PAPAL SUPPRESSION OF THE SOCIETY.
When Clement XIII became pope, in 1758, events which had grown out of
the conduct of the Jesuits were hurrying forward so rapidly that even
he, with all the existing pontifical power in his hands, was unable to
arrest them, although, as the patron of the society, he endeavored to
do so. There was no longer any ground for compromise. Their persistent
disobedience of royal authority and interference with political
affairs had made it necessary for the Governments to decide whether
they should further submit to them or vindicate their own authority
by whatsoever steps were required. In Portugal the culminating
point was reached by an attempt to assassinate the king. The actual
perpetrators were arrested, tried, and executed; but in the course of
the investigation it was developed, to the satisfaction of the public
authorities, that the deed had been incited by the Jesuits, who had
impressed ignorant and fanatical minds with the idea that no wrong was
committed by killing a heretical king; that is, one who did not submit
to their dictation. An effort was made to place three Jesuit fathers
upon trial, so that, if found guilty, they might also be properly
punished. But these fathers were bold enough to defy the Government by
insisting that, as priests, they were not amenable to the civil laws
of the State, even for felonious acts, but could only be tried by an
ecclesiastic tribunal under the jurisdiction of the pope. The king and
Pombal could easily see that this defiance of Government authority over
the temporal affairs of the kingdom could not be submitted to without
bringing the State into disgrace and endangering its existence. Hence,
as a measure absolutely essential to the life of the nation, the king
"issued a decree of banishment against the Jesuits as traitors, rebels,
enemies to, and aggressors on, his person, his States, and the public
peace and the general good of the people."[125] The Jesuits were then
seized, transported to the States of the Church under the jurisdiction
of Clement XIII, and the three accused fathers were placed in prison
to await his action. The pope defended the Jesuits, and threatened the
King of Portugal with his vengeance if he did not revoke his decree
against them. But the king could not submit to interference with the
temporal affairs of his kingdom even by the pope, who, by his approval
of the Jesuits, had shown himself willing to see the Governments
humiliated by them. He, accordingly, withdrew the Portuguese ambassador
from the court of Rome, and proceeded against the three Jesuits,
who had remained in prison under suspicion of having planned the
attack upon his life. The chief one of these was turned over to the
Dominicans--"the natural enemies of the Jesuits"--by whom he was burned
alive, and the other two were condemned to imprisonment for life.[126]
The people of Europe became greatly agitated at finding in their midst
so formidable an enemy to the public peace and quiet as the Jesuits.
This agitation was increased by the trial of the society for the
debt of Lavalette before the Parliament of Paris, which resulted, as
already stated, in bringing to the light the odious principles of the
Jesuit constitution, the exposure of which is represented as having
produced "alarm and consternation among all classes of society." In
France the Jesuits made an effort to arrest the public indignation
by procuring a decree from "fifty bishops," who, under the auspices
of the nuncio of Clement XIII, certified that the principles of the
constitution were harmless. But this adroit movement failed to produce
the desired effect. The Parliament, under the lead of Choiseul, the
prime minister of Louis XV, refused to permit an edict to that effect
to be registered. Whereupon, the investigation into the constitution
and statutes of the society was continued for some months, and resulted
in the enactment of a Parliamentary decree which shows the odium then
attached to the society in France. It denounced their doctrines and
practices "_as perverse, destructive of every principle of religion,
and even of probity; as injurious to Christian morality, pernicious
to civil society, seditious, dangerous to the rights of the nation,
the nature of the royal power, and the safety of the persons of
sovereigns; as fit to excite the greatest troubles in States, to form
and maintain the most profound corruption in the hearts of men_." It
would be impossible to find language more expressive; and when it is
considered that it was uttered by a Parliamentary body composed only of
those who maintained the faith of the Church of Rome, it may readily be
supposed that the most imminent necessity called it forth. And it will
excite no surprise that the same decree proceeded to provide "that the
institutions of the Jesuits should forever cease to exist throughout
the whole extent of the kingdom," and that it also prohibited them from
teaching in the schools, from longer recognizing the authority of their
general, and from wearing a religious dress.[127]
Clement XIII, feeling himself powerful enough to resist this decree,
endeavored, as the friend of the Jesuits, to break its force by issuing
a counter decree of his own. At this point it is worthy of remark that
the Parliamentary decree had reference to temporal affairs, and did
not, in any way, interfere with the religious faith of the Church,
which the French Christians continued to maintain according to their
traditions and teachings. The decree of Clement XIII, therefore, was
the assertion upon his part of the pontifical right to dictate the
temporal policy of France. He explicitly asserted this by affixing his
papal "curse" upon all who obeyed the decree of the Parliament, and
by declaring it to be "null, inefficacious, invalid, and entirely
destitute of all lawful effect," and by releasing all who had sworn to
observe it from the obligation of their oaths.[128] In the face of this
pontifical mandate, however, the decree of Parliament was executed,
and four thousand Jesuits were driven out of Paris. Clement XIII was
incensed at this, and issued a formal bull in praise of the Jesuits
and in denunciation of their opposers. The Parliament suppressed this
bull, and refused to permit it to be printed in France. The Parliament
of Aix went even further, by having it "torn up by the executioner and
publicly burned," and by inviting Louis XV "to avenge himself on the
court of Rome and the pope."[129] The King of France, however, was
weak enough to suffer himself to be prevailed upon to allow a Synod of
the clergy to be convened, under pretense of putting an end to "the
disputes between the civil and religious powers," as if such a thing
were then possible without submission to Jesuit dictation, backed as
the society was by an irritable and impracticable pope, who had vainly
supposed himself powerful enough to check the tide of indignation then
beating upon the Jesuits. Impressed by the opinions and policy of
Clement XIII, this Synod adopted a course favorable to the Jesuits by
endeavoring to change the issue, so as to conceal the real question.
With the view of making it appear that the Church itself, and even
Christianity, was in danger, they fulminated anathemas against the
works of the French philosophers--of Bayle, of Helvetius, of Rousseau,
of Voltaire, and of the Encyclopædists--thereby furnishing arguments
which have ever since done Jesuit service by misleading the unwary
into the belief that Christianity and Jesuitism are of synonymous
meaning, and that the destruction of the latter would be the death of
the former. They, moreover, tried to favor the Jesuits by declaring
"that the Church alone had the right to teach and instruct children;
that it alone could judge in matters of doctrine, and fix the degree
of submission which was due to them," and that "the civil authority
could in no way go against the Canon law."[130] This assumption of
ecclesiastical authority was intended to strengthen the papacy, and
was accepted by the Jesuits as favorable to them, because the pope at
that time was their friend. But the Parliament of Paris could not fail
to see that, if recognized, it would place the papacy above the State,
and France at the mercy of the Jesuits, at least during the pontificate
of Clement XIII. It therefore declared it to be "derogatory to the
authority of the Government," and prohibited the people from obeying
it. In consequence of this Parliamentary opposition, the prelates
who had shaped the course of the Synod were driven to the necessity
of seeking the aid of Louis XV, so as to avenge themselves upon the
enemies of the Jesuits by means of royal power. The king, who was then
"reeking from his debaucheries"--for which he found shelter in the
acquiescence of the Jesuits--succeeded in obtaining an edict which
annulled the decree of Parliament. Encouraged by this success, the
Jesuits demanded their restoration to authority, supposing that, with
the king and the pope both upon their side, they would then be able to
triumph over all opposition. But their Parliamentary antagonists were
not overcome so easily, and rallied sufficiently to obtain another
decree against them, not less condemnatory than that which had been
temporarily suspended. Meanwhile, hostility to the Jesuits was rapidly
increasing throughout Europe, which incensed them the more, inasmuch
as they would not abate their extreme demands, and could compromise
nothing without an acknowledgment of their wrong--which they were
never known to make. Spain then followed the example of Portugal, and
the king, Charles III, expelled them from his dominions. Thus, at
the time referred to, they were expelled from the territories of the
three great Roman Catholic States--Portugal, Spain, and France. The
King of the Two Sicilies, and Ferdinand, Duke of Parma and Placencia,
also expelled them from their dominions. By common consent among these
powers, the Jesuits were sent to Italy, where the pope, in return for
their devotion to him, was expected to provide for their wants and to
see that proper protection was afforded them. Clement XIII had resisted
all these strong powers in order to defend them, and this measure was
adopted in preference to an open breach with the pope, so that he might
be made to realize the extent of the indignation against them. In the
strong language of Cormenin--a Roman Catholic, but intensely hostile
to the Jesuits--"the soil of Italy was polluted by this unclean slime
which the nations had rejected, and which they had sent back to Rome,
the fountain of all corruption."[131]
Clement XIII became indignant when he found himself unable to
counteract the general prejudice existing against the Jesuits, and,
with strange infatuation, allowed his passions to obtain complete
mastery over him. He fulminated anathemas against the Kings of
Portugal, Spain, France, the Two Sicilies, and the Duke of Parma and
Placencia, and threatened them with excommunication if they did not
cease their opposition to the Jesuits. He even went so far as to send
papal troops against the Duke of Parma to bring him to obedience by
military coercion. But the other powers were not alarmed by the sound
of the pontifical thunder, and the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal,
and Naples promptly pronounced against the pope, and prepared to
punish him for marching an army against the Duke of Parma, whose
policy towards the Jesuits was the same as their own. Even Louis XV
was induced by Choiseul, his minister, to unite upon this point with
the other kings. Thereupon, the King of the Two Sicilies invaded the
papal province of Beneventum with an army, intending thereby to teach
the pope that he was transcending his legitimate powers as head of the
Church. The bull of the pope was torn up at the courts of Portugal,
Spain, and Parma, and by the Parliament of Paris. The excitement
became general, and Clement XIII was awakened from his apparent sense
of security by the mutterings of the storm gathering upon all sides
of him. He was brought to realize, possibly for the first time, that
even he, with all the powers of the Church in his hands, was unable to
drive back the waves then dashing against the papacy, and threatening
to ingulf it. In this emergency he sought aid from Maria Theresa, the
Empress of Austria, with the hope that, with the assistance of so
strong a power, he could make successful resistance to those combined
against the Jesuits. But the empress, having cause to complain of the
treachery of the Jesuits to her, declined to comply with this request,
and went a step farther by annulling one of the important papal bulls
which had been published in her dominions. The clouds, already lowering
over the head of Clement XIII, then thickened more rapidly than ever,
and the struggling pope, finding himself everywhere deserted by the
strong powers--all of which had hitherto been united in favor of the
Church--became so humbled in his pride as to declare that "_he was
ready to make concessions_;" that is, to do something--anything--to
arrest the declining fortunes of the papacy. Thus humiliated, "_he
implored the clemency of the sovereigns_," begging them, as we may
suppose, to relax their grasp upon him on account of their veneration
for the Church. But it was too late. The impracticable demands of the
Jesuits had brought on such an issue between the spiritual and the
temporal powers as to leave no ground for concessions on the part of
the sovereigns, so long as they were persisted in. They were bound to
maintain their own temporal powers within their dominions, or else
allow the Jesuits to rule over them according to their pleasure. To
this they could not submit without absolute degradation. Howsoever
strange it may now appear that the pope did not see this sooner, it
should be regarded as creditable to him that, when he did see it, he
bowed his head humbly before the pelting storm, and yielded to a
necessity he could not avoid. Due credit should not be withheld from
the man who does right, even at the last extremity, especially when,
as in this case, after Clement XIII decided to change his course, he
went to the extent of promising the sovereigns that "he would pronounce
the _abolition of the society_ in a public consistory," and leave the
Jesuits to suffer the consequences of their own folly. Having made up
his mind to this, a day was appointed for the performance of the solemn
act of signing the death-warrant of the Jesuits. But this postponement
led to a result which had not been dreamed of--one that furnished new
evidence of the capacity of the Jesuits for intrigue. During the night
preceding the day appointed for the public ceremony of announcing
the abolition of the Jesuits, Clement XIII was suddenly seized with
convulsions, and died, leaving the act unperformed, and the Jesuits
victorious. Cormenin, writing in France, where the Jesuits are better
known and understood than here, records this event in these terse and
expressive words: "_The Jesuits had poisoned him._"[132]
The Jesuits do not, of course, agree to this account of the manner and
circumstances of the pope's death. They admit that it was sudden, and
that it occurred at the time named; but attribute it to the intense
sufferings he endured in consequence of his sympathy for them on
account of their persecution, and his inability to extend further
assistance to them. De Montor says he died from a sudden fit of
coughing, brought on by a pulmonary disease.[133] The Jesuits admit,
however, that the Spanish and French ambassadors had presented to him
memorials from their respective Governments asking for the abolition
of the society, and insist that he shed tears in consequence, and
expired a few days afterwards.[134] But the manner of his death is of
no special consequence now, since it is more important for us to know
that, at the time of it, he left undecided the matters with reference
to the general conduct of the Jesuits which his predecessor had
directed to be investigated. His defense of the Jesuits had manifestly
been the result of previous and general convictions, and not his
deliberate judgment upon the actual condition of affairs with which
they were connected either in India, China, Paraguay, or in European
States beyond the limits of Italy. The facts had not been sufficiently
developed for final pontifical action, and therefore he acted upon
impressions rather than evidence. We shall soon see that when the
evidence was afterwards fully obtained, the result reached by his
successor was not only fully justified, but inevitable and unavoidable.
It required three months to elect a successor to Clement XIII. The
cardinals were divided into two parties--one supporting the Jesuits,
and the other the Governments of France, Spain, and Portugal, united in
opposition to them. The former desired to subject all civil Governments
to Jesuit dominion; the latter insisted that the Church and the State
should each remain free and independent of the other in its own
domain. After innumerable intrigues--such as are familiar to those
who manipulate party conventions--the latter party triumphed by the
election of Ganganelli, a Franciscan, who took the name of Clement XIV,
and entered upon the pontificate in 1769. He was greatly esteemed for
his virtues, and possessed a conspicuously noble character and a mind
well and thoroughly disciplined. That he was a man of profound ability
is abundantly shown by his letters, which have been preserved and
published, and which contain many passages of exceeding eloquence and
beauty.[135] He was far better prepared, therefore, to form intelligent
and impartial conclusions upon the evidence concerning the Jesuits than
Clement XIII, because, apart from his qualifications, he was not under
the dominion of undue prejudices.
The sovereigns demanded of Clement XIV that the expulsion of the
Jesuits from their territories should be approved, and the society
entirely suppressed and abolished. Upon the other hand, the Jesuits
insisted, with their accustomed superciliousness, that it was necessary
to the Church and the cause of Christianity that they should be
restored to public favor by his pontifical indorsement. This issue
confronted him at the beginning. At first he somewhat excited the hopes
of the Jesuits by the course he took against the French philosophers,
and the bulls of excommunication he issued against Diderot, d'Alembert,
Voltaire, Helvetius, Rousseau, Marmontel, and Holbach. This stimulated
them afresh, and by their machinations created a party in France,
headed by Louis XV, which demanded their return to that country.
But the pope was not driven from the plain line of his duty, which
required of him that the investigation already entered upon should be
completed, and that the questions involved should be decided according
to right and justice. This was due to the sovereigns, to the public,
and especially to the Church. Cormenin says he was suspicious of
being dealt with like his predecessor, and that he took the necessary
precautions to guard against it, by substituting a faithful monk for
the cook of the Quirinal, so as to guard against the possibility of
poison. Howsoever this may have been, he persevered in his course
with the courage of a man who fears no evil when in the faithful
discharge of duty. Resolved, however, not to act with undue haste, but
to have all the matters brought fully before him, together with the
evidence bearing upon them, he continued the investigation for the
period of four years, so that when his final decision was made the
world should be convinced that it was the result of calm deliberation
and honest conviction. He says of himself that he "omitted no care,
no pains, in order to arrive at a thorough knowledge of the origin,
the progress, and the actual state of that regular order commonly
called the Company of Jesus;" and Ranke, the great historian, says
he "applied himself with the utmost attention to the affairs of the
Jesuits;" and adds that "a commission of cardinals was formed, the
arguments of both sides were deliberately considered," before his
conclusion was announced.[136] No greater deliberation and no more
serious reflection could have been bestowed upon any question. The
evidence was carefully inspected and everything duly considered. The
scales were held at equipoise until the preponderance of proof caused
the beam to turn against the Jesuits, when he was constrained by a
sense of duty to the Church, to Christianity, to the public, and to his
own conscience, to announce the result which gave peace and quiet to
the nations and joy to the great body of Christians throughout Europe.
This he did July 21, 1773, by issuing his celebrated bull, "_Dominus ac
Redemptor_"--called by the Jesuits a brief--whereby he decreed "that
the name of the company shall be, and is, forever extinguished and
suppressed;" that "no one of them do carry their audacity so far as to
impugn, combat, or even write or speak about the said suppression, or
the reasons and motives of it;" and that the said bull of suppression
and abolition shall "forever and to all eternity be valid, permanent,
and efficacious."[137]
It is well to observe, before further comment upon this important papal
decree, that it had the effect to increase the apprehensions with
regard to the personal safety of the pope. The manner in which Clement
XIII had met his death on account of the mere promise to suppress the
Jesuits, was well calculated to excite the fear that the same fate
might befall Clement XIV, in revenge for their actual abolition. Hence,
all the avenues of approach to the pope were carefully watched, and
the utmost precautions employed to guard against the possibility of
poison. These were successful for about eight months, when a peasant
woman was persuaded, by means of a disguise, to procure entrance into
the Vatican, and offer to the pope a fig in which poison was concealed.
Clement XIV was exceedingly fond of this fruit, and ate it without
hesitation. The same day the first symptoms of severe illness were
observed, and to these rapidly succeeded violent inflammation of the
bowels. He soon became convinced that he was poisoned, and remarked:
"Alas! I knew they would poison me; but I did not expect to die in
so slow and cruel a manner." His terrible sufferings continued for
several months, when he died, "the poor victim," says Cormenin, "of the
execrable Jesuits."[138]
So much has been written about the manner of this pope's death, that
if it all were repeated, some would still continue to doubt about
it. The Jesuits treat the foregoing account as a malicious libel,
denouncing it with their usual virulence. There is this, however, to
say of it, that it has some strong affirmative proof in the fact that a
_post-mortem_ examination of his body revealed the presence of poison,
as was reported to his Government by the Spanish ambassador then at
Rome. There are probable grounds, certainly, for believing that he was
poisoned by the Jesuits, and that it was the result of their doctrine
that it was not criminal, but rather the proper service of God, to
assassinate their enemies. At all events, that opinion generally
prevailed, and had much to do in creating the sentiment of satisfaction
at the abolition of the society. This satisfaction extended throughout
all the Roman Catholic countries. There was no complaint against it
except among the Jesuits themselves, because, as it was the solemn act
of the pope, and consequently of the Church, even those who may not
have desired it were disposed to acquiesce. It pacified the minds of
the great body of Christians, because they could see that a serious and
exciting cause of disturbance had been removed. And an examination of
the reasons assigned by the pope will not only demonstrate this, but
also that it could not have been avoided without imperiling the Church
itself as well as the cause of Christianity.
We have seen how cautious Clement XIV was to examine the whole matter
thoroughly, and that for this purpose he continued the investigation
for four years, in addition to what had been previously done--hearing
everything that could be said upon both sides, and carefully weighing
all the evidence. He even went so far as to appoint a commission of
five cardinals and several prelates and advocates to assist him in
the examination,[139] all of which he would have omitted if he had
been disposed to prejudice the cause of the Jesuits or to inflict
unmerited injury upon them. In so far, therefore, as his desire and
intention were involved, there is not the least ground for supposing
that he omitted anything essential to the discovery of the truth, or
that he did not honestly desire to discover it. The Jesuit attacks
upon him exhibit bad temper, but furnish no arguments. They are too
vindictive to be courteous, and exhibit too much anger to be truthful.
It is, therefore, only left for us of the present day to understand
the reasons assigned by Clement XIV to justify his action, in order to
decide intelligently between him and the Jesuits. In his statement of
facts he is entitled to be regarded as veracious, not only because of
his pure Christian character, but because he is fully supported by the
most reliable secular history. A brief review of them will enable the
reader to place a proper estimate upon the character of the Jesuits,
which, from the nature of their organization, is incapable of change.
After a preliminary statement of his powers and responsibilities, he
declares the Jesuits to have been accused of things "very detrimental
to the peace and tranquillity of the Christian Republic," and proceeds
to enumerate the Christian sovereigns who have, from time to time,
complained of them, and asserts that Pope Sixtus V had found charges
against them "just and well founded." Referring to the favor shown them
by Gregory XIV, he says that, notwithstanding this, "the accusations
against the society were multiplied without number, and especially
with their insatiable avidity of temporal possessions." He enumerates
_eleven_ popes, including Benedict XIV, who had "employed, without
effect, all their efforts" to provide remedies against the evils they
had engendered. He accuses them with opposition to "other religious
orders;" with "the great loss of souls, and great scandal of the
people;" with the practice of "certain idolatrous ceremonies;" with
the use of maxims which the Church had "proscribed as scandalous and
manifestly contrary to good morals;" with "revolts and intestine
troubles in some of the Catholic States;" and with "persecutions
against the Church" in both Europe and Asia. He refers to the fact that
Innocent XI had been compelled to restrain the society by "forbidding
the company to receive any more novices;" that Innocent XIII was
obliged to threaten "the same punishment;" and that Benedict XIV had
ordered a general visitation and investigation of all their houses in
the Portuguese dominions. Alluding to the decree of Clement XIII in
their favor, he says it "was rather _extorted_ than _granted_"--that
is, that it was obtained by undue means and influences--and that it
"was far from bringing any comfort to the Holy See, or any advantage
to the Christian Republic;" but had made the times "more difficult and
tempestuous," so that "complaints and quarrels were multiplied on every
side. In some places dangerous seditions arose--tumults, discords,
dissensions, scandals, which, weakening or entirely breaking the bonds
of Christian charity, excited the faithful to all the rage of party
hatred and enmities." Then follows the assertion that the Kings of
France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily had "found themselves reduced to
the necessity of expelling and driving from their States, kingdoms, and
provinces, these very Companions of Jesus," because "there remained
no other remedy to so great evils;" and that "this step was necessary
in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against the other,
and for massacring each other in the very bosom of our common mother,
the holy Church." For these and many other reasons, and because the
Christian world could not be otherwise reconciled, it was urged upon
him, he said, that the Jesuits should be "absolutely abolished and
suppressed."
He then proceeded to declare that he had examined attentively and
weighed carefully all the matters touching the conduct of the Jesuits;
that he had invoked "the presence and inspiration of the Holy Spirit;"
that, under the responsibilities of his high station, he had been
compelled to reach the conclusion that they could "no longer produce
those abundant fruits and those great advantages" which had been
promised when the society was instituted; but that, "on the contrary,
_it was very difficult, not to say impossible, that the Church
could recover a firm and durable peace so long as the said society
subsisted_." Wherefore, for these controlling reasons, he announced
that "after a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge
and the fullness of our apostolic power, _suppress and abolish the said
company_." And to make his decree final, complete, and absolute, so
that thereafter it should not be misunderstood, he thus pronounced his
pontifical judgment:
"We deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools,
colleges, hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place
whatsoever, in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated.
We abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and
constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the
Holy See or otherwise. In like manner we annul all and every its
privileges, indults, general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and
is taken to be, as fully and as amply expressed in the present Brief
as if the same were inserted word for word, in whatever clauses, form,
or decree, or under whatever sanction their privileges may have been
conceived. We declare all, and all kind of authority, the general, the
provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said society,
to be _forever annulled and extinguished_, of what nature soever
the said society may be, as well in things spiritual as temporal."
He denies them any right to teach in colleges or schools--prohibits
them from calling in question his act of suppression and abolition,
and, after varying his language in every way necessary to show the
inviolability of his decree, he makes this declaration: "Our will and
pleasure is, that these our letters should forever and to all eternity
be valid, permanent, and efficacious, have and obtain their full force
and effect, and be inviolably observed by all and every whom they do
or may concern, now or hereafter, in any manner whatsoever." This
solemn decree was then executed by the pope "under the seal of the
Fisherman"--the highest emblem of Church authority.[140]
These extracts from the celebrated decree are necessary to convey to
the mind of the reader a correct idea of its character and scope. A
mere statement of the fact of its issuance is insufficient for that
purpose. That it was the solemn and deliberate act of Clement XIV is
not denied by anybody. The Jesuits assail its author, and by that
means seek to invalidate it. They boastingly assert that it was unduly
obtained, contrary to the Christian sentiment of that period. Every
view suggested by them is an impeachment of the integrity of the pope,
upon whom they have bestowed innumerable severe and hostile censures.
Those who now examine the document and the circumstances which led
to it, together with the Jesuit comments upon it, and are influenced
only by the desire to judge it accurately, can not withhold their
surprise at the many false and mendacious representations made by them
with regard to it. One of their most influential authors--seemingly
insensible to the idea that even an adversary should be treated
fairly--represents Clement XIV as "conscientiously opposed to the
suppression of the Jesuits,"[141] in the very face of the fact,
conceded by him, that he did issue this decree in his official
capacity as pope. This is an unequivocal charge that he violated his
own conscience, and acted faithlessly to the Church and dishonorably
as a man, by yielding to influences condemned by his judgment, and
which he was too cowardly to resist. In ordinary intercourse such
an accusation is highly offensive, and there is nothing to make it
otherwise when made by a Jesuit against a pope--especially when he
professes to believe that the latter was infallible. This same author
does not scruple to charge that the Spanish ambassador "bribed the
household of the sovereign pontiff, and undertook to overpower the pope
by his indomitable persistence"[142]--as if the pope were surrounded by
corrupt hirelings who were able to influence his decision, and could be
overpowered upon so great and serious a question by the importunities
and threats of others. And, continuing his comments in the same spirit,
he asserts, upon the alleged authority of Cardinal Pacca, that after
Clement XIV signed the Act of Suppression, "he dashed the document to
one side, cast the pen to another, and _from that moment was demented_.
This signature had cost the unhappy pontiff his reason! From that
day he possessed it only at intervals, and then only to deplore his
misfortunes."[143]
Statements of this character pertain to a low order of partisanship,
and are discreditable to their authors. No facts whatsoever have ever
been given, or can be, upon which to base them. Clement XIV lived
until September 22, 1774, fourteen months after his decree abolishing
the Jesuits. The French ambassador, Bernis, in a letter written at
Rome, November 3, 1773, three months and twelve days after the decree,
said: "_His health is perfect_, and his gayety more remarkable than
usual."[144] Nicolini says "all the authors are unanimous upon this
point," and quotes the historian Botta to the same effect. He retained
this condition of health for eight months, when his sudden sickness
gave rise, as already stated, to the belief that he had been poisoned
by the Jesuits. Certainly if he had experienced any such remorse as
the Jesuits allege, it would have been exhibited before that time.
After his illness his faculties may have become somewhat impaired,
but this was the natural result of intense physical suffering. The
Jesuits represent him, when in the agony of pain, as having exclaimed,
"I have been compelled," which they interpret to mean that he was
unduly influenced by the sovereigns. They fail in this to exhibit their
usual shrewdness by deriving an argument from an expression used by
him when in what they say was a demented condition. If he did speak
the words alleged, it is far more probable, as Nicolini suggests,
that he intended to express regret that the iniquities of the Jesuits
had been so enormous and so clearly established that he was compelled
to suppress and abolish their society, because of the injury they
had already inflicted, and would be likely to inflict in the future,
upon the Church and Christianity. It should also be remarked in this
connection that neither Cormenin nor De Montor, in their separate
histories of the pontificate of Clement XIV, says anything about his
having been demented, or about his remorse. That accusation is the
fruit of Jesuit revenge.
But we have now less to do with the motives of the pope in abolishing
the society, and with the circumstances immediately attending the act,
than with the act itself and its consequences. As pope, Clement XIV had
the undoubted power to make and promulgate the decree. When this was
done, it was accepted with satisfaction, not alone by the sovereigns
who had made themselves accusers of the Jesuits, but by the great
body of the European Christians. Among the latter the belief almost
universally prevailed that he had thereby conferred a benefit upon the
Church and the Christian world by removing a serious and disturbing
evil. In the course of history no important public act has been more
generally approved. This would have been the case even if but part
of what is alleged in their terrible arraignment by the pope had been
true. But there is every reason for believing that all the charges
were fully verified by proof, and that the Christian people accepted
that fact as complete justification for the abolition and absolute
suppression of the society.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 125: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
392.]
[Footnote 126: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 127: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
393.]
[Footnote 128: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
393.]
[Footnote 129: _Ibid._, p. 394.]
[Footnote 130: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
394.]
[Footnote 131: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
394.]
[Footnote 132: History of the Popes of Rome. By Cormenin. Vol. II, p.
395.]
[Footnote 133: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 329.]
[Footnote 134: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 167.]
[Footnote 135: Letters of Pope Clement XIV: To which are Prefixed
Anecdotes of His Life. By Lottin Le Jeune. London, 1781.]
[Footnote 136: Nicolini, p. 382.]
[Footnote 137: This bull is given by Nicolini, pp. 387-406.]
[Footnote 138: Cormenin, Vol. II, p. 398.]
[Footnote 139: Le Jeune, Vol. I, p. 43.]
[Footnote 140: Nicolini, pp. 387 to 406. This decree may also be found
in De Montor, Vol. II, pp. 347 to 364. His translation differs somewhat
from that of Nicolini, which is followed in the text, but the variance
is not substantial in the condemnation of the society.]
[Footnote 141: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 173.]
[Footnote 142: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 175.]
[Footnote 143: _Ibid._, p. 177.]
[Footnote 144: _Apud_ Nicolini, p. 412.]