Thread: Jesuits: Yea, Nay, or Eh? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026382
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Since Pope Francis was elected, there has been a fair amount made of the fact that he is a Jesuit- the first Jesuit pope ever. To be honest, I don't know a whole lot about the the order other than that they were founded by Ignatius Loyola during the sixteenth century and therefore were up to their eyeteeth in the turmoil of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation world. They seemed to have gained a reputation of being nefarious in the eyes of Protestant governments and churches, and later to have raised the ire of factions of the Roman Catholic Church itself for fairly brief periods.

Today they appear to be a very large order made up of very well-educated men, who devote their energy in service to the world in education and toward cultural and spiritual needs wherever they go. So I ask: what's not to like? (Other than the general disagreements the RCC has with other Christian denominations and churches in general and they with the RCC.) What about RCs: do you have any problems with the Society of Jesus or with the fact that your Pope is a member? And what do you think it will mean as to what is produced by this papacy?
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I have worked together with Jesuits on educational projects. I liked them.
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
I love the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins. Does he count? He was a Jesuit!

I also like Pope Francis. [Smile]
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I get the impression that before about 100 years ago the Jesuits were considered ultra-orthodox Catholic "shock troops" (or at any rate that's how Protestants saw them) and now they are considered highly liberal types (at least that is how conservative Roman Catholics seem to see them).

Is that right? And if so, why the change?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I get the impression that before about 100 years ago the Jesuits were considered ultra-orthodox Catholic "shock troops" (or at any rate that's how Protestants saw them) and now they are considered highly liberal types (at least that is how conservative Roman Catholics seem to see them).

Is that right? And if so, why the change?
That has long been my impression as well, at least the part about them being liberal. In fact, it was an atheist marxist sociology prof who first told me that the Jesuits were considered a fairly left-leaning order.

And I've met old-school Catholics for whom "Jesuit" is shorthand for all that is wrong with the Church today. "See in the paper, this one priest is saying it's okay to be gay, must be some Jesuit".

I also once briefly glanced through a Canadian Jesuit publication, and its political analysis seemed fairly similar to what you'd see in a typical left-wing magazine like New Statesman. Maybe more Mother Jones, I dunno.

As to why the change, I'm not sure. I do recall reading about some guy who had been head of the Jesuits back in the mid-20th Century, and seem to remember that he was credited with putting them on a more radical path.

But didn't Voltaire in Candide portray his South American utopia as Jesuit-run? Maybe their reputation for liberalism goes back a bit. Being among the most intellectual orders, they would probably be the ones with the most access to new ideas and theories.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
I think this guy might be the Jseuit I was thinking of. The Superior General before him seems to have been influential in social-justice issues as well.

[ 04. October 2013, 00:02: Message edited by: Stetson ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
To the OP:
Perhaps it has more to do with people being familiar with the name of the order than any real idea what they are about?

[ 04. October 2013, 00:04: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
I enjoy the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and find his theories about the Omega Point fascinating,
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Bear in mind it could have been the rest of the church that changed tack, not the Jesuits.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
The order covers the whole range of thought, imo. Many other orders do the same; I think none of them can be accused of lock-step conformity to one view or another.
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
[drive-by posting]

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Bear in mind it could have been the rest of the church that changed tack, not the Jesuits.
Not really. Will elaborate later.

Pancho (who went to mass at a Jesuit church last Sunday).

[/drive-by posting]
 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
What I meant to say earlier is that it's not the Church who has changed tack instead of the Jesuits. The Church's teaching hasn't changed but there have been pressures and disruptions in the Church over the past few decades and these have appeared among the Jesuits like they've appeared among other orders.

I often attend a Jesuit parish and it reflects many of the good things and the bad things about Catholic life in the U.S. In my experience they're excellent confessors. I admire them for their mix of intellect and practicality, for their spirituality, and for their heroic service to the Church, enduring martyrdom in places like colonial North America and Elizabethan England.

However, there's a reason why they've gotten a bit of a flaky reputation in places like the U.S. and I think that flakiness has contributed to their decline in numbers. They could no longer staff the Newman Center (the university parish/ministry) at the University of Hawaii and the parish I visit houses fewer Jesuits than it used to a few years ago. There are signs of hope, though. There's a vocations poster at the parish that shows dozens of candidates to the order and one of the men at the parish is a young, enthusiastic Jesuit who gives excellent homilies.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Well, being a credal Piskie who is pretty liberal socially, I see a lot to like about the Jesuits from these observations. I guess more conservative Catholics may be more wary of them. But if Pope Francis is representative, I like much of their emphasis. I don't expect them to be more like Protestants; I figure they support all the stands laid down by the RCC. But they seem to recognize many important issues in the ministry trenches.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
A CofE priest of mine went up to Park Street to introduce himself when he moved into his nearby rectory. (This is 30-odd years ago)
On his return he told me they didn't seem particularly intelligent (he was brilliant and was expecting them to live up to their reputation as he'd encountered it).
He then added "And they were not even good-looking"
FWIW

Second you, Laurelin, on GMH who saved me from my adolescent identity crisis at 17.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
Gerard Hughes (author of God of Surprises) is an exponent of Ignation spirituality. I enjoyed this but as a protestant, know hardly anything else about Jesuits.
 
Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :
 
There's an interesting tradition of the wily casuistical Jesuit as a stock type in English fiction -- most notably the smooth-talking complex Fr Rothschild in Evelyn Waugh's Decline and Fall.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
A CofE priest of mine went up to Park Street to introduce himself when he moved into his nearby rectory. (This is 30-odd years ago)
On his return he told me they didn't seem particularly intelligent (he was brilliant and was expecting them to live up to their reputation as he'd encountered it).
He then added "And they were not even good-looking"
FWIW

Second you, Laurelin, on GMH who saved me from my adolescent identity crisis at 17.
The Jesuits who taught me theology avoided any appearance of 'brilliance' or intellectual showmanship. They would have taken great pleasure in being described by an Anglican as 'not seeming particularly intelligent.'
Galilit--was your clergyman looking for a date or something?

[ 04. October 2013, 07:02: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
The Society of Jesus was founded to bring the Protestants back into the Roman Catholic Church. For many years they tried to make Protestants Catholic. When that failed miserably, they decided it was time for on a new approach. Now they are trying to make Catholics Protestant...

Their enemies have often accused Jesuits of being duplicitous. I think there is some truth to that. Many of them are very bright and well educated men. But they tend to present a public face of simplicity and straightforwardness. It's a bit like Oscar Wilde being excited at wearing plain clothes and reading the local newspaper. There remains a lingering suspicion that there must be more to all that. Also they often seem to favour a tactics of expedient means, using whatever works here and now even if it is not up to their best principles. Again, after a while one starts to wonder if there are any principles that they would ever maintain.

There are, to this day, many excellent Jesuits around, for example Avery Cardinal Dulles. But I have to say that on balance, I think it would be better for the RCC if there were none. And the Jesuit pope which we have now the Church needs about as much as a child with ADHD needs to drink a bottle of Coke.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Society of Jesus was founded to bring the Protestants back into the Roman Catholic Church. For many years they tried to make Protestants Catholic. When that failed miserably, they decided it was time for on a new approach. Now they are trying to make Catholics Protestant...
[Killing me]

Seriously though, it looks from the Wikipedia article on Arrupe that he had a major effect during his tenure from 1965-1983 and that Jesuits were massively associated with Liberation Theology. That is very interesting and goes some way to explaining the changes.

But is there more to it than that? Were changes already underway before that (as Stetson suggests?) Teilhard de Chardin certainly predates 1965 and I feel he... might be considered to be not without flake...
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
Within the last thirty years or so there has been a big revival of biblical spirituality, largely inspired and enabled by the Jesuits in the Catholic Church, but spreading across denominational divides. Jesuits have encouraged people to go on retreats (or to undergo 'retreats in daily life'), to meditate on the scriptures, and to take prayer seriously. This all springs from the example of their founder St Ignatius and his Spiritual Exercises.

Sadly the lack of numbers in the order has compelled them to retrench somewhat, and our local Jesuit retreat centre is closing next year. However there remains St Beuno's in North Wales, and similar centres elsewhere in the UK and across the world. They welcome equally Catholics and other Christians (and I'm sure they also welcome non-Christians of whatever background) – it might be this which creates suspicion in the minds of conservative Catholics.

I had a Jesuit spiritual director for several years until he moved away (and I am still in touch with him). I'm sure he is typical of the order in his gentle pastoral manner combined with an incisive ability to focus on the real issues. The iron fist in a velvet glove if you like, though that image can be interpreted differently.

This Anglican diocese, with a strong evangelical bias, has been supported in its work of spiritual direction and training for that ministry, by the encouragement and practical help of the Jesuits. Their methodical and scriptural approach seems to be very congenial to evangelicals, many of whom have undergone training from the Jesuits in spiritual direction.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
I think I've mentioned it elsewhere, but Fr James Keenan SJ (now at Fordham) has done some interesting research about the relationship and mutual influence of Jesuit and Puritan devotional writing in the 17th century. So it goes back a bit.
 
Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :
 
Now that we've got the Ingo-Catholic view on Jesuits on record, may I offer an alternate, but (whether some people like it or not) equally Catholic view. I need to add that I am profoundly biased because as a teenager my heroes were Teilhard de Chardin and St Francis Xavier, and today I deal quite a lot with the Jesuits, through my work and because one of my best friends is a Jesuit, through him I met many of them both socially and professionally.

Superficially, the Jesuits are intriguing because they are an Order yet not monks or brothers, and certainly not cloistered. They are combine very strong discipline with freedom, and the basis of their spirituality is "discernment". A term not all RC's like equally well.

Theirs is a spirituality of incarnation, of life lived to the full. They are provocative; be it with their "option for the poor", or their lifestyle (worldly? No; incarnate!) or their totally unromantic and thus very realistic view on the Church.

We need them and their provocations. Theirs is an intelligent Catholicism that is not afraid of anything, not even of thinking for oneself...

[ 04. October 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: Desert Daughter ]
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:


We need them and their provocations. Theirs is an intelligent Catholicism that is not afraid of anything, not even of thinking for oneself...
[Overused]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
I should have googled. Jim Keenan is now at Boston College. I studied with him at Weston Jesuit a long time ago--but it stuck. He was a fantastic teacher, and a great Jesuit.

And, Desert Daughter--thanks! I entirely agree with you.

[ 04. October 2013, 11:15: Message edited by: Amos ]
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:


Galilit--was your clergyman looking for a date or something?
No! This was the early 1980's!
Just disappointed that his fantasy of Jesuits was so far off the mark, I think.
I was at a Cistercian Monastery recently and was decidedly underwhelmed by the residents. Same thing.
Religious life's not all In this House of Brede, Michael Arditti, etc apparently...
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Humble men have no need to show off their brilliance. Certainly not on first acquaintance. I think you, and he, have bought too much into the myths. These men put their boxers on one leg at a time, much as any other men.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Society of Jesus was founded to bring the Protestants back into the Roman Catholic Church.
Apparently not (according to MacCulloch). Loyola intended a mission to the Holy Land. Pope Paul IV suspected the Jesuits of being covert Protestants, and not without reason. Many of their allies were part of a Reform-minded circle and some did actually go over. It was Loyola's assistant Jeronimo Nadal who was chiefly responsible for redirecting the Jesuits into a mission to Protestants.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

This Anglican diocese, with a strong evangelical bias, has been supported in its work of spiritual direction and training for that ministry, by the encouragement and practical help of the Jesuits. Their methodical and scriptural approach seems to be very congenial to evangelicals, many of whom have undergone training from the Jesuits in spiritual direction.
This is very interesting too. Is this sympathy between evangelicals and Jesuits often found? (Presumably it was not ever thus!) Does it work like that in Latin America, for example?
 
Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
When that failed miserably, they decided it was time for on a new approach. Now they are trying to make Catholics Protestant...
Oh, are they? [Smile] Good on 'em. [Devil]

quote:
And the Jesuit pope which we have now the Church needs about as much as a child with ADHD needs to drink a bottle of Coke.
Your man Francis is every bit as conservative as Benedict was. The secular media are just clueless about Catholicism, is all.

(But it is strangely reassuring to know that Catholics can be just as bitchy about their own as anyone else. Reassuring or depressing, take your pick ...)

Come to think of it, I do know a few fellow evangelicals who've done Ignation retreats or spiritual direction from an Ignatian angle. I'd love to get to St Beuno's myself one day ... I read 'God of Surprises' many years ago and liked it a lot.

This is an interesting thread, thank you. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pooks (# 11425) on :
 
I can't get into the weightier side of the debate, but I would still like to share my impression of the Jesuits, if you don't mind.

I like them. I fact, I would go so far to say that of all varieties of Christians that I have met in my life, the ones who impressed me the most were three trainee Jesuits and their spiritual director in Ireland. Perhaps it was because they had just come out of their 21 days silent retreat, they seemed to ooze an unspoken joy and a kind of knowing, perhaps of purpose or God himself that I have not seen in others since. Being a pretty curious and ignorant young protestant then, I decided to use the opportunity to ask one of them some basic questions about the practices of Catholicism over a cup of tea (we were staying in a Christian community in Northern Ireland at the time). He answered me with simplicity, patience and kindness, with no hint of contempt for my ignorance. There was no display of arrogance with their learning (7 years of seminary?) and no sign of polite 'them and us' mentality from any of these people. Just humility and joy and a love for humanity that was translated into patience and kindness for one another. I remember thinking at the time, this is how Christians ought be like.

The truth is, I don't know much about the Jesuits or the history of their order. But sometimes, even a chance encounter can count for much. Especially when it leaves a lasting legacy of blessing.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Some of the greatest influences on me are/have been Jesuits - Gerry Hughes, Antony deMello, William Johnston.

The rest are Dominicans - like Herbert McCabe.

Could almost persuade me to swim the Tiber.

[ 04. October 2013, 14:49: Message edited by: leo ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
Your man Francis is every bit as conservative as Benedict was.
No, he sure isn't.

quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
The secular media are just clueless about Catholicism, is all.
That's true.

The real story about Pope Francis is not that he is super extra special. The real story is that he is typical to the point of being slightly boring.

He is the first pope who had his formation as priest post Vatican II. And it shows. The sort of thing he says is the sort of thing you can hear everywhere in RC parishes, and indeed from most bishops (or at least most younger bishops).

Of course, he has his idiosyncrasies and particular topics that are especially dear to him, as well as a specific cultural background. But by and large he is simply a typical post-Vatican II pastor.

That just seems remarkable to outsiders because they look to the Vatican first and foremost, and the predecessors of Pope Francis came from the pre-conciliar era.

In a sense then, the election of Pope Francis makes the RCC more uniform than ever. For better or worse, Vatican II now has seriously arrived in the papacy.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For better or worse, Vatican II now has seriously arrived in the papacy.
Which is not before time.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Good God! I agree with leo. The end of the world is nigh.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
I often agree with Leo. Is that a hanging offence these days?

The conservatives seem undecided whether Vatican II was the greatest disaster ever to hit the church, or a reassertion of traditional values that has been grossly misunderstood by the closet Marxists and liberals in the pews and presbyteries. Those of us who have been hovering on the banks of the Tiber for many years, waiting for the full implementation of its vision, have pulled back as one window or another in the Vatican was slammed firmly shut. Now it seems we have a Pope who wants to open some of them again.

Good for him, and good for the Jesuits.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
The founder of PICO, an international community organizing network that's done a huge amount of work to bring about the Kingdom, is a Jesuit ordained in 1969. Fr. John Baumann, SJ...a truly amazing man.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
IngoB wrote:

quote:
Also they often seem to favour a tactics of expedient means, using whatever works here and now even if it is not up to their best principles. Again, after a while one starts to wonder if there are any principles that they would ever maintain.

Pierre Trudeau was Prime Minister of Canada for most of the time between 1968 and 1984. By the standards of politicians, he was considred something of an intellectual, and his more ga-ga fans used to talk him up as a "philosopher king". Some also liked to attribute his alleged brilliance to having had a Jesuit education.

In opposing the Quebec separation movement, Trudeua once made the following argument...

"Some people say that if Quebec votes to leave Canada, we have to respect that wish. But do we really? Suppose some country in the Caribbean votes to join Canada, because they like Canadian food, Canadian women, whatever. Do we have to allow them to join simply because they voted to join? Obviously not. So why then do we have to allow Quebec to leave just because they vote to leave?"

I paraphrse, but that was the general argument, as quoted in the biography of Rene Levesque. I trust the logical flaws are self-evident.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
IngoB

Doesn't Catholicism benefit from dialogue and tension between (for the want of better phrases) "conservative (traditional)" and "radical (questioning)" voices within?

Or do you believe that in its relationship with a changing world all questions have already been answered?

I got chided, rightly, by Trisagion a few months ago for describing Pope Francis as a nonconformist. He does seem to be a challenger and a stirrer. That seems to be welcomed by some Catholics and uncomfortable to others.

At the heart of the Counter-Reformation (which gave rise to the Jesuits) there seem to me to have been two forces as work.

1. The recognition that a lot of sheep had strayed from the "true fold".

2. The shepherds of the "true fold" had often not done a very good job of protecting that fold, either as a place of safety for the sheep or a place to hear the truth spoken with love by the shepherds.

Perhaps Pope Francis is simply trying to respond to something like those forces as work within and without Catholicism today? You may see him as wrong-headed, I suppose, but he is surely right in trying to find an appropriate response to those forces.
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
I certainly would not think of the Jesuit as being founded to convert Protestants to the Catholic faith.The former soldier,Ignatius, founded the society after an intense spiritual experience on his part,in order to bring people closer to Jesus Christ within the context of the Catholic church.
Certainly at the time of the (Protestant) Reformation and the (Catholic) Counter-Reformation the members of the Society of Jesus were leading the way in the return of Catholicism to Austria,Bohemia,Poland and other Eastern European lands.In addition they were the first European missionaries to Japan,China and parts of India.They were involved in inculturation projects where they sought to harmonise traditional Chinese ideas with those of Catholicism,causing problems back at HQ in Rome.
Their strong support for education and for the indigenous peoples in Latin America,albeit in a paternalistic way,lead to problems with some of the Catholic European powers.
That being said of course there was,as everywhere, both abuse and exploitation.
Our local Jesuit community is a fine mixture of good preachers and at their best inspirational priests.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I often agree with Leo. Is that a hanging offence these days?
Apparently so - but those of us who don't cross the Tiber are accused of being in mortal sin or of having 'invincible ignorance'.

So maybe hanging is preferable - though the RCC opposes the death penalty!
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Society of Jesus was founded to bring the Protestants back into the Roman Catholic Church.
Apparently not (according to MacCulloch). Loyola intended a mission to the Holy Land. Pope Paul IV suspected the Jesuits of being covert Protestants, and not without reason. Many of their allies were part of a Reform-minded circle and some did actually go over. It was Loyola's assistant Jeronimo Nadal who was chiefly responsible for redirecting the Jesuits into a mission to Protestants.
To be honest, Pope Paul IV thought nearly everyone a covert Protestant even the excellent last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Pole
Yes, the Jesuits tried a mission to the Turks but then the Pope gave them the task of reconverting the heretic
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For better or worse, Vatican II now has seriously arrived in the papacy.
Which is not before time.
Lord help us from the "Spirit of Vatican II " types. Anathema Sit !
 
Posted by sososlowly (# 17592) on :
 
I'm a married Anglican father of two who believes that a woman's place is in the House of Bishops, so not a natural aficianado of conservative Catholicism.

But I've always felt strangely drawn to the Jesuits. Their story was the standout highlight of studying the reformation & counter-reformation in high school, and I remember writing to the Master of Campion Hall in Oxford a letter that probably said, "Dear Sir, Please tell me eveything about the Jesuits. Yours sincerely".

He replied kindly, enclosing a pack of vocations stuff(!) and a scholarly reading list.

I made the usual journey of the confused adolescent through various styles of churchmanship in the CofE and have ended up a stereotypical "liberal catholic".

But for me Ignatian prayer, with its ability to take scripture and one's imagination seriously, and its grounding in the incarnation and the sense of God in all things, does the best job of uniting the various fragments of what I'm pleased to call my spitrituality.

I recently came across The Jesuit Guide to Almost Everything by Fr. James Martin which is by far the best and liveliest introduction to Ignatian prayer I've read. I suspect Fr. Martin probably epitomises some of the criticisms that have been made earlier in this thread (liberal, worldly) but for me his work epitomises a key charism of the order; an ability to offer the faith to people shopping in the spirituality supermarket in a way which is authentic but also easy to get hold of.

SSS
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But didn't Voltaire in Candide portray his South American utopia as Jesuit-run?
No, he didn't. I think scholarly consensus at the moment is that the Jesuits were among the only Europeans to treat the indigenous people of South America as fellow human beings. However, for some reason the philosophes, like a lot of people in the eighteenth century, seemed to think that Jesuit government had been absolutely disastrous for South America and it was a jolly good thing that the Spanish had kicked them out.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
But didn't Voltaire in Candide portray his South American utopia as Jesuit-run?
Dumas's use of the Jesuit's in the 3 musketeers sequal is very similar to Dan Brown's use of Opus Day.
I suspect both teach you more about the readers than the organizations.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.
They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SeraphimSarov:
To be honest, Pope Paul IV thought nearly everyone a covert Protestant even the excellent last Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Pole
Cardinal Pole was also a member of reformist circles until he returned to England.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.
They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
Pardon my ignorance but do we have any evidence for that?
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I love the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins. Does he count? He was a Jesuit!
I had always understood that Hopkins felt under pressure to give up writing poetry, but I'm not clear how much of that pressure he generated internally, as it were, and how much it came from his superiors and/or from a spiritual adviser.

Whatever the truth of that, it's definitely 'Yea' for the Jesuits from me - maybe even “Yay!” I suppose the fact that I'm a Protestant means my 'vote' (so to speak) may be counter-productive. I believe it's common to argue that what really distinguishes Protestants from Catholics is not anything to do with doctrinal differences as such, but rather the (Protestant) insistence on the primacy of the individual conscience. I can see why such a person might accuse the Jesuits of being sort-of closet Protestants. But I think that argument is fallacious.

I admire the stress the Jesuits place on education and their commitment to intellectual rigour is integrated with their commitment to their faith and the way that includes, amongst other things, not giving a stuff if others perceive you as flaky. And although I recognise that there are sincere Christians who are politically conservative, I don't really understand how they fit that to the gospel. so it doesn't really surprise me that the Society of Jesus has got so mixed up with radical politics, particularly in South America.

Politics aside, some of the most interesting and inspiring ideas about Christian faith that I've encountered in my adult life appear to have come (directly or indirectly) from Jesuits. If anyone could persuade me to swim the Tiber (and – trust me on this – I am not one of those hovering on the banks), it would most likely be a Jesuit.

Finally, I'm sorry to have to confess that one of the things I'm enjoying most is watching those who imagine themselves to be ultra-orthodox (small o) tie themselves in knots over this Pope and his (re)arrival of Vatican II.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I got chided, rightly, by Trisagion a few months ago for describing Pope Francis as a nonconformist. He does seem to be a challenger and a stirrer. That seems to be welcomed by some Catholics and uncomfortable to others.
Pope Francis is about as conforming as it gets! Seriously, if you randomly picked some Western RC bishop for an interview, chances are that you would get the same sort of answers from him. And if you widened that to randomly picking from Western RC priests, you would have to be very unlucky to hear anything else. Pope Francis probably goes on about poverty and economic justice slightly more than most Western clergy, but that has in my opinion more to do with being Argentinian than any special spirituality.

Even the "reform of the curia" stuff is totally post-Vatican II standard. It's all about "collegiality" and devolving power and responsibility onto the bishops and their national conferences. (And as far as that goes, the election of Pope Francis can be seen as a sly attempt to grab more power and get Rome off their backs by those one step down in the hierarchy.)

While hardly being the traditionalists' dream team, JPII and BXVI's were stemming the tide. These papacies were at least to some degree keeping the Spirit of Vatican II in check, by enforcing a modicum of RC continuity and sanity. The traditionalists are not worried that Pope Francis will be a revolutionary. They are worried that he will be part of the new normal. Pandora's box was opened by Vatican II, JPII and BXVI sat on the lid, but Pope Francis does not seem to be willing to do that. That's more how they see it. But I think that that's also not quite right.

Personally, I think Pope Francis is just a last gasp of the Spirit of Vatican II times. The church is always a few decades behind the world in these matters. And the former hippies have had to come to terms with Gens X, Y, Z or whatever. Anyway, things hardly turned out as imagined in the glory days of the 60s. And so it will be with the Church. Once the next half-time of Church decay in the West has passed, in 20-30 years or so, what is left of churchgoing RCs will make my cynicism about Pope Francis seem rather mild. I'm sure of that. It won't exactly be a traditionalist's dream either though, just like Gen alphabet soup did not return to the 50s. But they are considerably more conservative, and so will be the Church. Indeed, more so, due to the harsh selection bias of still giving a fuck about God...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps Pope Francis is simply trying to respond to something like those forces as work within and without Catholicism today?
It doesn't really matter how he is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to be honest. If I had the time and was really interested in the fate of the Church, I would talk to the 15-25 year olds that attend mass out of their own free will these days. There are a few. Some of them will be the "new new normal" in a few decades, and by virtue of the Church continuing her crash in slow motion, they will be quite dominant then.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.
They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
Pardon my ignorance but do we have any evidence for that?
I think you've missed Jade's point (playing on classic proof by contradiction).

CJ claimed "The Jesuit's spearheaded everything bad (probably meaning whatever the Catholic's ASB is)"
Jade1: The sexual abuse scandals are the worst thing.*
Jade2: Therefore if these two statements are true Jesuits led this, this is clearly absurd. Hence CJ's theorum is wrong**,

I may have missed your point (in which case I'll go into more detail on the *) or misunderstood her, but I think that's the case.


* for which we have several papal comments that enough occured to qualify as evidence of extremely damaging stuff happening.
**or Jade1 is (either it's no big deal [Ultra confused] , or the church has framed itself, or vernacular masses are really evil or there's something really secularly bad in the closet), [or the conclusion is actually right, but I don't think there's any evidence of Jesuits being particularly good or bad] I know what I suspect [to be clear that the Jesuit's are in the normalish range].

[ 05. October 2013, 20:13: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.
They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
Pardon my ignorance but do we have any evidence for that?
I think you've missed Jade's point (playing on classic proof by contradiction).

CJ claimed "The Jesuit's spearheaded everything bad (probably meaning whatever the Catholic's ASB is)"
Jade1: The sexual abuse scandals are the worst thing.*
Jade2: Therefore if these two statements are true Jesuits led this, this is clearly absurd. Hence CJ's theorum is wrong**,

I may have missed your point (in which case I'll go into more detail on the *) or misunderstood her, but I think that's the case.


* for which we have several papal comments that enough occured to qualify as evidence of extremely damaging stuff happening.
**or Jade1 is (either it's no big deal [Ultra confused] , or the church has framed itself, or vernacular masses are really evil or there's something really secularly bad in the closet), [or the conclusion is actually right, but I don't think there's any evidence of Jesuits being particularly good or bad] I know what I suspect [to be clear that the Jesuit's are in the normalish range].
You're right, proof by contradiction was what I was trying to do. I suspect that non-Catholics liking many aspects of the Jesuit movement is proof enough for CJ that the Jesuits are bad news.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Pope Francis is about as conforming as it gets! Seriously, if you randomly picked some Western RC bishop for an interview, chances are that you would get the same sort of answers from him. And if you widened that to randomly picking from Western RC priests, you would have to be very unlucky to hear anything else. Pope Francis probably goes on about poverty and economic justice slightly more than most Western clergy, but that has in my opinion more to do with being Argentinian than any special spirituality.
The import of this appears to be your view that the views of these "randomly selected" western bishops and priests are wrong because they represent some kind of departure from what you believe to be right. Maybe you are wrong?
quote:

Even the "reform of the curia" stuff is totally post-Vatican II standard. It's all about "collegiality" and devolving power and responsibility onto the bishops and their national conferences. (And as far as that goes, the election of Pope Francis can be seen as a sly attempt to grab more power and get Rome off their backs by those one step down in the hierarchy.)
What is so bad about a more "collegiate" approach?
quote:

While hardly being the traditionalists' dream team, JPII and BXVI's were stemming the tide. These papacies were at least to some degree keeping the Spirit of Vatican II in check, by enforcing a modicum of RC continuity and sanity.
In what ways was Vatican II a denial of the need for continuity and in some sense insane? I suppose this, more than anything, is what I cannot get my head around.
quote:

The traditionalists are not worried that Pope Francis will be a revolutionary. They are worried that he will be part of the new normal. Pandora's box was opened by Vatican II, JPII and BXVI sat on the lid, but Pope Francis does not seem to be willing to do that. That's more how they see it. But I think that that's also not quite right.

Personally, I think Pope Francis is just a last gasp of the Spirit of Vatican II times. The church is always a few decades behind the world in these matters. And the former hippies have had to come to terms with Gens X, Y, Z or whatever. Anyway, things hardly turned out as imagined in the glory days of the 60s. And so it will be with the Church. Once the next half-time of Church decay in the West has passed, in 20-30 years or so, what is left of churchgoing RCs will make my cynicism about Pope Francis seem rather mild. I'm sure of that. It won't exactly be a traditionalist's dream either though, just like Gen alphabet soup did not return to the 50s. But they are considerably more conservative, and so will be the Church. Indeed, more so, due to the harsh selection bias of still giving a fuck about God...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Perhaps Pope Francis is simply trying to respond to something like those forces as work within and without Catholicism today?
It doesn't really matter how he is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to be honest. If I had the time and was really interested in the fate of the Church, I would talk to the 15-25 year olds that attend mass out of their own free will these days. There are a few. Some of them will be the "new new normal" in a few decades, and by virtue of the Church continuing her crash in slow motion, they will be quite dominant then.
You seem to be expressing yourself in more generally cynical terms, rather than just being cynical about Pope Francis. Of course that is your privilege but I don't see a lot of substantial argument there. "He's a wrong headed revisionist; the Catholic Church will rue the day when it comes to its senses and sees the damage revisionists cause".

Don't you think traditionalists cause damage as well? There is something quite deeply seated in Christian belief about recognising times and seasons and responding accordingly. I see no evidence that such responses should be implacable resistant to reform, to different approaches to sharing the faith once given.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
So basically, reforms that were made 50 years ago by the top of the church hierarchy have finally reached the top of the church hierarchy?

Well, that's good then.

And Ingo, everything you've said in your posts simply shows that it IS the new normal. I suppose you're welcome to continue dreaming of the 1950s if you wish, but if you think the vast majority of bishops now fit into this template, it's fairly obvious that you're not going to get another Pope who will take you back to those glorious times.

Whatever you might think of generation X, etc, and however they're different from the people of the 60s, they are assuredly NOT like the previous generations either. The world changed. Wherever it's going, it's not going back to just relive the past.

[ 06. October 2013, 02:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CL:
[qb] The Jesuits have been the spearhead for everything that has gone wrong in the Church over the past century. They should have been suppressed again in the 1980s.
They've spearheaded covering up the sexual abuse of children? [Confused] Because that's without doubt the main problem with the RCC over the past century.
Pardon my ignorance but do we have any evidence for that?
I think you've missed Jade's point (playing on classic proof by contradiction).
Yes, sorry I read it again.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The import of this appears to be your view that the views of these "randomly selected" western bishops and priests are wrong because they represent some kind of departure from what you believe to be right. Maybe you are wrong?

For Catholics it is "here we have stood, we can do no other." One consequence of "opening up" in the wake of Vatican II has been that lay people have gained access to a constantly growing number of official sources detailing RC orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Unintentionally, I'm sure, the hierarchy thereby has made great strides forward in crowd-sourcing the Inquisition. The irony of that is rather Divine...

So if you think that I'm wrong, I say simply this: Show me. And I will say that to dear Pope Francis just as much as to anyone else. He beats me in learning and experience by a mile, no doubt, but I'm sure that my Google Fu is leaps and bounds better than his, and I'm no dummy. Of course, we do not wield the same power in the Church. But it is a mistake to think that he is free in the use of that power. He is very constrained. And I can track down these constraints and hold him to them. Easily. That's a new development.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
In what ways was Vatican II a denial of the need for continuity and in some sense insane? I suppose this, more than anything, is what I cannot get my head around.
Not Vatican II, though that was one hell of a sloppy council. The Spirit of Vatican II, which is a rather different beast.

As if on cue, today in the sermon the priest (not the parish priest, a visiting one) told us explicitly "When I was young, I was taught that faith consisted of affirming all these truths. That was all a hang-over from combating the Protestants: if you believe this you are Catholic, if not, Protestant. Now I know better. Faith is all just about trusting God." A paraphrase, but only for brevity... He spent quite some time contrasting the "bad old days" where one had to believe all these things and had to try being good according to the rules, with today, where we can accept that we are bad and just trust on God to pull us through.

I'm sure the guy means well. But sorry, if I wanted this stuff I would head to the next Anglican-Protestant joint. Their church building is nicer anyway, and nearer to my house. That's what I mean, you get this stuff all the time in the contemporary RCC. There is of course nothing in the Vatican II documents that would justify this, but it is the "Spirit of Vatican II" blowing hard...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Of course that is your privilege but I don't see a lot of substantial argument there. "He's a wrong headed revisionist; the Catholic Church will rue the day when it comes to its senses and sees the damage revisionists cause".
If that's supposed to be a paraphrase of what I just said, then I won't bother with an answer. My argument may not have been substantial (making forecasts is always an act of foolery), but I made one. What you wrote is just assertion and evaluation.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't you think traditionalists cause damage as well? There is something quite deeply seated in Christian belief about recognising times and seasons and responding accordingly. I see no evidence that such responses should be implacable resistant to reform, to different approaches to sharing the faith once given.
The rad trads are like radiation therapy to a cancer patient. The harm they do is a very much needed one now; though if they succeed in their aims, then they will have to fade.

You've been around too long to make the mistakes that give the game away. So you've added that last half-sentence. It is largely the same with the RC wayward priests, bishops and popes, of course. They also know very well how to achieve plausible deniability. However, somebody wise once said that we should know people by their fruits. Once the pile of rotten fruit becomes large enough to be impossible to hide, then it is time. Until then, patience.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And Ingo, everything you've said in your posts simply shows that it IS the new normal. I suppose you're welcome to continue dreaming of the 1950s if you wish, but if you think the vast majority of bishops now fit into this template, it's fairly obvious that you're not going to get another Pope who will take you back to those glorious times.
I'm more dreaming of the 1250s myself. And it was once obvious that Arianism would become the orthodox teaching of the Church.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whatever you might think of generation X, etc, and however they're different from the people of the 60s, they are assuredly NOT like the previous generations either. The world changed. Wherever it's going, it's not going back to just relive the past.
Which is what I said?!
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As if on cue, today in the sermon the priest (not the parish priest, a visiting one) told us explicitly "When I was young, I was taught that faith consisted of affirming all these truths. That was all a hang-over from combating the Protestants: if you believe this you are Catholic, if not, Protestant. Now I know better. Faith is all just about trusting God." A paraphrase, but only for brevity...
Judging by the paraphrase, he's been reading Karen Armstrong. There's quite a weight of scholarship behind such ideas, you know.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
But surely one cannot simply "trust God" without first have some theological definitions, or at least background, as to who God is? Otherwise the G*d word becomes, quite literally, meaningless.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And Ingo, everything you've said in your posts simply shows that it IS the new normal. I suppose you're welcome to continue dreaming of the 1950s if you wish, but if you think the vast majority of bishops now fit into this template, it's fairly obvious that you're not going to get another Pope who will take you back to those glorious times.
I'm more dreaming of the 1250s myself. And it was once obvious that Arianism would become the orthodox teaching of the Church.

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whatever you might think of generation X, etc, and however they're different from the people of the 60s, they are assuredly NOT like the previous generations either. The world changed. Wherever it's going, it's not going back to just relive the past.
Which is what I said?!
Oh nicely done. In the first bit you tell me I'm wrong for saying there's no going back, and in the second bit you get exasperated and tell me you've already said there's no going back.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

So if you think that I'm wrong, I say simply this: Show me. And I will say that to dear Pope Francis just as much as to anyone else.
I've been out of the loop for the past month, IngoB and also on a number of other occasions in the past four or five months, so there may well be stuff in other thread that have passed me by. The specific illustration I recall concerned his acttions re Maunday Thursday. That got a good enough airing and I don't think you won the debate, though as always you boxed a good draw. But your issues seemed much wider than that, I'm just not sure what they are. Other than "he's a Jesuit, I don't trust Jesuits because they trim". I guess I was looking for some more specific doctrinal/ecclesiological pointers. But maybe that's another thread - or a series of references to other threads which passed me by during my holidays. Happy to leave it at that or take it elsewhere.


quote:
Not Vatican II, though that was one hell of a sloppy council. The Spirit of Vatican II, which is a rather different beast.
Now that is rather slippery! This "Spirit" is surely about more than some kind of subjective tone, since if it concerns you it must be it's impact on the doctrine and teaching of the church. Maybe it's my Protestant ignorance at work, but I have as much difficulty with "Spirit of Vatican II" shorthand as "Vatican II" shorthand. It must be doing some quite specific harm to the work and witness of Catholicism to get you exercised. Otherwise tone is just tone. Where is the harm?

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't you think traditionalists cause damage as well? There is something quite deeply seated in Christian belief about recognising times and seasons and responding accordingly. I see no evidence that such responses should be implacable resistant to reform, to different approaches to sharing the faith once given.
The rad trads are like radiation therapy to a cancer patient. The harm they do is a very much needed one now; though if they succeed in their aims, then they will have to fade.

You've been around too long to make the mistakes that give the game away. So you've added that last half-sentence. It is largely the same with the RC wayward priests, bishops and popes, of course. They also know very well how to achieve plausible deniability. However, somebody wise once said that we should know people by their fruits. Once the pile of rotten fruit becomes large enough to be impossible to hide, then it is time. Until then, patience.
I guess that's about "faith once given". I wasn't meaning to be tricky, but I see where you are coming from. I suppose the difference between us relates to dynamic and ongoing changes in the understanding of how the "faith once given" applies today. How do those changes occur, how are they to be tested for genuineness?

Recognising the whole edifice of the Magisterium and the other records of Catholicism now available, what I think you look for in a Pope, any Pope, is a faithfulness to that remarkable codification of the "faith once given" as currently understood, interpreted, developed within Catholicism. So if you catch him "doing his sums wrong" by reference to that record, you are absolutely right to ask questions.

But maybe that is a matter of how he is explaining himself? Compared with you, my knowledge of the Magisterium is miniscule, but I would be surprised if it does not contain tensions; between principles and principles, between principles and practice. It is a dynamic record, subject to dynamic change.

Suppose this Pope is profoundly influenced by some principles more than others? And, for the sake of argument, suppose this is a work of the Spirit of God in his heart? He cannot ignore the other principles of course, but as I understand it he has the specific power to emphasise what he senses as most important at this time. Remembering the "vicar of Christ" responsibility, Jesus observed to religious leaders that in their detailed instructions they were paying insufficient attention to weightier matters (viz justice, mercy, faithfulness).

I think you should cut him some slack, allow for the possibility that there may be some dynamics of change here of which God himself approves. Personalising the ancient Gamaliel (not our recently returned Welsh Shipmate) from Acts 5.

"For if his purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop this man; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

After all, you foresee failure. But you don't know what the future will bring, you just fear what it will bring. Who knows - maybe the conclave really did hear from God? Maybe he is the man for these troubled times? I do not see how you be so sure that he is just another part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

[ 07. October 2013, 11:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Deckie (# 17829) on :
 
I've been reading through "The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything" slowly over the last few months.

Lots of really good stuff. Easy to read, totally non-judgemental, nothing at all so far which offend my moderately evangelical (small 'e') upbringing.

The picture he paints of Jesuit/Ignation spirituality and life seems very humble, Christ-centered, balanced, and inviting.

I really recommend the book. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00395ZYWW

Dan
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Deckie:
I've been reading through "The Jesuit Guide to (almost) Everything" slowly over the last few months.

Lots of really good stuff. Easy to read, totally non-judgemental, nothing at all so far which offend my moderately evangelical (small 'e') upbringing.

The picture he paints of Jesuit/Ignation spirituality and life seems very humble, Christ-centered, balanced, and inviting.

I really recommend the book. http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00395ZYWW

Dan
That sounds like a good read. Thanks!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Judging by the paraphrase, he's been reading Karen Armstrong. There's quite a weight of scholarship behind such ideas, you know.
I would be hard pressed to name a field of research where I trust academic scholarship less to produce something resembling objective truth. But for what's it worth, I didn't mind his stress on "trusting God". I protest setting it up in opposition to "believing in truths". That's the classical "either...or" fail, Christianity is invariably "both...and".

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh nicely done. In the first bit you tell me I'm wrong for saying there's no going back, and in the second bit you get exasperated and tell me you've already said there's no going back.
Uh, no? Read for comprehension. In the first bit I tell you that the 1950s are hardly my ideal as far as faith, liturgy and theology are concerned, contrary to what you asserted. In the second bit I tell you that I've mentioned that Gen XYZ+ churchgoers will not return to the 1950 religion, even if they end up throwing their spiritual hippie parents under a bus. Because, well, I did (Paragraph starting with "Personally...").

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The specific illustration I recall concerned his acttions re Maunday Thursday. That got a good enough airing and I don't think you won the debate, though as always you boxed a good draw.
It took me a few moments to even remember what you are talking about. So yeah, things have moved on a bit. But to be honest, Pope Francis hasn't done much. We are all still mostly guessing what he might do based on some interviews.

FWIW, in his latest interview you can find Pope Francis either lying, or using "mental reservation" to trick his discussion partner into believing that he is saying one thing when he is really saying and thinking another, or stating something that is most definitely contrary to a bunch of very clear scripture as well as plenty of doctrinal material through the ages (including the Vatican II document "Ad Gentes", as it happens). And no, it's not a RC thing either, it's at the "Mere Christianity" level. I'll leave this one as exercise to the reader though....

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now that is rather slippery! This "Spirit" is surely about more than some kind of subjective tone, since if it concerns you it must be it's impact on the doctrine and teaching of the church. Maybe it's my Protestant ignorance at work, but I have as much difficulty with "Spirit of Vatican II" shorthand as "Vatican II" shorthand. It must be doing some quite specific harm to the work and witness of Catholicism to get you exercised. Otherwise tone is just tone. Where is the harm?
You can read this document, starting with "The last event of this year on which I wish to reflect here..." It gives a reasonable definition of what is meant by that. And you will see, by virtue of this definition, that it is not so easy to say what that Spirit is about. If a standard is dropped, it is not necessarily clear what non-standard things people will come up with. Primarily we know that the standard has been dropped...

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But maybe that is a matter of how he is explaining himself? Compared with you, my knowledge of the Magisterium is miniscule, but I would be surprised if it does not contain tensions; between principles and principles, between principles and practice. It is a dynamic record, subject to dynamic change.
Oh, indeed. One of the key mistakes of the post-Vatican II Church is to overly stress the pastoral role of the bishops. Bishops are being assisted by many priests and deacons, and through these pastoral accommodation is constantly being stressed. To keep things in balance then, bishops must act primarily as the guardians of principle. It is actually their role to tell the priests and deacons: "OK, you can do this or that to help people out, but here we do draw a line." That is however an unpleasant role, it is much nicer to do the pastoral bits. And so the big problem we have is that everybody now wants to play pastor and nobody wants to be the spoil-sport guarding principle. The pope is a kind of super-bishop, if you like, and so he is supposed to be the super-guardian of principle. It is his role to tell the bishops "OK, you can do this or that to help people and their clergy out, but here we do draw a line." Unfortunately, I have seen very little indication so far that Pope Francis gets that.

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After all, you foresee failure. But you don't know what the future will bring, you just fear what it will bring. Who knows - maybe the conclave really did hear from God? Maybe he is the man for these troubled times? I do not see how you be so sure that he is just another part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
I really think that you are not reading carefully what I'm writing here, and projecting all sorts of prejudices about traditional types onto me. As it happens, I don't think Pope Francis matters much one way or the other. This is not a fulcrum time, where one person can change history. This is a flow time, where what people do become little ornaments on the general course of history. I do not really fear the future either. Or rather, I do not fear the Church bits of it. To me, Church life is a duty imposed on me by Christ anyhow. My own job is pretty OK, as it happens, but I imagine my bitching about the Church hence is a lot like many people are bitching about their jobs. It matters, but not in a sort of existentialist mode. It's more a "the shit I have to put up with" mode.

Of course, things could get more serious if the RCC and the Vatican really start to fall apart. But that's a bridge I will cross when I get there.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But surely one cannot simply "trust God" without first have some theological definitions, or at least background, as to who God is? Otherwise the G*d word becomes, quite literally, meaningless.
Exactly.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
FWIW, the RC Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, unsurprisingly leads the way in exploring just how real all that papal talk about rules for people and by bishops is. They have now allowed communion for the divorced and remarried in that archdiocese. Contrary to the clear directions from Rome on the matter. Again. They tried that stunt before, and one Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the CDF, knocked them back in 1993. So we will see what Pope Francis does with this liberal Archbishop, head of the German Bishop's Conference, who once denied the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on German television.

Is that Spirit of Vatican II getting concrete enough for you yet, Barnabas62?
 
Posted by Lawrence (# 4913) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, the RC Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, unsurprisingly leads the way in exploring just how real all that papal talk about rules for people and by bishops is. They have now allowed communion for the divorced and remarried in that archdiocese. Contrary to the clear directions from Rome on the matter. Again. They tried that stunt before, and one Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the CDF, knocked them back in 1993. So we will see what Pope Francis does with this liberal Archbishop, head of the German Bishop's Conference, who once denied the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on German television.

Is that Spirit of Vatican II getting concrete enough for you yet, Barnabas62?
I think you are right to be concerned about the Jesuits. Most of the ones I know really don't think much of that rule.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
IngoB

The Christmas letter by Pope Benedict did that nicely, thanks. Very helpful. I understand the continuity/discontinuity argument. It does seem to me that some continuities are ill-advised, but that's not carte blanche. The departure from an all male priesthood strikes me as a valid discontinuity for example. The real argument is over whether the church has the freedom to make such changes. Which is a DH here.

Perhaps you are right about my assumptions? I wasn't conscious of them. Your later remarks were helpful in clarifying where you're at.

[ 07. October 2013, 22:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Oh nicely done. In the first bit you tell me I'm wrong for saying there's no going back, and in the second bit you get exasperated and tell me you've already said there's no going back.
Uh, no? Read for comprehension. In the first bit I tell you that the 1950s are hardly my ideal as far as faith, liturgy and theology are concerned, contrary to what you asserted. In the second bit I tell you that I've mentioned that Gen XYZ+ churchgoers will not return to the 1950 religion, even if they end up throwing their spiritual hippie parents under a bus. Because, well, I did (Paragraph starting with "Personally...").
I might suggest the same thing to you, reading for comprehension...

'1950s' simply meant 'before Vatican II' anyway, but if you really think the church went off the wrong course about 7 centuries earlier one might wonder, what's the point of making a fuss about the spirit of Vatican II? If what you're pining for is something that isn't even within anyone's living memory, I genuinely don't see the point of having an extra problem with the particular slant of the most recent Pope. I doubt VERY much that the difference between pre- and post-Vatican II amounts to much difference at all if what you're comparing it to is 1250!
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
But surely one cannot simply "trust God" without first have some theological definitions, or at least background, as to who God is? Otherwise the G*d word becomes, quite literally, meaningless.
Exactly.
You cannot 'define' God any more than one can define CL or Baptist Trainfan. God is not susceptible to definition. One can only attempt, sometimes more successfully and sometimes less, to describe him. God 'is' objectively, irrespective of any person's attempt to define him, irrespective indeed of whether we believe in him or not or whether our beliefs about him are right or wrong..
 
Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :
 
As IngoB would no doubt assume, I attend a Jesuit parish. What I like about it is the quality of music and liturgy....nothing Sr Sourire here....and the quality of the homilies which are never too long.
The Jesuit Institute is lay administered and the whole retreat programme is organised by laywomen.
The parish has support groups for Gays & Lesbians, women who have had abortions and is particularly concerned about violence against women which is a problem at the University.
Jesuits reflect the whole spectrum of society as far as their individual opinions are concerned...they are not uniform.
We are very lucky to have a Pope who reflects the spirituality and social outreach of the order to which he belongs.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
FWIW, the RC Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, unsurprisingly leads the way in exploring just how real all that papal talk about rules for people and by bishops is. They have now allowed communion for the divorced and remarried in that archdiocese. Contrary to the clear directions from Rome on the matter. Again. They tried that stunt before, and one Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the CDF, knocked them back in 1993. So we will see what Pope Francis does with this liberal Archbishop, head of the German Bishop's Conference, who once denied the sacrificial nature of Christ's death on German television.
So far, the response seems to have been a slapdown.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Not surprising. My own connection had a problem of some ministers playing fast and loose with the baptismal formula, and that got slapped down by the Judicial Committee.

In other news, bears are Catholic and the Pope excretes in woods....
 
Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :
 
The Jesuits, or the Society of Jesus, has a good write up on Wikipedia.
I have met quite a few in my time. They give retreats to schools and parishes.
They tend to be ‘independent thinkers’.
Hence people like Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
They like to shock by being controversial and questioning firmly held beliefs. (such as, could Christ’s trial have taken place on the night before a major Jewish Feast?)
They have been accused of following the Machiavellian Principle of “the end justifies the means”.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0