I was reading an old peace of literature titled the Provincial Letters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_provinciales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettres_provinciales) )by Blaise Pascal, written in the 17th century and translated to English in the 19th century. In the forward written by the English translators, they discussed some of the exploits of the Jesuits and there methods of gaining influence on the behalf of Roman Catholicism. Many of the ideologies the Jesuits developed during this time have been adopted into Catholicism and I was wondering what your perspective might be into the exploits of this sect who has not changed? Unethical? I extracted a quote from the author that brings out the point:
"The policy of the Society (the Jesuits), as hitherto exhibited in the countries where they have settled, describes a regular cycle of changes. Commencing with loud professions of charity, of liberal views in politics, and of an accommodating code of morals, they succeed in gaining popularity among the non- religious, the dissipated, and the restless portion of society. Availing themselves of this, and carefully concealing, in Protestant country, the more obnoxious parts of their creed, their next step is to plant some of the most plausible of their apostles in the principal localities, who are instructed to establish schools and seminaries on the most charitable footing, so as to ingratiate themselves with the poor, while they secure the contributions of the rich ; to attack the credit of the most active and influential among the evangelical ministry ; to revive old slanders agfiinst the reformers ; to disseminate tracts of the most alluring description ; and, when assailed in turn, to deny everything and to grant nothing. Rising by these means to power and influence, they gradually monopolize the seats of learning and the halls of theology they glide, with noiseless steps, into closets, cabinets, and palaces they become the dictators of the public press, the persecutors of the good, and the oppressors of all public and private liberty. At length, their treacherous designs being discovered, they rouse against themselves the storm of natural passions, which, descending on them first as the authors of the mischief, sweeps away along with them, in its headlong career, everything that bears the aspect of that active and earnest religion, under the guise of which they had succeeded in duping mankind."
As I read this, I cannot help but think of the recent actions of the "ever beloved" Pope Francis.
--MoG
That could be one interpretation of the actions of Pope Francis. We'll see.
At one time there was a very popular market for anti-Catholic screeds, in which an interesting variety of sordid conspiracies were described. The Jesuits featured prominently in this "literature." Thomas M'Crie, the author of the quoted paragraph, was a fire-breathing Presbyterian who loathed the Catholic church and strongly opposed the Catholic Relief Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829). Without researching the validity of the claims made, I wouldn't give them much credibility. This is coming from somebody who harbors not even the slightest affection for the Catholic church.
As for the current pope, I think that those who've let themselves believe that he will change the church in any genuine way have simply ignored statements he's made that show he has no intention of doing so.
Reminiscent of the tactics Opus Dei use.
Quote from: Crow on February 05, 2016, 01:59:06 PM
Reminiscent of the tactics Opus Dei use.
Maybe you've heard different things about them than I have, but "loud professions of charity, of liberal views in politics, and of an accommodating code of morals" are not things I would associate with Opus Dei. My understanding of them is that they generally keep to themselves and aren't engaged in overt charitable works, that they hold rather conservative views, and strive to uphold a strict moral code.
Quote from: Recusant on February 05, 2016, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: Crow on February 05, 2016, 01:59:06 PM
Reminiscent of the tactics Opus Dei use.
Maybe you've heard different things about them than I have, but "loud professions of charity, of liberal views in politics, and of an accommodating code of morals" are not things I would associate with Opus Dei. My understanding of them is that they generally keep to themselves and aren't engaged in overt charitable works, that they hold rather conservative views, and strive to uphold a strict moral code.
They engage in all areas of society and politics without revealing what they belong to. They don't engage as an open organisation but do covertly.
Quote from: Recusant on February 05, 2016, 10:26:50 AM
At one time there was a very popular market for anti-Catholic screeds, in which an interesting variety of sordid conspiracies were described. The Jesuits featured prominently in this "literature." Thomas M'Crie, the author of the quoted paragraph, was a fire-breathing Presbyterian who loathed the Catholic church and strongly opposed the Catholic Relief Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829). Without researching the validity of the claims made, I wouldn't give them much credibility. This is coming from somebody who harbors not even the slightest affection for the Catholic church.
The fact that he loathed the Catholic Church may be true concerning the man as it was true of most of his Protestant and non-Catholic contemporaries before and up to that point. But his statements there were also partially inspired by what Blaise Pascal, a Roman Catholic, revealed in his letters about the order. The impact of these letters was so great that they indirectly lead to the expulsion of the Jesuit's in France--and rightfully so. The fundamental principal of the order is that the ends justify the means, no matter how unethical and deceptive those means might be.
--MoG
Quote from: Crow on February 05, 2016, 06:44:43 PMThey engage in all areas of society and politics without revealing what they belong to. They don't engage as an open organisation but do covertly.
Right, where the Jesuits, while engaging in some behind-the-scenes string pulling, are not shy about having a very public presence as well. In that, M'Crie's rant is correct.
Quote from: Man-ofGod on February 05, 2016, 07:03:49 PM
Quote from: Recusant on February 05, 2016, 10:26:50 AM
At one time there was a very popular market for anti-Catholic screeds, in which an interesting variety of sordid conspiracies were described. The Jesuits featured prominently in this "literature." Thomas M'Crie, the author of the quoted paragraph, was a fire-breathing Presbyterian who loathed the Catholic church and strongly opposed the Catholic Relief Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829). Without researching the validity of the claims made, I wouldn't give them much credibility. This is coming from somebody who harbors not even the slightest affection for the Catholic church.
The fact that he loathed the Catholic Church may be true concerning the man as it was true of most of his Protestant and non-Catholic contemporaries before and up to that point. But his statements there were also partially inspired by what Blaise Pascal, a Roman Catholic, revealed in his letters about the order. The impact of these letters were so great that they indirectly lead to the expulsion of the Jesuit's in France--and rightfully so. The fundamental principal of the order is that the ends justify the means, no matter how unethical and deceptive those means might be.
--MoG
You're stretching here. The suppression of the Jesuits in France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus#Suppression_in_France_1764) happened over 100 years after Pascal wrote his
Lettres provinciales, and was the result of political conflict both with civil authorities and within the Catholic church. Pascal's work had very little to do with it.
QuoteThe preeminent position of the Jesuits among the religious orders and their championship of the pope exposed them to hostility. By the middle of the 18th century a variety of adversaries, both lay and clerical, were seeking to destroy the order. The opposition can be traced to several reasons, primarily, perhaps, to the anticlerical and antipapal spirit of the times. In 1773 Pope Clement XIV, under pressure especially from the governments of France, Spain, and Portugal, issued a decree abolishing the order. The society's corporate existence was maintained in Russia, where political circumstances—notably the opposition of Catherine II the Great—prevented the canonical execution of the suppression. The demand that the Jesuits take up their former work, especially in the field of education and in the missions, became so insistent that in 1814 Pope Pius VII reestablished the society.
[source (http://www.britannica.com/topic/Jesuits)]
Quote from: Recusant on February 05, 2016, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: Crow on February 05, 2016, 06:44:43 PMThey engage in all areas of society and politics without revealing what they belong to. They don't engage as an open organisation but do covertly.
Right, where the Jesuits, while engaging in some behind-the-scenes string pulling, are not shy about having a very public presence as well. In that, M'Crie's rant is correct.
Aye, thus the reminiscent. Engaging within the same areas of society to gain the same benefits with the Jesuits going for the open route, the OD going for the covert route.
Quote from: Recusant on February 05, 2016, 10:26:50 AM
You're stretching here. The suppression of the Jesuits in France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Society_of_Jesus#Suppression_in_France_1764) happened over 100 years after Pascal wrote his Lettres provinciales, and was the result of political conflict both with civil authorities and within the Catholic church. Pascal's work had very little to do with it.
It's not too much of a stretch. The Provincial Letters had a huge impact on France insofar that the eyes of the commoners and the distinguished were open, turning the tide of public opinion against the Jesuits. Here is another quote from Thomas M'Crrie on this point:
"The success of the Letters in gaining their object was not less extraordinary. The Jesuits were fairly checkmated ; and though they succeeded in carrying through the censure of Arnauld, the public sympathy was enlisted in his favor. The confessionals and churches of the Jesuits were deserted, while those of their opponents were crowded with admiring thousands.2 " That book alone," says one of its bitteres of enemies, "has done more for the Jansenists than the ' Augustinus' of Jansen, and all the works of Arnauld put together." 3 This is the more surprising when we consider that, at that time, the influence of the Jesuits was so high in the ascendant, that Arnauld had to contend with the pope, the king, the chancellor, the clergy, the Sorbonne, the universities, and the great body of the populace; and that never was Jansenism at a lower ebb, or more generally anathematized than when the first Provincial Letter appeared."
As a result, the Jesuits became a proverb in the homes of the French, paving the way for their second expulsion. Concerning the second expulsion, the French wiki says,
"They are condemned by the Parliament of Paris where an alliance Gallic - jansenist takes this opportunity to settle accounts with the Jesuits despite the support of Louis XV. Parliament finally declared that their order "night to civil order, violates the natural law, destroys religion and morality, corrupts the youth" and the Society of Jesus is banished from France. Its colleges are closed one after the other. However the Jesuits may reside in France as 'King's loyal subjects' and their ministry under the authority of the local bishops." (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_des_Jésuites)"
To digress a little bit, it is interesting, yet not surprising, that the Catholic encyclopedia's version of that same history you referenced in Wiki leaves out the reference to black slave labor (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14096a.htm) ..so much for intellectual honesty anongst their scholarship.
You note the deficiency of a Catholic source, yet swallow whole the propaganda of a Protestant. In its general outline the Catholic Encyclopedia's description of the causes of the suppression agrees with Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. None of them mention Pascal's work as a primary cause, in fact they don't mention him at all. Enjoy your meal.
Quote from: Recusant on February 08, 2016, 09:32:46 AM
You note the deficiency of a Catholic source, yet swallow whole the propaganda of a Protestant. In its general outline the Catholic Encyclopedia's description of the causes of the suppression agrees with Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica. None of them mention Pascal's work as a primary cause, in fact they don't mention him at all. Enjoy your meal.
It is ironic that you would charge the protestant cause with propaganda given its other definition: "a committee of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church responsible for foreign missions, founded in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV. "
If my credulity on this subject lies with the Protestant position of old, it is because, unlike the Jesuits, that Protestant movement as a whole cannot be charged as a fraternal order engaged in deceptive acts like mental reservation, casuistry, and equivocation--the art of lying with out lying-- and neither can it be found condoning it.
--MoG
Now it's up to you to explain the relevance the mere existence of an organization formerly known as the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide has to the topic of the Jesuits. This should be interesting (or at least provide an amusing display of pointless flailing).
You've demonstrated your "credulity" in regard to certain doctrines long since. I'm not so callow as to believe you would have changed since you last posted here.
Quote from: Recusant on February 08, 2016, 04:53:15 PM
Now it's up to you to explain the relevance the mere existence of an organization formerly known as the Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide has to the topic of the Jesuits. This should be interesting (or at least provide an amusing display of pointless flailing).
You've demonstrated your "credulity" in regard to certain doctrines long since. I'm not so callow as to believe you would have changed since you last posted here.
Do not look too deep into it. I just thought it was a fun coincidence.
No, there is no denying my Protestant propensity--everyone has a bias. Nevertheless, Mr. M'Crie's Protestantism is not a valid reason to be dismissive of his claims.
--MoG