St. Ignatius, ‘Blind’ Obedience, and What Went Wrong with the Jesuits

Brother Francis Maluf, M.I.C.M., once said that the holier a principle is, the more it has been abused, and that of all the quick-to-be-abused virtues out there, obedience is “one of the quickest.” Obedience, specifically religious obedience, is holy, and inasmuch as holiness is power (another axiom insisted on by Brother), the devil, whose pride ever rebels at the prospect of being vanquished by weak men, has a vested interest in distorting for us the true nature, purpose, use, and advantages of holy obedience.

The claim has been made that St. Ignatius himself was the unfortunate victim of the dangerous philosophical ideas in vogue in his day, which necessarily led him to formulate an understanding of obedience antithetical to the Church’s traditional understanding as practiced by earlier religious communities and as clearly expounded by St. Thomas Aquinas. Instead, what St. Ignatius ended up giving his sons was not only a novel conception of obedience, but one calculated to reduce them to a state of intellectual servility, insofar as “the object of of obedience was not the law as understood by reason, but the pure will of the superior, untrammeled by the will or intelligence of the subject” (CCRL, 9). Ignatian methods were designed to “deliberately annihilate the independent will and intellect of the subject as far as humanly possible,” and this was done not only by external means (such as the practice of compulsory manifestation of conscience), “but also by far more effective means — that of enlisting the subject’s own will in the process, through getting him to believe that this annihilation is a religious duty, indeed is the highest form of holiness” (ibid., 9).

The claim proposes furthermore that, while the Ignatian ideal of blind obedience happily failed in many instances and for various reasons within the Society, it has, nevertheless, come to be accepted by the whole Catholic world at large, so that today, by means of the overwhelming influence of this single institution, the Society of Jesus, the majority of Catholic clergy and laity accept as par-for-the-course a tyrannical understanding of authority and a correspondingly servile notion of obedience, whereby those in authority “do not consider themselves to be subject to the law, and their followers do not see the law as the source of their leader’s authority or as a constraint upon their actions” (ibid., 16).

Accustomed as we traditionalists are to discovering that things are not always as wonderful as they seem in the Church, this narrative might not sound particularly shocking. But — is it accurate?

Ignatian Obedience as “Blind”

The word “blind” being subject to different understandings (and therefore misunderstandings, very much like the word “slave” in the Montfortian lexicon), needs to be read and interpreted in a manner consonant with the interpretation of those who have effectively lived it as a means of holiness. The word is itself analogous. Literally speaking, to be blind means to be physically unable to see, the faculty of sight being no longer operable. Figuratively speaking, however, one can make oneself “blind” by choosing to fix one’s gaze in such a way that one “cannot” see aught but the willed object of sight (as Aragorn’s march on the Black Gate was a tactical move to keep Sauron “blind to all else that moves”).

In order for St. Ignatius’ ideal of “blind” obedience to be truly flawed at its core, one or both of the following premises would have to able to be proven: (A) that the Spaniard’s conception of obedience actually destroys a man’s spiritual faculty of reason (“as far as humanly possible” anyway: perhaps comparable to a irremovable blindfold rather than a Saint-Lucy-style mutilation); or else (B) that it would have the subject so focused on the will of the superior that all else — including God’s will — becomes inconsequential. Perhaps even A by means of B.

Not only are these premises unable to be substantiated, but St. Robert Bellarmine explicitly argues against them. In his treatise in defense of the practice of blind obedience, this illustrious Doctor of the Church defines blind obedience as “an obedience that is pure, perfect, simple, which does not discuss the command, nor its reason, being satisfied with knowing that it is commanded” (PO, 153). True Jesuit obedience is the focused gaze of the intellect, yes, but a focus on God’s will to the point of being “blind” to all lesser considerations — one’s own preferences, fears, weaknesses, etc. God’s will, we know, should be the be-all-end-all of every Catholic’s life, but especially that of a religious, and that His holy will is manifested through the commands of superiors and the duties of one’s state in life is a universally accepted premise in complete conformity with tradition.¹

Education Is Everything

Now put that fundamental principle into the specific context of a member of the Society of Jesus, whose state in life obliged him to be so well educated that even while still in formation, he could be entrusted to form and instruct others (cf. JA). These men taught and were taught Truth — philosophic, theological, moral Truth — thoroughly. They could afford to emphasize holy obedience in all its self-sacrificing rigor because this doctrine was perfectly balanced out by their fully informed consciences. If a superior commanded something out of sync with God’s will, Jesuit subjects were trained to recognize it as such. They knew the Fathers and Doctors and dogmatic definitions of the Councils and Popes down through the centuries; they knew the principles of Aristotle and St. Thomas; they were prodigiously well equipped, therefore, with the defenses that would render it virtually impossible for them to be duped into the sheeplehood of obedience for obedience’s sake. On the contrary: theirs seems to have always been the ideal of obedience for God’s sake, for holiness’ sake, and for Truth’s sake.

If St. Ignatius or later Jesuit superiors really had a tyrannical modus operandi, its success would have depended on keeping their subjects ignorant. Yet this was not done.

To Whom Much Is Given

Besides the fact that Jesuit subjects were extremely well educated in the teachings and practices of Catholic dogmatic and moral theology, and that they were held to high standards of personal growth in virtue, even more was expected from those in positions of command. Jesuit superiors were to be true fathers; St. Ignatius did not even hesitate to use maternal imagery, even as St. Francis of Assisi had before him (cf. LSIL, 380). Just as St. Ignatius expected subjects to allow themselves to be led with docility, so he expected superiors to govern in accordance with the Divine precepts, being in all things the models for those for whose souls they would be held accountable. Authority and obedience were to work in tandem: either one without the other was a sure recipe for disaster.²

And St. Ignatius lived what he taught. When, for instance, he wrote his famous “Letter on Obedience” to the Jesuits in Portugal, in which he depicts in such minute detail the necessity and merit of the virtue of holy obedience, he was simultaneously and with admirable paternal tact and gentleness, working to correct the provincial superior whose lack of prudence had occasioned the upset in the ranks to begin with (cf. OPO).

Hardly a Model Tyrant

This brings up another angle of the case against the Jesuits: St. Ignatius’ personal history. Is there any evidence to be had that the man supposedly deceived by such false principles himself acted in accordance with them? Let us allow history to speak for itself:

• The original eleven members of the new Society proceeded with consummate prudence in even adopting a vow of obedience in the first place (cf. LSIL, 198-199).
• Prior to his election, St. Ignatius deliberately avoided ever acting as head of the Society (cf. LSIL, 217).
• St. Ignatius, in order not to prejudice his companions by the weight he knew his opinion would carry, rather than voting for one particular member of their company to be superior, stated that his vote should be counted as seconding whichever superior-elect had the most votes (cf. LSIL, 216).
• When unanimously elected, St. Ignatius twice convinced the members of the young Society to re-vote and, when pressed to accept the position, said he would only do so after making a general confession and thorough manifestation of all his sins and faults to the Franciscan priest who was his spiritual director, ultimately leaving the final decision up to him. That director, hearing the worst his penitent had to say about himself, warned him that, in continuing to resist the superiorship, he would be resisting the Holy Ghost Himself (cf. CP, 358).
• While in office, he studiously avoided even the appearance of partiality, often allowing his consultors to name persons to certain offices, though he had every right to make these appointments himself (cf. LSIL, 380).
• He avoided (and counseled his provincials to avoid) “vexatious interference” with subordinate superiors (cf. LSIL, 381).
• In the Spiritual Exercises, he admonishes subjects to be more inclined to approve their superior’s directions and personal behavior, but when these are not praiseworthy, to speak of their bad conduct to those who can apply a remedy (cf. SE, 140).
• He took incredible care in the crafting of the Jesuit Constitutions (cf., LSIL, 251), making sure that the hierarchical structure of the Society put clear limits even on the authority of the Superior General himself (cf. JEHP, 101-102).
• After almost ten years in office, St. Ignatius begged to be allowed to submit his resignation that one more capable might replace him. He was refused (cf. LSIL, 282).

This is hardly the history of a tyrant, even a well-meaning-but-misguided one. It only remains to be noted that after St. Ignatius’ death, the Constitutions were submitted a panel of four cardinals at Rome, upon whose recommendation they were approved by Paul Paul IV without the slightest alteration (cf. LSIL, 251). Either St. Ignatius was horribly inconsistent — preaching an outlook on and espousing a theory of authority which he did not practice — or else his views contained no inherent tension between theory and practice, only much later becoming subject to a fate similar to that of any holy principle wrested from its true context by the malice of the unholy.

The Real Bad Guys

In short, the problem of obedience being taken advantage of by corrupt men in positions of authority did not originate with St. Ignatius nor with his 300-years’-worth of followers. The real cause of this real problem lay with the real bad guys: the Protestants and their rejection of the authority of the Pope, the masonic French Revolutionaries and their rejection of the authority of God, the atheistic communists and their rejection of any moral authority whatsoever, a doctrine which might well have been pulled straight from the pages of the satanic bible: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

History also furnishes us with another noteworthy fact: the actual enemies of God and His Church were by and large also the sworn enemies of the Jesuits. Consider those countries convulsed by the revolutions of liberal free-thinkers in the 1800s — every one of them made a priority of expelling the Jesuits: Belgium expelled them in 1818; Russia in 1820; Spain in 1821 (and again in 1835 and yet again in 1868); France in 1830 and 1880; Portugal in 1834; Switzerland in 1847; Argentina and Austria in 1848; Italy in 1848 and 1859; Guatemala in 1871; Germany in 1872; Nicaragua in 1881; and Costa Rica in 1884 (cf. JEHP, 201). And everywhere traditionally-minded Jesuits via their schools and publications fought back in the thankless forum of correct thought. While the Redemptorists were silencing Fr. Michael Mueller in 1897 for his defense of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation (cf. CFMM), the Roman Jesuits’ Civilta Catolica was publishing article after article exposing the lies of Liberalism and Freemasonry, and the dangers awaiting the societies that fell captive to those lies. Barely twelve years after that, the great anti-Modernist pope, St. Pius X, would entrust his newly founded Biblical Institute at Rome to Jesuit scholars (cf. JH, 373). And why should he not? The Jesuits had proven themselves men too well educated — too scholastically educated — to not have their priorities straight.

But the glories of the Biblicum were short-lived. For twenty-one years, it thrived under the care of its Father-Rectors Leopold Fonck and John J. O’Rourke. But as early as 1930, none other than the liberal ecumenist Fr. Augustin Bea had assumed the rectorship.

What happened? What changed? Where was the disconnect?

Philosophic Infiltration

What went wrong with the Jesuits? — The bad guys got in. Aristotle and St. Thomas were indeed displaced, but not by some unnamed “Counter-Reformation theologians;” rather, by the brilliant lunatics whose names we know only too well: Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzche, Leibnitz, Rousseau (cf. HJPP and HJBS). It was only after their explosive ideas blasted gaping holes in the Society’s scholastic ramparts that a George Tyrrell was made possible, a Teilhard de Chardin probable, and a Karl Rahner inevitable. One has only to read what these men say about authority and obedience for St. Ignatius to suddenly look again like the hero the Church has always held him up to be.

In identifying the current crisis of modern-day leaders acting as though they were answerable to nothing and no one (since law as a dictate of reason ultimately hearkens back to the God whose divine Mind is the source of all order in the universe), only one symptom is identified of a much deeper disorder: the Faith had been lost. Proper notions of authority and obedience will not be restored until the Faith itself is restored, first in the minds and hearts of individuals and then in society at large.

The Restoration of Holy Obedience

For all the research I have done on this issue, I am convinced that there is a vast amount that still ought to be done by those far more qualified than I.³ We traditionalists are part of God’s plan for the restoration of the Faith in the Church and in the world. We cannot afford to have faulty thinking when it comes to any fundamental principle, but especially when it comes to such pivotal concepts as the proper use and inherent limits of authority and the true practice of holy obedience.

Yet, in trying to get to the bottom of the tyrannical bishops and subservient priests of our day, in trying to explain how on earth professed religious and devout daily Mass attendees could have followed Church prelates into the liturgical catastrophe of the 1960s and ‘70s, the philosophical instincts of certain writers are to be commended, for what happened was in fact traceable to bad thinking and no thinking: Church leaders were indoctrinated and their followers were clueless.

As a Slave of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I cannot help but ask: what better proof of the above statement could there be than that Father Leonard Feeney, S.J., and the highly intelligent, outstandingly well-educated minds of the early Saint Benedict Center did not go along with the changes? Long before Vatican II, the founders of my Order were bothered by what the colleges were teaching because they knew better. They stood their ground because their properly informed consciences told them that they had to. “Aren’t Jesuits supposed to be obedient?” the Center members were asked. “Not at the expense of dogma,” they correctly replied (cf. LC, 128). And so would have any loyal disciple of St. Ignatius — that chosen instrument in whom the mighty grace of God was not made void.

---

Sources

CCRL – “The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law.” Dr. John Lamont. May 8, 2014. <https://sthughofcluny.org/2014/05/the-catholic-church-and-the-rule-of-law-part-i.html>

CFMM – “The Case of Father Michael Mueller.” 30 May 2008. The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. <https://catholicism.org/father-mueller.html>.

CP – The Practice of Christian and Religious Perfection, Father Alphonsus Rodriguez, SJ, P.J. Kenedy and Sons. 1882.

HJBS – “History of the Jesuits Before the 1773 Suppression.” Pollen, John Hungerford. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 28 Sept. 2021 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14086a.htm>.

HJPP – “Historiographyu of Jesuit Post-Restoration Philosophy.” Casalini, Cristiano. December, 2016. <https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/jesuit-historiography-online/*-COM_192537>

JA – “Jesuit Apologetic.” Pollen, John Hungerford. The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 14. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1912. 28 Sept. 2021<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14103a.htm>.

JEHP – Jesuit Education: Its History and Principles Viewed in Light of Modern Educational Problems, Robert Schwickerath, S.J., B. Herder, St. Louis, Missouri, 1903.

JH – The Jesuits in History: The Society of Jesus Through Four Centuries, Martin P. Harney, SJ, M.A., The America Press, 1941.

LC – The Loyolas and the Cabots: The Story of the Crusade of St. Benedict Center 1940-1950, Catherine Goddard Clarke, St. Benedict Center, 1992.

LSIL – The Life of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Fr. Genelli, Benzinger Brothers, 1917.

OPO – “On Perfect Obedience: Letter to the Members of the Society in Portugal.” St. Ignatius of Loyola. <https://jesuitportal.bc.edu/research/documents/1553_ignatiusonobedience/>

PO – Perfect Obedience: Commentary on the Letter on Obedience of St. Ignatius of Loyola, Fr. Manuel Maria Espinosa Polit, S.J., The Newman Bookshop. 1947.

SE – The Spiritual Exercises, St. Ignatius of Loyola, translated by Anthony Mottola, PH.D., Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964.

---

— Footnotes —