tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post5596593026152033399..comments2024-01-16T19:31:28.762-05:00Comments on Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit: I Don’t Want To Establish Another BarrierJoseph Frommhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16759274486679530625noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-51782993395401793262012-11-01T06:25:11.399-04:002012-11-01T06:25:11.399-04:00Congrats GJBJ bloggers: All of the nuttiness scare...Congrats GJBJ bloggers: All of the nuttiness scared another reader away.Thompsonudpqhttp://johnrhuk.livejournal.com/759.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-73446398099863941662010-02-17T21:05:04.162-05:002010-02-17T21:05:04.162-05:00"Be forewarned--Maria will ALWAYS have the la..."Be forewarned--Maria will ALWAYS have the last word at whatever cost to logic or common decency".<br /><br />Hardon SJ on De Sales<br /><br />'You remember that passage in the Gospels where Christ tells us to learn from Him. How does that go? ‘Learn of me for I am meek or gentle and humble of heart.’ Meekness being gentleness. Those two virtues go together; they are inseparable. Humility and gentleness. Only humble people are gentle. Proud people are always, memorize the adverb, they are always harsh. Oh they may be sweet externally but there is a coldness, there’s a sharpness, there is a thoughtlessness about pride, for the best of reasons, because what is pride, except preoccupation with self? I notice what Frances does, he distinguishes these two virtues profoundly by saying that humility belongs to our relationship towards God and gentleness to our relationship with our neighbor. So the more genuinely humble I am before God, the more gentle I’ll be in dealing with others. And of all people, both in his own life, and in his teachings who could teach this it was he, Frances de Sales, who was masculine to the last hormone in his body, nothing effeminate about de Sales – strong, firm, constant. The only mistake that people can make is to suppose that gentleness means softness – just the opposite. Only strong people can be gentle because among my definitions of gentleness, it is power restrained by love. Some people seem to be gentle but they are sentimental. It takes a person who you know could crush you, I don’t mean physically, but say intellectually, who allows you to make mistakes and doesn’t laugh at your mistakes". <br /><br />I think I would do well to pray for more gentleness in my dealing with others. We all prepare for penance right now, don't we?Marianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-85111123388206898052010-02-17T20:07:30.066-05:002010-02-17T20:07:30.066-05:00"Okay, so it is--but you were confusing this ..."Okay, so it is--but you were confusing this with the papal notion of infallibility. Its use here is much more "meta"--it's about faith, salvation, and sacraments not specific issues.¨<br /><br />You can`t separate ´faith and salvation´from concrete specific issues. I don´t think Jesus did. <br /><br />I would add that papal infallibility is an instance of the Church´s infallibility, because it is divine.<br /><br />'''''''''''''''''''''''''''<br /><br />Calling someone nuts doesn´t prove anything except that the calling party wants to offend others. They called Jesus nuts too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-65333572725800477962010-02-17T19:59:02.394-05:002010-02-17T19:59:02.394-05:00736 By this power of the Spirit, God's childre...736 By this power of the Spirit, God's children can bear much fruit. He who has grafted us onto the true vine will make us bear "the fruit of the Spirit: . . . love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control."129 "We live by the Spirit"; the more we renounce ourselves, the more we "walk by the Spirit."130 <br /><br />Through the Holy Spirit we are restored to paradise, led back to the Kingdom of heaven, and adopted as children, given confidence to call God "Father" and to share in Christ's grace, called children of light and given a share in eternal glory.131Marianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-44996105542379592422010-02-17T19:24:54.436-05:002010-02-17T19:24:54.436-05:00Congrats GJBJ bloggers: All of the nuttiness scare...Congrats GJBJ bloggers: All of the nuttiness scared another reader away.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-50204767617898867512010-02-17T18:55:55.494-05:002010-02-17T18:55:55.494-05:00Dear Anon that restated my blog comment to turn it...Dear Anon that restated my blog comment to turn it around so as to make it say that theologians and philosophers should be more careful. I totally agree. But I doubt many philosophers and theologians are following the comments in this blog so I didn't bother to offer them advice.<br /><br />Dear Anon that said "When did saving souls take a back seat to 'your morale'?" I am lost as to how you arrived at that idea. I tried to offer Maria a gentle reminder that lumping all Jesuits together as being untrustable has certain unintended and unhelpful consequences. I would never suggest that as a Jesuit I am more concerned with morale (my own or that of other Jesuits) than the salvation of souls. That certainly doesn't follow from anything I have written or believe.<br /><br />I fear these comments have gotten so strange that I am better off spending time elsewhere.<br /><br />Please don't address any future comments to me here. I wont read them. You can always email me if there is some way I can help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-69910961992692450382010-02-17T17:49:06.251-05:002010-02-17T17:49:06.251-05:00"The Catholic church is divine, infallible an..."The Catholic church is divine, infallible and the one true faith."<br /><br />Okay, so it is--but you were confusing this with the papal notion of infallibility. Its use here is much more "meta"--it's about faith, salvation, and sacraments not specific issues. <br /><br />This is your initial claim: "These dissenters maintain that the Magisterium’s TEACHING ON CONTRACEPTION IS NOT INFALLIBLE, IS WRONG, and MUST BE REVERSED." <br /><br />You are incorrect to write that the contraception teaching is infallible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-78426907805019295372010-02-17T16:29:50.611-05:002010-02-17T16:29:50.611-05:00"....be very careful that you haven’t misunde..."....be very careful that you haven’t misunderstood the statement, as theologians and philosophers often speak in words that can be inaccessible to the masses. And then, when you are really sure you have it, try going first to Fr. G. and see if he can shed some light on the situation...."<br /><br />Now let's restate this:<br /><br />"....ALL JESUITS SHOULD be very careful that THEY haven’t misunderstood ...as theologians and philosophers often speak in words that can be inaccessible to the masses. And then, when THEY are really sure THEY have it, THEY MUST GO first to THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH TO INSURE ORTHODOXY."<br /><br />If they do not accept its authority, they shouldn't be in the Catholic church, let alone speak for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-83210770017243721682010-02-17T16:26:58.050-05:002010-02-17T16:26:58.050-05:00It doesn't do much for the morale of Jesuits w...It doesn't do much for the morale of Jesuits who agree with the Church's teaching when you write things like, "I am saying the the record on abortion and birth control in the Society does not lead this reader to "good faith." <br /><br />Is it the morale of the Jesuits, or the souls of its flock, about which the Society should be concerned...When did saving souls take a back seat to "your morale"?Marianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-60247854851139562442010-02-17T16:20:45.617-05:002010-02-17T16:20:45.617-05:00"But you Sneaky Pete! Are you trying to intro..."But you Sneaky Pete! Are you trying to introduce a kind of super-duper infallibility with your first sentence?" ________________________________<br /><br />No I am not. The Catholic church is divine, infallible and the one true faith. If you don't believe that you are not a Catholic.<br /><br />"That the Church is infallible in her definitions on faith and morals is itself a Catholic dogma, which, although it was formulated ecumenically for the first time in the Vatican Council, had been explicitly taught long before and had been assumed from the very beginning without question down to the time of the Protestant Reformation." <br /><br />Further: "...only in the episcopal body which has succeeded to the college of Apostles that infallible authority resides, and that it is possible for the authority to be effectively exercised by this body, dispersed throughout the world, but united in bonds of communion with Peter's successor, who is its visible head and centre."<br /><br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-10909340985866773932010-02-17T15:52:33.928-05:002010-02-17T15:52:33.928-05:00Again, I am more persuaded to enage in debate wit...Again, I am more persuaded to enage in debate with those who have the courage of their moral convictions by signing their name.Marianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-67755526794011062652010-02-17T15:38:58.843-05:002010-02-17T15:38:58.843-05:00Maria:
When someone presents a cut & paste se...Maria:<br /><br />When someone presents a cut & paste selection of a 200-page book and draws a fairly damning conclusion then, yes, that is not compelling.<br /><br />Curious about it, I signed the book out after your post and have started to read the book. Your take on it is inaccurate. What is his book about? What is his thesis?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-10630319908007134542010-02-17T15:28:53.148-05:002010-02-17T15:28:53.148-05:00Joesph:
Thank you for you response. I have post...Joesph:<br /><br />Thank you for you response. I have posted Fr. Genovesi's own words. Should we dismiss them as misreperesenting his own views? Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I should disbelive the printed word; however, that argument does not, on its face, make any logical sense.<br /><br />You state: "It doesn't do much for the morale of Jesuits who agree with the Church's teaching when you write things like, "I am saying the the record on abortion and birth control in the Society does not lead this reader to "good faith." I am certain that it must be a crucible for those Jesuits who subscribe, with a faithful heart, to the Desposit of the Faith. (For what it is worth, I literally pray for the Society on a daily basis). I do not know how old you are, Joseph, but I am of a generation who has been severely damaged by dissenting theologians, whose views have infiltrated the Church. Theologians who no loger believe in transubstantiation/transfinalization, who no longer believe that Christ instituted the scaraments, who no longer no believe Confession is necessary, who would have us all believe in a "gay sensitive Jesus", who would have our compassion for homosexuals supercede the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in moral importance. Until no one believes anything anymore. What was once deemed "sin" is now eveybody's "rights".Spend a couple of days at America Magazine and see what it does for your morale. Defend the Church and her teachings on homosexuality and you will be called an uncharitale bigot, a homophobe. When in the world did we need to need to use "priest" and "gay" in the same sentence? And yet,we are treated to articles on the same topic. This seem someone akin to "Catholic" "abortionists". Now we have conversataions about the *virtue* of homosexual priests who are celibate. Has everyone lost their minds??<br /><br />Look at any Jesuit university in this country and examine their positions on abortion and contraception and convince me that these universities are faithful.<br /><br />I know that there are good and holy Jesuits. Please do not misundertand me. Three generations in my famliy have been educated by the Jesuits. I would like to give you a very real example of the "damage" to which I earlier referred. I want to go tthrough the Spiritual Exercies. My Jesuit confessor, who has not been corrupted--he must be 75-- has recommned someone in the Society, in Maryland. I will not call this Jesuit becuase I am afraid that I cannot trust him. I fear for my soul. I do not know how to make my position any clearer than this.<br /><br />Peace,<br /><br />MariaMarianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-32001555865667911882010-02-17T14:47:21.548-05:002010-02-17T14:47:21.548-05:00Maria,
Benefit of the doubt is one thing. Restrain...Maria,<br />Benefit of the doubt is one thing. Restraint is another thing. I am asking for both - and so does our Church. You have done more homework on Fr. G. than I have, but I remain unconvinced that it is enough to be justified in posting accusations on blogs.<br /><br />Again, I think we are on the same team here. I just think it doesn't help much (and can cause much harm if incorrect) to claim what you claim on the internet for the world to google. Maybe I am wrong...<br /><br />I have never met Fr. G. nor read his works nor have I been to the university where he teaches... I am content to just let the article stand and be glad this blog keeps me up on what's out there concerning the order I belong to.<br /><br />Christ's Peace,<br />John Brown SJ<br /><br />P.S. It doesn't do much for the moral of Jesuits who agree with the Church's teaching when you write things like, "I am saying the the record on abortion and birth control in the Society does not lead lead this reader to 'good faith'."John Brown SJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-71431005916242763302010-02-17T14:42:16.339-05:002010-02-17T14:42:16.339-05:00I am more pesuaded to listen, with an open ear, to...I am more pesuaded to listen, with an open ear, to the thoughts of those who have the moral courage of signing their name. I am less inclined to enagage in debate with those who do not; however, I read what I entered.Marianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-29036769053344115622010-02-17T14:29:59.097-05:002010-02-17T14:29:59.097-05:00"Not only is BCP advocated, we are introduced..."Not only is BCP advocated, we are introduced to its meritorious and efficacious benefits."<br /><br />This is a serious misrepresentation of the book. Have you actually read it or just done a keyword search on Google?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-2355613854654051862010-02-17T14:19:24.698-05:002010-02-17T14:19:24.698-05:00I'm please that you concur with the fact that ...I'm please that you concur with the fact that there has been only one (or two?) times that the Pope has spoken ex cathedra.<br /><br />But you Sneaky Pete! Are you trying to introduce a kind of super-duper infallibility with your first sentence? Fun stuff to read. Creative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-88554289942902580652010-02-17T14:11:22.495-05:002010-02-17T14:11:22.495-05:00Joseph: The below excerpt is from "In the Pur...Joseph: The below excerpt is from "In the Pursuit of Love by Vincent Genovesi SJ<br /><br />RE: THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL--<br /><br />" ...Today there seems to be consensus that women who are young and generally healthy can use it with little risk. Recent studies indicates that the combination pill does not increase the risk of breast cancer, and seems, in fact to offer some protection against other forms of breast cancer and seems, in fact, to offer some protection against forms of cancer affecting ovaries and the enodmetrium…Sexually active women, however, in the interest of guarding against the pill’s abortifacient potential, should use, in addition, some form of barrier contraception while taking it”.<br /><br />I am not a moral theologian; however, sounds like Jesuit speak for BCP should use in conjunction with another form of birth control.Not only is BCP advocated, we are introduced to its meritorious and efficacious benefits.<br /><br />I am not a moral theologian; however, sounds like Jesuit speak for BCP should be used in conjunction with another form of birth control. <br /><br />You ask whether we should offer the benefit of the doubt. I think that this is a good question and I have given this some thought. Let us suppose for the purposes of arguments that a a group of men who belong to a "ring" of criminals have been repeatedly found guilty of robbery. The majority of them have been tried and found guilty. The majority have been to prison, have been on parole and probation, have been affored all manner of rehabilitation, have been provided placement in halfway houses, have been provided education and training, over many, many decades. Now let us suppose that, one of their band, has been arrested for robbery, yet, again. The evidence is is not air tight. Does the reasonable man affod him the benefit of the doubt? He does not. Why? He has lost the good will of the courts. The robber has lost his claim to moral standing in the community by virtue of his past behavior. It is no longer "reasonable" to assume that the evidence tells us that he is not guilty. We know his record.<br /><br />While I am, quite obviously, not likening Jesuits to criminals, I am saying the the record on abortion and birth control in the Society does not lead lead this reader to "good faith".<br /><br />Thank you Joesph for entering into this conversation. I appreciate all of your commentary.<br /><br />Peace, MariaMarianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-19304110061625393242010-02-17T14:11:20.846-05:002010-02-17T14:11:20.846-05:00Joseph: The below excerpt is from "In the Pur...Joseph: The below excerpt is from "In the Pursuit of Love by Vincent Genovesi SJ<br /><br />RE: THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL--<br /><br />" ...Today there seems to be consensus that women who are young and generally healthy can use it with little risk. Recent studies indicates that the combination pill does not increase the risk of breast cancer, and seems, in fact to offer some protection against other forms of breast cancer and seems, in fact, to offer some protection against forms of cancer affecting ovaries and the enodmetrium…Sexually active women, however, in the interest of guarding against the pill’s abortifacient potential, should use, in addition, some form of barrier contraception while taking it”.<br /><br />I am not a moral theologian; however, sounds like Jesuit speak for BCP should use in conjunction with another form of birth control.Not only is BCP advocated, we are introduced to its meritorious and efficacious benefits.<br /><br />I am not a moral theologian; however, sounds like Jesuit speak for BCP should be used in conjunction with another form of birth control. <br /><br />You ask whether we should offer the benefit of the doubt. I think that this is a good question and I have given this some thought. Let us suppose for the purposes of arguments that a a group of men who belong to a "ring" of criminals have been repeatedly found guilty of robbery. The majority of them have been tried and found guilty. The majority have been to prison, have been on parole and probation, have been affored all manner of rehabilitation, have been provided placement in halfway houses, have been provided education and training, over many, many decades. Now let us suppose that, one of their band, has been arrested for robbery, yet, again. The evidence is is not air tight. Does the reasonable man affod him the benefit of the doubt? He does not. Why? He has lost the good will of the courts. The robber has lost his claim to moral standing in the community by virtue of his past behavior. It is no longer "reasonable" to assume that the evidence tells us that he is not guilty. We know his record.<br /><br />While I am, quite obviously, not likening Jesuits to criminals, I am saying the the record on abortion and birth control in the Society does not lead lead this reader to "good faith".<br /><br />Thank you Joesph for entering into this conversation. I appreciate all of your commentary.<br /><br />Peace, MariaMarianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-61371153382427847502010-02-17T13:56:26.139-05:002010-02-17T13:56:26.139-05:00The Catholic Church itself is infallible.
That sa...The Catholic Church itself is infallible.<br /><br />That said, there have been 2 ex Cathedra infallible definitions, not 1: the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary.<br />___________________________________<br />From the Catholic Encyclopedia:<br /><br />"What teaching is infallible?<br /><br />"As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching...<br /><br />"...But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible)..."<br /><br />Source: The Catholic Encyclopedia<br />http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-19550999337778307572010-02-17T13:06:58.693-05:002010-02-17T13:06:58.693-05:00I don't know why others sign as " Anonymo...I don't know why others sign as " Anonymous" but I do for one reason: some time ago I put in a post at a conservative website and I received a bizarre, unsolicited e-mail.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-934293158074405222010-02-17T11:53:15.237-05:002010-02-17T11:53:15.237-05:00Anonymous:
Hurling insults from the obscurity of ...Anonymous:<br /><br />Hurling insults from the obscurity of anonymity seems no more than cowardice, at best. We win no friends for Christ, in this way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-24379095744964189202010-02-17T11:52:35.933-05:002010-02-17T11:52:35.933-05:00Maria, Anon etc…
I think there is still a little ...Maria, Anon etc…<br /><br />I think there is still a little restraint that should be exercised here. Theologians and philosophers argue all of the time about obscure theological and philosophical points. They argue about these things in obscure (for the average person, at least) philosophical and theological journals. Not that the infallibility of some teaching is meaningless, but that the points they argue are rarely ones in view of the average person. So they argue and then often turn around and teach and preach solid stuff in their classrooms.<br /><br />The link the blog provided (Monk’s Habit) didn’t seem to have any quotes by Father G from where he might have taught against the infallibility of the Church’s teaching on any particular sexual ethics issue. The link did have some foot notes that I have not looked in to. It may be a safe bet to assume Monk’s Habit isn’t trying to mislead anyone. However that is NOT the same thing as saying “We have a Jesuit at the helm leading others into sin by way of scandal.”<br /><br />When you have a quote from Fr. G actually teaching in the classroom that some infallible Church teaching is wrong, then your criticisms may be merited. Even then, be very careful that you haven’t misunderstood the statement, as theologians and philosophers often speak in words that can be inaccessible to the masses. And then, when you are really sure you have it, try going first to Fr. G. and see if he can shed some light on the situation.<br />I’m not being an ostrich with his head in the sand here and imagining that every professor in a Catholic university is doing a good job. I’m just trying to follow the Catechism’s paragraph 2478.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-76972746394233227962010-02-17T11:22:38.994-05:002010-02-17T11:22:38.994-05:00Dear Maria:
Another one of your "rushes to j...Dear Maria:<br /><br />Another one of your "rushes to judgement." Mr. Brown S.J.'s suggestion seems perfectly reasonable and would avoid all this huffing & puffing.<br /><br />BTW, you do not have the accurate understanding of infallibility. It has been declared exactly one time,i.e, in 1950 when P.P. XII defined the Assumption of Mary.<br /><br />AS our Vice President says, "You are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-44918019052750220.post-30440422269498915252010-02-17T11:10:13.647-05:002010-02-17T11:10:13.647-05:00"Padre: I think you missed this. He not only ..."Padre: I think you missed this. He not only denies church doctrine on contraception but assumes the TEACHING ON CONTRACEPTION IS NOT INFALLIBLE, IS WRONG, and MUST BE REVERSED.<br /><br />I think our Lord would be so much happier if we did not have to "check" to see if a Jesuit believed in the Doctrine of the Faith, don't you?"<br />_________________________________<br />MARIA: Thank you for pointing out that Fr. Genovesi opposes the Magisterium on contraception. I had given him the benefit of the doubt. The obvious question now is why is he teaching a course on sex (or anything) in name of the Church? <br /><br />They could not answer you. Your logic is fine. Thank you.<br /><br />Anonymous too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com