The Jesuits and My Naivete

Introduction: Paul Mankowski, S.J.

I recently read Karen Hall’s biography of the late, great Father Paul Mankowski, S.J., an ardent and untiring defender of the Faith.  He was a materially unassuming and intellectually brilliant priest, who lived his vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience with holy seriousness. Particularly intriguing to me is that Father Mankowski was only slightly older than myself:

In early May of 1976, I was clobbered, out of nowhere, by the very strong certainty that God was calling me to… become a Jesuit (p.43).

Wow!  Without any such “certainty,” I wondered in the 1970s if God was calling me to be a priest or a religious brother.  I checked out the Conventual Franciscans, the diocesan priesthood, the Paulist Fathers and the Xaverian Brothers.  As I was attending a Jesuit college, I also paid a call to the Jesuit “vocation director.”

But I am Getting Ahead of Myself!

My mid-1970s, all boys, Catholic high school evidenced some unnoticed damage from the “sexual revolution” and its related confusions.  We were taught some bizarre things, such as how we needed to develop our own sexual morality (I do NOT recall doctrine being mentioned in a respectful manner).

Two students from my year were suspected of being same-sex attracted to each other.  Back then, teenage boys could be merciless to anyone suspected of being same-sex attracted!

The situation of the two students does not appear to have been handled well by the school’s faculty and staff.  In what was probably a related effort to change our mindsets, we were frequently advised that being effeminate did not mean that a male was same-sex attracted; being particularly masculine did not necessarily mean that a male was heterosexual.  I do not know if interventions went any further to truly protect those two students.

When I started my Jesuit college in 1976, that order of priests and brothers already had a reputation as “liberal.”  I assumed that each still had a core appreciation for the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage/family/human sexuality.  Paul Mankowski was getting very different impressions!

It was when one of my liberal Jesuit friends told me that God was okay with abortion that I first saw a chink in the armor (p.49).

[Paul Mankowski] learned of the Jesuits’ ‘institutional apostasy’ on the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality, and he quickly learned that this was not the only way in which the Jesuits disagreed — openly — with the Church (p.59).

The Peculiar (and Scandalous) Case of Father Robert Drinan, S.J. 

At least initially claiming the approval of his Jesuit superiors, Father Robert Drinan, SJ, served in the U.S. Congress from 1971 till 1981.

The Jesuit priest was the godfather of the Democrats becoming the party of abortion, a transformation led by Catholic Democrats — Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Mario Cuomo and later [Nancy] Pelosi….No Catholic priest ever did more to promote abortion in law than Father Drinan (National Catholic Register, 1/7/22)

Father Mankowski was scandalized that his fellow Jesuit promoted abortion in Congress on the watch of Superior General Pedro Arrupe, S.J.:

when Drinan wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in 1996 defending President Bill Clinton’s veto of a bill banning partial-birth abortion…it was time to do something (p.60).

Father Mankowski’s “something” was to provide research material for “The Strange Political Career of Father Drinan”:

Shortly after Roe v Wade, Drinan wrote a public defense of the decision, recognizing that it had flaws but finding it on the whole a beneficial judgment. He then proceeded, over the next several years, to compile an almost perfect pro-abortion voting record in Congress….Drinan’s [eventual] departure from Congress hardly marked his departure from politics….He became increasingly vituperative in his criticisms of the pro-life movement….How could any layman–especially one who was not a Catholic–be faulted for supporting abortion if the most prominent Catholic priest in public life did the same? Drinan bears heavy responsibility for making the Democratic Party the party of abortion (James Hitchcock, 6/27/1996).

And the reaction?

 The Jesuits erupted in poker-hot rage. Not at Father Drinan for his position, not at the Jesuits who enabled it, not at the superiors who covered up the lies. The American Jesuit leadership brought down the hammer on Father Mankowski, who did not conceal his role in providing the archival material (National Catholic Register, 1/7/22)

As few Jesuits at my own college wore Roman collars in the 1970s, it is noteworthy that Father Drinan always wore his Roman collar in the halls of Congress.  He undoubtedly gave the impression of moral cover for other pro-abortionists who also should have known better.

Jesuits Spotting Naivete 

It is now time to revisit my visit with the Jesuit “vocation director” (c. 1978).  When asked if I had any questions, I pressed the wrong button.  With few Jesuits at my college wearing Roman collars and few appeared impoverished, I asked about the vow of poverty.  I was told that I was naive.

My own experience of religious life is that community discussion of ‘poverty issues’ is exceptionlessly ugly — partly because almost everyone feels vulnerable to criticism in some aspect or other of his life, partly because there’s an unspoken recognition that poverty and chastity issues are not entirely unrelated. As a consequence, only the most trivial and cosmetic adjustments are made, and the integrity of community life continues to worsen (Rev. Paul Mankowski, S.J., 7/15/2003)

My first taste of elitism in response to a simple question came from the vocation director.  About a year later, two other students and I met with a Jesuit campus minister, to suggest that his office be more active.  “Naive” was the feedback we received.

In that era, “naive” may have been an all-purpose, defensive, elitist response when challenged.

Looking back, I do not believe that there was anything “over the top” in the question from my 20-ish self to the vocation director or in the concerns that we college students presented to the campus minister.

Snippets of Father Paul’s Commentaries

(Some snippets are included in Karen Hall’s biography of the Father Paul Mankowski, S.J)

• “Putting an end to the problem of gay priests means, quite simply, putting an end to gay priests: discharging them from the positions they hold and refusing gays admittance to the seminaries. This is necessary not because gay priests are pedophiles but because they are bad priests. By ‘gay’ I mean a homosexual who by conviction, declaration or activity is tolerant of sodomy” (Pastoral Proposals for the Problem of Clerical Sexual Abuse, Catholic World Report, 1995)
• “the contemporary priesthood exhibits a disturbingly high number of one particular socio-psychological type, to be designated by the neologism ‘tame’….Seventeen years into the pontificate of a ‘conservative’ Pope, concerned to appoint dutiful and orthodox bishops, the problems of clerical homosexuality and pedophilia, doctrinal dissent of the professorate, liturgical abuses, acceptance of contraception, etc., have improved in no respect and worsened in many….it is worth asking whether the prevalence of the tame priest does not go far to explain the combination of outward managerial competence and personal moral cowardice” (Tames in Clerical Life, Plain Truth, Latin Mass Magazine, 1996)
• “I’d contend that the single important difference in the Church’s failure regarding abusive clergy and the failures regarding liturgy, catechesis, pro-life politics, doctrinal dissent and biblical translation…. [is] secular media pressure and secular legal constraints….

the sexual abuse crisis represents no isolated phenomenon and no new failure, but rather illustrates a state of slowly worsening clerical and episcopal corruption with its roots well back into the 1940s…. the leaders continue to project an upbeat and positive message of ecclesial well-being to an overwhelmingly good-willed laity, a message which both speaker and hearer find more gratifying than convincing….

I believe that reform will come, though in a future generation, and that the reformers whom God raises up will spill their blood in imitation of Christ” (What Went Wrong, Catholic Culture, 7/15/2003)

• “Reacting to Jesus’ pronouncement that remarriage after divorce is adultery, his disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry’ (Mt 19:10). From the first moment of its declaration, the teaching Jesus propounded as the will of God was deeply distressing, even to men of good will….He also promised a new and superabundant afflatus of grace, of divine help, so that no person however fragile should find it impossible to do God’s will….even…the least in the Kingdom, will be given the strength to stay faithful, and to do greater things besides.” (Dominical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage: The Biblical Data, 2014)

Conclusion

As I often sense my perceptions to be out of favor, I greatly appreciate that they were shared by a holy man with a brilliant mind.  I need to recall Father Mankowski’s painful reassurance:

I believe that reform will come, though in a future generation, and that the reformers whom God raises up will spill their blood in imitation of Christ (What Went Wrong, Catholic Culture, 7/15/2003)