Talk:Society of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Society of Jesus was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Society of Jesus as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Indonesian language Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.

Contents

[edit] analogy

The Jesuits are to many Protestants what Freemasons are to Catholics.

I don't see the logic of the "analogy". Please explain if you put it back.

conspiracies abound about both groups, and in a bizarrely reciprocal relationship, especially in European countries. Maybe it's too light hearted for a main entry, and belongs under 'conspiracy theories' directly. I know that wikipedia isn't supposed to be a joke, but it isn't supposed to be as dry as britannica, either. *sigh*

--MichaelTinkler

The high-level Freemasons are subject, also, to the Jesuit General because the Jesuit General, with Fredrick the Great, wrote the High Degrees, the last 8 Degrees, of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry when Fredrick protected them when they were suppressed by the Pope in 1773.

[edit] suppression

Were Jesuits really suppressed in EVERY country? -rmhermen

Yep. Even in America they went underground. What they did here is change all their property over into the name of a holding corporation. The first Catholic bishop in the United States (that's as opposed to Catholic bishops from Spanish or French territories who had had nominal authority) was John Carroll. He had been a Jesuit, but when th papal proclamation came out he submitted and became a diocesan priest. He was lucky enough to live long enough to see the Society re-constituted in the early 19th century. Enough of them lived through the suppression that when they were re-formed they stepped up and reorganized their training system. Lots of Jesuit historians and Jesuits who are historians think that the group has never really been th same, though. --MichaelTinkler

Actually, as it says in the article, the Jesuits were not suppressed in Russia since it was an Orthodox country and had no loyalty to the Vatican. The Jesuits who were in Russia at the time continued their work and were able to help rebuild the order after the suppression ended. --D. O'Brien

Partially true...remember that a large chunk of modern Poland, a Catholic area, was part of the Russian Empire. Catherine the Great had several reasons for wanting to keep the Jesuits working, not the least of which was their academic/intellectual work.HarvardOxon 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jesuits were not supressed in Canada because it was a part of the British Empire. The British Crown had no loyalty to the Vatican and therefore did not promulgate any Papal Bulls or Vatican directives. Because of the politics of that era, the Society of Jesus could not accept novices in Canada; as a result, the Society died out in Canada before the restoration.

Can somebody give a cite for this? The SJ was in fact dissolved throught the British Empire (the American Colonies were, in 1773, still part of that), and as mentioned above they became a loose association of diocesan priests (in the US, under the Vicar Apostolic in London).HarvardOxon 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official Scrabble Players Dictionary

Some interesting, and probably totally irrelevant, trivia: The publishers of the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary decided that their third edition should be for "home and school" use, rather than being the official reference for tournament use. Because of this, they expurgated "offensive" words from the book, and published a separate official tournament word list that still had the offensive words in it. The words they expurgated were the usual suspects like "fuck", plus racial/group epthets like "nigger" and "kike", ... and "jesuit". I don't know exactly where "jesuit" is considered that offensive, but it must be somewhere. --LDC

Oh, my. That is wonderful to know, Lee. I'd guess England, where 'jesuitry' and 'jesuitical' are incredibly common terms of political abuse and where p.c.ness is advanced enough to demand it. There are Latin American countries of which I'd believe it, but they wouldn't be a major market for the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, English Edition, I'd guess? Great book on the Jesuit conspiracy topic, by the way, and my entry for explaining the Mind of the Conspiracy Thinker: The Jesuit Myth : Conspiracy Theory and Politics in Nineteenth-Century France. Geoffrey Cubitt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. ASIN: 0198228686 (out of print, of course). --MichaelTinkler

You shouldn't be able to use "Jesuit" in Scrabble anyway, as it is a proper noun. Any form like "jesuit" would be considered slang.

Well, it's the Official Scrabble Dictionary, used to arbitrate in a game, not to provide useful definitions. In any case, the rules of Scrabble do not prohibit slang. For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster 3rd Collegiate gives Jesuit (capital) for member of the order, jesuit (no cap) for "one given to intrigue or equivocation." — OtherDave 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why they were suppressed and how they dealt with it

I'd like to see more info why the Jesuits were suppressed and how they dealt with it. Especially the former. Kent Wang 21:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] title

While "Jesuits" is a common name for the "Society of Jesus", "Jesuit" is not, and refers to a member of the organization. The title of the page should really be "Society of Jesus". Objections? --Samuel J. Howard 12:32, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean that Jesuit should be a different article from Society of Jesus? -- Error 01:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think he means that the name of the article should be changed to Society of Jesus. I agree. Kent Wang 21:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Article moved. Kent Wang 06:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Seljuk Turks reference

"In 1537 they travelled to Italy to seek papal approval for their order. Pope Paul III gave them a commendation, and permitted them to be ordained priests. They were ordained at Venice by the bishop of Arbe (June 24). They devoted themselves to preaching and charitable work in Italy, as the renewed war between the emperor, Venice, the pope and the Seljuk Turks rendered any journey to Jerusalem inadvisable."

How is this possible if Seljuk Turks ceased to exist in 13th century?

[edit] Catherina and Frederick

Catherine the Great and Frederick of Prussia refused to suppress the Jesuits.

[edit] Reactions of a Jesuit to the article

As a Jesuit, the article on the Jesuits was interesting to read both for what it said and what it confused. I will want to check some references before trying an edit on the article.

Some initial obvious flaws in the article: They did not form an order in Paris. They did bind themselves together and promised to go to Jerusalem. The initial agreement was that if they could not go for a year, they would then consider what to do. They happened to pick the only year when no ships were available for Jerusalem. It was not until the discussions in Italy that they decided to found an order. By the time they got to Venice, they were ten rather than seven.

The 1538 meeting with the pope was one where the pope suggested that they give up the plan to go to Jerusalem. They then started discussions and decided to form a religious order. They were approved as an order in the 1540 bull, but their constitutions were not yet written. The first draft of the constitutions was not completed until 1550. They were not approved until the first general congregation in 1556. [The only history of the Jesuits I have immediately at hand is "An Introduction to Jesuit Life" by Tom Clancy.]

The tone of the article is rather polemical, reducing the Catholic Reformation to a rection to the Prodestant Reformation. The description given of the Ignation retreat is of the common modern experience of the retreat rather than what it was like in those days. In the early period there is no mention of the network of schools that was set up, with the first standardization of a school system. The description of missions gives only the most controversial ones. The Jesuits also started the California missions until the Society was suppressed. They were active in India and China. With the French they explored sections of Canada. With the Spanish they explored a significant section of the Southwestern United States.

It is worth noting that a significant part of the controversies surrounding the Jesuits has to do with the rise of absolute nation states and attempts by these rising states to exercise complete control, even over religion. The international structure of the Jesuits works against absolute national power and has made the Society of Jesus a lightning rod for those who would fragment Christianity and make it subject to the state.

The suppression of the Jesuits was not promulgated in Germany and Russia because the non-Catholic leaders of those countries valued the schools that the Jesuits were running in the two countries.

Mike May, S.J.

Thanks for that. Perhaps you could take a look at the "unreasoning obedience" section below. Do you have a user page?--shtove 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Umm, those comments were made over a year ago and have almost certainly been addressed in the article by now. Still, it would be interesting to see what Mike thinks of the current article. Lisiate 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Dear Umm: Thanks. Couldn't tell the vintage of his comments (no date on the contribution) - but what I was getting at is not something in this article, but the "Jesuit unreasoning obedience" phrase in the St Jerome article. In the first place, can human obedience be unreasoning? And even if it can, what is the society's teaching/discipline/recommendation on obedience, reasoning or unreasoning? I think the phrase is shady POV, but given the context I'm not certain. It's interesting to have a J on Wikipedia, but where's the man's user page? Has he obeyed an order to stop contributing?--shtove 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "I will believe that the white that I see is black"

"I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it."

Where is this quote from? I'm doing a report on Jesuits so it would be a great help to know the source.

Thanks in advance, Mikkel

FOLLOW-UP:

Nevermind, I found it by googling. Here's the reference: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/COUNTER.HTM


This is a very nuanced topic, over which a lot of ink is still being spilt within and without Jesuit circles. What it certainly does not refer to is any sort of “blind” or “unthinking/uncritical” obedience. The simple fact is that St. Ignatius had a profound trust in the hierarchical (that is, institutional) Church. While this quote may be shocking, even to Catholics, it may be helpful to consider the example of the Blessed Sacrament. All Catholics believe that the bread and wine offered in the Mass, after the consecration, actually become the Body and Blood of Christ. How do we know this? Because the Church teaches it. What was bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, regardless of what our sensory input does or does not tell us. In this one example, every Catholic upholds the practice which St. Ignatius commends in this pithy quote. Michael Rosinski, SJ 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Michael Rosinski, sj

[edit] current Father General biography

An addition about the current Father General, Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, would be helpful. He has a biography in the German Wikipedia, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hans_Kolvenbach, if anyone cares to translate it.

P.J.

[edit] Turks

Which Turks in /*Foundation*/ second paragraph? The article has long said Seljuk Turks, but someone parenthetically commented in the article that it's probably the Ottoman Turks given the dates involved. Maybe so, but the article needs to state one thing or the other, not carry discussions in parentheses that belong here. I googled a bit but didn't find anything definite enough to make me change Seljuk to Ottoman in the article. Anyone? --Kbh3rd 18:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] the schools & universities

the two wah yan colleges are secondary schools, not tertiary--little Alex 04:25, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rules for Thinking with the Church

The "Rules for Thinking With the Church" form the end of St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises. It would probably be better to use the actual text of the Exercises in research and citations. It can be found here on page 98 of an acrobat file containing the entire text:

[1]

Jesuit.org also has other Jesuit documents online, for those interested.

Mike May is correct in his assertion that the Society ran into most of its trouble due to its internationalist nature. It should be noted, however, that the Jesuits really did so some things in 16th century Protestant Europe that were a bit shady to say the least.

Michael Simone, S.J.


        *Would you be kind enough to elaborate? --Timsj 23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Categories

I've created two new Jesuit categories. One, "Jesuit", as a catchall for all topics and added "Jesuits" as a subcategory of it. The second, "Jesuit Education", to link the large number of educational institutions now listed. --BenM 07:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Link

When a list of heads of the Order is created, add a link to the term Black Pope.

List of heads of the order is now at Father General. --Gerald Farinas 18:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] wording question

"The Jesuits have frequently been described by Catholic and Protestant enemies as engaged in various conspiracies."

Does "Catholic and Protestant enemies" mean "enemies of Catholics and of Protestants" or "Catholics and Protestants who don't like the Jesuits"?

[edit] Additions and Editions

I added some info in the first paragraph about the Society of Jesus today.

I also clarified the Jesuits relationship to the Counter-Reformation in various places. The Jesuits were founded well before the council of Trent, and countering Protestantism was not a part of their foundational documents. Within the first generation, however, they had taken up reform of the Church and defense of the faith, and it is for this reason that they are associated with the Counter-Reformation. This relationship needs to be clarified.

I added a paragraph about the historical relationship between the Society of Jesus and the pope that helps to contextualize Ignatius statement about "thinking with the Church."

I expanded the section about the Spiritual Exercises, which had clearly been written by someone who did not have even a cursory knowledge of the work.

I also expanded the paragraph on Jesuit schools, adding info on the Jesuit commitment to the humanities and art. In addition, I clarified the Jesuit position on music and ceremony in Catholic ritual, which needed some context.

mikesj

[edit] General Congregation after Arrupe

I reverted because the previous edit, along with including POV statements regarding other religious orders, included this regarding the pope:

Because the present liberal thinking, they were not very supported by Pope John Paul II, who even did a coup d état choosing himself in 1981 the Father General of the Society when the late father Arrupe suffered a stroke. Traditionally the General Congregation of the Society chooses the Father General.

The pope never appointed the superior general, and the general congregation did choose the next Superior General (Peter Hanz-Kolvenbach) in 1983. Perhaps the author was refering to the appointment of Paolo Dezza, the apostolic delegate, in light of Pedro Arrupe's stroke. Pmadrid 00:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies about Controversies

I believe that the the very long Controversies section needs to be dramatically changed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines to: 1) maintain NPOV, 2) maintain appropriate article length, 3) put the article back into a more "encyclopedia" third person rather than in the form of an interview and narrative, and 4) eliminate any copyright risks as the material seems to have been copied wholesale from another publication. I have attempted to make these edits, but the original editor has reverted without comment.

This was added 17-Jan-06 by an annonimous contributor with no explanation of info -- I doubts it accurate, so I will revert it back to previuos version -- --BBird 10:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Within the Catholic Church, the Jesuits are frequently criticized for being overly liberal and deviating substantially from official Church teaching and papal directives, especially on such issues as abortion, priestly celibacy, homosexuality, and liberation theology. This lack of fidelity to both Church doctrine and the papacy itself is somewhat ironic in light of the fact that the order was originally established for the specific purpose of defending the faith and pledges absolute loyalty to the pope. Because of its deviation from the mission upon which it was founded, the influence of the Jesuits within the Church has waned considerably. Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor John Paul II, has been particularly critical of the order. Indeed, it is not unusual, especially in more conservative Catholic outlets, to hear calls for the outright abolishment of the Jesuit order. Thus, the future influence of the Jesuits in the Catholic community, and perhaps their very existence, remains uncertain."

  • The above passage has gone through quite a few NPOV edits in the past few days, and I think it's fine except for the following two sentences (which I deleted on 19 January 2006, but were later restored in the following incarnation):
"Lack of fidelity to Church doctrine or the Holy See, as alleged by critics, would be ironic in view of the order's establishment for the purpose of defending the Catholic faith and its vow of loyalty to the Pope. In part, because of this percieved deviation from the mission upon which it was founded, the influence of the Jesuits within the Church has waned."
Even though these sentences have been softened, they still editorialize in a way that is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Also, it's pretty awful writing. Can we revisit or just delete this passage? There are a (some might say excessive) number of external citations criticizing the order just prior to this passage, and it's followed by the papal criticism of the order. I mean, we get it already. --C-squared 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to find out why are you guys so resistant to the idea of the Black Pope, and why you guys won't even mention its theory because you think its a "POV." I believe it at least deserves a mentioning and in your guys stance of neutratlity, to drop the POV charges against it. 06:06 Febuary 2 2006 (UTC)

  • Who ("you guys") are you addressing, and what specifically in the article has anything to do with a "black pope"? --C-squared 06:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
"the Black Pope" is a nickname for the head of the Jesuit order who is supposed to be the one really in charge of the Catholic Church (see various nutters such as Jack Chick ad nauseam). Judging by your use of the indefinite article and lower case letters you seem to have understood it as referring to a Pope from Africa. It doesn't. The Jesuits never really had a habit. Generally however they wore black and were nicknamed "the Blacks". Hence the Black Pope is the head of those dastardly intriguers the Jesuits. Stroika 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This radio host Greg Szymanski is the cream of anti-Jesuitism, he blames black-pope and jesuits for everything: JFK, murder of Pope, 9/11 and future nuking Iran. Szymanski is probably completely out of his mind or a big disinfo lie going just too far (he is a jew so this may be his religious agenda). Anyway as an alternative info about the so called world-wide secret jesuit conspiracy, see the article http://www.arcticbeacon.com/9-Feb-2006.html

I think the mentioning of Jack Chick, et al. being "anti-catholics" is biased and should be revised. If they were "anti-catholic", why would they make all the trouble just to let the Catholics know the truth? (dot.dot.dot)202.138.180.33 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priests and not priests

Looking at Gesuit's website in Italy I found that Gesuits are divided in priests and not priests (I don't know the right word in English, "secular Gesuits" maybe). Anyway, it seems to me an information to be added; also it clarifies the sentence "Jesuit priests often acted as confessors..."--Truman Burbank 06:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed Georges Lemaitre, after double checking with a Flemish Jesuit who confirmed that he is not a Jesuit but a regular catholic priest who attended a Jesuit college.

xaviervd


I think that the term for non-priests is either "brothers" or simply "monks" in English.Badbilltucker 01:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Brothers would be right. Monks applies only to members of monastic orders (which the jesuits are not).--Samuel J. Howard 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brothers of the Society of Jesus

The "not priests" comment is a reference to the Jesuit Brothers [2], which should have mention in the article. --Gerald Farinas 18:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I started a stub for Brothers of the Society of Jesus and will work on building it into a full article. --Gerald Farinas 19:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to me to have an article on Jesuit Brothers outside the main article on the Society of Jesus. I think it mistakenly leaves the impression that they form a separate order which they most certainly do not; they are one contingent within the larger order. Also, it is not wholly accurate to say that all non-priest Jesuits are “brothers.” More non-ordained Jesuits are scholastics than true brothers. Brothers are religious with perpetual vows who have opted never to be ordained, while scholastics are religious with perpetual vows who are preparing for ordination. This may be more information than is necessary, but a non-ordained Jesuit could be: an indifferent novice (one willing to be either a priest or brother), a novice brother, a novice scholastic, a brother-in-formation, a scholastic or a formed brother (that is, one who has taken final vows). Confusion arises because in some cultural contexts people want to call members of a religious order by some title, so they’ll call novices or scholastics “brother” out of respect, but strictly speaking that is not correct. Michael Rosinski, SJ 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Michael Rosinski, sj

[edit] removed section

Many conservative or orthodox Catholics perceive the modern Jesuit order as heavily liberal and disloyal to the Vatican and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, a stark shift from their traditional identity as upholders of orthodoxy and the 'crack troops' of the Papacy. However, this criticism probably relates more to the order in the Western world, rather than in the global south, and ignores many prominent conservative or orthodox Jesuits, such as Avery Cardinal Dulles, Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, and Joseph Fessio.

This is probably true, but could use some support or dePOVing--Tznkai 15:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is not NPOV about it?--Samuel J. Howard 23:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers of Jesuits; Jesuits Today Photos

The Jesuit Conference website http://www.jesuit.org/ lists membership at over 20,000. I edited to reflect this.

Also, I'm wondering if the two ordination photos are appropriate for the section on Jesuits today. On the one hand it shows that the Society is still drawing new members, but all Catholic ordinations include laying hands and prostrations so there's nothing partiularly Jesuit here. --Chirho 7 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

[edit] BC founding

Boston College was first opened by Benedict Fenwick, SJ in 1827. 1863 is the year in which it was chartered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Neither date is particularly relevant here. What is important is that it was among the first Jesuit colleges established in North America after the Restoration. Technically it was second after Saint Louis University (1818). Georgetown University was founded during the Suppression and only later put under the auspices of the Society.

[edit] "fixing redirects"

Why have some users recently been "fixing" redirects Jesuit to pipe-link to Society of Jesus? Why not just leave them? Will the page "Jesuit" ever change its meaning from a redirect here to something else? --Joy [shallot] 14:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baghdad Jesuit college

Does anyone have any information on the Baghdad Jesuit college, highly active in the mid-20th century, that we could put on List of Jesuit institutions, a very conspicuous absence? Thanks in advance. AMDG --Dpr 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

  • The College was closed down by Saddam Hussein when he came to power, it was one of the first things to he did. There is an interesting story told about it, as most of the political class and ministers in the government were educated there, Saddam organised a picnic for them all outside of Baghdad, and whilst they were away his police force went and informed the Jesuit community they had a couple of hours to leave the country. Thus they did not have any time to contact some of the re powerful alumni to prevent this from happening. The present General, Father Kolvenbach, was one of the few Jesuits allowed back into Iraq, to collect belongings.I think there will be an attempt to go back when the time is right. --Timsj 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time to think about becoming a featured article?

I hadn't visited this page in a while and it's starting to look really good. Perhaps its time to put this through Peer Review with an eye towards having it becoming a featured article? One thing that will be suggested will be to move the list of famous Jesuits to it's own article (a good idea as it is fairly long now.) Anyway, many thanks to all who have done such a good job in building this article from its humble beginnings Lisiate 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unreasoning obedience

The article on St Jerome refers, in its section on theology, to members of the society as exhibiting "unreasoning obedience": is this NPOV?--shtove 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is still a concern, see my comments above under the heading, "I will believe that the white that I see is black." Michael Rosinski, SJ 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Curia

Is there a reason why the Roman Curia is called the Roman Catholic Curia? I have never heard this usage before, and unless the city of Roman calls its city hall a curia I don't see the need for the distinction. - Miked84 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Famous Jesuits?

I have removed the name of Heiner GeiBler, from the list as he is a cuurent politician thus cannot be a member of either of the German Province, and hence is not a Jesuit. I wasn't able to find out wether he is an ex-jesuit, but even if that is true I dont think it qualifies him to be on a famous Jesuit list.

Maybe we can agree on a Criteria as to what constitutes a famous Jesuit.... I.e. the sphere of fame or influence should be at leas national, preferably international, they should be famous for what they achieved as Jesuits (i.e. if they leave the Society and become famous afterwards it doesnt count)... any other Criteria? --Timsj 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

Sorry, looks like you put a lot of work into this, but there are insufficient references. You may use the inline method or even just list enough books in a references section, but external links are insufficient. Also the controversies section looks to be extremely choppy and doesnt mention historical controversies, focusing too much on present ones (relative to its size). The second point is just my opinion. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Father Reese

Father Reese did not resign because of a request from the Society or because of pressure from the Vatican. He, according to the May issue of the journal First Things, resigned from the role of editor of America because of increasing criticism and pressure from domestic sources. And furthermore, it was not the fact that America discussed such contentious issues like homosexuality, contraception, etc, it was that the editors at America frequently disregarded the Magisterium when discussing the aforementioned. As the section reads right now, it appears as if the Vatican had some sort of active role (politically) in Father Reese's resignation; it did not.--unsigned

In fact, it wasn't that they "disregarded the Magisterium." The criticism -- including from then-Cardinal Ratzinger!!!! -- was that they presented such controversies in a point/counterpoint format: should priests be celibate, here's a column of Yes, ahere's a column of no. Reese's attitude was that such a format would illuminate the issue, and that the Church's stronger case would become apparent in such a situation. Yes, officials of the Vatican put the screws to Kolvenbach to have America stop this practice, present only the offcial side of the issue (without rebuttal or a "counterpoint", and Reese was sacrificed as a gesture.HarvardOxon 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anti-semitism

The article on the Society of Jesus is good on many points, including general history and way of life, and doesn't shy away from some of the controversies, such as protection of Indians from slavery and liberation theology. But it passes over some of the more unpleasant aspects of Jesuit teaching. Apart from their vehement intolerance of Protestantism in the early centuries especially, which could be said to be a product of its time, their equally vehement anti-Semitism, dating from the earliest times as well, but becoming especially prominent during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, is entirely neglected. The order adopted the "laws of purity of blood", which were passed in Spain during the sixteenth century in response to the mass conversion of Jews to Catholicism after their expulsion from Spain in 1492. The laws decreed that no one with Jewish ancestry going back to the third generation could hold public or church office, among various other restrictions. The laws went well beyond anything the Church had ever taught about Jewish converts; indeed, papal teaching has been consistent that all the baptized were equals in the Church. Nevertheless, the Society of Jesus adopted these restrictions for their own order, and guess when they were finally lifted? Not in the 18th century, supposedly the age of Enlightenment; not in the nineteenth century, when Jews were emancipated every in Europe except Russia and the Papal States (Jews were only to be treated well after they converted). In fact, not until 1946!!! It took the Holocaust to finally wake up the Jesuits to what kind of things they believed in. Not only did the Jesuits require this kind of racial purity of their novices, they also led an anti-Semitic campaign starting around the time the Papal States were absorbed by the Kingdom of Italy. Catholic conservatives saw the end of papal temporal power as a catastrophe organized by the Freemasons and the Jew, and blamed them for all the ills of modern society, such as religious and civic liberty, women's rights, abolishment of church privileges etc. The Jesuits led Catholic thought in this direction, and were the first to promulgate the so-called "modern" anti-Semitism, based on cultural and even racial aspects rather than purely religious ones. The traditional Catholic anti-Semitism was religious; restrictions on Jews in Rome were designed to force them to convert. Once they did they were welcomed. The Jesuits, inheriting a more racist anti-Semitism from their Spanish origins, felt this wasn't good enough. Jews were seen as somehow inherently evil in their culture and race. While they could not officially claim that Jews could not be saved through baptism, which would be heretical, they cautioned that converts were suspicious and probably practising their old religion in secret. In any case, as long as Jews got more rights to practise their faith openly and live on equal terms with other citizens, the Church could claim that this was part of the plot to dominate Europe and destroy Christianity. David Kertzer in his book "The Popes against the Jews" explains all this. He has interesting stories about how hatred of the Jews began to trump everything else, including hatred of Moslems, heretics and others. A lot of the famous anti-Semitic beliefs found later, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had some Jesuit influence in them. Catholic racist anti-Semitism lies behind a lot of European, cinluding Nazi, anti-Semitism, and also Arab anti-Semitism (there was an echo of this when Syrian President Bashar Assad invited Pope John Paul II to join Christians and Moslems against the Jews). Of course, you can hardly imagine any Jesuit believing in these things now, or at least admitting, too. Their anti-Semitic views were not officially repudiated until 1965! It's amazing how they managed to encompass over time opinions ranging from the most radically progressive to the most conservatively reactionary.

      • There's more to the story that should be included if the article is ever modified to include any of the above. Loyola expressed regret at not having been born Jewish and therefore being able to claim kinship with Christ himself. His immediate successor, Diego Lainez, was of Jewish birth, as was Loyola's secretary, Juan Polanco. The restrictions on Jewish membership weren't adopted until 1593, and were done so because of pressure in Spain from outside the order. See Jean Lacoutre, Jesuits: A Multibiography (1995)

151.196.187.236 00:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Famous Jesuits

I deleted the list on the main page and incorporated it into a new page. This was done to make the main page clearer, as well as to reduce its (considerable) size. Hopefully now that the list has its own page, sorting of the names can take place so that it can become more readable and useful.Suicup 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many sites or external links? (WP:EL)

A new site popped up tonight. If you read WP:EL and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT#MIRROR), Wikipedia is not repository for links. Suggest another editor examine to see how the list of sites can be trimmed down to the pertinent ones. Ronbo76 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Propaganda?

Isn't this text a propaganda?

Their works are focused on education and intellectual contributions, primarily at colleges and universities, as well as missionary work and ministry in human rights and social justice.

--PET 10:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PET's edits

Whatever you FEEL like it says, it actually "says" a list of their apostolates; they run 28 colleges and universities in US alone, plus the Weston School of Theology, the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, and individual Jesuits have and do serve on the faculties of dozens of other universities, plus they run several scholarly and semi-popular publications, and that's just for openers and only in the US -- so saying that "Their works are focused on education and intellectual contributions, primarily at colleges and universities," is not cheerleading. The "as well as missionary work " is built into their own constitutions: technically they were founded as a missionary order, and jesuit missions are found today all over Africa, South America, Asia and the Pacific Islands. The "ministry in human rights and social justice" is witnessed by the fact that they have their own, full-blown NGO, The Jesuit Refugee Service, and jesuits serve on the stafs of a wide variety of deomestic and foreign social justice agencies. Nowhere does this paragraph say Jesuits are the "only" ones to do all this, or that they "do it better than anyone else." The sentence is simple and NPOV: the fact you react to it with such "feelings" is something that should prompt an examination of why, on your poart, not removal from the article.HarvardOxon 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jesuit Buildings

There have been, in my opinion, indiscriminate additions to the list of Jesuit Buildings. The introduction to the section talks about how certain buildings are witnesses to the Society's work in construction. However, there are quite a number of entries in the list which are no more than schools, which do not even discuss, or worse, do not even have pictures of the facilities or buildings which ought to be featured. I'm removing these from the list for the time being. Rmcsamson 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why aren't residential schools included?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_School This very critical method of forced conversion by the Jesuits has no mention. Please include. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

The article doesn't exist. The link you posted redirects to an article on Canadian residential schools, and while there is some mention of the Society, I don't see how the mention there is substantial. Maybe there are other sources? Rmcsamson 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/o/c/Talk%7ESociety_of_Jesus_da24.html"