Jesuitical

[Dr. Goodword]

• jesuitical •

Pronunciation: je-zhu-wit-i-kêl, je-zju-wit-i-kêl • Hear it!

Part of Speech: Adjective

Meaning: 1. Related in any way to the Jesuits, members of the Roman Catholic Society of Jesus, founded in 1533 by Ignatius Loyola to combat the Protestantism of the Reformation. 2. Excessively subtle, deceitful, intended to mislead.

Notes: This is the adjective for the proper noun Jesuit. Their enemies accused them of believing that the end justifies the means, hence the sense "a dissembling person", and jesuitical "deceitful". This word may be capitalized (Jesuitical) or not, but the noun, Jesuit, must be. The adverb form is jesuitically (or Jesuitically), and the abstract noun, jesuitism (or Jesuitism).

In Play: This word haunts the world of advertising: "An advertising campaign in the US is, at best, jesuitical and, at worst, obviously misleading." However, we find things jesuitical all around us: "On Meet the Press, Sunday January 13, 2008, after he asked the same question for 23 minutes in minutely different formulations, Hillary Clinton chastised Tim Russert for his jesuitical interview technique."

Word History: Today's Good Word is based on the name of Jesus, French Jésuite, from Jésus, inherited from Late Latin Iesus. Latin borrowed the word from Greek Iesous, a remodeling of Hebrew yeshua', a reduction of yêhoshua' "Joshua". Yahweh, the name of the God of Israel, is assumed to share the same origin. It came to be English Jehovah. The expression, 'jumping Jehosophat' is based on another variant, Jehoshophat, from the Hebrew yehoshapat "Yahweh has judged", made up of yeho, shortened form of Yahweh, + shapat "has judged". (Our gratitude to George Kovac for recommending today's Good Word is far from jesuitical.)

[Perry Lassiter]

Bible scholars mostly translate Yeshus as Yahweh saves. In Hebrew his name is the same as Joshua in the Old Testament. The transformation of Yahweh into Jehovah came by way of Germany. WW2 films have German troops saying javohl, pronounced yahwohl, because German has no Y and W. The original Hebrew is transliterated YHWH with no vowels. So in Deutchland the transliteration became JHVH, but it should not have become Jehovah in English.

Incidentally, YWHW is a form of the verb to be. It probably means I Am, or possibly I Cause to Be. In His confrontation with Moses, the Lord may have defined it when he said "I am that I am."

[George Kovac]

Tim Russert was clearly taken aback by both the language and stridency of Senator Clinton's televised rebuke. You don't have to be a fan of Hillary Clinton to realize he deserved that reaction. Though I did generally like Tim Russert as an informed and intrepid political reporter, that interview was not his best performance. He was stung by her remark, which he discussed the next day on MSNBC. I think he still did not realize the import of the criticism, or perhaps he was being really clever. (I think the former, but I am not sure.) I think he was unfamiliar with the word "jesuitical." Russert said he was a proud graduate of John Carroll University (a Jesuit college), and would take Ms Clinton's remark as a compliment about the fine education he had received. Anyone who saw the interview would understand that Ms Clinton intended only meaning #2, not #1. The whole business showed the power of a rich vocabulary: both the strength of Ms Clinton's rebuke (which would have been unremarkable and whiny if she had used a more common pejorative like "irritating" or " pettifogging") and the plasticity and irony of words which carry multiple (and somewhat inconsistent) meanings. The point goes to Ms Clinton on this round. Too bad we do not have a William Buckley around; he was the master of this art form, which left all his combatants enriched, informed and (usually) defeated. Two cheers for the epeolatrists of this world.

[Philip Hudson]

I find it distressing that Jesuitical can have the 2nd meaning of excessively subtle, deceitful, intended to mislead.

I know the Society of Jesus has a somewhat checkered past with the order having been outlawed by some Protestant governments and even by the Papacy itself at times in the past. Indeed, they were an undercover group during the early years of the Anglican Church in England when my forbears were also undercover. But hasn't the scholarship and enlightenment of the order up until now outshone those times? And I am, as most of you know, a staunch Baptist.

As an aside, how is it that most people who are dedicated to a specific branch of Christianity are always devout, while Baptists are always staunch? Are there no devout Baptists or staunch Catholics. In the 1700s my ancestor, Jane Meek Hitt, left the Quaker faith to become a Methodist. In her obituary she was acknowledged to be a staunch Methodist and that was taken as a complement.

Another word that has been hijacked by present usage is fundamentalist. When I was a youth, I was a fundamentalist. I am not a fundamentalist any more and yet I have not changed appreciably. It is especially difficult to understand why people call militant Islamists fundamentalist. Not being an expert on Islam, I don't know its fundamental beliefs, but surely the militants do not deserve that appellation. I wish we could get back to the older meaning of fundamentalist that described someone dedicated to the basic tenants of a religious or perhaps a political institution.

[George Kovac]

Regarding Mr. Hudson's comment. I empathize with your regret that "fundamentalism" has devolved to a particular and pejorative meaning. But that happens in language, which, like the cultures it reflects, is not always fair or consistent. The only recourse is to invent a new word to describe the positive and original connotations of “fundamentalism” to distinguish it from the shallow and aggrieved mindset that has now appropriated the meaning of the word.

Another example of this phenomenon in a religious context (which I previously mentioned in this forum) is "heresy." The word originally meant "choice" particularly one's choosing a philosophy of life. In the 4th Century, the Church (and its imperial patrons) in the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople imposed an orthodoxy of belief (as reflected in the Nicene Creed) and demanded that all souls conform to official doctrines of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. Thereafter, no subject of the emperor or of the bishops was allowed to choose what to believe in such matters. The meaning of the word "heresy" evolved into the pejorative that it has been ever since.

As to the Jesuits, I think they can take care of themselves. I doubt they nurse grievances over the use of “Jesuitical” in the sense of meaning #2. They are more likely to be amused by the word.

Though I am no longer an adherent of any religious tradition, I have respect for the Catholic teaching orders, having attending a high school taught by the Holy Cross Fathers, who encouraged critical thinking. The Jesuits have a long, often distinguished and checkered history, and to the extent laymen know anything about the order, I think many folks recognize their complexity, erudition, good works and evil deeds. There is an excellent and highly regarded novel that reflects, in a positive manner, that tradition. Shusako Endo’s 1966 novel “Silence” concerns a convert during the brief period in the 17th century during which the Jesuits missionized Japan, only to be expelled when their political fortunes changed. (Endo, himself an adult convert to Catholicism, is sometimes described as the Graham Greene of Japan, and I think the comparison is apt.) The protagonist has found deep meaning as a result of his conversion by the Jesuits, suffers greatly, and eventually makes his way, through Jesuit connections, to Mexico and ultimately Europe, where he is often mistreated at the hands of European Christians and observes how Christians often mistreat each other. Through all his travails, he wonders, Job-like, why God is so silent, yet he retains the faith which his Jesuit mentors instilled in him. Beautifully told, even in translation, it is a complex and highly nuanced story of humanity and faith. Jesuitical indeed.

[MTC]

No discussion of "Jesuitical" would be complete without a discussion of "casuistry" because it was the alleged misapplication of casuistry by the Jesuits which brought about the pejorative "Jesuitical." Cause and effect.

According to Wikipedia (consistent with other sources),

"In Provincial Letters (1656–7)[16] he (Blaise Pascal) scolded the Jesuits for using casuistic reasoning in confession to placate wealthy Church donors, while punishing poor penitents. Pascal charged that aristocratic penitents could confess their sins one day, re-commit the sin the next day, generously donate the following day, then return to re-confess their sins and only receive the lightest punishment; Pascal's criticisms darkened casuistry's reputation."

But, as Perry Lassiter pointed out, casuistry is nothing more than reasoning from cases, something which lawyers on the forum are well acquainted with. Pascal accused the Jesuits of using a method of reasoning which originated with Aristotle for unholy purposes.

Dr. Goodword's definition seems to visit the purported sins the Jesuits in the 1600s on Jesuits today. Oxforddictionaries.com defines the second sense of "Jesuitical" as "Dissembling or equivocating, in the manner ONCE associated with Jesuits." (Emphasis added.)

It seems some of mud from those distant accusations still clings to the Jesuits today, fairly or not.

[misterdoe]

I think he was unfamiliar with the word "jesuitical." Russert said he was a proud graduate of John Carroll University (a Jesuit college), and would take Ms Clinton's remark as a compliment about the fine education he had received.

If Ms. Clinton knew about Russert's education, maybe she was being jesuitical herself in using the word?

[misterdoe]

I wish we could get back to the older meaning of fundamentalist that described someone dedicated to the basic tenants of a religious or perhaps a political institution.

By that definition I've always been a fundamentalist -- I've always understood that to be what the word meant -- but I've never been "militant" about anything.

I was always taught to be respectful of others' rights to their beliefs, or agree to disagree, a perspective not normally attributed to "fundamentalism" these days...