How Some Jesuits View Their Church

THE name “Jesuit” comes from the Latin word for “Jesus,” Jesuita. It was originally a nickname of contempt given by their critics to the members of an organization founded by the Spanish Roman Catholic soldier Ignatius Loyola in 1534.

First called the “Company of Jesus,” now the “Society of Jesus,” it is the largest and most powerful religious order in the Roman Catholic Church. Today there are more than 34,000 Jesuits in the world, some 8,000 of whom reside in the U.S.A.

Although not specifically organized to counteract the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, the Jesuits did prove to be the most efficient instrument their Church had for doing just that. But their methods and zeal were such that many governments, both in Europe and in the Americas, banned them. Even the pope in 1773 was persuaded to ban their order. The ban was supposed to stand “for ever,” but in 1814 a later pope rescinded the ban.

In 1964 the Jesuits were asked to leave Haiti “in order to preserve the internal peace and the territorial integrity of the country.” Today in the United States Jesuits are among those taking the lead in opposing the military draft. For instance, the Berrigan brothers are serving prison terms for destroying draft records. They are considered to be Jesuits in good standing.

Jesuit Training

Education has long been the favorite career of Jesuits. Some two thirds of their number in the United States are either educators at Catholic high schools and colleges or are training to be such.

Preparing to be a Jesuit used to take fifteen years of training after high school. But currently it is a few years less, although individual cases differ. And at present, the Jesuits have 220 colleges world wide, among which are the noted Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and Fordham University in New York city.

To what end is such training directed? According to Fulton J. Sheen, a Catholic authority but not a Jesuit, “the Jesuits work for the glory of God, defend the Roman Catholic faith against heresy, engage in missionary work, and educate the young.” As do other Roman Catholic religious orders, Jesuits vow chastity, poverty and obedience.

Education in obedience has long been a Jesuit standard. Loyola instilled in his followers the principle of “blind,” that is, absolute, unquestioning obedience, saying: “Each one should convince himself that they who live under obedience must allow themselves to be carried and ruled by God’s Providence through their superiors as though they were a dead body which allows itself to be carried in any direction and to be treated in any manner whatsoever.”

Due to such education, the Jesuits were in the forefront when it came to religious intolerance, calling anything that differed from Roman Catholicism “heresy.” They instilled this intolerance in others. For example, they did their job of training Ferdinand II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, so well that he was determined to wipe out the fruits of the Reformation. His actions helped to bring on the Thirty Years’ War, a series of conflicts between European Protestants and Catholics from 1618 to 1648. To Ferdinand, the voice of a Jesuit was the voice of God. He said he would rather rule over a desert than over Protestants.

The ‘New’ Jesuits

Yet, in spite of all this Jesuit training in obedience, this very characteristic is beginning to disintegrate. There no longer is just one kind of Jesuit, holding the same views in total obedience to the Church.

In America, and doubtless in other lands too, there might be said to be basically three kinds of Jesuits. There are the older conservatives, the newer young radicals and the ones in between. So much do these differ that one of them stated that it is as impossible to define a Jesuit today as it is to define a Jew. This helps to explain why a few years ago the Jesuits were scolded by Pope Paul, and their general admitted that some of them had “gone beyond what was opportune.”

These differences have resulted in many Jesuits becoming unsure of themselves and their mission in life. Even their present general, Arrupe, stated: “I am afraid that we may have little or nothing to offer this world, little to say or do that would justify our existence as Jesuits. I am afraid that we may repeat yesterday’s answers to tomorrow’s problems, talk in a way men no longer understand, speak in a language that does not speak to the heart of living men.”

But there is one thing that many new Jesuits are certain of: they will not be blindly obedient to a set of rules. John L’Heureau, ordained a Jesuit priest in 1966, writes in Atlantic magazine of November 1969: “The question of obedience or disobedience never arises.” This spirit of indifference is said to be “utterly baffling” to their superiors.

Jesuit L’Heureau also stated: “The new American Jesuit acts in consultation with his conscience and his friends; how his superior will react is not a matter of importance to him.” Of these Jesuits he stated: “They are invariably men who have questioned all existing authority and found it wanting; and at the same time have found no adequate substitute for it.” What a dilemma!

Typical of their feeling is the remark by one of them about the pope’s references to dissenting priests and divisions within the Church. This Jesuit said: “What the Pope means is that, by God, we’d better all knuckle under to the thinking of a few conservative Roman cardinals. What he fails to appreciate is that the Church of Christ is far more extensive than the merely hierarchical Church, and if I have to choose one or the other, I’m afraid my allegiance is with Christ.”

These young Jesuits not only talk this way, they also act independently. Thus two of them refused the “kiss of peace” from Cardinal Cooke when being ordained as priests, because he is the Military Vicar of the Armed Forces of the United States. That role seemed to the Jesuits to be incompatible with his being a Catholic bishop.

Forty-five Spanish Jesuits refused to meet with their head, General Arrupe, when he visited their city of Barcelona. Why? Because he had previously had an interview with Franco, who, according to them, represents a regime that “pretends to be Catholic while it tramples on most Christian principles.”

Older Jesuits Also Stirring

The younger Jesuits, mostly thirty or under, are not the only ones now viewing their Church with a critical eye. Some of the older Jesuits are too, including those in their sixties.

One of these is Karl Rahner, sixty-five, considered by some Jesuits to be “the greatest theologian of our time.” This German theologian keeps making statements with which many conservative Roman Catholic clergymen disagree. With a sense of humor he defends his criticisms of his Church by observing: “You can’t forever keep sharpening a knife, you’ve got to cut something once in a while.”

Rahner holds that Catholic “theologians should reflect a lot more than they do on the fact that in the church and in its theology there has been considerable error, and certainly still is today. These facts cannot be dismissed. This erring . . . touches many sides of life; and vitally it touches the concrete life of Christians. And this erring, much more than one thinks, is also linked with truth and dogmas of the church.”

Jesuit Rahner has even been accused of calling Jesus Christ Lord and Savior but refusing to call him God, as does official Church doctrine. He has also challenged the practice of celebrating the Mass so frequently, as well as charging varying rates for low, high and solemn Mass. He further has stated that the Roman Catholic positions on marriage and divorce, on infant baptism and on clerical celibacy should be discussed.

Jesuit’s Appraisal of Papacy

Interesting too is what sixty-one-year-old Jesuit John L. McKenzie, professor of theology at Notre Dame, says about his church. He begins by confessing that “Roman Catholicism stands at what may be the most critical point of its entire history,” and that it “is passing into a crisis of authority and a crisis of faith.”

Contrary to official Church doctrine, Jesuit McKenzie states that Roman Catholicism began in the fourth century “with the conversion of Constantine.” He states that “in the strict sense, the apostles left no successor,” and that “historical evidence does not exist for the entire chain of succession of church authority.” He notes that the authority of the pope cannot be defended by any reference to Peter’s position in the Bible.

Coming down to the tenth century of Roman Catholic history, McKenzie states that the Roman See experienced one of the most severe moral collapses of its history. He states: “The corruption of the papal court under unworthy men approaches the incredible [unbelievable]. . . . the adventurers and bandits who were elected to the papacy had no interest in affirming spiritual leadership of any kind.”

After noting blunders of other popes, he describes the papacy and compares the Curia to the cabinet of a political government. However, there is no office of the treasury. McKenzie reports that “this part of the pontifical administrative structure is well concealed. . . . Neither the source of the funds [which he describes as “enormous”] nor their disbursements are known.” Why not? Because the “Pope is responsible to no human authority,” either in spiritual or temporal affairs.

About Cardinals and Bishops

Regarding the college of cardinals, which might be likened to a senate, McKenzie observes: “The history of the College shows that it has been open to political influences of the most pernicious kind.” Some of their elections for a new pope have resulted in judgments which “cannot be explained.”

This Jesuit also notes that over half of the cardinals in the Church are Italian, but “Italy is not half the Roman Church.” This suggests that appointments of cardinals are not really made on the basis of spiritual qualifications. On what then? He replies: “Normally the appointment signifies that the cardinal has personal friends and influences in high places in Rome. More often than not it signifies personal friendship with the Pope.”

Of particular interest to knowledgeable Bible students is McKenzie’s statement that “bishops, as the church has historically known them, do not appear in the New Testament. . . . Churches do not appear with the supreme local authority vested in a single person.” This has led to ambitious men using unscrupulous tactics to attain such authority. The Jesuit says: “It should be said candidly that clerical ambition has long been and is one of the major problems of Roman Catholicism.”

Other Observations

Further, this theologian correctly notes that “the priesthood as we know it does not appear in the New Testament.” He observes that the Bible does not support the kind of clergy-laity distinction seen in Roman Catholicism.

Nor can enforced celibacy find support in God’s Word. McKenzie declares: “It has to be recognized that celibacy is not recommended as anything but an option in the New Testament . . . In regions where many [priests] do not live a celibate life, the institution of celibacy may seem to be nothing but sheer, vast hypocrisy. It is hard to think of anything of value that is preserved by such an institution.” He also notes that “some find the possibility of great scandal in clerical adultery and divorce; for reasons not easy to ascertain, they do not see the same scandal in clerical concubinage.”

Concerning other teachings of the Church, he states: “In the long-term analysis one has to say that the Roman Church has had more bad theology than good.” An example of this he gives is infant baptism. Not only the New Testament, but the testimonies of ancient church authorities “presuppose adult candidates” for baptism, not babies. The use of bread only at the Mass is also unscriptural: “No Roman theologian could deny that reception of both species [bread and wine] is the original sign.”

In Church theory, Jesuit McKenzie says, ‘a man is no more doomed to hell for murder than he is for missing Mass on Sunday.’ And in this regard he notes that another Catholic has written that the Church would have been “much more concerned if the United States armed forces had dropped contraceptive pamphlets and devices on Hiroshima than it was when the same United States dropped a bomb which took 70,000 lives.”

Thus, when the Jesuits, the ‘elite’ of the Roman Catholic Church, express themselves in such ways, is it any wonder that a crisis exists among Catholics? To those familiar with their Bibles it calls to mind the words of Jesus Christ, who said that “if a house becomes divided against itself that house will not be able to stand.” (Mark 3:25) Since Jehovah God has forewarned that he will shake everything so only that which is based on a firm foundation remains, where should we be taking our position? His Word tells us that only God’s kingdom, his righteous government by his Son, will prove enduring. For your own everlasting welfare, take your stand now with those who loyally support and announce that kingdom.​—Hag. 2:6, 7; Heb. 12:26, 27.