Rorate Caeli

Will the CDF warn Jon Sobrino?

The Spanish daily El Mundo reports that one of the most famous surviving "Liberation theologians", Jon Sobrino, SJ, will be publicly rebuked by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a note to be published on March 15 (or some other time in the next few weeks), the first public note of the kind in years.

Sobrino was asked to clarify and rectify some concepts on the "divine conscience" of the "historical Jesus", and would have refused to do so, according to the report, referring his defense to the Superior General of the Society of Jesus.


  1. Anonymous6:22 PM

    My goodness why so late. The damage is already done. This condemnation of Jon Sobrino is long, long overdue.

  2. As I wrote on another site, the Society of Jesus is either your best friend in one age, or your worst enemy in another. Their sabotage of Catholicism in the Americas renders the whole order fit for suppression for its own good and ours. Personally I think that to the degree that the present Pope sees them fit for rehabilitation, it's more a political matter of keeping your friends close, but your enemies closer. For all their past heroism, they have alot to prove.

  3. ClaudeDear New Catholic: I read in another spanish blog that according to the sources (José Manule Vidal), Sobrino (which by the way, means "Nephew" in spanish, and makes me wonder if Screwtape is the uncle), asked by CDF to correct his posture, appealed to his superior, to which Kolvenbach answered that no matter his decision (on wether to rectify or persist in his errors) the Society will back him all the way.
    Perhaps this will help the Holy Father to discipline the jesuits.
    Sorry for my english which is not, obviously, my first languaje.
    Best regards

  4. Yes Heb, I've been watching have more patience than I. Bizarre people.

  5. Simon Peter: Well, I admit I've been a bit testy lately, but if you can't argue about the Almighty, what can you argue about?! ;-)

  6. Muret: That being true, is it not also the case that Kolvenbach is on the way out as superior general?

  7. Wasn't the Holy Father some time ago toying around with the idea of refounding the Jesuits...a "Society of Jesus of the Strict Observance" or something like that? I think that's the way to go. They've squandered their inheritance and their substance has passed along to others. To coin a phrase.

  8. Hebdomadary: "For all their past heroism, they have alot to prove."

    Is this really so? I know the Jesuits and their history is not heroical. To consider heroical a charisma that turned them into an instrument of un-christian values and behavior, cannot be valued as worthy. Notwithstanding Saint Ignatius Loyola, who was a real gift to the Church, the Jesuits have been a complete failure and an instrument for the worst human behavior. To engage in politics of the wost kind, in an unchristian way, does not withstand the test of time.

    The Jesuits are not even christian, in their values. They do no practice the christian beatitutes, and mistakenly believe that by recognized by the secular world, is a measure of success.

    And within the Jesuits, the U.S. Jesuits represent the worst of the human being.

    If they cease to exist, the world would not suffer for this. The Jesuits are irrelevant in the plan of salvation.

  9. Talking about a "Society of Jesus of the Strict Observance", there exists something of that kind: the SJM (Servi Jesu et Mariae):

  10. Bi-ritual, traditional, responsible, loyal...hadn't heard of them before. May they spread worldwide!

    Humboldt: well, yes, I do think they've behaved heroically at times, and with saintly virtue. Their self-sacrificing defense, well no, promotion of Roman Catholicism during the English reformation are well documented. The death of Fr. Henry Garnet is the stuff that saints are made of. They saved Catholicism in England, and watered the seeds of the Second Spring with their blood. I give them massive props (if you will) there.

    On the other hand, what they have done in America in our time is criminal. Bestial. I don't want to go into it any further, it's distasteful. But credit where it's due, and in England in 1605, it was and remains due.

    Apart from that we largely agree.

    I ask the question again, Muret, or anyone else, isn't Kolvenback on the way out?

  11. Anonymous11:18 PM

    There are some excellent Jesuits still about, though very few. I think in particular of Fr Paul Mankowski, a relatively young man, absolutely brilliant intellectually, and 100% Catholic. Needless to say, he has been sidelined by his order, and almost expelled on occasion. Men like him could certainly lead a 'strict observance' renewal, if given a chance. Let's pray for him, and them.

  12. Anonymous11:31 PM

    Priests like Fr. Mankowski, while excellent in their personal apostolates, are I'm afraid serving as camouflage for the order, which is committed as an organisation to the destruction of Catholicism. Their function as camouflage is why they are permitted to remain in the Society; they serve to confuse observers about the basic committment of the order - people think and say, as you do, 'well there are some excellent Jesuits', and thus do not see or admit what the order is really about.

  13. Anonymous12:02 AM

    'I know the Jesuits and their history is not heroical.'

    Apparently you've never read Waugh's biography of Edmund Campion.

  14. anonymous, I was talking about the society as a whole, throughout history. One cannot judge a whole society for indidividual cases.

  15. Anonymous12:22 AM

    It is past time to suppress the Jesuits, as well as Opus Dei. However, it is unjust, and worse, to tar them all with the same brush. Providence sent one of the last true Jesuits (RIP) to convert me. A Texan, he told me how as a boy he roamed the hills near El Paso with his .22, and how the armed men of the parish stood guard 'round the clock at the church when the KKK threatened to burn it. I can't recall him ever saying a word against the SJ, except implicitly, when he said his problem was that HE BELIEVED what he was taught at the seminary. He taught at a Jesuit high school in New Orleans for some years, and was justly proud of the Jesuit schools - they used to produce soldiers of Christ and leaders of men. I have the impression that in the 1960's he was 'left behind' when the SJ in general went dancing through the daisies in left field. He wound up as an assistant at a parish in Los Angeles (where he should have been Cardinal Archbishop), until the edict came down (from Manning - the diocese had been more or less protected by McIntyre) to give communion in the hand. He departed forthwith. Asked what his plans were, he said he didn't know what he was going to do, but he knew what he was NOT going to do. Within a few weeks, he had multiple small flocks of the remnant to take care of, which kept him very busy until he died. Hint - in this period he became great friends with a British (mea culpa - Welsh) author and future president of Una Voce. The Church Militant needs more like him, but the SJ will have to be rebuilt from scratch before it produces any.

  16. And Lehmann, Mahoney, Gumbleton and Lynch next?

  17. I have some serious suppression going on on my blog. Just scroll down a wee bit.

    Heb. would appreciate some thoughts on the Lynch issue I just posted: You're going to tell me it's normal aren't you?

  18. anonymous, I believe your story because the Jesuits have given holy fruits, however since the government of Pedro Arrupe the Jesuits went astray. And the government of the Jesuits still consider Pedro Arrupe to be the guiding light of the society. And the leaders of the U.S. Jesuits, along with the spaniard ones, have been at the forefront of the defense of the arrupian legacy. But it is wrong to judge the history of the Jesuits that lead to the edict of suppression by Pope Clement XIV (R.I.P.), as a heroic time for the society. They enganged in unchristian value politics and got what was comming. The Jesuists, as a whole, are NO company of Jesus at all. I hope that the Church realizes thigs and completely abolish the Jesuit order. They are at the service of those who are in power in the U.S., not caring for the Gospel. THE JESUITS ARE THE BIGGEST FAILURE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, and among them the U.S. Jesuits are thev worst, nothwithstanding the holiness of some of its members. The worst example of Jesuit politics, lately, was their support to Liberation Theology and guerrillas in Central America, and U.S. Jesuits were at the forefront of this.

  19. anonymous, it is wrong to put Opus Dei as the nemesis of the Jesuits. The problem is not Opus Dei. On the contrary. The problem is the Jesuits.

  20. I would love to see Cardinal Mahoney be appointed a coadjutor bishop.

  21. Anonymous4:30 AM

    Sobrino and his Jesuit colleagues have too long operated on the principle of "false charity," a nefarious createion of Satan's which speaks out of both sides of its mouth at once. One of the last decent Jesits to live was the late great theologian and prolific writer par excellence: Fr. John Hardon, S.J. who was ostracized by the Order because of his orthodoxy and who often said in his evaluations of today's priests: "Pray for priests, pray for priests; too many of them have lost their faith."

    j hughes dunphy

  22. Anonymous9:06 AM

    anonymous: If you want to suppress one of the most authentically Catholic movements in this modern era, not only doctrinally but in their liturgical spirit (which doesn't always actualise in practice), then go ahead, suppress Opus Dei.

    I don't think the Jesuits need to be suppressed, they just need to be disciplined.

  23. I just posted a short introduction to the SJM that I translated. It can be found here (=link)

  24. If you would like to watch the consecration of a material and formal heretic and schismatic lay-man in fancy dress as a Bishop in a Catholic Cathedral I have posted the link for streaming video on my blog.


  25. anonymous, I don't understand your position on Opus Dei. I believe that Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer should be made a DOCTOR OF THE CHUCH.

    As for the Jesuits, they are long beyond redemption. The only solution for them is excision from the Mystical Body of Christ.

    The Jesuits of today are not Christian, but Jesuits.

  26. Okay, all over. It was very nice. I tried to post the highlights for you all in case the video becomes unavailable. I did my best.

  27. Anonymous10:13 PM

    So much good will come to the present Jesuits if they again embrace Saint Ignaitus of Loyola instead of the spaniard Pedro Arrupe. Saint Ignatius was against that members of his order received episcopal order much the less the cardinalate. Today's Jesuits then would have to revert the changes introduced by the General Congregation Nr. 31. And it would do them a lot of good to relearn the spirituality of the book "The Imitation of Christ" by Kempis, of which Saint Ignatius was so fond of. Only then, perhaps, there could be redemption for the Jesuits.

  28. Anonymous3:05 PM

    Jesuits are very irrelevant today. Nobody cares about what they think or say. I could very confidently tell a jesuit to "shove it" if he talks about social justice to me because why should I listen to them? They only hold administrative jobs at universities. They are administrators. Some of them are educators, but they are all the time in an office, writting, away from the real world. So, f*** the jesuits. I don't care about them.


Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!