Talk:Jesuits/Archive 1

Jesuits and Slavery
I see that this article states that the Jesuits "were often the only force standing between the Native Americans and slavery" and "It is partly because the Jesuits protected the natives whom certain Spanish and Portuguese colonizers wanted to enslave that the Society of Jesus was suppressed". Although this was true in many cases, as one can easily verify by reading the sermons of the priest Antônio de Vieira, there is historical evidence that jesuits themselves used indian forced labor in the reductions. I think changing the statements I selected above, to something that better displays the jesuitic ambiguous position and the cleavage between their discourse and day-to-day practice would be in the best interest of keeping the article NPOV. -- Felipe de Amorim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.54.2.109 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

suppression
Were Jesuits really suppressed in EVERY country? -rmhermen - Yep. Even in America they went underground. What they did here is change all their property over into the name of a holding corporation. The first Catholic bishop in the United States (that's as opposed to Catholic bishops from Spanish or French territories who had had nominal authority) was John Carroll. He had been a Jesuit, but when th papal proclamation came out he submitted and became a diocesan priest. He was lucky enough to live long enough to see the Society re-constituted in the early 19th century. Enough of them lived through the suppression that when they were re-formed they stepped up and reorganized their training system. Lots of Jesuit historians and Jesuits who are historians think that the group has never really been th same, though. --MichaelTinkler

Actually, as it says in the article, the Jesuits were not suppressed in Russia since it was an Orthodox country and had no loyalty to the Vatican. The Jesuits who were in Russia at the time continued their work and were able to help rebuild the order after the suppression ended. --D. O'Brien

Partially true...remember that a large chunk of modern Poland, a Catholic area, was part of the Russian Empire. Catherine the Great had several reasons for wanting to keep the Jesuits working, not the least of which was their academic/intellectual work.HarvardOxon 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, Jesuits were not supressed in Canada because it was a part of the British Empire. The British Crown had no loyalty to the Vatican and therefore did not promulgate any Papal Bulls or Vatican directives. Because of the politics of that era, the Society of Jesus could not accept novices in Canada; as a result, the Society died out in Canada before the restoration.


 * Can somebody give a cite for this? The SJ was in fact dissolved throught the British Empire (the American Colonies were, in 1773, still part of that), and as mentioned above they became a loose association of diocesan priests (in the US, under the Vicar Apostolic in London).HarvardOxon 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

This "every country" (or every country except Russia and Prussia) is ridiculous on its face, and "yep" is hardly a defense of the claim. The Jesuits were suppressed in Tibet? In Mongolia? In the Congo? GeneCallahan (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Official Scrabble Players Dictionary
Some interesting, and probably totally irrelevant, trivia: The publishers of the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary decided that their third edition should be for "home and school" use, rather than being the official reference for tournament use. Because of this, they expurgated "offensive" words from the book, and published a separate official tournament word list that still had the offensive words in it. The words they expurgated were the usual suspects like "fuck", plus racial/group epthets like "nigger" and "kike", ... and "jesuit". I don't know exactly where "jesuit" is considered that offensive, but it must be somewhere. --LDC

- Oh, my. That is wonderful to know, Lee. I'd guess England, where 'jesuitry' and 'jesuitical' are incredibly common terms of political abuse and where p.c.ness is advanced enough to demand it. There are Latin American countries of which I'd believe it, but they wouldn't be a major market for the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary, English Edition, I'd guess? Great book on the Jesuit conspiracy topic, by the way, and my entry for explaining the Mind of the Conspiracy Thinker: The Jesuit Myth : Conspiracy Theory and Politics in Nineteenth-Century France. Geoffrey Cubitt. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. ASIN: 0198228686 (out of print, of course). --MichaelTinkler

- You shouldn't be able to use "Jesuit" in Scrabble anyway, as it is a proper noun. Any form like "jesuit" would be considered slang.
 * Well, it's the Official Scrabble Dictionary, used to arbitrate in a game, not to provide useful definitions. In any case, the rules of Scrabble do not prohibit slang.  For what it's worth, Merriam-Webster 3rd Collegiate gives Jesuit (capital) for member of the order, jesuit (no cap) for "one given to intrigue or equivocation." — OtherDave 13:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

- England is not the only place where the word 'Jesuit' is considered to be an insult and a 'dirty word'. The methods they used to 'encourage' Central Europeans to abandon their protestant ways and return to 'the Scripture' were so brutal that the word 'Jesuit' is synonymous with 'book-burner', and in today's p.c. world, people who want to remove books from schools or public libraries are commonly referred to as little 'J' 'jesuits'....Minehava 00:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

why they were suppressed and how they dealt with it
I'd like to see more info why the Jesuits were suppressed and how they dealt with it. Especially the former. Kent Wang 21:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

title
While "Jesuits" is a common name for the "Society of Jesus", "Jesuit" is not, and refers to a member of the organization. The title of the page should really be "Society of Jesus". Objections? --Samuel J. Howard 12:32, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that Jesuit should be a different article from Society of Jesus? -- Error 01:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think he means that the name of the article should be changed to Society of Jesus. I agree. Kent Wang 21:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Article moved. Kent Wang 06:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

IHS actually means In Hoc Signum or in this sign. The translation below the logo should be changed.
 * not at all. the translation below the logo is correct. 128.100.110.82 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reactions of a Jesuit to the article
As a Jesuit, the article on the Jesuits was interesting to read both for what it said and what it confused. I will want to check some references before trying an edit on the article.

Some initial obvious flaws in the article: They did not form an order in Paris. They did bind themselves together and promised to go to Jerusalem. The initial agreement was that if they could not go for a year, they would then consider what to do. They happened to pick the only year when no ships were available for Jerusalem. It was not until the discussions in Italy that they decided to found an order. By the time they got to Venice, they were ten rather than seven.

The 1538 meeting with the pope was one where the pope suggested that they give up the plan to go to Jerusalem. They then started discussions and decided to form a religious order. They were approved as an order in the 1540 bull, but their constitutions were not yet written. The first draft of the constitutions was not completed until 1550. They were not approved until the first general congregation in 1556. [The only history of the Jesuits I have immediately at hand is "An Introduction to Jesuit Life" by Tom Clancy.]

The tone of the article is rather polemical, reducing the Catholic Reformation to a reaction to the Prodestant Reformation. The description given of the Ignatian retreat is of the common modern experience of the retreat rather than what it was like in those days. In the early period there is no mention of the network of schools that was set up, with the first standardization of a school system. The description of missions gives only the most controversial ones. The Jesuits also started the California missions until the Society was suppressed. They were active in India and China. With the French they explored sections of Canada. With the Spanish they explored a significant section of the Southwestern United States.

It is worth noting that a significant part of the controversies surrounding the Jesuits has to do with the rise of absolute nation states and attempts by these rising states to exercise complete control, even over religion. The international structure of the Jesuits works against absolute national power and has made the Society of Jesus a lightning rod for those who would fragment Christianity and make it subject to the state.

The suppression of the Jesuits was not promulgated in Germany and Russia because the non-Catholic leaders of those countries valued the schools that the Jesuits were running in the two countries.

Mike May, S.J.


 * Thanks for that. Perhaps you could take a look at the "unreasoning obedience" section below. Do you have a user page?--shtove 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm, those comments were made over a year ago and have almost certainly been addressed in the article by now. Still, it would be interesting to see what Mike thinks of the current article. Lisiate 22:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear Umm: Thanks. Couldn't tell the vintage of his comments (no date on the contribution) - but what I was getting at is not something in this article, but the "Jesuit unreasoning obedience" phrase in the St Jerome article. In the first place, can human obedience be unreasoning? And even if it can, what is the society's teaching/discipline/recommendation on obedience, reasoning or unreasoning? I think the phrase is shady POV, but given the context I'm not certain. It's interesting to have a J on Wikipedia, but where's the man's user page? Has he obeyed an order to stop contributing?--shtove 00:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"I will believe that the white that I see is black"
"I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it."

Where is this quote from? I'm doing a report on Jesuits so it would be a great help to know the source.

Thanks in advance, Mikkel

FOLLOW-UP:

Nevermind, I found it by googling. Here's the reference: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/COUNTER.HTM

This is a very nuanced topic, over which a lot of ink is still being spilt within and without Jesuit circles. What it certainly does not refer to is any sort of “blind” or “unthinking/uncritical” obedience. The simple fact is that St. Ignatius had a profound trust in the hierarchical (that is, institutional) Church. While this quote may be shocking, even to Catholics, it may be helpful to consider the example of the Blessed Sacrament. All Catholics believe that the bread and wine offered in the Mass, after the consecration, actually become the Body and Blood of Christ. How do we know this? Because the Church teaches it. What was bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, regardless of what our sensory input does or does not tell us. In this one example, every Catholic upholds the practice which St. Ignatius commends in this pithy quote. Michael Rosinski, SJ 15:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Michael Rosinski, sj

Turks
Which Turks in /*Foundation*/ second paragraph? The article has long said Seljuk Turks, but someone parenthetically commented in the article that it's probably the Ottoman Turks given the dates involved. Maybe so, but the article needs to state one thing or the other, not carry discussions in parentheses that belong here. I googled a bit but didn't find anything definite enough to make me change Seljuk to Ottoman in the article. Anyone? --Kbh3rd 18:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the schools & universities
the two wah yan colleges are secondary schools, not tertiary--little Alex 04:25, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) Is Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, not worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.11.174 (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Rules for Thinking with the Church
The "Rules for Thinking With the Church" form the end of St. Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises. It would probably be better to use the actual text of the Exercises in research and citations. It can be found here on page 98 of an acrobat file containing the entire text:



Jesuit.org also has other Jesuit documents online, for those interested.

Mike May is correct in his assertion that the Society ran into most of its trouble due to its internationalist nature. It should be noted, however, that the Jesuits really did so some things in 16th century Protestant Europe that were a bit shady to say the least.

Michael Simone, S.J.

*Would you be kind enough to elaborate? --Timsj 23:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

New Categories
I've created two new Jesuit categories. One, "Jesuit", as a catchall for all topics and added "Jesuits" as a subcategory of it. The second, "Jesuit Education", to link the large number of educational institutions now listed. --BenM 07:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Link
When a list of heads of the Order is created, add a link to the term Black Pope.


 * List of heads of the order is now at Father General. --Gerald Farinas 18:55, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

General Congregation after Arrupe
I reverted because the previous edit, along with including POV statements regarding other religious orders, included this regarding the pope:


 * Because the present liberal thinking, they were not very supported by Pope John Paul II, who even did a coup d état choosing himself in 1981 the Father General of the Society when the late father Arrupe suffered a stroke. Traditionally the General Congregation of the Society chooses the Father General.

The pope never appointed the superior general, and the general congregation did choose the next Superior General (Peter Hanz-Kolvenbach) in 1983. Perhaps the author was refering to the appointment of Paolo Dezza, the apostolic delegate, in light of Pedro Arrupe's stroke. Pmadrid 00:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Controversies about Controversies
I believe that the the very long Controversies section needs to be dramatically changed to comply with Wikipedia guidelines to: 1) maintain NPOV, 2) maintain appropriate article length, 3) put the article back into a more "encyclopedia" third person rather than in the form of an interview and narrative, and 4) eliminate any copyright risks as the material seems to have been copied wholesale from another publication. I have attempted to make these edits, but the original editor has reverted without comment.

This was added 17-Jan-06 by an annonimous contributor with no explanation of info -- I doubts it accurate, so I will revert it back to previuos version -- --BBird 10:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Within the Catholic Church, the Jesuits are frequently criticized for being overly liberal and deviating substantially from official Church teaching and papal directives, especially on such issues as abortion, priestly celibacy, homosexuality, and liberation theology. This lack of fidelity to both Church doctrine and the papacy itself is somewhat ironic in light of the fact that the order was originally established for the specific purpose of defending the faith and pledges absolute loyalty to the pope. Because of its deviation from the mission upon which it was founded, the influence of the Jesuits within the Church has waned considerably. Pope Benedict XVI, like his predecessor John Paul II, has been particularly critical of the order. Indeed, it is not unusual, especially in more conservative Catholic outlets, to hear calls for the outright abolishment of the Jesuit order. Thus, the future influence of the Jesuits in the Catholic community, and perhaps their very existence, remains uncertain."


 * The above passage has gone through quite a few NPOV edits in the past few days, and I think it's fine except for the following two sentences (which I deleted on 19 January 2006, but were later restored in the following incarnation):
 * "Lack of fidelity to Church doctrine or the Holy See, as alleged by critics, would be ironic in view of the order's establishment for the purpose of defending the Catholic faith and its vow of loyalty to the Pope. In part, because of this percieved deviation from the mission upon which it was founded, the influence of the Jesuits within the Church has waned."
 * Even though these sentences have been softened, they still editorialize in a way that is inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Also, it's pretty awful writing. Can we revisit or just delete this passage? There are a (some might say excessive) number of external citations criticizing the order just prior to this passage, and it's followed by the papal criticism of the order. I mean, we get it already. --C-squared 07:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to find out why are you guys so resistant to the idea of the Black Pope, and why you guys won't even mention its theory because you think its a "POV." I believe it at least deserves a mentioning and in your guys stance of neutratlity, to drop the POV charges against it. 06:06 Febuary 2 2006 (UTC)
 * Who ("you guys") are you addressing, and what specifically in the article has anything to do with a "black pope"? --C-squared 06:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "the Black Pope" is a nickname for the head of the Jesuit order who is supposed to be the one really in charge of the Catholic Church (see various nutters such as Jack Chick ad nauseam). Judging by your use of the indefinite article and lower case letters you seem to have understood it as referring to a Pope from Africa. It doesn't. The Jesuits never really had a habit. Generally however they wore black and were nicknamed "the Blacks". Hence the Black Pope is the head of those dastardly intriguers the Jesuits. Stroika 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This radio host Greg Szymanski is the cream of anti-Jesuitism, he blames black-pope and jesuits for everything: JFK, murder of Pope, 9/11 and future nuking Iran. Szymanski is probably completely out of his mind or a big disinfo lie going just too far (he is a jew so this may be his religious agenda). Anyway as an alternative info about the so called world-wide secret jesuit conspiracy, see the article http://www.arcticbeacon.com/9-Feb-2006.html

I think the mentioning of Jack Chick, et al. being "anti-catholics" is biased and should be revised. If they were "anti-catholic", why would they make all the trouble just to let the Catholics know the truth? (dot.dot.dot)202.138.180.33 03:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There have been recent edits to include an alleged "oath" which can allegedly be construed in a certain manner. I have tagged both assertions as requiring citations, and there has been the addition of a citation for the second assertion. It is taken from a website (http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit), allegedly from the "European Institute of Protestant Studies." While I hesitate to simply pass judgment on this source, I have looked at the rest of the website, and find it to be an unreliable source. If anything, the website, used as source, may be treating the "oath" entirely out of context, assuming that it is in fact genuine. But then again, the website also says that "The Institute's purpose is to expound the Bible, expose the Papacy, and to promote, defend and maintain Bible Protestantism ie. Geneva Bible in Europe and further afield." Whoever added it ought to have found an appropriate balancing reference and given that an appropriate exposition. If there are no objections regarding my assessment of this addition as unreliable, then I will delete it within the next 48 hours. Rmcsamson 03:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason this oath is still there? It seems to be dissporpotionatly long.

Why is there no mention or reference to the pivotal role of Jesuit priests in the 1641 Irish massacres? This was one of the defining moments in history, with over 150,000 Protestants murdered in the most cruel ways imaginable. Foxes Book of Martyrs describes how the day the massacre started was chosen to be 23rd October 1641, the feast of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. Quote from Foxes Book of Martyrs: "The ignorant Irish were more strongly instigated to execute the infernal business by the Jesuits, priests, and friars, who, when the day for the execution of the plot was agreed on, recommended in their prayers, diligence in the great design, which they said would greatly tend to the prosperity of the kingdom, and to the advancement of the Catholic cause. They everywhere declared to the common people, that the Protestants were heretics, and ought not to be suffered to live any longer among them; adding that it was no more sin to kill an Englishman than to kill a dog; and that the relieving or protecting them was a crime of the most unpardonable nature." Reference to this is needed to keep this Wikipedia page appropriate to an encyclopedia rather than it becoming a Jesuit advertisement. User:AD talk 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)AD

The contributor above is correct, and the text submitted to the page (not above) was reasonable. The role of Jesuits in the Inquisition was so enormous, it cannot possibly be omitted. The discussion needs to decide what references to include. Incidentally, I disagree completely with Betty's comment that the Foxes Book of Martyrs is not an accurate historical document. Of course it is written from a Protestant, but there was very little free publication at the time, largely due to the censure by Dominican and Jesuit priests. However, there are many scholarly references that can be used either instead or, I suggest, in addition. User:RoyF /77.241.230.242 (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)/

Seriously? Guy or gal, let me say it again - take the new conversation to the BOTTOM of the talk page. This one is long over. Also let me point out that it doesn't really matter whether or not you think Foxe's book is an accurate historical document. It is still not, being rife with complete and utter fabrications. It is not, according to wiki policy, a reliable source. Historians largely consider it to essentially be Foxe's "book of lies". It is hard to take you seriously when you simply accuse anyone or thing opposing your view of censure. Is it not also possible that you are wrong?Farsight001 (talk) 10:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Priests and not priests
Looking at Gesuit's website in Italy I found that Gesuits are divided in priests and not priests (I don't know the right word in English, "secular Gesuits" maybe). Anyway, it seems to me an information to be added; also it clarifies the sentence "Jesuit priests often acted as confessors..."--Truman Burbank 06:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed Georges Lemaitre, after double checking with a Flemish Jesuit who confirmed that he is not a Jesuit but a regular catholic priest who attended a Jesuit college.

xaviervd


 * I think that the term for non-priests is either "brothers" or simply "monks" in English.Badbilltucker 01:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Brothers would be right. Monks applies only to members of monastic orders (which the jesuits are not).--Samuel J. Howard 01:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Brothers of the Society of Jesus
The "not priests" comment is a reference to the Jesuit Brothers, which should have mention in the article. --Gerald Farinas 18:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I started a stub for Brothers of the Society of Jesus and will work on building it into a full article. --Gerald Farinas 19:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to me to have an article on Jesuit Brothers outside the main article on the Society of Jesus. I think it mistakenly leaves the impression that they form a separate order which they most certainly do not; they are one contingent within the larger order. Also, it is not wholly accurate to say that all non-priest Jesuits are “brothers.” More non-ordained Jesuits are scholastics than true brothers. Brothers are religious with perpetual vows who have opted never to be ordained, while scholastics are religious with perpetual vows who are preparing for ordination. This may be more information than is necessary, but a non-ordained Jesuit could be: an indifferent novice (one willing to be either a priest or brother), a novice brother, a novice scholastic, a brother-in-formation, a scholastic or a formed brother (that is, one who has taken final vows). Confusion arises because in some cultural contexts people want to call members of a religious order by some title, so they’ll call novices or scholastics “brother” out of respect, but strictly speaking that is not correct. Michael Rosinski, SJ 15:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Michael Rosinski, sj

removed section
Many conservative or orthodox Catholics perceive the modern Jesuit order as heavily liberal and disloyal to the Vatican and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, a stark shift from their traditional identity as upholders of orthodoxy and the 'crack troops' of the Papacy. However, this criticism probably relates more to the order in the Western world, rather than in the global south, and ignores many prominent conservative or orthodox Jesuits, such as Avery Cardinal Dulles, Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, and Joseph Fessio.

This is probably true, but could use some support or dePOVing--Tznkai 15:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is not NPOV about it?--Samuel J. Howard 23:26, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Numbers of Jesuits; Jesuits Today Photos
The Jesuit Conference website http://www.jesuit.org/ lists membership at over 20,000. I edited to reflect this.

Also, I'm wondering if the two ordination photos are appropriate for the section on Jesuits today. On the one hand it shows that the Society is still drawing new members, but all Catholic ordinations include laying hands and prostrations so there's nothing partiularly Jesuit here. --Chirho 7 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)

"fixing redirects"
Why have some users recently been "fixing" redirects Jesuit to pipe-link to Society of Jesus? Why not just leave them? Will the page "Jesuit" ever change its meaning from a redirect here to something else? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   14:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Baghdad Jesuit college
Does anyone have any information on the Baghdad Jesuit college, highly active in the mid-20th century, that we could put on List of Jesuit institutions, a very conspicuous absence? Thanks in advance. AMDG --Dpr 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The College was closed down by Saddam Hussein when he came to power, it was one   of the first things to he did. There is an interesting story told about it, as most of the political class and ministers in the government were educated there, Saddam organised a picnic for them all outside of Baghdad, and whilst they were away his police force went and informed the Jesuit community they had a couple of hours to leave the country. Thus they did not have any time to contact some of the re powerful alumni to prevent this from happening. The present General, Father Kolvenbach, was one of the few Jesuits allowed back into Iraq, to collect belongings.I think there will be an attempt to go back when the time is right. --Timsj 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Time to think about becoming a featured article?
I hadn't visited this page in a while and it's starting to look really good. Perhaps its time to put this through Peer Review with an eye towards having it becoming a featured article? One thing that will be suggested will be to move the list of famous Jesuits to it's own article (a good idea as it is fairly long now.) Anyway, many thanks to all who have done such a good job in building this article from its humble beginnings Lisiate 02:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreasoning obedience
The article on St Jerome refers, in its section on theology, to members of the society as exhibiting "unreasoning obedience": is this NPOV?--shtove 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If this is still a concern, see my comments above under the heading, "I will believe that the white that I see is black." Michael Rosinski, SJ 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Curia
Is there a reason why the Roman Curia is called the Roman Catholic Curia? I have never heard this usage before, and unless the city of Roman calls its city hall a curia I don't see the need for the distinction. - Miked84 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Famous Jesuits?
I have removed the name of Heiner GeiBler, from the list as he is a cuurent politician thus cannot be a member of either of the German Province, and hence is not a Jesuit. I wasn't able to find out wether he is an ex-jesuit, but even if that is true I dont think it qualifies him to be on a famous Jesuit list.

Maybe we can agree on a Criteria as to what constitutes a famous Jesuit.... I.e. the sphere of fame or influence should be at leas national, preferably international, they should be famous for what they achieved as Jesuits (i.e. if they leave the Society and become famous afterwards it doesnt count)... any other Criteria? --Timsj 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
Sorry, looks like you put a lot of work into this, but there are insufficient references. You may use the inline method or even just list enough books in a references section, but external links are insufficient. Also the controversies section looks to be extremely choppy and doesnt mention historical controversies, focusing too much on present ones (relative to its size). The second point is just my opinion. savidan(talk) (e@) 10:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Father Reese
Father Reese did not resign because of a request from the Society or because of pressure from the Vatican. He, according to the May issue of the journal First Things, resigned from the role of editor of America because of increasing criticism and pressure from domestic sources. And furthermore, it was not the fact that America discussed such contentious issues like homosexuality, contraception, etc, it was that the editors at America frequently disregarded the Magisterium when discussing the aforementioned. As the section reads right now, it appears as if the Vatican had some sort of active role (politically) in Father Reese's resignation; it did not.--unsigned


 * In fact, it wasn't that they "disregarded the Magisterium." The criticism -- including from then-Cardinal Ratzinger!!!! -- was that they presented such controversies in a point/counterpoint format: should priests be celibate, here's a column of Yes, ahere's a column of no. Reese's attitude was that such a format would illuminate the issue, and that the Church's stronger case would become apparent in such a situation. Yes, officials of the Vatican put the screws to Kolvenbach to have America stop this practice, present only the offcial side of the issue (without rebuttal or a "counterpoint", and Reese was sacrificed as a gesture.HarvardOxon 16:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

anti-semitism
The article on the Society of Jesus is good on many points, including general history and way of life, and doesn't shy away from some of the controversies, such as protection of Indians from slavery and liberation theology. But it passes over some of the more unpleasant aspects of Jesuit teaching. Apart from their vehement intolerance of Protestantism in the early centuries especially, which could be said to be a product of its time, their equally vehement anti-Semitism, dating from the earliest times as well, but becoming especially prominent during the nineteenth and early twentieth century, is entirely neglected. The order adopted the "laws of purity of blood", which were passed in Spain during the sixteenth century in response to the mass conversion of Jews to Catholicism after their expulsion from Spain in 1492. The laws decreed that no one with Jewish ancestry going back to the third generation could hold public or church office, among various other restrictions. The laws went well beyond anything the Church had ever taught about Jewish converts; indeed, papal teaching has been consistent that all the baptized were equals in the Church. Nevertheless, the Society of Jesus adopted these restrictions for their own order, and guess when they were finally lifted? Not in the 18th century, supposedly the age of Enlightenment; not in the nineteenth century, when Jews were emancipated every in Europe except Russia and the Papal States (Jews were only to be treated well after they converted). In fact, not until 1946!!! It took the Holocaust to finally wake up the Jesuits to what kind of things they believed in. Not only did the Jesuits require this kind of racial purity of their novices, they also led an anti-Semitic campaign starting around the time the Papal States were absorbed by the Kingdom of Italy. Catholic conservatives saw the end of papal temporal power as a catastrophe organized by the Freemasons and the Jew, and blamed them for all the ills of modern society, such as religious and civic liberty, women's rights, abolishment of church privileges etc. The Jesuits led Catholic thought in this direction, and were the first to promulgate the so-called "modern" anti-Semitism, based on cultural and even racial aspects rather than purely religious ones. The traditional Catholic anti-Semitism was religious; restrictions on Jews in Rome were designed to force them to convert. Once they did they were welcomed. The Jesuits, inheriting a more racist anti-Semitism from their Spanish origins, felt this wasn't good enough. Jews were seen as somehow inherently evil in their culture and race. While they could not officially claim that Jews could not be saved through baptism, which would be heretical, they cautioned that converts were suspicious and probably practising their old religion in secret. In any case, as long as Jews got more rights to practise their faith openly and live on equal terms with other citizens, the Church could claim that this was part of the plot to dominate Europe and destroy Christianity. David Kertzer in his book "The Popes against the Jews" explains all this. He has interesting stories about how hatred of the Jews began to trump everything else, including hatred of Moslems, heretics and others. A lot of the famous anti-Semitic beliefs found later, such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, had some Jesuit influence in them. Catholic racist anti-Semitism lies behind a lot of European, including Nazi, anti-Semitism, and also Arab anti-Semitism (there was an echo of this when Syrian President Bashar Assad invited Pope John Paul II to join Christians and Moslems against the Jews). Of course, you can hardly imagine any Jesuit believing in these things now, or at least admitting, too. Their anti-Semitic views were not officially repudiated until 1965! It's amazing how they managed to encompass over time opinions ranging from the most radically progressive to the most conservatively reactionary.


 * There's more to the story that should be included if the article is ever modified to include any of the above. Loyola expressed regret at not having been born Jewish and therefore being able to claim kinship with Christ himself.  His immediate successor, Diego Lainez, was of Jewish birth, as was Loyola's secretary, Juan Polanco.  The restrictions on Jewish membership weren't adopted until 1593, and were done so because of pressure in Spain from outside the order.  See Jean Lacoutre, Jesuits: A Multibiography (1995)

151.196.187.236 00:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Some light might be shed on this item by giving the date of the lifting of the ban on Jews in the Jesuit order. I think (it is mentionned in Kertzer) it was 1947. After 360 years the order of the Jesuits might have found a way out of the pressure "from outside". 222.123.242.130 (talk) 13:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1947 was the same year the United States Supreme Court first declared residential housing covenants unenforceable; such covenants would ban the sale of homes to blacks and Jews. Similarly, American institutions well into the 1960s did not hire Jews and blacks. If that was the situation in the United States, much more influenced by Enlightenment thought, what was the likely situation in Continental Europe, particularly an order with roots in Spain, then controlled by Francoist fascism? SHJohnson (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is similar to the contents of the "Balanced view?" section, and I think they should be merged. They both deal with the deeper historical details of the Order and whether the article is unbiased —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs) 06:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

List of Famous Jesuits
I deleted the list on the main page and incorporated it into a new page. This was done to make the main page clearer, as well as to reduce its (considerable) size. Hopefully now that the list has its own page, sorting of the names can take place so that it can become more readable and useful.Suicup 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many sites or external links? (WP:EL)
A new site popped up tonight. If you read WP:EL and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT), Wikipedia is not repository for links. Suggest another editor examine to see how the list of sites can be trimmed down to the pertinent ones. Ronbo76 03:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda?
Isn't this text a propaganda?

Their works are focused on education and intellectual contributions, primarily at colleges and universities, as well as missionary work and ministry in human rights and social justice.

--PET 10:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How on Earth could that be considered propaganda? It's simply a statement of their aims; there is no implication that those aims are necessarily noble, nor that they are accomplished. 67.142.130.19 06:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

- This whole page reads like a Jesuit recruiting brochure and completely lacks any historical perspective. Though many learning institutions have indeed been founded by the Jesuits, because the Christian Church had a monopoly on formal schooling in much of Europe for the majority of last millenium, there is no reference to the restrictive thought these schools enforced.

The page does not refer even in passing to the historical facts that the Jesuits were the arm that The Church used to hunt down books that The Church disaproved of (I learned it from my grade-school history textbook, which re-printed perion drawings of the 'book hunt'), that the Jesuits used very brutal and violent methods in hunting these books down. If a house was found to contain 'forbidden books', the family was locked in the house and the Jesuits set it on fire. Another pictures in my grade-school history textbook showed a period drawing of pyre made of books in a town square, the Jesuits forcing the townspeople back as one of them set the books on fire. The caption said that after they found the books and burned them, they called in the Inquisition to purge the town of all those who had read them.

That is why the Jesuits are almost univeslally feared, both by Christians and by those who love learning, world over! Yet the whole page, as it is now, makes them sound as having done nothing but good works! This is not a neutral article. Minehava 00:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article is rather biased. It leaves out the book-burning that they are know for. Also dose the group that maintains it have a objective view on it? Do they have people that dislike the church as well as follow it? I do know know. But I'm guessing they don't. 99.224.135.33 03:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In the interest of NPOV, I think these negative things should be mentioned, if they are historically accurate. If someone who knows about them include them, with quality citations? There's always two sides to a story, and accuracy says that both sides deserve to be included. I have Jesuits to be good people today, but I do know that there are some failings in their history. Samwisep86 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. This whole article is devoid of the biggest events that dominated the Society of the Jesuits, including, astonishingly, the Inquisition. For balance, this article should record this in the Controversies. I suggest the following text: Along with the Order of Dominica, the Society of the Jesuits formed the militia of the Inquisition in Europe, in which millions of innocent children, women and men were tortured to death in the most cruel ways imaginable, over hundreds of years, from Russia to Portugal, from Ireland to Italy. ./AD 79.135.110.169 (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)/

We seem to have a consensus that at least this is required. Would someone like to suggest a further description, or further references (there are so many, it is hard to choose).
 * It seems that if you (@IP 79.135) are not the best person to give this unbiased history given that 1.) Jesuits did by no means form "the militia" of the Inquisition (whereas to my knowledge they did form the militia, whatever that be, of another dicastery, to wit the Propaganda). That was the Dominicans and Franciscans. 2.) I do not know that the Inquisition, as such, tortured childern. In matter of fact, the Inquisition was pretty-much a Crimes Investigation Department for religious crimes, most notably heresy. As such, it was not genuinely worse, rather better (but now of course I'm biased), than other crime investigators of the period. The real problem is that it is wrong to punish heresy as a crime with public authority. That's the problem with the Inquisition! (But... was English law different, when it was at times treasonous not to swear Royal Supremacy?) Also, they did not, as such, torture to death. They tortured to find out (though it is wrong to torture, at all!) and then sometimes sentenced to death, with quite cruel methods of execution of course. (Burning for heresy. - But what was that thing about hanging, drawing and quartering?) 3. Still, it is hardly believeable that their victims are millions. 4. Most unbelievable is that there was ever an Inquisition in Russia, or also Ireland, besides maybe some local-inquisitions in the Middle Ages which, need I say it, precede the existence of the Jesuit order. --77.4.67.192 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

PET's edits
Whatever you FEEL like it says, it actually "says" a list of their apostolates; they run 28 colleges and universities in US alone, plus the Weston School of Theology, the Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley, and individual Jesuits have and do serve on the faculties of dozens of other universities, plus they run several scholarly and semi-popular publications, and that's just for openers and only in the US -- so saying that "Their works are focused on education and intellectual contributions, primarily at colleges and universities," is not cheerleading. The "as well as missionary work " is built into their own constitutions: technically they were founded as a missionary order, and jesuit missions are found today all over Africa, South America, Asia and the Pacific Islands. The "ministry in human rights and social justice" is witnessed by the fact that they have their own, full-blown NGO, The Jesuit Refugee Service, and jesuits serve on the stafs of a wide variety of deomestic and foreign social justice agencies. Nowhere does this paragraph say Jesuits are the "only" ones to do all this, or that they "do it better than anyone else." The sentence is simple and NPOV: the fact you react to it with such "feelings" is something that should prompt an examination of why, on your poart, not removal from the article.HarvardOxon 23:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Jesuit Buildings
There have been, in my opinion, indiscriminate additions to the list of Jesuit Buildings. The introduction to the section talks about how certain buildings are witnesses to the Society's work in construction. However, there are quite a number of entries in the list which are no more than schools, which do not even discuss, or worse, do not even have pictures of the facilities or buildings which ought to be featured. I'm removing these from the list for the time being. Rmcsamson 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't residential schools included?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_School This very critical method of forced conversion by the Jesuits has no mention. Please include. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC).


 * The article doesn't exist. The link you posted redirects to an article on Canadian residential schools, and while there is some mention of the Society, I don't see how the mention there is substantial. Maybe there are other sources? Rmcsamson 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have taken steps to remove some minor and juvenile vandalism to this page. I believe I edited it all out, but it seems to immediately follow mention either of "God" or of "Jesus." Someone else might want to check after those terms while reading the page if (s)he gets the chance.

Thanks!

EcceQuamBonum 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC) EQB

Lead
Not sure the lead should have a table in it, and the large amount of statistics there also seems out of place - the lead should be a general overview of the article itself, right? --86.144.20.95 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

name of Loyola
See articles: VERD, Gabriel María, SI, El "Ínigo" de San Ignacio de Loyola, Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu, 45 (1976) p.95-128 VERD, Gabriel María, SJ, De Inigo a Ignacio. El cambio de nombre en San Ignacio de Loyola, Archivum historicum Societatis Iesu, 60 (1991) p.113-160 From the summary: "That St. Ignatius of Loyola's name was changed is a known fact, but it cannot be said that it is widely known in the historiography of the saint - neither the characteristics of the names Iñigo and Ignacio nor the reasons for the change. It is first necessary to make clear the meaning of the names; they are distinct, despite the persistently held opinion in onomastic dictionaries and popular thought. In Spain Ignacio and Iñigo are at times used interchangeably just as if they were Jacobo and Jaime. With reference to the name Iñigo, it is fitting to give some essential notions to eliminate ambiguities and help understand what follows. This name first appears on the Ascoli brome (dated 18 November 90 B.C.), in a list of Spanish knights belonging to a Turma salluitana or Saragossan. It speaks of Elandus Enneces f[ilius], and according to Menéndez Pidal the final «s» is the «z» of Spanish patronymics, and could be nothing other than Elando Iñiguez. It is an ancestral Hispanic name. Ignacio, on the other hand, is a Latin name. In classical Latin there is Egnatius with an initial E. It appears only twice with an initial I (Ignatius) in the sixty volumes of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. This late Latin and Greek form prevailed. In the classical period Egnatius was used as a nomen (gentilitial name) and not as a praenomen (first name) or cognomen (surname), except in very rare cases. The author describes the change under three headings: names, facts, and reasons. The most important conclusion, perhaps unexpected, but not unknown, is that St. Ignatius did not change his name. That is to say, he did not intend to change it. What he did was to adopt for France and Italy a name which he believed was a simple variant of his own, and which was more acceptable among foreigners. That Ignacio ended up replacing Iñigo does not change his intention. If he had remained in Spain, he would have, without doubt, remained Iñigo."

--Ingo11 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Spaniard becomes Jesuits' new "black pope"
It's historical, and this new leader needs to be more Wikified. --Florentino floro (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesuit involvement in Russia
I miss more details on the Jesuit activities arounf 1600 in Russia, especially their "assistance" to the false Czar Dimitri I, and on their activities with Czar Paul I, who was nominated by pope Pius VII "protector of the Roman Catholic Church"

Poldebol (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

list of Jesuits who left the order
In the dutch page there is a list of Jesuits who left the order. It is far from complete. Maybe this list should be in the english version as well.

Poldebol (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a Category:Former Jesuits with more than 20 names in the English Wikipedia. Similarly there is a Catégorie:Ex-jésuite in the French wikipedia. Possibly in other too. Zerged (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jesuit Cardinals
I have transfered the infobox on 'Jesuit cardinals' to a new page, with an introduction. For two reasons: (1) As several have written the article on the Society of Jesus is much too long and needs to be broken up in several parts. And (2) Jesuits who have been made prelates (bishops or cardinals) are, for all practical purposes, no longer members of the Society. They are no longer under the obedience of the Superior General and have lost active and passive voice in all electoral processes. They remain only nominally Jesuits (even though some still live in Jesuit communities). Zerged (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit on-sided and eventhough its really long and alot of references it don't tell why the jesuits were surpressed.

I'm am not an expert, but under the Enlightenment period the jesuits did quite alot to arrest the enlightment of the people and thus the liberation of humankind. The jesuits had their paradigm and if anyone challenged it, they would spare no means. They had a grudge against the enlightment-philosophers (Voltaire, Rosseau, Diderot, d'Alembert...) and tried to stop the publication of the French encyclopaedia because it was provocative and had, at times, critical remarks on the bible.

The jesuits persecuted the writers of the french encyclopaedia and some of the writers gave up and discontinued their work.

Also, the jesuits dislodged and imprisoned the hugenots (protestants)when the Nantesedict was repealed in 1685.

Eventhough the jesuits build universites it has a little to do with our universities today. I dont think it is to harsh to state that alot of the documents that were in the universities were propaganda-like. When the article "society of jesus" state that there also were books on art, its not the kind of free art that we know. Its the art to worthship God, not for the art itself.

above-mentioned are just examples of bad things, that the jesuits stod for, that I didn't see in the article. but you know.. it was really long —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.114.51 (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess this is why Voltaire openly deplored the suppression of the Jesuit order in which he had received his education and which (internally) used freedom of discussion rather than suppression of opinion.--77.4.67.192 (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A consistency query about the table of Regions
Why does the title of this table refer to twelve regions when the table only lists ten?


 * (Originally placed in the article by User:78.146.210.246) William Avery (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesuit oath
There are various conspiracy theories about a Jesuit oath, it would be interesting if we could have sourced material on that. There is also another conspiracy theory about the Knights of Columbus oath. ADM (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there'd be enough reliable sources to write much on that. All I really know off the top of my head is that there's a fake Jesuit oath in the library of congress that was submitted by a mystery person (apparently if you submit something and pay the fee, they add it to the library regardless of content) some while back.  It was from this fake Jesuit Oath that a fake KofC oath was formed when JFK was running for president because the anti-Catholics didn't want him elected (and he was a Knight).  That is pretty much all there is to say about it and I can't imagine finding much more in any credible source.  If you can find the sources, I'd love to see a whole article on it, but I just don't see that happening.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farsight001 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The site http://www.gingie.awake.nu/?p=78 contains some versions of the Jesuit oath, some with nothing to do with the one in the American congress, which some say was manipulated by anti-Catholics a time ago. Usually what goes against the Catholic church is alleged somehow to be made up by anti-Catholics, usually without proof from not Catholic sources. Of course, the Catholic church denies that any oath even exist; it is logical, since it exposes much of her.

POV re Exercises and prayer
"Ignatius's little book, the Spiritual Exercises is a fruit of months of prayer, and it is through prayer that one gets to understand Ignatian Spirituality." -- I've deleted the italicized part of this as unacceptably WP:POV. Please revise before returning to article. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, IP, you don't seem to have deleted anything - and good thing too, because that's a quote. Quotes cannot be POV as long as they are presented as quotes.Farsight001 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Role of Jesuits in the Inquisition
Farsight001 - why was this removed without discussion? There was a consensus and the short text above was added after waiting the best part of a week to ensure there was no reasonable objection. If you do this vandalism again for your own interests, I shall make a formal complaint to Wikipedia to ask for this page to be locked. You cannot use Wikipedia to rewrite history. You are dealing with some of the most abominable acts in history, as anyone who looks at either the references I quoted or any of thousands of others, can verify. You cannot use Wikipedia to create propaganda sites: it is an encyclopedia not a private space for presenting the world as Jesuits would like to see it rewritten today. You are obliged to discuss any change here, before you go and do these edits. /AD 79.135.110.169 (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)/


 * First of all, new discussions belong at the bottom of the page, not hidden among posts made 2 years ago. Second - please show me this supposed consensus. Please note that consensus requires more than one person to agree to it, so if you made another post in the middle of the talk page a week ago that no one responded to (likely because they could not find it), that most certainly does not constitute consensus.  Second, my change was not vandalism as you can plainly see if you look up wiki's definition of vandalism.  This means that your accusations of vandalism, being made against someone who isn't vandalising, constitute incivility according to wiki policy.  We are supposed to assume good faith around here.  I also suggest looking up WP:NPOV for tips on how to word what you add to the article, as phrases like "were tortured to death in the most cruel ways imaginable" is most certainly not neutral. Lastly, I suggest you check WP:V and WP:R for what constitutes an acceptable source, as both of the ones you provided do not qualify.Farsight001 (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a post of mine that I just discovered you flat out removed from the talk page. This is also a violation of policy.Farsight001 (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus? Please note the dates of the other posts. They were 2 years ago. For one, Foxe's book of martyers is considered mostly a fabrication by historians. It and the torturamuseum website are not WP:R sources, and so cannot be used. There are many many myths about the Jesuits out there. That they killed and tortured millions is one of them. Historically, they were actually quite charitable and are responsible for spreading the gospel to a good portion of the known world. That is why it is not mentioned in the article. To add it would be to add propaganda.Farsight001 (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If there was a perceived consensus, it was a false perception, as this discussion clearly demonstrates. Any Jesuit participation in tortures or massacres would be a fair addition to the article, provided that it is well documented.  Some modern scholarship would be very useful here, since the accuracy of Foxe's book is contested.  Any additions would have to avoid the extreme POV of the attempted edit, for example that these were "among the darkest events in human history."  Plazak (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

————————

Foxes Book of Martyres being considered a fabrication by historians? Please provide some references to support your statement (other than of Catholic origin or association): the general consensus is that Foxe's Book is a reasonable historical summary, albeit focused on one aspect of development of the christian church. The role of Jesuit and Dominican priests in the Inquisition, and the use of the Inquisition as a political force, held back Europe for hundreds of years, and caused at 3.5 million deaths from torture (300,000 to 360,000 being burnt alive) - I have seen references to figures as high as 15 million over a 600 year period. The charitable role of the Jesuit movement was utterly insignificant in comparison, from a secular standpoint. Moreover their military role within the Catholic church far outweighed their missionary role. Looking at this as a whole, the proposer was correct in that Jesuits and Dominican priests did instigate and execute on a massive scale some of the darkest deeds that occurred in Europe during the past millennium. A balanced encyclopedia entry for the Jesuits must have a properly referenced section early on in the article summarizing the role of the Jesuits in the Inquisition, and a similar section in the related article on the Dominican Order. As it stands just now, the article is completely unbalanced, a propaganda article that attempts to rewrite a very dark history in brilliant technicolor. I will discuss this within the several historical groups and propose a suitable wording here once I have done that, with appropriate references. May I suggest several others commenting here do the same, avoiding wording that could be misconstrued racially. [User:BrianS5] /212.113.124.202 I have taken the liberty to delete Poldebol's contribution above, as it is duplicated below. Incidentally, there are many references to the items he/she raises and the reaction to question the historicity of the events in Poldebol's post highlights the imbalance that is ruining this article.(talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)/


 * Sorry, but you need reliable sources for your additions. You are asking for some references that say the book of martyrs is mostly a fabrication.  There are a few problems with that.  One - that you decided not to provide any for your own position.  And two, you declare that my sources cannot be Catholic.  Why?  Wikipedia doesn't care about race, gender, or religion, as long as the source meets WP:R.  That you indicate that a person's religion is more of a factor to you than their credibility as a historian really just reveals your inability to look at this neutrally.  Lastly - that these sources would be almost impossible to find.  When historians think something is bunk, they tend to just ignore it, not write tons of papers about how its a lie.  Do you see the book cited in any history textbooks and such?  Not really.  Care to guess why?


 * And 15 million? My history books say 10,000 tops.  15 million, while not the most ridiculous number I've heard (100 million!), is still about half the population of all of Europe during that period in history.  It is simply a ludicrous number.  Then you suggest that the charitable role of the Jesuits was insignificant!?  Are you sure we're talking about the same group?  And then to suggest that their involvement in the inquisitions should be front and center makes your claims even more silly.  This is about the Jesuits as a whole.  A good article format would to first talk about what they, with a little bit of background which helps to explain the reasons for their rules and style, etc.  Then after that is done, we move onto their impact on others.  Trying to put their involvement in the inquisition front and center will simply leave people confused and asking "who are the Jesuits?" for the first half of the article.  Not good styling at all.Farsight001 (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your argument in the first paragraph of your post above does not answer the question: it gives no evidence of Foxe's book being unsuitable as a reference or inaccurate. In your second paragraph, you decline to quote any reference for your absurb 10,000 figure and your comparison is out of context, the numbers are wrong: it is evidence supporting the assertion that you are not interested in facts, but merely promoting the modern day Jesuits in this article.  The Inquisition extended over a period of 600 years, so it is inappropriate to compare it with the population of Europe at one time, and in any case your figures are widely inaccurate - just keeping within Wikipedia see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography states the population of Europe in 1250 to 1350 was 70 to 100 million.   A population of 70 to 100 million, over a period of 25 generations is over 1.7 billion people: I use the lower end of the range because of the the subsequent effect of the Plague, the Great Famine and wars.  Within this population,  deaths due to execution,torture and imprisonment in the wider Inquisition of 3.5 to 15 million are huge numbers, particularly given the major influence this had on the politics of Europe, the repression of free thought, science and general development in society.  Given the scale of the Inquisition, in which the Jesuits had a primary role, this should be at the top of the discussion thread, not the bottom, and the item should be at the front of this article, not hidden somewhere as it made a far bigger impact on society than all the other actions put together.  Incidentally, on the positive side, you neglect to mention the role of the Jesuits in international trade over this period.  You certainly cannot answer the question on "Who are the Jesuits" without putting in this historical context. /User:AD 79.135.110.169 (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)/


 * Foxes Book of Martyrs does meet WP:R. It is a citable source, of sufficient importance that it has its own Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxe's_Book_of_Martyrs    It is referenced in CiteSeerx, and a Google search finds 181,000 hits for the book.   The University of Sheffield, Humanities Research Institute consider it important enough to publish in a variorum edition from their site http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/johnfoxe/   Foxe's Book certainly complies with WP:R.  The figures for deaths from torture and burning alive in Foxe's Book, are in the middle of the spectrum (3.5 million, and 350,000 respectively).   Just considering the Spanish part of the Inquisition, a review by Matthew White of various sources, gives a median number of deaths at 32,000, with around 9,000 under Torquemada: this is the Spanish part of the Inquisition alone.  R. J. Rummel describes similar figures as realistic, though he cites some historians who give figures of up to 135,000 people killed under Torquemada on top of which are the death tolls during the massacres of 1391, 1468 and 1473.   These numbers are broadly in line with those reported by Foxe for Spain.  Only a very small proportion of the Inquisition's victims were executed: most died before execution from their tortures or the deprivations of prison.   Figures for those executed can be found from Philip Schaff in his book "History of the Christian Church" of 8,800 people burned during the 18 year period of Torquemada.  Durant in his book "The Reformation "(1957), cites Juan Antonio Llorente (General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801),  that 31,912 people were executed from 1480-1808, and  cites Hernando de Pulgar (a secretary to Queen Isabella), that 2,000 people were burned before 1490.     The role of the Jesuits in the wider Inquisition, political repression, instability and torture, makes Foxe's Book a good reference that is the most appropriate to cite.   Given the highly propaganda nature of this Wikipedia page, it is appropriate to also cite these other works.  A brief item on he role of the Jesuits in more recent history should also be compiled and referenced to here in line with WP policy for articles to be concise, terse, factual and balanced. WP:UNDUE  The facts must be allowed to speak for themselves WP:MORALIZE, and include a prominent section on this to comply with WP:RNPOV policy.  I renamed this discussion with a more appropriate heading.  Incidentally, I also support the call to move this thread to near the top of this discussion page, due to its significance. /AD (HR_History) 05:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)/  Corrected title and position /AD (HR_History) 05:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)/

I have been rather busy as of late. Still working on this item. There is rather a lot of material supporting the case above, and takes time to translate and sieve for the best references. HR_History 14:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61508Assoc (talk • contribs)

Balanced view?
I have little experience with Wikipedia. From now on I will even be more careful using it. An article on the Jesuits that does hardly mention their centuries long meddling and involvement in national and international politics, education, finance, art and culture. I will name only a few: Their interference with the tsarist succession, a.o. the episode with the false Dimitri's. Their fights with other religious orders in China. The economic empire they created in Spain before the civil war. Their role in the Kulturkampf in Germany. The conflict with Joseph II of Austria-Hungary and with Napoleon ("The Jesuits are a military organisation and not a religious order.") Their involvement in the forming of a federation of catholic nations in South East Europe during and after wwII. Their involvement in the Croatian Holocaust (where the Franciscans took the lead). Their involvement in the organisation of the famous Ratlines, where they assisted mass murderers to escape to o.a. Latin- America. Poldebol (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.242.130 (talk)
 * Well, there are quite a bit of misconceptions out there about the Jesuits. Are you sure those things are true?  If so, find a reliable source according to WP:R and it may be able to be put in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of the fact that there are many misconceptions about the Jesuits. I hope this does not mean that every negative comment on the order of Jesus is seen as a misconception.

On the Jesuits and antisemitism, or rather antijudaism: see David I Kertzer: "The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara" and "The Popes against the Jews". See also: "Pius XII en de vernietiging van de Joden" ("Pius XII and the destruction of the Jews" in Dutch, the result of an enormous amount of research in formerly never used sources, a book that should be translated into English). On the Jesuits (and other orders) in the Ratlines: see: "Unholy Trinity" by Mark Aarons and John Loftus. On the other Jesuit activities I have mentioned: see Karlheinz Deschner a.o. : "Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums" ("Criminal history of christianity" in German and "Die Politik der Päpste im Zeitalter der Weltkriege" ("Papal politics in the era of worldwars" in German. I am sure that everything I have written here is well documented. Every book I have mentioned here has an extensive bibliography. Please check and let me hear what you have found. Looking forward to further discussion.

Poldebol (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this article may not be (probably isn't) balanced. From the beginning when I was reading it, it sounded slightly biased in favor of the Jesuits as if it had been written by one of them. It needs to be more impartial and see things from a neutral point of view instead of potentially promoting Jesuit view-points.

When it comes to the controversies, they are inadequately explained and are indirectly defended by the nature of the text. Because there is much more controversy and negative history regarding this order, and I deeply agree that this article needs to be more inclusive to avoid being biased.

TheQw 06:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQw (talk • contribs)
 * Since a lot of the controversy involves people fabricating things to vilify Jesuits, it seems logical that the criticism/controversy section would be like this.Farsight001 (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not participated hitherto in this subdiscussion, only that on the role of the Jesuits in the Inquisition. However, I am struck by the behaviour of Foresight001. The above issues are hardly fabrications. As a matter of record, a colleague who commented on the Inquisition subdiscussion came to me an hour ago and showed me a rather message from Farsight001 he had received, with rather menacing overtones. It seems the methods reported of the Order of the Jesuits are not changing: Farsight001 is clearly a Jesuit or a Dominican and her behaviour in this should be public. Wikipedia is not a forum for one woman such as Farsight001, or her cohorts, but one for development and presentation of a balanced and factual article based on properly researched references. I am interested only in historical accuracy: the present article is so imbalanced as to be historically inaccurate. References were quoted above that are verifiable and the commentators do not deserve to be slighted in this manner. I propose that a section be added as per my comment on the Foxes book of martyrs, namely the accuracy of the figures and the involvement of the Order of the Jesuits in the Inquisition. I propose to add this within the next 4 weeks. This should be a first step to address the matter of balance. HR_History 20:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61508Assoc (talk • contribs)


 * I'm a guy. I don't even like the Jesuits because they are too militant in my opinion.  Nor would I ever enter a religious order in the first place, not that it matters here.  I have also never sent another wiki user here a message, so what it was you were looking at is beyond me.  The real problem here, is that I am standing up for accurate information, and as a result your version of the truth does not exist in the articles, which you don't like.  Things like Foxe's book of Martyrs, considered largely an imaginative fabrication by historians do not qualify as reputable sources for accurate information.  Simply accusing me of being some Vatican pawn hired to keep the truth squeaky clean is not only a violation of WP:AGF, but also brings nothing to the table.  If I really am a Vatican stooge hiding the truth, then perhaps you can provide some reputable sources from some qualified experts to show that I am in the wrong.  Until then, cut the crap.Farsight001 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism in "Habit and Dress" subsection
Check out http://www.jesuit.org/FAQs/default.aspx. It's pretty obvious that "Habit and Dress" was taken pretty much verbatim therefrom. I'll try to rewrite it with citations in the next couple of days.
 * Fixed. Calavicci (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Geography
Regarding the table in the page, "South Europe" and "West Europe" are partially overlapping (Spain, southern France and Italy are western European and southern European contries). --24.251.17.123 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Which School?
"The novel and screenplay were written by William Peter Blatty, a 1950 graduate of the school." -- The previous sentence names Georgetown and Fordham, and now this sentence says "the school." GeneCallahan (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Confucius
I removed the following bit from the Jesuits in china section relating to Confucius in Europe:

Two well known examples are:


 * The French physiocrat François Quesnay, founder of modern economics, and a forerunner of Adam Smith was in his lifetime known as "the European Confucius". The doctrine and even the name of "Laissez-faire" may have been inspired by the Chinese concept of Wu wei.
 * Goethe was known as "the Confucius of Weimar".

I'm not sure how these specifics make me more knowledgeable about the Jesuits. The article is long so asides like this should be kept to a minimum. Perhaps there is another article that is a better place for this info? Ekwos (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Whole Page
Sorry, I don't have time to even start on this editing. And probably don't have enough authority. So just my view, agreeing strongly with the people above under 'propaganda' "This whole page reads like a Jesuit recruiting brochure and completely lacks any historical perspective". This page is utterly and completely broken. It's definitely NPOV and full of confusing unnecessary wiffle - what's the huge list of "Ignatian ideal's" characteristics?! I'd suggest starting a new one from scratch, moving a lot of the junk out into other pages. Possibly have a section on what their beliefs are, and another section on history, but at the moment the whole page is a confusing jumble. Hopeless! (sorry to be so negative - I guess I've got used to such a standard on wikipedia, it's quite shocking to come across such a page). Good luck editing all this into coherence! -- Lionfish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.110.211 (talk) 14:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * by the way is there a way of adding a NPOV to the tag list at the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.110.211 (talk) 14:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅--M4gnum0n (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The entire article has but 3 citation needed notices, and only one deals with a potentially controvesial statement: "Some of the top bureaucrats and politicians (including those opposing Christianity) are Jesuit school alumni.[citation needed]"


 * Driveby comments are not the way to edit an article. The criticism that the article is too long may have merit.  The way to fix that is to create subartcles, not vandalism of the recent sort.  As for POV, you have to point out specifically what's at issue.  One does not, for instance, charge someone with criminality in general.  Specific charges with evidence of specific criminal acts are necessary.  I am reversing the addition of a general POV charge to the banner.  Not because I can't imagine that the article can't be improved, but because unspecifed charges are entirely unhelpful.  I welcome the tagging of specific claims instead.μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How Can an Article About Jesuits Not Mention the Inquisition?
This article is typical of how Wikipedia is manipulated by special interests and can therefore never be reliable. The entire article is thinly disguised Jesuit propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samking117 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a specific suggestion for improvement would be helpful, instead of expressing general distaste for an article, which is, frankly, unhelpful to any efforts towards improvement we might have. This is a fairly well sourced article and the Jesuit involvement in the inquisition is often vastly overstated.  Maybe the article is not in error, but rather your notions of what the Jesuits actually are? Farsight001 (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because 1.) the main orders carrying out the Inquisition were the Dominicans and the Franciscans, not the Jesuits, 2.) The early Jesuits worked mostly in missionary work outside Europe, and 3.) The Jesuits didn't appear on the inner-European scene in any significant way until the worst excesses of the Inquisition were already a thing of the past. -- 77.7.143.6 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the Jesuits did have a pivotal role in the Inquisition.  You are probably referring to just the Spanish part of the Inquisition where indeed the Mendicant friars (mostly Franciscans), and the Dominicans were the main prosecutors rather than Jesuits - those Wikipedia pages also cover up their role in the Inquisition.   Jesuits were the instigators of the Irish massacres of 1641 and the damage that did (with the death of 100,000 to 150,000 protestants under unimaginably cruel circumstances in 1641), is still reverberating today.  In many other countries, Jesuits also had a major role in the Inquisition.   There has been debate before, but some editors (Farsight001 particularly) suppress widely published references and try to maintain this cover-up.  There should be a prominent section on the role of the Jesuits in the Inquisition, and without it, this article will never be considered anything more than propaganda. Unbiased History Please 08:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no Inquisition in Ireland in the year 1641. Precise terms, please.--91.34.251.202 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Suppression: 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, thus nullifying their very reason of existence? This must be explained. -- 77.7.143.6 (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. I think the answer is that Russia and Prussia didn't only not recognise papal authority in this regard, they also ordered the jesuits, personally, to continue what they were doing, or they'd be executed, or whatever.. (it would have been a pretty big thing to disregard an order from the Emperor of Russia back then!); See After the Suppression of the Society of Jesus Tjpob (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Jesuits asked the Empress from Russia to publish the edict, but she refused. She threatened the Pope with forcing Catholic in White Russia to convert to Orthodoxy if Jesuits were suppressed in her territory. The Pope gave an verbal approval for the Jesuits to remain in Russia.--Coquidragon (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

recent edits
The recent abbreviation of the lead was obviously done in good faith, but it should not be accomplished by deleting links and sources. While the older version was wordy, the newer edits were often even harder to read. Perhaps trying to split up run on sentences and simplifying word order would be more helpful. μηδείς (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
I haven't done it before, but I have tried to set up an archiving bot for threads over a year old. This page is huge and I assume no one will object. μηδείς (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor quality external links

 * http://www.jesuits-chi.org/videos/A_Millenium_Perspective.wmv is a dead link
 * http://www.pray-as-you-go.org/ is simply spam
 * http://www.jesuitswisprov.org/jesuits_video.htm is a link to a Wisconsin branch of Jesuits, why are they deemed so special as to have their own link? Theroadislong (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any value in these links. The relevant guideline is WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Etymology of the word "hierarchy"
In the context of Ignatius' quote "I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it," would it be worth adding a note to the effect that the etymology of "hierarchy" is "holy rule" (see e.g., http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hier-)? Although I am not a scholar on the subject, I suspect that that, rather than the modern meaning of "levels of authority," is the intended meaning of the author. Daniel Wagenaar (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote makes reference to the Magisterium-at-date: to the teachings of the Church as understood at the specific moment in time of the question. What do you mean by "holy rule?"--Coquidragon (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

intro. paragraph
"The Society of Jesus (Latin: Societas Iesu, S.J., SJ, or SI) is a Catholic male religious order that follows the teachings of the Catholic Church"? As opposed to a Catholic religious order which doesn't follow the teachings of the Catholic Church? As it is, this first sentence sounds either silly or defensive. Why not "The Society of Jesus (Latin: Societas Iesu, S.J., SJ, or SI) is a Catholic institue of consecrated life, made up of priests and religious brothers."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattDawg579 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Pope Francis
Good edit to add "Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina" to the list of famous Jesuits--but shouldn't we now call him by his new name, Pope Francis, rather than his old name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the compliment. I do think including both names adds historical context.Quill and Pen (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree! he is not famous now for being "cardinal" Bergoglio, but for being pope Francis.Fredyrod (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Archbishops of Munich and Freising lists Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger; however University of Regensburg list him as Pope Benedict XVI. Not consistant there.  I will change it to read, "Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina was elected Pope Francis on March 13, 2013 and is the first Jesuit pope."Tomsv 98 (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Also should refer to Pope Francis as Pope Francis I - his full name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.228.52 (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Err, his official name is Pope Francis, /not/ Pope Francis I. Blelbach (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct this was discussed extensively on Talk:Pope Francis. It will be Pope Francis untill there is a Pope Francis II.Tomsv 98 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What's a Jesuit?
I read the introductory paragraphs twice and still can't tell you the difference between a Jesuit and other Catholics.

Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting. While I can tell the difference, I think the lede is in dire need of re-doing. It contains too many tangents and trivial information. The lede paragraphs should summarise everything notable about the topic, not go into details about their nicknames and how they got them, etc. Ashmoo (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope Francis in Lead
I'm not sure that it's appropriate to have Pope Francis mentioned in the lead. I'm removing him from the lead. Please feel free to revert! Blelbach (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unless his becoming Pope has affected the Society of Jesus, it doesn't belong in the lede of this article, but rather in his article. Ashmoo (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Famous Jesuits
Does James Martin (Jesuit) rate as noteworthy enough for inclusion in the famous Jesuits section? Perhaps the section could be re-titled as "Notable Jesuits" rather than "Famous". I think there are a number of other noteworthy Jesuits who could be included in a "Notables" section (for example the current Vatican press secretary Fr. Lombardi). Thoughts? Pylon (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've renamed it "famous" doesn't seem to be the right word for them.19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2013
I noticed some typos: c/Constitution of Norway form 1814/Constitution of Norway from 1814/ ==                              == Shouldn't "Catholic" be capitalized, always? c/catholic Church/Catholic Church/

Gmkayaker (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Jayarathina (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Saint Denis and Saint Pierre de Montmartre.
Foundation section has the phrase "in a crypt beneath the church of Saint Denis, now Saint Pierre de Montmartre" linked to two other wiki articles. These articles describe different sites in Paris, which indicates there is some inconsistency here. I think the solution is that it should read "beneath a church built by Saint Denis..." Perhaps someone who is French, Catholic, or more interested than me can sort this out. Tk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.45.66 (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request March 15, 2013
The Movie, BLACKROBE is a film about the Jesuit Missionaries to the Huron Indians (aka Wendat/Wyandot/Huron) in Huronia - Georgean Bay Ontario Canada (Not Quebec) and NOT the Algonquian Tribe as described in the summary. For info about Wyandot Missions and the Jesuits interactions, visit www.wyandot.org 69.181.42.20 (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 3/15/13 Darren Z. English dzenglish@comcast.net 69.181.42.20 (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

God's Soldiers vs God's Marines
The "Formula of the Institute of the Society of Jesus", which is "the fundamental charter of the order" begins with the statement, "Whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God beneath the banner of the Cross in our Society,"  This is where the colloquialisms "Soldiers of God" and "God's Soldiers" originates.

The Jesuits have never been colloquially known as "God's Marines", and one comment in a NYT article doesn't make it so. In fact, a quick search of the Internet will show that almost all of the places that refer to the Jesuits as "God's Marines" are basing that comment either on this WP article or that single NYT article. On the other hand there are several reputable sources that refer to the Jesuit's as "the soldiers of God" or "God's Soldiers", for example:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124357786 "Jesuit priests are widely admired as scholarly, witty and even being a little debonair. They have sometimes been known as "God's soldiers," after being founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in 1534."

http://www.amazon.ca/Gods-Soldiers-Adventure-Politics-Intrigue/dp/0385500807 "God's Soldiers: Adventure, Politics, Intrigue, and Power--A History of the Jesuits"

Userfriendly (talk) 08:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I welcome the addition of these sources to the article. My concern was that an ostensibly reliable source was removed, followed by an addition of a source which only obliquely referred to soldiers and did not use the phrase "God's Soldiers" nor describe current colloquial usage. The sources you have provided here on the talk page seem adequate to support it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Propoganda
I removed the link to Ian Paisley's "European Instutite of Protestant Studies" page on the "Jesuit Oath." It is a radical anti-Catholic site that's stated goals include "exposing the Papacy" . The supposed oath that is posted was a ludicrous piece of propaganda that is found on a number of anti-Catholic sites. The text itself is taken out of context from a bogus "Knights of Columbus" oath that was declared to be fake by a congressional committee in 1913 (the very document from which the oath was cited). .

In the interested of full disclosure, I am an America Athiest writing from the Jesuit Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines where I am volunteering at a Jesuit Social Apostolate.

202.138.180.167 5:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Projecting much? Please stop this religious propaganda.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.23.34 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add:

-- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. Yes check.svg Done, thanks! -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 03:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation error.
On the third paragraph:

"whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God"[3] (Spanish: "todo el que quiera militar para Dios")

Should be something like:

"whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God"[3] (Spanish: "el que desea servir como un soldado de Dios")

Even Google Translate has a better translation.

"todo el que quiera militar para Dios" would be something like "all who want military for God", which makes no sense here.

Tried to edit it myself, but I'm new to this and didn't see the option to, so there you have it. Hopefully someone fixes it.

Zonauno (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the phrases are reliably sourced and accurately conform to those sources. Also, the Constitutions would have been written originally in Latin or Spanish, particularly an archaic Spanish of 1553. If you type "militar" into Google Translate, you will see that the verb form can mean "soldier", "militate", or "serve", which makes the English quite a good translation thereof. Elizium23 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)