What do people have against the Jesuits?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoreenBernadett
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know about anything else involving Jesuits but I am annoyed about how
people pronounce “Jesuits.”

I say “jez ooh its”

Most people, including Fr Mitch Pacwa SJ on EWTN say something like

" jejsjz ooh its."

I don’t know where that pronunciation comes from. Stop it, now. It doesn’t mean anything. I can’t stand it.
 
LoreenBernadett said:
Hello,
I’m new here to CAF and I’m also a newly baptized Catholic.

In my research and reading on the Catholic faith I’ve seen some very negative things being said about Jesuits and not just from non-Catholics. I’ve also heard negative things from Catholics as well, especially in regard to Pope Francis.

This is something I just can’t wrap my head around. Why would Christians have such negativity toward the society of JESUS? I asked some of my fellow parishioners and they just put their heads down and started mumbling…

Can you all help me make sense of this?

Many thanks and blessings from the Newbie,
Loreen
Click to expand...
There may be something to this, but what you may encounter on ewtn is simply pointless banter between religious orders. You know? it’s like they have inside jokes but we don’t get it.

There apparently have been Jesuits involved in child molestation, in recent decades. It’s hurting their reputation.

up above, look for “encyclopedia” and look up the Jesuits. It may say something in there about very old controversies, where some in the church wanted the pope to suppress them, and it may have happened for a time.
 
sirach2v4 said:
There may be something to this, but what you may encounter on ewtn is simply pointless banter between religious orders. You know? it’s like they have inside jokes but we don’t get it.

There apparently have been Jesuits involved in child molestation, in recent decades. It’s hurting their reputation.

up above, look for “encyclopedia” and look up the Jesuits. It may say something in there about very old controversies, where some in the church wanted the pope to suppress them, and it may have happened for a time.
Click to expand...
In fact, the Pope did suppress the Jesuits, except in Poland, due to diplomatic pressure by Catholic monarchs who did not approve of the Jesuits pointing out their governments’ shortcomings regarding the treatment of their subjects in a less than Christian manner.
 
Cojuanco said:
In fact, the Pope did suppress the Jesuits, except in Poland, due to diplomatic pressure by Catholic monarchs who did not approve of the Jesuits pointing out their governments’ shortcomings regarding the treatment of their subjects in a less than Christian manner.
Click to expand...
I believe they weren’t suppressed in Prussia either. 🤷
 
Some raise their eyebrows at the mention of Jesuits perhaps for good reason if one looks at isolated priests such as Teilhard de Chardin who, although brilliant in many quarters, was issued a Vatican Monitum (warning) that some of his theology was offensive to Catholic doctrine. Or read the history of the 60’s in Latin America and the struggle JP II had with their Superior General during the period of the Sandinista uprising when the Holy Father told them to get out of politics. But don’t let this put you off with the Jesuits. More than to inspire are the holy saints and martyrs (the list is endless) and the spiritual wealth they left behind.
 
Any time someone mentions problems with individual Jesuits, I always point out the great majority who serve faithfully, but attract little attention.
The concern I have with the religious order is that they keep allowing the “Jesuit” name to be used on institutions that are no longer influenced much by the Jesuits, or Catholicism.

There are institutions that used to have huge numbers of Jesuits, but now are dominated by laypeople, some of whom are dissenting Catholics, some non-Catholics. Many students go through 4 years without ever knowing any Jesuit. The institutions keep referring to “Jesuit heritage”, but this refers to the past, not the present. Catholic parents and alumni support the institutions financially, because they are marketed as if they were still Jesuit.

I don’t disagree with any particular Jesuit in our local college and high school. As individuals they seem to be doing a good job. But why are the schools allowed to market themselves as Jesuit, when they aren’t Jesuit (or Catholic)?
 
Why?? A lot of traditional Catholics live in a really small world and don’t recognize anything as “catholic” if it doesn’t have some Latin in it 😃 Jesuits remain faithful but they like to think outside the box a lot which displeases a lot of people. Buts thats there job! A good Jesuit is one who wakes people up and gets them out of there comfort zones 👍 It’s just some people refuse to get out of their small comfortable world.
 
As the number of Jesuits declined in the 1970s and 1980s, the schools could still with some justification say they were in the Jesuit tradition, since many of the lay employees were formed by Jesuits, and identified with that tradition. But recent lay staff probably have been hired without regard to religion at all. They gradually moved up to Department Chairman or administration. Ironically the public relations part talks about “Jesuit identity” more now than they did a few decades ago, when they really had it. (The same thing is true with a nearby Franciscan high school and college, where they use the word “Franciscan” far more often now in their literature than they used to).

So yes, it is possible for a college or high school to maintain their Jesuit heritage by properly selected and formed laity, even if there are very few, or just one, Jesuit on staff. But I don’t know of any high school or college that selected the kind of lay staff for that to happen. I am hopeful some high schools were able to do that, I doubt any college did.
No US Jesuit college has gone along with JP II’s document on Catholic higher education.
 
I have only good to say about them!

I was converted at a Jesuit church which had a house with 3 or 4 Jesuit Priests living there.
The modern form mass was in Latin.
They were extremely intelligent people who were happy to answer questions.
They were mainstream Catholic and excellent men.

God bless them (and you+)
 
Tigg said:
Some raise their eyebrows at the mention of Jesuits perhaps for good reason if one looks at isolated priests such as Teilhard de Chardin who, although brilliant in many quarters, was issued a Vatican Monitum (warning) that some of his theology was offensive to Catholic doctrine. Or read the history of the 60’s in Latin America and the struggle JP II had with their Superior General during the period of the Sandinista uprising when the Holy Father told them to get out of politics. But don’t let this put you off with the Jesuits. More than to inspire are the holy saints and martyrs (the list is endless) and the spiritual wealth they left behind.
Click to expand...
There is an old thread on CAF about Pope Benedict XVI praising Teilhard de Chardin, please note a quote from there:

*Father de Chardin’s writings have never been condemned. What was said by Pope John Paul II was that they did not represent official Catholic dogma. Father de Chardin never wrote them to represent authoritative theology. Fr. de Chardin was a cosmologist. This places him in the field of metaphysics more than in theology. He used theology to shed light on contemporary cosmology. The authors of the Wikipedia article show a lack of understanding of Father de Chardin’s writings.

Thus, he wrote that the world would be transformed into one cosmological body of Christ. He uses the word host in a different context than that which it is used in Eucharistic theology. He borrowed many words from theology to explain cosmology. The Holy Father is right in his use of Fr. de Chardin’s writings. He is not using it in a sacramental sense, but in speaking of an eschatalogical reality where the world will become the body of Christ. The Holy Father is stating that one of the missions of a priest is to make this happen through his ministry to help people in their on-going conversion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF *
 
Catholics don’t criticize Jesuits because they “think outside the box” too much. They do criticize when a few Jesuits use the Church as a platform to further their own agenda. For instance, a Jesuit writer who promotes the secular culture will get big sales for his books.
He gets called for quotes by the secular media, gets labeled as brilliant and courageous because he agrees with the media, not afraid to disagree with the Pope. Being on the speed-dial for CNN and the NY Times does things to people. Dissenters don’t think outside the box, they are part of the establishment.

Another Jesuit who confronts the secular culture where it is wrong - in other words, who really does think outside the box - will sell few books. Since he’s prolife - not marching in step with the Culture of Death - he will be ignored by the media, by politicians, maybe he will be invited to speak to a few dozen people. When boards of trustees are looking for a prominent Jesuit to promote, he won’t be on their list. But when you need to go to confession, he’s the one you go to.
 
asnate said:
There is an old thread on CAF about Pope Benedict XVI praising Teilhard de Chardin, please note a quote from there:

*Father de Chardin’s writings have never been condemned. What was said by Pope John Paul II was that they did not represent official Catholic dogma. Father de Chardin never wrote them to represent authoritative theology. Fr. de Chardin was a cosmologist. This places him in the field of metaphysics more than in theology. He used theology to shed light on contemporary cosmology. The authors of the Wikipedia article show a lack of understanding of Father de Chardin’s writings.

Thus, he wrote that the world would be transformed into one cosmological body of Christ. He uses the word host in a different context than that which it is used in Eucharistic theology. He borrowed many words from theology to explain cosmology. The Holy Father is right in his use of Fr. de Chardin’s writings. He is not using it in a sacramental sense, but in speaking of an eschatalogical reality where the world will become the body of Christ. The Holy Father is stating that one of the missions of a priest is to make this happen through his ministry to help people in their on-going conversion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF *
Click to expand...
columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/dechardin.txt

And even with Pope Emeritus Benedict using de Chardin shouldn’t imply that he supports all of his work.

Teilhardianism, using a cosmic Christology, has interpreted technological progress as, for all practical purposes, Christological progress, thus calling the Christian into the wholehearted service of technological progress. But even in its modified form…it was obvious what a horrible perversion of Christianity this represents. - Fr. Ratzinger on Schema 13 in his Theological Highlights of Vatican II.
 
Teilhard de Chardin studied the basics of Catholic Theology - that which is known to be true. Later, taking that foundation for granted, he offered speculations, things which MIGHT be true, at least in some contexts. I have read nothing that he considered his speculations to be equal to the foundation. Unfortunately, in the 1960s people began teaching his speculations with equal importance to the foundational dogmas of Catholicism. Later, his speculations were taught to students who never learned Catholic doctrine.

Starting in the 1970s, anyone who wanted to show they were on the “cutting edge” or “creative” in a Catholic college would refer to him, often out of context, to show they were smarter than some bishop or administrator. Because his writings were often presented within a trusted Catholic context, they did more than anything to nudge Catholics towards the New Age religion and other heresies, all of which involved distrust of dogma and religious authority.

None of this shows that this Jesuit was bad, just that his writings were misused after his death.
 
More to love…
| "I spent most of these 59 years teaching philosophy. Once, an interviewer asked me: ‘Could you tell me why you chose to devote your life to philosophy?’ ‘I did not choose philosophy,’ I said. I was given an assignment to teach philosophy. So I only fulfilled my assignment.’ Do you mean to say,’ the interviewer asked, ‘that you would not have taught philosophy if you had not received an assignment to do so?’ ‘Yes,’ I answered. ‘How horrible!’ she said.
Click to expand...
“Sometimes, we tend to look at work done under obedience as somehow un-real and insincere. But Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel in obedience to the Pope’s request and his paintings were certainly real and sincere. Jesuits who live under obedience are not geniuses like Michelangelo. But we strive to be real and sincere.”
Click to expand...
– Fr. Roque Ferriols, SJ, father of Filipino philosophy,
on the 59th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood
June 29, 2013
Click to expand...
 
JReducation said:
, … Jesuits do not own universities. The so called Jesuit universities are owned by corporations. The Society owns the property and sometimes not even that. The Society of Jesus has a custom of founding this great schools and when they’re up and running they give them over to lay body. This body has total control over the school. The Jesuits have no control. For a Jesuit to teach there or to stay on the faculty he has to apply and qualify like any other professor. …
Click to expand...
There are many colleges that for generations were controlled by Jesuits, and laypeople committed to Catholicism. In the 1970s they ceased to be controlled by Jesuits or Catholic laity, and in the past 20 years neither Jesuits nor Catholic laity have significant influence, outside their own classroom. The institutions and religious orders are aware that people have the wrong impression the colleges still are run by the religious order, and are still institutionally Catholic, even when it is no longer true. Yet the Jesuits seem to be silent when the institutions continue to proclaim themselves as “Jesuit colleges”, when they and the Jesuits know this is now false.

Students, parents, and alumni donors are cheated by this silence. Parents also take it for granted that a “Jesuit” college is automatically Catholic, and borrow the extra tuition money for what is really not present. Religious orders and dioceses have a responsibility to publicly acknowledge when a former Catholic and former Jesuit college no longer fits that criteria.
 
People forget that Fr. Feeney was a Jesuit. So the idea that the only heterodoxy from that order is Modernist doesn’t hold water. And unless you want to call Augustine, Aquainas, Ambrose, and St. Alponse heterodox on the Baptism of Desiire, Feeney was heterodox.
 
commenter said:
There are many colleges that for generations were controlled by Jesuits, and laypeople committed to Catholicism. In the 1970s they ceased to be controlled by Jesuits or Catholic laity, and in the past 20 years neither Jesuits nor Catholic laity have significant influence, outside their own classroom. The institutions and religious orders are aware that people have the wrong impression the colleges still are run by the religious order, and are still institutionally Catholic, even when it is no longer true. Yet the Jesuits seem to be silent when the institutions continue to proclaim themselves as “Jesuit colleges”, when they and the Jesuits know this is now false.

Students, parents, and alumni donors are cheated by this silence. Parents also take it for granted that a “Jesuit” college is automatically Catholic, and borrow the extra tuition money for what is really not present. Religious orders and dioceses have a responsibility to publicly acknowledge when a former Catholic and former Jesuit college no longer fits that criteria.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify here, before we become more confused.

A [insert order] school retains the name of the order that founded it and the name Catholic until such time as the bishop of the diocese retracts the charter. There is nothing dishonest in saying that Notre Dame is a Holy Cross schools, even though the Board of Trustees is not made up of Holy Cross brothers. The charter was given to the Holy Cross congregation by the state and the Church. The charter remains in effect until it is revoked. The administration has passed from one set of hands to another, but the core of the school, which is stated in the charter has not been touched. If that’s the case, then it’s the same school. This is how all colleges and universities operate. They operate under a charter. They must say that they are whatever the charter says they are.

The University of X State, remains so, even if it passes from the administration of the state to a private organization. Think of something like the US Postal Service. If my memory serves me well, it is no longer federally owned. It’s a joint partnership (state and private) of some kind. I don’t know the details, so don’t ask me. But it goes down as being a government institution and its employees are federal employees. I believe that there are other institutions and corporations that are the same. Someone once told me that Amtrak is one of them.

The point being that as long as the original charter remains in place, an institution has a claim on its name as it appears on the charter. Charters cannot be easily changed.
brian614 said:
Thanks! Much appreciated.

Are there any other theological differences between the orders?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top