Wordsmith.org
Posted By: Father Steve Brother Max - 01/13/06 08:25 PM
Didja ever stop think that the "sj" in Max's screen name ("sjmaxq") might stand for "Society of Jesus"? Most Jesuits put that after their name but they do a lot of things backwards on Max's side of the Equator because they are upside down.
Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: Brother Max - 01/13/06 08:27 PM
Uh-oh. You're in for it now, Brother-Father.
Posted By: sjmaxq Re: Brother Max - 01/13/06 09:03 PM
Sorry, no such ingenuity. Even though I have often been accused of jesuitry.
Posted By: belMarduk Re: Brother Max - 01/14/06 01:29 AM
Huh, that reminds me... maybe you can explain something to me Father Steve...

In French, when you say to a person, "mon jésuite" it is akin to playfulling saying "you little scamp"

Do you know why that association might be?
Posted By: Father Steve Re: Brother Max - 01/14/06 01:40 AM
My knowledge of French dates from junior high school and its remnants could easily be written on a 3x5 card. I have not heard mon jésuite used this way but I have a Jesuit chum at Georgetown, I'll ask him, and, if he knows, I'll pass the information along to you.
Posted By: inselpeter Re: Brother Max - 01/14/06 08:44 PM
Quote:

My knowledge of French dates from junior high school and its remnants could easily be written on a 3x5 card. I have not heard mon jésuite used this way but I have a Jesuit chum at Georgetown, I'll ask him, and, if he knows, I'll pass the information along to you.




If he knows, ban him, and if he doesn't, suspect!
Posted By: Father Steve Re: Brother Max - 01/14/06 11:49 PM
Mon jésuite at Georgetown had never heard of this usage ... or so he said.
Posted By: belMarduk Re: Brother Max - 01/15/06 01:56 AM
Hmm. I'll ask my Mom tomorrow morning why Jésuit came to mean mischievous. I'll let you know.
Posted By: maverick Re: Brother Max - 01/15/06 02:58 AM
Quote:

Hmm. I'll ask my Mom tomorrow morning why Jésuit came to mean mischievous. I'll let you know.




heh®

Given the history of the Black Robes in Canada, that don't seem a tough call!
Posted By: belMarduk Re: Brother Max - 01/16/06 12:48 AM
Ah. Well, I got some explanation from my parents. The Jesuits were “not very nice” and were not above using violence to impose the rules of Catholicism on the people of Québec. During my Grandmother’s generation, the expression “mon Jésuite” came to be used as an exclamation, or oath, when scolding a mischievous youngster.

This page has a good explanation as to why my parents would thing that the Jesuits were not very nice.
Jesuits were not very nice

FROM THE PAGE...

The Jesuits were despised by most of the French in New France and they were resented by the Natives. The Jesuits considered the Natives nothing less than savages and, therefore, deserving of nothing less than subjugation. Although subjugation was considered deplorable by most, the Jesuits considered it a virtue - as long as it was the Roman Catholic Church which was doing the subjugating. The French of New France considered the Jesuits extremely wicked and dangerous men who should be driven out of the country. Eventually, all of Europe would come to feel the same way about the Jesuits and they would be driven from there, also.
Posted By: AnnaStrophic more or less... - 01/16/06 10:10 AM
Just a comment on the usage in the quote:

Quote:




The Jesuits considered the Natives nothing less than savages and, therefore, deserving of nothing less than subjugation....




Bauhaus aside , shouldn't less be more?
Posted By: inselpeter Re: Brother Max - 01/16/06 10:58 AM
Quote:

Ah. Well, I got some explanation from my parents. The Jesuits were “not very nice” and were not above using violence to impose the rules of Catholicism on the people of Québec. During my Grandmother’s generation, the expression “mon Jésuite” came to be used as an exclamation, or oath, when scolding a mischievous youngster.

This page has a good explanation as to why my parents would thing that the Jesuits were not very nice.
Jesuits were not very nice

FROM THE PAGE...

The Jesuits were despised by most of the French in New France and they were resented by the Natives. The Jesuits considered the Natives nothing less than savages and, therefore, deserving of nothing less than subjugation. Although subjugation was considered deplorable by most, the Jesuits considered it a virtue - as long as it was the Roman Catholic Church which was doing the subjugating. The French of New France considered the Jesuits extremely wicked and dangerous men who should be driven out of the country. Eventually, all of Europe would come to feel the same way about the Jesuits and they would be driven from there, also.




a) Where did they go?

b) Is this related to the business of disempowering the Catholic Church in Canada in recent history?
Posted By: belMarduk Re: Brother Max - 01/16/06 01:54 PM
a) Where did they go?

I think they're living near Father Steve's house now.

b) Is this related to the business of disempowering the Catholic Church in Canada in recent history?

I don't know about the rest of Canada, I can only speak of Québec. Though the Jésuites were part of what caused the rebellion against the Catholic Church, they were only part of a wide root structure.

The French Québecois were effectively enslaved by the harsh, inflexible rules established by the Catholic church.

What surprises me most is that the revolution is relatively recent. As recently as in my Grandmother’s time, the Catholic church had a strangle-hold on even the most basic of everyday decisions.
Posted By: Owlbow Fr. Ed vs Fr. H. - 01/16/06 02:52 PM
My dear departed uncle, my mother's brother, was a Jesuit priest, and one of the kindest, most intelligent people I've ever met. He was a world renowned Chaucer scholar. At the time of his death, he was an English professor at Fordham U. He was a funny and fine poet, among other things.
On the other hand, there was a Jesuit priest who was the "Prefect of Discipline" at my High School, and he would smack the piss out of me from time to time for no particular reason that I could discern.
I hope that things have become a bit more evenhanded (so to speak) these last several years.
Now TV evangelists, on the other other hand...
Posted By: maverick Re: Fr. Ed vs Fr. H. - 01/16/06 03:25 PM
Good contrast, Owly! But I would put a rhetorical question to you: is it not true that the innate values of the good and humane scholar would shine out through whatever social structure pertained, whereas the nastier side of humanity revealed by the other needs the authoritarianism of an absolutist creed to flourish?

But I *completely agree about evilangelists...!
Posted By: Owlbow Trees v TV - 01/16/06 05:09 PM
Yes, it seems that it is easier to be a &*#$ when sanctioned, but I'm not sure if it's a necessity.
I'm not a big fan of any absolute system, unless it's vodka, and even then, I'd really prefer a cool Sam Adams or a DAB.
If I systematically revered anything, trees, (where owls live), might be my first choice.
Posted By: AnnaStrophic Re: Owls - 01/16/06 07:46 PM
Owlbow (and others so inclined), follow me down to Animal Safari. I want to ask about a recent sighting near here.
© Wordsmith.org