A lay person would simply call the Companions of Jesus as the Jesuits.  Its founder was Ignatius of Loyola.  Wikipedia describes an accurate description.

Ignatius founded the society after being wounded in battle and experiencing a religious conversion. He composed the Spiritual Exercises to help others follow the teachings ofJesus Christ. In 1534, Ignatius and six other young men, including St. Francis Xavier and Bl. Pierre Favre, gathered and professed vows of poverty, chastity, and later Obedience, including a special vow of obedience to the Pope. Rule 13 of Ignatius’ Rules for Thinking with the Church said: “That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity[…], if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.”^[3] Ignatius’ plan of the order’s organization was approved by Pope Paul III in 1540 by the bull containing the Formula of the Institute. The opening lines of this founding document would declare that the Society of Jesus was founded to “strive especially for the propagation and defense of the faith and progress of souls in Christian life and doctrine.”^[4] 

When in the Philippines, there was a great reaction to the passing of the so called RH Bill which includes contraception as an “essential medicine” for family planning, the Philippines Bishops, faithful to the teachings of the Pope on contraception, reacted pro-actively.  They could recall many more than forty years ago the teaching of Pope Paul VI enshrined on his Encyclical Humanae Vitae:

We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after Sexual Intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual Intercourse which is Deliberately Contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good,” it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

It was declared as “intrinsically wrong.”  This teaching was difficult for man and was contested outside and within the church.  Time however,  has proven that the Pope was right.  The Pope’s words in the use of contraception were like a Cassadra prophecy which some of the European countries have experienced now. 

The Jesuits, true to their calling expressed in their Rule 13 of Ignatius’ Rules for Thinking with the Church said: “That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity[…], with the Church.  This is not something added to the identity of the Jesuits – it is their very identity to professes obedience to the Pope. 

It is in this light that we could offer a kind understanding to the Jesuit Fathers.  They are called by the bishops to be faithful to their charism, nothing more.

Another question arises when professors in their University are not Jesuits but lay persons who are entitled to their intellectual freedom.  This is not, however, the main question however of the bishops.  The question is: they are working in an institution run by the Jesuits whose charism Is obedience to the Church.  It is not advisable for CBCP to  impose obedience nor ex-communicate these professors, much less to condemn them simply because they are not Jesuits and has no vow of obedience

With the mentioned considerations, the official statement therefore of the Jesuits is quite univocal in stating:

“Together with our leaders in the Catholic Church, the Ateneo de Manila University does not support the passage of House Bill 4244 (The Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill). As many of these leaders have pointed out, the present form of the proposed bill contains provisions that could be construed to threaten constitutional rights as well as to weaken commonly shared human and spiritual values.”

And at the same time respecting those who  supported the RH bill by clearly saying that they have “spoken of their own voice” and not of the voice of the Catholic institution.  It further clarifies that the university “differ[s] from their position.”

Likewise the university appreciates their “social compassion and intellectual efforts” , but urged “those engaged in Christian formation. . . “to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done.”

The bishops have reasons to worry about the Catholic parents of students who spend a lot to have a Christian education and are worried that the university might not given the product expected from the university.

Should the bill be passed the university would not hesitate to bring “to the judiciary whatever legal questions we may have nor cease to be vigilant in ensuring that no coercion takes place in implementation.”

This shows a strong commitment to continue in opposing the bill becomes a law but still, in fact, would be against the constitutional law declared as one of the reasons of their opposition to the bill.  Believe you me.