An Occult Therapy

 

Earlier this year, the following was written on a flyer which had been placed in my mailbox:

Are you seeking a gentle yet powerful approach to pain relief, stress reduction, and overall well-being? Look no further than Bowenwork therapy, offered by [name and address/phone/website/email of practitioner redacted]. Bowenwork is helpful to all; it was developed by Thomas Bowen, a devout Christian. Come and feel the power of Bowenwork today! (Emphasis mine). 

I had never heard of Bowenwork before (aka "Bowen Therapy" and "Bowen Technique"--hereinafter BT). In my experience, when someone emphasizes how "Christian" something is, it usually is not the case. I began to research and, sure enough, far from being "Christian," it is actually occult. As many practitioners of BT claim to be "Christian" (mostly Protestant and Vatican II sect), I will expose BT for what it really is in this post so no one will be fooled. (Please note that this post is a compilation of all the resources, both online and print, which I used in my research. I take no credit for any of the information herein. All I did was condense the information into a terse and readable post---Introibo).  

What BT Claims to Be

According to The American Bowen Academy: Bowenwork is a gentle form of bodywork where very subtle moves performed over muscles and connective tissue send messages deep into the body through multiple layers of fascia, impacting nerves, lymphatics, organ function, muscles, joints, as well as the autonomic nervous system - an innovative approach to chronic and acute pain management. 

(See americanbowen.academy). 

There are many definitions I found besides the one above. No matter how defined, it is an alternative medicine technique that combines massage with what some describe as "vibrational energy healing."  It was developed by an Australian engineer with no medical training named Thomas Bowen (1916-1982) and was introduced into the U.S. in 1990. Thomas Bowen professed himself to be a devout Protestant.

However, BT is not consistent with a Christian view of the body or of health. According to one BT source: Tom Bowen believed in the universal energy called Chi. This energy circulates within the body along 14 channels, called meridians and it was identified by Chinese medicine.

The meridians contain acupuncture points which influence internal organs and their function. According to Chinese medicine the free circulation of Chi throughout the human body is essential for good health.

Most moves of the Bowen technique are practiced on particular meridians and some on specific acupuncture points. It is not known whether Tom Bowen had sufficient knowledge of Chinese medicine on which he based his procedures.  Nonetheless, acupuncturists practicing the Bowen technique claim that the Chi is modified during and after each Bowen treatment. 

(See bowtech.si/en/the-mechanism-of-bowen-technique; Emphasis mine). 

When there's talk of "vital energy" and "chi" (sometimes spelled "ki") you're dealing with pagan and occult teachings. 

BT and Science

There are many medical claims made by BT therapists, but what does the medical research have to say?

According to therapists who practice Bowenwork, this type of therapy acts on the autonomic nervous system. They believe it inhibits the sympathetic nervous system (your fight-or-flight stress response) and activates the parasympathetic nervous system (your rest-and-digest response).

However, no research has yet confirmed this or other mechanisms of action. (Emphasis mine),

Furthermore, Some people refer to Bowen therapy as a type of therapeutic massage. It isn’t a medical treatment, though. There’s minimal scientific research on its effectiveness, and its purported benefits are mainly anecdotal. (Emphasis mine).

Despite all this, BT is considered by some to be a veritable panacea. 

Conditions commonly addressed by Bowen therapy include:

• frozen shoulder
• headaches
• migraine
• back pain
• neck pain
• knee injuries

Some people may use Bowen therapy to manage pain due to:

• respiratory conditions, like asthma
• gastrointestinal disorders, like irritable bowel syndrome
• cancer treatment side effects

Additionally, some people may also seek Bowen therapy for managing:

• stress
• fatigue
• depression
• anxiety
• high blood pressure
• stiffness and reduced range of motion

That's quite a list for a therapy whose exact mechanism for working is unknown, and benefits are mostly anecdotal. Limited research exists on the benefits, long-term effects, and risks of Bowen therapy. Some research suggests that it may help with pain and mobility, but more studies are needed to generalize results to all age groups and populations.

If you decide to have a session of Bowen therapy, it’s important to seek a licensed therapist and ask about potential side effects of the treatment. 

(All Information from this section, See healthline.com/health/bowen-therapy#bottom-line; all emphasis mine). 

Pagan and Occult Roots of BT

During a typical BT treatment, which lasts about 30-45 minutes, the practitioner uses his/her fingers to make a gentle rolling type of motion on different muscles in the body. The practitioner then pauses, sometimes even leaving the room for a few minutes, to allow the body to “make its own adjustments” or, in a sense, to heal itself. How is this possible?

According to one practitioner:

His (Thomas Bowen's) main principle and belief was that the body is able to heal itself, he believed that good medicine was to assist the body's natural ability to repair and regulate itself and that bodily dysfunction were the result of disturbances in the tissues. His underlying assumption was that structure governs function, and that disturbances of structure in whatever tissue within the body will lead to disturbances of functioning in that structure and, in turn, of the function of the body as a whole. His goal was to restore the structural integrity in the body in order to restore its optimum function.

He also believed in the universal life energy called Chi. In traditional Chinese medicine, this energy must flow freely throughout the body in order to assure a state of maximum health. Bowen's gift was to discover a system of mobilization to rebalance the natural flow of energy. 

(See bowentherapytechnique.com/page3/page3.html; All Emphasis in original). 

The idea of chi or ki is purely pagan/occult. A key to understanding pagan approaches to health and views of the body is in the knowledge of what is taught about the "subtle body." It is integrated from Hinduism, and Taoism, then appropriated by occultists. Here is one description of an occult book on the subtle body by an “intuitive healer” or "psychic healer:"

All healers are “energetic” healers, whether they know it or not. Because every health issue has a physical and an energetic component, even a simple physical treatment like bandaging a cut also impacts the body’s spiritual, mental, and emotional welfare.

The Subtle Body is a comprehensive encyclopedia devoted to the critical world of our invisible anatomy, where so much of healing actually occurs. Compiled by intuitive healer and scholar Cyndi Dale, this 500-page full color illustrated reference book covers: * What is the “subtle body”? New scientific understanding of our quantum-state existence and the unseen fields that determine our physical condition * True integrative care: how combining Eastern energetic modalities with Western scientific rigor yields optimum results * The meridians, fields, and chakras: detailed information and diagrams about the role of these energetic structures in our overall health * Energy-based therapy principles from the world’s healing traditions–including Ayurveda, Qigong, Reiki, Quabalah, and many more. (See cyndidale.com/product/the-subtle-body). 

The chi/ki belief makes BT a form of energy healing like Reiki  just mentioned in the book description. Here is the pagan mumbo-jumbo regarding chi/ki: "The source or cause of health comes from the Ki that flows through and around the individual rather than from the functional condition of the physical organs and tissues. It is Ki that animates the physical organs and tissues as it flows through them and therefore is responsible for creating a healthy condition. If the flow of Ki is disrupted, the physical organs and tissues will be adversely affected. Therefore, it is a disruption in the flow of Ki that is the main cause of illness.

An important attribute of Ki is that it responds to ones thoughts and feelings. Ki will flow more strongly or be weakened in its action depending on the quality of ones thoughts and feelings. It is our negative thoughts and feelings that are the main cause of restriction in the flow of Ki. All negative or dis-harmonious thoughts or feelings will cause a disruption in the flow of Ki. Even Western medicine recognizes the role played by the mind in creating illness and some Western doctors state that as much as 98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind.

It must be understood that the mind exists not only in the brain, but also through-out the body. The nervous system extends to every organ and tissue in the body and so the mind exists here also. It is also known that the mind even extends outside the body in a subtle energy field 2 to 3 feet thick called the aura. Because of this, it is more appropriate to call our mind a mind/body as the mind and body are so closely linked."  (See Reiki.org; Emphasis mine).

Here's what's wrong with this doctrine:
1. There is no soul as the animating principle of the body, but some impersonal "Ki energy."

2. Ki nevertheless can respond and be manipulated by thoughts and feelings, yet there is no explanation as to how or why this is known/proven.

3. The claim that "some Western doctors" (not even naming one) state "98% of illness is caused directly or indirectly by the mind" is not only completely unsubstantiated, but terms are not even defined. What does it mean that an illness is caused "indirectly by the mind"?

4. It states the existence of some "aura" which is "known" to exist without any citations to a single relevant medical or scientific source.

What if it Really Works?

The objection may be raised: What if there's some truth to Bowen Therapy? Maybe science just hasn't discovered everything we know about the workings of the body; a  bodily energy might be at work. Many people claim health benefits. Besides, I don't believe in the pagan/occult stuff. As long as I see it as an "energetic massage" that may help me, what's wrong with using BT? 

There's much wrong with it. It is a form of Reiki, and it was correctly condemned by (wait for it)...The Vatican II Sect! (Hey, even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours, right?). Since the sect actually got something right (even if not well known and never enforced), I cite it here; just substitute "Bowen Therapy" for Reiki as both have the same worldview based on "energy healing." 

The Vatican II sect document entitled Guidelines for Evaluating Reiki as an Alternative Therapy, has this to say in paragraph #9:

The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. (Emphasis mine)

Their conclusion:
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems...In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science.
Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction.(See paragraphs 10 and 11; Emphasis mine. The term "Catholic" is meant to denote a member of the Vatican II sect).

Therefore, to submit oneself to any pagan "energy healing" like BT or Reiki becomes an implicit denial of dogma, as the basis of these practices rests upon the heresy of pantheism.

From the Vatican Council (1870), Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Dei Filius, it states:

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and confesses that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, Almighty, Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence, in will, and in all perfection, who, as being one, sole, absolutely simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared as really and essentially distinct from the world, of supreme beatitude in and from Himself, and ineffably exalted above all things which exist, or are conceivable, except Himself. 

3. If anyone shall say that the substance and essence of God and of all things is one and the same; let him be anathema. 

4. If anyone shall say that finite things, both corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, have emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or, lastly, that God is a universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things, distinct according to genera, species and individuals; let him be anathema. 

5. If anyone does not confess that the world, and all things that are contained in it, both spiritual and material, have been, in their whole substance, produced by God out of nothing; or shall say that God created, not by His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal to the necessity whereby He loves Himself; or shall deny that the world was made for the glory of God; let him be anathema. 

You also open yourself up to possible demonic obsession/possession whenever you involve yourself in anything occult or pagan. 

Conclusion

Bowen Therapy is based on the occult/pagan worldview of pantheism and replaces the One True Personal God with an impersonal "life force" called chi or ki. It may have some benefit from the placebo effect, among other explanations, but do you really want physical improvement at any cost? 

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?" (St. Matthew 16:26). 

The Heresy Of The "Lay State"

 

It never ceases to amaze me how Vatican II apologists, even ones who are intelligent and well-educated, have to struggle to make the "square peg" of Vatican II teaching fit into the "round hole" of what the Church has always taught. They don't (refuse to?) see the glaring contradiction and must write long screeds to try and make black mean white and vice-versa. One such article I came across recently had me shaking my head.

Dr. William Marshner wrote in defense of the Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae (DH). He is a "conservative" member of the sect who, in his own words, will try to show in a careful way that there is no doctrinal conflict between the immutable teaching of the 19th Century Popes and that of Vatican II. Then, secondly, I shall try to show that the doctrine of DH is a harmless addition, even a slight improvement, to the older teaching, since it disturbs no just power of a Catholic State to protect its citizens from the "corruption of morals and spread of the plague of indifferentism," which Gregory XVI and Pius IX feared would result from too much religious liberty.

Marshner asserts:

Let us begin by reviewing the most important of the alleged points of conflict.

In Mirari vos (August 13, 1832), Gregory XVI denounced as "delirium" the idea that liberty of conscience, especially liberty of worship, is the proper (or inalienable) right of every man, which should be proclaimed by law, and that citizens have such a right to the free dissemination of their ideas, however false, that they are to be restrained from doing so by no law, whether ecclesiastical or civil. In terms of the Second Vatican Council's basic holding, this denunciation merely excludes the following view:

Such freedom of action as an objectively false religion ought to have [however broad or narrow that may be; we shall come to that point in due time], it in fact does have by a natural right of conscience, whereby the person's freedom of religious speech and action transcends the scope of what positive law, civil or ecclesiastical, may rightly restrict.

Vatican II also excludes such a view. It does so in no less than three ways. First, the Council leaves untouched the restrictive powers of ecclesiastical authority (DH 14, with footnote 58 provided by the commentator, John Courtney Murray, S.J., in the Abbott edition); secondly, the Council recognizes the right of civil authority to restrict religious liberty according to the "just requirements of public order" (DH 2 and 4); lastly the Council refuses to grant any immunity to proselytizing activities of the "hard sell" variety (DH 4). It follows that the transcendentally grounded, unrestrictable religious liberty that was championed by revolutionary liberals and denounced as madness by Gregory XVI is not the same kind of liberty as that endorsed by Vatican, II. (See catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8778; the whole article can be read there). 

On the contrary, I will set forth the Church's teaching on Church-State relations, expose the heretic who wrote nearly all of DH (Fr. John Courtney Murray) who wanted a non-confessional "lay state," and demonstrate that in no way can the teaching of DH be reconciled with all that was taught prior. 

The Teaching of the Church

The Church teaches that people are only free to choose that which is good and to believe what is objectively true. Many people, nevertheless, do make evil/wrong choices and embrace false religions. Society can never praise, encourage, or support such decisions. It can, however, tolerate these individual abuses of liberty in order to maintain temporal peace while encouraging the adherents of false religions to understand the errors of their ways and convert to the One True Church. 

The pronouncements of the popes are clear:

Pope Gregory XVI: "...We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained...This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. (See Mirari Vos, para. #13 & 14; Emphasis mine).

Pope Pius IX: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION # 15: Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true (See The Syllabus of Errors).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #77: In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship (Ibid).

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #78: Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship (Ibid)

CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #79:  Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism (Ibid)

Pope Leo XIII: The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief. (See Immortale Dei, para. #25; Emphasis mine).

Pope St. Pius X: That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious form of worship, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (See Vehementer Nos, para. #3; Emphasis mine).

All of the above is well summarized by theologian Cahill: "The Church and State recognize each others prerogatives. The State while allowing freedom of conscience and thus tolerating such non-Catholic religions as may exist within its territory, itself publicly professes the Catholic Faith. It recognizes also the higher importance of the Church's functions and engages to fulfill its own part in the union [between itself and the Church] according to Christian principles...This system existed over all Europe before the 16th century. It is...the system which exists at present in Italy, Spain...Belgium, Poland, as well as the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Peru, Ecuador, and practically in Columbia. [Union of Church and State is] the system most in accord with Divine Law; and the nearer the actual arrangements approach it the better for the spiritual interests of the people and for their peace and well-being even in temporal matters." (See The Framework of a Christian State, [1932], pgs. 610-611; Emphasis mine). 

Thus:

1. There is but One True Church of Christ which is for the eternal salvation of humanity.

2. Every State should be a Catholic State because error has no rights. Only that which is true and good has a right to exist. Only within the Catholic Church can salvation be found, so the public good demands that only She be recognized and promoted.

3. No one should ever be forced to accept the True Faith. Christ wants us to come to Him freely.

4. In private, people may profess error, but not publicly. The State should profess the Catholic Faith, and only Her True worship of God (and Her moral teaching) should be permitted in public. To do otherwise is to put falsehood on par with the Truth and lead souls to Hell when people are exposed to false religions. Just as those who are highly contagious with a deadly disease are quarantined to protect the people from exposure, so too with false doctrine and morals, which can infect and destroy the soul which is infinitely more valuable than the body.

5. In countries where there is no Catholic majority, the members of the Church have a duty to try and convert as many to the Faith, so as to one day effectuate a Catholic State. 

Enter Fr. John Courtney Murray

Fr. John Courtney Murray was born in 1904 in New York City. He entered the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1920, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1933. He earned a Doctorate in Sacred Theology at the Gregorian University in Rome in 1937. He returned to the United States where he taught theology, and in 1941, was named editor of the Jesuit journal Theological Studies. At first, Murray was orthodox, but he soon became a dedicated Modernist.

Eventually, Murray began to advocate religious freedom as defined and protected by the Masonic First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and he eventually argued that Catholic teaching on Church/State relations no longer served contemporary society. Murray began promoting his ideas in theological journals, where he met with heavy criticism from some bishops and many fellow theologians, most notably the eminent Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was strongly anti-Modernist. Theologian Fenton was Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Catholic University of America and was the editor of the influential American Ecclesiastical Review. Fenton attacked Murray's teachings as being irreconcilable with Church teaching (most notably Pope Leo XIII) on Church-State relations.

Murray taught that the West had developed the "fullness of truth" (sound familiar?) on "human dignity." This alleged "truth" demanded that people be given "moral control" over their own beliefs in religious liberty. In 1954, the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office censured his teachings, demanding that he stop all writing and teaching on the topic of religious liberty. Even when censured, Murray continued to write privately on religious liberty and submitted his works to Rome, all of which were condemned.

In 1963, he was rehabilitated under Roncalli, and was brought to Vatican II as a peritus (theological expert) so that his condemned doctrines could be accepted. While at the Council, he became a friend of Archbishop Karol Wojtyla--the future "Pope" John Paul II. Murray drafted the heretical Vatican II document Dignitatis Humanae which officially adopted heretical religious liberty as the doctrine of the newly founded Vatican II sect. After the Council, he taught that Catholics who "arrived at new truths(!)" about God would have to do so in conversation "on a footing of equality" with non-Catholics and atheists. He suggested greater reforms, including a restructuring of the Church, to become "less authoritarian" and more "democratic." (See https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/Murray/bio).

It has been reported that during the 1960s, Murray would "drop acid" (i.e., take LSD):

Murray’s experimentation with LSD at the dawn of the ‘Woodstock decade’ was but one sign of contradiction to that legacy of militant separatism much more intimately linked to the sex abuse and cover-up disaster than the putative tainting of priestly vocations by free love and flower power (and I cannot overstate how this brief episode in Murray’s life pales before the grandeur and prescience of his writings on church-state relations). (See irishwaterfront.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/goodstock/).

Murray died of a heart attack in 1967, less than two years after Vatican II ended.

Cardinal Ottaviani and John Courtney Murray

Information has come out recently regarding the clash between the orthodox theologian and Pro-prefect of the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, and the heterodox, censured theologian John Courtney Murray. 

Card. Ottaviani gave a speech at the Lateran University on March 2, 1953, in which he masterfully reiterated the teaching of the Church and denounced those like Murray, who sought to end Catholic countries. The ecclesiastical giant stated:

I have said, first of all, that the State has the duty of professing its religion socially. Men united socially are no less subject to God than when they are taken as individuals, and the civil society, no less than individual men, is in God’s debt, “under Whom, as Author, it is gathered together, by whose power it is preserved, by whose goodness it has received the great treasure of good things which it enjoys.”

Thus, as it is not licit for any individual to fail in his duty to God and to the religion by which God wills to be honored, in the same way, “states cannot, without serious moral offense (citra scelus) conduct themselves as if God were non-existent or cast off the care of religion as something foreign to themselves or of little moment.”

Pius XII reinforces this teaching condemning “the error contained in conceptions such as do not hesitate to absolve civil authority from all dependence upon the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and the Absolute Master both of men and of society, and from every bond of transcendent law which proceeds from God as from its primary Source, and that concede to civil authority an unlimited power of action, a power left to the ever changing wave or whims or to the sole restraints of contingent historical exigencies and of relative interests.” (Emphasis in original). 

He discussed the perennial validity of the traditional principles regarding Church and State:

These principles are firm and immovable. They were valid in the times of Innocent III and Boniface VIII. They are valid in the days of Leo XIII and Pius XII, who has reaffirmed them in more than one of his documents. Thus, with strict firmness, he has also recalled rulers to their duties, by appealing to the warning of the Holy Ghost, a warning which knows no limits of time. Pius XII speaks thus in the encyclical Mystici Corporis:

We must plead with God to grant that the rulers of peoples may love wisdom, so that this severe judgment of the Holy Ghost may never all on them: “The Most High will examine your works and search out your thoughts; because, being ministers of his kingdom, you have not judged rightly nor kept the law of justice, nor walked according to the Will of God; horribly and speedily will he appear to you: for a most severe judgment shall be for them that bear rule. For to him that is little, mercy is granted: but the mighty shall be mightily tormented. For God will not exceed any man’s person, neither will he stand in awe of any man’s greatness: for he made the little and the great, and he that equally care of all.”

Nearing the end of his speech, he gave the following summation:

In conclusion, the synthesis of the doctrines of the Church on this subject have been expounded most clearly in our day in the letter of the Sacred Congregation of Seminaries and Universities sent to the Bishops of Brazil on March 7, 1950. This letter, which refers continually to the teachings of Pius XII, among other things warns against the errors of a renascent Catholic liberalism, which “admits and encourages the separation of the two powers. It denies to the Church any sort of direct power over mixed affairs. It affirms that the State must show itself indifferent on the subject of religion…and recognize the same freedom for truth and for error. To the Church belong no privileges, favors, and rights superior to those recognized as belonging to other religious confessions in Catholic countries,” etc.

(For full text of Card. Ottaviani's speech, See American Ecclesiastical Review, May 1953, pages 321-334). 

What transpired next is most interesting:

On December 6, 1953, Pius XII delivered a speech in which he stated that the question of religious freedom and tolerance now had to be placed in the context of an emergent international community and that there it was of his exclusive and final authority. Murray and his friends and advisers took these remarks to be a tactful repudiation of Ottaviani's intransigent position.

On March 25, 1954, thinking Pope Pius XII was on his side, Murray gave a speech at the Catholic University of America. He informed his audience that the cardinal's speech had evoked diplomatic protests and that he had himself been assured by a close papal adviser that it represented the merely private views of Ottaviani. The pope reacted diplomatically, of course, to preserve the cardinal's buonafigura...Two conclusions followed, Murray argued: "(1) appeal to Ottavani henceforth [must be] cautious and discriminating; (2) anyone whose theory is that of [Ottaviani] is under obligation of revising his views." The remainder of Murray's speech was a detailed exposition of the papal address, stressing the doctrinal advance it represented beyond the classic theory of tolerance. 

Cardinal Ottaviani wasted no time leaping into action having learned of Murray's speech. He went to the Holy Father with four propositions to be condemned as voted upon by the Holy Office. Pope Pius XII signed them and they were sent to Murray. On October 28, 1954, these four propositions were solemnly condemned:

a) The Catholic confessional State, professing itself as such, is not an ideal to which organized political society is universally obliged.

b) Full religious liberty can be considered as a valid political ideal in a truly democratic State.

c) The State organized on a genuinely democratic basis must be considered to have done its duty when it has guaranteed the freedom of the Church by a general guarantee of liberty of religion.

d) It is true that Leo XIII has said: ii....civitates...debent eum in colendo numine morem usurpare modumque quo coli se Deus ipse demonstravit velle" (Enc. Immortale Dei). 

Words such as these can be understood as referring to the State considered as organized

on a basis other than that of the perfectly democratic State but to this latter strictly speaking are not applicable. [ i.e., the teaching of Pope Leo XIII on the obligations of States to God is not applicable to the democratic state---Introibo]

(See jstor.org/stable/25154656?origin=JSTOR-pdf; by V2 sect priest Fr. Joseph Komonchack [ordained in 1963]). 

Komonchak's article ends with this stunning admission:

Just ten years after Murray was silenced, the Second Vatican Council was to vindicate the views for which he was censured. The Council's Decree on Religious Freedom (Dignitatis Humanae) effected the adaptation of Catholic teaching on Church and State and religious freedom for which Murray had called in his 1950 memorandum and made it clear that American Catholics could be faithful at once to Catholic principle and to the American political experiment. (Emphasis mine). 

The idea of a change of doctrine by Pope Pius XII was totally false, and traditional teaching was upheld until Roncalli and Vatican II.

Is The Teaching of DH in Continuity with Prior Teachings?

It should be clear enough that the answer is "No." However,  Marshner asserts it is, and even constitutes a "slight improvement"(!) on traditional teaching. Marshner cites to DH para. #14, that allegedly leaves untouched the restrictive powers of ecclesiastical authority.

DH #14:

In order to be faithful to the divine command, "teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19-20), the Catholic Church must work with all urgency and concern "that the word of God be spread abroad and glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1). Hence the Church earnestly begs of its children that, "first of all, supplications, prayers, petitions, acts of thanksgiving be made for all men.... For this is good and agreeable in the sight of God our Savior, who wills that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1-4). In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church. For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, "in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth" (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood.

The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith. All is to be taken into account-the Christian duty to Christ, the life-giving word which must be proclaimed, the rights of the human person, and the measure of grace granted by God through Christ to men who are invited freely to accept and profess the faith.

What, exactly, is the Church still restricting? This is, at best, a sappy, watered down version of the Great Commission where the rights of the human person is mixed in. At the heart of the problem lies a dangerous, false, and heretical notion of "human dignity" from which these fabricated "rights" (religious liberty) allegedly spring forth. Murray and his fellow Modernists believe "truths" can be discovered "more fully." This implies that if religious toleration was evil or not sufficient because of "human dignity," it was always wrong and could not "become wrong." People have not "developed more human dignity." Human beings were, from the very beginning, made in the image and likeness of God. It doesn't become "more true" or "less true" with the passage of time. It is an implicit denial of the Indefectibility of the Church; the Church was somehow "deficient" in not teaching the "full truth" or gave something evil. However, this is impossible. 

Next, Marshner contends the Council recognizes the right of civil authority to restrict religious liberty according to the "just requirements of public order" and cites (DH 2 and 4). 

DH states in paragraph #2: 

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right. (Emphasis mine). 

This plainly flies in the face of all that was taught prior to the Council, and only one devoid of reason could say otherwise. DH teaches that the right to religious liberty, founded on the "dignity of the human person," persists even if the person misuses his right to religious liberty and denies the One True Church. Human dignity replaces God as the measure of what is good. Humans become "god." There are no "due limits" on public false worship. It should be banned altogether.

Finally, Marshner declares lastly the Council refuses to grant any immunity to proselytizing activities of the "hard sell" variety (DH 4).

DH #4 states that:

Provided the just demands of public order are observed, religious communities rightfully claim freedom in order that they may govern themselves according to their own norms, honor the Supreme Being in public worship, assist their members in the practice of the religious life, strengthen them by instruction, and promote institutions in which they may join together for the purpose of ordering their own lives in accordance with their religious principles...

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered in their public teaching and witness to their faith, whether by the spoken or by the written word. However, in spreading religious faith and in introducing religious practices everyone ought at all times to refrain from any manner of action which might seem to carry a hint of coercion or of a kind of persuasion that would be dishonorable or unworthy, especially when dealing with poor or uneducated people. Such a manner of action would have to be considered an abuse of one's right and a violation of the right of others.

Therefore, Mormons can practice polytheism publicly and proselytize as long as they don't put a gun to someone's head to convert because it's "a violation of the rights of others." Error has no rights and what of the rights of God to have only His truth propagated? 

Here's some more of DH:

DH para. #6: The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government. Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.

Vatican II teaches here that all religions must enjoy the right to religious liberty. Implicitly, the prime value to be defended in human society is no longer the Truth, but liberty.

DH para. #7: ...that is, the freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary.

This is an implicit denial of Original Sin. Give people religious liberty, and their minds and morals will be corrupted, as Pope Pius IX taught. Vatican II assumes the opposite--all will be well with religious liberty. The propagation of error is no longer considered a sin against the common good. This is the subversion of the common good and the subversion of true morality.

DH para. #11: God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom.

Really? Immorality and heresy are to be "enjoyed" as "freedom"? When people are damned as a result of the misuse of freedom, enjoyment will be gone forever in Hell.

Marshner's case collapses. However, let's look at what the original schema, prepared by orthodox approved theologians had to say on Church and State.

The Original Draft Reflects the Traditional Teaching of the Church

This schema (draft) below, called the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, was the product of the very best and most Anti-Modernist approved theologians under Pope Pius XII. It was never voted upon as the Modernists, led by "good Pope John," had all the original and orthodox schemata prepared for the Council scrapped, including this one. In it was the teaching on Church-State relations.

From the schema on the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (CC)

Para. #42: The good of the State itself requires that the civil power not consider itself indifferent towards religion. It was established by God to help men acquire a truly human perfection; it must, therefore, not only provide its members the opportunity to procure temporal goods, both material and cultural, but must also assist them so that the spiritual goods for leading a religious life can more easily abound. Among those goods none is to be more highly regarded than to know and acknowledge God and to fulfil the duties owed to God, for these are the foundations of all private virtue, and indeed of all public virtue as well.

These duties toward God are not to be fulfilled only by individual citizens, but also by the civil power, which in its public acts represents the civil society. For God is the author of civil society and the source of all the goods which through it flow down to every member. Although, in the order willed by Christ, liturgical worship belongs only to God's Church, still the civil society must also worship God in some social way.

In the light of its nature, it will especially do this if by procuring the common good it faithfully observes the laws of God established by the divine Majesty for this economy of salvation. This demands above all that full freedom be granted to the Church and that whatever the Church judges to hinder the attainment of the eternal goal is excluded from legislation, governing, and public activity. The goal indeed should be to make it easier to live a life on Christian principles, one conducive to eternal life.  

The teachings of heretic Murray and other censured theologians were clearly condemned. Unfortunately, false pope Roncalli had it scrapped and had Murray draft DH.

Finally, how do the Conciliar "popes" understand religious liberty? 

Vatican II Sect "Popes" and Religious Liberty

Roncalli (John XXIII):

Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public.

(See Pacem in Terris, para. #14; Emphasis mine).

Bergoglio (Francis):

 The state must be lay. Confessional states end badly. That goes against history.

(See interview with La Croix magazine; referenced here tif.ssrc.org/2022/01/28/j-c-murray-the-vatican-and-the-lay-state-challenge)

Francis and Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar, a leading authority for many Sunni Muslims, signed a document on "human fraternity," and improving Christian-Moslem relations. (See https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/does-god-want-religious-diversity-abu-dhabi-text-raises-questions). "The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed by God in his wisdom, through which he created human beings," the document said. Some have tried to defend this, including the Modernist Vatican, by claiming God wills false religions permissively (like other evils) and not positively. 

Don't be fooled. Read the context. Diversity of religion is listed with color, sex, language, and race. God positively wills male and female, as well as different colors, races, and languages. Yet we are to believe that religion was meant to be understood differently than the others in the same sentence? That God would positively will false sects with their false morals is the logical conclusion of religious liberty. The Vatican II sect has given power to the false sects of the world, especially Islam. 

Conclusion

The end of each Vatican II document ends thus:

"Each and every matter declared in this Dogmatic Constitution the Fathers of this Sacred Council have approved. And We by the Apostolic Authority handed down to Us from Christ, together with all the Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Ghost approve, decree and establish these things; and all things thus synodally established, We order to be promulgated unto the glory of God...I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church. There follow the signatures of the rest of the Fathers." (AAS 57 [1965], 71).

For members of the Vatican II sect, the Council is part of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, to which all Catholics must submit. However, Dr. Marshner thinks there is "wiggle room" that the past teachings can be reconciled with Vatican II.  Yet, clearly that has been shown to be false. 

Therefore, which Magisterium will he obey? On religious liberty will he obey the teaching of Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832 (para. #14):

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin."

Or will he obey Vatican II, Dignitatis Humanae of December 7, 1965:

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The council further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right."

All of us face the same choice between two opposing teachings. Both cannot be true. Nevertheless, Vatican II sect apologists  want to "prove" that blatant contradictions are actually harmonious. No wonder Pope Gregory XVI called religious liberty "insanity."  

The First Jesuits

 

To My Readers: This week's guest post from Lee is about the Jesuit Order as founded by the great St. Ignatius Loyola. He relates how the Jesuits were before the much deserved contempt that many hold for them. I learned from reading his post, and I'm sure you will too! Lee wrote this post for July, as the Feast of St. Ignatius is kept on July 31st. Please feel free to comment as usual. If you have a specific comment or question for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week. 

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The First Jesuits

By Lee

Something noticeable over the past few years is how some on social media will on occasion discuss their disdain for the Jesuits as if there is a need to "expose" them. The main reason is because of Francis I (Jorge Bergoglio) becoming the first Jesuit so called "pope" ascending to the throne. The other reason is the liberation theology promoted by them in 20th century Latin America where Bergoglio happened to be from.  

There is no doubt that the Jesuits of modern times deserve severe criticism. They are now taken over by the worst of men trained in the most liberal environment. Ultra Modernists (synthesis of all heretics), Marxists, and Sodomites make up most of what is now left with some exceptions. They are also responsible for "updating" the Church since Vatican II with those like Karl Rahner and Henri de Lubac playing a key role in those changes. The changes of Vatican II and those involved were certainly influenced by those who came before them or else there wouldn't have been a Vatican II.

The excommunicated Alfred Loisy and George Tyrell of the early 1900's come to mind. They were relativists, critics of the historical accounts of the Scriptures, and had a warped understanding of the nature of the Church (Ecclesiology). Then came Teilhard De Chardin who was so popular in the 30's and 40's that later on we see John Paul II and Benedict XVI quote him favorably. For those who may not know who he was or what he taught, this website has already covered him under the title of "The Doctor of the Vatican II Sect" found here: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/search?q=de+chardin  

Their attractive personalities and condemned ideas crept in the seminaries in those days affecting many of the clergy. While we can certainly blame the Jesuits for much of the down hill spiral which happened in the Church, it wasn't just they who drifted away. All religious Orders of the Church ended up submitting themselves to the disciplines and beliefs of Modernism summing up why it is now a totally new religion with a different perspective on everything compared to what it once was. 

Despite these terrible truths the Jesuit Order was not at all like this from its foundation. In fact, it was one of the greatest missionary Orders in the Catholic Church. This is where I would like to defend them. There are those out there with either a misguided understanding, likely swayed by a Protestant viewpoint, or an intentional loathing for the Catholic Church who believe the Jesuits were insidious from the beginning. They invent this idea that St. Ignatius was somehow a man who wanted to help keep "corruption" in the Church on going by showing his allegiance to it and that he and his companions concentrated on dogma to distract from the internal sins and abuses of the Church.

Others claim the Council of Trent was dominated by Jesuits not for the sake countering the Reformation, meant to blot out heresy and restore integrity in the Church, but used to seek after world power by incorporating their missionary tactics to sell Christianity on what the locals needed so that way they would convert not to true Christianity but to a "secularized" Order in the name of Christ.

Another assertion that some run with is the Jesuit's connection with Adam Weishaupt who founded the Illuminati in 1776. These accusers think that because he incorporated principles from his former Jesuit training into his secret organization that he must have had help or possibly was working alongside the Jesuits. Such claims are absurd and just as the founder of the Jesuits, St. Ignatius, was falsely accused of sorcery and heresy multiple times by his enemies and found innocent from the inquisitions, so too has his Order been maligned by those who will not see the truth.   

I would like to know what the naysayers honest opinion (if they have one) is when looking into the lives of the martyrs of North America who happened to be Jesuits. They who risked their lives with the daily threat of having one of their body parts either being chewed off or ripped out along with being boiled in water as a mock baptism all for the sake of instructing and baptizing the poor Indians lost in the darkness of their culture and idolatry. 

Or what about St. Francis Xavier, friend of St. Ignatius, who went as far as Japan preaching the faith? Thanks to his efforts that country became a strong Catholic oriental country, where more martyrs were born and where the faith was kept alive nearly 300 years without priests owing to the great educational means of the Jesuits (more on him below). These men alongside many others of the Jesuit Order were true heroes and I certainly don't see the Kyle Seraphins, Leo Zagamis, or Mark Dices of the world (naysayers) accomplishing the sacrifices that these Jesuits once faced. They did as Christ commanded by baptizing and teaching all nations for the salvation of souls.  

Its True Foundation

"Every one therefore that hearth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rains came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. And every one that hearth these my words and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and the beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof." (Matt 7:24-26) 

The intent of laying a firm foundation was the desire of St. Ignatius of Loyola who was the heart and soul of the Jesuit Order. A man who was first enlightened not by the Knights Templar or secret societies or some unknown mysticism, but rather the lives of the saints whom he first read while passing the time in his bed healing from severe battle wounds he sustained when fighting in a previous battle. The saints pursuit for the things of God and heavenly things are what inspired him to put away the fantasies of attracting women and receiving worldly honors as a staunch knight. As he got better, he at once paid those he owed, distributing much of what he had to the poor, and informed his brother Martin where he was going with his new path in life. 

Starting out making pilgrimages, visiting the poor, and imitating the saints through his austere penance and good works were what gave him deeper insights into the meaning of life. He was also met with many trails during this period where he suffered scruples that nearly led him to despair. Cooperating with grace and with the help of his confessor he was not only able to fight it off but experience actual visions in ecstasy which he was careful not to reveal even though witnesses saw them. He was to be a soldier of Christ who as he once put it to "set the world on fire" as in the love of God and His Church. He knew reason and logic had to be well maintained in order that faith be firm and not carried off by emotion. To fulfill his goals, he went to study to become a priest.

While at Paris he met six men who were to be his close associates. They were Alfonso Salmeron, Diego Laynez, Francis Xavier (later became a saint) Nicholas Bobadilla, Simao Rodrigues, and Peter Faber. On August 15th 1534 they met at Montmartre in a crypt beneath the church of St. Denis and pronounced their promise of living the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. This is where they came up with the name Company of Jesus because they believed that the Lord had brought them together to live out the Gospel. The seven traveled from France to Rome to receive approval of their Order by Pope Paul III. After some time and consideration he did so through his Papal Bull Regimini Militantis Ecclesiae in the year 1540. Although humbling protesting to his companions Ignatius was chosen to lead them as the Superior General, which he reluctantly accepted.

A few years after their approval another apologetic giant of the future, St. Peter Canisius, joins them in 1543. It was he who later was most instrumental in bringing back many nations of Europe to the Catholic Church through his well reasoned argumentation. Ann Carrol wrote this about him in her book Christ the King- Lord of History:

"Protestants had made much headway in Germany because of many intellectuals had adopted it, making Catholicism appear to be the religion of the ignorant. By his debates, his writing and his teachings, Peter showed that Catholicism was thoroughly rational, that the Protestant arguments were not convincing. 

By his efforts, Peter won Bavaria (Southern Germany) and the Rhineland (Central Germany) back to the Catholic Church. He also won converts in Austria, Hungary, Bohemia and Poland. Poland had become largely Protestant, but thanks to the efforts of Peter and other Jesuits, it returned to the Church and is still Catholic today despite Communist persecution."

The above two paragraphs about St. Peter Canisius shows how he as well as others had a remarkable ability to convince fallen away Catholics (Protestants) through faith and reason. 

St. Ignatius also carefully laid out for the Order rules in place for the purpose of what they were to achieve. Approved in 1550 by Pope Julius III, Exposcit Debitum states this: 

"Whoever desires to serve as a soldier of God beneath the banner of the cross in our Society, which we desire to be designated by the name of Jesus, and to serve the Lord alone and the Church, His spouse, under the Roman pontiff, the vicar of Christ on earth, should, after a solemn vow of perpetual chastity, poverty, and obedience, keep what follows in mind. He is a member of a Society founded chiefly for this purpose: to strive especially for the defense and propagation of the faith and for the progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine, by means of public preaching, lectures, and any other ministration whatsoever of the word of God, and further by means of the Spiritual Exercises, the education of children and unlettered persons and the spiritual consolation of Christ’s faithful through hearing confessions and administering the other sacraments. 

Moreover, he should show himself ready to reconcile the estranged, compassionately assist and serve those in prisons or hospitals, and indeed to perform any other works of charity, according to what will seem expedient for the glory of God and the common good. Furthermore, all these works should be carried out altogether free of charge and without accepting any remuneration for the labor expended in all the aforementioned activities. Still further, let any such person take care, as long as he lives, first of all to keep before his eyes God and then the nature of this Institute which is, so to speak, a pathway to God; and then let him strive with all his effort to achieve this end set before him by God—each one, however, according to the grace which the Holy Spirit has given to him and according to the particular grade of his own vocation...

The Gospel does indeed teach us, and we know from orthodox faith and firmly hold, that all of Christ’s faithful are subject to the Roman pontiff as their head and as the vicar of Christ. Yet for the sake of greater devotion in obedience to the Apostolic See, of greater abnegation of our own wills, and of surer direction from the Holy Spirit, we have judged it to be extremely profitable if each one of us and all those who may make the same profession in the future would, in addition to the ordinary bond of the three vows, be bound by a special vow to carry out, without subterfuge or excuse and at once (as far as in us lies), whatever the present and future Roman pontiffs may order pertaining to the progress of souls and the propagation of the faith, and to go to whatsoever provinces they may choose to send us, whether they decide to send us among the Turks or any other infidels, even those who live in the regions called the Indies, or among any heretics or schismatics or any of the faithful. 

Therefore before those who will come to us take this burden upon their shoulders, they should ponder long and seriously, as the Lord has counseled, whether they possess among their resources enough spiritual capital to complete this tower; that is, whether the Holy Spirit who moves them is offering them so much grace that with His aid they have hope of bearing the weight of this vocation. Then, after they have enlisted through the inspiration of the Lord in this militia of Christ, they ought to be prompt in carrying out this obligation which is so great, being clad for battle day and night...

From experience we have learned that a life removed as far as possible from all contagion of avarice and as like as possible to evangelical poverty is more gratifying, more undefiled, and more suitable for the edification of our fellowmen. We likewise know that our Lord Jesus Christ will supply to His servants who are seeking only the kingdom of God what is necessary for food and clothing. Therefore our members, one and all, should vow perpetual poverty in such a manner that neither the professed, either individually or in common, nor any house or church of theirs can acquire any civil right to any produce, fixed revenues, or possessions or to the retention of any stable goods (except those which are proper for their own use and habitation); but they should instead be content with whatever is given them out of charity for the necessities of life...

These are the matters which we were able to explain about our profession in a kind of sketch, through the good pleasure of our previously mentioned sovereign pontiff Paul and of the Apostolic See. We have now completed this explanation, in order to give brief information both to those who ask us about our plan of life and also to those who will later follow us if, God willing, we shall ever have imitators along this path. By experience we have learned that the path has many and great difficulties connected with it. Consequently we have judged it opportune to decree that no one should be permitted to pronounce his profession in this Society unless his life and doctrine have been probed by long and exacting tests (as will be explained in the Constitutions). For in all truth this Institute requires men who are thoroughly humble and prudent in Christ as well as conspicuous in the integrity of Christian life and learning." 

St. Ignatius stressed an absolute self denial and a special vow of obedience towards the pope with the motto Ad Majoriem Dei Gloriam (For the Greater Glory of God). Before his death in 1554 St. Ignatius also bequeathed to his Order and the whole Church his Spiritual Exercises which particularly focused on man's last end. It is also excellent reading material on the discernment of spirits, whether something be of God or of the devil.  

A great son of St. Ignatius and of God 

One of the greatest missionaries was St. Francis Xavier. Pope Pius XI declared him Patron of Catholic Missions in 1927. He who once was an athletic high jumper at the University of Paris put away his worldly glory in exchange for a spiritual athleticism to travel for eleven years into foreign territories on behalf of the king Portugal as well as the King of Heaven. His first mission was the city of Goa India, the main Portuguese colony in the East, where colonists were scandalizing the natives, engaged in lucrative commerce and allowed themselves to be wiped away by the sins of the pagan world. 

In a few weeks, the beneficial effects of the new missionary’s presence, preaching, and determination were understood: “So many people came to confession that if I were divided into ten parts, all of them would have to hear confessions” – he wrote to the Jesuits in Rome in September 1542. “Such is the multitude of those who are converted to the faith of Christ in this land where I walk, that it often happens to me that my arms are tired from so much baptizing, there are days when I baptize a whole town.”

A year later, he tells us how God worked in those parts: “News from these parts of India: I let you know that God our Lord has moved many, in a kingdom where I am going, to become Christians, so that in one month I baptized more than ten thousand people. (…) After baptizing them, I commanded them to tear down the houses where they had their idols, and I ordered them to break the idol images into small pieces. When I finish doing this in one place, I go to another, and in this way I go from place to place making Christians.”

Using a small catechism he had translated into the native Tamil language with the help of interpreters, he traveled across villages confirming many in the faith. His goodness overcame trials and shortcomings. From this point he was informed of a tribe called the Macuans located on the southwest coast their desire for baptism and after getting in contact with them through more travels he briefly instructed them and baptized 10,000 towards the end of 1544.

In the fall of 1545 he went to the Malay Archipelago and found missions in the Spice islands. In 1548 he returned to his mission in Goa where more Jesuits arrived to join him. Together they took over the only college located in Goa and developed it into the center of education for native priests and catechists.

Not satisfied with exploring this vast region for new converts, he was still determined to go further. A Japanese man named Anjiro who had fled his country was deeply interested in converting to the Catholic faith ended up doing so and went with Francis Xavier to his native home of Japan with several companions. They landed in 1549 on the port of Kagoshima. His letters reveal that the Japanese are a polite society but suspicious of foreigners. That they are a warlike people who took great pride in their weaponry. That their religion consists of Bonzes and Bonzesses who have a great rivalry between them, the grey monks being set against the black monks accusing each other of ignorance and bad morals. He goes on to state how they don't believe anybody is condemned to hell and...

"The Japanese doctrines teach absolutely nothing concerning the creation of the world, of the sun, the moon, the stars, the heavens, the earth, sea, and the rest, and do not believe that they have any origin but themselves. The people were greatly astonished on hearing it said that there is one sole Author and common Father of souls, by whom they were created. This astonishment was caused by the fact that in their religious traditions there is nowhere any mention of a Creator of the universe. If there existed one single First Cause of all things, surely, they said, the Chinese, from whom they derive their religion, must have known it….In the end, by God’s favor, we succeeded in solving all their questions, so as to leave no doubt remaining in their minds. 

The Japanese are led by reason in everything more than any other people, and in general they are all so insatiable of information and so importunate in their questions that there is no end either to their arguments with us, or to their talking over our answers among themselves. They did not know that the world is round, they knew nothing of the course of the sun and stars, so that when they asked us and we explained to them these and other like things, such as the causes of comets, of the lightning and of rain, they listened to us most eagerly, and appeared delighted to hear us, regarding us with profound respect as extremely learned persons.

This idea of our great knowledge opened the way to us for sowing the seed of religion in their minds. …The university of Bandou, situated in an island of Japan, which has given its name to its country, is the most famous of all; and a great number of bonzes are constantly going thither to study their own laws. These precepts are derived from China and are written in Chinese characters, which are different from the Japanese. There are two kinds of writing in Japan, one used by men and the other by women; and for the most part both men and women, especially of the nobility and the commercial class, have a literary education. The bonzes, or bonzesses, in their monasteries teach letters to the girls and boys, though rich and noble persons entrust the education of their children to private tutors."

With a difficult task ahead of him St. Francis Xavier figured out that the Japanese would not listen to a person who looked poor but one who was dressed in fine clothes. His tactics would work. He later writes,

"The Japanese are very curious by nature, and as desirous of learning as any people ever were. So they go on perpetually telling other people about their questions and our answers. They desire very much to hear novelties, especially about religion. Even before our arrival, as we are told, they were perpetually disputing among themselves, each one contending that his own sect was the best. But after they had heard what we had to say, they left off their disputes about their own rules of life and religion, and all began to contend about the Christian faith. It is really very wonderful that in so large a city as Yamaguchi in every house and in every place men should be talking constantly about the law of God.

 …For those who have become Christians used to belong, one to one sect, another to another; the most learned of each of them explained to us the institutions and rules of his own way of belief. If I had not had the work of these converts to help me, I should not have been able to become sufficiently acquainted with, and so attack, these abominable religions of Japan. It is quite incredible how much the Christians love us…May God in His mercy repay them with His favor, and give us all His heavenly bliss! Amen."

After his stay for just a few years it is disputed as to how many he converted but at the very least it was 2,000 with many more thousands to follow until Toyotomi Hideyoshi banned Catholicism in 1587 and put many to death with the rest going underground for 250 years until priests came back only to find many who had kept the Faith.

Still yet determined to preach the Gospel to all nations, he set his eyes towards China in 1552 and while in exile on an island just off the main land he developed a fever which ended up taking his life after much suffering mostly alone around December 3rd of 1552.

One might wonder how a foreign man could convert so many to a foreign religion other than through his social skills and enthusiasm? The answer is the fact that he performed extraordinary wonders and miracles with the Vatican approving up to 1,200 of them.

Fr. John Hardon S.J. explains the mind of the Church towards St. Francis Xavier's as follows:

"To answer non-Catholic criticism of Xavier's miracles, it is enough to appeal to the evidence of contemporary history. But Catholics have also another norm by which to pass judgment in the matter-the declarations of ecclesiastical authority. Here the evidence is most conclusive. For every official statement of the Church on the subject credits the Apostle of the Indies with thaumaturgic powers that are not only considered real, but so extraordinary that, with the possible exception of Francis of Assisi and Anthony of Padua, they are unique in the history of Christian hagiography.

Thus in the Brief of Beatification, issued in 1619 by Pope Paul V, he declares that “Francis Xavier, during his life as a priest, was endowed by the Lord with many and outstanding (multis et eximiis) gifts of virtue, of grace and of miracles.” 

In the Allocution of 1622, when Gregory XV in a private Consistory proposed to the Cardinals that Francis Xavier should be canonized, he said: “In as much as holiness of life, a reputation for miracles (claritudo miraculorum) and the desires of the people concur in their judgment on this remarkable man, the true Apostle of the Indies, it is expedient that he should be raised to the honors of sainthood." The Cardinals who assisted, individually, gave their judgment, in writing, on whether Xavier should be canonized. Their votes are only a paragraph each, some less than fifty words, yet all of them, and mostly in explicit terms, refer to his claritudo miraculorum as a sure sign that the Holy Spirit desires His servant to be honored as a saint.

According to Cardinal a Monte, “He shone with the splendor of many miracles.” And Bandini, “He drew the hardened hearts of men to the true faith by innumerable miracles.” Cardinal Ginnasii, “By the power of God, he healed the sick, raised the dead, spoke with the gift of tongues.” Cardinal Millini, “He was resplendent with so many and such great miracles that I believe he may without hesitation be entered by Your Holiness in the catalog of the saints.” 

In the Bull of Canonization issued by Urban VIII on August 6, 1623, the miracles of St. Francis make up the bulk of the nineteen pages, in folio, of the papal document. Regarding the phenomena which happened during the saint's life, the Pope says, in general, that “He was found worthy to be richly endowed with apostolic charismata; the evidence of his apostolate being manifested... in signs and prodigies and powers.” Then follows a careful description of eighteen miracles in the life of St. Francis which the Church accepted as authentic:

Omitting those already mentioned, the first phenomenon noted in the document was the gift of rapture. While celebrating Mass, Xavier was often so rapt in ecstasy that those in attendance could with difficulty rouse him back to normal consciousness. 

At other times during the Holy Sacrifice, he was seen raised from the ground a cubit and more so that “while seeing the greatness of the miracle, the people might acknowledge the sanctity of the servant of God.” 

After his arrival in the Indies, one of the "more outstanding prodigies which he wrought for the edification of the faithful," occurred when a mob of pagan Badages made a surprise attack on a Christian village, intending to kill the inhabitants. But the mob was put to flight when Francis went out to meet them, accompanied by a mysterious figure whose majesty and splendor terrified the assailants. 

At Comorin, when the pagans were not moved by his words, Xavier asked that a tomb which had been sealed the day before should be opened. Then indicating that this would be a sign of God's approval of Christianity, he called to the body to rise. The dead man came to life, with hundreds of natives embracing the faith as a consequence. 

In the same city on another occasion, Francis healed a beggar with ulcerous legs when in a burst of heroism he drank the putrid water in which the running sores had been washed. 

Also in east India, Xavier brought back to life a young man who had died of a pestilential fever, and was being carried to the cemetery. 

In the city of Combutura, a boy had fallen into a deep well and drowned. His body was later brought up to the surface. Francis prayed over the dead child and then, “taking it by the hand, ordered it in the name of Jesus Christ to rise. Immediately the boy returned to life.” 

In Japan, a merchant, blind for years, was given back his sight when Francis recited the Gospels and made the sign of the cross over his head. 

On one occasion, a small crucifix which the missionary had lost in the ocean was restored to him by a sea crab when he reached the shore. 

Again out at sea during a storm, the landing boat of the ship on which he was sailing was torn from its mooring and lost in the waves. Three days later, in answer to Xavier's prayers, the boat floated back to the ship and rested alongside the hulk, ready for landing, as though nothing had happened. 

As examples of his prophetic powers, Francis predicted the fate of two ships sailing out of port-that one would be destroyed in a storm and the other, a smaller and older vessel, would reach its destination in safety. At another time, as he arrived at the altar for Mass, he suddenly turned to the people and asked them to pray for the soul of a wine merchant who had just died, at a distance of twelve days' journey away. He also promised a generous benefactor that God would reward him by telling him the time of his death. Years later, in apparent good health, the man was suddenly forewarned and died in the peace of God. 

Since his canonization in 1623, a series of new honors has been conferred on Francis Xavier by the Holy See, culminating in his declaration in 1922 as the heavenly patron of all Catholic Missions. And consistently the Roman Pontiffs, in their letters and decrees, have emphasized in a singular way his extraordinary gift of miracles and prophecies.

Thus Alexander VII, shortly after Xavier's canonization, authorized the following insertion to be made in the Roman Martyrology for the third of December: “. . . the Apostle of the Indies was conspicuous in the number of infidels he converted to Christ, and in the greatness of his miracles, especially in raising the dead to life and in the spirit of prophecy.” 

And more recently, Pope Pius XI, on the third centenary of St. Francis' canonization, described the “Heavenly Patron of the Propagation of the Faith” as one who, “in the interest of souls, many times traversed vast expanses of land and sea, was the first to bring the name of Christ to the nation of Japan, suffered many dangers and underwent incredible trials, administered the saving waters of Baptism to countless souls, and performed innumerable miracles of every kind (infinita omne genus portenta).” 

Conclusion

Sts. Ignatius and Francis Xavier were the first models of their Order. What flowed from them was true Christian charity through the ages. Volumes upon volumes fill the wonderful contributions the Jesuits have made from the 16th-19th centuries. Even during their suppression from 1773-1814 the world was not the same without them because it was during this time that three Revolutions broke out (America, France, Haiti). It makes one wonder if that was planned. Nevertheless, it wasn't the Jesuits who were the enemies of humanity during this time, nor any time before that but rather the work of bad Monarchs, Jansenists, Encyclopedists, and so many others. All they tried to do was convert the world to Christ and His Church and nothing more.

The prayer of St. Ignatius below sums up the spirit of the Jesuit Order:

"Teach us, good Lord, to serve Thee as Thou deserve; to give, and not to count the cost, to fight, and not to heed the wounds, to toil, and not to seek for rest, to labor, and not to ask for reward, except that of knowing that we are doing Thy will."