Jesuit superior general: ‘We have formed symbolic figures such as the devil to express evil’

[_Abyssinia]

Spokesman for Jesuit chief: Devil remarks must be read in context

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/08/spokesman-for-jesuit-chief-devil-remarks-must-be-read-in-context/

 

[Padres1969]

Bottom line is, if you need an exorcism, don’t ask a Jesuit…

But if 100,000 is burning a hole in your pocket they will have a seat for you in class.

Essentially. More than one Jesuit I was taught by stated that the bible, including the New Testament was unreliable/fallible/open to interpretation due to inconsistencies, etc… It does seem to flow from the top down.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Ever hear the old joke about the Dominican, the Jesuit, and the Franciscan pastors?

The Dominican came by and said, “Great news! Our Parish just made 100% participation in a Novena; everybody entered names at the completion, and the winner won a Ferrari!”

The Franciscan said, “What’s a Ferrari?”

The Jesuit said, “What’s a Novena?”

Lol!

 

[M-Dent]

Fr. Amorth was respected well enough to found an international association of exorcists.

**Vatican formally recognizes international association of exorcists **

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The Vatican formally recognized an international association of exorcists founded by Pauline Father Gabriele Amorth, an Italian priest renowned for his work in dispelling demons.

The Congregation for Clergy signed the formal decree June 13 approving the group’s statutes and granting it “private juridical personality,” which recognizes the group’s autonomy as an organization of Catholics not operating in the name of the Catholic Church, but as having some accountability to the Vatican.

The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published the news July 3.

The International Association of Exorcists is headquartered in Rome and was co-founded by Father Amorth and the French exorcist, Father Rene Chenessau.

Father Amorth, who works as an exorcist in the Diocese of Rome, started bringing Italian exorcists together in the 1980s in response to an upsurge in interest in Satanism and occult practices. The aim was to have exorcists gather regularly to exchange their experiences and best practices, the Vatican newspaper said.

catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2014/vatican-formally-recognizes-international-association-of-exorcists.cfm

 

[punisherthunder]

Agreed.

This is why I don’t understand the practice of Exorcists sending those who come to them, to psychologists, as a first base. The first thing apparently to diagnose is mental illness, and while in some cases that might be the case, surely the first thing to diagnose ought to be whether the person is suffering from some form of diabolic infiltration. It is like putting secular health ideas (not all of which are wrong) ahead of the spiritual. Sometimes, people need both, even, but if people go to exorcists, then I think they ought to be seen and diagnosed first as being possessed or not on some level.

Apparently, Exorcists only actually have to perform a very small number of exorcisms in response to the amount of people who come to them and yet this is hardly surprising if the majority of those people are immediately being sent away. Even if a person is helped with some subtle mental problem, doesn’t still negate the possibility of possession, and need for help in spiritual matters. I actually think it is patronizing for people to be turned away when they have come forward saying that they believe Satan is persecuting them in a way that is too much for them - as if they ought to first be disbelieved.

Back on topic, this Archbishop has things the right way around, compared to someone quoted in an article I read the other day in a position of authority, who was reported as stating pretty much the opposite.

My cousin is a Catholic priest.

When he visited here back last November, we were out and he excused himself as he received a phone call from his parish, that is way out of state from here. He came back a while later and seemed a little uneasy and I asked if I could help.

He told me that there was a woman who kept calling the parish and insisting that she was being attacked by demons. To be a little graphic, she claimed they were pulling her intestines out through her stomach every day, to gnaw on and sexually violate them and tormenting her with foul names. I asked him what’s the procedure with this and he told me, “Oh she is DEFINITELY seeing a psychologist and having some tests run before we even think about the next step”.

I was glad to hear that some screening is done.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Spokesman for Jesuit chief: Devil remarks must be read in context

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/08/spokesman-for-jesuit-chief-devil-remarks-must-be-read-in-context/

Thank you!

The sky always seems to be falling for some people.

“Human language uses symbols and imagery. God is love. To say God symbolizes love is not to deny the existence of God. The devil is evil. Similarly, to say the devil symbolizes evil is not to deny the existence of the devil.”

The spokesman went on: “Like all Catholics, Father Sosa professes and teaches what the Church professes and teaches. He does not hold a set of beliefs separate from what is contained in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

The spokesman was then asked whether Fr Sosa believes that the Devil is an individual with a soul, intellect and free will. He replied: “As I said in my response yesterday, Father General Arturo Sosa believes and teaches what the Church believes and teaches. He does not hold another set of beliefs apart from what is contained in the doctrine of the Catholic Church.”

 

[unafraid]

Spokesman for Jesuit chief: Devil remarks must be read in context

catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/06/08/spokesman-for-jesuit-chief-devil-remarks-must-be-read-in-context/

No good enough. For such a pregnant miscommunication (if,indeed,that’s really all that it was) , one would expect a swift, and immediate, response from the Jesuit Chief himself. A response that mirrors the language of Archbishop Chaput.

This response, delivered in a scripted fashion by a spokesman, strikes me as somehow being disingenuous. Just doesn’t register with me.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Thank you!

The sky always seems to be falling for some people.

Rather than the sky falling. Perhaps it would just be nice if Church leadership could speak plainly and if misunderstood, clarify. The business of spokesmen saying " what he really meant was…" is damaging the ability to lead.

 

[mikekle]

Rather than the sky falling. Perhaps it would just be nice if Church leadership could speak plainly and if misunderstood, clarify. The business of spokesmen saying " what he really meant was…" is damaging the ability to lead.

I have to agree, its seems every quote we hear today, is followed by 100s of varying ‘this is what he meant to say’ theories, but usually when clarification is not given and vague is the word of the day, there is a specific reason for doing this.

 

[Padres1969]

I have to agree, its seems every quote we hear today, is followed by 100s of varying ‘this is what he meant to say’ theories, but usually when clarification is not given and vague is the word of the day, there is a specific reason for doing this.

This is the direct result of the degradation of communication skills among people today. The last couple of generations seem to have a very hard time expressing what they mean when they speak and write. And I say this as a member of one of the generations I’m accusing of having this problem.

 

[goout]

This is the direct result of the degradation of communication skills among people today. The last couple of generations seem to have a very hard time expressing what they mean when they speak and write. And I say this as a member of one of the generations I’m accusing of having this problem.

Not to debate the struggles in communication but;
Nope. It’s the direct result of instant access to too much information taken out of context by people who weren’t there, yet who have the capability of instant response. That’s what causes mass confusion.

 

[edwest2]

Rather than the sky falling. Perhaps it would just be nice if Church leadership could speak plainly and if misunderstood, clarify. The business of spokesmen saying " what he really meant was…" is damaging the ability to lead.

I can call the US Conference of Catholic Bishops during regular hours and get answers. Let’s not do too much hand-wringing and reach out to the Church. People in leadership, especially when it comes to a global Church, have a lot on their minds, and can miss a few things while they are doing a thousand things. I see it at the job where I work. Sometimes people who are part of the Church do say the wrong things. The error is not on the Church, it is on the person who said something wrong.

Leadership involves correction if it can be shown no translation error occurred.

Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is the direct result of the degradation of communication skills among people today. The last couple of generations seem to have a very hard time expressing what they mean when they speak and write. And I say this as a member of one of the generations I’m accusing of having this problem.

You are quite correct.

People no longer search for words which convey a concrete and accepted meaning; they use words to mean what they want them to mean.

It’s especially prevalent in fuzzy concepts like love, peace, justice. . .as well as hate, war, and bigotry, to name just a few. In some cases the meanings are broadened to the point that they can mean just about anything to anybody; in others the meanings are narrowed to the point that a complex and nuanced subject is presenting as meaning one thing and one thing only.

So you can have Jane and John Everyperson absolutely convinced that when they are speaking of ‘love’, what they understand love to be is what the word actually means. . .and if Bob and Bonnie Otherperson speak of love as being something different, even if it differs only in the smallest way from Jane and John’s understanding, Jane and John are going to accuse Bob and Bonnie first of ‘not listening to them’ by not lockstepping with ‘their’ ideas, then of being bigoted, hateful, unloving. . .and the charges will be thrown so thick and fast that there is simply no way to respond because Jane and John are on the offensive, La-la-la they aren’t listening, they simply steamroller their way through or ‘take the ball and go home’ by claiming the other person hasn’t been able to refute them so they’re right, nyah.

And of course Bob and Bonnie are the problems, you know. Because "normal’ people think like Jane and John. They don’t need people like Bob and Bonnie who are trying to make ‘simple things complex’ or ‘trying to bring back the Dark Ages’ or trying to ‘limit’ people, etc. etc.

It’s a good thing that we know that the battle in one sense is already ‘over and done’. God will triumph. One day all will be made known.

But that doesn’t mean we might not lose some pretty tough battles, or even some wars now and then.

 

[commenter]

"The spokesman was then asked whether Fr Sosa believes that the Devil is an individual with a soul, intellect and free will. He replied: “As I said in my response yesterday, Father General Arturo Sosa believes and teaches what the Church believes and teaches. He does not hold another set of beliefs apart from **what is contained in the doctrine **of the Catholic Church.” end quote

Sadly, this reinforces the negative image the Jesuits have, that they use deliberate ambiguity. Note the part I bolded, this might, or might not, be interpreted by someone who concludes that the existence of the devil was not (in their opinion) defined dogma. One might take it either way. One might reason that the Catholic doctrine itself is symbolic, not literal, so one can believe the devil to be a symbol, and not be different from Catholic doctrine. Like “believing in” Noah’s Ark, but not thinking there was an actual boat, just a lesson.

What if someone asked if an administrator himself believes Domestic Violence or Racism, was morally wrong, or not? Would the administrator’s spokesman be assigned to give the same ambiguous response, open to different interpretations?

Somehow I think a direct answer, with no hedging, no ambiguity, no lessons about symbolism, would be forthcoming.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Bottom line is, if you need an exorcism, don’t ask a Jesuit…

But if 100,000 is burning a hole in your pocket they will have a seat for you in class.

Why? Jesuit Priests are just as concerned with attacks from satan, as anyone else. Afterall R.Papa is a Jesuit. Are you reading any of his output regarding satan.

I see this whole thing as a subversive attack on R. Papa. Lets all undermine the Jesuit. Then we undermine our Pope. And you just attacked your Pope verbally with that incredibly uncharitable comment. And you arent the only one.

 

[JPUSC]

Bottom line is, if you need an exorcism, don’t ask a Jesuit…

But if 100,000 is burning a hole in your pocket they will have a seat for you in class.

 

[JPUSC]

Essentially. More than one Jesuit I was taught by stated that the bible, including the New Testament was unreliable/fallible/open to interpretation due to inconsistencies, etc… It does seem to flow from the top down.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why? Jesuit Priests are just as concerned with attacks from satan, as anyone else. Afterall R.Papa is a Jesuit. Are you reading any of his output regarding satan.

I see this whole thing as a subversive attack on R. Papa. Lets all undermine the Jesuit. Then we undermine our Pope. And you just attacked your Pope verbally with that incredibly uncharitable comment. And you arent the only one.

My conscience is completely and utterly clear. Not only was I in the confines of forum rules. But in the context of free will criticism.

I don’t think I need to being this up with my confessor.
But don’t point. My momma said it was rude.

True, Francis is a Jesuit who took a Franciscan name and has no problems criticizing his own order prior to the papacy.

While certain criticisms about vagueness and off the cuff comments could indeed apply to our Pope. They could also apply to my parish priest in homilies.

I think you might be a bit gunshy here.

 

[commenter]

Why? Jesuit Priests are just as concerned with attacks from satan, as anyone else. Afterall R.Papa is a Jesuit. Are you reading any of his output regarding satan.

I see this whole thing as a subversive attack on R. Papa. Lets all undermine the Jesuit. Then we undermine our Pope. And you just attacked your Pope verbally with that incredibly uncharitable comment. And you arent the only one.

It is unloving to attack the person of the Director of the Jesuits. Some may be doing that, and shame on them. But it is not unloving to point out that much damage has been done to the Church by intentional ambiguity on matters that are clear in some aspects, such as the actual existence and work of Satan.

Suppose an important Health official gave a talk about Smoking, in which he was ambiguous about whether or not Smoking is bad for your health. Then when questioned further, he had a spokesman issue a statement which could be interpreted different ways. Obviously this would lead some to let down their guard or their resistance to taking up Smoking as a habit, or postpone quitting it.

The fact that we don’t know everything about Satan does not mean we have no useful and necessary knowledge. The fact that the Jesuit’s statement is open to a **possible **orthodox interpretation does not make it prudent, considering it strongly facilitates a common misinterpretation.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

It is unloving to attack the person of the Director of the Jesuits. Some may be doing that, and shame on them. But it is not unloving to point out that much damage has been done to the Church by intentional ambiguity on matters that are clear in some aspects, such as the actual existence and work of Satan.

Suppose an important Health official gave a talk about Smoking, in which he was ambiguous about whether or not Smoking is bad for your health. Then when questioned further, he had a spokesman issue a statement which could be interpreted different ways. Obviously this would lead some to let down their guard or their resistance to taking up Smoking as a habit, or postpone quitting it.

The fact that we don’t know everything about Satan does not mean we have no useful and necessary knowledge. The fact that the Jesuit’s statement is open to a **possible **orthodox interpretation does not make it prudent, considering it strongly facilitates a common misinterpretation.

Ok you guys,

Pope Francis is NOT ambiguous about the existence or workings of the devil.

The Jesuits statement has nothing to do with the existence or not of the devil. It’s about symbolism, culture.
Think about it.

Hoosier daddy I have no idea what gunshy means.

And yes, I see these attacks on Jesuits by media that is reading a translated document as subversive attacks on the Pope, as he is a Jesuit. If one can cry fake news for a politician, one can also cry fake news on a poorly translated document.