Roman Jesuits control Canada #new world order



You might like

About the Author: thejesuit

1 Comment

  1. Civil society, then, was certainly not an association of individuals with individual rights to which government must accommodate itself. On the contrary, if there was any accommodating to be done, it was by subjects, not rulers. Bellarmine summarised the Society’s constitutive beliefs:
    If human nature demands life in association, it certainly also requires rule and a governor, for it is impossible for a multitude to survive for any length of time, unless there be someone to hold it together, and whose business it is to look after the common good . . . Hence Proverbs 11 [14]: ‘Unless there is a ruler, the people will perish’. Furthermore, a society is an ordered multitude. A confused and dispersed multitude is not called a society. And what is order, but some continuum of superiors and inferiors?37
    Jesuits were of course familiar with the concept of individuals as bearers of rights, including natural rights. But rights-talk simply did not function here as it did in the Levellers or Locke, or to some extent even in Hobbes. And the rules of political rhetoric of the time by no means allowed rights to ‘trump’ duties whenever the rights-card was played. For Jesuits even natural rights were not pre-civil private possessions which individuals might trade for various civil commodities, or criteria by which the legitimacy of any civil polity might be gauged. Rather, they were subject to limitation, forfeiture, abridgement, or alienation for the sake of the common good. The only rights or freedoms which Jesuits expressly allowed to prevail over the rights of rulers were the libertates or iura Ecclesiae,38 and the rights of communities, not individuals.

Leave a Reply