The Weird Doctrine of Jansenism - and Blaise Pascal

Wikipedia: Blaise Pascal

---

Jansenism is one of those theological doctrines that, to modern sensibilities, seems not just mistaken but deeply strange. At its core is the idea of the elect—a fixed number of individuals chosen by God for salvation, with the rest of humanity left to damnation. There was no way to join this group, no means of knowing whether one was in or out, and no possibility of changing one’s fate. It appears arbitrary, almost capricious.

So why did some of the most brilliant thinkers of the 17th century—including Blaise Pascal—subscribe to it? And why did the doctrine, once fiercely debated, ultimately vanish from serious Catholic thought?

What Was Jansenism?

Jansenism was a theological movement within 17th-century Catholicism that emphasized human depravity, divine grace, and predestination. Its intellectual foundation was the work of Cornelius Jansen (1585–1638), particularly his posthumously published Augustinus, which drew heavily on the teachings of Saint Augustine.

The key tenets of Jansenism were:

1. Original Sin and Human Helplessness – Humanity is utterly corrupt due to original sin and incapable of doing good without divine grace.

2. Efficacious Grace – God’s grace is irresistible and only given to those predestined for salvation. If grace is given, the soul cannot help but respond; if withheld, salvation is impossible.

3. Limited Salvation – Christ’s atonement was not for all but only for the elect, chosen by God from eternity.

Jansenism was, in effect, a Catholic version of Calvinist predestination (which had been developed a century earlier) — though its adherents fiercely denied any Protestant influence. It set itself against Jesuit theology, which emphasized human free will and the availability of grace to all who sought it.

Why Would Anyone Believe This?

From a modern perspective, the doctrine seems needlessly restrictive. Yet it was not a random imposition but a logical response to an intellectual and theological problem: why do some people respond to God while others remain indifferent?

Jansenists, like Calvinists, observed a stark reality: some people underwent profound religious transformations, while others did not. The question was how to explain this disparity. If salvation was open to all, why didn’t everyone accept it? The idea of the elect provided a structured answer—conversion was not a matter of personal choice but divine intervention. Those who truly repented did so because they had been chosen.

Moreover, Jansenism resonated with a certain intellectual temperament. It was rigorous, systematic, and uncompromising—qualities that appealed to thinkers like Pascal, who saw it as a bulwark against the laxity and self-deception of mainstream Catholicism. Jansenism’s insistence that salvation was beyond human control also removed any grounds for spiritual complacency. One could not simply assume one was saved; one had to search for signs of God’s grace, which made spiritual life a serious and often anguished pursuit.

Why Jansenism Now Seems Inexplicable

To the modern mind, shaped by notions of democracy and personal autonomy, the idea of an unchangeable elect is deeply unsettling. It violates our assumptions about fairness and personal responsibility. If one’s eternal fate is preordained, then moral effort seems pointless, and the whole structure of religious practice collapses into fatalism.

Jansenism also struggled with an inherent pastoral problem. If grace was given only to the elect, what incentive was there for evangelism, confession, or even prayer? A doctrine that makes religious participation irrelevant to salvation ultimately undermines the Church itself.

The Triumph of Opposition

Jansenism was ultimately crushed by a combination of theological, pastoral, and political forces:

Theological Rebuttal – The Catholic Church, particularly through the Jesuits, argued that grace must be available to all, otherwise the sacraments and evangelization would be meaningless.

Papal Condemnations – Successive popes condemned Jansenism, culminating in Unigenitus (1713), which effectively outlawed the doctrine.

Practical Incompatibility – A doctrine that rendered human effort irrelevant was always going to struggle in a Church that depended on spiritual discipline and moral responsibility.

By the 18th century, Jansenism had largely faded, surviving only in a few marginal communities. Today, its central claims seem so alien that it is hard to imagine how intelligent people ever found them compelling. But they did—because, in their time, Jansenism offered a systematic and intellectually coherent answer to real theological dilemmas.

Conclusion

Jansenism now appears as a theological dead end, but its intellectual seriousness should not be dismissed. It was an attempt to grapple with one of the oldest problems in Christianity: why some believe and others do not. It ultimately failed because its solutions proved too rigid, too extreme, and too incompatible with the broader currents of Catholic theology. But its very strangeness today is a reminder of how much religious thought has changed—and how doctrines that once seemed essential can, in time, become incomprehensible.

---

Thanks to ChatGPT for putting this together in dialogue.

I then asked ChatGPT whether, logically, Pascal might have considered himself to be one of the elect?

---

ChatGPT: Pascal's belief in Jansenist predestination places him in an intriguing logical predicament. If the elect are chosen solely by God, and no human action can alter that status, then one cannot truly know whether one is among them. Jansenism insisted that assurance of salvation was impossible—a stark contrast to some Protestant traditions where the elect might experience an inner conviction of their salvation.

That said, Pascal would have taken the indirect route to confidence in his election. His famous Mémorial—the intense mystical experience he had on the night of November 23, 1654—suggests that he saw this event as a profound encounter with divine grace. Jansenists held that those touched by efficacious grace would undergo a radical transformation, and Pascal’s subsequent commitment to religious life could have been seen as evidence that God’s grace was indeed working within him.

Yet, paradoxically, the very act of thinking oneself to be elect could be a sign of presumption, which Jansenists viewed as a sin. Pascal likely oscillated between deep spiritual assurance and moments of existential doubt. His theology did not permit complacency—he would have constantly scrutinized himself for signs of genuine grace, while simultaneously knowing that such scrutiny was itself futile - if he were not among the chosen.

So, did Pascal believe he was among the elect? Perhaps—but never with certainty, and always with fear.

---

Me: This gives a certain piquancy to Pascal's Wager, doesn't it?

---

ChatGPT: Yes, Pascal’s Wager makes much more sense when seen through the lens of Jansenist uncertainty about election. On the surface, the Wager is often presented as a coldly rational bet: if God exists, belief yields infinite gain (heaven) and disbelief yields infinite loss (hell), whereas if God does not exist, belief costs little.

This pragmatic reasoning suggests that one should live as if God exists, even if one is uncertain. But within the Jansenist framework, the Wager takes on a more anguished, existential character.

Pascal was not addressing people who were choosing between belief and atheism in the modern sense, but rather those who wanted to believe but were trapped in doubt—perhaps because they feared they were not among the elect. Jansenism denied that humans could generate belief through free will; only God’s grace could make someone truly believe. 

Yet Pascal, ever the mathematician, proposed a pragmatic approach: live as though you believe, participate in religious life, and in doing so, you may open yourself to the workings of grace.

In this way, Pascal’s Wager is not just a gamble on God’s existence—it is a wager on whether one might become the kind of person who receives grace. It is a desperate, logical leap in a theological system that offered no certainty. The Wager, then, is not merely a logical suggestion — it is a lifeline for the anxious soul, a way to rationally act in the face of terrifying predestination.