These are the people I studied under in high school. No quarter for falsehoods, no excuses for ruling elites. Ahhh? But has that been their historical record? Did the current pope, a Jesuit, do right by several of his colleagues that he did not protect from the murderous Argentinian military, who proceeded with U.S. approval? I greatly admire Pope Francis, but he is running out of time and energy with just his one lung. Shake it up and take us away from Romanism back to the original Yeshua!!

THE JESUITS–always controversial

MALACHI MARTIN. THE JESUITS. [selected excerpts]
…Essentially, (Arthur) McGovern (S.J.) says that Marxism was and is a social critique, pure and simple. Marx just wanted to get us to think more clearly about the means of production, how people produce; and about the means of distribution…Marx cannot be written off as “untrue.” It was Engels and Lenin who added the disgusting ingredients of “scientific materialism” and atheism…We can accept Marx’s concept of class struggle, because there is a class struggle. The does mean revolution, but “revolution does not clearly mean violence…it means we have to have a new kind of society, definitely not democratic capitalism as we know it.
McGovern sees in Jesus, as portrayed in St. Luke’s Gospel, a paragon of revolution. St. Luke’s is “a social gospel,”…quoting Jesus in support of his cause: “I have come to preach the good news to the poor, to set the downtrodden free, to redeem captives.”
“See,” McGovern adds, “how many time Jesus speaks about poverty; identifies with poor people; criticizes people who lay burdens on the poor.” Clearly, therefore, Jesus acknowledged the “class struggle: and endorsed the “revolution.”
Consciously or unconsciously, like most modern Jesuits and many Catholic activists, McGovern has effectively laid aside fourteen hundred years of rich Catholic, authentically Christian interpretation of the Bible. He has reinterpreted the Gospel and the salvific mission of the Son of God in an economic sense, a this-worldly sense, a non supernatural sense, an un-Catholic sense….]
…strange alliance between Marxists and Jesuits…
…”We as Jesuits must recognize that we participate in many sinful strutters of American society. Hence we run the risk of sin unless we work to change that.”
…the “Theology of Liberation”—whose handbook was written by a Peruvian Jesuit, Father Gustavo Gutierrez…
One of Tyrrell’s Modernist friends, French priest Henri Brémond, wrote him pooh-poohing the excommunication as a “little Roman formality” of no eternal significance…For him, for Brémond, and for all the Modernists, Rome no longer mattered.
Tyrell, like all Modernists, believed in the possibility of a synthesis between the essential truth of his religion and the essential truths of modernity…In fact, some time before his open rupture with the Jesuits and with Rome, he admitted that the Society of Jesus and all it stood for had become like so much “dust and ashes” in his mouth…It is certain that Tyrell did not believe that Jesus was God-made-man. He did not believe either in the resurrection of the body or in the existence of Hell or of Heaven…”We cannot frame our minds to that of a first century Jewish Carpenter,” he wrote.
For, in the Teilhardian sense, Jesus has not yet been really incarnated—only at the Omega Point will that take place; and even then it is not Jesus of Nazareth we are talking about, but Christ “the essential Mover of a Hominization leading on to an Ultra-Hominization [or man become greater than man].”
From his correspondence, it is clear that Teilhard was not overly shocked by bloodshed, regarded violence as a necessary concomitant of Evolution…The Original Sin of Adam and Eve had no place in Teilhard’s poetic, romantic apocalypse.
Concerning the Roman Catholic Church—its papacy, its hierarchy, it doctrinal formulations, its piety, its place in the human cosmos—Teilhard was summarily and completely disillusioned. At the present moment in human history, he said, “no religion explicitly and officially offers us the God we need.” The problem the Church had, he said, was that “she continues to live in a universe in which the rest of us do not.”
The change demanded of the Church by Teilhard was total…God was not free to create or not create the cosmos. To be God, he had to.
Teilhard derided the Catholic idea of sexual continence, poking fun at “the colonies of virgins” and “the currents of continence in marriage.” God’s order to Adam and Eve “to increase and multiply’ no longer applied…He continued as a Jesuit and a member of the Church partly out of inertia, perhaps; but partly, too, for strategic reasons—the same strategic reasons that George Tyrrell had for fiercely clinging to the skirts of Rome.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s