Assess the contribution made by the Jesuits Essay Example for Free

Assess the contribution made by the Jesuits Essay The Jesuits are not only indicative of the developments in Catholic faith and theology but they also made a significant contribution in the Counter Reformation movement. On a theological level, the Jesuits helped the Catholics to express their faith- a critical ingredient to Catholic revival. The Jesuits made the Church infinitely stronger and better equipped to face the future in 1600 than it had been half a century earlier. Spain, Italy and Portugal remained firmly Catholic while ground was recovered all over southern Germany and the Habsburg lands and eventually Poland and Rome were won back to Rome. Seeing as the Reformation was on a theological plane, the Catholic response also existed along a theological plane. The Jesuits were part of a wide movement in the Church that had existed since the fifteenth century where a high level of interest was place in meditative prayer and charitable works. When these two concepts overlapped, the notion emerged whereby spiritual satisfaction could be expressed in a methodical way of life. The Jesuits were a vehicle through which this could happen. After the Council of Trent the Catholic Church, armed with its Tridentine decrees, placed renewed emphasis on continuous prayer, self-control and improvement, and particularly charity. The Church was looking for a more practical religion where people could be actively involved, as argued by John Bossy. An organisation that was a manifestation of these developments were the Jesuits. By joining the Jesuits ones sense of spirituality was enhanced and such theological challenges that were desired would be provided. Norvegus was one such Jesuit who undertook the spiritual challenge were he did the challenging task successfully of persuading Scandinavian theology students in the 1580s to be Catholic. The Jesuits had great security in their faith, shown, for instance, by their willingness at one point to do charitable works in Hamburg only to be lynched. The Jesuits had such devout members for their methods of the four main stages of training, or weeks as they were knows, were totally unique. The Jesuit would take the individual and train them up to moral standard whereby they could be presented to the church at the end of the process as someone who was spiritually and ethically strong. The members of the Jesuits were thus indifferent to the world and its pleasures yet were equipped to work within it. The Church, to its great advantage, was thus equipped with members who were certain of their faith and in their knowledge of God. The Jesuits were important in a spiritual sense for through their spiritual exercises they emphasised the important theological issue derived from an Aristotelian idea where the mind is employed to contemplate suffering of Christ and God. Loyola takes this a stage further when he proposes that the mind can be used to motivate us into good and charitable apostolic action. From Loyolas contemplation for achieving love he outlines how you can meditate to understand, as suggested when he said, Take my freedom, my memory, my understanding and use me as you wish. The ultimate outcome is that individuals had increased understanding of God that it was possible to become totally servile. With such members, it was inevitable that the Catholic faith strengthened. The Jesuit theology was important in justifying Papal dominance. A great manifestation of the developments towards a more practical faith was the spiritual exercises. In theological terms, the spiritual exercises placed a great emphasis on Papal hierarchy. Hierarchy within the Church could now be justified by theology and this validation of this much disputed factor to Catholicism enabled the Church to produce a strong front. Such comments of Loyola as I will believe that the white object I see is black if that be the will of the hierarchal Church suggests the importance of obedience and hierarchy which the Jesuits so promoted. The Jesuits were part of the move towards Catholic revival not only through realising the importance of the Churchs abuses and poor administration but also through challenging the Lutherans. An essential role of the Jesuits to aiding the Catholic faith was the recovering of lost souls in Lutheran territory as well as persuading people out of Europe to convert to Catholicism. A fine example was set by Francis Xavier who became the best know Christian missionary of modern time. He tried to educate the people of the East, particularly in Japan and India on the values of Christianity. The conversion of non-Christians was Loyolas initial motivation in founding his Society and he realised its importance right back in the 1540s when the Jesuits were established. The Papacy also viewed the order as one where their principle function was converting individuals to Catholicism, but particularly those who were Lutheran. As shown by the title given by the Papacy, Regimi militantis ecclesiae, when the order was founded in 1542, they were viewed as an almost militant organisation who could counter the Lutherans with their total obedience to the Pope. The Jesuits would not have received the Papal Bull and this particular title if the Catholics did not realise there would be a spiritual armed struggle between the Jesuits and Luther.

Euthanasia :: Death Ethics Morals Papers

Euthanasia Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues affecting all realms of society and needs to be closely examined. In order to delve deep enough into the issue, the religious, legal, cultural, ethical, medical, and spiritual ramifications of euthanasia from both proponents and opponents of euthanasia need to be explored. The following discussion of euthanasia will inform people about euthanasia and to help them draw their own conclusions. I. Introduction Euthanasia comes from the Greek and means "painless, happy death." Webster defines it as "an easy and painless death, or, an act or method of causing death painlessly so as to end suffering: advocated by some as a way to deal with victims of incurable disease." Yet one more group, the Euthanasia Society, defines euthanasia as "termination of human life by painless means for the purpose of ending severe physical suffering." What is euthanasia on a more intimate level? Some call euthanasia "mercy killing" an others call it murder. Euthanasia is one of the most controversial issues affecting all realms of society and needs to be closely examined. In order to delve deep enough into the issue, the religious, legal, cultural, ethical, medical, and spiritual ramifications of euthanasia from both proponents and opponents of euthanasia need to be explored. The following discussion of euthanasia will inform people about euthanasia and to help them draw their own conclusions. What should people know about euthanasia before deciding how they view euthanasia? To clarify matters, there are two types of euthanasia, passive and active. Both have the end result of ending the life of a terminally ill person. Passive euthanasia can range from discontinuing life-sustaining medical treatment (such as removing patients who cannot breath on their own from a respirator) to giving pain medications such as morphine in amounts that have the side effect of hastening death (6). Active euthanasia is a direct act by a physician or other person that has the purpose of ending a life. It is often done by giving the patient a lethal chemical injection or IV drip or by inhaling a deadly gas (10). Euthanasia is such a controversial topic because it brings forth questions about the morality of killing, the effectiveness of consent, the duties of physicians, and equity in the distribution of resources (1).

The Influence of Roman Engineering and Architecture

The ingeniousness and beauty of Roman architecture has not been lost on us in the 2000 years since it was built. Even today, we still marvel at what incredible builders the Romans were, and at the sheer scale and integrity of many of their projects. It is hard to argue that today’s architecture will maintain the same lasting grandeur as that which the Romans built. If we can still respect and admire the grandeur of Rome as it was in it’s day, one can only imagine how much of an influence people of the time felt, due to the incredible innovations that the Romans brought to the new regions of their empire.In fact, it is because of the superior engineering skills and architectural ideas possessed by the Romans, and respected by others, that allowed them to conquer, influence and rule such a vast area of the world, for such an extended period of time. Citizens of regions conquered by Rome were the beneficiaries of Roman innovations such as a (public) fresh water supply, bri dges over previously impassable rivers, roads linking all parts of the empire (especially to the capital) and incredible public buildings like the forums and baths.They were more easily persuaded into acceptance once the Romans arrived when they saw or heard of these innovations which they realized could have such a huge and beneficial impact on their lifestyles. The first thing the Romans did upon entering a new region, after winning the war that gained them their new territory, was construct roads and bridges. This was the best way to â€Å"Romanize† the new areas, as it permitted easier communication between the colony and the mother country.The roads all led to the capital, which solidified its position as the centre of power, and also allowed the rulers easier and faster access to the colonies when necessary. It has been said that at the peak of Rome’s power, one could travel from the English Channel all the way to Rome without ever fording a stream, simply becaus e the Romans had built so many bridges to link its colonies. As the Romans were the first to master bridge building on such a large scale, they had a huge influence on the people in even the most remote regions. Places that had been impassible could suddenly be crossed by bridge.The bridges were a commanding presence on the landscape as well, easily conveying the sense of who was in power and influencing the people of the region. The Puente Alcantara in Spain can perhaps best show the expansive influence that the Romans held through their bridges, (Images 1 and 2). Built in AD100 and still standing today, Puente Alcantara reaches 164 feet at its highest point, is 600 feet long and has spans of 92 to 98 feet wide. Such an example of architecture so far from the centre of power is a lasting monument to the influential power once held by the Romans.People were drawn into conformity when they saw the superior skills of the Romans, who also perfected pile driving for the construction of bridges and built each bridge arch as self-supporting to avoid damage to the entire structure if only one portion was damaged. The Roman use of the arch itself, which had never been used to such a great extent before, is itself the main reason they were able to build the huge and influential structures that they were. The use of the arch was of course not limited to bridges; it was common in all Roman architecture of the time.The next major use for it in the new colonies, however, was in the construction of a water supply system—the system of Roman aqueducts. Rome already had an extensive system of aqueducts to supply the city with fresh water, and the Romans used the same system in other regions to civilize the â€Å"barbarian† tribes they had just subdued. Such a system was unheard of in other civilizations. The Romans were a very sanitary and hygienic people to whom fresh water was very important. The new colonies had never been concerned about such sanitation.The R omans, however, were able to bring fresh water to the towns from long distances away by carrying it through tunnels and over valleys with their towering aqueducts. This water was then used for the public baths and toilets, besides the expected drinking water. The fact that this water was for the public, and not reserved for private use, pleased people in the new colonies even more, and made them even more accepting of Roman control. The actual aqueducts themselves, built by the Romans to carry the water, were perhaps even more influential.Aqueducts like Pont du Gard at Nimes (Images 3 and 4), or Segovia in Spain (Image 5), the latter of which still carries water today, were monumental landmarks in the colonies where they were built and still are today. That the Romans would build such magnificent and monumental structures for the sole purpose of supplying water to its colonies was likely overwhelming to those benefiting from it. So the Romans supplied the towns with water, and made travel between towns easier. But what about improving life within the town itself?It is in the public buildings such as the bath, the forum and the amphitheater, which people used and experienced daily, where Rome was able to exert its greatest influence. The fact that these buildings were open to all and not reserved for an elitist group of society only increased their significance. It is arguable that the grandness of the baths has yet to be surpassed in any public building since. These were huge, lavishly ornamented structures where citizens would go not only to bathe, but also for sports, club-life and exhibitions of art.The baths acted as a community centre, uniting citizens in the towns in which they were located. There was also the Roman invention of the forum, today’s equivalent of which would be city hall, the law courts, a marketplace and a church all combined in a single structure. It was a novel idea that one could go to a single building at the centre of town and find everything they needed. People were also allowed open discussion here and were able to publicly voice their opinions and socialize with fellow citizens.However, the forum’s accessibility and openness should not hide the fact that it was used by the Romans as a control centre, where legislative duties for the town were carried out, giving Rome further influence over the citizens. The amphitheaters cannot be forgotten, as they were used by the Romans to please and placate people through the presentation of spectacles. Their architectural grandeur was also influential, however, as they were usually four stories tall, could be covered by a canopy, and were the size of two theatres put together.The Romans didn’t build the public buildings just for their own good, they were used to show â€Å"who’s boss† and keep people appeased. These buildings were superior to anything else that had been or was being built, which helped Rome keep the territory it had co nquered. It is still difficult to comprehend that the Romans were able to create an empire as vast and as powerful as they did. Lasting several centuries and covering Europe, Asia Minor and Northern Africa and even overtaking their historical enemies the Greeks, their empire was of a magnitude that has been unsurpassed but often dreamed. When we look back at how they chieved such widespread influence there is no doubt that the principal factor in their achievements was due to their superior skills in architecture and engineering of the day. They brought fresh clean water to the towns and cities they conquered using the aqueducts which are still inspiring and influential monuments today. We can only imagine the significance they held 2000 years ago. As Frontius said of the aqueducts, they are â€Å"†¦a signal testimony to the greatness of the Roman Empire. † The water brought by the aqueducts was then distributed to the public and used in even more magnificent structures like the baths.How could people not be influenced by such great inventions as these and the forum and the amphitheater, which were used by the Romans not only to please the people but also to help maintain power? The Romans built bridges and roads to link their new colonies and built them so they were a lasting and powerful presence. These bridges were not just a show of power in their grandeur, but were also used by the Romans as quick access to the colonies they needed to keep under control. People of the world were not nearly as advanced in terms of the engineering ability of the Romans, and were persuaded to accept Roman rule.They respected and admired the Roman’s superior abilities and innovations and were therefore easier to conquer and less likely to revolt, allowing the Romans to expand their empire and maintain their influence for such a long time. The Romans no doubt improved their quality of life upon conquering them, and it is hard not to accept a new ruling class if such improvements are occurring. The greatness of the Roman Empire as it was is a direct result of the fact that they were such superior engineers and architects.

Mooting Bundle - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1580 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Essay any type Did you like this example? WRITTEN SUBMISSION BY CO-COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT A. ISSUES TO BE DISPUTED Whether Section 15A of the UUCA is unconstitutional as it violates the right to freedom of speech, assembly and/or association provided for by Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution. B. WRITTEN SUBMISSION First submission Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Mooting Bundle" essay for you Create order Section 15A of the UUCA contravenes Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution. According to Section 15A of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971, it is prohibited for a student, or an organization, body, or group of students to collect or to attempt to collect money. If they do so, they shall be liable to disciplinary action.[1] It is clear that Highland University Political Science Society, a club of which both the applicants, Mr Lee and Ms Wong are members of, was denied of any funding by the Student Affairs Division. The funding requested by the Highland Political Science Society was to finance a trip to attend a conference, Socialism 2014 in Chicago in June. The applicants, Mr Lee and Ms Wong were members of a Political Science Society which according to the Oxford Dictionary, is concerned with the branch of knowledge that deals with the state and systems of government; the scientific analysis of political activity and behaviour. Hence, by attending Socialism 2014, a conference which consists of hundreds of socialists and radical activis ts from around the country to take part in discussions about Marxism, working-class history, and the debates and strategies for organizing today, they would be able to participate fully and enjoy all the fundamental rights as enshrined pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that every citizen has the right to freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association.[2] It is clear to see that by denying the funds they required for the trip, the Student Affairs Division had also denied the applicantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s fundamental right under Article 10(1). Hence, Section 15A of the UUCA further violates this freedom of expression by not allowing both Mr Lee and Ms Wong to collect money for the trip. With no funds, and no donations to finance the said trip, Mr Lee and Ms Wong are unable to exercise their basic rights under the Federal Constitution. Thus, it is clear that Section 15A of the UUCA has clearly contravenes Article 10(1) which guarantees every citizen of Malaysia to freedom of speech, expression, assembly and association. In the appeal case of Muhammad Hilman Bin Idham Others v Kerajaan Malaysia Others[3], the appellants were four students whom had been arrested by police during the Hulu Selangor by-election campaign for participating in political events which was prohibited by the University and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA). They had claimed through a declaration that the UUCA is unconstitutional. Their application had initially been dismissed by the Kuala Lumpur High Courtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Appellate and Special Powers Division in September 2010 of which the High Courtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Justice Aziah Ali had ruled that Section 15 of the UUCA does not infringe Article 10 of the Federal Constitution which deals with freedom of expression. However, on 31st Oct 2011, the Appeal Court overturned the High Courts decision in a 2-1 majority decision which also ruled that Section 15(5) (a) of the Act was unreaso nable and violated the freedom of speech which was guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. In the judgement of Justice Hishamudin, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“A legislative enactment that prohibits such participation in a vital aspect of democracy cannot by any standard be said to be reasonable. In my judgment therefore because of its unreasonableness, section 15(5) (a) of the UUCA does not come within the restrictions permitted under Article 10(2) (a) of the Federal Constitution and is accordingly in violation of Article 10 (1) (1) and therefore void by virtue of Article 4(1) of the federal constitution.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Justice Hishamudin also claimed that Article 4(1) states the constitution is the supreme law of the federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this constitution shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void. He also adds that the right of free speech is given of most priority in the constitutions of many countries. It is a vital factor of democracy and respect of human dignity. This essential right is acknowledged by many human rights documents such as Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since it is established that Mr Lee and Ms Wongà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s freedom of expression has been violated by Section 15A of the UUCA similar to what Section 15(5) (a) has infringed in this appeal case, it is clear that Section 15A of the UUCA clearly contravenes Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution. Second submission Section 15A of the UUCA does not fall within the restrictions stated in Article 10(2) (a) of the Federal Constitution. According to Article 10(2) (a) of the Federal Constitution, the rights conferred in Article 10(1) can be restricted if the interest of the internal security or public order of the Federation is affected[4]. However, Section 15A of the UUCA only prohibits students from collecting money. It is clear that this prohibition does not concern the interest of the internal security or public order of the Federation. In the Supreme Court case of Public Prosecutor v Pung Chen Choon[5], the accused was prosecuted in the Magistrateà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s Court Kota Kinabalu. He was charged under Section 8A (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 for maliciously publishing false news in à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Borneo Mailà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  on 16th July 1990. As the prosecution of the case drew near, the defence raised the question whether Section 8A imposes restrictions on the right to freedom of speech and expression in violation of Article 10(1) (a) and Article 10(2) (a) and thereby void . It was later held that this section is sufficiently connected to the ground provided in Article 10(2) (a). It is also concluded that under section 8A (1) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 is valid within the scope of Article 10(2) (a). It is can be established that in this case, Section 8A (1) fell under the restrictions of Article 10(2) (a) because the malicious publication of false news could, instigate acts which threaten the internal security of the country, impair Malaysias friendly relations with other countries and that would lead to a disturbance of public order and provoke the commission of offences. Therefore, Section 8A of the Act could be validated to be within the boundaries of permissible restrictions in art 10(2) (a) of the Constitution and was valid. However, the Section 15A of the UUCA did not threaten the internal security of the country and therefore did not fall within the restrictions of Article 10(2) (a). This section is only concerning the prohibition of students from collecting money. It is clear to see that under no circumstances this prohibition can threaten internal security like Section 8(a) of the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. In addition, in the Federal Court case of Re Application of Tan Boon Liat @ Allen; Tan Boon Liat v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia Others[6], the appellants were placed under orders of detention made under Section 4(1) of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance, 1969. Representations were filed against the orders to the Advisory Board, but the Board did not make recommendations in the period of three months of the detention orders. However, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had acted on advice to confirm the detention orders. All the three appellants applied for habeas corpus, and claims that the continuation of the detention after a period of three months from the date they were detained was illegal in regards to Article 151(1) (b) of the F ederal Constitution and the provisions of Section 6 of the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crimes) Ordinance, 1969. The High Court dismissed the applications and the appellants appealed to the Federal Court. Their appeal was hence allowed. In his judgement, Abdoolcader J said that, in regards to Article 10(2) (a), The expression public order is not defined anywhere but danger to human life and safety and the disturbance of public tranquillity must necessarily fall within the purview of the expression. It is used in a generic sense and is not necessarily antithetical to disorder, and is wide enough to include considerations of public safety within its signification.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  However, as compared to the applicantsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ case, Section 15A of the UUCA has indeed imposed restrictions on the rights conferred in Article 10(1). In addition, Section 15A of the UUCA does not fall within the restriction of Article 10(2) (a) as this section does not concern the internal security of the Federation or public order which includes the protection of rights and freedom of other person. It merely prohibits students from collecting money. Hence, it is clear that Section 15A of the UUCA does not fall within the restrictions stated in Article 10(2) (a) of the Federal Constitution. C. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF The Applicant respectfully requests the Honourable Court to: Declare that Section 15A is unconstitutional as it contravenes with Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution Declare that Section 15A of the UUCA does not fall within the restrictions stated in Article 10(2) (a) of the Federal Constitution. Declare that Highland University Political Science Society receive the funding needed for the trip to attend Socialism 2014. Dated this on 11th of April 2014 Co-Counsel for Applicants [1] S15A of the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 [2] Article 10(1) of the Federal Constitution [3] Muhammad Hilman Bin Idham Others v Kerajaan Malaysia Others [2011] MLJU 768 [4] Article 10(2) (a) of the Federal Constitution [5]Public Prosecutor v Pung Chen Choon [1994] 1 MLJ 566 [6] Re Application of Tan Boon Liat @ Allen; Tan Boon Liat v Menteri Hal Ehwal Dalam Negeri, Malaysia Others [1977] 2 MLJ 108