I do not understand this. What is the cause of such disparaging? I always saw this group as in good eyes of the church but it seems otherwise on the ground level.
Bottom line, among protestant polemics they are pictured as being evil to create boundries to keep protestants from listening to their scholarship. There is a myth that they take a “military oath” to overthrow protestant churches. This is pushed by the publications of the likes of Jack Chick. I am troubled by the fact that “conservative” circles buy into conspiracies without proof so easy. You need only push for primary sources to refute their claims. Basically, their proofs are based on hearsay.
The “conservative” objections do not arise from these ancient myths at all. The Society of Jesus has seriously backed away from its original mission to support the faith and specifically to serve the Pope.
A handful of SJ’s take “the fourth vow” of personal service to the Pope. I understand that in the Society it is generally no known who these people are.
Some of the most outrageous off-the-edge-of-the-earth theologians of the past 40 years have been Jesuits. That said, there are still outstanding men in the Society. James V. Schall, Mitch Pacwa, and James Fessio come to mind.
It is almost as if there are two Societies of Jesus. Note, the recent election of the new General did nothing to brighten the hope that the Society will recover any time soon.
Why, and do you know his name? Cheers
Note that the basketball coach at St Louis University recently proclaimed his support for abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Archbishop Burke has rebuked him and asked the Jesuits to take action. The coach claims his Jesuit education leads him his position.
Is anyone holding their breath awaiting the Jesuit’s response?:rolleyes:
Many, if not most, of today’s Jesuits have strayed from orthodox teaching. Most, if not all, of today’s Jesuit colleges are Catholic in name only.
Here’s the sort of thing you get from today’s Jesuits: A call for women’s ordination. blog.nj.com/njv_ray_schroth/2008/01/women_priests_let_the_whole_ch.html
Here’s a bit on the St Louis U flap. Note how the Jesuits consider the school not Catholic:
In 2003, Jesuit St. Louis University (SLU) received an $8 million tax abatement to start building a sports arena. This annoyed the Masonic Temple Association, whose property abuts SLU. Arguing that a religious school should not receive government monies, the Association filed a federal lawsuit to block the abatement.
The case was ultimately dismissed, but not before exposing the utter shamelessness of Jesuit officials at the schools. To fend off the suit, they told a Missouri appellate court that SLU is “independent of the Catholic Church.” Rich in depressing ironies, the case in essence pitted Masons arguing, if only opportunistically, that the school is (and should be) Catholic against Jesuits who argued that it is not.
The Masonic Temple noted that the school’s bylaws state that it will be “publicly identified as a Catholic university and a Jesuit university.” So what? responded officials at SLU, who provided evidence that the school hasn’t taken Catholicism seriously for years.
“Whatever its status in the past, Saint Louis University is not now controlled by any creed,” read SLU’s brief. SLU cited as an example of its “autonomy” from the Church that it pays no attention to the local bishop, such as the time it ignored former St. Louis Cardinal Justin Rigali’s objections to its 1998 sale of the school’s hospital.
TO PARAPHRASE Robert Bolt’s Thomas More, it profits the Jesuits nothing to give their soul for the whole world, much less Chaifetz Arena and Rick Majerus. This latest controversy at SLU is the inevitable collision of a habitually bombastic coach, his secularized Jesuit patrons, and a principled archbishop tired of the school’s fraud.
Read a good overview of the current Jesuits here: