Jesuits -- Why are they supposedly liberal?

[JesuXPIPassio]

Jesuits have gotten a reputation of being liberal. Why is this? Does it tie into their work in academia? If so, isn’t it a shame that the standardbearers for Catholic academics are often seen as contradicting the Church’s ways?

There are good, conservative Jesuits. Father Mitch from EWTN, for example. Or the late Cardinal Dulles, and the other Jesuit cardinals (though I’m just presuming they’re conservatives, seeing as how they were appointed by conservative Popes). How come we never hear about these guys?

In reality, is this an unrealistic reputation of the Society of Jesus?

 

[SSPXwannaB]

Because they are. Of coarse there is always the exception to the rule (there are good ones). Sad that a once noble Catholic institution has become a leader in heresy.

“Within the Catholic Church, some Jesuits are criticized by some parties for allegedly being overly liberal and allegedly deviating substantially from official Church teaching and papal directives, especially on such issues as abortion, priestly celibacy, homosexuality, and liberation theology.” wiki

 

[JesuXPIPassio]

Because they are.

That maybe so, but if it is, how did it get that way? I’m sure there’s nothing in the Jesuit Rule that says “Our members are called to be liberal,” yet this order’s members tend to lean to the left. Why is it that way?

 

[Gertabelle]

That maybe so, but if it is, how did it get that way? I’m sure there’s nothing in the Jesuit Rule that says “Our members are called to be liberal,” yet this order’s members tend to lean to the left. Why is it that way?

I cannot comment on whether they are mostly liberal, or when or why that came about, if it did.

But in partial answer to question, I think that a religious order that has a reputation for being conservative will draw in men and women who are conservative. And those with a reputation for being liberal will draw in men and women who are liberal. The “lean” of an order self-perpetuates, and, except for rare exceptions, only makes 180 degree turns over longer periods of time (decades).

Pray for our priests and religious!

Gertie

 

[JReducation]

Labels such as conservative and liberal are very dangerous, because they tend to have an emotional and subjective judgment attached to them. One is best not to use them or use them with great caution. We should not always assume that conservative is good and liberal is wrong either. There is no such guarrantee. A better way of saying this is to look at whether an individual’s beliefs on an issue are consistent with Church teaching or not. In those cases when they are inconsistent, it is important to ask why not.

Sometimes a scholar, such as a Jesuit, Dominican or one of the other great teaching orders and societies may pose a statement or an argument for something that is inconsistent with the Church, not because the person is trying to push heresy, but because the person is a scholar and his or job is to make people think. Thinking is a good thing. We do have to think, even about those things that are inconsistent with Church teaching. How can we know what we reject if we do not examine it?

Often, scholars, such as Jesuits, are given a bad rap because they put topics and ideas on the table that make many people uncomfortable. But they are not always put on the table as a substitute for Catholic teaching, but as a fact. What I mean by that is that a scholar will sometimes put something on the table because others in fact do think and believe this or that which is inconsistent with Church teaching. It would be hiding our heads in the sand to pretend that these ideas are not out there and not look at them carefully.

I would never say that the Jesuits are liberal and the Augustinians are conservative (just an example). I would say that the Jesuits have a reputation for challenging our belief system and they have done a great deal of good for the Church when they have done this, because it has triggered an orthodox response from the other side, a response that may remain in hiding, if someone had not drawn our attention to the question or the issue.

Are there individuals who are less orthodox and actually believe some of the points that they make? Of course there are. Are they limited to the Jesuits? Absolutely not. In fact, the Jesuits continue to make an important contribtuion to the world of theological discourse and theological research in the Church. They have written many wonderful books, preached wonderful homilies and delivered some great lectures in classrooms.

We have to be careful to avoid labeling an entire community. I’m thinking of the Trappists. They do not enjoy the fame of the Jesuits, because they do not teach at universities. However, they are a leading force in writing mystical theology. Many would consider them conservative, because they are monastic. But they have produced some rather interesting writings in the area of mystical theology, writings that are not consistent with Catholic mysticism. But no one labels the Trappists as liberal, because of the way they live.

Let us be careful and sparing with the terms conservative and orthodox and look more for the person whose positions are orthodox, even if they challenge us with some unorthodox questions. Remember, the fact that someone challenges us with unorthodox questions does not necessarily mean that the person subscribes to that position. It can be. But it can also be that the person is doing his job, to study the faith from every possible angle.

The Society of Jesus has produced many great saints and also led the way in defining her teachings more clearly. It deserves our respect and gratitude.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[albertziggy]

We have to be careful to avoid labeling an entire community. I’m thinking of the Trappists. They do not enjoy the fame of the Jesuits, because they do not teach at universities. However, they are a leading force in writing mystical theology. Many would consider them conservative, because they are monastic. But they have produced some rather interesting writings in the area of mystical theology, writings that are not consistent with Catholic mysticism. But no one labels the Trappists as liberal, because of the way they live.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Hi Br JR:

The Society of Jesus have a handful of members who have less orthodox views/practices (e.g., liturgical abuse, new age, etc.) than others. The problem is that these guys are the ones making a lot of ‘noise’ compared to the ‘good ones’. Believe me, I have heard and encountered a lot of what these guys have been saying or doing… and it can be disturbing indeed.

It is a good thing that the new generation of Jesuits, at least in our country are taking over, and are on the right track, replacing the old ones.

In Christ,
albertziggy

 

[RobbyS]

Hi Br JR:

The Society of Jesus have a handful of members who have less orthodox views/practices (e.g., liturgical abuse, new age, etc.) than others. The problem is that these guys are the ones making a lot of ‘noise’ compared to the ‘good ones’. Believe me, I have heard and encountered a lot of what these guys have been saying or doing… and it can be disturbing indeed.

It is a good thing that the new generation of Jesuits, at least in our country are taking over, and are on the right track, replacing the old ones.

In Christ,
albertziggy

The Jebbie schools are all “progressive” in their politics and in their theology. Name one that is not. Georgetown is, of course, the prime example. It began. of course, with the order’s championing of Teihard de Chardin’s views. Jacques Maritain, a liberal icon until in his book “The Peasant of Garonne”, published in December, 1965, he blasted the progressives in the council for Genuflecting to the world," But it really didn’t start there. pious Christians of every ilk from Puritans to Jansenists to Franciscans to Orthodox Christians have always hated the Jebbies for their worldly interpretation of the Gospel, Pascal’s “Provincial Letters” is a devastating look at the Jebbie point of view. Now the Jebbie schools have taken what I call a “positivistic"view of religion,” which is to regard
traditional Christianity as passe, and to be changed to suit political needs and scientific needs. . It is a kind of reverse of the original approach which aimed to put these in the service of the Church. Now the Church is to serve the god of this world. Well, that last line is a bit over the top. There are plenty of orthodox jesuit priests.

 

[Seeker100]

Labels such as conservative and liberal are very dangerous, because they tend to have an emotional and subjective judgment attached to them. One is best not to use them or use them with great caution. We should not always assume that conservative is good and liberal is wrong either. There is no such guarrantee. A better way of saying this is to look at whether an individual’s beliefs on an issue are consistent with Church teaching or not. In those cases when they are inconsistent, it is important to ask why not.

Sometimes a scholar, such as a Jesuit, Dominican or one of the other great teaching orders and societies may pose a statement or an argument for something that is inconsistent with the Church, not because the person is trying to push heresy, but because the person is a scholar and his or job is to make people think. Thinking is a good thing. We do have to think, even about those things that are inconsistent with Church teaching. How can we know what we reject if we do not examine it?

Often, scholars, such as Jesuits, are given a bad rap because they put topics and ideas on the table that make many people uncomfortable. But they are not always put on the table as a substitute for Catholic teaching, but as a fact. What I mean by that is that a scholar will sometimes put something on the table because others in fact do think and believe this or that which is inconsistent with Church teaching. It would be hiding our heads in the sand to pretend that these ideas are not out there and not look at them carefully.

I would never say that the Jesuits are liberal and the Augustinians are conservative (just an example). I would say that the Jesuits have a reputation for challenging our belief system and they have done a great deal of good for the Church when they have done this, because it has triggered an orthodox response from the other side, a response that may remain in hiding, if someone had not drawn our attention to the question or the issue.

Are there individuals who are less orthodox and actually believe some of the points that they make? Of course there are. Are they limited to the Jesuits? Absolutely not. In fact, the Jesuits continue to make an important contribtuion to the world of theological discourse and theological research in the Church. They have written many wonderful books, preached wonderful homilies and delivered some great lectures in classrooms.

We have to be careful to avoid labeling an entire community. I’m thinking of the Trappists. They do not enjoy the fame of the Jesuits, because they do not teach at universities. However, they are a leading force in writing mystical theology. Many would consider them conservative, because they are monastic. But they have produced some rather interesting writings in the area of mystical theology, writings that are not consistent with Catholic mysticism. But no one labels the Trappists as liberal, because of the way they live.

Let us be careful and sparing with the terms conservative and orthodox and look more for the person whose positions are orthodox, even if they challenge us with some unorthodox questions. Remember, the fact that someone challenges us with unorthodox questions does not necessarily mean that the person subscribes to that position. It can be. But it can also be that the person is doing his job, to study the faith from every possible angle.

The Society of Jesus has produced many great saints and also led the way in defining her teachings more clearly. It deserves our respect and gratitude.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

You are very very intelligent.

 

[Adonia]

Weren’t the Jesuits at one time the most reliable/conservatime orders in the Church? If I remember my history right, they were the ones who did lots of evangeization some time ago, going to different countries etc.Their presence among the Indian tribes during the late 1600’s -1700’s in North America is well known.

 

[JReducation]

Weren’t the Jesuits at one time the most reliable/conservatime orders in the Church? If I remember my history right, they were the ones who did lots of evangeization some time ago, going to different countries etc.Their presence among the Indian tribes during the late 1600’s -1700’s in North America is well known.

The Society of Jesus continues to be the largest teaching and missionary religious society in the Latin Rite Church. Conservative is not a term that I would apply to anyone, because it is a relative term. It depends on what issue you’re discussing and on what side of the issue you stand. But they certainly continue to be one of the most admirable religious societies in the Church.

I’m a Franciscan, but we have nothing but great fraternal admiration and love for the Society of Jesus and the work that they do around the world, especially in the developing nations of the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Chant]

I’d like to think that there’s a place for both “liberals” and “conservatives” in our Church. On balance, we arrive at the middle.

 

[hitherwood1]

Why in God’s name would conservative be any better than liberal? What exactly are you afraid of?

 

[Hidden_One]

Why…would conservative be any better than liberal? What exactly are you afraid of?

“Liberal” is a common code-word for “heretic of the willfully liturgically wreckovating variety” among many of the traditionally-inclined label-pushers.

 

[JReducation]

“Liberal” is a common code-word for “heretic of the willfully liturgically wreckovating variety” among many of the traditionally-inclined label-pushers.

Would it be fair to say that this is nonsense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

Would it be fair to say that this is nonsense?

Well, it’s about as much nonsense as naming such people just about any given title. This usage of the term is simply one at least akin to that of the OP.

 

[JReducation]

Well, it’s about as much nonsense as naming such people just about any given title. This usage of the term is simply one at least akin to that of the OP.

I for one am very uncomfortable with such labels as conservative and liberal, because they have taken on a moral quality. Once labels are used to measure the moral character of a man, the label as outlived its usefulness. No one should measure the moral character of another person. We can only measure the moral character of actions, not people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hidden_One]

I for one am very uncomfortable with such labels as conservative and liberal, because they have taken on a moral quality. Once labels are used to measure the moral character of a man, the label as outlived its usefulness. No one should measure the moral character of another person. We can only measure the moral character of actions, not people.

Aye. They ought to be simply political-alignment labels, as they began.

 

[TEPO]

I for one am very uncomfortable with such labels as conservative and liberal, because they have taken on a moral quality. Once labels are used to measure the moral character of a man, the label as outlived its usefulness. No one should measure the moral character of another person. We can only measure the moral character of actions, not people.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I agree. People call me conservative and I find it very insulting. I just have trouble understanding how much we are supposed to give… I dont mind giving but should we give to the point that it hurts? And forcing people go give; no true gift of charity can come from this…

 

[JReducation]

I agree. People call me conservative and I find it very insulting. I just have trouble understanding how much we are supposed to give… I dont mind giving but should we give to the point that it hurts? And forcing people go give; no true gift of charity can come from this…

If truth be told, we are all conservative and liberal. We take different positions on different issues. The same applies to a religious society as large as the Society of Jesus. You can’t expect a community that has over 13,000 members to have a clone mentality where everyone thinks the same and everyone has the same opinion on the same issue or the same answers to the same questions. That’s silly.

In addition, these men were formed to be scholars. They were formed to be critical thinkers and to be critics. The Church expects that of them. With the Dominicans they are the inteligencia of the Church. The Church expects the Society of Jesus and the Dominicans to challenge, to question, to point to the pitfalls as well as to point toward orthodoxy. There are going to be men on all sides of an issue in such communities. That’s their gift to the Church. They make us all think.

Aside from soem lose canons, the Society as a whole is very obedient to the Church. Even when the Church says white and the Society says black, in the end they submit to white if the Church insists.

Then there are issues that are not etched in stone. In those cases, the responses don’t have to be etched in stone either. You can have people all over the spectrum.

The label liberal or conservative is really not a holistic one. No one and no organization stands on the left or right of every single issue. We all move left and right, depending on what’s on the table.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[TEPO]

If truth be told, we are all conservative and liberal. We take different positions on different issues. The same applies to a religious society as large as the Society of Jesus. You can’t expect a community that has over 13,000 members to have a clone mentality where everyone thinks the same and everyone has the same opinion on the same issue or the same answers to the same questions. That’s silly.

In addition, these men were formed to be scholars. They were formed to be critical thinkers and to be critics. The Church expects that of them. With the Dominicans they are the inteligencia of the Church. The Church expects the Society of Jesus and the Dominicans to challenge, to question, to point to the pitfalls as well as to point toward orthodoxy. There are going to be men on all sides of an issue in such communities. That’s their gift to the Church. They make us all think.

Aside from soem lose canons, the Society as a whole is very obedient to the Church. Even when the Church says white and the Society says black, in the end they submit to white if the Church insists.

Then there are issues that are not etched in stone. In those cases, the responses don’t have to be etched in stone either. You can have people all over the spectrum.

The label liberal or conservative is really not a holistic one. No one and no organization stands on the left or right of every single issue. We all move left and right, depending on what’s on the table.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I like you. It is interesting how you say “society as a whole is very obedient to the church.” and “we all move from left to right, depending on what’s on the table.” I have been grabbing onto posters shirt sleeves the last few days begging for these types of answers.

My main question remains though… Do the Bishops and the clergy have goals for the future of the human race. In Catholic Social teaching we’re given guidelines.
Does “Catholic social teaching” take the influence of Jesuits, Dominicans and the rest of the clergy and create a holy Catholic decision which Catholics and society embrace whether they all realize it or not? And what are their goals for the future of the church? Are they secret?

The Church calls for Christians and non-Christians alike to work together in unity… I am all for evangelizing and completing my mission on earth, but before I start steamrolling, I need to know the plan. I need to know what is expected of me! I think a lot of people fall into this confused position and I think that people should talk about it. If politics create a division, then well, lets gather up the Church and rethink things…

If this is not the subject of this thread then visit my thread “Catholocism, globalization, interdependence” and tell me there… For God sake someone tell me!