Talk:Suppression of the Society of Jesus

Expulsion of the Jews?

I only got as far as the lede when this entry brought to mind the earlier expulsion of the Jews from various European countries -- i.e. expulsions where there is NOT a war or military threat involved between the parties (which is the more usual situation). Is there a wikipedia entry that examines that phenomenon? I wouldn't begin to be able to guess what sort of title to look for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.133.235 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Suggest the item under Portugal about "Seven Reductions of Paraguay" is worth copying to Paraguay history - or somehow that country's history is x-ref to this article.

Highly POV

In an effort to add factual objective historic reporting and slightly less focus on POV - I have added a citation and quote from Clement XIV for an actual quote of his "forever extinguish and suppress" language in his decree. It seems logic to quote at least something from the actual document under discussionBobRyan777 (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This article needs to be re-done. It directly accuses the Catholic Encyclopedia of presenting biased information, and yet the Catholic Encyclopedia is one of its main sources. If it was written from a 'pro-Jesuit' viewpoint before, that has obviously been reversed. Weasel words are used to imply that the Jesuits were guilty of the 'political scheming' and 'economic exploitation', without any citations. The educational and charitable work of the Jesuits is ignored. The whole article seems to have been re-written by a supporter 'Enlightenment secularism', based not on sources but on his own opinions. 121.98.151.80 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, whoever edited this article blatantly states that all he did was take information from the Catholic Encyclopedia and twist to conform to an anti-Jesuit, anti-Catholic bias. This is clear from the fact that only one historical account of the Suppression is listed: the Catholic Encyclopedia. Next to this source the editor has added the note that it "offers a view from the Catholic side, which has been adjusted in this entry". No sources are given for the 'non-Catholic side' to justify this 'adjustment'. The editor's implied reduction of this complex matter into a binary division between 'sides' is breathtaking in its mendacity and historical illiteracy. 121.98.151.80 (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is very biased. Language needs to be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.127.213.130 (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

I also was annoyed by the comment next to the reference to Catholic Encyclopedia. It should be noted that these were all still Catholic nations which expelled the Jesuits. The Jesuit perspective and the "Catholic perspective" are certainly not the same. Let's not oversimplify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.87.130 (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree. The article seems to be from a pro-Jesuit perspective, minimizing non-Jesuit Catholic views, and secular views as well. I get the vibe that this was written by a Jesuit as a PR piece. There are little to no citations which makes it even worse. I am adding the citation tag. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed this article is biased against the Jesuits. The true reasons for the suppression of the Jesuits were that they were perceived to be a threat to the notion of the divine right of kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.246.39 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Poorly written

The article seems to write off Jesuit missionary work in the New World as a purely commercial enterprise, which has little or no basis in truth. I'd like to see this article revised to some semblance of objectivity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falkan (talk • contribs) 07:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

sloppy writing

I couldn't help but notice the exact phrase "The expulsion of the Society of Jesus from the Roman Catholic nations of Europe and their colonial empires is also seen as the first triumph of the secularist notions of the Enlightenment" is found twice in this article. Repeating a lengthy phrase like that is a bad idea in any writing.

not sloppy writing, but ideology

Repeating that phrase is not casual, but an ideological attempt to link Enlightenment, secularism, opposition to the Company of Jesus and the dark side of the French Revolution.

Plagiarism

This article is basically plagiarized with minor changes from the catholic encyclopedia. We need someone to give a serious study of this. As I understand it, the plantation employed slavery and did indeed work for the profit of the order of jesuits.

BTW, it wasn't for profit as such. Vows of poverty, right! The money that was made on these plantations was used to fund the schools and other institutions which were part of the mission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.87.130 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture recently added

Is the caption right? Is it really called "The Marquis of Pombal expelling the Jesuits from Portugal"?! I'd like to see a reference. FilipeS (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations and POV

I added the citations tag. The article also has POV issues as discussed above. Comments and providing of sources are welcome. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag on lack of references. It was added on May 19,2008 when the article had two citations. It now has 41, which is sufficient for removal of the tag. Workman (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Papal Documents relating to Freemasonry

Is there any relationship between the suppression of the Jesuits and the papal Documents relating to Freemasonry ? At the time of the suppression, the Church was fighting a fierce battle against Masonic forces in Western Europe. Conversely, the Jesuits played an important role in the Holy Inquisition that was tasked with fighting the Masons and were engaged in significant intellectual and academic conflicts with them. It would be interesting to gather more information on Jesuit-Mason relations in the 18th century and try to determine whether it has anything to do with the unfortunate suppression of the Jesuits. ADM (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep away from the Dan Brown school of religious history, please. Who was the suppression "unfortunate" for? Obviously for the Jesuits themselves, but some unexpected benefits arose for Prussia and Russia under Catherine the Great. Neither was Catholic, but they took in refugee Jesuits to run their schools. The article doesn't mention that aspect. Frederick the Great was a mason, so at least some masons actually kept the Jesuits going until 1814. Since 1814 the Jesuits have noticeably and understandably played the whole suppression down.86.42.241.48 (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but why not make a Dan Brown styled conspiration theory saga out of it? We could be rich like idiots, earning money on idiots that only read idiot sagas!! And then we mix it with UFOs!! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reasons

This article seems to ignore precisely what the Jesuits were doing (or not doing) that led to the suppression. 67.189.44.254 (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, it would be great if you could add (well-referenced) information to the article. bamse (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why didn't they listen to the pope in the non-Catholic countries?

Even if the states of Russia and Prussia didn't recognize the papal command to dissolve the Jesuits, how could the Jesuits themselves disregard that command without completely violating their fundamental vow of obedience to the pope? This must be explained. -- 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

They may have harbored the quite probably not unjustified feeling that the Pope in this decision was not as free as he ought to be; in any case, the Czar of Russia and the King of Prussia had pretty much the physical force over them, nor did they ask (in this case) anything intrinsically evil, so that's an understandable dilemma... I guess they sent word to Rome asking for an order what to do, and went on as usual for the meantime. I've read that the Pope in secret sent his okay some two years later or so. What is definitely more than rumour is that as early as in 1780 (or some such date), the supposedly non-existing Jesuit order was officially granted something like an "Acting General" by the Pope in all openness.--131.159.76.185 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Suppression out of the blue?

The article is written kind of hanging in the legs, unfoundedly claiming some unspecified political motives that were not theological. The article explains nothing why anyone should want to suppress the Jesuits, except possibly General Evil.

This article on the very opposite of the quality scale, written by a scholar, claims that Jesuits for a pretty long time have made a lot of enemies within the Catholic Church, within other Christianity and within the secular sphere by harassment, intrigues, manipulation and rebellious teachings. Those enemies, although disparate and not very coordinated, were outnumbering the Jesuits far. Because of that. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly my question too

What in the world are the EXACT reasons? You don't have to go into too much detail, but atleast show some reasons why the Jesuits were specifically expelled, forbidden, in certain countries? Atleast in the case of the pope and France and Spain it would be nice to know a REAL reason, or doesn't anyone know? It's not enough to say "political reasons", I would like to know precisely what the main cause(s) were, the entire world can't view an order as such a big problem if they didn't really screw around in things (but what exactly?!), it would again be nice to have some examples what caused the ban. Otherwise we're all just left with wacko stuff on Youtube which I can tell is 90% incorrect (or more) January 27th 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.160.252.46 (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Suppression of the Society of Jesus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article needs to be re-done. It's greatly based on the point of view of the Catholic Church and does not present the two sides of the story. For a power that the Jesuit order was, it definitely had to be more then just the poor innocent Jesuits.

Substituted at 18:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Suppression of the Society of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630011016/http://www.um.edu.mt/about/uom/history to http://www.um.edu.mt/about/uom/history

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph lacks definition

The first sentence of the first paragraph of any article should summarize the article.

This article fails to do so. It reads:

The suppression of the Jesuits in the Portuguese Empire (1759), France (1764), the Two Sicilies, Malta, Parma, the Spanish Empire (1767) and Austria and Hungary (1782) is a complex topic. Analysis of the reasons is complicated by the political maneuvering in each country which was not carried out in the open but has left some trail of evidence. The papacy reluctantly went along with the demands of the various Catholic kingdoms involved, and advanced no theological reason for the suppression.

Consider the first sentence, which concludes: "... is a complex topic." This says nothing about the topic, only wasting the reader's time with an unhelpful truism about complexity.

The second and third sentences of the also fail to define the topic of the article; the information they provide is relevant to the article, but should be preceded by a proper definition.

A proper definition begins:

The suppression of the Jesuits was ... [definition here].

I'm not qualified to do the rewrite, and leave the task for someone who is.

Karl gregory jones (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Obscurantism

Came here to learn why the Jesuits were suppressed and expelled and came away knowing nothing at all. This is either an exericse in obscurantism or needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2023 (UTC)