No lying?

[Montie_Claunch]

O.K. I had asked this on a previous thread with “The extreme Jesuit Oath” and was fergotten about. It is about “Expostion of uncontrovered opinoin in moral theology (sp ?)” in the book The Jesuits by Father Antoine Escobar of Menoza. My aunt was given this for her church school thing (she isn’t catholic) and she wants to be sure its lagit before handing it out. She asked me to find out (scince she knew I always talked to you guys). From what she told me it sounds from over the phone that the Jesuits are (supossidly) using this form of reasoning where they can reason out that whatever they say isn’t lying (and my aunts thought is that they could not be “lying” about the inquisition, or in court under oath or something like that). Does anyone know anything about this or any websites I could look it up?(also any “Authorative” websites for the "extreme oath of the Jesuit). My aunt and I thank you in advance.

 

[DavidFilmer]

A footnote of an article on a protestant website says this:

Father Antoine Escobar, of Mendoza. He is said by his friends to have been a good man, and a laborious student. He compiled a work in six volumes, entitled Exposition of Uncontroverted Opinions in Moral Theology.

It afforded a rich field for the satire of Pascal. Its characteristic absurdity is that its questions uniformly exhibit two faces—an affirmative and a negative—so that escobarderie became a synonym in France for duplicity.I can find no biographical information, about Escobar and I cannot find his writings for sale on any website (or available in any electronic form). If the “Pascal” mentioned here was Blaise Pascal, then the writing would have been done before 1662 (the year Pascal died).

Pascal’s best known religious work, Pensees, mentions Escobar once in passing. The “rich field” mentioned in the footnote probably refers to one of Pascal’s lesser known works, *Lettres provinciales *(1656), which does mock Escobar at some length.

It is possible (and maybe even likely) that there was a Jesuit priest some 400 years ago named Antoine Escobar, and he may have even been a kook (although, without access to his original writings, we cannot say for sure that he has not been mischaracterized by his opponents). But the suggestion that Jesuit theology is (or ever has been) based on this guy’s writings is absurd.

If it were not for Pascal, I doubt anyone would even know that such a person as Escobar ever existed. Just because we can find evidence that a kooky Jesuit lived 400 years ago does not establish that the Jesuit Order adheres to his kookiness.

 

[DavidFilmer]

(also any “Authorative” websites for the "extreme oath of the Jesuit).

There’s no such thing as the “Extreme Oath of the Jesuit” so there cannot possibly be an “authorative” website about it. The first paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article about the Jesuits says:

So likewise is the so-called Jesuit oath, a clumsy fabrication of the forger Robert Ware, exposed by Bridgett in “Blunders and Forgeries”.

See this other discussion board for many proofs that the “oath” is a complete fallacy.

 

[Montie_Claunch]

I know it was presented to Congress in 1913 (for whatever reasons). I have gooled around with out much luck on finding it. Does anyone know where I can find out what they said about it?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Montie Claunch:

I know it was presented to Congress in 1913 (for whatever reasons).

The fourth post of the link I gave you explains this in detail. Basically, the “oath” was circulated as part of a voter pamphlet (by an unknown person) as a smear/mudslinging tactic during a heated Congressional campaign. The looser of the race claimed election fraud including religious slander. The House Committee on Elections opened an investigation and examined evidence in the case. One piece of evidence was the “oath” pamphlet.

So, yes, the “oath” was presented to Congress, but as part of a criminal investigation of fraud and slander.

However, it was described as the “Oath of the Knights of Columbus,” not the “Oath of the Jesuits” (same “oath” though).

Because the findings of the Committee (including the evidence they gathered) were included in the Congressional Record, some anti-Catholics have tried to claim that Congress has somehow “endorsed” the “oath,” which is, of course, absurd.