Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
It is true that the Society has sometimes been the target of criticism within the Church. This criticism often reaches a fanatic intensity in some of the more febrile corners of the Internet, which take delight in exhaustively cataloging examples of the Society’s alleged heterodoxy. Even more sympathetic Catholics, though, may be inclined to wonder why the Society is so often in the thick of intra-ecclesial controversy. By way of answer, I’d like to suggest three ideas as food for thought.
First, the Society is a missionary order. Missionary work always gets done at the margins and requires a willingness to translate the Gospel message into new cultural contexts. Sometimes the proposed translations can prove controversial. Back in the 16th century, the Society got itself into hot water when Jesuit Fr. Matteo Ricci attempted to make the Gospel intelligible to the Chinese by appropriating some of their indigenous religious language and traditions. Horrified Dominican and Franciscan missionaries reported to
Secondly, the Society is a teaching order. As the Jesuit historian John O’Malley details in his fine book The First Jesuits, the entry of the order into education was almost an accident, a byproduct of Ignatius’ desire to improve the formation of members of the order. Within the last century, the Jesuits’ large institutional presence within higher education has brought them into broader dialogue with an increasingly secular academic community. The Jesuits are thus very much in the middle of the—often heated— discussion about the nature of a Catholic university.
Finally, I would argue that the Society’s spirituality—rooted in Ignatius’ Spiritual Exercises—positioned the order to be sympathetic to the religious concerns of the modern era. It’s no accident that Ignatius of Loyola and Martin Luther lived in the same century, which was characterized by an increasing interest in personal conversion and the subjective dimension of religious experience. To the extent that modern philosophy and theology emphasized the “turn to the subject” and religious experience, the Jesuits were well placed to respond. Recent assessments of Karl Rahner’s theology—perhaps the best effort by a 20th century theologian to express the Christian faith in a modern idiom—have noted the influence of the Spiritual Exercises on his work. To the extent, though, that differing assessments of the positive value of modern thought lie at the heart of Catholicism’s contemporary “culture war,” it’s not surprising to find Jesuits occasionally caught up in those controversies.
None of this is to say that the actions of individual Jesuits or the order as a whole are beyond criticism. In unpracticed hands, “faith doing justice” can degenerate into a form of social work that elides the eschatological implications of the Christian faith. The instinct to “find God in all things” can sometimes lead to excessively optimistic readings of contemporary culture. Inter-religious dialogue—a cause to which many Jesuits have been honorably committed in recent years—cannot become an excuse for failing to preach Jesus Christ as savior of the world. The phrase “Jesuit values” cannot be invoked to imply that the order somehow operates by a different set of rules than the
In my experience, though, the Jesuits wrestling with these questions are animated by the same kind of missionary spirit that animated Matteo Ricci, Francis Xavier, Isaac Jogues, and Ignatius himself. Those working in Latin America and
It’s true that not every solution that arises out of these interactions between Gospel and culture will ultimately prove fruitful. But there will be no fruitful solutions without these interactions, and without those willing to take on the risks that they entail. Which is why I’m thankful that for more than 450 years the Society of Jesus has inspired men to embrace poverty, chastity and obedience in service to Christ and his Church. They will be in my prayers in these important weeks and I hope they will be in yours.
It’s surprising that the upcoming General Congregation seems to be flying under most journalists’ radar these days, though Jeff Israely has a good piece on Time.com. One small addition to Mr. Nixon’s post. As John W. O’Malley, S.J., points out in his superb book points out, the original mission of the Society of Jesus, as codified in our Constitutions, was pretty simple, and had little to do with education–that is, in terms of its founding documents. The original mission could be summed up as the mission to “help souls.”
And thanks for the prayers, too.
While Peter is no doubt correct that “‘faith doing justice’ can degenerate into a form of social work that elides the eschatological implications of the Christian faith,” the Jesuits are in IMHO to be commended (and I doubt Peter would disagree) for the formulation of Decree 4 at the 32nd General Convention (1975), which was led by the great (again, IMHO) Superior General Pedro Arrupe. This decree, titled “Our Mission Today: The Service of Faith and the Promotion of Justice,” memorialized the Jesuits’ centuries-old commitment to social justice as an integral part of the evangelization of the faith: “There is no genuine conversion to the love of God without conversion to the love of neighbor and, therefore, to the demands of justice.” Like any mission statement, the devil is often in the details, but from what I have read, Decree 4 sent a wave of excitement and a sense of renewal throughout the Jesuit community worldwide. In addition, since its passage, dozens of Jesuits have been martyred, including the 6 priests killed by the army in 1989 at the Universidad Centroamericano in El Salvador, for their commitment to both the Word of God and social justice. Decree 4 is available here for those who are interested: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yPveNG_hKcYJ:www.creighton.edu/CollaborativeMinistry/our-mission-today.html+decree+4+%2B+jesuits&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Peter, I like the Jesuits. Your post proves your assertion that you are not by any yardstick objective. I like Reese, O’Malley and the present guys at America. Woody Allen says that 90% of success is just showing up and the Jesuits do show up. So in the quest for some objectivity it might be said that along with their glorious history there are some shameful actions. The Jesuits heading the Counter Reformation was hardly edifying. For the longest time they controlled the Vatican. They are not entirely out now. Rahner had his problems and Dulles made some major reversals in his theology and accepting the Cardinal’s hat diminished rather than enhanced him.
So it might be dangerous to tout a particular religious order. Rivalries among religious orders have caused serious problems for the church. The mantra is always “Ecclesia Semper Reformandi.” And the disgraced Publican beating his breast goes home justified.
Have to add my non-objective slant on the Jesuits, and one American Jesuit, in particular. In the mid to late 80s I spent a year in Australia (I’m English) where, by chance, I ended up working in a Jesuit community for destitute alcoholics. One of my fellow workers was an American Jesuit on tertianship, Fr Thom Savage. He really did deserve the description inspirational and I have to admit to not being able to think of Thom without laughing in remembering his antics. There was no chance of taking yourself too seriously when he was about. It was a tragedy that he died while still young and with so much still to do.
Whether this is a praise or condemnation, the BASIC reason I am in the Church today is because of the Jesuit education I had pre-Vat II. Critical thinking skills go a long way in overcoming the stultifying education that grew out of being hammered by the Baltimore Catechism: memorize, don’t understand.
Bill–
You are great with summarizing incredibly complext issues with phrases:
1. “The Jesuits heading the Counter Reformation was hardly edifying.” Don’t you think that the Counter-Reformation was a pretty complex series of events, mindset, theologies? The fact that many of the early Jesuits gave their best years of their lives (and some their very blood) to defend a set of a beliefs (yes, and an institution too) is something that one should not dismiss to off-handedly, in my humble opinion. But then again if all religions are the same then these men (Canisius, Campion etc) were really fools or unwitting tools of the evil papacy.
2. “For the longest time they controlled the Vatican.” Can you be a bit more specific? Was it for three or four centuries? Or didn’t their relative power and influence ebb and flow depending on a lot of other varaibles?
3. “Rahner had his problems and Dulles made some major reversals in his theology and accepting the Cardinal’s hat diminished rather than enhanced him.” Poor old Cardinal Dulles. Maybe he has time to reverse himself yet again? This might endear himself with all those aging baby-boomers who find nothing more joyful than bashing the Church and its demise by the next generations who only think of Latin Masses and nuns in wimples.
[...] Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, spoke to the General Congregation today. Like Peter Nixon below I cannot pretend to objectivity regarding the Society of Jesus, whose members have been so [...]