Yay! Yet another Jesuit cardinal!

[John_Higgins]

The tenth living Jesuit cardinal has been appointed by HH Pope Benedict XVI. Three are of voting age, the others (including the cardinal designate) are over 80 and ineligible to vote in the next election.

Congratulations to Father Albert Vanhoye, S.J. Secretary Emeritus of Pontifical Biblical Commission, who worked with then Cardinal Ratzinger on that commission.

John

 

[epower]

Why is this a good thing?

 

[John_Higgins]

Thanks, epower, I was waiting for just that question. There are certainly a number of Jesuit bashers out there (Not saying you are; I simply don’t know.) and I think this is an important reminder of the esteem both Pope Benedict and his predecessor of beloved memory have for the Society of Jesus. Father Vanhoye has been a faithful servant of the people of God and the Society of Jesus.

John

 

[Cactus]

John Higgins:

Father Vanhoye has been a faithful servant of the people of God and the Society of Jesus.

John

That’s good, because more than a few have given the Society a bad reputation.

 

[Thepeug]

I peronally love the Jesuits, and am happy about the appointment. The whacky ones from the sixties are ‘phasing out’. I predict a renewal for this esteemed order in the next two decades.

 

[cainem]

until a few years ago we had a jesuit as a parish priest, he was a hard working holy man who laboured tirelessly in his parish,we were all sorry to see him go, i don’t know if there is a problem in america with jesuits, all i can say is please don’t attack our hard working clergy because of a few misguide individuals we have enough people to attack our priests without us joining in

 

[Thepeug]

cainem:

we have enough people to attack our priests without us joining in

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Crumpy]

I thought Jesuits took vows to not become bishops? Where did I hear this? I thought Fr. Mitch Pacwa said something like that.

 

[Thepeug]

They’re allowed to become bishops of any see except, theoretically, Rome. As the fourth Jesuit vow is one of loyalty to the Pope, it makes sense that the Jesuits would avoid assuming the office to which they pledge their service. I say theoretically, however, because in the last conclave, a Jesuit bishop was considered a serious ‘contender’ for the Papacy.

God bless,

Chris

 

[Amadeus]

Any Catholic prelate, diocesan or religious like the Jesuits, may be elected Pope (aka the Bishop of Rome)!

The 4th vow of the Jesuits to be loyal to the Pope is on regardless of the religious affiliation of the Supreme Pontiff!

If the Pope were a Jesuit himself, then the Jesuits’ loyalty to him would be double?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thepeug:

They’re allowed to become bishops of any see except, theoretically, Rome. As the fourth Jesuit vow is one of loyalty to the Pope, it makes sense that the Jesuits would avoid assuming the office to which they pledge their service. I say theoretically, however, because in the last conclave, a Jesuit bishop was considered a serious ‘contender’ for the Papacy.

God bless,

Chris

The only way to become the bishop of the see of Rome is to be elected to the Papacy and I do not think that if a Jesuit was elected he would necessarily turn it down.

As for the fourth vow, I believe that this vow is optional and not every Jesuit takes it.

 

[Amadeus]

Dear DavidB:

I will stand corrected but I think the 4th vow still applies today to the Jesuits who belong to the 4th class of members of the Society, the Professed:

New Advent describes in general terms SJ’s 4 classes of members:

(1) Novices (whether received as lay brothers for the domestic and temporal services of the order, or as aspirants to the priesthood), who are trained in the spirit and discipline of the order, prior to making the religious vows.

(2) At the end of two years the novices make simple vows, and, if aspirants to the priesthood, become formed scholastics; they remain in this grade as a rule from two to fifteen years, in which time they will have completed all their studies, pass (generally) a certain period in teaching, receive the priesthood, and go through a third year of novitiate or probation (the tertianship). According to the degree of discipline and virtue, and to the talents they display (the latter are normally tested by the examination for the Degree of Doctor of Theology) they may now become formed coadjutors or professed members of the order.

(3) Formed coadjutors, whether formed lay brothers or priests, make vows which, though not solemn, are perpetual on their part; while the Society, on its side binds itself to them, unless they should commit some grave offense.

(4) The professed are all priests, who make, besides the three usual solemn vows of religion, a fourth, of special obedience to the pope in the matter of missions, undertaking to go wherever they are sent, without even requiring money for the journey. They also make certain additional, but non-essential, simple vows, in the matter of poverty, and the refusal of external honours. The professed of the four vows constitute the kernel of the Society; the other grades are regarded as preparatory, or as subsidiary to this. The chief offices can be held by the professed alone; and though they may be dismissed, they must be received back, if willing to comply with the conditions that may be prescribed. Otherwise they enjoy no privileges, and many posts of importance, such as the government of colleges, may be held by members of other grades. For special reasons some are occasionally professed of three vows and they have certain but not all the privileges of the other professed.

 

[Thepeug]

Amadeus:

Any Catholic prelate, diocesan or religious like the Jesuits, may be elected Pope (aka the Bishop of Rome)!

Isn’t any Catholic male technically eligible for the Papacy (lay, religious or diocesan)? Though John Q. Catholic is an unlikely candidate, I belive it’s possible, at least in theory.

God bless,

Chris

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thepeug:

Isn’t any Catholic male technically eligible for the Papacy (lay, religious or diocesan)? Though John Q. Catholic is an unlikely candidate, I belive it’s possible, at least in theory.

God bless,

Chris

I believe that it is any baptized male.

 

[Mayo-man]

Not to sure about the “wacky ones” being phased out considering …
[from “First Things”- link below]

"… in a December 8 letter sent by the provincial, Father Robert Scullin, S.J., to the members of the Detroit Province of the Society of Jesus. He writes: “The instruction’s call to affective maturity as a necessary condition for a healthy celibate priesthood and religious life affirms the long-standing goal of our formation program—both initial and continuing. All of us must continue to work toward an integrated affective sexual maturity if we wish to be of greater service to the Church and civil society. We continue to invite all qualified young men of either orientation who desire to lead a celibate chaste religious life to consider joining us on our mission. We welcome them and are proud to have them among us.”

"The above provincial is very displeased, however, by a member of the province who “outed” himself as gay in the Detroit Free Press. Father Thomas J. O’Brien, S.J., criticizes the teaching that homosexuality is objectively disordered. “There is plentiful evidence that this is not true,” he writes. “Lesbian sisters and gay brothers and priests have, indeed, been models of relating to people—especially to the disenfranchised and excluded of society.” Of the instruction he says, “This document reveals a fundamentally disordered view of gender and sexual orientation.”

"Father Thomas Reese, S.J. [past editor of America Magazine], complains, “The Vatican is making decisions about the appropriateness of ordaining homosexuals in total ignorance of how many current priests are homosexuals, how well they observe celibacy, and how well they do ministry.”

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/public.html

It seems to me the instruction [from the Vatican] is directed precisely at the extant problems arising from the second of Fr. Reese’s litany on Vatican ignorance.

To be dissatisfied with the Vatican is one thing, but to be publicly contemptuous is quite another.

Jim B

p.s. If this is “Jesuit bashing”, I guess I’m guilty The contributions of the Society of Jesus cannot be denied which makes this sort of very public commentary all the sadder.