Talk:Suppression of the Society of Jesus
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Suggestion
- 2 Highly POV
- 3 Poorly written
- 4 sloppy writing
- 5 not sloppy writing, but ideology
- 6 Plagiarism
- 7 The picture recently added
- 8 Citations and POV
- 9 Papal Documents relating to Freemasonry
- 10 Reasons
- 11 Why didn't they listen to the pope in the non-Catholic countries?
- 12 Suppression out of the blue?
- 13 Exactly my question too
Suggest the item under Portugal about "Seven Reductions of Paraguay" is worth copying to Paraguay history - or somehow that country's history is x-ref to this article.
In an effort to add factual objective historic reporting and slightly less focus on POV - I have added a citation and quote from Clement XIV for an actual quote of his "forever extinguish and suppress" language in his decree. It seems logic to quote at least something from the actual document under discussionBobRyan777 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This article needs to be re-done. It directly accuses the Catholic Encyclopedia of presenting biased information, and yet the Catholic Encyclopedia is one of its main sources. If it was written from a 'pro-Jesuit' viewpoint before, that has obviously been reversed. Weasel words are used to imply that the Jesuits were guilty of the 'political scheming' and 'economic exploitation', without any citations. The educational and charitable work of the Jesuits is ignored. The whole article seems to have been re-written by a supporter 'Enlightenment secularism', based not on sources but on his own opinions. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In fact, whoever edited this article blatantly states that all he did was take information from the Catholic Encyclopedia and twist to conform to an anti-Jesuit, anti-Catholic bias. This is clear from the fact that only one historical account of the Suppression is listed: the Catholic Encyclopedia. Next to this source the editor has added the note that it "offers a view from the Catholic side, which has been adjusted in this entry". No sources are given for the 'non-Catholic side' to justify this 'adjustment'. The editor's implied reduction of this complex matter into a binary division between 'sides' is breathtaking in its mendacity and historical illiteracy. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I also was annoyed by the comment next to the reference to Catholic Encyclopedia. It should be noted that these were all still Catholic nations which expelled the Jesuits. The Jesuit perspective and the "Catholic perspective" are certainly not the same. Let's not oversimplify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. The article seems to be from a pro-Jesuit perspective, minimizing non-Jesuit Catholic views, and secular views as well. I get the vibe that this was written by a Jesuit as a PR piece. There are little to no citations which makes it even worse. I am adding the citation tag. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed this article is biased against the Jesuits. The true reasons for the suppression of the Jesuits were that they were perceived to be a threat to the notion of the divine right of kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The article seems to write off Jesuit missionary work in the New World as a purely commercial enterprise, which has little or no basis in truth. I'd like to see this article revised to some semblance of objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falkan (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC).
I couldn't help but notice the exact phrase "The expulsion of the Society of Jesus from the Roman Catholic nations of Europe and their colonial empires is also seen as the first triumph of the secularist notions of the Enlightenment" is found twice in this article. Repeating a lengthy phrase like that is a bad idea in any writing.
not sloppy writing, but ideology
Repeating that phrase is not casual, but an ideological attempt to link Enlightenment, secularism, opposition to the Company of Jesus and the dark side of the French Revolution.
This article is basically plagiarized with minor changes from the catholic encyclopedia. We need someone to give a serious study of this. As I understand it, the plantation employed slavery and did indeed work for the profit of the order of jesuits.
BTW, it wasn't for profit as such. Vows of poverty, right! The money that was made on these plantations was used to fund the schools and other institutions which were part of the mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The picture recently added
Citations and POV
Papal Documents relating to Freemasonry
Is there any relationship between the suppression of the Jesuits and the papal Documents relating to Freemasonry ? At the time of the suppression, the Church was fighting a fierce battle against Masonic forces in Western Europe. Conversely, the Jesuits played an important role in the Holy Inquisition that was tasked with fighting the Masons and were engaged in significant intellectual and academic conflicts with them. It would be interesting to gather more information on Jesuit-Mason relations in the 18th century and try to determine whether it has anything to do with the unfortunate suppression of the Jesuits. ADM (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Let's keep away from the Dan Brown school of religious history, please. Who was the suppression "unfortunate" for? Obviously for the Jesuits themselves, but some unexpected benefits arose for Prussia and Russia under Catherine the Great. Neither was Catholic, but they took in refugee Jesuits to run their schools. The article doesn't mention that aspect. Frederick the Great was a mason, so at least some masons actually kept the Jesuits going until 1814. Since 1814 the Jesuits have noticeably and understandably played the whole suppression down.126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- If that is the case, it would be great if you could add (well-referenced) information to the article. bamse (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't they listen to the pope in the non-Catholic countries?
Even if the states of Russia and Prussia didn't recognize the papal command to dissolve the Jesuits, how could the Jesuits themselves disregard that command without completely violating their fundamental vow of obedience to the pope? This must be explained. -- 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Suppression out of the blue?
The article is written kind of hanging in the legs, unfoundedly claiming some unspecified political motives that were not theological. The article explains nothing why anyone should want to suppress the Jesuits, except possibly General Evil.
This article on the very opposite of the quality scale, written by a scholar, claims that Jesuits for a pretty long time have made a lot of enemies within the Catholic Church, within other Christianity and within the secular sphere by harassment, intrigues, manipulation and rebellious teachings. Those enemies, although disparate and not very coordinated, were outnumbering the Jesuits far. Because of that. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly my question too
What in the world are the EXACT reasons? You don't have to go into too much detail, but atleast show some reasons why the Jesuits were specifically expelled, forbidden, in certain countries? Atleast in the case of the pope and France and Spain it would be nice to know a REAL reason, or doesn't anyone know? It's not enough to say "political reasons", I would like to know precisely what the main cause(s) were, the entire world can't view an order as such a big problem if they didn't really screw around in things (but what exactly?!), it would again be nice to have some examples what caused the ban. Otherwise we're all just left with wacko stuff on Youtube which I can tell is 90% incorrect (or more) January 27th 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)