Talk:Society of Jesus

	This Christianity related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs sources

MERGED ARTICLE This article has content that was merged from Black Pope.

(create an archive)

Society of Jesus

'Society of Jesus' does not link to this page.

Negative pages on the BP can be readily found - but see also [1]. 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit I am bias as I attend a Jesuit school, and have since high school, but shouldn't a bit more be said about their education (system, style, ect.)? δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Make it so. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As a 'wonderful example' of 'rather more than middling irrationality' [2] 171.33.222.26 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

This article is a good start but a couple things should probably be added. The most immediate correction should be that criticism of the Jesuits was common among Enlightenment age thinkers, not just Protestants, who viewed the Society as being tied to the inquisition. The education system they have set up is commendable and should be mentioned. Also one of their mixed legacies is in the Missions they ran for Native Americans in both South America and North America. While acculturation and disease devastated Indian tribes the Jesuits earned admiration, and condemnation for attempting to recreate the Indian societies. There mission was to "civilize" the Indians but unlike the other "civilizing" European missionaries the Jesuits never got the memo that they were supposed to make the Indians subordinate and dependent on the colonialist's culture. Their fabulously successful South American Indian Reductions are a prime example of there efforts and the European Governments (France, Spain, and Portugal) suppressed the Jesuits for this and other reasons the moment they got a Pope who was willing to go along with it (which they survived obviously). The Guarani were not stupid and knew well what the point of the suppression was and defended the reductions from Colonialist raiders long after the Jesuits were recalled back to Europe to face the inquisition. Hence Paraguay is the only country in the New World where European immigrants who arrive there actually feel obligated to learn an indigenous language. Alsto003 (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Alex

SJ and JFK

Having recently encountered the theory (and it seems to be popular on the tubes) - the Jesuits assassinated JFK. Anna Livia (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

yes... lol. That myth was started by Eric Jon Phelps in Vatican Assassins his book MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Correcting add to talk page reference

After that, an anti-Converso faction took over that strictly forbade Conversos, or even their descendants, from the order. "El Estatuto de Limpieza de Sangre de la Compañía de Jesús (1593) y su influencia en el Perú Colonial" by Alexandre Coello de la Rosa (2011) Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu. Institutum Societatis Iesu 159:45–93.

Converso Jews were being recruited all the while. If after 30 years such a prohibition tool place it would not make any sense. There was no anti-Converso faction within the Jesuits, as much a 6 out of 10 Jesuits were conversos early on (due to the demographics, as they were recruiting from the aristocracy and the lesser nobility which was around 40% and 30% respectively made up of conversos). While the Jesuit Generals were usually from the higher ranks of the nobility were there we no conversos, Jews continued to be elected Jesuit generals. Hence the Joosuit conspiracy theories. Also, if the above was true there would be no Japanese Jesuits but the records show that there were Japanese Jesuits. Since the Jesuits were a academically , scholastically, missionary oriented order they tended to recruited for a large part at the universities so it was less likely persons from lower social orders may have been recruited. In Japan the Jesuits worked the samurai class and in india with the Brahmin caste, in both cases it does not appear to be associations based on class discrimination but based on the subjects willingness to exchanging ideas and the inclination towards learning and vice versa. Converso Jesuits were showing up in academia right through to the centuries. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The above is contrary to what is in many sources, and the argument "it would not make any sense" is irrational and irrelevant. (Human history is about what happened, whether it "made sense" or not.) The early Jesuits included many Conversos, but later, Conversos (and Muslims) were excluded, and that reportedly continued as policy until 1946. See the Wikipedia article for sources. --Some random Smith (talk) 02:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

OK where is the evidence of the change in policy please show that. The document in the link evidences a policy in Peru MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My primary issues was that the reference material did not seem to check out which appeared to confirm the smell test. I am removing the referenced material and restoring it with another referenced book which which is actually germane to the claim. However, the fact while there appears to be such a rule, it does not seem to have been observed as there appears to be too many exceptions to this rule. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict with the above)

• What has happened is that a weak source was used, that's all. The fact is basically correct, Peru was no different from anywhere else. There is a detailed book, The Jesuit Order as a Synagogue of Jews, Jesuits of Jewish Ancestry and Purity-of-Blood Laws in the Early Society of Jesus The Wikipedia article on the Society of Jesus which I suggested you look at references this book. This is a footnote from that article:

Jesuit scholar John Padberg states that the restriction on Jewish/Muslim converts was limited only to the degree of parentage. Fourteen years later this was extended back to the fifth degree. Over time the restriction relating to Muslim ancestry was dropped.[110] In 1923, the 27th Jesuit General Congregation specified that "The impediment of origin extends to all who are descended from the Jewish race, unless it is clear that their father, grandfather, and great grandfather have belonged to the Catholic Church." In 1946, the 29th General Congregation dropped the requirement but still called for "cautions to be exercised before admitting a candidate about whom there is some doubt as to the character of his hereditary background." Robert Aleksander Maryks interprets the 1593 "Decree de genere" as preventing, despite Ignatius' desires, any Jewish or Muslim conversos and, by extension, any person with Jewish or Muslim ancestry, no matter how distant, from admission to the Society of Jesus.[111]

• Google "The impediment of origin extends to all who are descended from the Jewish race" to find more specific sources for that comment. There is also a bit of material from Maryks readily available, besides what you can read on Googlebooks.
• You may fix this. Good luck, and please be more careful.
• (comment added after the above) You did not show contradictions (and certainly no sources for your apparently erroneous claims -- and Brahmins and Japanese, etc., would be irrelevant. History doesn't have to make sense!) . "Conversos" would have referred specifically to the Jews and Muslims left in Spain and Portugal, especially, who converted to Christianity or pretended to be Christian to escape the Inquisition, which was largely about rooting out the secret Jews and Muslims. Notice that the new 1946 policy was still very concerned about "the character of [a candidate's] hereditary background." That may, again, have been changed, but it was certainly no longer a rigid policy. Rigid exclusion to three generations back was still in place in the 1923 statement. --Some random Smith (talk) 03:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Please check before commenting as it the Maryks source which I used for as the new reference. As for you the claims as being erroneous you might want to check out the Wikipedia articles before spouting off nonsense. Diego Kisai, Juan Soan de Goto and Pablo Miki were Jesuit brothers in Japan who were executed on the orders Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Also, https://sites.google.com/a/jewishjesuits.com/www/ it is an archived page by Maryks himself. A few links work and some of these show that there were Converso Jesuits after 1593. As I said there are too many exceptions to the rule. MythBusterAnonymous (talk) 04:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, you did, but after I suggested you obtain a source from the Wikipedia page. Your correction was acknowledged above. (Notice that comments are written as to what stands when one makes the comment, this is ordinary wiki process.) I read the Wikipedia article before writing anything here, and Googled and found other sources, even though you insisted by reverting me, but I decided to leave it to discussion, which worked. What you argued above was pure nonsense and shows lack of clarity, as I explained. Exceptions do not disprove the rule. Ever. (Presenting evidence like this is called "cherry-picking.") "Rules" are about balance. I followed the link you just gave to Maryks' web site, and there is no evidence on that page for what you claim. To verify your claim would require searching through many pages, even if they were there, but they aren't. Tried "K." dead link. That is poor sourcing. You can learn to do better. (Posting useless links can be considered trolling, but I'll just chalk it up to incompetence. "a few links work." Fine. Which link shows what you are claiming?) Meanwhile, as a result of my intervention you fixed the article, giving the fact a better source.
• Diego Kisai, Juan Soan de Goto [sic], and Pablo Miki have nothing at all to do with "Converso Jews," which was the topic. I explained why they would be irrelevant above, you apparently have ignored that.
• Next time, I suggested, discuss first, then remove. You might learn something. Here, you might learn something about the purposes of RationalWiki: rational analysis. Again, take care, and good luck. --Some random Smith (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)