The Abolition Of The Jesuit Order
As long as this war of extermination was waged against Protestantism, the assistance of these daring “knights” was accepted, but when they continued to meddle in politics, and to gather the civil reins in their own hands, the Catholic princes at length became aroused to their danger, and complaints began to pour into the Vatican from various heads of Catholic states. Finally, Pope Clement XIV, after four years of investigation, felt compelled to abolish the Jesuit Order. In his “Bull of Suppression,” issued July 21, 1773, he wrote, that repeated warnings had been given to the Society of “the most imminent dangers, if it concerned itself with temporal matters, and which relate to political affairs, and the administration of government.” It was “strictly forbidden to all the members of the society, to interfere in any manner whatever in public affairs.” Clement then cites eleven popes who “employed without effect all their efforts ... to restore peace to the Church” by keeping the Jesuits out of “secular affairs, with which the company ought not to have interfered,” as they had done “in Europe, Africa, and America.” The Pope continues:FAFA 278.2
“We have seen, in the grief of our heart, that neither these remedies, nor an infinity of others, since employed, have produced their due effect, or silenced the accusations and complaints against the said society.... In vain [were all efforts.]” — “Bull of Clement XIV,” in “Constitutions of the Society of Jesus,” pp. 116, 117. London: 1838.FAFA 279.1
“After so many storms, troubles, and divisions the times became more difficult and tempestuous; complaints and quarrels were multiplied on every side. In some places dangerous seditions arose, tumults, discords; dissensions, scandals, which weakening or entirely breaking the bonds of Christian charity, excited the faithful to all the rage of party hatreds and enmities. Desolation and danger grew to such a height, that ... the kings of France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily, found themselves reduced to the necessity of expelling and driving from their states, kingdoms, and provinces, these very companions of Jesus; persuaded that there remained no other remedy to so great evils; and that this step was necessary in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against another, and from massacring each other in the very bosom of our common mother the Holy Church. The said our dear sons in Jesus Christ having since considered that even this remedy would not be sufficient towards reconciling the whole Christian world, unless the said society was absolutely abolished and suppressed, made known their demands and wills in this matter to our said predecessor Clement XIII - Id., p. 118.FAFA 279.2
“After a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fullness of our apostolic power, suppress and abolish the said company.... We abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the Holy See.... We declare ... the said society to be for ever annulled and extinguished.” — Id., pp. 119,120.FAFA 279.3
“Our will and meaning is, that the suppression and destruction of the said society, and of all its parts, shall have an immediate and instantaneous effect.” — Id., p. 124.FAFA 280.1
“Our will and pleasure is, that these our letters should for ever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force and effect.... Given at Rome, at St. Mary the Greater, under the seal of the Fisherman, the 21st day of July, 1773, in the fifth year of our Pontificate.” — Bull for the Effectual Suppression of the Order of Jesuits.” Quoted in “Constitutions of the Society of Jesus,” p. 126.FAFA 280.2
We now respectfully ask: Can any Roman Catholic doubt that the pope is telling the truth about the Jesuits? If he is telling the truth, can we be blamed for feeling that there is a Jesuit danger, after that society has been reinstated and has labored incessantly for more than a century, and is unchanged in principle?FAFA 280.3
When we reflect upon their past history, and remember that the Jesuits have been expelled from fifty different countries, seven times from England, and nine times from France, and from the Papal States themselves, there must be a reason why civil governments, Catholic as well as Protestant, have found it necessary to take such steps. Only in countries such as the United States, where they are allowed to carry on their work peaceably, we hear little of them. But some day Americans may wake up to find our present generation completely Romanized, and our boasted “liberty” a thing of the past. The prophet declares: “And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; ... and by peace shall destroy many.” Daniel 8:25. Any one desiring to know the historical facts should read the “History of the Jesuits,” by T. Griesinger, and “The Roman Catholic Church,” by F. T. Morton, pp. 167, 168.FAFA 280.4
“The end justifies the means.” This maxim is generally attributed to the Jesuits, and while it might not be found in just that many words in their authorized books, yet the identical sentiment is found over and over again in their Latin works. Dr. Otto Henne an Rhyn quotes many such sentiments from authorized Jesuit sources. We quote from him the following:FAFA 280.5
“Herman Busembaum, in his ‘Medulla Theologiae Moralis’ (first published at Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1650) gives this as a theorem (p. 320): Cum finis est licitus, etiam media sunt licita (when the end is lawful, the means also are lawful); and p. 504: Cui licitus est finis, etiam licent media (for whom the end is lawful, the means are lawful also). The Jesuit Paul Layman, in his ‘Theologia Moralis,’ lib. III., p. 20 (Munich, 1625), quoting Sanchez, states the proposition in these words: Cui concessus est finis, concessa etiam sunt media ad finem, ordinata (to whom the end is permitted, to him also are permitted the means ordered to the end). Louis Wagemann, Jesuit professor of moral theology, in his ‘Synopsis Theologiae Moralis’ (Innsbruck and Augsburg, 1762) has: Finis determinat moralitatem actus (the end decides the morality of the act).” — “The Jesuits,” pp. 47, 48. New York: 1895.FAFA 281.1
“But the mischief is that the whole moral teaching of the Jesuits from their early days till now is but a further extension of this proposition, so redoubtable in its application.” — Id., pp- 49, 50. FAFA 281.2
Rene Fulop-Miller says of the Jesuits:FAFA 281.3
“In actual fact, the Jesuit casuists deal with two forms of permissible deception: that of ‘amphibology’ and that of reservatio mentalis. ‘Amphibology’ is nothing else than the employment of ambiguous terms calculated to mislead the questioner; ‘mental reservation’ consists in answering a question, not with a direct lie, but in such a way that the truth is partly suppressed, certain words being formulated mentally but not expressed orally.
“The Jesuits hold that neither intentional ambiguity nor the fact of making a mental reservation can be regarded as lying, since, in both cases, all that happens is that ‘one’s neighbor is not actually deceived, but rather his deception is permitted only for a justifiable cause.” — “The Power and Secret of the Jesuits,” pp. 154, 155.FAFA 281.4
The Jesuit Gury gives examples of this; among others he says:FAFA 282.1
“Amand promised, under oath, to Marinus, that he would never reveal a theft committed by the latter.... But ... Amand was called as a witness before the judge, and revealed the secret, after interrogation.
“He ought not to have revealed the theft, but he ought to have answered: ‘I do not know anything,’ understanding, ‘nothing that I am obligated to reveal,’ by using a mental restriction.... So Amand has committed a grave sin against religion and justice, by revealing publicly, before the court, a confided secret.” — “The Doctrine of the Jesuits,” translated by Paul Bert, Member of the Chamber of Deputies, Professor at the Faculty of Sciences (in Paris), pp. 168, 169, American edition. Boston: 1880.FAFA 282.2
Alphonsus de Liguori, the sainted Catholic doctor, says in Tractatus de Secundo Decalogi Praecepto,” on the second [third] precept of the decalogue:FAFA 282.3
“One who is asked concerning something which it is expedient to conceal, can say, ‘I say not,’ that is, ‘I say the word “not”; since the word ‘I say’ has a double sense; for it signifies ‘to pronounce’ and ‘to affirm’: now in our sense ‘I say’ is the same as ‘I pronounce.’FAFA 282.4
“A prisoner, when lawfully questioned, can deny a crime even with an oath (at least without grievous sin), if as the result of his confession he is threatened with punishment of death, or imprisonment, or perpetual exile, or the loss of all his property, or the galleys, and similar punishments, by secretly understanding that he has not committed any crime of such a degree that he is bound to confess.FAFA 282.5
“It is permissible to swear to anything which is false by adding in an undertone a true condition, if that low utterance can in any way he perceived by the other party, though its sense is not understood.” — The Latin text, and an English translation of the above statements are found in “Fifty Years in the Church of Rome,” by Father Chiniquy, chap. 13, and in “Protestant Magazine,” April, 1913, p. 163.FAFA 282.6
Violations of the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments are justified by many leading Jesuit writers, according to many quotations from their books, cited in “The History of the Jesuits,” by Theodor Griesinger, pp. 285-304, 478-488, 508-616, 670, 740; and in Gury’s “Doctrines of the Jesuits,” translated by Paul Bert; and in “The Jesuits,” by Dr. Otto Henne an Rhyn, chap. 5.FAFA 283.1
Theodor Griesinger quotes from eight prominent Jesuit authorities, who advocate that it is permissible to kill a prince or ruler who has been deposed by the pope. Here are a few samples:FAFA 283.2
“In the ‘Opuscula Theologica’ of Martin Becan, at page 130, the following passage occurs:FAFA 283.3
” ‘Every subject may kill his prince when the latter has taken possession of the throne as a usurper, and history teaches, in fact, that in all nations those who kill such tyrants are treated with the greatest honor. But even when the ruler is not a usurper, but a prince who has by right come to the throne, he may be killed as soon as he oppresses his subjects with improper taxation, sells the judicial offices, and issues ordinances in a tyrannical manner for his own peculiar benefit.’ “FAFA 283.4
“With such principles Father Hermann Buchenbaum entirely agreed, and, in the ‘Medulla Theologia Moralis,’ permission to murder all offenders of mankind and the true faith, as well as enemies of the Society of Jesus, is distinctly laid down. This ‘Moral Theology’ of Father Buchenbaum is held by all the Society as an unsurpassed and unsurpassable pattern-book, and was on that account introduced, with the approval of their General, into all their colleges.FAFA 283.5
“Imanuel Sa says, in his aphorisms, under the word ‘Clericus’: ‘The rebellion of an ecclesiastic against a king of the country in which he lives, is no high treason, because an ecclesiastic is not the subject of any king.’ ‘Equally right,’ he adds further, ‘is the principle that anyone among the people may kill an illegitimate prince - to murder a tyrant, however, is considered, indeed, to be a duty.’FAFA 283.6
“Adam Tanner, a very well known and highly esteemed Jesuit professor in Germany, uses almost the identical words, and the not less distinguished Father Johannes Mariana, who taught in Rome, Palermo, and Paris, advances this doctrine in his book ‘De Rege’ (lib. i., p. 54), published with the approbation of the General Aquaviva and of the whole Society, when he says: ‘It is a wholesome thought, brought home to all princes, that as soon as they begin to oppress their subjects, and, by their excessive vices, and, more especially, by the unworthiness of their conduct, make themselves unbearable to the latter, in such a case they should be convinced that one has not only a perfect right to kill them, but that to accomplish such a deed is glorious and heroic.’ ...FAFA 284.1
“But most precise are the words of the work, so highly prized above all others by the Roman Curie, ‘Defensio Fidei Catholicae, et Apostolicae [Defence of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith]’ of the Jesuit Suarez, which appeared in Lisbon in the year 1614, as therein it is stated (lib. vi, cap. iv, Nos. 13 and 14): ‘It is an article of faith that the Pope has the right to depose heretical and rebellious kings, and a monarch dethroned by the Pope is no longer a king or legitimate prince. When such an one hesitates to obey the Pope after he is deposed, he then becomes a tyrant, and may be killed by the first corner. Especially when the public weal is assured by the death of the tyrant, it is allowable for anyone to kill the latter.’FAFA 284.2
“Truly regicide could not be taught by clearer words.... The sons of Loyola ... declared that a more learned, or God fearing book, had never appeared.... Indeed, from this time forth no Jesuit professor whatever wrote on moral theology, or any similar subject, without adopting the teaching of Suarez.” — “History of the Jesuits,” pp. 508-511.FAFA 284.3
Can any one doubt that the Jesuits have faithfully carried out this “Article of Faith,” wherever they thought it advisable, when he reads of the many attempts upon the life of Queen Elizabeth of England; of the “Gunpowder Plot” to murder James I, and to destroy the “Houses of Parliament” in one blast; of the assassination of William, Prince of Orange; of the attempts upon his son, Maurice, Prince of Orange, and upon Leopold I of Germany, by agents of that Society? We could refer to the “Holy League” of 1576, sponsored by the Jesuits, for the purpose of uniting Catholic Europe to crush Protestantism, and the assassination of Henry III and Henry IV of France in the interest of that scheme. “The Jesuits were, indeed, the heart and soul of the Leaguist conspiracy.” — Id., p. 210. See also pp. 508-608.FAFA 284.4
If the political activities of the Jesuits, of which Pope Clement XIV complained so pathetically, are not a serious problem to civil governments, then why were the Jesuits expelled from so many states, Catholic as well as Protestant, as the following table shows? Francis T. Morton, Member of the Massachusetts Bar, gives the following:FAFA 285.1