The sad story of the Jesuits

IN 1962, on the eve of Vatican II, the Society of Jesus was what it had been for much of its 400 years: the largest, most confident and influential of the Church's male orders. Less than 10 years later — in the western world at least — it was in disarray, stricken by defection and dissent.
Despite the attempt of the present Pope and of four General Congregations since 1965 to call it back to its senses, what was once a glory of the Catholic Church is now a timid shadow of its former self. And for Jesuits like Fr Rodger Charles, whose story we report on pages one and two, this has understandably caused deep suffering.
The founder of the Jesuits intended that their distinctive marks should be obedience to superiors and loyalty to Rome. "Thinking with the Church" was a key Ignatian principle and the famous fourth vow binding fully-fledged Jesuits to obedience to the Pope both guaranteed it and inspired many of the Society's greatest achievements. Some post-Vatican II Jesuits have tried to argue that the vow refers only to overseas missions; but that is untrue. It binds everyone.
Historically the papacy has often been wary of Jesuits, despite their papalism, largely because they seemed to be a law unto themselves. But the latter have generally remained loyal to Rome, even accept ing suppression by Innocent XIV in 1773 (they were restored in 1814).
Charges of theological heterodoxy, excessive "accommodation" in the face of pagan religions and, as Pascal's famous Provincial Letters reminds us, moral laxism have dogged the Society. But Fr Charles has a more serious complaint, namely, that it failed Rome in 1968 when Paul VI issued his prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae and the Jesuits who openly contested or ignored it were not disciplined. Inevitably further defiance ensued: Jesuit theologians in Britain and elsewhere challenged the Magisterium on abortion, IVF, female ordination, and other issues.
Liberals who chastise Rome's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for rebuking dissident theologians should ponder the story of the Jesuit General in Rome forbidding Fr Charles to publish his book. Similarly, liberals who approve of Jesuits saying and doing "what they like" should ponder the fact that it is precisely the new religious communities, orthodox and strict as once Jesuits were, which are now flourishing.
What would English Jesuit heroes from, say, Campion to Martindale have made of all this?
Would they judge that the Society of Jesus has somehow to die again, as in 1773, in order to flourish once more?