THE EXECUTION
Seizure of the Gesù in Rome--Suspension of the Priests --
Juridical Trial of Father Ricci continued during Two Years--
The Victim's Death-bed Statement--Admission of his Innocence
by the Inquisitors--Obsequies--Reason of his Protracted
Imprisonment--Liberation of the Assistants by Pius VI--
Receipt of the Brief outside of Rome--Refused by Switzerland,
Poland, Russia and Prussia--Read to the Prisoners in Portugal
by Pombal--Denunciation of it by the Archbishop of Paris--
Suppression of the Document by the Bishop of Quebec--
Acceptance by Austria--Its Enforcement in Belgium--Carroll
at Bruges--Defective Promulgation in Maryland.
Two days before the subsidiary Brief was signed, namely on August 16,
1773, the commissioner began operations. Led by Alfani and Macedonio, a
squad of soldiers invaded the Gesù, where the General and his assistants
were notified of the suppression of the Society. Apparently no one else
was cited, and hence, according to de Ravignan, the procedure was
illegal as far as the rest of the community was concerned. However, they
made no difficulty about it and from that moment considered themselves
as no longer Jesuits. It was supposed that a great amount of money would
be seized at the central house of the Society; but the hope was not
realized; for only about $50,000 were found, and that sum had been
collected to defray the expenses of the beatification of St. Francis
Hieronymo. It really belonged to St. Peter's rather than to the Gesù.
However, there was plenty of material in the gold and silver vessels of
the chapels, the works of art, the valuable library, and the archives.
The same process was followed in the other Jesuit establishments of the
city. The Fathers were locked up while the soldiers guarded the doors
and swarmed through the rooms and passage ways. The old and infirm were
carried to the Roman College, and then sent back to the place whence
they had been taken; in both instances on stretchers, when the victim
was unable to walk. One old Father was actually breathing his last
during the transfer. They were all suspended from their priestly
faculties, and ordered to report every three months to the authorities
with a certificate of their good behavior, signed by the parish priest.
They were ecclesiastical "ticket of leave men." Pretexts were multiplied
to have many of them arrested. They were paraded through the streets in
custody of a policeman, and after being put in the dock with common
criminals were locked up or banished from the Papal States.
On August 17 at night-fall, the carriage of Cardinal Corsini drove to
the Gesù. In it was the auditor of the congregation with a request to
Father Ricci to meet the cardinal at the English College. The invitation
was accepted in perfect good faith, although that very morning an offer
made by the minister of Tuscany to take the General under his protection
and thus secure him from arrest had been declined by Ricci. The freedom
of the house was given to him on his arrival, but soon he was restricted
to three rooms, and he then noticed that soldiers were on guard both
inside and outside of the college. He was kept there for more than a
month, during which time he was subjected to several judicial
examinations; finally he was transferred to the Castle Sant' Angelo
where he was soon followed by his secretary, Commolli, and the
assistants, Le Forestier, Zaccharia, Gautier and Faure. They were all
assigned to separate cells. The enemies of the Society now had the
arch-criminal in their hands, the General himself, Father Ricci; and
they could get from him all the secrets of the redoubtable organization
which they had destroyed. His papers, both private and official, were in
their possession. The archives of the Society were before them with
information about every member of it from the beginning, as well as all
the personal letters from all over the world written in every
conceivable circumstance of Jesuit life. They were all carefully studied
and yet no cause for accusation was found in them. The jailors seemed to
have lost their heads and to have forgotten their usual tactics of
forgery and interpolation.
The trial of Father Ricci was amazing both in its procedure and its
length. There were no witnesses to give testimony for or against him,
but he was brutally and repeatedly interrogated by an official named
Andretti who was suggestively styled "the criminalist." The
interrogatories have all been printed, and some of the questions are
remarkable for their stupidity. Thus for instance, he was asked, "Do you
think you have any authority since the suppression of the Society?" The
answer was, "I am quite persuaded I have none." "What authority would
you have if, instead of abolishing the Society, the Pope had done
something else?" "What he would give me." "Are there any abuses in the
Order?" To this he replied, "If you mean general abuses, I answer that,
by the mercy of God there are none. On the contrary, there is in the
Society a great deal of piety, regularity, zeal, and especially charity,
which has shown itself in a remarkable way during these fifteen years of
bitter trials." "Have you made any changes in the government of the
Order?" "None." "Where are your moneys?" "I have none. I had not enough
to keep the exiles of Spain and Portugal from starvation."
The result of this investigation which went on for more than two years
was that nothing was found either against him or against the Society,
and yet he was kept in a dungeon until he died. As the end was
approaching Father Ricci read from his dying bed the following
declaration:
"Because of the uncertainty of the moment when God will please to summon
me before him and also in view of my advanced age and the multitude,
duration, and greatness of my sufferings, which have been far beyond my
strength, being on the point of appearing before the infallible tribunal
of truth and justice, after long and mature deliberation and after
having humbly invoked my most merciful Redeemer that He will not permit
me to speak from passion, especially in this the last action of my life,
nor be moved by any bitterness of heart, or out of wrong desire or evil
purpose, but only to acquit myself of my obligation to bear testimony to
truth and to innocence, I now make the two following declarations and
protests:
"First, I declare and protest that the extinct Society of Jesus has
given no reason for its suppression; and I declare and protest with that
moral certainty which a well-informed superior has of what passes in his
Order. Second, I declare and protest that I have given no reason, not
even the slightest, for my imprisonment, and I do so with that sovereign
certitude which each one has of his own actions. I make this second
protest solely because it is necessary for the reputation of the extinct
Society of which I was superior.
"I do not pretend in consequence of these protests that I or any one may
judge as guilty before God any of those who have injured the Society of
Jesus or myself. The thoughts of men are known to God alone. He alone
sees the errors of the human mind and sees if they are such as to excuse
from sin; He alone penetrates the motives of acts; as well as the spirit
in which things are done, and the affections of the heart that
accompany such actions; and since the malice or innocence of an external
act depends on all these things, I leave it to God Who shall interrogate
man's thoughts and deeds.
"To do my duty as a Christian, I protest that with the help of God I
have always pardoned and do now sincerely pardon all those who have
tortured and harmed me, first, by the evils they have heaped on the
Society and by the rigorous measures they have employed in dealing with
its members; secondly, by the extinction of the Society and by its
accompanying circumstances; thirdly, by my own imprisonment, and the
hardships they have added to it, and by the harm they have done to my
reputation; all of which are public and notorious facts. I pray God, out
of His goodness and mercy, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to pardon
me my many sins and to pardon also all the authors of the
above-mentioned evils and wrongs, as well as their co-operators. With
this sentiment and with this prayer I wish to die.
"Finally I beg and conjure all those who may read these declarations and
protests to make them public throughout the world as far as in them
lies. I ask this by all the titles of humanity, justice and Christian
charity that may persuade them to carry out my will and desire. (signed)
Lorenzo Ricci."
The trial had been purposely prolonged. At each session only three or
four questions would be put to the accused, although he constantly
entreated the inquisitors to proceed. Then there would be an
interruption of eight, ten and even twenty days or more. At times the
interrogations were sent in on paper, until finally, Andretti, the chief
inquisitor, said that the case was ended and he would return no more.
Nevertheless he made his appearance a few days later.
"No doubt," says Father Ricci, "someone had told him that the whole
process was null and void; and I pitied this honest man, advanced in age
as he was, and so long in the practice of his profession, who was now
told that he did not know the conditions necessary for the validity of a
process. Those who gave him that information should have warned him long
before. So he began again, going over the same ground in the same way,
and I gave him the same answers. His questions were always preceded by
long formulæ to which I paid no heed. After each question, he made me
repeat my oath. I asked him to let me know the reason of my
incarceration and could get no answer; but, finally he uttered these
words: 'Be content to know that you have not been imprisoned for any
crime; and you might have inferred that from the fact that I have not
interrogated you about anything criminal whatever.'"
As a necessary consequence of this exoneration by the official deputed
to try him, it follows that the Order of which he was the chief superior
was also without reproach; for, if the numberless offences alleged
against the Society were true, it would have been absolutely impossible
for the General not to have known them; and having this knowledge, he
would have been culpable and deserving of the severest punishment, if
there had been dissensions in the Order and he had not endeavored to
repress them; if lax morality had been taught and he did not censure it;
if the Society had indulged in mercantile transactions and he had not
condemned such departures from the law; if it had been guilty of
ambition and he had not crushed it. Being the centre and the source of
all authority and of all activity in the Order, his knowledge of what is
going on extends to very minute details and hence if the Order was
guilty he was the chief criminal. But even his bitterly prejudiced
judges had declared him innocent and he was, therefore, to be set free.
At this juncture, the Spanish minister, Florida Blanca, intervened and
in the name of Charles III warned the Pope not to dare to release him.
The Bourbons were still bent on terrorizing the Holy See. The difficulty
was solved by the victim himself who died on November 24, 1775. He was
then seventy-two years of age. He was able to speak up to the last
moment and was often heard to moan: "Ah! poor Society! At least to my
knowledge you did not deserve the punishment that was meted out to you."
On the evening of the 25th, Father Ricci's remains were carried to the
Church of St. John of the Florentines. The whole edifice was draped in
black, and the coffin was placed on the bier around which were thirty
funeral torches. A vast multitude took part in the services. The Bishop
of Commachio, a staunch friend of the Society, celebrated the Mass. He
came, he said, not to pray for the General but to pray to him. Another
bishop exclaimed: "Behold the martyr!" In the evening, the corpse was
carried to the Gesù. It should have arrived by 9 o'clock, but it reached
the church only at midnight. To avoid any demonstration, the approaches
to the church had been closed, and there were only five or six Fathers
present. From Carayon's narrative it would appear that the uncoffined
body was carried in a coach and was clothed in a very short and very
shabby habit. The curé of the parish and two other persons were in the
conveyance. Two other carriages whose occupants were unknown but who
were suspected of being spies followed close behind. After the
absolution, the body was placed in the coffin and laid in the vault
beside the remains of Ricci's seventeen predecessors. The tomb was then
closed and a scrap of paper was fixed on it, with the inscription:
"Lorenzo Ricci, ex-General of the Jesuits, died at Castle Sant' Angelo,
November 24, 1775."
After reciting these facts, Boero asks why the ex-General was kept in
such a long and severe confinement? There is no answer, he says, except
that such was the good pleasure of His Majesty Charles III. The Spanish
minister, Moñino, had declared that such was the case. To let him out
alive would have been an indirect condemnation of the pressure exerted
by the court of Madrid in directing the course of the commission which
had been expressly created to pass a sentence of death on the Society.
The knowledge that the General and his assistants had issued alive from
the dungeons of Sant' Angelo would have troubled the peace of Charles
III and his fellow-conspirators; hence, in spite of the good will and
the affection of the Sovereign Pontiff, Father Ricci, after two years
imprisonment in Adrian's Tomb, was carried out a corpse. Those of his
companions who survived were released, but were commanded by the judges
to observe the strictest silence on what had passed during their
captivity, or not to tell what questions had been put to them.
One of the victims showed his indignation at this excessive cruelty, and
exclaimed, "Why should you require me to swear on the Holy Gospels not
to speak of my trial, when you know very well that it consisted of two
or three insignificant and ridiculous questions?" Another assistant was
merely asked his name and birthplace, and no more. A third satisfied the
judges when he replied, "I have neither said nor done anything wrong."
He was never interrogated again. The secretary of the Society had been
asked in what subterranean hiding-place he kept the treasures. He
answered that there were no subterranean hiding-places, and no
treasures. In that consisted his whole examination. He died shortly
afterwards of sickness contracted in the prison and his death was for a
long time concealed.
Father Faure inquired of one of his judges: "For what crime am I in
jail?" "For none," was the reply, "but the fear of your pen, and
especially the fear of having you write against the Brief. That is the
only cause of your imprisonment." "By the same rule," retorted the
prisoner, "you might send me to the galleys for fear I might steal, or
to be hanged to prevent me from committing murder." He was the only
recalcitrant, and he was so dreaded that during his incarceration he was
ordered to keep his light burning all night, so that he might be
watched. This was after they found a black spot on his bed. They thought
it was ink. Father Ricci, however, contrived to keep an exact account of
the questions that were asked. Carayon has published them in his
"Documents inédits."
One of these redoubtable personages so rigidly kept in confinement was
Father Romberg, the German assistant, who was eighty-two years of age.
He became very feeble, and had a stroke of paralysis which kept him to
his chair. When the governor of the Castle came with the judges and
officials to tell him he was free, he thanked them effusively, but
requested the favor of being left in his cell to die. "You see," said
he, "I have two fine friends who are prisoners here, and they, out of
charity, come regularly every morning and carry me in my chair to the
chapel where I can hear Mass and go to Communion. If I leave this place,
God knows if I should have the same help and the same consolation." This
was a specimen of the men who made Charles III and Florida Blanca
tremble. In spite of the protests of the Spanish minister, every one was
set free on February 16, 1776, and Pius VI cancelled the order of the
inquisitors who forbade their victims to hold any communication with
their fellow-Jesuits.
The manner in which the Brief was executed outside of Rome varied with
the mentality and morality of the nations to which it was sent. Much to
the chagrin of the Sovereign Pontiff, it was enthusiastically acclaimed
by all the Protestants and infidels of Europe. For, was it not a
justification of all the hatred they had invariably heaped on the
Society wherever it happened to be? They could now congratulate
themselves that they had instinctively divined the malignant character
of the Institute which it took centuries for the Church to discover, and
they logically concluded that all the laudatory Bulls lavished on the
Society by previous Pontiffs were intentional deceits or ignorant
delusions. They might have argued contrariwise, but as it would have
been against themselves they refrained. They were jubilant because the
Sovereign Pontiff had slain their chief enemy, and they had a medal
struck to commemorate the event.
In "Les Jésuites" by Böhmer-Monod (p. 278) we find the following:
"Cultured Europe triumphed in the Suppression of the Order, and the
people everywhere showed their approval. Here and there some pious
devotees raised their voices in lamentation, but nowhere in Europe or
elsewhere was there any serious opposition to the Brief. The Order had
forfeited all esteem; and public opinion evinced no compassion for
anything tragic that occurred in its fall. It remained quite indifferent
to the atrocities of which Pombal was guilty. The injustices which
certain Fathers suffered in various places were considered a just
retribution or at least were regarded as necessary for progress of light
and virtue." This is not very flattering to "cultured" Europe.
Apart from the self-stultifying utterances on this quotation, as for
instance, that "the injustices suffered were a just retribution, or were
at least regarded as necessary for the progress of light and virtue,"
and also that certain Fathers suffered in various places; whereas the
same authors give 23,000 who suffered all over the world, it is an
absolute contradiction with the facts of the case to say that "nowhere
in Europe was there any serious opposition to the Brief" and that "they
everywhere showed their approval and evinced no compassion for anything
tragic that occurred in the fall."
In the first place, Frederick the Great in Prussia and Catherine II of
Russia not only would not allow the Brief in their dominions, but
forbade it under the severest penalties. Poland for a long time refused
to receive it, and the Catholic cantons of Switzerland sent a
remonstrance to the Pope. Moreover, although, even before the document
was promulgated, the Fathers had secularized themselves of their own
initiative, yet, the authorities would not allow them to give up the
colleges. The other side of the picture was that in Naples, Tanucci not
only forbade the Brief to be read under pain of death, but forbade all
mention of it. In Portugal, of course, no opposition was made for there
were no Jesuits to suppress, they were either dead or in prison or
exile. It was, however, an occasion of public rejoicing, and the
document was received with booming of cannon and ringing of bells, as if
a victory had been won, but that governmental device did not extinguish
in the heart of the suffering people a deep compassion for the victims
of Pombal's "atrocities."
In Spain, it was absolutely prohibited to read it or speak about the
Brief, because by its eulogy of the virtues of the members of the
Society, it gave the lie to the government, which insisted on the
suppression of the Society precisely because of the immorality of its
members. In France, its promulgation was forbidden for the very opposite
reason, that is, because it praised the Institute, which the politicians
had declared to be essentially vicious; though they admitted that the
individual Jesuits were irreproachable. Thus, like Spain, France had
been officially convicted by the Brief of calumniating, plundering and
annihilating a great religious order. Voltaire, commenting on the
situation, suggested that there might be a sort of national exchange by
France and Spain. "Send the French Jesuits to Spain," he said, "and they
will edify the people by observing the Institute, and send the Spaniards
to France where they will satisfy the people by not observing it."
The most notable opposition to the Brief, occurred in France. The whole
hierarchy and clergy positively refused to accept it, and the Archbishop
of Paris, Christopher de Beaumont, who had been especially requested by
the Pope to promulgate it, answered by a letter which is unpleasant for
a Jesuit to publish on account of its tone; for the most profound
affection and reverence for the Holy See is one of the ingrained and
distinctive traits of the Society. However, it is a historical document
and is called for in the present instance as a refutation of the
statement that there was no opposition to the Brief in Europe. This
famous letter was dated April 24, 1774, that is more than eight months
after the Suppression. It is addressed to the Holy Father himself and
runs as follows:
"This Brief is nothing else than a personal and private judgment. Among
other things that are remarked in it by our clergy is the extraordinary,
odious, and immoderate characterization of the Bull "Pascendi Munus" of
the saintly Clement XIII, whose memory will be forever glorious and who
had invested the Bull in question with all the due and proper
formalities of such documents. It is described by the Brief not only as
being inexact but as having been 'extorted' rather than obtained;
whereas it has all the authority of a general council; for it was not
promulgated until almost the whole clergy of the Church and all the
secular princes had been consulted by the Holy Father. The clergy with
common accord and with one voice applauded the purpose of the Holy
Father, and earnestly begged him to carry it out. It was conceived and
published in a manner as general as it was solemn. And is it not
precisely that, Holy Father, which really gives the efficacity, the
reality and the force to a general council, rather than the material
union of some persons who though physically united may be very far from
one another in their judgments and their views? As for the secular
princes, if there were any who did not unite with the others to give
their approbation, their number was inconsiderable. Not one of them
protested against it, not one opposed it, and even those who, at that
very time, were laying their plans to banish the Jesuits, allowed the
Bull to be published in their dominions.
"But as the spirit of the Church is one and indivisible in its teaching
of truth, we have to conclude that it cannot teach error when it deals
in a solemn manner with a matter of supreme importance. Yet it would
have led us into error if it had not only proclaimed the Institute of
the Society to be pious and holy, but had solemnly and explicitly said:
'We know of certain knowledge that it diffuses abroad and abundantly the
odor of sanctity.' In saying this it put upon that Institute the seal of
its approbation, and confirmed anew not only the Society itself, but the
members who composed it, the functions it exercised, the doctrines it
taught, the glorious works it accomplished, all of which shed lustre
upon it, in spite of the calumnies by which it was assailed and the
storms of persecution which were let loose against it. Thus the Church
would have deceived us most effectively on that occasion if it would now
have us accept this Brief which destroys the Society; and also if we are
to suppose that this Brief is on the same level in its lawfulness and
its universality as the Constitution to which we refer. We abstract,
Holy Father, from the individuals whom we might easily name, both
secular and ecclesiastical who have meddled with this affair. Their
character, condition, doctrine, sentiment, not to say more of them, are
so little worthy of respect, as to justify us in expressing the formal
and positive judgment that the Brief which destroys the Society of Jesus
is nothing else than an isolated, private and pernicious judgment, which
does no honor to the tiara and is prejudicial to the glory of the Church
and the growth and conservation of the Orthodox Faith.
"In any case, Holy Father, it is impossible for me to ask the clergy to
accept the Brief; for in the first place, I would not be listened to,
were I unfortunate enough to lend the aid of my ministry to its
acceptance. Moreover, I would dishonor my office if I did so, for the
memory of the recent general assembly which I had the honor to convoke
at the instance of His Majesty, to inquire into the need we have of the
Society in France, its usefulness, the purity of its doctrines, etc., is
too fresh in my mind to reverse my verdict. To charge myself with the
task you wish me to perform would be to inflict a serious injury on
religion as well as to cast an aspersion on the learning and integrity
of the prelates who laid before the king their approval of the very
points which are now condemned by the Brief. Moreover, if it is true
that the Order is to be condemned under the specious pretext of the
impossibility of peace, as long as the Society exists, why not try it on
those bodies which are jealous of the Society? Instead of condemning it
you ought to canonize it. That you do not do so compels us to form a
judgment of the Brief which, though just, is not in its favor.
"For what is that peace which is incompatible with this Society? The
question is startling in the reflection it evokes; for we fail to
understand how such a motive had the power to induce Your Holiness to
adopt a measure which is so hazardous, so dangerous, and so prejudicial.
Most assuredly the peace which is irreconcilable with the existence of
the Society is the peace which Jesus Christ calls insidious, false,
deceitful. In a word what the Brief designates as peace is not peace;
_Pax, pax et non erat pax_. It is the peace which vice and libertinism
adopt; it is the peace which cannot ally itself with virtue, but which
on the contrary has always been the principal enemy of virtue.
"It is precisely that peace against which the piety of the Jesuits in
the four quarters of the world have declared an active, a vigorous, a
bloody warfare; which they have carried to the limit and in which they
have achieved the greatest success. To put an end to that peace, they
have devoted their talents; have undergone pain and suffering. By their
zeal and their eloquence they have striven to block every avenue of
approach, by which this false peace might enter and rend the bosom of
the Church; they have set the souls of men free from its thralldom, and
they have pursued it to its innermost lair, making light of the danger
and expecting no other reward for their daring, than the hatred of the
licentious and the persecution of the ungodly.
"An infinite number of splendid illustrations of their courage might be
adduced in the long succession of memorable achievements which have
never been interrupted from the first moment of the Society's existence
until the fatal day when the Church saw it die. If that peace cannot
co-exist with the Society, and if the re-establishment of this
pernicious peace is the motive of the destruction of the Jesuits, then
the victims are crowned with glory and they end their career like the
Apostles and Martyrs; but honest men are dismayed by this holocaust of
piety and virtue.
"A peace which is irreconcilable with the Society is not that peace
which unites hearts; which is helpful to others; which each day
contributes an increase in virtue, piety and Christian charity; which
reflects glory on Christianity and sheds splendor on our holy religion.
Nor is there need of proving this, though proof might be given, not by a
few examples which this Society could furnish from the day of its birth
to the fatal and ever deplorable day of its suppression, but by a
countless multitude of facts which attest that the Jesuits were always
and in every clime, the supporters, the promoters and the indefatigable
defenders of true and solid peace. These facts are so evident that they
carry conviction to every mind.
"In this letter I am not constituting myself an apologist of the
Jesuits; but I am placing before the eyes of Your Holiness the reasons
which, in the present case, excuse us from obeying. I will not mention
place or time, as it is an easy thing for Your Holiness to convince
yourself of the truth of my utterance. Your Holiness is not ignorant of
them.
"Moreover, Holy Father, we have remarked with terror, that this
destructive Brief eulogizes in the highest way certain persons whose
conduct never merited praise from Clement XIII, of saintly memory. Far
from doing so, he regarded it always as his duty to set them aside, and
to act in their regard with the most absolute reserve.
"This difference of appreciation necessarily excites attention, in view
of the fact that your predecessor did not consider worthy of the purple
those whom Your Holiness seems to design for the glory of the
cardinalate. The firmness on one side and the connivance on the other
reveal themselves only too clearly. But perhaps an excuse might be found
for the latter, were it not for the fact which has not been successfully
disguised that an alien influence guided the pen that wrote the Brief.
"In a word, most Holy Father, the clergy of France, which is the most
learned and most illustrious of Holy Church, and which has no other aim
than to promote the glory of the Church, does now judge after deep
reflection that the reception of the Brief of Your Holiness will cast a
shadow on the glory of the clergy of France; and it does not propose to
consent to a measure which, in ages to come, will tarnish its glory. By
rejecting the Brief and by an active resistance to it our clergy will
transmit to posterity a splendid example of integrity and of zeal for
the Catholic Faith, for the prosperity of the Church and particularly
for the honor of its Visible Head.
"These, Holy Father, are some of the reasons which determine us, myself
and all the clergy of this kingdom, never to permit the publication of
such a Brief, and to make known to Your Holiness, as I do by this
present letter, that such is my attitude and that of all the clergy,
who, however, will never cease to unite in prayer with me to our Lord
for the sacred person of Your Holiness. We shall address our humble
supplications to the Divine Father of Light that He may deign to
diffuse it so abundantly that the truth may be discerned whose splendor
has been obscure."
The Bishop of Quebec, Mgr. Briand, refused to promulgate the Brief, and
he informed some of his intimate friends that he had no fear of
excommunication in doing so, for the reason that he was in constant
communication with Pope Clement XIV, who approved of his course of
action. Associated with the bishop was Governor Carleton, who was
interested in the matter for his own personal reasons. His rival,
General Amherst, the conqueror of Quebec, was anxious to see the Jesuits
driven out, so as to secure their property for himself. Carleton, on the
contrary, proposed to keep it for future educational purposes. He could
not seize it immediately, for the treaty at the conquest had guaranteed
the protection of the Canadians in their religion. Hence he did not
molest the Fathers, though he refused to allow any accession either of
novices or former Jesuits to their ranks. The result was that they
gradually died out. The last of all was the venerable Casot, who gave up
the ghost in 1800 after having distributed all his goods to the poor.
What was not available in that way he conveyed to religious communities
or to churches. The relics of Brébeuf and Lalemant are now among the
treasures of the Hotel-Dieu. The Jesuit College, which was opposite the
present basilica cathedral, was occupied by soldiers, and was first
known as the "Jesuit Barracks," and subsequently as the "Cheshire
Barracks." Later it was a refuge for the poor, until at length Cardinal
Taschereau ordered it to be demolished as unsafe. Thus the Brief was not
executed in Canada. The Jesuits of New Orleans had been already expelled
by Choiseul, and there was no one left to whom it could be read.
The suppression of the Society in what is now the United States is of
special interest to Americans, though it possesses also a general value
in the fact that it furnishes the only account in English, as far as we
are aware, of what took place in Belgium some years before as the
prelude of the general suppression. This is based on the highest
authority, for it is the personal narrative of John Carroll, the founder
of the American hierarchy. He had gone when a lad of fourteen to St.
Omers in French Flanders, and after his college course entered the
Jesuit novitiate at Watten about six miles away, where he met several of
his countrymen who were to distinguish themselves later in the Jesuit
mission of Maryland. They were Horne, Jenkins, Knight, Emmot and Tyrer.
There also was the English Jesuit, Reeve, whose "Bible History" was once
an indispensable treasure in every Catholic family.
On completing his novitiate, Carroll was sent for his theology and
philosophy to Liège, and was ordained priest in 1769, after having
proved his ability by a brilliant public defense in theology. He then
taught at St. Omers and was subsequently made professor of philosophy
and theology to the scholastics at Liège. He pronounced his four solemn
vows as a Professed Father on February 2, 1771, a little more than two
years before the suppression of the Society. As St. Omer was in France
the Jesuits were expelled from it in 1764. That the occupants of the
house were English did not matter. International comity received scant
consideration in those days. Every one was driven out except Father
Brown, who was then ninety-four years of age. He was left there alone to
die. The others, under the guidance of Father Reeve, crossed the
frontier to Bruges where they had been invited by the authorities to
found a college.
Here begins a story told by Carroll of government duplicity which shows
how largely the motive of plunder entered into the whole movement of the
suppression. Belgium was then under the domination of Austria, and the
government continually urged the Fathers to begin the erection of a
college on a grand scale at that place. In all confidence that they
would never be disturbed, they expended on the first set of buildings
the sum of $37,000 a considerable amount of money in those days. They
would have gone further but their money was exhausted.
While teaching there, Father Carroll was sent on a short tour through
Europe as tutor to the young son of Lord Stourton, an English nobleman.
He passed through Alsace and Lorraine, where the Jesuits were still
protected; was welcomed at the University of Heidelberg, and finally
reached Rome. There, though under the very eyes of the Pope, he was
compelled to conceal his identity as a Jesuit and hence met none of his
brethren. He saw everywhere not only infamous libels on the Society
which were for sale in the streets, but books and pamphlets assailing
the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and ridiculing the ceremonies
of the Mass. The overthrow of the Jesuits was the common topic of
conversation and word from the King of Spain was momentarily expected.
Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, the last descendant of James II, was
there at the time, but as he was a rancorous enemy of the Society,
Father Carroll did not dare to present the young Catholic nobleman to
him. He returned by the way of France and saw the ruins everywhere, and
finally arrived at Bruges to take part in the tragedy as one of the
victims.
The Brief was promulgated on August 16, and the superiors of the two
colleges at Bruges, encouraged by the general expectation of the town
that their status would not be effected, wrote a letter to the
president of the council at Brussels, offering their services as secular
clergy to continue the work of education. The rectors were invited to
Brussels, and assured that they would be treated with respect, allowed
to retain private property and be granted proper maintenance. Even after
the reception of the Brief, the Bishop of Bruges assured them that in a
few days the excitement would pass and everything would go on as usual.
Austria, however, had already accepted and promulgated the Brief.
The first commissioners of the Suppression threw up the work in disgust.
It was then handed over to a coarse young fellow named Marouex who was
anxious to make a name for himself. He succeeded. Arriving at the
college on September 20, he summoned the community to his presence and
ordered the Brief and edict to be read. He then forbade anyone to leave
the house, or to be allowed to enter, or to write any letters, or to
direct the college, or to teach the pupils. He seized the account books
and began a hunt for hidden treasures. Each member of the community was
examined individually, put under oath, and ordered to produce everything
he had, even family letters; "which explains," says Shea, "how there is
no trace of Carroll's letters from his mother and kindred in America."
On October 14, Marouex, accompanied by a squad of soldiers, burst into
the community rooms and ordered Fathers Angier, Plowden and Carroll to
follow him. He would not even permit them to go to their rooms for a
moment to get what they needed, but sent them under guard to wagons
waiting outside, and hurried them off to the Flemish college, which had
been already plundered. There they were locked up for several days
without a bed to lie on. The community was still there under lock and
key. Three of them were kept as hostages and the rest were ordered out
of the country. Thus did Maria Theresa allow her beloved Jesuits to be
treated, in return for the benefits they had heaped on her empire from
the time when Faber and Le Jay and Canisius and their great associates
had saved it from destruction.
Thoroughly heartbroken, Carroll turned his steps towards Protestant
England. Before leaving the Continent, he wrote the following pathetic
letter to his brother Daniel, who was in Maryland. Because of Carroll's
own personal character and his prominence in American history, it is a
precious testimonial of love and affection for the Society, as well as a
splendid vindication of it for the world at large. It is dated September
11, 1773.
"I was willing to accept the vacant post of prefect of the sodality
here, but now all room for deliberation is over. The enemies of the
Society and, above all, the unrelenting perseverance of the Spanish and
Portuguese ministries, with the passiveness of the court of Vienna have
at last obtained their ends; and our so long persecuted, and, I must
add, holy Society is no more. God's holy will be done and may His Name
be blessed for ever and ever! This fatal blow was struck on July 21, but
was kept secret at Rome till August 16, and was only made known to me on
September 5. I am not, and perhaps never shall be, recovered from the
shock of this dreadful intelligence. The greatest blessing which in my
estimation I could receive from God would be immediate death, but if He
deny me this, may His holy and adorable designs on me be wholly
fulfilled.
"I find it impossible to understand that Divine Providence should permit
such an end to a body, wholly devoted, and striving with the most
disinterested charity to procure every comfort and advantage to their
neighbors, whether by preaching, teaching, catechizing, missions,
visiting hospitals, prisons and in every other function of spiritual and
corporal mercy. Such have I beheld it in every part of my travels, the
first of all ecclesiastical bodies in the esteem and confidence of the
faithful, and certainly the most laborious. What will become of our
flourishing congregations with you and those cultivated by the German
Fathers? These reflections crowd so fast upon me, that I almost lose my
senses. But I will endeavor to suppress them for a few moments. You see
I am now my own master and left to my own direction. In returning to
Maryland, I shall have the comfort of not only being with you, but of
being farther out of reach of scandal and defamation, and removed from
the scenes of distress of many of my dearest friends whom I shall not be
able to relieve. I shall therefore most certainly sail for Maryland
early next spring if I possibly can."
At the time of the Suppression there were nineteen Jesuits in Maryland
and Pennsylvania; as it was then three years before the Declaration of
Independence, they were still English subjects. On October 6, 1773,
Bishop Challoner, the Vicar of London, though Chandlery in his "Fasti
breviores" says it was Talbot, sent them the following letter:
"To Messrs the Missioners in Maryland and Pennsylvania.
"To obey the order which I have received from Rome, I notify to
you, by this the Breve, of the total dissolution of the Society
of Jesus; and send withal a form of declaration of your
obedience and submission, to which you are all to subscribe, as
your brethren have done here, and send me back the formula
with the subscription of you all, as I am to send them up to
Rome.
"Ever yours,
"Richard Deboren. V. Ap."
In passing, it may be remarked that as a missive from a Superior to a
number of devoted priests against whom not a word of reproach had been
ever uttered and whose lives were wrecked by this official act this
communication of the vicar cannot be cited as a manifestation of
excessive paternal tenderness.
The formula to which they were required to subscribe, was, in its
English translation, as follows:
"We the undersigned missionary priests of the London District of
Maryland and Pennsylvania, hitherto known as the Clerks of the Society
of Jesus, having been informed by the declaration and publication of the
Apostolic Brief issued on July 21, 1773, by our Most Holy Lord Pope
Clement XIV, by which he completely suppresses and extinguishes the
aforesaid Congregation and Society in the whole world, and orders the
priests to be entirely subject to the rule and authority of the Bishops
as part of the secular clergy, we the aforesaid, fully and sincerely,
submit to the Brief, and humbly acquiescing to the complete suppression
of the said Society, submit ourselves entirely as secular priests to the
jurisdiction and rule of the above mentioned Bishop, the Vicar
Apostolic."
In this document of the vicar there are some features which are worthy
of consideration. The first is that it was not communicated personally
to those interested but through the post--and it might have been a
forgery. Secondly, it was not correct in saying that it was issued on
July 21, 1773. It was signed on July 21 but issued or published only on
August 16 of that year, and it was not effective or binding until that
date. Thirdly, there was no mention of the renewal of faculties to the
superior whose ecclesiastical character had now been completely
transformed from that of a religious to a secular priest; and they were
thus obliged to presume that they were not suspended and that their
power of transmitting faculties was not withdrawn. Fourthly, before the
Suppression, the vicar Apostolic had warned the Propaganda that he could
do nothing to aid the Maryland missioners, and after the Revolution he
refused absolutely to have any communication with them. Thus, there was
no possibility of fulfilling the injunction of becoming secular priests,
as the Brief enjoined.
As far as the Jesuit habit was concerned there was no difficulty, for
there is no distinctive habit in the Society. The Jesuits are
ecclesiastically in the rank of "clerici regulares," and can wear the
garb of any secular priest, just as they do, at present, in many parts
of the world. St. Francis Xavier once wore green silk, and in our own
days, the English Jesuit dress is rather an academic gown than a
cassock. Again in Maryland and Pennsylvania, there were at that time no
secular priests; the missionaries were all Jesuits, and it would have
been difficult to get any other ecclesiastical attire. What they wore
was, as a matter of fact, used only in ecclesiastical functions. An
analogous obstacle presented itself in the name. The people continued to
recognize them as Jesuits, and it would have been very imprudent to
publicly announce that they were no longer such. There are several
letters extant, however, in which the Jesuits advise their friends to
drop the S. J. in their correspondence, but that is not unusual even
now. Exteriorly, the life of those old Maryland Jesuits continued to be
precisely the same as it had always been.
Moreover they retained possession of their property, for unlike the
Jesuits of Canada, Illinois and Louisiana, they held their estates by
personal, not by corporate title; and regularly deeded their possession
by will or transfer from one to another. In Maryland, it was impossible
to do otherwise, for the English government did not recognize the
Jesuits as constituting a legal association.
Indeed, Challoner informs Talbot that he considered the promulgation of
the Brief as enjoined by the Pope would be fraught with serious danger,
and hence he was convinced that the method adopted for the extinction of
the Jesuits of England and her colonies was the only one possible and
that the Pope would be so advised.
A lament from one of the Maryland missionaries may be of interest.
Father Mosley is the writer. "I cannot think of it," he says, "without
tears in my eyes. Yes, dear Sister, our Body or Factory is dissolved of
which your two brothers are members; and for myself, I know I am an
unworthy one when I see so many worthy, saintly, pious, learned,
laborious missionaries dead and alive who were or who have been members
of the same, for the last two ages. I know no fault that we are guilty
of. I am convinced that our labors are pure, upright and sincere for
God's honor and our neighbor's good. What our Supreme Judge on earth may
think of our labors is a mystery to me. It is true he has stigmatized us
through the world with infamy, and declared us unfit for our business or
his service. Our dissolution is known through the whole world; it is in
every newspaper, and I am ashamed to show my face. As we are judged
unserviceable, we labor with little heart, and what is worse, by no
Rule.
"To my great sorrow, the Society is abolished, and with it must die all
the zeal that was founded and raised on it. Labor for our neighbor is a
Jesuit's pleasure; destroy the Jesuit and labor is painful and
disagreeable. I must allow that what was my pleasure is now irksome.
Every fatigue I underwent caused a secret and inward satisfaction; it is
now unpleasant and disagreeable. I disregarded this unhealthy climate,
and all its agues and fevers which have really paid me to my heart's
content, for the sake of my rule. The night was as agreeable as the day;
frost and cold as a warm fire and a soft bed; the excessive heats as
welcome as a cool shade or pleasant breezes, but now the scene is
changed. The Jesuit is metamorphosed into I know not what. He is a
monster; a scarecrow in my idea. With joy I impaired my health and broke
my constitution in the care of my flock. It was the Jesuit's call; it
was his whole aim and business. The Jesuit is no more. He now endeavors
to repair his little remains of health and his shattered constitution,
as he has no rule calling him to expose it.
"Joseph Mosley, S. J. forever, as I think and hope."
It must have been a very hard trial for the Jesuit vicars Apostolic in
the various foreign missions to be the executioners of their own
brethren in carrying out this decree. One of these sad scenes occurred
in Nankin, where Mgr. Laimbeckhoven, S. J., was vicar. He did not live
to see the Restoration, for he died in 1787.