CHAPTER VIII. Can The Jesuit Be a Loyal Subject?—The Jesuits in Canada.

THERE is a general and very erroneous idea prevalent that the Jesuits are in some way different from other Roman Catholics. Erroneous ideas on serious subjects are always an evil. Although the Roman Catholic Church changes her religious teaching from time to time, as witness the changes which have been made even in the present century, when the whole foundation of that Church was displaced and another foundation substituted, by the change from the infallibility of a united body, the Church, to the infallibility of an individual, the Pope, yet she compels her subjects to move as she moves and to believe as she teaches for the time being.

The Black Pope and the White Pope.

The Jesuits are also obliged to move with the Church, and to accept her varying changes of religious belief as others do, but there is this difference the Jesuit can and does interfere with the religious beliefs of the Church, as witness their successful efforts in obtaining the decision of the Popes infallibility. But all the same, in questions of dogma, the Church and the Jesuits are one—at least publicly. It might, indeed, be said that the Church believes what the Jesuit believes. In Roman Catholic circles so well is the power of the Jesuit recognised, that the General of the Jesuits is called the Black Pope, in contrast to the Pope, who, wearing white always, is called the White Pope. And it is implied that the Black Pope rules the White Pope, even while the former is obliged to make, at least, a show of submission to the latter. We propose in this chapter to show, not from hearsay, but from the published works of the Jesuits themselves, what they teach first on the general question of submission to civil authority, and later we shall show what they teach in the confessional to those who come to them for guidance.

But, first, though it has been said before it must be said again, so great is the importance of the subject, that the teaching of the Church of Rome is just what it always was on matters of moral theology. It is only the dogmatic theology of that Church which is variable. But just as it is the role of the Church at present to assure the public that she always teaches the same doctrine, so it is her policy to make every effort to induce a too-confiding public to believe that she has changed her moral theology. The world at large is unfortunately so entirely ignorant of what Rome teaches from her own point of view, that it is naturally taken for granted that she should be believed, no matter what proof there may be to the contrary.

The special question to which we desire to call attention here is the much discussed question of loyalty to the state or government under which Roman Catholics live. What can be more dangerous than a traitor in the camp or a citizen with a divided allegiance?

Roman Catholics Disloyal on Principle.

I propose to show first that Roman Catholics are disloyal, not always from inclination, but because they believe loyalty to the Pope in temporal affairs to be their first duty, and secondly to show that they are disloyal on principle. It is just this point of view which is so difficult for Protestants (using the word in its widest sense) to understand. A Romanist protests, and in some cases at least, protests sincerely, that he is loyal to Queen and country, and honest men find it difficult to question his assertions and accept his statements. But the Catholic has, so to say, reckoned without his host. There is no Catholic who will or can deny, above all since the definition of the personal infallibility of the Pope, that his first allegiance is due in temporal as well as in spiritual affairs to the head of his Church. The recently published life of Cardinal Manning tells in plain and unmistakable language that there are two classes of Catholics, especially in England. There are Catholics, as he bitterly complains, who would be loyal to the Queen, even if it involved some opposition to the claims of the Pope to infallibility in temporal matters and politics, and there is another class of Catholics who boast of their loyalty to the Pope, and insist on his authority to rule both Church and State.

We can give no higher authority than that of the late Cardinal, and his statements deserve serious consideration. But it should be remembered, that this difference of opinion is really immaterial in the end. Whatever may be the private views of individual Roman Catholics, eventually they must, and do, submit to the commands of the Pope. There have been notable examples of this, even in our own times, so that those who do not recognise the importance of this question as affecting Catholic protestations of loyalty, have only themselves to blame for the consequences. Nor is it necessary to suppose that those Romanists who declare their loyalty to the Queen or State are insincere. The fact is, that the more sincere they are, the more dangerous they are, because it is always safer to meet an open enemy than a doubtful friend. These Catholics know perfectly well, that whatever they may say, in the end, they must submit.

Now Rome is perfectly consistent in her demand for the control of civil government. If her teaching were true, that there is no salvation outside the Church, she is bound to compel all to belong to the Church, even if she has to call in the civil power to help her to enforce submission. This power she has ever invoked and utilized. She aims now, quietly, but none the less effectively, to obtain civil power in this country, her last refuge, and she has already obtained more than she could have dared to hope for a few short years ago.

The Pope Claims Infallibility in Politics.

In the words of the catechism, authorised by Cardinal Gibbons, it is said that the greatest grace bestowed on “us” (Romanists) is that of being called to the “true faith in the Catholic Church, because without this grace we cannot have the least hope to be saved.” [The italics are in the original.]

This is the belief of Catholics, and holding such belief they are bound, according to their idea of conscience, to use force and violence to exterminate heresy.

It should be remembered that Rome exercises the most rigid censorship over all publications. Above all the Roman Catholic Church takes the utmost precaution in regard to catechisms, hence the grave authority of any doctrinal or theological teaching which may be found in books intended for the use of children. In the catechism authorised for children by the American bishops, we find the following significant question and answer.

“Q. In what matters is the Pope infallible?

“A. The Pope is infallible in all matters of faith and morals.

“Q. Is the Pope infallible only in matters of revelation?

“A. The Pope is infallible not only in the matter of revealed truths, he is indirectly infallible in all truths which though not revealed, are so intimately connected with revealed truths, that the deposit of faith and morals cannot be guarded, explained and defended without an infallible discernment of such unrevealed truths.

“Q. Explain this truth more clearly.

“A. The Pope could not discharge his office as a teacher of all nations, unless he were able with infallible certainty to prescribe and condemn doctrines, logical, scientific, physical, or political of any kind.”

This is plain speaking and it is the language of the Church which may not be gainsaid. For the present, Rome does not find it expedient to use such catechisms in England, but when she has obtained all that she claims in the way of pecuniary endowments, she will speak with no uncertain sound. In the meantime, might it not be well for our statesmen, politicians and voters to ask themselves if this is a doctrine which they desire to have taught to English children, the teaching of which is to be paid for with English money.

How easily the Church of Rome can change her doctrines or her politics, may be seen from the following quotations.

A lecture is reported in the Catholic Standard (7th April, 1852), delivered by Dr, Wiseman, wherein he emphatically denied that Papal infallibility was a doctrine of faith in the Roman Church. He said: —

“Clear that from your mind, and let me tell you authoritatively as a Catholic bishop, and as one in such intimate connection with the head of the Catholic Church, THAT THERE IS NOT ONE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THAT THE POPE IS IN FALLIBLE, and that many thousands of Catholics do not hold the doctrine of infallibility. It is a matter of opinion, and not of doctrine.”

Uncertain Teaching of the Church of Rome.

The italics and capitals are as given in the report. of the lecture.

In Father Waterworth’s “Faith of Catholics,” published in 1846, he says (vol. ii., p. 110):

“It is no article of Catholic faith that the Pope is himself infallible, separated from the Church, even in expounding the faith. By consequence Papal definitions or decrees, in whatever form pronounced, taken exclusively of a General Council or acceptance of the Church, oblige none, under pain of heresy, to anterior (the first or more letters of this word are missing in the PDF file. It only showed “nterior”. Could it be ulterior? exterior?) assent.”

As the question of the Popes personal infallibility in politics is one which must be felt in this country in the immediate future, we give the authority for accepting the statements of this catechism and some further extracts from it.

In the authorisation of these catechisms given by Cardinal Gibbons, dated January 3rd, 1888, and printed at the commencement of each volume, he says that they are “strongly marked by soundness of doctrine, simplicity, and plainness of language.” The language is indeed very plain as we shall show presently.

The third and most important volume of the series is called “A Familiar Explanation of Catholic Doctrine for the Family and more Advanced Students in Catholic Colleges, Academies and High Schools, for Persons of Culture, Old as well as Young, with a Popular Refutation of the Principal Modern Errors.” It was published in 1888.

The doctrine of the Pope’s infallibility in politics is expressly. taught in this catechism (see supra), and therefore must be accepted by Romanists as “sound doctrine.”

At page 117 the very important question is asked:

“How do we know that the Pope as successor to St.Peter possesses the gift of infallibility?” The answer is: “We know it from Christs own words, for He told St. Peter that by His prayer to His heavenly Father He had obtained this gift of infallibility for him and for all his successors” (Luke xxii. 31).

How is the hapless student to know that Christ never “told” St. Peter anything of the kind?

The next question is (page 117)

“Q. 14. Why did Christ pray to His Father that St. Peter and his successors should be endowed with the gift of infallibility?”

“Christ asked of His heavenly Father the gift of infallibility for St. Peter and his successors, because He wished that the never failing faith of St. Peter and his successors should be for ever the foundation stone of his Church, in order that she might be one flock, under the supreme Pastor, through the preservation of unity of communion as well as of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff.

A Deliberate Perversion of Scripture.

“Christ assured us of this truth when He asked the apostle, Whom do you say that I am?”

Further on (page 118) the text, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,” is quoted and the question is asked:

“Q. What is the meaning of these words of our Lord?

“A. Jesus Christ means to say that, as it is My Father, who has made known to you, Peter, that I am His Son, I also make known to the whole world, that you and your successors will always know and understand who I am and what I have taught, because I have entrusted you with My whole flock, your faith, I most solemnly promise, shall not fail, since no power shall prevail against thee and thy successors, so as to cause you to teach anything else than I Myself have taught.”

It is needless to comment on this awful perversion of truth, nor on the terrible guilt of those who put words into the very lips of the Saviour which He never uttered,

Here not only are the words of Christ added to but words are invented, and declared to have been said by Him, which He never uttered. Once more let it be said the Roman Catholic has no means of knowing how he is deceived, because he is placed under the ban of an awful curse if he doubts or questions all this falsehood.

And all this falsehood and misrepresentation of scripture is offered as infallible truth, not merely to the young, but “to people of culture.”

The Pope can, then, “with infallible certainty, proscribe and condemn doctrines, logical, scientific, physical, metaphysical, or political of any kind.”

[The italics are in the original. }

No language could be plainer, or more fully and infallibly authorised by Rome.

In “Essays on Religion and Literature, edited by Archbishop Manning, 1867,” we find (pp. 416, 417): “Moreover, the right of deposing kings is inherent in the supreme sovereignty which the popes, as vicegerents of Christ, exercise over all Christian nations. . . . These are not derived or delegated rights, but are of the essence of that royal authority of Christ with which His vicegerents on earth are vested. When, therefore, for the common good, the head of the Church exercises his supreme authority either by excommunicating individuals, by laying nations under an interdict, or by deposing kings, all Christian people are bound to obey his decree.”

What Rome has Cursed.

Again, Cardinal Manning, in his sermon on the Syllabus, describes the late Pope as saying to those who urged this Pontiff “to be reconciled to Liberalism”: “In His (Christ’s) right I am sovereign. I acknowledge no civil superior, and I claim more than this. I claim to be the supreme judge on earth, and director of the consciences of men, of the peasant that tills the field, and the prince that sits on the throne, of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the legislature that makes laws for kingdoms. I am the last supreme judge on earth of what is right and wrong.” (“Sermons on Religious Subjects.” Burns, Oates & Co., 1873).

Again, let it be observed, these are not ancient sayings of the dark ages, but they are the utterances of the highest ecclesiastical authority in England. in the last half of the 19th century.

Pius IX., in his Encyclical and Syllabus, condemned and anathematised—(cursed) “Those who maintain the Liberty of the Press. Or the liberty of conscience and of worship. Or the liberty of speech.”

Or those who assign to the State the power of defining the civil rights (jura) and province of the Church.”

“Or who hold that the Church may not employ force.”

“Or that power, not inherent in the office of the Episcopate, but granted to it by the civil authority, may be withdrawn from it at the discretion of that authority.” ,

“Or that the civil immunity of the Church and its ministers depends upon civil right.”

“Or that marriage, not sacramentally contracted, has a binding force.”

“Or that any other religion than the Roman religion may be established by a State.”

“Or that in countries called Catholic the free exercise of other religions may laudably be allowed.”

In this Bull Apostolicae Sedis, Pius IX. asserted “the immunity of Ecclesiastics from civil jurisdiction,” and excommunicated all who bring them before civil tribunals. He excommunicated all who enact laws or decrees against the rights or liberties of the Church, all who impede in any way the exercise of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or have recourse to the secular courts for this purpose, all who impede in any way or have recourse to the lay power in order to impede the promulgation or enforcement of the decrees or rescripts of the Church of Rome, all who usurp or retain the properties or revenues of the Church, or of ecclesiastical or of conventual institutions, all who command Christian burial to be given to heretics.” He further “excommunicated all heretics of every class, and all who favour them, and all who read heretical or prohibited books, and all who withdraw themselves or secede from obedience to the Roman Pontiff.”

Why Romanists cannot be Loyal Subjects.

When the question of Roman Catholic Emancipation first came before the public, the question at once arose: What do these Catholics believe as to the power of their Church in temporal affairs? Can a Roman Catholic be at the same time a good subject of the king and a good follower of the Pope? Are Roman Catholics free to be loyal subjects of the government under which they live? These were, indeed, important questions, but unfortunately those who asked them in all honest desire for an honest reply, were not always in a position to know whether the replies were sincere or otherwise. It was their misfortune, but unhappily the result has been nearly the undoing of England.

Those who asked these questions naturally supposed that they would receive the most reliable answers from the heads of the Roman Catholic Church. They applied to them, they had special committees in Parliament, but unfortunately they did not know, first, that Rome has approved, and, in fact, requires the exercise of a system of equivocation (deliberate evasiveness in wording, ambiguous language) which renders it impossible to obtain an honest reply from Roman Catholic authority, when it suits Roman Catholic authority to conceal the truth, and secondly, that Rome reserves to herself the right to change her opinions when she pleases on any subject, so that it is never safe to conclude from what she says today that she will say the same tomorrow. Take, for example, the questions of the Popes infallibility. There was no subject on which the heads of the Roman Catholic Church spoke more decidedly. It never was, it never could be a dogma of the Church of Rome, and yet scarce a decade had elapsed ere it was made a dogma which must be believed on peril of eternal damnation.

I have before me now a catechism authorised by the Roman Catholic Church, in which the doctrine of the Pope’s personal infallibility is described as “a Protestant invention.” When Dr. Murray was examined on his solemn oath before the committee of the House of Commons on March 22nd, 1825, he gave the most solemn assurances that the Pope’s infallibility was not and never could be an article of faith. Yet today Romanists are as much bound to believe the Pope to be infallible as they are bound to believe in the existence of a God.

Here are the words of the catechism: —

“Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope himself to be infallible ?

“A. This is a Protestant invention, it is no article of the Catholic faith, no decision of his can bind on pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.”

Roman Catholic Contradictory Teaching.

In all editions printed since the Vatican Council this question and answer is omitted, and without a word of explanation. This catechism had the approbation of the late Archbishop Hughes, of New York, and was in general use. And yet Romanists will tell those whom they can deceive that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church never changes. Here certainly is a change, and a stupendous one, when what was once condemned as “a Protestant invention” is now the received doctrine of the Church of Rome.

Dr. Murray gave the following quotation from the works of the Jesuit Veron, yet soon after the Jesuits were the great promoters of the dogma of the Popes infallibility.

“The Pope, in whatever character, or however solemnly he may give his opinion, even in scholastic phraseology ex cathedra, is not the universal Church, and consequently whatever may be his private opinion, and however declared, such opinion is not, on that account, propounded by the Catholic Church as an article of faith. . . . In fact, it is clear from (Cardinal) Bellarmine himself that it has never been defined by the Church that the Pope is infallible when unassisted by a General Council, nor that any doctrine advanced and proposed by him is, in consequence of such a proposal, an article of Catholic faith. All divines consequently are agreed, as Bellarmine allows, that Papal infallibility is no doctrine of the Catholic Church, and this is certain beyond all controversy ” (Rule of Catholic faith,” pp. 13, 14).

“It is not of faith that when the Roman Pontiff teaches anything, either assisted by his own private council or by a provincial synod, even though he addressed the Universal Church, or, as it is termed, speaks ex cathedra, in a word, so long as he is not the supreme judge of controversies, he is not infallible, nor would a decree passed under these circumstances be of faith, unless the opinion of the Church were, from other sources, clearly ascertained to have been pronounced in his favour” (p. 133).

The doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope was first made an article of faith at the Vatican Council, held at Rome in the year 1870. The following are the words in which this stupendous change in the Roman Catholic religion was proclaimed: —

What should have been Remembered.

“Wherefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian Faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion, and the salvation of the Christian people, We, the Sacred Council, approving, teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed, that the Roman Pontiff, when speaking ex cathedra—that is, when, discharging the office of Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the Universal Church—he, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed the Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals, and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church. But if any one—which may God avert—presume to contradict this, our definition, let him be anathema.”

Nothing could have been more sacred, nothing more solemn, than the circumstances under which this Parliamentary inquiry of 1826 was undertaken.

For many years Roman Catholics had been deprived of the privileges which every Englishman enjoyed by right of his citizenship. But this privation had not been enforced without cause. “The plots which had all but succeeded and had been attempted by the Jesuits over and over again to deprive Englishmen of their religion and liberties, and to place the country under the control of a foreign power, had excited the apprehensions of statesmen. But at the beginning of the century much had been forgotten which should have been remembered, and it was asked why should not men who appeared to desire to live in amity with their fellow countrymen have the same advantages. The answer should have been that these men considered themselves bound first to obey a foreign power. They were citizens of Rome first, and citizens of England after. Practically a Roman Catholic can never be naturalised, because he can never forego his temporal allegiance to the Pope.

No doubt some of these bishops were sincere when they declared in the most solemn manner, that the Pope never was, and never would be personally infallible. The history of the Vatican Council, which has made every Pope, past, present, or to come infallible, was not then known. But all the same it came.

Protestants were also the victims of what was at that time a very excusable ignorance of Romanism. They met Romanists every day in social or business intercourse, and they asked themselves naturally, What is the difference between these men and ourselves? They love the country of their birth, they assure us that England is their first interest, and that they would obey the King first and the Pope last. They tell us that there is nothing in their religion which forbids them to be loyal to whatever government they live under. What could honest Englishmen do but believe what those whom they supposed to be honest Englishmen said? And no doubt some of these men were honestly in ignorance of the teaching of their Church.

Why Cardinal Newman was Crushed.

Lord Fingall speaking at the Dublin Convention, as reported in the Daily Express, June 24th, 1892, said that “whatever claims individuals may assert, neither my creed [Romanism] nor any other creed represented here tonight contains any tenets or provisions which either directly or by implication can be held to justify ‘clerical domination,’ or ‘religious ascendancy.’” Now an educated gentleman like Lord Fingall must surely know that the Pope distinctly claims the right to excommunicate kings and depose them, and to interfere in politics and control them.

But the recently published life of Cardinal Manning proves amongst other important matters, that there always has been and probably that there always will be, a large class of English Roman Catholics who are not ultramontane (supporting the authority of the papal court over national or diocesan authority), who love their native land, and who would fain persuade themselves that they can be loyal to England and loyal to Rome. This same life proves also that even if a man like Newman dares to express himself too openly on this subject, he is denounced in Rome as one whose “spirit must be crushed.” *

Of what avail then is the avowed loyalty of these English Roman Catholics? When an emergency arises they will be forced to yield to the dictation of their Church. To rely upon the power of these English Romanists to make good their assurances of loyalty is to ignore history, to deny facts, and to refuse to credit the utterances made by the Romish Church herself.

In the year 1790 an address was published of the “(Catholic Committee,” protesting against the intolerant attitude then assumed by the Romish Vicars Apostolic, who at that time governed the Roman Catholics in England with Episcopal authority.— This Catholic Committee consisted of Delegates, appointed by the Roman Catholics to defend their interests, and to present to the Government their claims for relief from the penal enactments which affected their liberties. Amongst its members were included Romish Ecclesiastics of high rank, Roman Catholic Peers, Baronets, and members of the leading Roman Catholic gentry.—(This address was reprinted in 1812 by J. J. Stockdale, No, 41 Pall Mail.)

Bull of Pius V. Excommunicating Elizabeth.

The address states that “In the eleventh year of Queen Elizabeth, Pius V. fulminated his famous Bull Regnans in Excelsis, (Reigning on High, see Wikipedia article) in which he not only excommunicated that Princess (Queen Elizabeth I), but declared her fallen from her Sovereignty, and her subjects absolved from their allegiance, and forbade them under pain of anathema to obey her laws.” And it goes on to say, “From this period it has always been asserted that Catholics held principles inconsistent with a Protestant Government, and that they could never reconcile the duties which they owe to the supreme pastor of their Church with the duties which they owe to their temporal Sovereign and fellow subjects,” that “Catholics began to recover from the national odium brought upon them by the unwise and unjustifiable Bull of Pius V., and under James I., many circumstances entitled them to expect a great degree of relief and toleration. But they were destined to be thrown, by another unwise and unjustifiable Brief (a papal letter less formal than a bull), under an accumulated weight of odium”—that “After the infernal horrors of the Gunpowder Treason, James I. caused the Oath of Allegiance to be enacted in Parliament, as a test, by which his loyal Catholics, who were attached to their duties as subjects, might be discriminated from those other Catholics who were under the predominancy of a foreign power ”—that the Catholics in general were ardent to take the Oath.” The address proceeds to relate the events that led to the issue of this Brief, and states — “Churchmen [Roman Catholics] again interfered, and again blasted their hopes. Three successive Briefs of Paul V. condemned the Oath of Allegiance as containing many things contrary to faith, and hostile to salvation.”

Catholics Excommunicated for Loyalty.

In the “History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Catholic Religion in England, by the Rev. Joseph Berrington, Roman Catholic Priest,” we find that “the chief clause in the oath objected to by the Roman Court was that which abjured the deposing doctrine (claiming a power to the Pope of deposing kings and princes) as impious and heretical, pronouncing it to be damnable.”

The address of the “Catholic Committee” further recites — “That in the year 1648, fifty of the most respectable and noble of the English Catholics denied: —

“I. That the Pope, or Church, hath power to absolve any person or persons from their obedience to the civil and political government established, or to be established, in this nation in civil and political affairs.

“II. That by the command or dispensation of the Pope, or Church, it is lawful to kill, destroy, or do any injury to any person or persons living within the king’s dominions, because that such a person or persons are accused, condemned, censured, or excommunicated for error, schism, or heresy.

“III, That it is lawful in itself, or by dispensation from the Pope, to break promise or oath made to any of the aforesaid persons, under pretense that they are heretics.”

“Yet,” as stated in this address of the Catholic Committee, “the authority of the Court of Rome was again brought forward to stop them, and the authority of Paul V. was held out to deter the English Catholics from pledging their integrity as men and citizens.”

The address of the “Catholic Committee” then refers to the Irish Remonstrance which was subsequently made, and which, as asserted in the address, was as harmless and free from objection as a profession of allegiance could be. Yet,” as the Catholic Committee state, the remonstrants were excommunicated and several of them perished from want,”* and the Committee add: — Thus, on the one hand, the nation refused to relax the severity of the laws against Catholics, till they disavowed the Popes temporal power (in this country),—the Court of Rome and her delegates, on the other, forbade them doing it.”

Another “Protestation ” was published in 1789 by Roman Catholics, which declared: —

(1.) That the doctrine that Princes excommunicated by the Pope might be deposed or murdered by their subjects was execrable and impious, and denied that the Pope had the power to absolve the subjects of this Realm from their allegiance.

(2.) It denied that implicit obedience was due to the decrees of the popes, and that the Catholics did not hold themselves bound to obey the orders of the Pope, if he should, for the good of the Church, command them to take up arms against the Government, or to suborn the laws and liberties of the country, or to exterminate persons of a different persuasion, and it further declared that they “acknowledged no infallibility in the Pope, and that no Prelate, Priest, or Ecclesiastical Power whatever had, or ought to have, any jurisdiction or authority whatever in the Realm.”

(3.) The Protestation, moreover, declared that neither the Pope, nor any Priest, nor any Ecclesiastical Power could absolve or dispense with the obligation of an Oath.

* The Rev. C. O’Connor, D.D. (a R.C. priest), in his “Historical Address, ad Aiberas,” states that “those of our gentry and clergy who subscribed the Irish Remonstrance in 1662 were excommunicated for so doing, though that declaration implied nothing more, directly or indirectly, than Tempora Allegiance, and that they were never absolved from that sentence, but on condition of their submitting fo corporal chastisement, and that, too, of the most ignominious description.”

Popes Encourage Rebellions in Ireland.

The Protestation also rejected and reprobated the doctrine that “no faith was to be kept with heretics” [Protestants].

The Catholic Committee state that this “Declaration and Protestation” was signed by “All the Apostolic Vicars and their coadjutors, and with few exceptions by all the clergy (more than 200 in number) out of the four districts.” That it was also signed by several “Roman Catholic Peers, and by almost every name respectable among the Catholic Laity in England.”

In 1577, Gregory XIII. issued his Bull to all “the Prelates, the entire clergy, nobility, and people of Ireland,” urging them to aid James Fitzmaurice in his insurrection against Queen Elizabeth, and giving a plenary indulgence to all who should support Fitzmaurice by arms or any other means.” On the 18th April, 1600, Clement issued a similar Bull urging the Irish to join in the rebellion of Hugh O’Neill. On the 22nd September, 1606. Paul V. issued a Brief condemning the Oath of Allegiance to James I, A similar Bull was published by Urban VIII. in the reign of Charles I.

In 1643, Pope Innocent X. sent to Ireland “a Nuncio, Rinuccini, who summoned an assembly of the clergy at Waterford, and engaged them to declare against that pacification which the Civil Council had concluded with their Sovereign. He even pronounced a sentence of excommunication against all who should adhere to a peace so prejudicial, to the Catholic religion.” In the Papal “Instructions” furnished to Rinuccini, by Pope Innocent X., we find that Pope claiming Ireland as “being an ancient possession of the Apostolic See, the sovereignty of which Pope Adrian IV. had conferred upon Henry II., but which sovereignty Henry’s successors had forfeited by violation of the conditions attached to the gift.” In these “Instructions,” Innocent X. referred to the rising of the Roman Catholics in 1641, when, without warning, the cruel and atrocious massacre of the Protestants in Ireland was foully perpetrated. This rising Innocent X. stated “was at first doubtful and tumultuous, but was gradually organised into a well arranged movement by the Prelates and other clergy, who willingly gave both advice and assistance.” In these “Instructions,” given by Innocent X. to Rinuccini, we find amongst the “demands” which that Pope puts forward on the part of the Irish Roman Catholics, the claim, “that a Parliament should be held in Ireland distinct from that of England.”

Ireland Governed by Rome.

The other demands directed to be urged were “that the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and the Religious orders should be maintained in their ancient condition, that the Bishops should enjoy the Church property to the exclusion of the heretics, that the Viceroy and other governors and Ministers of the Island should be Catholics, that all the property taken from the Catholics should be restored,” etc.

It is not a little remarkable that nearly all the claims made by this pope have been granted gradually by the English government on the specious plea of “Justice to Ireland.”

The revenues of the once established and Protestant Church are now enjoyed by the professors and students of Maynooth. The “Hierarchy” are allowed free range to denounce the English people and government, and to set her educational arrangements at open defiance. The religious orders can do as they please, even carrying on lotteries and other schemes for their advancement, which would be treated as illegal if indulged in by others. The principal government offices in Ireland are in the hands of Romanists, and, no doubt, as soon as Trinity College has been confiscated to Italian Cardinals, Ireland will be placed altogether under Papal rule.

How far it will prosper under such circumstances can only be judged by the failure of Rome rule wherever that Church has had a free hand to govern. It might be well, however, for the people of England to remember that Rome, claiming as she does the right of ruling all the world in temporal affairs, will not rest content with Ireland.

At the present day the question seems to be not will this or that measure proposed for Ireland be of benefit to that country and to the Empire at large, but will it please the Pope.

The fact is that very few Protestants have realised how entirely Rome is a political church, and that she always rakes her political advancement her first object, nor do they realise that is not only permitted but approved, that solemn oaths should be taken which are never intended to be kept.

In 1826 the Irish Roman Catholic bishops swore solemnly that there was no enactment or bull of the Roman Catholic Church which would interfere in any way with their loyalty to the English crown and constitution. Unfortunately they were believed, and in 1829 the Roman Catholic Relief Act was granted by Parliament—yet they knew, none better, that the bull which makes disloyalty compulsory was in full force.

Further, in 1869, Pius IX. promulgated the Bull Apostolicae Sedis (Apostolic See). Even Cardinal Newman, though he was so bitterly accused by Cardinal Manning of disloyalty to Rome, said in. his letter to the Duke of Norfolk —

“That the British Ministers ought to have applied to Rome (p. 14) to learn the civil duties of British subjects,” and that “no pledge from Catholics was of any value to which Rome was not a party.” Mr. Gladstone, in commenting on these words, urged too by such a man as Cardinal Newman, writes: “Statesmen of the future, recollect these words, and recollect from whom they came. . . .. The lesson received is this. Although pledges were given, although their validity was firmly and even passionately asserted, although the subject matter was one of civil allegiance, no pledge from Catholics was of any value to which Rome was not a party.”

Cannot make Pledges without Romes Consent.

We now turn to the action of the Jesuits in America.

On the 13th September, in the year 1759, an event took place which will forever stand preeminent in the annals of Canadian history. At sunrise on that memorable day Wolfe and his gallant army, having climbed the rocky steeps of Quebec, stood upon the Plains of Abraham prepared to strike the blow that was to result in the fall of that imperial power, which for more than one hundred and fifty years had ruled the destinies of New France. The story is so familiar that it needs no repetition. How bravely the French fought under the chivalrous Montcalm, and how utterly their lines were broken and repulsed by the English veterans, is well known to every schoolboy. As Wolfe lay dying.on the plain, he caught the cry, “They run, they run!” “Who run?” eagerly inquired the expiring hero. “The enemy, sir, they give way everywhere,” was the reply, and so the battle of the Plains was won. This was the last act in the long struggle between England and France for colonial supremacy. Five days after, on the 18th of September, Canada ceased to be a French possession, and was added, by right of conquest, to the domain of the British Crown.

Unfortunately the “British crown” did not realise the consequences which always result from giving unlimited liberty to Rome. Protestant liberty is restrained, exactly in the proportion in which liberty is given to Roman Catholics. If an example is needed, surely we need go no further than Ireland. There Roman Catholic ecclesiastics reign supreme, and openly defy the government which fosters and caresses them. But when has the all powerful voice of the Church ever been raised to put down insurrection, or even to denounce outrages not only against persons but against helpless animals?

But to return to Canada.

The Jesuits Endowed in Canada.

When the Jesuits were expelled from Europe they fled to Quebec, and in 1886 became an incorporated body through the state craft of one of their most brilliant students, and soon afterwards received an endowment of $400,000. Since that time the Order has become more aggressive, and the attitude of the people more exclusive, until in the autumn of 1892, the Jesuits obtained a foothold in a diocese not covered by the Act of Incorporation, and have secured by underhanded means, the use of a splendid property in the wealthiest and most fashionable portion of the city of Quebec. The “Bennett Estate” has become “The Jesuit Retreat.” The abode of these fathers stands upon the great battle ground, whose soil is drenched with the blood of our fathers, and out of its garden plots there may, even now, be unearthed the missiles of war used in 1759-60. In front of the main entrance of the retreat, and in full view of a fashionable promenade, there has lately been erected a colossal statue of Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Order, of which we have . given an illustration from a photograph taken on the spot. It will be seen that Loyola has a man under his feet, that the man is clinging to the Bible or some other bad book, and that he is in the throes of death, his tongue protruding from his mouth— Rome’s victory over independent thought, or Protestantism in the throes of death!*

* The ignorant Roman Catholic population are told that the figure whom Loyola is trampling on represents Luther, and the book, the Protestant Bible.

The Jesuits in Canada.

This symbol stands there a menace to civil and religious liberty in the Province of Quebec, and an insult to the Protestant minority which, after all, is the financial backbone of the country.

Government in Quebec is according to Canon law. It is not what is the will of Queen Victoria, but what is the will of Leo XIII. Here, in the midst of a simpleminded, peace-loving, religious, but in no sense wealthy population, are Sulpicians, Redemtorists, Oblats, Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines and Trappists, who have come to settle in this poor province, to feed upon the poverty of the people, and to reproduce here the worst conditions of life in old Europe. The attitude of the religions in this Province is not “live and let live.” On the contrary the clergy encourage the growth of the most extreme intolerance and exclusiveness. Quebec, according to their teaching, must be French, French only, and ultra montane. In this way they are goading the people on to a kind of religio-racial madness. Educated, liberal-minded Roman Catholics, who understand English thought and know the Protestant position and the fairness of its spirit, deplore the extremism of the people as fostered by these foreign orders— orders which have been hived in Quebec and provided for out of the public chest.

Rome is asking every day for more concessions, more liberty, more money, all in the name of religion. She is assuring us in public that she has become mere liberal, but it might be well to ask what is she doing and teaching in private. After all she does not find it necessary to make much concealment of her intentions and plans. She knows her public, and she uses her knowledge to her very great advantage. An Englishman’s great characteristic is his love of liberty. Rome knows this, and trades on her knowledge. But should not Englishmen ask—What will Rome do with all this money and all this liberty? In the matter of education, Rome has so far made all her demands for separate endowments on the plea of religion—she has a right, so she says, to teach her own people the form of religion which she believes. But if matters were reversed, would Rome give us the same liberty? Rome herself has declared that she would not, again and again. We do not consider it a sacred duty to persecute the Roman Catholic Church. Rome considers it a sacred duty, and indeed it is one which she cheerfully undertakes, to persecute us, when she has the power.

How Rome Teaches History.

Why then should we put this power in her hands? But Rome wants liberty to teach some other things besides her religion, and to this point special attention should be given. The heads of the Church know well, none better, that to appeal to an Englishman on the ground of liberty of conscience is the surest way to win. But are the English people willing that Rome should teach history, and science, and in fact every branch of education, according to Rome, and not according to fact? Yet this is what Rome demands now, what she has intended all the time. The reader will have already seen how history is spiritually peptonised in French Jesuit colleges, are English children to have the same process undertaken for them? Certainly they will if Rome is allowed her own way. And what will be the result? It is self-evident that English children will know history simply in a distorted fashion, and will be deprived of real education. What an appaling injustice to the coming generation.

A public meeting of Roman Catholics was held recently at Cardiff, at which the Roman Catholic bishop of Newport gave an address on the school question. On such questions, what one bishop says, all say. The following extract from his speech as given in the Roman Catholic papers, shows what Romanists require. He said: “The board schools not only prevented Catholic training, but in many cases were the instruments of positive perversion. Sometimes non-Catholics would ask with amazement, what objection Catholics could have to a board school where no religion was forced upon them. In board schools history and geography were taught by teachers trained in Protestant views, and general information was imparted by men and women who were saturated with anti-Catholic prejudice. Catholicism touched history and general knowledge at a thousand points.”

The usual talk followed about the rights of parents to have children brought up in their own religion. It sounds well in English ears, but when has Rome ever acknowledged or sanctioned that right when it was opposed to her? If the bishop had spoken truly he would simply have said, “We insist that all children shall be brought up in our religion. At present we cannot compel Protestants to learn history or religion as we think right to teach it, but we are content with one step at a time, the rest must follow.”

We now proceed to give some information as to the consequences of allowing the Jesuits liberty to do as they please in Canada, and endowing them with enormous sums of money. We may add, that the information has been given to us by a friend in Canada, and that it has been the subject of much newspaper comment, as indeed it should be. It is well also that English Protestants should know how the English government is upholding Rome in that country.

Rome in Canada.

In July, 1888, the Quebec legislature passed an Act, called the Jesuits’ Estates Act, granting $400,000 and the Laprairie Common to the Pope to satisfy an alleged “moral” claim to the Jesuits Estates. As the grant has been endorsed by the Dominion Parliament, and yet very generally condemned throughout the country, and has led to widespread discussion, a short historical statement concerning the Jesuits Estates is given. These Estates, when Canada was very young, were given to the Jesuits by the Kings of France, the Duke of Ventadour, the commercial Company of Canada, and by private donors, some, it was said, were purchased. Some of these Estates were granted on condition that the Jesuits would employ themselves in instructing the Indians and young Canadians.

In the year 1760 judgment was given in the Consular Court of Paris for thirty thousand livres against Father Lavalette, as agent of the order, in certain transactions connected with the purchase of estates in the Windward Islands, and the court declared that the whole Jesuit body was liable for his acts as principal. In the following year the Superior General of the order, and in his person the body and Association of the Jesuits in France, were condemned to pay one million, five hundred and two thousand, two hundred and sixty six livres, two sols, and two farthings, the amount of certain bills of exchange which the body had not paid in connection with the purchase of these Windward Island estates, and also fifty thousand livres damages and all costs and expenses. During the trial the counsel for both the plaintiffs and defendants referred to the constitution of the order, and the Parliament of Paris, on April 17th, ordered that it be produced in court, specifying a printed copy of “the edition made at Prague in 1757,” which had been cited in the court. A copy of these important volumes was produced in the Parliament and given to a commission, on whose report, on account of the teachings of the society as contained in the constitution, the Society of Jesuits was stripped of all its property, put out of existence as a society (it had no legal existence even at that time,) and the portion of its estates that had been devoted to education was continued for that purpose with some notable exceptions, but under the directions of others than the Jesuits, though ex-Jesuit teachers were allowed to remain in France and teach on certain conditions. The following year Louis XV. addressed a. letter to the General of the order at Rome, Ricci, and also to Pope Clement XIII., asking that the statutes of the society be amended.

Ricci answered: “Let them continue as they are, or cease to exist.” The Parliament of Paris decided they then must cease to exist in France and they were expelled by law, although they were given the option of remaining on condition that they retired from the order, severing their connection in truth and forever from the General in Rome. Only five or six out of some five thousand accepted these conditions.

The Jesuits Suppressed in Canada.

This decree of expulsion extended to Canada as well, and was made in 1762—one year before the Treaty of Paris in which the King of France ceded all his rights to “His Britannic Majesty.” In 1765 the right of the Jesuits to these Estates came before Parliament, and Sir James Marriott, Kings Advocate, In a letter to the Attorney General and Solicitor General in answer to certain questions, reported that the Estates were undoubtedly the property of the Crown, and gave reasons for his contentions. In 1770, the Estates were granted by the Crown to Lord Amherst in recognition of his services. The grant, however, was never carried out, principally because of the difficulties in securing the necessary information to draft the legal documents. In the year 1773 Pope Clement XIV., issued a bull “abolishing,” suppressing,” and “dissolving,” the Society of Jesus “forever.” This bull was dated July 21st, and promulgated at half-past one o’clock in the night of August 16th, when the Jesuits were asleep, and were securely penned up in their houses.

In the following year instructions were sent from the King of England to the Governor of Canada, that the Society of Jesus be suppressed and dissolved, and that all their rights, privileges, and property should be invested in the Crown for such purposes as the Crown might hereafter think fit to direct and appoint, and the Royal intention was further declared to be that the present members of the society, as established at Quebec, should be allowed sufficient stipends during their lives.” As the Jesuits had had no corporate existence since 1762 in Canada, and as the Imperial Government shortly after the conquest prohibited any more Jesuits from coming to Canada, the society gradually died out, and in 1789 there were only four Jesuits living in the province of Quebec. Father de Glapeau, one of these, wrote to Monsieur Louis German, merchant of Quebec, stating that these Estates had been given them in full property for purposes of education, but “they had been reduced in number to four, all of an advanced age, consequently they were not in a condition to acquit themselves of the stated obligations, and therefore they renounced purely, simply, voluntarily, and bona fide all property and provisions thereof to the Canadian citizens in whose favour they were made.”

The Jesuits Claim an Estate.

In the year 1786 a commission in Canada was appointed by Lord Dorchester, the Governor of the colony, for the purpose of describing the Jesuits Estates that they might be transferred to Lord Amherst. In the course of their work, they had a dispute as to whether the Jesuits Estates could be taken even by the Crown for any purpose except those of education and the advantages of the young Canadians. Lord Dorchester referred this legal question to Alexander Gray, Attorney General of Quebec, and J. Williams, Solicitor General. The next year, 1790, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, submitted their report, which held that the proceedings of the Parliament of Paris in 1762 applied to Canada. The nature of their institution prevented them individually from taking anything under the capitulation of all Canada, nothing could be conveyed to the head of the order, and the order itself was finally dissolved and suppressed in 1774, so the existence of the few members of the order in the province can in no shape be considered as forming a body politic or corporate, capable of any of the powers inherent in and enjoyed by communities.” The report further said these persons were living on the charity of the Crown and should be very grateful.

In 1792 a petition was presented to the king by the newly constituted Legislature of Quebec, asking that the revenue of the Jesuits Estates be set apart for educational purposes. In the year 1800 Father Cazot, the last of the Jesuits in Quebec, died, and the Sheriff of Quebec was directed to take all these Estates into possession, which he formally did. And thus these properties for lack of any heir, real or apparent, escheated to the Crown. Let it be noted that since 1762 there was no corporate society of Jesuits in the province—at which date the society lost all legal status, i.e., one year before the Treaty of Paris—that since 1773 they had been dissolved and abolished by the Bull of the Pope—that the individual members of the society in Canada became extinct in 1800—that one of the four survivors in 1789 renounced all claims upon the property, on account of inability of the members to fulfill the trust conferred upon them—that from 1800 to about 1850 there were no Jesuits in Canada to receive the trust and to discharge it—and it will, I think, be tolerably evident to every one that a new society organised about 1850 could not have a very strong claim to property given in trust to a former society which had ceased to exist nearly a century before. The claim of the first society lapsed through the cessation of the. order and consequent failure to fulfill its trust, even if it were not forfeited by the conduct of the order. The claims of the new society of Jesuits seems to be of that vague, shadowy kind that ordinary people cannot discover, and politicians can only see when it is backed up with good strong political support.

Politicians Help the Jesuits.

In 1814 the general society which had been “for ever,” abolished by one pope was revived by another. From 1824 to 1828 a lively agitation went on in Quebec, to have these Estates formally set aside for educational purposes. And accordingly in 1831 a dispatch was received from Lord Goderich, handing these Estates over to the Legislature for the purpose of advancing religion and “sound learning.” From 1800 to 1831, about one fourth of the revenue of these Estates had, been granted to educational purposes. In 1831, the Legislature passed an Act requiring that all the revenues of these Estates be kept in a separate chest, and applied to “educational purposes exclusively,” as that or other Acts might direct. About 1841 Bishop Bourget went to Rome and invited the Jesuits to come and set up a college under the shadow of the episcopal palace in Montreal. The invitation was accepted, and the charter granted eleven years later.

About 1846 the agitation began to place the revenues from these Estates under control of the Roman Catholic Church.

The Pope makes Laws in Canada.

The British troops had occupied the Jesuit Barracks, the old college, until the departure from that city conquered by Wolfe. In 1873 the property had been made over like the other property to the Provincial Government. The Jesuits thought this a good time to put in a claim, and M. F. David in their behalf, asked the Government whether it was its intention to indemnify the ancient proprietors, as though they had not all been dead and buried three quarters of a century ago. The Government replied, in writing in substance that under the law all the property which had belonged to the ancient order of Jesuits, and all money received from the sale of any part thereof, formed a fund for the support of education, that the building which had served them for a college formed part of this educational fund, and was held to contribute to the support of superior education. “Any indemnity,” the reply goes on to state, “or sum of money diverted from the direction which the law assigns, would necessarily cause a reduction in the grants in favour of superior education, and would be prejudicial thereto. The appropriation of these lands and this property is conformable to their destination, and consequently the Government is not required to indemnify any corporation whatsoever.” This reply was made on the 10th of December, 1873, and rejects the claims of the Jesuits for compensation entirely. This grant of public money is therefore based on a claim that cannot be made good in law or equity, a claim rejected entirely by the Imperial Parliament a century ago, a claim not only ignored but positively denied by the R. C. Legislature of Quebec fifteen years before the same Legislature made the grant, a claim that exalts the Canon law of the Roman Catholic Church above the laws of the British realm, a claim combatted by seven out of the ten of the R. C. bishops of Quebec, a claim that would have been laughed out of the Legislature and Parliament, but for the solid electoral following that the Jesuits have now at their back. Many other objections to the Act have been urged, among which we may mention its unconstitutionality, the charges implied in it of robbery, spoliation against the British Crown and Government, and its infringements of the sovereignty of our Sovereign Lady the Queen, by investing His Holiness the Pope with civil authority in Canada. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Pope’s permission was sought, and is recognised as necessary to the sale of the Estates, that the Act requires the Popes sanction to make it law, and that the funds arising from the sale of the Estates is to be kept as a special deposit to be disposed of with the sanction of the Holy See.”

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: