Jansenism Today

 

 

JANSENISM TODAY

What is Jansenism? Jansenism is not easy to explain because “[it] was a complex movement based more on a certain mentality and spirituality than on specific doctrines.”

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Jansenism

—The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Jansenism: Roman Catholic religious movement,” Encyclopedia Britannica

The following Catholic Answers passage is excellent in the clarity and concision whereby it explains Jansenism:

begin

Principal Errors

Denied the necessity of free will in receiving and utilizing grace; claimed that grace is so efficacious that the will need not assent to it and in fact cannot reject it; concluded that this grace was intended only for a predestined elect; that God actively bestows grace on some while actively withholding it from others. The heresy also led to a disregard of the authority of the pope.

...The Heresy

Jansenism is more remarkable for the numerous political controversies and power struggles surrounding it than for its heretical content. The heresy can can be summed up as a denial of man’s participation, via the exercise of his free will, in his salvation and the inevitable consequences which follow from this. Jansenists hold that concupiscence (the tendency toward sin) always defeats the will in a fallen state. In those to whom God gives his grace, the will is equally powerless against this grace. The soul without grace will always be defeated by sin (and thus be damned), while the soul with grace will always be overwhelmed by it (and thus be saved).

While it is possible to hold this much and stay within the realm of orthodoxy, Jansenists further insisted, contrary to orthodox Thomistic understanding, that God actively destines some to receive grace and actively destines others to be without it. One conclusion is that God will damn those who sin, even though they were never given grace to resist sin. Conversely, those who receive grace cannot resist it and cannot avoid the workings of grace (sanctification)–a Fundamentalist would say they are “eternally secure.” Thus men are left “out of the loop” of their salvation, locked into a destiny which they cannot alter.

end

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jansenism

—Todd Aglialoro, “Jansenism,” June 1, 1994, Catholic Answers

Jansenism at its core believed in the incapacity of the human will to freely choose grace and to cooperate with it. Jansenists believed that after the Fall human nature was essentially depraved and crippled with incapacity as a result.

Jansenism rejected two Roman Catholic teachings—that God wills the salvation of everyone and that everyone is granted sufficient grace for salvation. The latter doctrine logically follows the former.

Both doctrines are taught by the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. The doctrine in particular of the universal salvific will of God is a Council of Trent dogma.

See, for example, the following link about the universal salvific will of God:

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=214&ChapNum=9

—“The MOST Theological Collection: Grace, Predestination and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions,” Catholic Culture

Also, for example, the section on the universality of grace:

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/grace

—J. Pohle, “Grace: Supernatural gift of God to intellectual creatures (men, angels), Catholic Answers

Five alleged propositions of Augustinus (1640) were condemned by Innocent X’s Cum Occasione:

begin

1. Some of God’s commandments are impossible for just men who wish and strive to obey them, considering the powers they possess; the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting.

2. In the state of fallen nature, no one ever resists interior grace.

3. To merit or demerit, in the state of fallen nature, we must be free from all external constraint, but not from internal necessity.

4. The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of interior prevenient grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith, but they fell into heresy in holding that grace is such that man may either follow or resist it.

5. To say that Christ died for all men is Semi-Pelagianism.

end

The above propositions are sourced from Todd Aglialoro, “Jansenism,” June 1, 1994, Catholic Answers.

The propositions require close reading in order to accurately interpret the doctrinal errors they entail.

University of Notre Dame’s Church Life Journal gives a detailed and thorough account of Jansenism, but it can be difficult to follow.

Notable is the point the author makes that Jansenism was associated with moral rigorism.

“The rigorist position, which Jansenists argued was the practice of the Early Church and sufficiently clear in patristic sources, was that only contrition—that is, love of God and sorrow for having offended him—sufficed for absolution.”

The author continues:

“Aguirre was irritated that his Jesuit opponent was so freely using the term ‘Jansenist’ as a slur, so the Cardinal sought to distinguish between three types of Jansenists. …Second, there are moral rigorists, and these are many.”

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/are-jansenists-among-us/

—Shaun Blanchard, “Are Jansenists Among Us?” October 4, 2019, Church Life Journal: A Journal of the McGrath Institute for Church Life

Wikipedia also provides a detailed account, which is easier to follow than the foregoing.

“The heresy of Jansenism, as stated by subsequent Roman Catholic doctrine, lay in denying the role of free will in the acceptance and use of grace. Jansenism asserts that God’s role in the infusion of grace cannot be resisted and does not require human assent. Catholic doctrine, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that ‘God’s free initiative demands man’s free response’ [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2002]—that is, humans freely assent or refuse God’s gift of grace.”

Wikipedia also remarks on the rigorism of Jansenism: “…several clergies remained attracted to Jansenism.

“…the quasi-Jansenists, who formally accepted both Cum Occasione and the infallibility of the Church in matters of fact but who nevertheless remained attracted to aspects of Jansenism, notably its stern morality, commitment to virtue, and its opposition to ultramontanism, which was also a political issue in France in the decades surrounding the 1682 Declaration of the clergy of France.”

Also:

“…certain ideas tinged with Jansenism remained in circulation for much longer; in particular, the Jansenist idea that Holy Communion should be received very infrequently, and that reception required much more than freedom from mortal sin, remained influential until finally condemned by Pope Pius X, who endorsed frequent communion, as long as the communicant was free of mortal sin, in the early 20th century.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jansenism#:~:text=Jansenism%20was%20a%20theological%20movement,Jansen%2C%20who%20died%20in%201638.

—“Jansenism,” Wikipedia

Interestingly, Jansenism directly segues into Ultramontanism and Vatican I, which were reactions against Gallicanism and most especially against Liberalism and the Age of Revolution. The connections aren’t readily apparent unless you follow closely the historical thread.

Are there still Jansenists among us? Yes, of course. Heresy is Hydra-headed. It recurs throughout history. Varieties of Arianism and Gnosticism, for example, flourish today.

Today, spiritual rigorism is associated with “Jansenism.”

In Opus Dei I encountered at least three instances of spiritual rigorism that drastically affected the direction and development of my entire life.

At the time Opus Dei propounded a theology of vocation teaching that to leave Opus Dei was a mortal sin and that those who left seriously endangered their eternal salvation.

Concerning the necessary relationship between vocation and eternal salvation, the rigorist interpretation set forth by, among others, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, has been repudiated—persuasively, in my opinion—by theologians, including, for example, Catholic Encyclopedia:

“The rigourist influences to which St. Alphonsus was subjected in his youth explain the severity which led him to say that a person’s eternal salvation chiefly depended on this choice of a state of life conformable to the Divine election. If this were the case, God, who is infinitely good, would make His will known to every man in a way which could not be misunderstood.”

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15498a.htm

—“Ecclesiastical and Religious Vocation,” Catholic Encyclopedia

Another important instance of rigorism in Opus Dei was to require members to obey the directors and not to allow for the exception of following conscience.

Obedience according to this regime contradicts a fundamental principle of moral theology:

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” [Dignitatis Humanae, 3]

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

—“Article 6: Moral Conscience,” Catechism of the Catholic Church

Opus Dei would also engage in “brainwashing”—invoking the obligation of obedience and attractively exhorting the pursuit of holiness, Opus Dei directors would subject the members to physical stress, especially sleep deprivation, and to incessant—in some cases, daily—indoctrination and to censorship, both of which imposed undue restrictions on their intellectual freedom within the Roman Catholic Church, in the process denying members their right to information and in particular their right to informed consent.

This regime of brainwashing equates to a type of intellectual rigorism.

At first members would submit in goodwill to the ascetical regime, which would be gradually restricted over time, increasing in intensity and severity. It would be concomitantly joined to cognitive and behavioral programming in extremist belief and practice.

Gradualism in the imposition of a controlling regime accounts for the difficulty many members underwent extricating themselves from the cult.