THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME: ITS ANTI-SOCIAL AND ANTI-CHRISTIAN
CHARACTER.
Talleyrand, one of the most celebrated Roman Catholic bishops of France,
once said, “Language is the art of concealing one’s thoughts.” Never was
there a truer expression, if it had reference to the awful deceptions
practiced by the Church of Rome under the pompous name of “Theological
studies.”
Theology is the study of the knowledge of the laws of God. Nothing,
then, is more noble than the study of theology. How solemn were my
thoughts and elevated my aspirations when, in 1829, under the guidance
of the Rev. Messrs. Raimbault and Leprohon, I commenced my theological
course of study at Nicolet, which I was to end in 1833!
I supposed that my books of theology were to bring me nearer to my God
by the more perfect knowledge I would acquire, in their study, of His
holy will and His sacred laws. My hope was that they would be to my
heart what the burning coal, brought by the angel of the Lord, was to
the lips of the prophet of old.
The principal theologians which we had in our hands were “Les
Conferences d’Anger,” Bailly, Dens, St. Thomas, but above all Liguori,
who has since been canonized. Never did I open one without offering up a
fervent prayer to God and to the Virgin Mary for the light and grace of
which I would be in need for myself and for the people whose pastor I
was to become.
But how shall I relate my surprise when I discovered, that in order to
accept the principles of the theologians which my Church gave me for
guides, I had to put away all principles of truth, of justice, of honor
and holiness! What long and painful efforts it cost me to extinguish,
one by one, the lights of truth and of reason kindled by the hand of my
merciful God in my intelligence. For to study theology in the Church of
Rome signifies to learn to speak falsely, to deceive, to commit robbery,
to perjure one’s self! It means how to commit sins without shame, it
means to plunge the soul into every kind of iniquity and turpitude
without remorse!
I know that Roman Catholics will bravely and squarely deny what I now
say. I am aware also that a great many Protestants, too easily deceived
by the fine whitewashing of the exterior walls of Rome, will refuse to
believe me. Nevertheless they may rest assured it is true, and my proof
will be irrefutable. The truth may be denied by many, but my witnesses
cannot be contradicted by any one. My witnesses are even infallible.
They are none other than the Roman Catholic theologians themselves,
approved by infallible Popes! These very men who corrupted my heart,
perverted my intelligence and poisoned my soul, as they have done with
each and every priest of their Church, will be my witnesses, my only
witnesses. I will just now forcibly bring them before the world to
testify against themselves!
Liguori, in his treatise on oaths, Question 4, asks if it is allowable
to use ambiguity, or equivocal words, to deceive the judge when under
oath, and at No. 151 he answers: “It is certain, and the opinion of all
theologians, that for good reasons one may be permitted to use
equivocations and to maintain them by oath; and by ‘good reasons’ we
mean all that can do any good to the body or the soul.”
Here is the Latin text:
“Certum est, et commune apud omnes quod, ex justa causa, licitum sit uti
aequivocatione, et cum juvamento affirmare: Et justa causa esse potest
quicunque fines honestus ad servanda bona spiritui vel corporali utilia”
(Sal: Nos. 109 and vol. sauch).
“A culprit, or a witness, questioned by a judge, but in an illegal
manner, may swear that he knows nothing of the crime about which he is
questioned, though he knows it well, mentally meaning that he knows
nothing in such a manner as to answer.”
When the crime is very secret and unknown to all, Liguori says the
culprit or the witness must deny it under oath. Here are his own words:
“Idem si testis ex alio capite, non teneatur deponere: Nempe si ipsi
conotet crimen caruisse culpa, vel si sciat crimen, sed sub secreto, cum
nulla proccesserit infamia.”
“He may swear that he knows nothing, when he knows that the person who
committed the crime committed it _without malice_ (as affir. Salm. to c.
2, No. 259, and Elb. No. 145); or again, if he knows the crime, but
secretly, and that there has been no scandal” (as we are assured by
Card. No. 51.)
“When a crime is well concealed, the witness, and even the criminal, may
and even must swear that the crime has not been committed!
“The guilty party may yet do likewise, when a half proof cannot be
brought against him.”
Here is the Latin text:
“Reus vel testis non tenetur judicio, respondere si crimen fuerit omnis
occultum tunc enim potest imo teneteur testis dicere reum non commisse.
Et idem potest reus, si non adsit semiplena probatio” (Salm. D. 2, No.
146 Bus.).
Liguori asks himself (Quest. 2): If an accused, legally interrogated by
a judge, may deny his crime under oath, when the confession of the crime
might cause his condemnation, and be disadvantageous to him? and he
answers:
“It is altogether probable that when the accused fears a sentence of
death, or of being sent to prison, or exiled, he may deny his crime
under oath, understanding that he has not committed this crime in such a
manner as to be obliged to confess it.” Here is the Latin text:
“Quæritur 2. Au reus legitime interrogatus possit negare cimen, etiam
cum juramento, si grave damnum, ex confessione ipsi immineat satis
probabiliter, (Lugo de Justitia, D. 40, N. 15; Tamb. lib. 3, etc.); et
aliis pluribus dicunt posse reum si sibi immineat poena mortis,
carceris, rut exilii, negare crimen, etiam juramento, saltem sine
peccato gravi, sub intelligendo; se non commississe quotenus teneatur
illud fateri mado sit spes vitandi pœnam.”
“He who has sworn to keep a secret is not obliged to keep his oath, if
any consequential injury to him or to others is thereby caused.”
“If any one has sworn before a judge to keep the truth, he is not
obliged to say secret things.” (Less, Bonar, Trall, etc.)
Liguori asks whether a woman, accused of the crime of adultery, which
she has really committed, may deny it under oath? He answers: “Yes;
provided that she has been to confess, and received the absolution; for
then,” he says, “the sin has been pardoned, and has really ceased to
exist.”
“Quaritur 2. An adultera negare adulterium viro suo? Resp. Si adulterium
confessa sit: Potest respondere, ‘Innocens sum ab hoc crimine’ quia per
confessionem est jam oblatum.” (Card, Disc. 19, N. 54.)
Liguori maintains that one may commit a minor crime in order to avoid a
greater crime. He says: “It is right to advise any one to commit a
robbery or a fornication in order to avoid a murder.”
“Hinc, docet, Sanchez, No. 19 caj. sot., parato aliquem occidere licet
posse suaderi ut ab eo furetur, vel ut fornicatur” (page 419).
Question 3, Liguori: “May a servant open the door for a prostitute?”
Croix denies it, but Ligouri affirms it.
“Utrum famulo ostium meretrici operere? Negat Croix. At commune
affirmant Theologi.”
Question 4, Liguori: “Quaeretur an liceat famulo deferre scalam vel
subjicere humeros domino ascendenti ad fornicandum et similia. Buss,
etc., affirmant, quorum sententia probabilior videtur.”
“May a servant bring a ladder and help his master to go up and commit
adultery? Buss and others think that he may do it, and I am of the same
opinion.” (Liguori, Q. 2.)
“A servant has the right to rob his master, a child his father, and a
poor man the rich!”
The Salmantes says that a servant may, according to his own judgment,
pay himself with his own hands more than was agreed upon as a salary for
his own work, if he finds that he deserves a larger salary; “and,” says
Liguori, “this doctrine appears just to me.”
Salm., D. 4, proe. N. 137, dicunt famulum etiam ex _proprio judicio_
sibi compensare suam operam, si ipse certe judicet se majus stipendium
mereri. Quod sane videtur mihi probabile.
A poor man, who has concealed the goods and effects of which he is in
need, may swear that he has nothing.
“Indigens, bonis absconditis ad sustentationem, protest judici
aespondere se nihil habere.” (Salm., N. 140.)
In like manner an heir who, without taking an inventory, conceals his
goods, when it is not the goods mortgaged for the debt, may swear that
he has concealed nothing, understanding the goods with which he was to
pay. (Salm. 140.)
“There are many opinions about the amount which may be stolen to
constitute a mortal sin. Navar has said, too scrupulously, that to steal
a half piece of gold is a mortal sin; while others, too lax, hold that
to steal less than ten pieces of gold cannot be a serious sin. But Tol,
Mech, Less, etc., have more wisely ruled that to steal two pieces of
gold constitutes a mortal sin.”
Dubium 2, Liguori: “Variae ea de re sunt sententiæ. Nav. nimis
scrupulose statuit medium regulum: alii nemis laxe 10 aureos.
Moderatius, Tol., Med. Less., etc., etc., duos regales, etsi minus
sufficiat, si notabiliter noceat.”
“Is it a crime to steal a small piece of a relic? There is no doubt its
being a sin in the district of Rome, since Clement VII. and Paul V. have
excommunicated those who committed such thefts. But this theft is not a
serious thing when committed outside of the district of Rome, unless it
be a very rare and precious relic, as the wood of the Holy Cross or some
of the hair of the Virgin Mary!”
Dubium 3, Liguori: “If any one steals small sums at different times,
either from the same or from different persons, not having the intention
of stealing large sums, nor of causing a great damage, his sin is not
mortal; particularly if the thief is poor, and if he has the intention
to give back what he has stolen.”
Latin text: “Si quis et occasione furatur sive uni, sive pluribus, non
intendens notabile aliquid acquirere nec proximo graviter nocere, neque
ea simul sumpta unum mortale constituunt, si vel restituere non possit
vel animum habeat restituendi.”
Question 11, N. 536: “If several persons steal from the same master, in
small quantities, each in such a manner as not to commit a mortal sin,
though each one knows that all these little thefts together cause a
considerable damage to their master, yet no one of them commits a mortal
sin, even when they steal at the same time.”
Latin text: “Si plures modica furentur, nemo peccat graviter, et si
mutuo sciant graviter damnum domino fieri. Et hoc, etiamsi singuli eodem
tempore furentur.” (Liguori, 536.)
Liguori, speaking of children who steal from their parents, says:
“Salas, cited by Croix, maintains that a son does not commit a mortal
sin when he steals only twenty or thirty pieces of gold from a father
who has an income of 150 pieces of gold; and Lugo approves of that
doctrine. Less and other theologians say that it is not a mortal sin for
a child to steal two or three pieces of gold from a rich father; Bannez
maintains that to commit a mortal sin a child must steal not less than
fifty pieces of gold from a rich father; but Lacroix rejects that
doctrine, except the father is a prince.”
The theologians of Rome assure us that we may, and even that we must,
conceal and disguise our faith.
“Though lying is forbidden, we may be allowed to conceal the truth, or
to disguise it under ambiguous or equivocal words or signs, for a just
cause, and when there is no necessity to confess the truth. If by that
means one can rid himself of dangerous pursuits, he is permitted to use
it; for in general it is not true to say that, when interrogated by
public authority about his faith, he is obliged to reveal it. When you
are not questioned as to your faith, you are not only allowed to conceal
it, but it is often more to the glory of God and the interest of your
neighbor. If, for example, you are among a heretical people, you can do
more good by concealing your faith; or if, by declaring it, you are to
cause great trouble or death. It is temerity to expose one’s life.”
(Liguori, L. 2.)
The Pope has the right to release from all oaths.
“As for an oath made for a good and legitimate object, it seems that
there should be no power capable of annulling it. However, when it is
for the good of the public, a matter which comes under the immediate
jurisdiction of the Pope, who has the supreme power over the Church, the
Pope has full power to release from that oath.” (St. Thomas, Quest. 89,
art. 9, vol. iv.)
The Roman Catholics have not only the right, but it is their duty to
kill heretics.
“Excommunicatus privatur omni alia civili communicatione fidelium, ita
ut ipsi non possit cum aliis, et si non sit toleratus, etiam aliis cum
ipso non possit communicare; idque in casibus hoc versu comprehensis.
Os, orare, cammunio, mensa negatur.”
Translated: “Any man excommunicated is deprived of all civil
communication with the faithful, in such a way that if he is not
tolerated they can have no communication with him, as it is in the
following verse: ‘It is forbidden to kiss him, pray with him, salute
him, to eat or to do any business with him.’” (St. Liguori, vol. ix.,
page 62.)
“Quanquam heretici tolerandi non sunt ipso illorum demerito, usque tamen
ad secundam correptionem expectandi sunt, ut ad sanam redeant ecclesiæ
fidem; qui vero post secundam correptionem in suo errore obstinati
permanent, non modo excommunicationis sententia sed, etiam sæcularibus
principibus exterminandi tradendi sunt.”
Translated: “Though heretics must not be tolerated because they deserve
it, we must bear with them till, by a second admonition they may be
brought back to the faith of the Church. But those who, after a second
admonition, remain obstinate in their errors, must not only be
excommunicated, but they must be delivered to the secular powers to be
exterminated.”
“Quanquam heretici revertentes, semper recipiendi sint ad pœnitentiam
quoties cumque relapsi fuerint; non tamen semper sunt recipiendi et
restituendi ad bonorum hujus vitæ participationem ... recipiumtur ad
pœnitentiam ... non tamen ut liberentur a sententia mortis.”
Translated: “Though the heretics who repent must always be accepted to
penance, as often as they have fallen, they must not in consequence of
that always be permitted to enjoy the benefits of this life. When they
fall again they are admitted to repent. But the sentence of death must
not be removed.” (St. Thomas, vol. iv., page 91.)
“Quum quis per sententiam denuntiatur propter apostasiam excommunicatus,
ipso facto, ejus subditi a domino et juramento fidelitatis ejus liberati
sunt.”
“When a man is excommunicated for his apostasy, it follows from that
very fact that all those who are his subjects are released from the oath
of allegiance by which they were bound to obey him.” (St. Thomas, vol
iv., page 91.)
Every heretic and Protestant is condemned to death, and every oath of
allegiance to a government which is Protestant or heretic is abrogated
by the Council of Lateran, held in A. D. 1215. Here is the solemn decree
and sentence of death, which has never been repealed, and which is still
in force:
“We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that exalts itself
against the holy orthodox and Catholic faith, condemning all heretics,
by whatever name they may be known; for though their faces differ, they
are tied together by their tails. Such as are condemned are to be
delivered over to the existing secular powers, to receive due
punishment. If laymen, their goods must be confiscated. If priests, they
shall be first degraded from their respective orders, and their property
applied to the use of the church in which they have officiated. Secular
powers of all ranks and degrees are to be warned, induced, and, if
necessary, compelled by ecclesiastical censure, to swear that they will
exert themselves to the utmost in the defence of the faith, and
extirpate all heretics denounced by the Church who shall be found in
their territories. And whenever any person shall assume government,
whether it be spiritual or temporal, he shall be bound to abide by this
decree.
“If any temporal lord, after being admonished and required by the
Church, shall neglect to clear his territory of heretical depravity, the
metropolitan and bishops of the province shall unite in excommunicating
him. Should he remain contumacious for a whole year, the fact shall be
signified to the Supreme Pontiff, who will declare his vassals released
from their allegiance from that time, and will bestow the territory on
Catholics, to be occupied by them, on the condition of exterminating the
heretics, and preserving the said territory in the faith.
“Catholics who shall assume the cross for the _extermination_ of
heretics shall enjoy the same indulgences and be protected by the same
privileges as are granted to those who go to the help of the Holy Land.
We decree, further, that all who may have dealings with heretics, and
especially such as receive, defend, or encourage them, shall be
excommunicated. He shall not be eligible to any public office. He shall
not be admitted as a witness. He shall neither have the power to
bequeath his property by will, nor to succeed to any inheritance. He
shall not bring any action against any person, but any one can bring an
action against him. Should he be a judge, his decision shall have no
force, nor shall any cause be brought before him. Should he be an
advocate, he shall not be allowed to plead. Should he be a lawyer, no
instruments made by him shall be held valid, but shall be condemned with
their author.”
But why let my memory and my thoughts linger any longer in these
frightful paths, where murderers, liars, perjurers and thieves are
assured by the theologians of the Church of Rome that they can lie,
steal, murder and perjure themselves as much as they like, without
offending God, provided they commit those crimes according to certain
rules approved by the Pope for the good of the Church!
I should have to write several large volumes were I to quote all the
Roman Catholic doctors and theologians who approve of lying, of perjury,
of adultery, theft and murder, for the greatest glory of God and the
good of the Roman Church! But I have quoted enough for those who have
eyes to see and ears to hear.
With such principles, is it a wonder that all the Roman Catholic
nations, without a single exception, have declined so rapidly?
The great Legislator of the World, the only Saviour of nations, has
said: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” A nation can be great and strong
only according to the truths which form the basis of her faith and life.
“Truth” is the only bread which God gives to the nations that they may
prosper and live. Deceitfulness, duplicity, perjury, adultery, theft,
murder, are the deadly poisons which kill the nations.
Then, the more the priests of Rome, with their theology, are venerated
and believed by a people, the sooner that people will decay and fall.
“The more priests the more crimes,” has said a profound thinker; for
then the more hands will be at work to pull down the only sure
foundations of society.
How can any man be sure of the honesty of his wife as long as a hundred
thousand priests tell her that she may commit any sin with her neighbor,
in order to prevent him from doing something worse? or when she is
assured, that, though guilty of adultery, she can swear she is pure as
an angel?
What will it avail to teach the best principles of honor, decency and
holiness to a young girl, when she is bound to go many times a year to a
bachelor priest, who is bound in conscience to give her the most
infamous lessons of depravity, under the pretext of helping her to
confess all her sins?
How will the rights of justice be secured, and how can the judges and
the juries protect the innocent and punish the guilty, so long as the
witnesses are told by two hundred thousand priests that they can conceal
the truth, give equivocal answers, and even perjure themselves under a
thousand pretexts?
What Government, either monarchical or republican, can be sure of a
lease of existence? how can they make their people walk with a firm step
in the ways of light, progress and liberty, as long as there is a dark
power over them which has the right, at every hour of the day or night,
to break and dissolve all the most sacred oaths of allegiance?
Armed with his theology, the priest of Rome has become the most
dangerous and determined enemy of truth, justice and liberty. He is the
most formidable obstacle to every good Government, as he is, without
being aware of it, the greatest enemy of God and man.