What do people have against the Jesuits?

[brian614]

Many. As long as they do not contradict revealed Truth, different perspectives are allowed.

One that comes to my mind immediately is poverty. For a Benedictine, poverty means something different than it does for a Franciscan or a Jesuit. For the Benedictine, poverty is a means to holiness. For the Franciscan and the Jesuit poverty is an expression of holiness. Therefore, it’s an end, not a means. Hence, the concordance between our Jesuit pope and his Franciscan spirituality. They go well together, because the two schools agree on the meaning of poverty. If he were a Benedictine, there would be some difficulty reconciling the two. Benedictines can be very wealthy as a corporate group, but the monks own everything in common. No one owns anything individually.

Speaking of differences, let’s take the LOTH. For the clerk regular, the LOTH is not a communal celebration in the same sense as it is for a monk or a mendicant. The theology is different between the two schools. For all three, the LOTH is the public prayer of the Church and is the highest form of prayer, even over the Rosary, because it’s an extension of the mass. However, for the clerk regular, the public prayer can be prayed individually in private and remain public. For the monk and the friar, it must be prayed with others, because it’s liturgy and liturgy is not private. Praying alone is an exception, not the norm. For clerks regular, it can be the norm. The same is true for diocesan clergy. Praying the LOTH alone is usually the norm.

There are other differences, such a the theology of prayer or the theology on certain sacraments. Again, as long as they do not contradict revealed truth, the differences in emphasis and wording is permitted.

Have to go now. Thanks for letting me chime in.

This is really interesting, if someone ever starts a thread on the differences between the orders please don’t forget me…

Thanks JR

 

[commenter]

Some institutions identified as Catholic no longer function as Catholic. There are many actions laity can take in response:

1. Pray
2. If you see something that seems to be opposed to Catholic teaching, look into it. Maybe it is not objectionable or maybe the institution itself is not at fault.
3. If a college condones or sponsors what is wrong, write them a brief, charitable letter, copy the bishop.
4. Alumni can bring about pressure, through the alumni association. Unfortunately most alumni continue writing checks long after their alma mater abandons the Faith. Laity can communicate to fellow alumni there may be better places to donate.
5. Bishops have removed the Catholic label off some colleges; but apparently acted only after laypeople specifically requested this, with good documentation. It helps if laity can show they have tried, and failed, to get the college to address this issue.
6. Catholic high schools, newspapers, and parish bulletins tend to automatically pass on the PR from “Catholic” colleges, giving them free publicity for recruitment and fundraising.
   Laity can communicate to those sources that X institution is no longer Catholic, no longer Jesuit, or Franciscan, or whatever.
7. Remember the many genuinely Catholic causes suffering because so much Catholic money goes to gifts and tuition to places that are no longer Catholic. It is prudent, and charitable, for laity to encourage people to give to those that are still Catholic.
8. Laity, especially parents, not only have a right but a responsibility to speak up, to inform fellow parents who are trying to guide their children, and also keep a budget.

 

[Cojuanco]

Good history lesson, Br. JR. The Jesuits do get a bad rap but they don’t seem to want to set the record staight. Their, magazine is an example of their “liberal bent”. They are certainly not the same order that their Founder created. Having said all that, I do know several Jesuit priests that are very traditional and holy men. I, also, know a couple SJ’s that are VERY modern.

Probably the same across the church.

Well, if you mean liberal as outright dissent, no, they have not been liberal for quite a while. If you mean liberal as simply preferring center-left policies where it doesn’t contradict church teaching, well, yes, but the Church provides a lot of freedom in this regard. Believing in draconian gun-control doesn’t necessarily contradict the teaching of Holy Mother Church, for example.

A question, though, directed primarily to Br. JR, but anyone can respond to: in the Philippines, there was this prominent Jesuit professor who was openly dissenting with the Church’s teaching on contraception. He had rallied up several of his fellow professors, all lay, to support a bill contrary to Church teaching, and was even writing editorial in the newspaper to that effect. Now I understand that the Society of Jesus can’t intervene with the workings of their university because they do not own it. But why is he still allowed to teach? Can’t his superior assign him to, say, clerical work in some office, like answering the phones? Cannot they order him to resign from his post?

 

[choliks]

Well, if you mean liberal as outright dissent, no, they have not been liberal for quite a while. If you mean liberal as simply preferring center-left policies where it doesn’t contradict church teaching, well, yes, but the Church provides a lot of freedom in this regard. Believing in draconian gun-control doesn’t necessarily contradict the teaching of Holy Mother Church, for example.

A question, though, directed primarily to Br. JR, but anyone can respond to: in the Philippines, there was this prominent Jesuit professor who was openly dissenting with the Church’s teaching on contraception. He had rallied up several of his fellow professors, all lay, to support a bill contrary to Church teaching, and was even writing editorial in the newspaper to that effect. Now I understand that the Society of Jesus can’t intervene with the workings of their university because they do not own it. But why is he still allowed to teach? Can’t his superior assign him to, say, clerical work in some office, like answering the phones? Cannot they order him to resign from his post?

I don’t know if he really rallied his fellow professors. I don’t believe he did. I think he expressed his opinion on the matter as a lawyer (since he is considered the lawyer’s lawyer) alone. You can read his opinion here. (Dear Mods, if you find this post inappropriate, please delete. Thanks.) I may not fully agree with his stand, but if his superiors say that he is in good standing, then it’s already punctuated.

 

[Cojuanco]

I don’t know if he really rallied his fellow professors. I don’t believe he did. I think he expressed his opinion on the matter as a lawyer (since he is considered the lawyer’s lawyer) alone. You can read his opinion here. (Dear Mods, if you find this post inappropriate, please delete. Thanks.) I may not fully agree with his stand, but if his superiors say that he is in good standing, then it’s already punctuated.

Hmmm. I don’t know about whether his position is kosher. It is suspicious when someone takes a stand contrary to the moral unity of the bishops of his country, even if he is himself a religious. And given the Government’s position on the law (which we all know unfortunately passed), Bernas seems… tendentious.

I could be wrong, however, particularly on the ‘other professors’ bit. Perhaps I am confusing him for another Jesuit.

 

[Sunbreak]

I can’t speak against all Jesuits and I know some of the holiest priests have come from that order. However, at the only Jesuit parish in my area, there have been a lot of flaky things taking place. For example, in a SEEL (spiritual exercises in everyday life) group, there was a Mass where we were all told to surround the altar during consecration and then we were to pass the plate of consecrated hosts around to each other in the circle (like you would pass a plate of cookies at a home party). This was just a few years ago, so not part of the 60s experimentation era. Just one example, but serious abuse in my opinion.