CHOISEUL
The French Method--Purpose of the Enemy--Preliminary
Accusations--Voltaire's testimony--La Vallette--La
Chalotais--Seizure of Property--Auto da fé of the Works of
Lessius, Suárez, Valentia, etc.--Appeal of the French
Episcopacy--Christophe de Beaumont--Demand for a French
Vicar--"Sint ut sunt aut non sint"--Protest of Clement XIII
--Action of Father La Croix and the Jesuits of Paris--Louis
XV signs the Act of Suppression--Occupations of dispersed
Jesuits--Undisturbed in Canada--Expelled from Louisiana--
Choiseul's Colonization of Guiana.
The result of Pombal's work in Portugal was applauded by his friends in
France, but his methods were condemned. "He was a butcher with an axe."
Their own procedure was to be along different lines. They would first
poison the public mind, would enjoy the pleasure of seeing the heretical
Jansenist condemning the Jesuit for heterodoxy, and the professional
debauchee assailing his morality, and then they would put the Society to
death by process of law for the good of the commonwealth and of the
Church. There would be no imprisonments, no burnings at the stake, no
exiles, but simply an authorized confiscation of property which would
leave the Jesuits without a home, replenish the public purse and ensure
the peace of the nation. It was much easier and more refined. Meantime,
the Portuguese exhibition was a valuable object lesson to their
followers, who saw a king lately honored with the title of His Most
Faithful Majesty putting to death the most ardent champions of the
Faith. Later on, The Christian King, The Catholic King, and The
Apostolic Emperor would unite to show that "Faith" and "Christianity"
and "Apostolicity" were only names.
With all their refinement, however, the French were more radical and
more malignant than the Portuguese. Pombal had no other idea beyond that
of a state Church such as he had seen in England, forming a part of the
government machinery, and when his effort to bring that about by
marrying the Protestant Duke of Cumberland to the Infanta of Portugal
was thwarted by the Jesuits, he simply treated them as he did his other
political enemies; he put them in jail or the grave. In France, the
scheme was more comprehensive. With men like Voltaire and his associates
in the literary world, and Choiseul and others of his set controlling
the politics of the country, the plan was not merely to do away with the
Church, but with all revealed religion. As the Jesuits were conspicuous
adversaries of the scheme, it was natural that they should be disposed
of first.
Such is the opinion of St. Liguori, who says: "The whole thing is a plot
of the Jansenists and unbelievers to strike the Pope and the Church."
The Protestant historian Maximilian Schoell is of like mind (Cours
d'histoire, xliv.): "The Church had to be isolated; and to be isolated,
it had to be deprived of the help of that sacred phalanx which had
avowed itself to the defence of the Pontifical throne.... Such was the
real cause of the hatred meted out to that Society." Dutilleul, in his
"Histoire des corporations religieuses en France" (p. 279) expresses
himself as follows: "The Jesuit is a missionary, a traveller, a mystic,
a man of learning, an elegant civilizer of savages, a confessor of
queens, a professor, a legislator, a financier, and, if need be, a
warrior. His was not a narrow and personal ambition, as people
erroneously suppose and assert. He was something more. He was a
reactionist, a Catholic and a Roman revolutionist. Far from being
attached, as is supposed, to his own interests, the Society has been in
the most daring efforts of its indefatigable ambition only the
protagonists of the spiritual authority of Rome."
Indeed, we have it from Voltaire himself, who wrote to Helvetius in
1761: "Once we have destroyed the Jesuits, we shall have easy work with
the Pope." Rorbacher (Histoire de l'église, tom. XXVII, p. 28) holds the
same view, "They are attacking the Society only to strike with greater
certainty at the Church and the State." But the real, the ultimate
purpose of Voltaire was expressed by his famous phrase _Ecrasons
l'infâme_--"Let us crush the detestable thing," the detestable thing
meaning God or Christ, and such has ever been the aim of his disciples.
That it still persists was proclaimed officially from the French tribune
by Viviani, "Our war is not against the Church, nor against
Christianity, but against God." This open and defiant profession of
atheism, however, would not have been possible in 1761. Hence, to
conceal their purpose, they allied themselves with the most pretentious
professors of the religion of the time; the only ones, according to
themselves, who knew the Church's dogma and observed her moral law; the
orthodox and austere Jansenists, who probably flattered themselves they
were tricking _les impies_, whereas, d'Alembert wrote to one of his
friends "Let the Pandours destroy the Jesuits; then we shall destroy the
Pandours."
The programme was to compel the parliament to terrorize the king, which
was very easy, because of the gross licentiousness of Louis XV. He was
simply a tool in the hands of his mistresses, and Guizot in his
"Histoire de France" has a picture in which Madame du Barry stands over
the king and points to the picture of Charles I of England, who was
beheaded for resisting parliament.
The Jansenist section of the coalition began the fight by the time-worn
accusation of the "lax morality" of the Jesuits--a method of assault
that was by no means acceptable to Voltaire who as early as 1746 had
written to his friend d'Alembert, as follows: "What did I see during the
seven years that I lived in the Jesuit's College? The most laborious and
frugal manner of life; every hour of which was spent in the care of us
boys and in the exercises of their austere profession. For that I call
to witness thousands of men who were brought up as I was. Hence, it is
that I can never help being astounded at their being accused of teaching
lax morality. They have had like other religious in the dark ages
casuists who have treated the _pro_ and _con_ of questions that are
evident today or have been relegated to oblivion. But, _ma foi_ are we
going to judge their morality by the satire of the _Lettres
Provinciales_. It is assuredly by Father Bourdaloue and Father Cheminais
and their other preachers and by their missionaries that we should
measure them. Put in parallel columns the sermons of Bourdaloue and the
_Lettres Provinciales_, and you'll find in the latter the art of
raillery pressed into service to make indifferent things appear criminal
and to clothe insults in elegant language; but you will learn from
Bourdaloue how to be severe to yourself and indulgent to others. I ask
then, which is true morality and which of the two books is more useful
to mankind? I make bold to say that there is nothing more contradictory;
nothing more iniquitous; nothing more shameful in human nature than to
accuse of lax morality, the men who lead the austerest kind of life in
Europe, and who go to face death at the ends of Asia and America."
The romances about the immense wealth of the Society best appealed to
the public imagination, especially as the news of an impending
financial disaster was in the air. One instance of this style of
propaganda may suffice. The others all resemble it. A Spaniard, it was
said, had arrived at Brest with, 2,000,000 _livres_ in his wallet and
was promptly killed by the Jesuits. Soon the 2,000,000 had grown to
8,000,000. Then there was a distinguished conversion; that of a Jesuit
named Chamillard who had turned Gallican and Jansenist on his death-bed;
and although Chamillard a few days afterwards appeared in the flesh and
protested that he was neither dead nor a Gallican nor a Jansenist, his
testimony was set aside. It had appeared in print and that was enough.
Such absurdities of course could do no serious harm, but at last, a
splendid fact presented itself which could not be disproved; especially
as a vast number of people, in France and elsewhere, were financial
sufferers in consequence of it. It was the bankruptcy of Father de la
Valette. In the public mind it proved everything that had ever been
written about the Order. Briefly it is as follows:
At the very beginning of the Seven Years War, the British fleet had
destroyed 300 French ships, captured 10,000 sailors and confiscated
300,000,000 _livres_ worth of merchandise. Among the sufferers was
Father La Valette, the superior of Martinique, who was engaged in
cultivating extensive plantations on the island, and selling the
products in Europe, for the support of the missions. Very unwisely he
borrowed extensively after the first disaster, going deeper and deeper
into debt, until at last he was unable to meet his obligations which by
this time had run up to the alarming sum of 2,000,000 _livres_, or about
$400,000. Suit was therefore brought by some of the creditors, but
instead of submitting the case to a commission established long before
by Louis XIV for adjusting the affairs of the missions, they laid it
before the usual parliamentary tribunal in spite of the fact of its
inveterate and well-known hatred of the Society. Guizot says that they
did it with a certain pride, so convinced were they of the justice of
their plea. Hundreds of others had suffered like themselves at the hands
of the enemy in the Seven Years War, and they had no desire to avail
themselves of any special legislation in their behalf. They underrated
the honesty of the judges.
A verdict was, of course, rendered against them, and the whole Society
was made responsible for the debt, though by the law of the land there
was no solidarity between the various houses of religious orders.
Nevertheless, they set to work to cancel their indebtedness. They had
made satisfactory arrangements with their principal creditors, and
although Martinique, where much of the property was located, had been
seized by the English; yet one-third of their liabilities had been paid
off when the government took alarm. If this continued, the public
treasury would reap no profit from the transaction. Hence, an order was
issued to seize every Jesuit establishment in France. A stop was put to
the reimbursement of private individuals and the government seized all
that was left. But although the Society was not to blame it incurred the
hatred of all those who were thus deprived of their money. That, indeed,
was the purpose of the government seizure.
Long before the crash, the superiors had done all in their power to stop
La Valette, but in those days Martinique was far from Rome. Although
attempt after attempt was made to reach him, it was all in vain. One
messenger was crippled when embarking at Marseilles; another died at
sea; another was captured by pirates, until in 1762 Father de la Marche
arrived on the island. After a thorough investigation de la Marche
declared (1) that La Valette had given himself up to trading in defiance
of canon law and of the special laws of the Society; (2) that he had
concealed his proceedings from the higher superiors of the Society and
even from the Fathers of Martinique; (3) that his acts had been
denounced by his superiors, not only as soon as they were made known,
but as soon as they were suspected. The visitor then asked the General
of the Society (1) to suspend La Valette from all administration both
spiritual and temporal: and (2) to recall him immediately to Europe.
La Valette's submission was appended to the verdict of the visitor; in
it, he acknowledges the justice of the sentence, although as soon as he
knew what harm he was doing he had stopped. He attests under oath that
not one of his superiors had given him any authorization or counsel or
approval; and no one had shared in or connived at his enterprises. He
takes God to witness that he did not make his avowals under compulsion
or threat, or out of complaisance, or for any inducement held out to
him, but absolutely of his own accord, and for truth's sake; and in
order to dispel and refute, as far as in him lay, the calumnies against
the Society consequent upon his acts. The document bore the date of
April 25, 1762. He was expelled from the Society and passed the rest of
his life in England. He never retracted or modified any of the
statements he had made in Martinique.
Following close on the decision in the La Valette case, parliament
ordered the immediate production of a copy of the Constitutions of the
Society. On the following morning, it was in their hands and was
submitted to several committees made up of Jansenists, Gallicans and
Atheists. These committees were charged with the examination of the
Institute and also of various publications of the Society. Extracts
were to be made and presented for the consideration of the court. The
most famous of these reports was the one made by La Chalotais, a
prominent magistrate of Brittany. He discovered that the Society was in
conflict with the authority of the Church, the general Councils, the
Apostolic See, and all ecclesiastical and civil governments; moreover
that, in their approved theological works, they taught every form of
heresy, idolatry and superstition, and inculcated suicide, regicide,
sacrilege, robbery, impurity of every kind, usury, magic, murder,
cruelty, hatred, vengeance, sedition, treachery--in brief, whatever
iniquity mankind could commit was to be found in their writings. As soon
as the report was laid before the judges, a decree was issued on May 8,
1761 declaring that the one hundred and fifty-eight colleges, churches
and residences with the foreign missions of the Order were to be seized
by the government; all the physical laboratories, the libraries, moneys,
inheritances of its members, the bequests of friends for charitable,
educational or missionary purposes--all was to go into the Government
coffers.
Crétineau-Joly estimated that the total value of the property seized
amounted to about 58,000,000 francs or $11,600,000. The amount of the
booty explains the zeal of the prosecution. To soften the blow a
concession of a pension of thirty cents a day was made by the Paris
parliament to those who would take an oath that they had left the
Society. The Languedoc legislators, however, cut it down to twelve.
Moreover this pension was restricted to the Professed. The Scholastics
got nothing; and as they were considered legally dead, because of the
vows they had taken in the Society, they were declared incapable of
inheriting even from their own parents. The decree also forbade all
subjects of the king to enter the Society; to attend any lecture given
by Jesuits; to visit their houses previous to their expulsion; or to
hold any communication with them. The Jesuits themselves were enjoined
not to write to each other, not even to the General. It is noteworthy
that the lawmakers who issued these regulations profess to be shocked by
the Jesuit doctrine of "blind obedience."
By a second decree it was ordered that the works of twenty-seven Jesuits
which had been examined should be burned by the public executioner.
Among them were such authors as Bellarmine, Lessius, Suárez, Valentia,
Salmerón, Gretser, Vásquez, Jouvancy,--all of whom were and yet are
considered to be among the greatest of Catholic theologians, but the lay
doctors of the parliament held them to be dangerous to public morals;
and to the peace of the nation and in order to express their horror
emphatically, they called for this _auto da fé_. It should be noted that
all of these works were written in Latin, and that their technical
character as well as the terminology employed would make it absolutely
impossible for even these solons of the French parliament to grasp the
meaning of the text. In order to sway the public mind, a summary of the
Chalotais report, commonly known as "Extraits des assertions" was
scattered broadcast throughout the country. The desired effect was
produced and even to-day if an attempt is made to answer any of its
charges the answer is always ready, "We have the authority of La
Chalotais; he was an eminent magistrate; he examined the books; the
highest court in France accorded him the verdict, and any attempt to
explain away the charges is superfluous!"
Yet there was in Paris at that time a higher tribunal than the one which
gave La Chalotais his claim to notoriety. It was the General Assembly of
the Clergy which had been convoked by the King to pass upon the
character of the Jesuits as a body, before he affixed his signature to
the decree of expulsion. It consisted of fifty-one prelates, some of
them cardinals. They met on June 27 and with the exception of the Bishop
of Angers, Allais, and especially of Fitzjames, the Bishop of Soissons,
who was the head of the Jansenist party and whose pastoral utterances
were condemned by the Pope as heretical, addressed a "Letter" to the
king conjuring him "to preserve an institution which was so useful to
the State," and declaring that "they could not see without alarm the
destruction of a society of religious who were so praiseworthy for the
integrity of their morals, the austerity of their discipline, the
vastness of their labors and their erudition and for the countless
services they had rendered to the Church.
"Charged as they are with the most precious trust of the education of
youth, participating as they do under the authority of the bishops, in
the most delicate functions of the holy ministry, honored as they are by
the confidence of kings in the most redoubtable of tribunals, loved and
sought after by a great number of our subjects and esteemed even by
those who fear them, they have won for themselves a consideration which
is too general to be disregarded."
"Everything, Sire, pleads with you in favor of the Jesuits: religion
claims them as its defenders; the Church as her ministers; Christians as
the guardians of their conscience; a great number of your subjects who
have been their pupils intercede with you for their old masters; and all
the youth of the kingdom pray for those who are to form their minds and
their hearts. Do not, Sire, turn a deaf ear to our united supplication;
do not permit in your kingdom, that in violation of the laws of justice,
and of the Church and of the State an entire and blameless society
should be destroyed."
The Archbishop of Paris, the famous Christophe de Beaumont was not
satisfied with this general appeal. He was the chief figure in France at
that time; and every word he uttered was feared by the enemies of the
Church. He was great enough to be in correspondence with all the crowned
heads of Europe, and Frederick the Great said of him: "If he would
consent to come to Prussia, I would go half way to meet him." Louis XV
had forced him to accept the See of Paris, but had not the courage to
support him when assailed by his foes. He was a saint as well as a hero;
he lent money to men who were libelling him, and would give the clothes
on his back to the poor. When a hospital took fire in the city, he
filled his palace and his cathedral with the patients. Hence, he did not
hesitate, after parliament had condemned the Society, to issue a
pastoral which he foresaw would drive him from his see. "What shall I
say, Brethren," he asks, "to let you know what I think of the religious
society which is now so fiercely assailed? We repeat with the Council of
Trent that it is 'a pious Institute;' that it is 'venerable,' as the
illustrious Bossuet declared it to be. We spurn far from us the
'Extraits des assertions' as a resumé of Jesuit teaching; and we renew
our declaration that in the condition of suffering and humiliation to
which they have been brought that their lot is a most happy one, because
in the eyes of religious men, it is an infinitely precious thing to have
no reproach on one's soul when overwhelmed by misfortune." As he foresaw
he was expelled from his see for this utterance, not by parliament but
by Louis XV whose cause he was defending.
Perhaps this treatment of the great Archbishop of Paris explains the
silence maintained through all the uproar by the Jesuits themselves. One
would expect some splendid outburst of eloquence in behalf of the
Society from one of its outraged members; but not a word was uttered by
any of them. Their protests would not have been printed or published.
Even Theiner who wrote against the Society says: "All France was
inundated with libellous pamphlets against the Jesuits. The most notable
of all was the one entitled 'Extracts of the dangerous and pernicious
doctrines of all kinds which the so-called Jesuits have at all times,
uninterruptedly maintained, taught and published.' Calumny and malice
fill the book from cover to cover. There is no crime which the Jesuits
did not teach or of which they are not accused. Never was bad faith
carried to such extremes. And yet there is no book that is so often
cited as an authority against the Society and its spirit."
Meantime, the government had approached the Pope for the purpose of
obtaining for the French Jesuits a special vicar who should be
quasi-independent of the General. It was harking back to the old scheme
of Philip II and Louis XIV. His Holiness replied in the memorable words:
"Sint ut sunt aut non sint" (Let them be as they are or not at all.) We
find in a letter of the procurator of Aquitaine that in case a vicar was
appointed every member of the province of Paris would leave the Order,
which under such an arrangement would be no longer the Society of Jesus.
Again in his letter to the king, after declaring that the appointment of
a French Vicar would be a substantial alteration of the Institute which
he could not authorize, the Pope says: "For two hundred years the
Society has been so useful to the Church, that, though it has never
disturbed the public tranquillity either in your kingdom or in any one
else's, yet because it has inflicted such damage on the enemies of
religion by its science and its piety, it is assailed on all sides by
calumny and imposture when fair fighting was found insufficient to
destroy them." Finally, on January 9, 1765, after the final knell had
sounded, Clement XIII issued his famous Bull "Apostolicum." It is given
at length in de Ravignan's "Clément XIII et Clément XIV," but a few
extracts will suffice.
After enumerating the glories of the Society in the past, and calling
attention to the fact that it had been approved by nineteen Popes, who
had most minutely examined their Institute, Clement XIII continues: "It
has, nevertheless, in our days been falsely and malignantly described
both by word and printed book as irreligious and impious, and has been
covered with opprobrium and ignominy until even the Church has been
denounced for sustaining it. In order, therefore, to repel these
calumnies and to put a stop to the impious discourses which are uttered
in defiance of both reason and equity; and to comfort the Regular Clerks
of the Society of Jesus who appeal to us for justice; and to give
greater emphasis to our words by the weight of our authority and to lend
some solace in the sufferings they are undergoing; and finally to defer
to the just desires of our venerable brothers, the bishops of the whole
Catholic world, whose letters to us are filled with eulogies of this
Society from whose labors the greatest services are rendered in their
dioceses; and also of our own accord and from certain knowledge, and
making use of the plenitude of our Apostolic authority, and following in
the footsteps of our predecessors, we, by this present Constitution,
which is to remain in force forever, say and declare in the same form
and in the same manner as has been heretofore said and declared, that
the Institute of the Society of Jesus breathes in the very highest
degree, piety and holiness both in the principal object which it has
continually in view, which is none other than the defence and
propagation of the Catholic Faith, and also in the means it employs for
that end. Such is our experience of it up to the present day. It is this
experience which has taught us how greatly the rule of the Society has
formed up to our day defenders of the orthodox Faith and zealous
missionaries who animated by an invincible courage dare a thousand
dangers on land and sea, to carry the light of the Gospel to savage and
barbarous nations.... Let no one dare be rash enough to set himself
against this my present approbative and confirmative Constitution lest
he incur the wrath of God."
These splendid approvals of their labors did much to keep up the courage
of the harassed Jesuits, but if what Father de Ravignan and
Crétineau-Joly relate be true, they had ample reason to keep themselves
in a salutary humility or rather bow their heads in shame. On December
19, 1761, we are told, the provincial of Paris, Father de La Croix and
one hundred and fifteen Fathers addressed a declaration to the clergy
assembled in Paris, by order of the king, which ran as follows: "We the
undersigned, provincial of the Jesuits of the province of Paris, the
superior of the professed house, the rector of the College of Louis Le
Grand, the superior of the novitiate and other Jesuits professed, even
of the first vows, residing in the said houses, and renewing as far as
needs be the declarations already made by the Jesuits of France in 1626,
1713 and 1757, declare before their Lordships the cardinals, archbishops
and bishops now assembled in Paris, by order of the king, to give their
opinion on several points of the Institute: (1) That it is impossible to
be more submissive than we are, or more inviolably attached to the laws,
maxims and usages of this kingdom with regard to the royal power, which
in temporal matters depends neither directly nor indirectly from any
power on earth, and has God alone above it. Recognizing that the bonds
by which subjects are attached to their rulers are indissoluble, we
condemn as pernicious and worthy of execration at all times every
doctrine contrary to the safety of the king, not only in the works of
some theologians of our Society who have adopted such doctrines but also
those of every other theologian whosoever he may be. (2) We shall teach
in our public and private lessons of theology the doctrine established
by the Clergy of France in the Four Articles of the Assembly of 1682,
and shall teach nothing contrary to it. (3) We recognize that the
bishops of France have the right to exercise in our regard what,
according to the canons of the Gallican Church, belongs to them in their
dealings with regulars; and we renounce all the privileges to the
contrary that may have been accorded to our Society or may be accorded
in the future. (4) If, which may God forbid, it happens that we are
ordered by our General to do anything contrary to the present
declaration, persuaded as we are that we cannot obey without sin, we
shall regard such orders as unlawful, and absolutely null and void;
which we could not and should not obey in virtue of the rules of
obedience to the General such as is prescribed in the Constitutions. We,
therefore, beg that the present declaration may be placed on the
official register of Paris, and addressed to the other provinces of the
kingdom, so that this same declaration signed by us, being deposited in
the official registers of each diocese may serve as a perpetual memorial
of our fidelity.
Etienne de la Croix, Provincial."
Quoting this document and admitting its genuineness Father de Ravignan
exclaims: "In my eyes nothing can excuse this act of weakness. I deplore
it; I condemn it; I shall merely relate how it came to pass" (Clément
XIII et Clément XIV, I 135). He goes on to say:--
"In a personal letter the original of which is in the archives of the
Gesù at Rome, Father La Croix, provincial of Paris explains to the
General the circumstances and occasion of this unfortunate affair. He
tells how the royal commissioners came to him with the aforesaid
declaration already drawn up and accompanied by a formal order of the
king to sign it immediately. It was a most unforeseen demand, for
although the Jesuits of France had already suffered considerable trouble
about the question of the Four Articles in 1713, and also in 1757, when
Damiens attempted to assassinate Louis XV, they had been compelled on
both occasions to sign only the first article which dealt with the
temporal independence of the king. Shortly afterwards, a new royal
decree had been brought to their attention. It consisted of eighteen
articles, the fourth of which was as follows: 'Our will is that in every
theological course followed by the students of the Society, the
propositions set forth by the Clergy of France in 1682, should be
defended, at least in one public discussion, to which the principal
personages of the place shall be invited, and over and above that, the
arrangements laid down by the edict of March 1682 shall be observed.'
"While these matters were being debated by the king and his ministers on
one side and by parliament on the other, a royal order was despatched to
the Jesuits of Paris to affix their signatures to the disgraceful
capitulation given above. It is said that Louis XV imagined that he
could mollify the recalcitrant parliament by this new concession: and,
hence, La Croix and his associates were foolish enough to imagine that
such a result could ensue."
Continuing his indictment of La Croix and his one hundred and fifteen
associates, de Ravignan informs his readers that "an unpublished
document which no writer has so far made mention of, furnishes
important details about the matter. It is entitled 'An exact relation of
all that took place with regard to the interpretation of the decree of
Aquaviva in 1610, which was sent to Rome in 1761 and rejected by the
General; and also the declaration which the General refused to approve.'
The author is M. de Flesselles, who was charged by the commission to
report to Choiseul whose agent he was.
"With regard to the declaration about Gallicanism" says de Flesselles
"the Jesuits, after some difficulties regarding its form, determined to
sign it, and even when urged by the royal commissioners they undertook
to send it to their General for approbation. Soon after, when the
Jesuits received the reply of their General, the provincial came to tell
me that when the Pope was made aware of the declaration which the French
Jesuits had made and of the one they proposed to make, His Holiness
angrily reprimanded the General for permitting the members of the
Society in France to maintain doctrines which are in conflict with the
teachings of the Holy See."
Now it is unpleasant to contest the authority of such an eminent man as
de Ravignan, but, on the other hand, his conclusions that this letter
was a Jesuit production or received a Jesuit endorsement are by no means
convincing. In the first place, no Jesuit would ever sign a paper which
began with the words: "We the Professed, even of the first vows." There
is no such category in the Society. Secondly, no Jesuit or indeed any
one in his senses would ever ask a superior for a permission to teach
error, and say, in the same breath, that it was a matter of indifference
whether the permission was granted or not. Thirdly, as all the Jesuits
of the province had announced their intention of leaving the Society if
Louis XV imposed on them a commissary General independent of their
superior at Rome--as we recited above from an extant letter from the
procurator of the province of Aquitaine--it is inconceivable that those
same men, at that very same time should solemnly declare themselves
rebels against the Father General at Rome. Fourthly, as no association
rewards a man who attempts to destroy it, one finds difficulty in
understanding how, after this revolt, the leader in the rebellion, La
Croix, was not only not expelled from the Society but was retained in
his responsible post of provincial and later was made assistant general
of the Society.
Moreover, it is difficult to understand why, when de Flesselles says
that "the Fathers determined to sign the document," de Ravignan should
go one step further and say that "they signed it." Nor does it help
matters to say that this was "_un acte de faiblesse_," when, it was a
wholesale, corporate and deliberate crime of cowardice and treason; nor
will it avail to suggest that the Pope and General must have been
intensely, grieved--"Ils durent être amèrement affligés." History does
not deal with conjectures but with facts. The question is not whether
they must have been, but whether they were really grieved over an act
which had really occurred and which reflected such discredit on the
Society? Again, as one of the greatest glories of the French Jesuits was
their long and successful battle against Gallicanism, it is
inconceivable that they should suddenly reverse and stultify themselves
at the very moment when all the bishops of France, save one, had
abandoned Gallicanism and had united in eulogizing the Society; and to
do it at a time when the greatest friend they ever had, Pope Clement
XIII, glorified them for their orthodoxy and pronounced the famous
words: "Let them be as they are or not at all!"
To have declared for Gallicanism would have stripped them of their
priestly functions, it would have aroused the intense disgust and
contempt of the hierarchy of France and of the world and would have
called down on them the anathema of the Pope. Indeed, is it likely that
Pope Clement XIV would have omitted to note the defection in his Brief
of Suppression, if they had been guilty? Fortunately, we may refer to
the explicit declaration of the Protestant historian, Schoell (Cours
d'histoire, xl, 53), who says: "These men who are accused of playing
with religion, refused to take the oath to sustain the principles of the
Gallican Church. Of 4000 Fathers who were in France, hardly five
submitted." If there were "hardly five" Gallicans in all the provinces
of France, it is a justifiable conclusion that 116 Jesuits of the
provinces of Paris did not sign the famous "Statement" of de Flesselles.
Louis XV made a feeble attempt to save the situation by withdrawing the
decree of expulsion from the jurisdiction of parliament, but Mme. de
Pompadour and Choiseul so effectively worked on his fears that he
ignominiously rescinded his order. The Pope had meantime delivered an
allocution in a consistory on September 3, 1762; and had sent a letter
to Cardinal Choiseul, the brother of the minister, on September 8 of the
same year, in both of which he declared that "by a solemn decree, he had
quashed and nullified the proceedings of the various parliaments against
the Jesuits." He enjoined upon the cardinal "to use all his episcopal
power against the impious act which was directed against the Church and
against religion." He wrote to other bishops in the same tone of
indignation and anger. It was not, however, until the November of 1764
that Choiseul succeeded in extorting the royal signature which made the
decree irrevocable. Of course, Mme. de Pompadour was to the fore in
securing this shameful surrender of the royal prerogative. The poor king
cuts a sorry figure in signing the document. After making some feeble
scrawls on the paper, he complained that the preamble was too long and
that it would have sufficed to state that "the Jesuits had produced a
great tumult in his kingdom." He added he did not think the word
"punish" should be used; it was too strong; "he never cordially liked
the Jesuits, yet they had the glory of being hated by all heretics.... I
send them out of my kingdom against my will; at least, I don't want
people to think that I agree with everything the parliament said or did
against them." He ended by saying: "If you do not make these changes, I
will not sign, but I must stop talking. I would say too much and I do
not want anyone in France to discuss it." One could hardly say of Louis
that "he was every inch a king."
The desire to close the mouths of every one of his subjects on a matter
that concerned them all as intelligent beings and as citizens was
carried out with extreme rigor. Thus, when two secular priests had the
temerity to condemn the decree, they were promptly hanged. The audacity
of the ministers and parliament went still further; and on December 3
the Duke de Praslin sent a note to Aubeterre, the French ambassador at
Rome to advise him that "under the circumstances, it would be very
futile and still more dangerous for the Pope to take any measures either
directly or indirectly in contravention of the wishes and intention of
his majesty; and hence His Holiness must, out of zeal for religion and
out of regard for the Jesuits, observe the same silence which His
Majesty had ordered to be observed in his states." The Pope replied to
the insult by the Bull "Apostolicum," which was a splendid proclamation
of the absolute innocence of the proscribed Order. It aroused the fury
of the Governments of France, Portugal, Naples and other countries. In
France it was burned in the streets of several cities by the public
executioner. In Portugal, any one who circulated it or had it in his
possession was adjudged guilty of high treason; but on the other hand,
from the bishops of the entire Catholic world came enthusiastic letters
of approval and praise for the fearless Pope who dared to stand forth as
the enemy of tyranny and injustice.
Böhmer-Monod, in their "Jésuites," are of the opinion that the Pope was
"injudicious, and that out of the hundreds of Catholic bishops, only
twenty-three assured him of their approbation." De Ravignan, who is
better informed, tells us that "almost the whole episcopacy of the world
were a unit in this manifestation of loyalty to the supreme Pastor."
Before the event, two hundred bishops had sent their appeals to the
Pope, in favor of the Society; and the Pope himself says in the Bull:
"Ex omni regione sub coelo est una vox omnium episcoporum" (From every
region under the canopy of heaven, there is but one voice from the
episcopal body). After the Bull appeared, other bishops hastened to send
him their adhesions and felicitations. Even in France itself, in spite
of the terrorism exercised by parliament, the assembly of the clergy of
1765, by a unanimous vote, protested against the condemnation of the
Jesuits, extolled "the integrity of their morals, the austerity of their
lives, the greatness of their labors and science"; and declared that
their expulsion left a frightful void in the ministry, in education, and
in the sublime and laborious work of the missions. Not only that, but
they wanted it put on record that "the clergy would never cease to pray
for the re-establishment of the Order and would lay that plea at the
feet of the king."
The exiles lingered for a while in various parts of France; for some of
the divisional parliaments were not at one with Paris in their
opposition to the Society. Indeed, in many of them, the proscription was
voted only by a small majority. Thus at Rennes, there was a majority of
three; at Toulouse two; at Perpignan one; at Bordeaux five; at Aix two;
while Besançon, Alsace, Flanders and Artois and Lorraine pronounced in
their favor and proclaimed "the sons of St. Ignatius as the most
faithful subjects of the King of France and the surest guarantees of the
morality of the people." On the other hand, Brittany, the country of
Chalotais, author of the "Extraits," was especially rancorous in its
hate. Thus, it voted to deprive of all civil and municipal functions
those parents who would send their children abroad to Jesuit schools;
and the children on their return home were to be punished in a similar
fashion. The Fathers lingered for a few years here and there in their
native country employed in various occupations; but in 1767 a decree was
issued expelling them all from the territory of France.
An interesting manifestation of affection by the pupils of St. Omers for
their persecuted masters occurred when the parliament of Paris issued
its order of expulsion in 1767. St. Omers was founded by Father Persons
in 1592 or 1593. It was not for ecclesiastics as were the colleges of
Douai, Rome and Valladolid, but to give English boys an education which
they could not get in their own country. It was twenty-four miles from
Calais and in territory which at that time belonged to the King of
Spain. Shortly after its transfer from Eu in Normandy where an attempt
had been made to start it, there were one hundred boys on its register
and, thirty years later, the number had doubled. For years it was a
favorite school for English Catholics and it rejoices in having had
twenty of its students die for the Faith. It continued its work for a
century and a half. When the expulsion of the Jesuits left the college
without teachers it was handed over to the secular clergy, but when they
arrived there were no boys. They had all decamped for Bruges in Belgium,
and there the classes continued until the general suppression of the
Society in 1773. Even after that, the English ex-Jesuits kept the
college going until 1794, when the French Revolution put an end to it.
By that time, however, one of the former students, Mr. Thomas Weld, had
established the Fathers on his property at Stonyhurst in England, so
that St. Omers and Stonyhurst are mother and daughter.
The buildings and land at St. Omers were handed over by the French
government to the English secular priests, who were at Douai. Alban
Butler, the author of the "Lives of the Saints," was its president from
1766 to 1773. At present a military hospital occupies the site.
In Louisiana, which still owed allegiance to France, the dismissal of
the Fathers was particularly disgraceful. For no sooner had the news of
Choiseul's exploit in the mother-country arrived than the superior
council of Louisiana set to work. "This insignificant body of provincial
officers" as Shea calls them (I, 587), "issued a decree declaring the
Society to be dangerous to the royal authority, to the rights of
bishops, to the public peace of society" and pronounced their vows to be
null and void. These judges in matters ecclesiastical, it should be
noted, were all laymen. They ordered all the property to be seized and
sold at auction, though personal books and clothes were exempted. The
name and habit of the Society were forbidden; the vestments and plate of
the chapel at New Orleans were given by the authorities to the
Capuchins; but all the Jesuit churches in Louisiana and Illinois were
ordered to be levelled to the ground. Every Jesuit was to embark on the
first ship that set sail for France; and arriving there, he was to
report to Choiseul. Each one was given about $420--to pay for his
passage and six month's subsistence.
There was a deviation in some cases about going to France, for Father
Carette was sent to San Domingo; and Father Le Roy made his way to
Mexico. A difficulty arose about Father Beaudoin, who was a Canadian.
Why should he be sent to France where he had no friends? Besides, his
health was shattered by his privations on the missions, and he was at
that time seventy-two years old. He was to go to France, however, but
just as he was about to be dragged to the ship a wealthy friend
interceded for him and gave him a home. Another Father in Alabama did
not hear of the order for several months; and when at last he made his
appearance in New Orleans, he was arrested like a criminal and packed
off to France.
On September 22, a courier reached Fort Chartres, which was on English
territory; and in spite of the danger of embroiling the government,
Father Watron who was then sixty-seven years old was expelled, and with
him his two fellow missionaries. The official from Louisiana gave the
vestments to negro wenches and the altar-plate and candelabra were soon
found in houses of ill-fame. The chapel was then sold on condition that
the purchaser should demolish it. At Vincennes, the same outrages were
perpetrated and Father Duvernay, who had been for six months confined to
his bed, was carried off with the others to New Orleans and despatched
to France. Two only were allowed to remain, owing to the entreaties and
protests of friends. One of the exiles was Father Viel, who was a
Louisianian by birth. The most conspicuous personage enforcing this
expulsion was a certain Lafrenière, but he soon met his punishment. In
1766 Louis XV made a gift of the entire province to his cousin of Spain,
and when Count Alexander O'Reilly was sent out with three thousand
soldiers to quell the disturbance that ensued, Lafrenière and three
associates were taken into the back yard of the barracks and shot to
death. Others were sent in chains to Havana.
Thus the Suppression of the Society in France was not carried out with
the same brutality as in Portugal. There were no prisons, or chains, or
deportation, and they had not the glory of suffering martyrdom. They
were merely stripped of all they had and told to go where they wished.
Whether they lived or died was a matter of unconcern to the government.
It was merely a difference of methods; but both were equally effective.
The Portuguese Jesuits were scourged; their French brethren were sneered
at. Perhaps the latter was harder to bear.
There is a curious sequel to all this. Choiseul, proud of his
achievement in expelling the Jesuits from France and its colonies, now
conceived the magnificent project of colonizing Guyana on lines quite
different from those followed by the detested Order. He induced 14,000
deluded French people to go and take possession of the rich and fertile
lands of Guyana. They found one poor old Jesuit there, who because he
was not a subject of France, had refused to obey the decree of
expulsion. His name was O'Reilly, but what could he do with 14,000
people? He simply disappeared from the scene. Very likely, he joined the
Indians, who fled into the forests at the sight of this immense army of
Frenchmen, who now had the country to themselves without striking a
blow. But two years later, Chevalier de Balzac had to report back to
France, that of the 14,000 colonists only 918 were alive. Thus,
expelling 6,000 Jesuits from France, Choiseul had murdered 13,000 of his
fellow-countrymen (Christian Missions, II, 168).
In 1766, M. de Piedmont, the governor wrote to the Duc de Praslin, that
he had already informed the Duc de Choiseul how necessary it was to send
priests to this colony. He then described the destruction of the mission
posts, the flight of the Indians, the growth of crime amongst the
negroes and the rapid ruin of the colony, and added that religion was
dying out among the whites as well as among the colored races. For ten
years, he kept on repeating this complaint, but no heed was paid to him.
At length, Louis XVI, who was so soon to be himself a victim of
Choiseul's iniquity sent there, three Jesuits, not Frenchmen, perhaps he
had not the heart to ask any of them, but three Jesuits, who had been
expelled from Portugal by Pombal, Choiseul's accomplice. They were
Padilla, Mathos, and Ferreira. They accepted the mission and the
"Journal" of Christopher de Murr says: "The poor savages beholding once
again men clothed in the habit which they had learned to venerate, and
hearing them speak their own language, fell at their feet, bathing them
with tears, and promised to become once more good Christians, since the
Fathers, who had begotten them in Jesus Christ, had come back to them."
No doubt, these three holy men remained till they died with their poor
abandoned Indians.
France's folly in this governmental act was summed up in a letter of
d'Alembert to Choiseul, just before the expulsion. In it he says:
"France will resort to this rigorous measure against its own subjects at
the very moment she is doing nothing in her foreign policy, and in the
chronological epitomes of the future we shall read the words for the
year 1762: 'This year France lost all her colonies and threw out the
Jesuits.'"