Jesuits -- Why are they supposedly liberal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JesuXPIPassio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In my country, especially in the town where I live, the Jesuits are seen as very orthodox. They have a basilica in the town centre, which is open every day and full of people. Confessions almost during the whole day, five masses daily, eucharistic adoration, strong sermons…the fathers always wear those black robes, they are very reverend in the way they walk, talk and especially in the way they behave at the altar. I have never witnessed any liturgical abuse, quite the contrary - I think they are very respectful of the mass.
 
Would it be fair to say that this is nonsense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Not only is it nonsense, it doesn’t make any sense. Unfortunately quite a number of posters on this forum have a very poor sense of history and a lot of Americans are paranoid about liberals. If such posters as this think that liberals are the cause of every evil, then start ruling out St Paul, St Augustine, Gregory the Great, Teilhard de Chardin , Pope Paul VIth, John XXIII, Vatican II etc. Outside the ecclesiastical world, let’s look at ‘conservative’ achievements - an illegal invasion of Iraq, millions of refugees from Iraq, supine support for the State of Israel while it flouts every UN Resolution and continues to build illegal settlements, and has now been accused of war crimes in Gaza.

My simple verdict = leave your brain behind if you are a conservative and continue to imagine that pigs can fly.
 
Not only is it nonsense, it doesn’t make any sense. Unfortunately quite a number of posters on this forum have a very poor sense of history and a lot of Americans are paranoid about liberals. If such posters as this think that liberals are the cause of every evil, then start ruling out St Paul, St Augustine, Gregory the Great, Teilhard de Chardin , Pope Paul VIth, John XXIII, Vatican II etc. Outside the ecclesiastical world, let’s look at ‘conservative’ achievements - an illegal invasion of Iraq, millions of refugees from Iraq, supine support for the State of Israel while it flouts every UN Resolution and continues to build illegal settlements, and has now been accused of war crimes in Gaza.

My simple verdict = leave your brain behind if you are a conservative and continue to imagine that pigs can fly.
My position is not quite as dramatic as yours. But I do believe that certain people were considered liberals or radical in their day and today they are considered very orthodox: Francis of Assisi, Vicent de Paul, the Daughters of Charity, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Br. Charles de Facould, Dorothy Day, Cathering de Hueck Doherty, the Christian Brothers, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and many others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Not only is it nonsense, it doesn’t make any sense. Unfortunately quite a number of posters on this forum have a very poor sense of history and a lot of Americans are paranoid about liberals. If such posters as this think that liberals are the cause of every evil, then start ruling out St Paul, St Augustine, Gregory the Great, Teilhard de Chardin , Pope Paul VIth, John XXIII, Vatican II etc. Outside the ecclesiastical world, let’s look at ‘conservative’ achievements - an illegal invasion of Iraq, millions of refugees from Iraq, supine support for the State of Israel while it flouts every UN Resolution and continues to build illegal settlements, and has now been accused of war crimes in Gaza.

My simple verdict = leave your brain behind if you are a conservative and continue to imagine that pigs can fly.
:confused: “supine support for the State of Israel while it flouts every UN Resolution and continues to build illegal settlements, and has now been accused of war crimes in Gaza.”

Oh no they didnt agree with UN resolutions… :eek: How dare they ! 😉 😃

The protection of Israel should never be a conservative or liberal platform.

Linking liberalism with a handful of saints and then comparing Conservative to war and such seems fishy.

What are you some kind of liberal or something ? 😛
 
My position is not quite as dramatic as yours. But I do believe that certain people were considered liberals or radical in their day and today they are considered very orthodox: Francis of Assisi, Vicent de Paul, the Daughters of Charity, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Br. Charles de Facould, Dorothy Day, Cathering de Hueck Doherty, the Christian Brothers, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross and many others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Code:
I know Catherine Doherty pretty personnally as my spiritual director is an associate of said Madonna House. That being said, Catherine was also accused of being communistic no different than St Mother Maria Skobtsova (these two existed in the same time frame…although Maria was an Orthodox by relgiion.)

Catherine was a third order Franciscan and lived life to utter poverty, as do her followers. Can’t get more frnciscan than that. She bellowed (literally) at the extravagence that religious communities live in. It was a scandal to her eyes (this position was also taken by Maria). And she is right…

As far as I am concerned Jesus was a liberal in His time…he did not follow the ultra-conservatives of His time. They were conservative to a fault and Jesus pointed that out…

As for me, there is one poster that keeps calling me liberal, fascist, etc and I am comparable to Hitler and Stalin…:eek:. Litlle does he know, 😉
 
This thread has become absolutely absurd. There is no way for anyone to stop being identified by their ideals in a culture, church, or subgroup what so ever. If you want to live in a world without labels, then you’re going to be let down. The first place you’ll be able to do that successfully is in heaven and not a second sooner. Though there might be something conceptually pleasing in the attempt of living without labels, it’s just not practical.

As for why the Jesuits have become labeled basically as mostly liberal is based on their influence in academia where is there is a general rule of a slant to the left. What I often wonder about is the Jesuits who are not in academia and how they view things. As our Croatian friend makes clear, this is where the beauty of the Society of Jesus is most likely to be found.
 
As far as I am concerned Jesus was a liberal in His time…he did not follow the ultra-conservatives of His time. They were conservative to a fault and Jesus pointed that out
Jesus was not a liberal or a conservative… He was not into politics -God is not into politics.

Satan is into politics.

"The devil then took Jesus to the top of a high mountain, showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. Then said, “All this authority I will give You and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.”

So why didnt jesus work with the devil? Why didnt he cut a deal? Surely he could have ended poverty, or a few wars by meeting satan “in the middle”. But Jesus is not into politics !!!

Some people believe that it is religeon and fundamentalism that cause problems…
I truly believe that it is in fact politics that cause problems. Politics destroy all the good in this world. Politics cause war, famine, and crime. Politics come from the devil ! Liberal and conservative labels come from the devil.

Forget your politics and live in peace. Help people by making individual choices…
 
The bishop of assisi in 1943 once joked there are three things god does not know- where a franciscan gets his money how many nuns are in rome and what a jesuit thinks
 
I’m in a bit of a dilemma and was wondering whether anybody in the forum might know some advice: I would just love to be a Jesuit, since I would like to do what Jesuits do - my main fields being research at the interface between science and theology, and issues related to social justice, migration, global economics, etc. At the same time I want to stick to traditional Church doctrine on issues such as women priests, homosexuality, and the like, and also I am not much inclined to liberation theology, process theology etc. So I’m anticipating a conflict.

My question to you all: what are your experiences / opinions? Do you think it’s possible to be a “conservative Jesuit” and nevertheless get on well in the SJ, grow spiritually, and do a good job? Or is it better to look elsewhere? If so, which religious order or organization might have a charism similar to that of SJ (science, social justice, etc.), while maintaining a more “conservative” profile?

Looking forward to your answers. Thanks,

guardai in alto
 
I agree with Brother JR in the sense that I think the conservative/liberal distinction is too simplistic, at least the way the OP is using it. That is Original Poster not Order of Preachers lol.

I subscribe to the Jesuit magazine America and read books by Jesuits, such as James Martin, SJ. I can see in a way how the Jesuit spirituality and way of thinking can be seen as liberal in a theological sense. But I think you are misusing that label. They are not heretics or anything like that. To suggest that is way off the mark. These are very well educated people we are talking about and when they take a position you can be sure they can back it up.
 
I agree with JR (as usual) with using political terms for spiritual reasons. I do notknow if the ‘traditional’ would be better used.

That being said, I remember reading a couple of books on JP2 that he had to, a number of years ago, discipline the Jesuits. He put a new Head to the Society and was under scrutiny for lack of obedience (?) to the magsiterium. These books that I read were very, very big (700-800 pps long)
 
I agree with JR (as usual) with using political terms for spiritual reasons. I do notknow if the ‘traditional’ would be better used.

That being said, I remember reading a couple of books on JP2 that he had to, a number of years ago, discipline the Jesuits. He put a new Head to the Society and was under scrutiny for lack of obedience (?) to the magsiterium. These books that I read were very, very big (700-800 pps long)
The case to which you’re referring had nothing to do with orthodoxy. It had to do with assignments. The Jesuits take a vow to go where the pope sends them. There was an issue, because they and the pope were in diagreement as to where they should be ministering. I don’t even remember what triggered the issue. It was a long time ago.

The pope can replace any superior general of any religious order, but it’s a very tricky process. The orders retain the right to elect their superior. The pope asks the superior to resign. This leaves the door open for the Vicar to become the superior and a new Vicar is elected by the council of the order.

That’s what happened. When they could not agree, the Holy Father asked the Superior General to resign. Technically, he cannot fire him. Because he works for the order, not for the pope. That would not be the solution. But asking for his resignation is a legal solution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
The case to which you’re referring had nothing to do with orthodoxy. It had to do with assignments. The Jesuits take a vow to go where the pope sends them. There was an issue, because they and the pope were in diagreement as to where they should be ministering. I don’t even remember what triggered the issue. It was a long time ago.

The pope can replace any superior general of any religious order, but it’s a very tricky process. The orders retain the right to elect their superior. The pope asks the superior to resign. This leaves the door open for the Vicar to become the superior and a new Vicar is elected by the council of the order.

That’s what happened. When they could not agree, the Holy Father asked the Superior General to resign. Technically, he cannot fire him. Because he works for the order, not for the pope. That would not be the solution. But asking for his resignation is a legal solution.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
Code:
Thank you so much for your response! i just remember the incidence but what motivated it all was vague to me at this time. Thanks for clearing it up!

Btw, I am reading the book: St Francis of Assisi-Omnibus of Sources. Unbelievable! I knew St Francis from my upbringing but never to this extent. No wonder they call him the saint so Christ-like. I did not know he changed water into wine, bilocation, etc. I thanked my director for giving it to me to read…it is beautiful and a source of inspiration…👍
 
This reminds me that many Jesuits are allegedly antagonistic towards Opus Dei. Is the allegation really true or does it seem to be an exaggeration?
 
This reminds me that many Jesuits are allegedly antagonistic towards Opus Dei. Is the allegation really true or does it seem to be an exaggeration?
If you listen to everything that you hear you will go crazy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
I agree with JR (as usual) with using political terms for spiritual reasons. I do notknow if the ‘traditional’ would be better used.

That being said, I remember reading a couple of books on JP2 that he had to, a number of years ago, discipline the Jesuits. He put a new Head to the Society and was under scrutiny for lack of obedience (?) to the magsiterium. These books that I read were very, very big (700-800 pps long)
This thread reminded me of an article I read a while back and I found it here.

If you’re interested read the entire article, but the start gives a pretty good description:
ROME, March 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The two-month General Congregation meeting of the Society of Jesus ended in Rome on Thursday with the 225 delegates professing their loyalty to the Pope and their obedience to Catholic teaching. At the start of their meeting, the Jesuit order, one of the most influential in the history of the Catholic Church, received a letter from Pope Benedict XVI implicitly criticising the order for laxity in its commitment to Catholic teaching and its traditional loyalty to the pope.
Pope Benedict wrote to the order in January, “I heartily hope that the present Congregation affirms with clarity the authentic charism of the founder so as to encourage all Jesuits to promote true and healthy Catholic doctrine.”
The pope wrote that “it could prove extremely useful” for the General Congregation to “reaffirm…its own total adhesion to Catholic doctrine,” in areas which “today are strongly attacked by secular culture”. Pope Benedict specified the teaching of the Church on inter-religious and inter-denominational relations, “some aspects” of “Liberation theology” denounced by many in the Church as Marxist-inspired, and “various points of sexual morality, especially as regards the indissolubility of marriage and the pastoral care of homosexual persons”.
I know that there are Jesuits who are faithful to the Church teaching out there… however the last time I sat in a meeting with a Jesuit at a Jesuit “Catholic” college my husband asked if the school and the professors there were loyal to the teachings of the Magesterium and he started to laugh, because he really didn’t think that it was a serious question… His answer… “of course not.”
 
I know that there are Jesuits who are faithful to the Church teaching out there… however the last time I sat in a meeting with a Jesuit at a Jesuit “Catholic” college my husband asked if the school and the professors there were loyal to the teachings of the Magesterium and he started to laugh, because he really didn’t think that it was a serious question… His answer… “of course not.”
This is a disgrace. This is not what the SJ stands for. Certain persons in the Academia trust their own “superior education” to God’s Wisdom. This is not limited to Jesuits, there are “bad seeds” in every Order, but they do not necessarily represent the values of the Orders. Such people do not deserve to be Jesuits, much less in a position of TEACHING in “Catholic” Colleges! Such a person, who makes the statement “I am not loyal to the Teaching Authority of the Church” cannot even be legitimately called Catholic!

“I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.”
~St. Ignatius of Loyola
Founder of the Society of Jesus
 
I have to believe that there are “liberal” elements to almost every order and the Jesuits are no different.

For instance, the Passionists have a presence at the United Nations, an organisation that I believe to be most un-religious, very secularised and non-friendly to anything to do with Christianity, let alone Catholicism. They are the only Catholic presence there as far as I know. They work on eco matters and I would love to think that they are bringing their faith and Jesus Christ into the discussion, but I rather doubt it. They are likely bending to the secular globalist theme this organisation is known for.

But the Passionists I know from being a member of their confraternity are good, traditional Catholics that are true to their founders charism. The priests at the monastery I go to are very traditional and orthodox.

So what am i to believe of the Passionists? Well, I believe them to be orthodox and traditional, with a small segment that leans toward the more worldly, more secular. I lean to and believe in this order and all that their founder stands for, not what a small segement of this order does at the U.N… It’s probably the same with the Jesuits. Most of their order are likely true to their founders charism. Most are likely true to the Magisterium and the Pope. However, a samll segement could be liberal. So what does that make them? Liberal or conservative? Likely conservative with some having liberal leanings that are getting to much of the publicity.

I say join the Jesuits if you have the call and be true to St. Ignatius’s charism and be heard! It will take men like this, one by one, to turn the perception of this order around!
 
We have to go slowly here. The fact that a Jesuit made the comment, “Of course not,” does not mean that it is true. The poster did say that the Jesuit thought that the question was a joke. There is a long running joke among religious, including the Jesuits, about their orthodoxy. But we all know that it’s humor. We tease them about it all the time, but we don’t take it seriously. They make fun of themselves.

It is also very wrong for anyone outside of a religious order to say that said religious does not belong in the order or should be called a Catholic. That’s overstepping the boundaries. The only person who can make that judgment is the Superior General of the order. Church law explicitly reserves that right for superiors general, not even bishops can make such statements. I remember a case where a bishop made such a statement about a Franciscan, the friars sued him in an ecclesial tribunal and the bishop had to make a public apology, because he lost the case. The tribunal concluded that only the superior general of the individual could morally make such a comment, especially in public.

Since the 13th century the Church ruled that laity and bishops may have no voice in the affairs or actions of religious orders or men. Religious orders of men are exempt and answer only to their superior general and the pope above him. The rule is different for congregations of men.

The Passionists are not an order. They are a congregation. Therefore, they are not exempt for all authority as are the orders. Why the orders answer only to the pope, congregations answer to the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. If the laity has a complaint aganst a congregation of men they can file that complaint with either the Superior General of the Congregation in question or with the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life. If they have a problem with a member of an order, they can only file their complaint with the Provincial Superior of the order. The Sacred Congregation does not deal in these issues, because they cannot intervene in orders of men, only the superior general of the order and the pope have that authority. The reason that the Sacred Congregation cannot intervene is because the Sacred Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life is run by bishops and cardinals. Bishops and cardinals have no authority over male religious orders. The Superior General trumps their authority, whether he’s a priest or a brother. He speaks for the Church. Only the Pope can speak above him.

Moving along to another point, there are three religious insitutes at the United Nations. The Passionists are involved in the environment. They were asked by Pope John Paul II to work with enviornmental issues. When John Paul II died, they had to resign. That is Church law. Pope Benedict reappointed them to do this. They are not to do any kind of evangelizing at the UN. They are to focus on environmental issues and represents the Holy Father’s position on these issues.

The Jesuits are also at the UN. They work on issues regarding religious freedom. Again, they are not to involve themselves in any other issue, except this one.

The Secular Franciscans were also assigned to the United Nations by John Paul II and re-assigned by Pope Benedict. They are to work on poverty and the distribution of resources.

All three orders represent the Vatican’s interests on these subjects. They are guided by the Vatican representative to the UN.

It’s important to understand what they do at the UN and how far they are allowed to go. None of them are allowed to preach or evangelize at the UN. They are to teach the Gospel through the issues that they represent. Alongside the three Catholic orders, there are other religious representations at the UN who work together with the Catholics: Orthodox, Jews, Anglican, Buddhists, Hindus, and several Reformation communities.

I hope this helps someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top