities.I am an average devout pew potato who longs for unity and orthodoxy in our Church.

I don’t know if you are aware of the extent of the Development and Peace scandal in the Church in Canada but the fallout has been horrific with D+P covering up frantically and running to pro-abortion organizations like Unions for protection.The CCCB itself attacked the whistleblower and later under GREAT pressure issued a half hearted apology.The problem lies with Professional Catholics that the Holy Father spoke of either remiss in their duties or ignoring Church Teaching.

Catholics like me who have been scandalized by our donations going to organizations that are anti-life and anti-Church are sitting on our wallets and actively protesting and for that we are being referred to as Taliban Catholics by some clergy.

I have every right as it says in Holy Scripture to correct those who are erring.Abortion is the greatest crime happening today in the world and I will NOT be part of it nor will my Church however tangentially.I am SICK of phony tribalism in the Church.If one is Catholic one should submit to the Truth of the Teachings of the Magisterium no matter whether one agrees with them or not.As St Maximilian Kolbe said submission to Truth as taught by the Church is absolutely freeing.One is either an orthodox or heterodox Catholic.As Father Corapi says,“Grey is the devil’s favourite colour.”

I completely understand the above and am sympathetic to our benefactors. This is my ministry. I have done pro-life ministry. I know how important it is to make sure that everything runs as it is supposed to run.

My only concern, when these things happen, is that we all understand the importance of working together to find solutions to a problem. So often, it is easy to bash this one and hammer that one. In my many years in ministry I have found that bashing and hammering does not solve problems and worse, often innocent people get clobbered in the process.

I have also come across an almost unspoken capaign on the part of some people against this group or that group. It seems that we human beings always need a scapegoat. It seems hard for us to simple say that this person or these five or 50 people are responsible for something and need to fix it. If they represent a group, whether it be bishops or religious, everyone goes down. We have to learn to avoid that. Everyone should not go down. Of all the groups in the Church, I find that the poor bishops and Jesuits take the biggest beatings. Most of them are very good men, even when they make mistakes. When they make mistakes, they need to figure out how to fix them, not roll over and die as some people would like to see them do.

That’s always my objection in these kinds of discussions. I have no problems when someone says that X happened and here is the evidence and A, B, and C were responsible. Those are facts. Bashing, hammering and scapegoating I have a problem with. These tactics have never resolved problems. They usually make them worse. Look at the case with the SSPX. The brow beating on both sides has just created a lot of hard feelings and produced no solutions.

The life of the unborn is too important. We do not have the luxury of time spent hammering. We need to motivate those who have the authority to fix the problem to do so quickly. We need to trust that they are people of good faith, even when we think they may be mistaken. People of good faith do make mistakes. Look at the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[copperblade]

The Church doesn’t just write-off major superiors of men, especially if that major superior belongs to an exempt religious order, such as the Jesuits. An exempt order has canonical rights and a lot of power. You can’t simply suppress an exempt order. Only popes can call for the suppression of an order of Pontifical Right, because the rights of the order are protected by the Papacy.

What is an exempt order?

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

I completely understand the above and am sympathetic to our benefactors. This is my ministry. I have done pro-life ministry. I know how important it is to make sure that everything runs as it is supposed to run.

My only concern, when these things happen, is that we all understand the importance of working together to find solutions to a problem. So often, it is easy to bash this one and hammer that one. In my many years in ministry I have found that bashing and hammering does not solve problems and worse, often innocent people get clobbered in the process.

I have also come across an almost unspoken capaign on the part of some people against this group or that group. It seems that we human beings always need a scapegoat. It seems hard for us to simple say that this person or these five or 50 people are responsible for something and need to fix it. If they represent a group, whether it be bishops or religious, everyone goes down. We have to learn to avoid that. Everyone should not go down. Of all the groups in the Church, I find that the poor bishops and Jesuits take the biggest beatings. Most of them are very good men, even when they make mistakes. When they make mistakes, they need to figure out how to fix them, not roll over and die as some people would like to see them do.

That’s always my objection in these kinds of discussions. I have no problems when someone says that X happened and here is the evidence and A, B, and C were responsible. Those are facts. Bashing, hammering and scapegoating I have a problem with. These tactics have never resolved problems. They usually make them worse. Look at the case with the SSPX. The brow beating on both sides has just created a lot of hard feelings and produced no solutions.

The life of the unborn is too important. We do not have the luxury of time spent hammering. We need to motivate those who have the authority to fix the problem to do so quickly. We need to trust that they are people of good faith, even when we think they may be mistaken. People of good faith do make mistakes. Look at the Apostles.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

All hell breaks loose over D&P
The Development and Peace scandal has escalated into a full blown crisis. Ever since Archbishop Terrence Prendergast cancelled the speaking engagements of a D&P partner in April, a tidal wave of outrage has emerged among D&P members and donors who are categorically opposed to any reforms at D&P. Most of the noise has come from Québec, where D&P’s membership has many allies in secular society.
Those of you who don’t read French or follow the Québec media are unlikely to be fully aware of the magnitude of the upheaval that has occurred. Let me offer some highlights for you.
It started slowly, with a few dissenting Catholics, including Fr. Claude Lacaille, of which we have reported here. The Canadian bishops issued a public statement correcting Fr. Lacaille’s lies, but that didn’t stop the uprising from spreading rapidly to D&P rank and file.
Various articles have been published in some of Québec’s largest secular newspapers, including Le Devoir and La Presse, who reach hundreds of thousands of readers each day. Radio Ville-Marie, a Catholic radio station in Montréal, has also run several stories. All of these reports have been very supportive of D&P and have portrayed the push for reforms as being driven by fundamentalists and extremists. Clearly, the opposition to reforms at D&P has the mass media on their side.
Four eminent members of D&P also wrote an open letter to the bishops, published in Le Devoir, that essentially warns the bishops to tread carefully because they only play an advisory role at D&P and do not have the authority to “intrude” on internal management. You can almost sense an imminent legal threat coming.
The membership of D&P also created a blog in which they publish numerous letters of support, videos, a petition and abhorrent lies about the evidence against D&P’s partners. Worse, an assembly of the D&P members of Québec and New Brunswick has demanded that the Centre PRODH be reinstated as a funding partner.
A couple of weeks ago, the anti-reformists obtained the support of the Superiors of the Jesuit provinces of English and French Canada, as well as Mexico. We reported on that letter here.
Then last week, the Montréal branch of a major labour union in Québec, called the Confédération des syndicats nationaux (CSN), which represents close to 100,000 workers, issued a press release in support of D&P and against the reforms.
A big splash
The opposition to pro-life reforms has put on a fierce display. Scarcely a day goes by without another media coup on their side. As Socon or Bust has been warning our readers, the war over the soul of D&P is far from over. If any of you thought that the battle was won, think again.
You need to understand how a registered charity works. Legally, it’s organized much like a corporation. The members of D&P elect the Board of Directors, who then choose the management of D&P. The members are the ultimate bosses, just like the shareholders in a corporation. And the members are opposing pro-life reforms.
The good news for us is that God loves to work through the small and the weak. Consequently, the outcome is not dependent solely on access to mass media tools. Prayer is a powerful weapon and we need to keep praying very hard.
We also have the truth and the facts on our side. We need to use them. Keep pressuring the clergy, especially the bishops, to proceed with reforms at D&P and to not look back.
Don’t get complacent. This is a time to ramp up our pressure and keep our foot on the accelerator.
socon.ca/or_bust/?p=16284#more-16284

 

[wisdomseeker]

While it is certainly no layman’s job to judge the overall performance of any bishop, lay people ARE called to carefully discern who and what they are supporting with their tithe money. I’ve no personal experience with Mexico, but I did spend some time doing short term sister diocese mission work in Bolivia. In decades past, an awful lot of Jesuits embraced the errors that lie within Liberation Theology in South America. Their intentions were not evil, but the outcome often was anyways.

I’m not currently giving to any mission work in Mexico, but if I discerning giving right now, I’d sure take the word of the Cardinal and give to an organization with full, not disputed Church support.

Very true. the CC in south america is in total desiree. the theology of liberation is what rules. priests are so involved in human rights and equality and they also are calling to end all discrimination. I dont think they really know what they are doing. It is so sad the stage of the Church down there.

 

[JReducation]

What is an exempt order?

**Religious orders are exempt from episcopal jurisdiction, and in spite of exceptions to this privilege, created by the Council of Trent and later, the exemption remains the rule and the exception must be proved. The exemption is above all personal, and also local: religious are not under the orders of the bishop, and their monasteries and churches, unless these be parochial, cannot be visited by him. **

This only applies to religious orders of men. Religious congregations of men and women do not have this exception, nor do religious orders of women.

Despite the fact that the Council of Trent gave bishops authority over the religious, the Council also decreed which religious the bishops can govern. This exempted: Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Benedictines, Norbertines, Servites and Carthusians and all of their branches.

The bishop cannot question their person. He cannot visit their houses or their ministries without the permission of the superior, such as a college or university in his diocese that belongs to the order. He cannot close them down. To do so would be suppression, then the bishop can find himself big trouble. The individual religious does not answer to the bishop unless there is an agreement between the superior and the bishop, such as when an individual is assigned to work for a bishop.

The exception applies only to governance. In short, if a bishop has a problem with an exempt religious order, he has to deal with the Major Superior first. If that does resolve the problem, he must then go to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and the to the pope. He cannot suspend them, ask them to leave his diocese nor can he encourage the laity to abandon them.

The superior of these orders has the same authority as a bishop. He does not have sacramental authority, because he’s not a bishop. Sometimes, he’s not a priest either. But he governs over those under him as a bishop governs over his diocese. He has a little more power than a bishop does, because the bishop’s authority is limited to his diocese. A Major Superior may cover a wider territory and more men.

Finally, if the religious order runs a parish, the laity has to cooperate with the Major Superior or leave the parish. In plain English, he can give his men any order he wants to give them and assign his men any way he wants to assign them and the laity has to accept it, as long as the orders are legal. He can pull his men from a parish without notice and without giving a reason. It never happens, but theoretically, you can arrive one morning to find the parish locked because the religious left the night before. I have never seen it happen. I have seen religious leave a parish for different reasons, but they have always given the bishop several months notice.

That being said, the bishop alone can grant faculties to hear confessions, witness marriages and run parishes in his diocese. The bishop can visit his parishes, even if they are administered by religious.

In this case, the bishop and the Jesuit Pronvincial have to work together to resolve the problem. The bishop cannot unilaterally make decisions that affec the Jesuits. If he were to do so and the Jesuit Provincial could prove it, there would be heck to pay. The Provincial has to check out the bishop’s concerns. If he ignores them, there is heck to pay.

If this were not such a contraversial issue, this would be resolved between the bishop and the provincial and we would never hear about it, because the media would not be interested.

Hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[copperblade]

Thanks. Is it possible that superior would also be a bishop? Or does that not happen because of a conflict of “interest” ?

 

[JReducation]

Thanks. Is it possible that superior would also be a bishop? Or does that not happen because of a conflict of “interest” ?

Male religious superiors cannot be bishops, because bishops have the care of a Church. This would not allow the superior to fulfill his duties to his brothers. Also, not all male religious superiors are priests, even though many govern priests under them. There are some who are non-clerical religious. That superior can’t be a bishop anyway.

There was a time when this happened, but it did not go well. St. Bonaventure was a university professor, community cook, Superior General, Diocesan Bishop and Cardinal at the same time. It did not go well for the diocese of Ostia. He was hardly there, because his duties to the fraternity kept him busy. At the general chapter the brothers ordered him to write the official life of St. Francis. Bonaventure, who was then the General Minister had to retire to study and write. It took him years to finish. I think that after several of these experiences, the Church realized that this was not a good idea.

A male religious can be a bishop and resign his office as superior when he accepts ordination. Those bishops who are religious are still bound to obey their superiors and the rules and constitutions that govern their religious community except in matters that are proper to the office of the bishop. Neither the superior nor the community can demand that a bishop act contrary to his office or interfere in his ministry as bishop. It’s the religious life of the bishop that the rule and constitutions continue to govern, such as poverty, prayer life, fraternal life, customs, etc. Also, the religious community is responsible for the bishop’s well-being when he retires. If he has no place to go, his community must care for him until the day he dies. Finally, any bishop who is a religious can cease to be a bishop to return to his religious community as long as the Holy Father accepts his resignation. This happened in Florida with a bishop. He went back to being Father X and returned to his religious community. Because he belonged to an exempt religious order, this was part of his privileges. He resigned his diocese and went back to his brothers. I believe that he was a Jesuit. This was over 80 years ago.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Holly3278]

How sickening. How on earth can they defend a pro-abortion organization when the Church is definitely pro-life? It sounds to me like some excommunication is in order.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

How sickening. How on earth can they defend a pro-abortion organization when the Church is definitely pro-life? It sounds to me like some excommunication is in order.

 

[JReducation]

How sickening. How on earth can they defend a pro-abortion organization when the Church is definitely pro-life? It sounds to me like some excommunication is in order.

If you read the Provincial Superior’s response very carefully, you’ll see that the issue is not a moral issue. The bishop and the superior are not disagreeing on the moral principle. The disagreement is on how they view the organization.

The bishop sees it as pro-abortion. The superior says that he doesn’t see what the bishop sees. There is nothing sickening here. These differences between bishops and major superiors of religious men happen all the time. They are equals, looking at an issue through different lenses. As I am tired of saying, if this were another issue, no one would even know about it. The bishop and the superior would have talked it out and each one would have put his facts on the table until they agreed on the truth.

This issue has been blown out of proportion, because the person who wrote the article for LifeSite is misrepresenting the Jesuit superior. I love the work that LifeSite does. But one has to read LifeSite with care. They have some writers who are not objective in their reporting. Passion takes over and objectivity goes out the window. This is one of those times.

The comment by the Provincial does not support abortion nor an organization that is pro-abortion. According to the Provincial’s statement, he’s not seeing what the bishop is seeing.

We have two gentlemen who have to share their facts and find the truth. It’s that simple.

By the way, it’s easier to cut off one’s left hand than to excommunicate a Jesuit Superior. The Council of Trent ruled that neither bishops nor laymen may meddle with certain religious orders. These are called exempt religiuos orders of men. This does not apply to every religious community. But the Jesuits are one of those exempt communities that the Council of Trent placed under the protection of the papacy.

For the Holy Father to become directly involved, the superior would have to commit a crime, apostasy or schism. Other than that, as far as the Church is concerned, it’s a bishop and a superior who need to talk to each other, especially in this case, where the issue is one of perspectives, not morals.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF