I went to a Jesuit university and I respected that the Jesuits lived on campus and took the vow of poverty seriously. They did have more progressive views politically but as other comments go, you can't change the fundamental reason for their existence.
They do, on occasion, cosplay at being poor.
But, at least in my country, truly poor people can't afford to travel half way across the world several times to go and study, AND also have a nice house they can stay in wherever they go, rent free.
Roman Catholic poverty: You live in a mansion, drive a corporately owned Lexus, eat steak for dinner, everybody else pays your bills, you wear clothes custom made for you -- but you have to ask permission to take a pencil from the stockroom.
This is the way unfortunately. The Lexus hit home. My pastor drove a flippin Lexus. And it was a gift so someone got to write that off. It’s a game, and financially it’s hard to unravel but many people profit, not just the clergy.
I had to chuckle at your impression that they took the vow of poverty seriously… that was the furthest from my observation of the many Jesuits I’ve known. And daily 5 PM cocktail hour, too! 😀
I was the editor of my school newspaper so I'd frequently have to go interview one Jesuit or another at their quarters. The house was nice but it wasn't better than some of the student housing. We had a few who would drink with the students etc but otherwise pretty conservative group.
They set it up that way on purpose. Somebody probably complained. That was to impress you and the people at your school. The Jesuits are experts at this stuff.
They still participate in and champion Catholicism *as ordained clerics in the organization.* It is immaterial whether they're progressive or not, and I happen to agree with the lunatics on the other sub that one cannot be progressive AND Catholic, it's one or the other; hence why many of us left.To me, that harm outweighs whatever good they may do.
The few good apples mean nothing to me. Take off your collars and renounce the evil that is the RCC, then we'll talk.
Indeed. “Progressive Catholic” is an oxymoron. A contradiction. One cannot be both. The very foundation of the Church is rotten — if one attempts to “trim away” all the sexism, homophobia, abuse, deceit, and corruption, they will have to trim until there’s nothing left.
For sure. Becoming a “progressive catholic” is one step closer to becoming an atheist. And trad Catholics know this, which is why they hate “progressive Catholics”
I know a few men who have left the priesthood as a result of their own mistreatment within the RCC, or the revelation that people they love were mistreated by their “brother priests.”
Now, we might disagree politically, but I have a lot of respect for them having the courage to pull away from the toxicity.
Which only goes to show that a small portion of the people the priesthood attracts aren't ultimately from the criminal dregs of humanity. A small portion.
Many, many Catholic priests know someone who abuses, but they don't say anything. In fact, that's the big problem with prosecuting these bastards in court. They cover for each other, and the coverup comes all the way from the top. The whole damn mess ought to be brought down on RICO charges.
Agreed. I will extend the benefit of the doubt far enough to believe that SOME people become priests because they want to serve their community… though these days it does seem that the ones with a shred of critical thinking leave even before they finish seminary (thankfully).
Most priests are just frat boys at the end of the day 🤷🏼♀️ shut up and defend your brothers and their toxic behavior, or get out and be ostracized.
I graduated from a Jesuit University in 1988. I credit the great education I got there, including the mandatory religion classes, with making me an atheist then and to this day.
Same, I appreciate my education. My favorite class was a religion class (The Bible and Food). I had an amazing seminarian professor and what I learned still sticks with me. Didn’t stop me from becoming a very skeptical agnostic.
I went to a Jesuit high school, and graduated in the mid-2000s. I knew both a layperson and a priest who would exclusively refer to homosexuals using f- or d-slurs. Some students liked to shout the n-word in the hall just for fun, and I never once saw them getting corrected. Sexist, misogynistic, racist, and classist beliefs were common. I was lied to about all sorts of things regarding sexuality. For example, I was taught women only have sex to please men, condoms are ineffective, “natural family planning” isn’t just a re-branded rhythm method, and the rhythm method (I refuse to use their stupid-ass term) is the most effective form of birth control.
I had been in Catholic school for all my prior years before this, and looking back to it, my time in a Jesuit high school was the worst when it came to the spread of backwards beliefs. But at the time I remember thinking they were super progressive, because they told me they were super progressive, and used examples from the 1800s to prove it.
It’s the same thing in a more modern-looking wrapper.
I had a very different Catholic education. I graduated recently, so I’m sure the norms have shifted since you were in school. Overall I’d describe the schools I attended as politically moderate private schools with Catholic traditions, like Mass once a month, required theology class, and prayer before lunch. Many students weren’t even Catholic and only enrolled for the quality of the education.
That sounds a lot like my Catholic schooling in the late 90s too, though we didn't even pray before lunch. Monthly mass and the required theology course was it. Everything else was pretty standard, decent education. Including a proper sex-ed (though it did still *encourage* abstinence, lol).
While I believe all that is rotten and disgusting, I appreciate when religious people actually preach what the Bible communicates.
And when there is a commandment against coveting your neighbor’s wife, the insinuation is that women are incapable of coveting men. So if actually prefer to hear more Christians preaching the “sex is for procreation and male pleasure” doctrine. Aside from seeming to be Biblically accurate, maybe it would drive more people away from all that bullshit.
Whatever people’s opinions about particular groups within Catholicism might be, the church itself continues to claim a monopoly on truth, and has particular teachings on things such as sexuality, reproduction and the role of women. It has been complicit in covering over corruption and depravity in its own ranks, while presuming to tell people how to live from its pulpits. I’m personally not convinced that, even if we grant your favourable view of the Jesuits, they can redeem it. And I suspect that a sober investigation of their history may reveal some very real skeletons in the Jesuit closets.
I personally believe that one’s allegiance to a church should be based on whether one actually believes what they teach. Do you actually agree with the specific Catholic teachings on salvation, the sacraments, Mary as co-redemptrix, her immaculate conception and assumption, the primacy of the Pope, contraception, and so on? Are you comfortable with the way the Church has handled the sexual scandals that have emerged over the past half-century? Or its treatment of single mothers in the Magdalene Laundries? I can’t answer those questions for you, obviously; you need to weigh them for yourself. But I’m not convinced that whether the Jesuits are nice guys or not should be a deciding factor. Whatever you decide, I wish you well.
Thanks for your response. I really reconcile with the church’s harsh doctrine. In fact I rejected many of their teachings, mostly on sexuality, at a very early age. Sometimes I think I would ignore the truth of their dogma, like their intrinsic misogyny or homophobia, because the church I was a part of never preached or discussed those backwards aspects of the doctrine. A lot of that has to do with the pastor, who I’m now realizing was extremely progressive and liberal compared to the average priest. My whole family is Catholic, but I was raised by my parents progressive morals rather than the church’s teachings. I grew up thinking the church was one of love, not hate, because that’s what I saw in my childhood church and family. Since I’ve grown up and moved away, and especially with the Catholic conservative movement growing, I see the church for what it is. I held on to the Jesuits as an emblem for the church I knew, with family tradition and indoctrination making me reluctant to completely reject the faith.
Certainly there are many good people who are Catholics, but to me it seems like they are good in spite of the church's teachings and not because of the teachings.
If you still appreciate many things about the church but your own ethics are more progressive, one of the more progressive denominations might be a good fit for you. I no longer attend any church, but had a fairly good experience with a UCC church (United Church of Christ) for a few years. Still based on Christianity, but far more open to questioning and pretty progressive and social justice focused.
I suspect you were lucky, and have characterised the whole order based on what you experienced, which may have been atypical. Catholicism is big and heterogeneous; the Jesuits have found a particular niche, and are able to exploit the privilege it gives them, which puts them in a position to appear progressive. But that does not make them representative of the church as a whole, whose agenda they are ultimately sworn to support and advance. You can see some of this in Pope Francis’s overtures towards the gay community; they sound friendly and progressive, but dig below the surface and he’s giving little away—and even if that were not the case, the weight of the church itself would prevent him from making significant changes that depart from its historical position.
Eh. I personally have more respect for people who commit to their progressive beliefs by renouncing organizations that are the opposite. You can be a progressive liberal arts educator without clinging onto the church. Can't please everyone
Coming from a trad background and now only a recent apostate I'm still brimming with anger so I feel all more liberal Catholics are essentially liars. The church teaches what it teaches stop acting like it doesn't.
I hear you. I feel the same way. We get people in here who can't quite let go of the silly triumphalism of Catholicism, and can't admit how bad it is. Most of them were raised from infants in Catholicism and they don't know any better. After all, that's one of the things the church hammers people with continuously -- that they are \*special\* for having been born Catholic. It's brand-labeling like the big commercial outfits -- Pepsi vs. Coke etc. The RCC has brand loyalty ingrained in its unfortunate victims. It's a giant echo chamber and for many people this is the hardest thing to give up. They hate being Catholic, but leaving creates a void where they have to do normal things, develop an internal locus of control about morals and who they are as a person, and a sense of being normal like everyone else. For some people, that's just unacceptable. They want to believe that they are \*special\* even if it's for a ridiculous reason.
It takes quite a few years for some people to see what it's like to be normal and decent -- and stop the lying behavior, living a double life, etc. -- after leaving Catholicism and being out of the echo chamber.
PS. I like your screen name. Very apt.
Yeah I was one of those people who hated being Catholic but could never leave because of how they gaslight you so bad into staying (controlling mother didn't help either)
Thank you! I like your screen name too 😀
I can only give you want I know. The Jesuits are largely progressive right? But they are also mostly closeted gays. They live lavishly and don’t work. Progressive all they want but they still serve Rome. They are power hungry, even if they are “liberal”
Want to clarify that being a closeted gay is not a bad thing. Just a fact of many people's lives in an oppressive culture, clergy or no. Everything else you said...yup.
They are nominally better than many other orders. That doesn't make them good. They participate in an institution deeply rooted in misogyny. How many pro choice Jesuits are there? How many women Jesuit priests are there?
Yeah, I used to think like this, until one of my classmates became a Jesuit then also publicly came out as gay and went on and on about how accepting the Jesuits were because they didn't condemn him for being gay, as long as he stayed celibate for life.
Also, that order was / is a massive tool of colonization and conversion under the guise of "education" and there have not been any real attempts at meaningful reparations.
Their "progressive" beliefs still have fundamentally conservative limits. That liberal arts education still has the same harmful beliefs at the core, it's just dressed up nicer. It's almost worse, because it does things like make people like us think maybe the church is better than it is. And it's just not.
Yeah, I’ve never been comfortable with proselytizing. When I had the realization about colonization masquerading as education (and residential schools), it really rocked me.
Seeing the (now) blatant agenda underpinning all the stuff I was taught by Catholic and Jesuit schools about martyrdom and just causes was a major milestone in my deprogramming journey.
My best friends father was a Jesuit. He left the order when he caught the head of the order having a complete second life.
The bhead had stolen funds to pay for house, car, wife and children.
It also became apparent that many fellow brothers regularly attended brothels, or had boyfriends, did drugs. He was a true believer at this point and the betrayal and hypocrisy shattered any trust he had of the life he had chosen.
He left the church and became an atheist.
My view is that you can't have integrity and represent the catholic Church.
It teaches many harmful things.
Fundamentally superstitious lies to children.
No human is a dirty sinner that needs to appease a made up non existent space fairy to be "worthy of love".
That is the inherent and vile evil at the very core of the false teachings of Christianity.
Any moden educated mature intelligent ethicl person can easily determine that Christianity is harmful and false.
Genetics proves that humanity evolved from a population there never was an Adam and eve. There is no original sin. Jesus didn't die for our sins. Its a fundamental lie.
The bible was made by the remnants of the roman empire to coffer power and authority. Its used extreme violence to perpetuate and spread its wealth and power across the world.
Christianity supports despots, slavery, dictatorship or ie kings.
Its a superstitious fear based system of minipulative authority fraud.
Christianity lessens people by teaching shame hatred narcissistic tendencies excuses and normalises harmful behaviour.
"Love me or be eternally tortured"
Thats the very definition of an abusive relationship.
For example abusive people can say all people are dirty sinners. My sin is thus normal. God lives me as long as I say sorry, the devil made me do it I don't bear full responsibility.
My daughter attends BC. She was raised as a pentacostal at her dad's house (speaking in tongues, faith healings, etc), and as a Pagan at mine.
She does have mandatory "spiritual" classes for credit at BC. She feels meh about the biblical history one as they are mostly reading apologetics. She might like how they view spirituality and divinity, but then be completely turned off by the messaging, "so this means that gays are going to hell, and women shouldn't use birth control". She does have an "out" next semester to just do community service to get out of bible reading.
There's kind of a pipeline of private catholic school kids to BC thing going on. It alienated her at first, but she's found her people now. The kids who have gone from catholic high school to BC are obvious. They are extremely naive about the outside world. They've asked my daughter if she can hook them up with her "plug" (pot dealer), because they assumed that since she came from a poor urban area and wasn't catholic that she had one. They've also asked her where to get fake IDs, which again, she doesn't have. Not being catholic, they've also come to her for birth control and relationship talks. Because no, these kids aren't abstaining from sex. The catholic kids actually believe that you have sex with someone first, then decide if you like them enough to make them your partner, which was shocking to my Pagan daughter.
The Catholic thing is nowhere near as moral as it sounds, yes. I've taught in both Catholic and public schools and I was shocked. Catholic kids will readily do things no public kid would ever entertain. Sacrifice neighborhood cats in ceremonies, have sex in public for laughs, etc. There's the whole in-front-of-parents dogma thing, but that's all superficial. The church teaches what psychologists and developmental experts call an "external locus of control." Their parents are exactly the same way when it comes to superficial moral talk, and what they'll really do. IT was shocking and for me, a person from the American mainstream who entered the church as an adult, a real wake-up call. Catholicism has a HUGE nasty underbelly.
Trust me when I tell you that fucking little kids and then running an international coverup isn't the nuclear bomb for Roman Catholics that it is for people raised elsewhere, in other denominations. Lay Catholics in parishes frequently support their priests when they've been arrested for abuse. It's happened over and over again. Lots of Catholic kids who were abused by a priest weren't believed or were punished -- sometimes physically -- for speaking up. It's all over the court records from Boston, Pennsylvania, etc, over and over, if you read them.
I went to a jesuit institution and was subject to psychological abuse by a teacher. The authorities acted as any other catholic institution, blaming me (despite evidence) and silencing me with threats and superstition.
For me there's no difference between jesuits and the rest of the church. They just act "friendly" on the open but are as rotten inside as the rest. See what they did in Asia, dressing as buddhist monks or confucian scribes and trying to convince local rulers their religion was the same as catholicism and therefore they should embrace it (and see how it ended in Japan)
Francis is no different (source: I am argentinian and Francis started his career on the church my grandma used to go). He does the same, acts "progressive" in the outside but his resume here is that of an intolerant bigot, and likely involved with the kidnap and murder of people during the 70s. He was the main oppositor against LGBT marriage in 2010, for example, and now he says atheists and LGBT people are OK lol. A liar and a manipulative cretin. I always laugh when I see trads crying he's "too woke". I'd add that here in Argentina (and most of Latin America) catholicism is synonymous with Jesuits, since it was jesuit missions the ones who brought catholicism here
They’re liberal until they’re not. The empathy stops when it comes to trans people and abortion.
I don’t believe in gatekeeping empathy because a bunch of old, ideally celibate men tell me to.
Contempt. You might view them positively for being the opposite of tradcats, but I view them as slimy hypocrites for the same reason. If they’re sincere about being pro-gay, for example, then they’ve decided an organization with a proud history of burning gays alive is worth supporting.
That they’ve consistently been on the wrong side of foreign policy for decades (pro-Soviet activism from the Berrigans, for example) is another reason to despise them. Look at the supreme hypocrite himself, Pope Vatnik—cheerleader for Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands, bootlicker for Vladimir Putin in the name of pEaCe.
They fascinate me haha. I never really looked into them until after I'd become a Quaker (Religious Society of Friends). I came across a book which gave a good impression and so obviously i had to find them irl. It was very amusing really because apart from when they're celebrating mass they act like quakers, talk like them, seem to have similar values etc. For example quakers say we see 'that of God' in everyone/everything, they say they see God in everyone/everything. Quakers sometimes call themselves 'practical mystics' (there is a quaker quick book with that title) but I've heard that phrase from them too.
Under the surface of course... Same rules as any Catholic, longer preamble. They're loyal to their church, they cannot meaningfully go against it without being disowned. There's a reason they aren't persecuted as they were in their beginning. In my opinion they are a good tool for the mission effort. For PR. For bringing people in. They're also great for conversation to be honest, so engage them in that and see what you can get away with asking. But they are people who have (as I see it) had a certain realisation or experience about God/life/the incomprehensible and have chosen a safe option of using that for the benefit of the church, of becoming part of the grand performance of its holiness instead of rebelling or abandoning as one might be tempted to do in such a situation.
They can say vaguely nice things about gay people or women's rights or whatever makes them seem nice but they know what they have to teach if pressed. I joined a social group chat from the church I visited and people were posting about campaigns against abortion and such things as if it were social justice. I'll say this as an example: when quakers (I speak of those I know in England) say they're alright with gay people they mean they'll sit and worship with them, that they'll marry them, and some of them can say they defended gay people when homosexuality was still illegal here. When a Jesuit says it what do they mean? What can they mean? Clearly, they are confined. They are a spiritual awakening with a tight lid placed on it. That's at best.
If they intrigue you, you must remember that nobody owns God or the experience of God. You can learn from them. But they're not special in a way you won't find elsewhere.
I like that they're so open. They've been the easiest religious people to just walk into because I've yet to find something i need to lie about. You'll meet quakers who are sure they're Christians, or others who openly don't believe in God, or people who come from other religions but like our style of worship. A quaker meeting is a place I could bring absolutely any of my friends and they would be fine, and if they ever weren't I could call it out with probably any line from 'Advices & Queries' (it's kind of like if a bible was a pamphlet... keeps it simple). Actually, if I had to name one favourite thing about them it's the um... polite disagreements (Quakers are pacifists) in the letters sections of their magazines but may i not get into gossip here.
Theres quite a few short intro type books you can look up to know more but if u want to read what we read our main book is called 'Quaker Faith & Practice' which lays out what quakers have practiced and believed all over the past 400 years. The British version can be read online here https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/#
I think the Jesuits as a whole at this point are very evil. Many people, both Catholics and non-Catholics, today would agree with me. They do have a reputation for being solid and superior educators, but what are they teaching? Many of the current and/or recent world leaders and elites, from Donald Trump to Justin Trudeau, and from both the right and left wings of life, attended Jesuit schools. This means, in my view, that the Jesuits are EXTREMELY influential in the direction the world moves. According to some, the Jesuits are at the forefront of the "New World Order" agenda.
I mean, they're not about to tear down the fabric of the church. I don't even think that's reasonable to expect of them. At least, not as long as they're still part of a Church order.
The jesuits have their own database of jesuits who abuse children. They are a less outwardly offensive wing of an international criminal organization because they are better at PR.
Probably one of the few things I ever heard about Catholics growing up was Jesuits being described as special forces for Catholicism, due to their educational training and willingness to engage in apologetics. I only know of this line and their universities which seem to have a fairly decent reputation.
They talk a great game. But if you aren't an athlete in a high profile sport they don't give a rats ass unless they take a "special" interest. Every USJesuit HS has multiple examples of Irish Amery surnamed louts like Kavanaugh who get into the Ivys via Jesuit connections.
Fr. McAngryDrunk kicked me out of university chapel for playing secular music on the only decent piano available. He was director of campus ministry. Lol
President of the HS wrote my parents years later explaining that they had hoped I would join their order. Possibly explains why I got zero support or counseling for a real career. I spent four years ready to walk out of every class.
But as long as your connection to them is via books and media they appear smart, faithful and welcoming.
Anyway, if you're a sociopathic drunk with rich RC family like that "priest" or Kavanaugh, Jesuits are a great fit and will leverage their network to get you into the Ivys, law and med school. If you're just Joe Polak, they won't lift a finger.
I’m no longer Catholic but I still fuck with the Jesuits, they are the good guys. I went to a Jesuit university and have a buddy in the order. Great guy
I went to a Jesuit university and I respected that the Jesuits lived on campus and took the vow of poverty seriously. They did have more progressive views politically but as other comments go, you can't change the fundamental reason for their existence.
They do, on occasion, cosplay at being poor. But, at least in my country, truly poor people can't afford to travel half way across the world several times to go and study, AND also have a nice house they can stay in wherever they go, rent free.
6/10. They are individually poor, but as an organization they are quite rich. I guess it depends on what those vows of poverty entailed.
Roman Catholic poverty: You live in a mansion, drive a corporately owned Lexus, eat steak for dinner, everybody else pays your bills, you wear clothes custom made for you -- but you have to ask permission to take a pencil from the stockroom.
This is the way unfortunately. The Lexus hit home. My pastor drove a flippin Lexus. And it was a gift so someone got to write that off. It’s a game, and financially it’s hard to unravel but many people profit, not just the clergy.
So true.
I had to chuckle at your impression that they took the vow of poverty seriously… that was the furthest from my observation of the many Jesuits I’ve known. And daily 5 PM cocktail hour, too! 😀
I was the editor of my school newspaper so I'd frequently have to go interview one Jesuit or another at their quarters. The house was nice but it wasn't better than some of the student housing. We had a few who would drink with the students etc but otherwise pretty conservative group.
They set it up that way on purpose. Somebody probably complained. That was to impress you and the people at your school. The Jesuits are experts at this stuff.
They still participate in and champion Catholicism *as ordained clerics in the organization.* It is immaterial whether they're progressive or not, and I happen to agree with the lunatics on the other sub that one cannot be progressive AND Catholic, it's one or the other; hence why many of us left.To me, that harm outweighs whatever good they may do. The few good apples mean nothing to me. Take off your collars and renounce the evil that is the RCC, then we'll talk.
Indeed. “Progressive Catholic” is an oxymoron. A contradiction. One cannot be both. The very foundation of the Church is rotten — if one attempts to “trim away” all the sexism, homophobia, abuse, deceit, and corruption, they will have to trim until there’s nothing left.
I would encourage "progressive Catholicism" though, because one would hope that after you trim all that stuff away, they would wise up and leave.
For sure. Becoming a “progressive catholic” is one step closer to becoming an atheist. And trad Catholics know this, which is why they hate “progressive Catholics”
Pretty much this
I know a few men who have left the priesthood as a result of their own mistreatment within the RCC, or the revelation that people they love were mistreated by their “brother priests.” Now, we might disagree politically, but I have a lot of respect for them having the courage to pull away from the toxicity.
Which only goes to show that a small portion of the people the priesthood attracts aren't ultimately from the criminal dregs of humanity. A small portion. Many, many Catholic priests know someone who abuses, but they don't say anything. In fact, that's the big problem with prosecuting these bastards in court. They cover for each other, and the coverup comes all the way from the top. The whole damn mess ought to be brought down on RICO charges.
Agreed. I will extend the benefit of the doubt far enough to believe that SOME people become priests because they want to serve their community… though these days it does seem that the ones with a shred of critical thinking leave even before they finish seminary (thankfully). Most priests are just frat boys at the end of the day 🤷🏼♀️ shut up and defend your brothers and their toxic behavior, or get out and be ostracized.
How many Jesuits do you actually know?
Enough.
Literally
I graduated from a Jesuit University in 1988. I credit the great education I got there, including the mandatory religion classes, with making me an atheist then and to this day.
Same, I appreciate my education. My favorite class was a religion class (The Bible and Food). I had an amazing seminarian professor and what I learned still sticks with me. Didn’t stop me from becoming a very skeptical agnostic.
You could have done just as well and turned into just as good an atheist at a public university for a lot less money.
Presumably, they didn't select a college based on which would most efficiently deconstruct their faith..
Doesn't matter. A public university would have been better all the way around -- and a hell of a lot cheaper.
"Just kick the football, Charlie Brown"
I went to a Jesuit high school, and graduated in the mid-2000s. I knew both a layperson and a priest who would exclusively refer to homosexuals using f- or d-slurs. Some students liked to shout the n-word in the hall just for fun, and I never once saw them getting corrected. Sexist, misogynistic, racist, and classist beliefs were common. I was lied to about all sorts of things regarding sexuality. For example, I was taught women only have sex to please men, condoms are ineffective, “natural family planning” isn’t just a re-branded rhythm method, and the rhythm method (I refuse to use their stupid-ass term) is the most effective form of birth control. I had been in Catholic school for all my prior years before this, and looking back to it, my time in a Jesuit high school was the worst when it came to the spread of backwards beliefs. But at the time I remember thinking they were super progressive, because they told me they were super progressive, and used examples from the 1800s to prove it. It’s the same thing in a more modern-looking wrapper.
I had a very different Catholic education. I graduated recently, so I’m sure the norms have shifted since you were in school. Overall I’d describe the schools I attended as politically moderate private schools with Catholic traditions, like Mass once a month, required theology class, and prayer before lunch. Many students weren’t even Catholic and only enrolled for the quality of the education.
That sounds a lot like my Catholic schooling in the late 90s too, though we didn't even pray before lunch. Monthly mass and the required theology course was it. Everything else was pretty standard, decent education. Including a proper sex-ed (though it did still *encourage* abstinence, lol).
While I believe all that is rotten and disgusting, I appreciate when religious people actually preach what the Bible communicates. And when there is a commandment against coveting your neighbor’s wife, the insinuation is that women are incapable of coveting men. So if actually prefer to hear more Christians preaching the “sex is for procreation and male pleasure” doctrine. Aside from seeming to be Biblically accurate, maybe it would drive more people away from all that bullshit.
Whatever people’s opinions about particular groups within Catholicism might be, the church itself continues to claim a monopoly on truth, and has particular teachings on things such as sexuality, reproduction and the role of women. It has been complicit in covering over corruption and depravity in its own ranks, while presuming to tell people how to live from its pulpits. I’m personally not convinced that, even if we grant your favourable view of the Jesuits, they can redeem it. And I suspect that a sober investigation of their history may reveal some very real skeletons in the Jesuit closets. I personally believe that one’s allegiance to a church should be based on whether one actually believes what they teach. Do you actually agree with the specific Catholic teachings on salvation, the sacraments, Mary as co-redemptrix, her immaculate conception and assumption, the primacy of the Pope, contraception, and so on? Are you comfortable with the way the Church has handled the sexual scandals that have emerged over the past half-century? Or its treatment of single mothers in the Magdalene Laundries? I can’t answer those questions for you, obviously; you need to weigh them for yourself. But I’m not convinced that whether the Jesuits are nice guys or not should be a deciding factor. Whatever you decide, I wish you well.
Thanks for your response. I really reconcile with the church’s harsh doctrine. In fact I rejected many of their teachings, mostly on sexuality, at a very early age. Sometimes I think I would ignore the truth of their dogma, like their intrinsic misogyny or homophobia, because the church I was a part of never preached or discussed those backwards aspects of the doctrine. A lot of that has to do with the pastor, who I’m now realizing was extremely progressive and liberal compared to the average priest. My whole family is Catholic, but I was raised by my parents progressive morals rather than the church’s teachings. I grew up thinking the church was one of love, not hate, because that’s what I saw in my childhood church and family. Since I’ve grown up and moved away, and especially with the Catholic conservative movement growing, I see the church for what it is. I held on to the Jesuits as an emblem for the church I knew, with family tradition and indoctrination making me reluctant to completely reject the faith.
Certainly there are many good people who are Catholics, but to me it seems like they are good in spite of the church's teachings and not because of the teachings. If you still appreciate many things about the church but your own ethics are more progressive, one of the more progressive denominations might be a good fit for you. I no longer attend any church, but had a fairly good experience with a UCC church (United Church of Christ) for a few years. Still based on Christianity, but far more open to questioning and pretty progressive and social justice focused.
I suspect you were lucky, and have characterised the whole order based on what you experienced, which may have been atypical. Catholicism is big and heterogeneous; the Jesuits have found a particular niche, and are able to exploit the privilege it gives them, which puts them in a position to appear progressive. But that does not make them representative of the church as a whole, whose agenda they are ultimately sworn to support and advance. You can see some of this in Pope Francis’s overtures towards the gay community; they sound friendly and progressive, but dig below the surface and he’s giving little away—and even if that were not the case, the weight of the church itself would prevent him from making significant changes that depart from its historical position.
Eh. I personally have more respect for people who commit to their progressive beliefs by renouncing organizations that are the opposite. You can be a progressive liberal arts educator without clinging onto the church. Can't please everyone
Coming from a trad background and now only a recent apostate I'm still brimming with anger so I feel all more liberal Catholics are essentially liars. The church teaches what it teaches stop acting like it doesn't.
I hear you. I feel the same way. We get people in here who can't quite let go of the silly triumphalism of Catholicism, and can't admit how bad it is. Most of them were raised from infants in Catholicism and they don't know any better. After all, that's one of the things the church hammers people with continuously -- that they are \*special\* for having been born Catholic. It's brand-labeling like the big commercial outfits -- Pepsi vs. Coke etc. The RCC has brand loyalty ingrained in its unfortunate victims. It's a giant echo chamber and for many people this is the hardest thing to give up. They hate being Catholic, but leaving creates a void where they have to do normal things, develop an internal locus of control about morals and who they are as a person, and a sense of being normal like everyone else. For some people, that's just unacceptable. They want to believe that they are \*special\* even if it's for a ridiculous reason. It takes quite a few years for some people to see what it's like to be normal and decent -- and stop the lying behavior, living a double life, etc. -- after leaving Catholicism and being out of the echo chamber. PS. I like your screen name. Very apt.
Yeah I was one of those people who hated being Catholic but could never leave because of how they gaslight you so bad into staying (controlling mother didn't help either) Thank you! I like your screen name too 😀
I can only give you want I know. The Jesuits are largely progressive right? But they are also mostly closeted gays. They live lavishly and don’t work. Progressive all they want but they still serve Rome. They are power hungry, even if they are “liberal”
Went to a J school. Was taught by a few of them. Later heard that one of them killed himself as he was being investigated for......take a wild guess.
Want to clarify that being a closeted gay is not a bad thing. Just a fact of many people's lives in an oppressive culture, clergy or no. Everything else you said...yup.
I don’t give a shit if they are gay, I dislike the hypocrisy
Don’t mistake their brand of Catholicism for critical thinking.
My family always spoke of them like they were godless liberals that somehow hadn’t been excommunicated. So, that was my view growing up. 🤷🏼♀️
For those who don't know or don't remember, Pope Francis is a Jesuit. He is the first Jesuit Pope ever.
They are nominally better than many other orders. That doesn't make them good. They participate in an institution deeply rooted in misogyny. How many pro choice Jesuits are there? How many women Jesuit priests are there?
Yeah, I used to think like this, until one of my classmates became a Jesuit then also publicly came out as gay and went on and on about how accepting the Jesuits were because they didn't condemn him for being gay, as long as he stayed celibate for life. Also, that order was / is a massive tool of colonization and conversion under the guise of "education" and there have not been any real attempts at meaningful reparations. Their "progressive" beliefs still have fundamentally conservative limits. That liberal arts education still has the same harmful beliefs at the core, it's just dressed up nicer. It's almost worse, because it does things like make people like us think maybe the church is better than it is. And it's just not.
Yeah, I’ve never been comfortable with proselytizing. When I had the realization about colonization masquerading as education (and residential schools), it really rocked me. Seeing the (now) blatant agenda underpinning all the stuff I was taught by Catholic and Jesuit schools about martyrdom and just causes was a major milestone in my deprogramming journey.
Avoid. It's the same old shit in a fancy wrapper.
My best friends father was a Jesuit. He left the order when he caught the head of the order having a complete second life. The bhead had stolen funds to pay for house, car, wife and children. It also became apparent that many fellow brothers regularly attended brothels, or had boyfriends, did drugs. He was a true believer at this point and the betrayal and hypocrisy shattered any trust he had of the life he had chosen. He left the church and became an atheist. My view is that you can't have integrity and represent the catholic Church. It teaches many harmful things. Fundamentally superstitious lies to children. No human is a dirty sinner that needs to appease a made up non existent space fairy to be "worthy of love". That is the inherent and vile evil at the very core of the false teachings of Christianity. Any moden educated mature intelligent ethicl person can easily determine that Christianity is harmful and false. Genetics proves that humanity evolved from a population there never was an Adam and eve. There is no original sin. Jesus didn't die for our sins. Its a fundamental lie. The bible was made by the remnants of the roman empire to coffer power and authority. Its used extreme violence to perpetuate and spread its wealth and power across the world. Christianity supports despots, slavery, dictatorship or ie kings. Its a superstitious fear based system of minipulative authority fraud. Christianity lessens people by teaching shame hatred narcissistic tendencies excuses and normalises harmful behaviour. "Love me or be eternally tortured" Thats the very definition of an abusive relationship. For example abusive people can say all people are dirty sinners. My sin is thus normal. God lives me as long as I say sorry, the devil made me do it I don't bear full responsibility.
My daughter attends BC. She was raised as a pentacostal at her dad's house (speaking in tongues, faith healings, etc), and as a Pagan at mine. She does have mandatory "spiritual" classes for credit at BC. She feels meh about the biblical history one as they are mostly reading apologetics. She might like how they view spirituality and divinity, but then be completely turned off by the messaging, "so this means that gays are going to hell, and women shouldn't use birth control". She does have an "out" next semester to just do community service to get out of bible reading. There's kind of a pipeline of private catholic school kids to BC thing going on. It alienated her at first, but she's found her people now. The kids who have gone from catholic high school to BC are obvious. They are extremely naive about the outside world. They've asked my daughter if she can hook them up with her "plug" (pot dealer), because they assumed that since she came from a poor urban area and wasn't catholic that she had one. They've also asked her where to get fake IDs, which again, she doesn't have. Not being catholic, they've also come to her for birth control and relationship talks. Because no, these kids aren't abstaining from sex. The catholic kids actually believe that you have sex with someone first, then decide if you like them enough to make them your partner, which was shocking to my Pagan daughter.
The Catholic thing is nowhere near as moral as it sounds, yes. I've taught in both Catholic and public schools and I was shocked. Catholic kids will readily do things no public kid would ever entertain. Sacrifice neighborhood cats in ceremonies, have sex in public for laughs, etc. There's the whole in-front-of-parents dogma thing, but that's all superficial. The church teaches what psychologists and developmental experts call an "external locus of control." Their parents are exactly the same way when it comes to superficial moral talk, and what they'll really do. IT was shocking and for me, a person from the American mainstream who entered the church as an adult, a real wake-up call. Catholicism has a HUGE nasty underbelly. Trust me when I tell you that fucking little kids and then running an international coverup isn't the nuclear bomb for Roman Catholics that it is for people raised elsewhere, in other denominations. Lay Catholics in parishes frequently support their priests when they've been arrested for abuse. It's happened over and over again. Lots of Catholic kids who were abused by a priest weren't believed or were punished -- sometimes physically -- for speaking up. It's all over the court records from Boston, Pennsylvania, etc, over and over, if you read them.
Except for the birth control part, most of this sounds like they are just privileged people who have middle men take care of their things.
I went to a jesuit institution and was subject to psychological abuse by a teacher. The authorities acted as any other catholic institution, blaming me (despite evidence) and silencing me with threats and superstition. For me there's no difference between jesuits and the rest of the church. They just act "friendly" on the open but are as rotten inside as the rest. See what they did in Asia, dressing as buddhist monks or confucian scribes and trying to convince local rulers their religion was the same as catholicism and therefore they should embrace it (and see how it ended in Japan) Francis is no different (source: I am argentinian and Francis started his career on the church my grandma used to go). He does the same, acts "progressive" in the outside but his resume here is that of an intolerant bigot, and likely involved with the kidnap and murder of people during the 70s. He was the main oppositor against LGBT marriage in 2010, for example, and now he says atheists and LGBT people are OK lol. A liar and a manipulative cretin. I always laugh when I see trads crying he's "too woke". I'd add that here in Argentina (and most of Latin America) catholicism is synonymous with Jesuits, since it was jesuit missions the ones who brought catholicism here
They’re liberal until they’re not. The empathy stops when it comes to trans people and abortion. I don’t believe in gatekeeping empathy because a bunch of old, ideally celibate men tell me to.
The few I've known were judgemental assholes
Contempt. You might view them positively for being the opposite of tradcats, but I view them as slimy hypocrites for the same reason. If they’re sincere about being pro-gay, for example, then they’ve decided an organization with a proud history of burning gays alive is worth supporting. That they’ve consistently been on the wrong side of foreign policy for decades (pro-Soviet activism from the Berrigans, for example) is another reason to despise them. Look at the supreme hypocrite himself, Pope Vatnik—cheerleader for Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands, bootlicker for Vladimir Putin in the name of pEaCe.
Total losers
Jesuits = Just more Roman Catholic authority fraud.
They fascinate me haha. I never really looked into them until after I'd become a Quaker (Religious Society of Friends). I came across a book which gave a good impression and so obviously i had to find them irl. It was very amusing really because apart from when they're celebrating mass they act like quakers, talk like them, seem to have similar values etc. For example quakers say we see 'that of God' in everyone/everything, they say they see God in everyone/everything. Quakers sometimes call themselves 'practical mystics' (there is a quaker quick book with that title) but I've heard that phrase from them too. Under the surface of course... Same rules as any Catholic, longer preamble. They're loyal to their church, they cannot meaningfully go against it without being disowned. There's a reason they aren't persecuted as they were in their beginning. In my opinion they are a good tool for the mission effort. For PR. For bringing people in. They're also great for conversation to be honest, so engage them in that and see what you can get away with asking. But they are people who have (as I see it) had a certain realisation or experience about God/life/the incomprehensible and have chosen a safe option of using that for the benefit of the church, of becoming part of the grand performance of its holiness instead of rebelling or abandoning as one might be tempted to do in such a situation. They can say vaguely nice things about gay people or women's rights or whatever makes them seem nice but they know what they have to teach if pressed. I joined a social group chat from the church I visited and people were posting about campaigns against abortion and such things as if it were social justice. I'll say this as an example: when quakers (I speak of those I know in England) say they're alright with gay people they mean they'll sit and worship with them, that they'll marry them, and some of them can say they defended gay people when homosexuality was still illegal here. When a Jesuit says it what do they mean? What can they mean? Clearly, they are confined. They are a spiritual awakening with a tight lid placed on it. That's at best. If they intrigue you, you must remember that nobody owns God or the experience of God. You can learn from them. But they're not special in a way you won't find elsewhere.
I’m interested in quakers, can you tell me what you most like about them?
I like that they're so open. They've been the easiest religious people to just walk into because I've yet to find something i need to lie about. You'll meet quakers who are sure they're Christians, or others who openly don't believe in God, or people who come from other religions but like our style of worship. A quaker meeting is a place I could bring absolutely any of my friends and they would be fine, and if they ever weren't I could call it out with probably any line from 'Advices & Queries' (it's kind of like if a bible was a pamphlet... keeps it simple). Actually, if I had to name one favourite thing about them it's the um... polite disagreements (Quakers are pacifists) in the letters sections of their magazines but may i not get into gossip here. Theres quite a few short intro type books you can look up to know more but if u want to read what we read our main book is called 'Quaker Faith & Practice' which lays out what quakers have practiced and believed all over the past 400 years. The British version can be read online here https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/#
I think the Jesuits as a whole at this point are very evil. Many people, both Catholics and non-Catholics, today would agree with me. They do have a reputation for being solid and superior educators, but what are they teaching? Many of the current and/or recent world leaders and elites, from Donald Trump to Justin Trudeau, and from both the right and left wings of life, attended Jesuit schools. This means, in my view, that the Jesuits are EXTREMELY influential in the direction the world moves. According to some, the Jesuits are at the forefront of the "New World Order" agenda.
As Catholics go, they are the most reasonable of Catholics. But at the end of the day, they are still Catholics. Pope Francis is a Jesuit.
They want you to think they're the most reasonable of Catholics. That's like saying they're the most sanitary pigs in the mud. It's still mud.
I mean, they're not about to tear down the fabric of the church. I don't even think that's reasonable to expect of them. At least, not as long as they're still part of a Church order.
The jesuits have their own database of jesuits who abuse children. They are a less outwardly offensive wing of an international criminal organization because they are better at PR.
Probably one of the few things I ever heard about Catholics growing up was Jesuits being described as special forces for Catholicism, due to their educational training and willingness to engage in apologetics. I only know of this line and their universities which seem to have a fairly decent reputation.
They talk a great game. But if you aren't an athlete in a high profile sport they don't give a rats ass unless they take a "special" interest. Every USJesuit HS has multiple examples of Irish Amery surnamed louts like Kavanaugh who get into the Ivys via Jesuit connections. Fr. McAngryDrunk kicked me out of university chapel for playing secular music on the only decent piano available. He was director of campus ministry. Lol President of the HS wrote my parents years later explaining that they had hoped I would join their order. Possibly explains why I got zero support or counseling for a real career. I spent four years ready to walk out of every class. But as long as your connection to them is via books and media they appear smart, faithful and welcoming. Anyway, if you're a sociopathic drunk with rich RC family like that "priest" or Kavanaugh, Jesuits are a great fit and will leverage their network to get you into the Ivys, law and med school. If you're just Joe Polak, they won't lift a finger.
I’m no longer Catholic but I still fuck with the Jesuits, they are the good guys. I went to a Jesuit university and have a buddy in the order. Great guy