Catholic during the Great Apostasy

Blaise Pascal in his Provincial Letters sharply criticized the Jesuits, especially their casuistry and moral flexibility, which he considered a distortion of Christian principles.
His accusations focused on the fact that the Jesuits, by applying so-called “probability” (probabilism), justified sins and adjusted morality to human weaknesses, which in his view led to ethical relativism and the weakening of true faith.

Below I present selected quotes from the Provincial Letters together with an analysis of how they may correlate with today’s accusations against modernists (today’s Church is certainly neither holy nor Catholic).

Quotes from Pascal and their relation to the accusations.

“The Jesuit Fathers have invented a way to make sins less sinful and virtues less necessary. They have introduced the principle that it is enough for an opinion to be probable for it to be followed without sin, even if another contrary opinion is more probable.”
Letter V – discussion of Jesuit casuistry

Pascal criticizes here probabilism, that is, the doctrine that allowed the choice of a less rigorous moral opinion if it was deemed “probable” by some theological authority.
He believed that this blurred the boundaries between good and evil.

Contemporary accusations often concern the “liberalization” of the Catholic faith; we observe an excessive openness to dialogue with modernity, which is a continuation of the moral flexibility of which Pascal accused the order in the 17th century.
The idea of adapting principles to circumstances can be seen as a natural extension of probabilism in today’s debates on morality, e.g., in bioethical issues or relations with other religions.

“You say that a confessor must absolve a penitent who appeals to a probable opinion, even if the confessor himself holds the opposite view. All that is missing is to force secular tribunals to respect these probabilities; for now, judges punish with the lash and the noose even though someone could appeal to the opinion of a serious casuist.”
Letter V – irony toward Jesuit principles

Pascal mocks the absurdity of a situation in which morality depends on the subjective choice of an opinion rather than on objective truth.
He emphasizes that such an approach leads to ethical chaos.

Today we observe not merely a tendency but a rule of applying moral relativism or “yielding to the spirit of the age.”
For example, in discussions about accepting social changes, approaches to LGBT persons in the Church, one can see an echo of that flexibility which Pascal denounced.
It is a natural consequence that probabilism has evolved into a more general attitude of adapting doctrine to contemporary expectations.
It should be noted here that unfortunately contemporary courts have also moved in this direction, and verdicts very often have little to do with justice.

“They do not require that one deny the necessity of efficacious grace—that would be indelicate to demand of friends. The world is content with words; few people probe things deeply.”
Letter IV – criticism of superficiality

Pascal accuses the Jesuits of manipulating language and theological superficiality, suggesting that they hide their true position behind a façade of apparent agreement with orthodoxy.

Modernists today employ ambiguities in teaching or excessive focus on rhetoric instead of unambiguous defense of traditional doctrine.
Statements of the Church hierarchy today are too open or unclear on matters of faith, which is a continuation of the strategy Pascal criticized.

“Everything the Jesuits have brought forward in their defense was exceedingly weak. They themselves felt well that the matter had not been closed.”
Introduction by Boy-Żeleński to the Provincial Letters, referring to the Jesuits’ reaction.

Pascal emphasizes that the Jesuits were unable to effectively refute his arguments, suggesting the weakness of their intellectual and moral position.
In present times modernists are accused of lacking a decisive response to criticism from more conservative Catholic circles.
Their dialogical approach and avoidance of confrontation can be seen as an extension of this “weakness” in defending their positions.

Pascal criticized the Jesuits for

• Moral relativism, probabilism,
• adapting principles to human weaknesses,
• superficiality and manipulation of language,
• lack of intellectual consistency in defending their theses.

These accusations are a natural consequence of the flexibility that Pascal denounced.
Pascal’s accusations against the Jesuits therefore turn out to be timeless in their essence.

The next two quotes explain why millions of people still support a Church that has become the synagogue of Satan.

“Do not be surprised that the Jesuits have so many followers: they flatter human weaknesses and make religion easy to bear for those who do not want to exert themselves.”
Letter VI – on the popularity of the Jesuits

Pascal suggests that the Jesuits gained popularity by offering a “made-to-measure” religion that does not require true moral or spiritual effort from the faithful.
He criticizes them for flattering human vices instead of calling for conversion.

Contemporary accusations against modernists often concern their “simplification” of the faith or adapting it to secular standards in order to gain acceptance from the world,
and their engagement in social issues, e.g., ecology, social justice, as a departure from spiritual rigor in favor of “easy religion.”
This is a natural extension of Pascal’s accusation of flattery and lack of demands.

“Their maxims have something so pleasant for the world in them that even the most hardened sinners find consolation in them.”
Letter VII – irony toward moral leniency

Pascal ironically notes that Jesuit morality is convenient for sinners because, instead of condemning sin, it offers them justification.
He sees this as a betrayal, especially in the context of pastoral care.
For example, in discussions about confession, or the approach to divorced persons in new unions as well as various sexual perversions, one can see the continuation of this leniency.
There is more focus on “accompaniment” than on calling for radical change of life.

It is clearly visible today that things have gone much further.
Everyone has created their own idol in the likeness of their own sins.

Pascal’s accusations against the Jesuits—moral relativism, manipulation of language, flattering human weaknesses, lack of spiritual rigor—have their roots in the 17th century, but
their essence remains relevant today.
Contemporary criticism of modernists also concentrates on similar issues:

• Moral relativism
  Pascalian probabilism finds its reflection in accusations of “modernism” and excessive openness to cultural changes.
• Doctrinal ambiguity
  Mental reservations and superficiality that Pascal noticed today manifest themselves in ambiguous teaching.
• Pragmatism over principles
  Flattering the world is today seen in the Church’s dialogue with the secular world and treated as a betrayal of orthodoxy.

In the Provincial Letters Pascal not only criticized the Jesuit casuistry of his time but anticipated problems that were to emerge in the future.
His accusations have a universal character.

They also confirm that even the smallest departure from the truth, over time, leads to turning in a completely opposite direction, that is, toward falsehood.

It must be noted that these changes took hundreds of years.
In Pascal’s time there were no developed media; disputes took place in closed academic circles and few people could read.
Today information spreads instantly and changes affect vast numbers of the faithful.

Let us remember that these principles also concern everyday matters.
Betrayal begets greater betrayal.
Lies beget greater lies.
Truth always remains Truth.

It is worth thinking and analyzing people’s conduct.
Let us apply the principle: Yes yes, or no no.

Then everything becomes simple.

Pascal’s accusations also refute the myth that before the Second Vatican Council everything in the Catholic Church was “beautiful and splendid.”

Of course it was not so. The Council was the final act—the signing of a pact with the devil.

Arkadiusz Niewolski