Skip to main content

True Obedience: The Mark of A Faithful Catholic Part D: Jesuit Obedience

+
JMJ


The Obedience of the Jesuits

There is one religious order that is usually put forward as the paragon of obedience: The Jesuits.
While according to Fr. Harvanek SJ, the Jesuit practice of obedience changed after the Second Vatican Council, we are primarily concerned with how St. Ignatius understood obedience and its ideal practice within the Jesuits. A letter to the Portuguese Jesuit, penned by St. Ignatius in 1553, describes in detail the ideal of perfect obedience.
In this letter, St. Ignastius exhorts the Portuguese Jesuits to a very high degree of obedience and as the word cloud of the top 100 words shows how the words superior and obedience dominate the letter.








This theme of obedience to the superior is reinforced throughout the letter, with little or no distinctions concerning the content of the command. The Jesuits are exhorted to humble themselves by obeying the least command of their superiors, to internalize this humilty and to desire internally nothing other than that desired by the superior.

Near the end of the letter St. Ignatius deals with the concept of 'blind obedience' – that if taken out of context could lead to a great deal of trouble.

The third means to subject the understanding which is even easier and surer, and in use among the holy Fathers, is to presuppose and believe, very much as we are accustomed to do in matters of faith, that what the superior enjoins is the command of God our Lord and His holy will. Then to proceed blindly, without injury of any kind, to the carrying out of the command, with the prompt impulse of the will to obey. So we are to think Abraham did when commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac [Gen. 22:2-3]. Likewise, under the new covenant, some of the holy Fathers to whom Cassian refers, as the Abbot John, who did not question whether what he was commanded was profitable or not, as when with such great labor he watered a dry stick throughout a year. Or whether it was possible or not, when he tried so earnestly at the command of his superior to move a rock which a large number of men would not have been able to move.

We see that God our Lord sometimes confirmed this kind of obedience with miracles, as when Maurus, Saint Benedict's disciple, going into a lake at the command of his superior, did not sink. Or in the instance of another, who being told to bring back a lioness, took hold of her and brought her to his superior. And you are acquainted with others. What I mean is that this manner of subjecting one's own judgment, without further inquiry, supposing that the command is holy and in conformity with God's will, is in use among the saints and ought to be imitated by any one who wishes to obey perfectly in all things, where manifestly there appears no sin. ( http://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/ignatius-letters/letter25 )



If someone were to read the letter, missing or dismissing the highlighted sentence, the Catholic world would be led into ruin. Without this key phrase, the Church would be led to believe that whatever "the superior enjoins is the command of God our Lord and His holy will".

While St. Ignatius differs with St. Thomas concerning the degree of virtue of simply obeying a superior's commands, they agree on the key element: A sinful command cannot be obeyed.

Comments

  1. Your post is quite apropos of the whole mask thing discussed elsewhere.
    What if our Abbot John, who cheerfully obeyed the command to water a dry stick for a year, were here with us today.
    Would he cheerfully obey the mask mandates?
    To answer that question we have to compare the two commands and their attendant circumstances.
    Are the authorities legitimate?
    Yes in both cases.
    Are the commands rational?
    Viewed from the standpoint as to whether they actually achieve good material results, no in both cases.
    Are the commands for the common good?
    Again, no in both cases. The stick isn't going to grow, and will produce no fruit or wood for anyone. The masks don't protect anyone.
    Yet Abbot John watered the stick. Why?
    For two reasons. First, from the material standpoint, there was no *harm* (no sin), either to himself or to others, in doing so. At worst, the act was simply a waste of time. Second, from the *spiritual* standpoint, this was a great opportunity for Abbot John to practice humble obedience. So it was of spiritual benefit to him personally, thus in that respect not even a waste of time.
    Would Abbot John wear the mask?
    No, for two reasons. First, wearing the mask is materially harmful. It is not merely useless and a waste of time, but quite likely actually increases disease of various kinds (e.g. bacterial infections around the mouth), and can cause oxygen deprivation. Second, wearing a mask is spiritually harmful. It encourages the evil authorities in their tyranny, causes dissension in communities, depersonalizes people, and worst of all, it is a perfectly clear sign that you *agree* that the mask mandate is a rational order, when it is not. If you are an informed person and are thus aware that it is not, then every time you wear the mask you are LYING to yourself and the world; pretending that you believe something you don't believe.
    Finally, the stick watering thing was a matter between Abbot John and his superior alone. John surely wasn't wasting water that was needed by the community, and he wasn't scandalizing the community. Everyone knew that such "crazy" orders were given precisely in order to test the virtue of subjects. No one was expected to *believe* that watering a dry stick was a materially rational thing to do.
    The mask thing is quite different. The authorities are most vigorously insisting that it is materially *rational* to wear masks. By wearing one, you declare to the community that you agree that the order is *not* crazy, when it actually is. So you are scandalizing others.
    Finally, lest I cause scandal myself, I have to grant that a *particular* person has his particular circumstances to consider. Thus you may have to wear a mask even if you know better, in order to keep a job, etc. However, a pro tip: You can almost always do so while *also* letting people know one way or another that you don't believe the BS. That way you can avoid making a liar of yourself, or aiding the tyranny.
    I have never once worn the mask, and I prefer to just adamantly refuse regardless. But that's just me.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Is it sinful to attend the Novus Ordo (New Mass) - Is it Sinful to Not Attend the Novus Ordo on Sunday?

+ JMJ A non-SSPX Catholic is upset over the SSPX statements on not attending the Novus Ordo Missae. Ladies and gentlemen, what the SSPX, or at least its website editor, is advocating is a mortal sin against the Third Commandment.  Unless the priest deviates from the language of the Sacramentary, the consecration, and thus the rest of Mass is to be considered valid.  No one may elect not to attend Mass simply because abuses are occurring therein.  Might I suggest that such absenteeism is its own abuse?  The Third Commandment binds under mortal sin.  Father So-And-So from the SSPX has no authority whatsoever to excuse attendance at Mass, be that Mass ever so unpalatable. Source:Restore DC Catholicism Well, this is interesting. First why does the SSPX issue this statement? Because it is sinful to put your faith in danger by attending a protestant service.  It is likewise dangerous to put your faith in danger by attending a protestantized mass (ie the Novus Ordo Missae

Remember this day March 25, 1991 - The Death of Archbishop Lefebvre

+ JMJ This is the day, 25 years ago, that Archbishop Lefebvre passed on to his eternal reward. I know that he has as many (perhaps even more) critics than admirers.  For example I still remember Fr. Paul Nicholson's screed in which he shouted from the top of his webpage: "To die excommunicated - how horrible". I'll leave aside Fr. Nicholson's ignorance on the matter as in the grand scheme of things, his impact on the life of the Mystical Body of Christ, which IS the Roman Catholic Church is no greater than that of Michael Voris etc. Archbishop Lefebvre and the work he founded (ie Fraternal Society of St. Pius X ) have had a significant impact. Let us list of few from greatest to smallest: Consistent and constant Catholic perspective on the crisis of the Church from the halls of the Second Vatican Council to the Synod on the Family (and beyond!) Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae : By which the restoration of the sacramental life of the