CHAPTER XII. The Suppression of the Jesuits by Clement XIV.

THERE are few more remarkable events in the history of the Church of Rome, than that of the suppression of the Jesuits. Popes may be infallible in the eyes of their subjects, but infallibility has its difficulties, however infallibilists may gloss them over for the benefit of the unbeliever. That one infallible pope should have established the Jesuits, that another should have denounced them as utterly unworthy to exist, and that a third should have reinstated them in all their ancient privileges, is, shall we say a political, or a theological puzzle, which we are not able to solve. They all differed on a most important subject, they all made ex cathedra declarations, which flatly contradicted each other, but they were all right, and all equally infallible. At present, we have only to inquire into the facts connected with the suppression of the Jesuits.

Although Spain was the cradle of the Order, and the native place of its founder, and of some of its most famous men, Spain has not been over anxious for its continuance. The Order has always shown itself far too much concerned with politics, and its own temporal advancement, to meet with the approval of statesmen. When Cardinal Ganganelli was, shall we say negotiating for, or praying for, the triple tiara, it was very important for him to secure the vote and interest of the Spanish Cardinals. The Spanish king was very anxious to get the Jesuits out of his dominions, if not to abolish them altogether. There were indeed complaints of them on all sides. It would seem that there could not be peace where the Jesuit had power.

This is no mere “Protestant” calumny. We give Roman Catholic evidence for the above statement: —

Suppression of the Jesuits.

At the close of the 16th century the parish priests of Paris preferred a formal indictment against the Jesuits, with a prayer for their removal, because they put the Pope above the General Councils, and proclaiming there was no bound to his power, put themselves above bishops, supplanted the parish clergy, trampled under foot Gallican liberties, claimed for the Pope the right to excommunicate kings, interfere in state affairs, and call the temporal power to his aid, and above all, because they corrupted by their doctrines, and taught their pupils the lawfulness of regicide (murder of kings).

In the year 1700 an assembly of the Roman Catholic clergy of France passed unanimously a sentence of the severest censure upon the lax morality of the Jesuits, and especially on the pernicious character of their doctrine of probabilism. (The doctrine that when there are two probable opinions, each resting on apparent reason, one in favor of and the other opposed to one’s inclinations, it is lawful to follow the probable opinion which favors one’s inclination.)

Pope Clement XI., in spite of his known sympathy with the Society, censured the Jesuits for having sanctioned the use by their converts in China, of a combination of the superstitions of Confucius with the ordinances of Christianity.

The theological faculty of the Sorbonne censured the conduct of the Society as “false, rash, scandalous, contrary to the Word of God, and subversive of the Christian faith and religion,” which sentence was ratified by the Pope.

Lavalette, the head of the Order in France, being brought into Court for irregularities in regard to his financial operations in 1762, the Society in the trial were obliged to produce their “Constitutions.” When these, which had been heretofore hidden from all eyes except their own, became known, intense indignation against the Society was aroused. Louis XV. sent a letter to Ricci, the General of the Order at Rome, and also to the popes, asking that the Statutes be amended.

But the condemnation of the Order by Pietro Sarpi, the Roman Catholic historian of the Council of Trent, is as important and reliable as that of the many popes who have denounced their teaching and practices. He says “They are a public plague, and the plague of the world,” and that the education of the Jesuits consists in releasing the pupil of every obligation to his father, to his country, and to his natural prince. From the Jesuit colleges there never is sent a pupil obedient to his father, devoted to his country, loyal to his prince.”

Pope Clement XIV. in his famous Bull of July 21st, 1773, suppressing the Jesuits, whilst giving the grounds of his condemnation of the Society, witnesses to the following facts: —

1. That thousands of complaints against that religions community were laid before our predecessors, upheld by the authority of some princes.”

2. “That the very bosom of the Society of Jesus was torn to pieces by internal and external dissensions.”

How Ganganelli was made Pope.

The Spanish Cardinals were politicians, as Cardinals will be. They had not much faith in verbal promises, and wanted things in writing, and took care to get what they wanted. Cardinal Ganganelli had already secured French interest, he now secured that of the Spaniards. He wrote a letter in which he declared that the “Sovereign Pontiff might abolish the Jesuits without violating the canonical regulations.” In fact, as we have said elsewhere, it is difficult to know what the Pope cannot do infallibly, or undo, infallibly. Happy popes! And yet, and yet, “uneasy lies the head which wears a crown,” and the Pope after all wears three.

Cardinal Ganganelli was made pope by the votes of the Spanish and French Cardinals. No one seemed greatly concerned as to what share the Holy Spirit of God had in the election, though professionally and ceremoniously His influence was invoked.

Ganganelli took the title of Clement XIV., but, like many another politician, he was slow in fulfilling his election pledges. Constituents may be put off or trifled with, but kings, especially when they are very much in earnest, have unpleasant methods of enforcing their demands. The Spanish king expected his protégé to keep his word, pope and all as he was. The pope, pope and all as he was, did not like to keep his word. Poor pope, but, pope and all as he was, he was none the less afraid of the Jesuits. They have unpleasant ways of revenging themselves on those who interfere with their affairs. But Charles would not be gainsaid.

The Spanish king was firm, he was something in the position of an Irish landlord. If his agent was shot for enforcing his commands it would be a pity, but then he could get another, and he must have his rents. If the Pope was removed another pope could always be got, but the Jesuits were very much in the way and could not be “removed” individually, so they must be got rid of altogether.

The Pope had made a promise, and in writing, too (alas! poor pope), and the pope was expected to keep his election pledges. Charles offered to land troops at Civita Vecchia for his protection. Of what use? All the troops in Spain, or, for that part of the matter, in Europe, could not save him from poison, and poison was then so easily and freely administered. At length the Pope had to yield, but, to his credit it must be said, he did not do so without long and careful deliberation.

Popes who Died Suddenly.

After all, Pope Clement decided that, if he must die for his deed of daring, he would die like an honest man, and he deserves the respect of posterity. The celebrated historian Griesinger, says “The Pope who ventured to censure the Order of Jesus undertook an act of far greater daring than a warrior who placed his cannon against them in a field of battle, while, too, every representative of Christ on earth who had contemplated anything of the kind before—I call to remembrance among the Popes, Sixtus V., Clement VIII., and Innocent XIII.—had been quickly removed from the face of the earth. There are certainly some remarkable coincidences as regards the premature decease of popes who had interfered with, or attempted to control, the “Society.”

Sixtus V. had died, as Cretineau Joli says, “quite a propos (Fitting and to the point) for the Company,” just as he was planning material changes in its rules and in its designation. In the Brief Clement XIV. makes significant allusion to “the salutary project ”of Sixtus V., in regard to the Order failing of effect owing “to his premature death.” Clement VIII. died when ready to pronounce sentence against the Jesuit Molina, whose cause had been warmly advocated by the General Acquaviva. Fuligati relates in his Life of Cardinal Bellarmine,” that Cardinal Francis del Monte having spoken to Bellarmine of the Pope’s resolution to condemn the doctrine of Molina, the latter replied, “I know he wishes it, and I acknowledge he can do it, but I say he will never do it, and if he attempts it, he will die first.” The Jesuit Cellot, who also reports this fact, extols this prediction of Bellarmine as a true prophecy, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and he carefully attests its accomplishment in 1605, when Clement VIII. was about to publish his censure of Molinas Book. {Vita Bellarmin. Leodii, 1626, Lib. vi, Cap. vii.]. Innocent XIII. died suddenly when planning the suppression of the Order. Innocent XIII., on the 13th September, 1723, solemnly declared the Jesuit Missionaries in China guilty of idolatry, of rebellion against the Holy See, and of profanation of the name of God. This act was the occasion of the General Tamburini’s addressing a Memoire to the Pope, which was, without contradiction, the most hypocritical that can be imagined. On receiving this document, it is said that Innocent XIII. determined to abolish the Jesuits, but he died two months after, in 1724. Benedict XIV., after signing a Brief for its reformation on the 1st April, 1758, died on the May 2nd following.

No document could have been worded more plainly, no document could have been issued with more deliberation than this papal Bull which suppressed the Jesuits “for ever.” If ever Peter spoke from the chair of Peter, he spoke by the mouth of Pope Clement XIV., when he denounced in scathing language the iniquities which had made this act of papal censure imperative on the head of the Papal church. It was no wonder that the Pope was deliberate. It was no wonder that the Pope was afraid.

Bull of Suppression carefully Prepared.

Though bearing the date July 21st, 1773, it was not at that time made public. The Pope, first of all, wished that its contents might be proved to be correct, and on that account nominated a Commission or Congregation, consisting of Cardinals — Corsini, Marefoschi, Caraffa, Zelada, and Casoli, of the Prelates Macedonio and Albani, and, lastly, of two celebrated theologians, Brother Mamachi, a Dominican, and Brother Christopher de Monferrate, a Franciscan. They assembled daily with the Pope, and went over the contents of the brief word by word. Each of them, however, was solemnly pledged not to divulge a single syllable as to their transactions. On the 16th of August the Pope signed the Bull, which, from the words with which it began, received the title Dominus ac Redemptor noster. (Our Lord and Redeemer)

Someone has said, “Oh, liberty, how many crimes have been committed in thy name?” Have Christians even realised how many evils have been committed or sanctioned in the name of Christ?

It seems scarcely needful to quote from this famous Bull. Its validity has never been disputed and if papal infallibility means anything it is still in force. If popes can contradict each other on points of doctrine, morals, and politics, when does infallibility speak?

The Bull concludes thus:— “We forbid that this Bull shall be censured, impugned, invalidated, retracted, brought to law or controversy, or taken to the courts of law, and we forbid that there shall be obtained against it any act restoring matters to their original position, any retrial, any bringing of the case into the courts of law, or any other remedy of law, of fact, of favour, or of justice, and if any such remedy should by any means whatever be conceded or obtained, we forbid anyone to use it, or to avail himself of it, either in a court of justice or out of it. But we ordain that this present Bull shall always and perpetually be, and continue to be, valid, firm, and effective, and shall have and obtain its full and complete results, and shall be inviolably observed by all and every one whom it affects or will in any way affect in future.”

If ever any deed was done with calm, earnest, and may we not say Christian deliberation, surely this act of Pope Clement XIV. was thus accomplished. What makes the matter so important, is, that he refers to all the decisions of previous popes who had in vain tried to reform the Society, and to the complaints of so many kings and princes who had declared that they could have no peace in their dominions while the Jesuits existed. Lust of gain, and the insatiable greed of power were but too obviously the one end of the Jesuit. It is, as we have said before, no Protestant voice which has condemned them, it is the voice of the Universal Church of which they even proclaimed themselves the special defenders. Yet, strange to say, with all their profession of deference to popes and prelates, they seem to have taken special pleasure in acting in open defiance of their commands. Even Bellarmine, the admired of many Protestants, used language which can only be described as threatening when submission to the decisions of a pope was in question. We can well believe with what a terrible sense of responsibility the Pope signed this document. He did not indeed know that he was personally infallible, but he did know the awful power with which his Church has invested her pontiffs. Even the wording of this document shows his deep sense of responsibility and his conscientiousness.

The Pope’s agony of Fear.

And he had but too good reasons for personal fear. He had done and dared what none of his predecessors would have attempted, he knew the penalty and paid for it.

When he had placed his signature to the fateful document he cried out in the agony of his soul, Sotto scriviamo la nostra morte, I have signed my death warrant.” The signature was made on July 23rd, 1773. On September 22th, 1774, he died. There is strong contemporary evidence that he died of slow poison. From the day on which he signed the Bull he faded away. His sufferings were terrible, and almost intolerable. His life was one long agony of physical torture. One thing is certain, he could at any moment have recalled the condemnation of the Jesuits, but he did not recall it. Perhaps it was a nobler courage which enabled him to persevere to the end in an act of duty under such pressure, than to have signed it.

Strange to say, a Protestant historian has discredited the belief that Clement was poisoned. That it was contradicted at the time, would of course be expected. The question is simply what contemporary evidence is there for the assertion? And this evidence is abundant and reliable.

Report is not always reliable, but the fact that such reports were current while the Pope lay dying, and were credited by ambassadors and statesmen, is an indirect evidence. In such a case, probably, there never could be actual proof, but there is such a thing as circumstantial evidence, and in this case the circumstantial evidence is strong. Cardinal de Bernis, the French ambassador to Rome, wrote to his government that the Pope had been poisoned, and that the Pope had declared openly that he was assured that he had been given poison. Don Monino, the Spanish ambassador, wrote to his government to the same effect. It is surprising, considering the secret fear which was felt everywhere for the Jesuit, that anyone should have dared to speak openly on this subject. The physicians of the Pope declared that they could not find any symptoms of poisoning. They may have been right, but at the time secret poisoning was a fine art, and the desired end could be attained without any possibility of discovering the means by which it had been effected. Besides, the physicians may have been in the secret. One thing is certain, the Pope suffered the most terrible agony from the date of the promulgation of the Bull until the hour of his release by death.

P.S.S.V.

Prophecies of that event were very freely made by women of reputed sanctity. The mystic letters P.S.S.V. appeared suddenly on walls and in every public place. They were explained to mean Presto sede sara vacante, The Papal chair will soon be vacant.

But the strongest evidence of Jesuit complicity may be found in the conduct of the Jesuits themselves. And here again we avail ourselves exclusively of Roman Catholic authority. The Abbé Guettée (Hist. des Jesuits, iii. 303), says “They displayed the most lively joy at his illness and death, and spread abroad rumours about his last moments as horrible as they were absurd. They would have it believed that God had punished him by a horrible malady for the measure he had taken against the Company. The affection with which they spoke of this malady gave more consistency to the report which imputed to them the poisoning of the Pope. They have been too habituated to acts of this nature for these suspicions to be rejected as ill-founded, even though the accusation has not been juridically proved.”

The Jesuits were restored to some of their ancient privileges by Pope Pius VIII. by the Bull Solicitudo Omnium Ecclesteum, but they were far from being satisfied. It is observable that Pius VIII. does not in any way deny the accusations against those whom his predecessor so solemnly condemned.

On July 13th, 1886, the Brief Dolemus inter alia Pope Leo XIII. reinstated them in the canonical status which they had held previous to the suppression in 1773, restoring all the privileges withheld by Pius VII., when he re-established the Order in 1814. The Jesuits are by this Brief exempted completely from all jurisdiction, supervision, and control of bishops, archbishops, and ordinaries. They may occupy any pulpit, teach and found professional chairs, hear confessions, read mass, and administer the sacraments everywhere, without the consent of the local clergy or, of the bishop. They have full power given them to act as they wish, uncontrolled by either the secular or ecclesiastical power. Their estates and possessions are free from any tithes, taxes, or dues whatever, and ecclesiastical and secular powers are warned, under the penalty of excommunication, not to hinder or disturb them in the exercise of the privileges conferred on them. They have, in fact, full power given to them to act as they please, unrestrained by either ecclesiastical or secular authority.

A Strange Story.

The Roman correspondent of the Times (August 23rd, 1886), stated that it was reported that Leo XIII. was driven to this by poison, that he endured three days of severe illness, and then did what was required of him.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: