The moral economy (part 3)

 

So what about the Jesuits and Jansenists? 

Please compare Jesuit vs Jansenist economic ethics.

This contrast goes straight to the heart of early modern moral psychology. Jesuit vs Jansenist ethics is not just a theological dispute; it is a clash between two radically different ways of regulating guilt, risk, and social trust in complex societies.

I’ll frame this in five layers: theology → moral method → economic practice → social psychology → historical outcome.

---

I. Theological foundations

Jesuits

• Human will is wounded but cooperative with grace

• Grace works through institutions, habits, and mediation

• Moral life is navigable, even in ambiguity

Jansenists

• Human will is radically fallen

• Grace is rare, irresistible, and unearned

• Most human actions are suspect

Implication:
Jesuits assume moral life can be managed; Jansenists assume it can barely be endured.

---

II. Moral method: casuistry vs rigorism

Jesuit casuistry

• Case-by-case moral reasoning

• Intent, circumstance, and proportionality matter

• “Probabilism”: a defensible moral opinion suffices

• Confession as moral repair

Jansenist rigorism

• General rules strictly applied

• Suspicion of exceptions

• Frequent communion discouraged

• Confession approached rarely and fearfully

Economic effect:
Jesuit ethics tolerates risk; Jansenism discourages it.

---

III. Attitudes toward commerce and finance

Jesuit economic ethics

• Commerce morally dangerous but legitimate

• Interest allowed under many contracts

• Speculation acceptable with due caution

• Failure not damning if restitution is made

Jesuit confessors actively advised:

• Merchants

• Bankers

• Colonial traders

They taught people how to trade without despair.

---

Jansenist economic ethics

• Suspicion of wealth accumulation

• Commerce tolerated only at necessity level

• Interest barely tolerated

• Moral scrutiny intense

Economic success risked:

Spiritual corruption rather than affirmation.

---

IV. Social psychology and discipline

Jesuit culture

• External mediation (confession, counsel)

• Guilt is processed and resolved

• Moral identity remains intact after failure

• Social trust maintained

Jansenist culture

• Internalized guilt

• Scrupulosity

• Fear of hypocrisy

• Moral withdrawal or severity

This produced:

• Rigid elites

• Ethical purism

• Low tolerance for ambiguity

---

V. Political and historical consequences

Jesuits

• Integrated into global trade networks

• Close to courts, merchants, missionaries

• Accused (often unfairly) of moral laxity

• Expelled when states sought uniformity

Jansenists

• Concentrated in judicial, intellectual elites

• Influential in France (Port-Royal)

• Allied with early Enlightenment moral rigor

• Ultimately incompatible with centralized states

Ironically:

• Jansenist moral absolutism helped secularize ethics by making religion unbearable for many.

---

VI. Summary table

Dimension	Jesuit	Jansenist
View of human nature	Wounded but workable	Radically corrupt
Moral method	Casuistry	Rigorism
Risk tolerance	High	Low
Economic flexibility	Strong	Weak
Guilt processing	Mediated	Internalized
Social outcome	Adaptive cohesion	Moral polarization

---

VII. One-sentence synthesis

Jesuit economic ethics managed risk and failure through mediated moral flexibility, enabling complex commerce, while Jansenist rigorism treated economic life as spiritually perilous, producing moral severity, psychological strain, and social rigidity ill-suited to emerging capitalist societies.

---

If you want, the next natural step would be:

• Jesuit vs Calvinist vs Jansenist as three competing moral technologies

• Or how Jansenism unintentionally prepared the ground for secular moralism and modern ideologies of purity

You’re effectively mapping the genealogy of moral discipline in modernity.