Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit: No Objective Rules Of Morality

Sunday, February 28, 2010

No Objective Rules Of Morality

Father Anthony de Mello, S.J. demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a "disciple." But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others. The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and fully free, while others are not. Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God. In addition, the author's statements on the final destiny of man give rise to perplexity. At one point, he speaks of a "dissolving" into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water. On various occasions, the question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the present life should be of interest. With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality. Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.

Link (here) to the Vatican website to read the full notification from CDF.

Link (here) to the Jesuit publication America, at a recent post, a few Jesuits have commented on the writings of Fr. de Mello S.J.

39 comments:

Anonymous said...: De Mello was a twerp and those who follow him are twits.; February 28, 2010 at 6:05 AM
Enrique Alonso said...: Jesuits in Lima, Peru seem to identify with him. Indeed, on the second Sunday of 2010 he was prominently quoted on the front page of the Sunday mass guide distributed here at Jesuit (Catholic) temples but (to my knowledge) not at other Catholic parishes.

One of his admirers, a professor at the Paraguayan Jesuit University told me he was very popular there too.; February 28, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Maria said...: 5. There are other Jesuits who are of a differing opinion on De Mello SJ, and others of De Mello's ilk, who comprise New Agesism. One of the Society feels that the New Age Movement is Oriental Meditation, Oriental Prayer, or Mysticism ,that has penetrated many Christian circles. At the root of the New Age Movement, is the denial of an infinite, personal God, who created the world. And consequently, once you say that, then no how much you use the name God, no matter how much you talk about prayer and meditation, that prayer and mediation is no longer to God, but either to the unknown forces in the world or to one's self. And, you know, all I can say is, that one reason the New Age Movement has so deeply infected the Western world is because the Western world, unlike the Oriental world, has become very materialistic. Preoccupied with things that you can touch, taste, feel, see, experience with your body. The Western world needs a reformation. It needs to discover that there is a real world that you cannot touch, taste, see with your bodily eyes, or hear with the bodily ears. At the heart of this is the idea that there is no infinite God who created the world out of nothing. But, hey, why let a little Heresy get in the way of your Lenten meditations.

Posted By Maria Byrd | 2010-02-25 15:23:47.0

7. See CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH NOTIFICATION
CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF FATHER ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ @

www.vatican.va/.../congregations/cfaith/.../rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html -

I know, it so silly-looking to the Magisterium in these matters.

Posted By Maria | 2010-02-25 19:49:39.0

8.For those who don't find Maria Byrd convincing, actually reading either the Vatican document about De Mello (which was a "warning" that some elements could be "potentially misleading," not a declaration of heresy) or De Mello himself in his numerous and well-known writings (who quite obviously never thought there was no Creator God, but was a faithful Catholic) might be profitable. Maria herself has quite clearly read neither, judging by her increasingly tiresome generalizations.
Then again, it's Lent-why let self-righteous character assassination get in the way of your Lenten meditations?
Jim Keane, SJ
Posted By Jim Keane, SJ | 2010-02-25 20:42:28.0

9. Padre: The problem appears to lie, not with my stupidity, nor my inability to read, nor with my self-rightoues character assasinations, but with the Magisterium. Perhaps it would be better to apprise the CDF of their error.Posted By Maria | 2010-02-25 21:12:53.0

11. Maria,
The appeal to emotion is as cheap as it is faulty, if that's the realm you want to dance in. If the magisterium is our source, please report. Please. Show me where the magisterium decided De Mello was a heretic. If not, happy Lent, eh?
Posted By Jim Keane, SJ | 2010-02-25 21:52:36.0

Not content with defying the Magisterium, he wishes to take the faithful with him. Are there not descriptors in the CCC for this sort of behavior? If there are, no in the Society at America Magazine seems to care. See,Fr. Keane does not consider the CDF to be a reliable source of information. The Vatican Document uses the term "grave danger"to describe De Mello. Oh well. We are to dismiss the CDF. Why? We are to dismiss the document because Fr. Keane SJ knows better than the CDF. Vows of obedience? Looks like they too are superfluous. Careful what you post. Defiance of the teachings of the Church are welcome @ America Magazine; however, any suggestion of orthodoxy with get your commnents barred. And he will send his Jesuits confreres out to get you, in the com vox, in the bargain.; February 28, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Maria Byrd said...: I apologize. Where I said 'GRAVE DANGER', I meant 'GRAVE HARM'.

As in : "With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause GRAVE HARM". CDF; February 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM
Joseph Fromm said...: I urge readers to go to the America piece and read the positive comments about Father de Mello, S.J. I then urge readers to go to the link that will take you to the Vatican's website and the statement with regards to Father de Mello's writings. I would just like to say you have to work real hard and for real long time to earn such a condemnation from the Holy See. Ignatian spirituality is just fine with out the writings of Father de Mello.; February 28, 2010 at 4:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Funny to read some of the same people who blogged on the AMERICA website about this article come here to lick their wounds. Jim Keane S.J. posed a direct question regarding heresy and that goes unanswered. For goodness sakes people first read the man's work. You guys spend way too much of your lives condemning people in the guise of "defending the Faith."; February 28, 2010 at 8:29 PM
Joseph Fromm said...: Sounds like the name of a new blog, "Lazarus' Dog"

JMJ

Joe; March 1, 2010 at 7:25 AM
Anonymous said...: "Jim Keane S.J. posed a direct question regarding heresy and that goes unanswered. "

Can either of you read?

If so, then read:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH --NOTIFICATION--CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF
FATHER ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ.....

"...With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19980624_demello_en.html; March 1, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Enrique Alonso said...: I can imagine Adolf Hitler or Marcial Maciel reacting to John Coleman's S.J. endorsement of Anthony De Mello's advice on repentance: “Repentance would be better defined not by saying ‘O My God, I am sorry for my sins’ but rather by this: ‘O my God, I love you with all my heart and all my mind and all my soul.’” Repentance is about our slow but steady movement to love God who is active in all things."

Yes, and make that real "slow".

The subsequent comments by 4 Jesuits is a perfect example of how they are coordinating to lead the faithful away from truth. Hypocrites. How dare they call themselves Catholic priests. How dare they hear confessions? Or don't they any more? What for? Why are they allowed?

De Mello's advice is like that at a Unification Church (Moonie) indoctrinating camp where recruits are instructed to scream: "Kill with love. Blast with love" as they hurl balls with everything they got at each other.

America February 25 article on De Mello
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=20077581-3048-741E-6276192178106789#comments; March 1, 2010 at 11:33 AM
Anonymous said...: Whoa, steady there my ill-mannered friends.

I can read--just learned last year. The link you provided doesn't open, but I believe that "can cause grave harm" is not the same as "heresy." That was the question posed on the AMERICA blog. You do know that you can read things that "may cause grave harm"?

Re. Anthony's comment: I lost the thread of his argument in the first sentence when he mentioned Hitler.; March 1, 2010 at 2:34 PM
Maria said...: John Hardon SJ--

Heresy, from the Greek αίρέσίς, hairesis, denoting "choice" or "thing chosen," in general, refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers...

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning, defined by canon law, which states that "Anyone who, after receiving Baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths which must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic" (Canon 1325, parag. 2). Accordingly, four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy: previous valid Baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth which the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful one must deny or question a truth which is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe.

Just an FYI, the CDF used to be called the Office of the Inquisition, for a reason. Draw your own conclusions.; March 1, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Anonymous said...: De Mello's "...positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith..."

That's what the vatican said.

Heresy according to wikipedia:
"Heresy is proposing some unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

How do you define heresy, Jesuit guru ...?; March 1, 2010 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Maria:

If Rome thinks that you are a heretic it actually will say, "You are engaging in heresy." They have not done that in this case.

Leaving the verbal gymnastics aside please provide proof of this or move on to the next condemnation.; March 1, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Anonymous said...: "If Rome thinks that you are a heretic it actually will say, "You are engaging in heresy."

Why don't you prove it? While you are it, please define heresy.

Oh, btw, I'm not Maria.; March 1, 2010 at 10:51 PM
Anonymous said...: My comments were directed to Maria.

You've got the proof thing backwards, i.e., I never claimed he was a heretic so I don't have the burden of proof.; March 2, 2010 at 12:23 AM
Anonymous said...: This is an open forum and anyone can respond to anyone.

I asked you to prove: "If Rome thinks that you are a heretic it actually will say, "You are engaging in heresy." In other words, prove that this is the only way someone, or some belief, is deemed heretical by the Vatican.

I also asked you to define heresy.

I didn't ask you to prove he wasn't a heretic.; March 2, 2010 at 12:12 PM
Anonymous said...: "This is an open forum and anyone can respond to anyone": Of course it is, but you seemed miffed that I was responding to Maria and I wanted to clarify that I had her post in mind when I wrote my reply. You're being overly sensitive.

It's not my responsibility to define heresy since I didn't assert that Fr. DeMello was a heretic. But if you think there's a fruitful debate to be had by defining terms go right ahead.; March 2, 2010 at 1:05 PM
Anonymous said...: Th catholic encyclopedia says: "St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: 'a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas'."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm; March 2, 2010 at 2:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Sounds like a reasonable definition--and the Vatican will call it that if they think it is heresy. Once again, they haven't done that in DeMello's case; March 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's purpose is to comnbat heresy and, as you know, it judged De Mello's positions as "incompatible with the Catholic faith."

That, according to St. Thomas' definition, is heresy.

The pope didn't get to excommunicate him, but that would likely have been next had he not retracted (which he didn't, to my knowldege), and had he not died (which he did).; March 2, 2010 at 5:40 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm sorry that you are refusing to acknowledge the fact that the Vatican could have "banned" his books and declared them heresy. They did not & his death has nothing to do with it (the imprimatur on his books is still in place for goodness sakes!). What he did receive was a rebuke for some selected parts of his later work.

You may think it is heresy but please don't pretend that the Vatican has done so.

I'm happy to carry on with this but exchange but it does seem stuck in a rut.; March 2, 2010 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm sorry you refuse to recognize what the Vatican did and the fact that they did not "ban" his books and declare them heresy (you are confusing excommunication which is something else).

Since his death they have had ample opportunity to do so and to revoke the imprimatur but they have not done so.

It seems very important to you that he be branded a heretic even if he hasn't.; March 2, 2010 at 9:02 PM
Anonymous said...: The Vatican can't tell bookstores what to sell or Catholics what to read. It can however tell Catholics what is not compatible with the Catholic faith, or heresy, as it did in its notification.

Indeed, the Vatican told Catholics that according to De Mello:

--"Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth."

---the word of God in Holy Scripture is "an idol" and God has been "banished from the temple".

---the Vatican has "...lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ."

How in the world can you claim that the Vatican does not consider him a heretic? What do you want to everyone to think: that the Vatican considered De Mello: a Catholic thinker? A pastor?

Please.; March 2, 2010 at 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: CORRECTION LAST PARAGRAPH - PREVIOUS POST

How in the world can you claim that the Vatican does not consider him a heretic? What do you want everyone to think: that the Vatican considered De Mello a Catholic thinker? A pastor?

Please.; March 2, 2010 at 9:43 PM
Anonymous said...: They could do a number of things that would indicate heresy and they have not. They most certainly could retract their imprimatur and they have not.

You are mistaken in interpreting their "Notification" as a declaration of heresy. I'm not certain why you continue with this raw self-assertion. I'd be happy to respond to any new and valid information you have.; March 2, 2010 at 11:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't the real question here that when the Vatican informs the sheep to stear clear of spiritual guides and resources that will guide your spirit away from Christ, the Jesuits are right there wordsmything their guidance?

They're right there to distract the people under their tutelege into pagan rituals and heresey?

There right there trying to debunk the Catechism to encourage homosexuality and abortion?

They're right there attacking and demoralizing people trying to enlighten people being suckered into spiritual decay?; March 3, 2010 at 12:01 PM
Anonymous said...: You don't tell us which of De Mello's books have imprimaturs and the publication dates for their first editions.

Nor do you tell us who the imprimatur was. Another Jesuit perhaps?

The Vatican's Notification is dated June 24, 1998. It trumps any particular bishop's previous endorsement, for the Pope is the ultimate human authority for Christ's church on earth.

Furthermore, the Notification states in a footnote: "Not all the works of Father de Mello were authorized for publication by the author himself. Some were published after his death based on his writings, or on notes or recordings of his conferences."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFDEMEL.HTM

Therefore, which of de Mello's works are you referring to and who is the imprimatur?; March 3, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Anonymous said...: ...and please kindly include the publication date and edition.; March 3, 2010 at 12:21 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's my previous post--did you actually respond to these points?

They could do a number of things that would indicate heresy and they have not. They most certainly could retract their imprimatur and they have not.

You are mistaken in interpreting their "Notification" as a declaration of heresy. I'm not certain why you continue with this raw self-assertion. I'd be happy to respond to any new and valid information you have.; March 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's my previous post--did you actually respond to these points?

They could do a number of things that would indicate heresy and they have not. They most certainly could retract their imprimatur and they have not.

You are mistaken in interpreting their "Notification" as a declaration of heresy. I'm not certain why you continue with this raw self-assertion. I'd be happy to respond to any new and valid information you have.; March 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: Re. "imprimatur"--use your Goggle search on the Amazon website.; March 3, 2010 at 2:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Regarding your contention that "they most certainly could retract their imprimatur and they have not", surely you understand that the Vatican didn't provide the Imprimatur; some bishop did. There are around 5000 bishops and one was even excommunicated last year.

Yes, I did read your post and that's why I responded as I responded. If you are having a problem with my response, please let me know what is not sufficiently clear for you.

Otherwise, please provide the information requested. Thanks very much.; March 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: I'll help you with my request just to make sure that my point is clear to the world.

"Sadhana, a Way to God: Christian Exercises in Eastern Form"
by Anthony de Mello

Imprimi Potest
Bertram Philipps S.J.
Prep. Prov. Bomb.

Imprimatur
C.Gomez S.J.
Bishop of Ahmedabad

January 24, 1978

Approved by 2 JESUITS, his superior and the local Jesuit bishop!

Isn't that something?; March 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: I love it--now an imprimatur is no longer sufficient!! You do know that the imprimatur can be revoked by the Vatican if they find sufficient cause, right? Never mind, I have a feeling that facts are going to change your mind since you are quite settled on this (although I doubt that you've read a word of his work).

So, no Vatican statement of heresy and books containing imprimatur but you have continued on with this reckless talk. Good bye.; March 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Evidently you wish to follow Anthony de Mello notwithstanding the Vatican's warning that, according to your idol: "Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth."

Undoubtedly the Vatican's 1998 warning will be enough for most Catholics.

However, for those like you who prefer the anti-Christ, what will be sufficient? The formality of revoking an obviously bogus imprimatur?

Then let it be as you have asked. May the Vatican revoke it, without delay, if indeed it has not already done so.; March 3, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Are you serious?

With the number of Bishops in the world who are teaching heresy, if they revoked every impramatur of every heretic, they'd have time for nothing else.

With all of the heresies being fed to the poor lambs, the fact that the Vatican went out of their way to warn the sheep is remarkable.

The notification trumps any imprimatur a Jesuit (no surprise there) slapped on DeMello's rubbish.

Any rational person who is educated on their faith could see the spiritual guidance is the antithesis of Christ.

Some other poor misguided Jesuit on America has some dame with a serpent wrapped around her body and in the background some kind of a multi-legged two-headed animal/person with diadems with some of the strangest reflections I've ever read.

I feel so sorry for the people being brainwashed with this tripe.

You know, the Vatican hasn't said priests can't celebrate the Eucharist in his mother's pearls and high heels either but sane people know the omission isn't constructive permission. Something the Jesuits have had difficulties with for forty years.; March 3, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Young people (13-35) are very vulnerable and thus there should be no ambiguity where there need not be. It's ambiguous to have heretical books going around with imprimaturs, and it gives ammunition to people such as the one I've been contending with here. How would a 13-22 year old have fought off one of these guys shoving an imprimatur on his face at one the hundreds of Jesuit 'catholic' schools?; March 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM
Maria said...: There are certain Jesuits who would rather argue, about anything, than accept the direction of the CDF. Anything but submitting their intellect to the Pope. Anything, but obedience. Anything, but srengthening faithful hearts. Why? They will not humble their heart and mind before God. They have forgotten their lowly place in the order that God, not the Jesuits at America Magazine, created.; March 3, 2010 at 9:56 PM
Al;ex D'Mello said...: Religion is a personal thing. One can choose whether he wants to read FR Tony or Osho or anyone else for that matter. I like his way of thinking; September 17, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit

Sunday, February 28, 2010

No Objective Rules Of Morality

39 comments:

Search This Blog

Blogs By Jesuits

Ignatian Prayer

E- Essays By Jesuits

Jesuit Holy Places

The Jesuit E-Book Library

Jesuit Websites

35th General Congress of the Society of Jesus

Jesuit Saints

Hierarcy Of Truth

Jesuit Blesseds

Jesuit Heroism

Foundations of the Society

An Explanation of the Spiritual Exercises

The Sacred Heart of Jesus

The Divine Mercy

Audio Visual Prayer

Catholic Media

The Jesuit Provinces of North America

Blog Archive

About Me