網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

their sins, and eternal blessedness; and as a more palpable mark of gratitude, protects them, patronizes them, and, in countries where the Jesuits are powerful, procures for them comfortable and lucrative places under government, or elsewhere. If this is not sufficient, they are paid for their services in hard cash, according to an article of the Constitution, which empowers the General to spend money on persons who will make themselves useful. In return for these favors, they act as the spies of the Order, the reporters of what goes on in those classes of society with which the Jesuit can not mix, and serve, often unwillingly, as the tools and accomplices in dark and mysterious crimes. Father Francis Pellio, brother to the famous Silvio, in his recent quarrel with the celebrated Gioberti, to prove that the Order is not very deficient of supporters, as his opponent asserts, candidly confesses that, "the many illustrious friends of the Society, prelates, orators, learned and distinguished men of every description, the supporters of the Society, remain occult, and obliged to be silent."

Here is the formula of the vow taken by the coadjutors :"L. N., promise Almighty God, before his Virgin Mother, and before all the heavenly host, and you, reverend father, General of the Society of Jesus, holding the place of God, and of your successors; or you, reverend father, Vice-General of the Society of Jesus, and of his successors, holding the place of God, perpetual poverty, chastity and obedience, and therein, peculiar care in the education of boys, according to the manner expressed in the apostolic letters, and in the Constitution of the said Society. At Rome, or elsewhere, in such a place, day, month and year."

A. Vincenzo Gioberti Fra Pellico della Campagnia di Gesu, pp. 35, 36.

CHAPTER XXII.

Monstrous Doctrine of Probableism-Doctrine of Equivocation-Terrible Corruption of the Confessional.

HAVING examined the process by which a man is annihilated and a Jesuit manufactured, it only remains for us to glance at the "moral code" of this holy company. This becomes the more necessary that, even taking into consideration all the probabilities of corruption to be anticipated as growing out of the irresponsible control of many minds and bodies by the single will of one man-the General-who alone retains the right of willing-it yet becomes impossible for any human imagination to at once realize and compass the enormities to which this flagitious despotism led. Enormities that were not merely consequential upon gradual abuse, but were cotemporaneous with the "Constitutions," ab origine a part and essential element of the system of Loyola.

As the Order of Jesus had been especially "raised up by God" to battle with the austere doctrines of Luther and the spiritual asceticism of the vigilant Calvin, so it became necessary that, by what one of their authorities calls "an oblig ing and accommodating conduct" in the confessional, they should court popularity in opposition to these strict tenets.

The great contest with the Protestants had left among the Roman Catholics a tendency, a wish, we do not say to become the better Christians, but to make a greater display of their religion. All the external practices of devotion which, in their eyes, constituted the true believer, were more eagerly resorted to, and, above all, the confessional was frequented with unprecedented assiduity. To have a confessor exclusively for one's self, was the surest sign of orthodoxy, and became as fashionable as it is now to have a box at the opera. Sovereigns, ministers, courtiers, noblemen-every man, in

short, who had a certain position in society, had his own acknowledged confessor. Even the mistresses of princes pretended to the privilege, and Madame de Pompadour will prove to her spiritual guide that it is dangerous to oppose the caprices of a favorite. The Jesuits saw at once the immense advantage they would derive if they could enlarge the number of their clients, especially among the higher classes. They were already, in this particular, far advanced in the public favor; they were known to be very indulgent; had long since obtained the privilege of absolving from those sins which only the Pope himself could pardon; and Suarez, their great theologian, had even attempted to introduce confession by letter, as a more easy and expeditious way of reaching all penitents.

But, by this time, they had made fearful progress in the art of flattering the bad passions, and winking at the vices of those who had recourse to their ministry, in order to make, as they believed, their peace with God.

So, for example, if the Jesuit confessor perceives that a penitent feels inclined to make restitution of ill-gotten money, he will certainly encourage him to do so, praise him for his holy resolution, insist to be himself the instrument of the restitution, taking care, however, that it should be known again. But if another person accuse himself of theft, but show no disposition to make restitution, be sure that the Jesuit confessor will find in some book or other of his brother Jesuits, some sophistry to set his conscience at rest, and persuade him that he may safely retain what he has stolen from his neighbor.

The existence of books to which those pernicious maxims have been consigned, having put it out of the power of the Jesuits to impugn their genuineness in order to exculpate their Society, they have cast a reproach upon the teachers of their own Church, and even blasphemed Christianity. "The probableism," says their historian, "was not born with the Jesuits; at the moment of their establishment, probableism reigned in the schools." And again; "Ever since the origin of Christianity, the world had complained of the Cret. vol. iv, page 58.

Cret. vol. ii, page 176.

austerity of certain precepts; the Jesuits came to bring relief from these grievances."

But, that our readers may judge for themselves of the character of Jesuitical morality, we shall lay before them some of their doctrines; and in doing so, (be it observed,) we shall quote as our authorities none but Jesuit authors, and such as have been approved and are held in veneration by the Society.

It is evident that, in the confessional, everything depends upon the conception formed of transgression and sin. Now, according to the Jesuitical doctrines, we do not sin, unless we have a clear perception and understanding of the sin as sin, and unless our will freely consent to it. † The following are the consequences which the Jesuit casuists have deduced from that principle:

"A confessor perceives that his penitent is in invincible ignorance, or at least innocent ignorance, and he does not hope that any benefit will be derived from his advice, but rather anxiety of mind, strife or scandal." Should he dissemble? Suarez affirms that he ought; because, since his admonition will be fruitless, ignorance will excuse his penitent from sin. ‡

Although he who, through inveterate habit, inadvertently swears a falsehood, may seem bound to confess the propensity, yet he is commonly excused. The reason is, that no one commonly reflects upon the obligation by which he is bound to extirpate the habit; * and, therefore, since he is excused from the sin, he will also be excused from confession. Some maintain that the same may be said of blasphemy, heresy, and of the aforesaid oath, * * and, consequently, that such things, committed inadvertently, are neither sins in themselves, nor the cause of sins, and therefore need not necessarily be confessed. §

[ocr errors]

Le monde s'tait plaint depuis l'origine du Christianisme de l'austérité de certains precepts; les Jesuites venaient au secour de ces doleances, etc. -Cret. vol. iv, page 50.

+Busembaum, apud Ranke, vol. ii, page 394.

Antony Escobar. L. Theol. morallis vigenti-quatvor Societatis Jesu Doctoribus reseratus.-Ex. de pænitentia ch. vii, N. 155. (Lugduni, 1656. Ed. Mvs. Brit.)

§ Thomas Tambourin. Methodus Expeditæ Confessionis, L. ii, ch. iii, §3, N. 23. (Lugduni, 1659. Antverpiae, 1656. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

Wherever there is no knowledge of wickedness, there is, also, of necessity, no sin. It is sufficient to have at least a confused notion of the heinousness of a sin; without which knowledge, there would never be a flagrant crime. For instance, one man kills another, believing it indeed to be wrong, but conceiving it to be nothing more than a trifling fault. Such a man does not greatly sin, because it is knowledge only which points out the wickedness or the grossness of it to the will. Therefore, criminality is only imputed according to the measure of knowledge.

If a man commit adultery or suicide, reflecting, indeed, but still very imperfectly and superficially, upon the wickedness and great sinfulness of those crimes, however heinous may be the matter, he still sins but slightly. The reason is, that as a knowledge of the wickedness is necessary to constitute the sin, so is a full clear knowledge and reflection necessary to constitute a heinous sin. And thus I reason with Vasquez: In order that a man may freely sin, it is necessary to deliberate whether he sins or not. But he fails

to deliberate upon the moral wickedness of it, if he does not reflect, at least by doubting, upon it during the act; therefore, he does not sin, unless he reflects upon the wickedness of it. It is also certain that a full knowledge of such wickedness is required to constitute a mortal sin. For it would be unworthy the goodness of God to exclude a man from glory, and to reject him forever, for a sin on which he had not fully deliberated; but if reflection upon the wickedness of it has only been partial, deliberation has not been complete; and therefore the sin is not a mortal sin.”

The practical consequences of this doctrine have been admirably represented by Pascal, in his happiest vein of irony. "Oh, my dear sir," says he to the Jesuit, who had exposed to him the aforementioned doctrine, "what a blessing this will be to some persons of my acquaintance! I must positively introduce them to you. You have never, perhaps, in all your life, met with people who had fewer sins to account for. In the first place, they never think of God at all; their vices have got the better of their reason; they have never known either their weakness or the physician who can cure

•George de Rhodes. Disput. Theologia Scholastica, tom. i. Dis. xi, quaes. xi, sec. 1 and 2, and Dis. i, q. iii, seo. 2, §3. (Lugduni. 1671.)

« 上一頁繼續 »