RE-ESTABLISHMENT.
If it be conceded, as the Jesuits insist, that Clement XIV was prompted
by unworthy and impure motives to abolish their society, and that, in
consequence, he afterwards became demented from remorse, nevertheless
the decree of abolition was an official act not subject to review or
reversal by any authority known to the Church. No appeal from it was
authorized by any existing law or Church regulation. He exercised a
power which had been always understood to belong to the popes--of the
same nature and import precisely as that exercised by Paul III when
he established the society. No matter whether it be called a bull, a
brief, or by some other name, it was undoubtedly an official decree,
pronounced by the head of the Church, acting within his proper,
well-established, and recognized pontifical jurisdiction. Consequently,
its nature can not be changed, nor can its scope and effect be limited,
by any view that can be taken of his motives, any more than can the
decree of a competent judicial tribunal be impaired in its force and
effect by the motives or inclinations of the judge who pronounces it.
There can, therefore, be no escape from either of these propositions:
First, that the decree, having been issued in conformity with the
law and custom of the Church, was valid; and, second, that after its
issuance, the Jesuit society could no longer exist as a religious
order, under the Canon law of the Church.
It is not necessary to inquire whether or no this decree was binding
upon subsequent popes; that has been of no practical importance since
the new decree of Pius VII re-establishing the order, after it had
been forty-one years abolished. Until the time of that new decree,
the Church and all its members were bound, under its existing laws and
discipline, to recognize the abolition of the society as legitimate and
proper. In point of fact this was the case, the only exceptions being
the Jesuits themselves, and such as they could influence. Pius VI, the
immediate successor of Clement XIV, although he discharged from prison
some of the Jesuits who had been arrested and confined, suffered the
decree of Clement XIV to have full effect during his pontificate, and
held on to the confiscated property of the Jesuits for the benefit of
the Church. The Christians of Europe were satisfied with this condition
of things, and indicated this, not merely by their silent acquiescence,
but by acts of positive approval. The Jesuits, however, refused to
be reconciled, and exhibited their discontent by such measures of
resistance as proved, beyond question, their malevolent hatred of
Clement XIV and their contempt for the authority of the Church and
the pope, when it was employed to curb their ambition or to impose
upon them any form of restraint. Instances of their disobedience to
popes have already been cited; but at this particular crisis in their
history their desperation became such that they recognized nothing
as meritorious, either in the Church or any of the popes, except
what tended to restore to them the power they had forfeited by the
criminality of their conduct. Their society was abolished pursuant
to the law of the Church, and by its highest authority; but they had
no respect for either--not a whit more than they had for the papal
decrees by which their practice of the heathen rites in India and China
was forbidden. They sought after no other end than their own triumph,
and to achieve this they plotted with whomsoever would consent to aid
them, and threw themselves into the arms and under the protection of
the enemies of the Church, with the facility of such deserters as pass
from camp to camp to find shelter for themselves. This part of their
history presents their leading characteristics in a striking light, and
is, perhaps, more instructive than any other, because it shows with
conspicuous prominence the little esteem in which they hold the Church
and its legitimate authority when in conflict with their own purposes
and designs, and how ready they are to curse the popes who oppose them,
whatsoever their Christian virtues, and to praise all who favor them,
whatsoever their vices.
To give effect to the decree of abolition, the general of the Jesuits
was arrested and held in confinement; the members were dispersed among
different ecclesiastical establishments in Rome; their buildings were
taken possession of; seals were placed upon their papers; and their
schools were turned over to the management of others. Proceedings
were instituted against Ricci, the general, and other members of
the society, and he and the secretary, together with several of the
prominent fathers, were sent to the Castle of St. Angelo, and held as
State prisoners. The crimes charged against them, and of which they
were convicted, were "that they had attempted, both by insinuations and
by more open efforts, to stir up a revolt in their own favor against
the Apostolic See; that they had published and circulated through
all Europe libels against the pope," in one of which Clement XIV was
charged with having been elected by simony, and that three of the
most prominent Jesuits, "Favre, Forrestier, and Gautier, were loudly
repeating everywhere that the pope was the _Antichrist_."[145]
The society generally, but not unanimously, exhibited this same
spirit of resistance to the pope and the authority of the Church. By
the decree of abolition the members were allowed to act as secular
priests, and exercised sacerdotal functions, subject to the authority
of the Church. A few of them availed themselves of this provision, and
"settled themselves quietly in different capacities." Others endeavored
insidiously to preserve the principles of their constitution and
organization, by abandoning the name of Jesuits, and adopting other
titles. "But," says Nicolini, "_the greater part, the most daring and
restless, would not submit to the Brief of Suppression; impugned its
validity in a thousand writings; called in question the validity of
Clement's election, whom they called Parricide, Sacrilegious, Simoniac,
and considered themselves still forming part of the still existing
company of Jesus_."[146]
Catharine, Empress of Russia, had given some protection to the Jesuits
before their suppression, and Ricci, the general, admitted in his
examination that he had held correspondence with Frederick of Prussia
after the decree. How is it to be accounted for, in any mode consistent
with due respect for the Church, that the Jesuits in Russia did not
withdraw themselves from the protection of the emperor, and that others
sought shelter and protection in Prussia, after the decree of the pope
had declared the order to be forever abolished throughout the world?
Russia had long before rejected all the overtures of the Roman Church,
and established the Greek faith as the religion of the State, with the
reigning sovereign as the spiritual head of the national Church. The
Church of Rome taught that the Russians were schismatics, and therefore
heretics. The Prussians were Lutherans--that is, Protestants--and
were, consequently, looked upon at Rome as the deadly enemies of the
Church, and were, besides, under the ban of excommunication for heresy.
Consequently, an alliance of the Jesuits with either Russia or Prussia,
after their suppression, could be looked upon in no other light than as
an act of rebellion against the authority of the Church and the pope--a
desire to pass from the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome to that of
alien authority arrayed against it. It amounted to a desire to exchange
their allegiance from what they had considered legitimate authority to
that of schismatics and heretics. It is impossible for the Jesuits to
escape this view of the attitude they occupied after their abolition.
They were simply rebels against the Church.
The Jesuits in Silesia, in Prussia, refused positively to obey the
decree of Clement XIV--paying no more regard to it than if it had
been issued by the chief of an Arab tribe. They continued to hold
on to their convents and houses in the same manner as before their
suppression, in doing which they directly defied the pope. They
relied upon the Lutheran Frederick for protection, preferring that to
obedience to the pope. Frederick willingly gave them this protection,
because he was induced to believe that he could employ them for the
twofold purpose of strengthening monarchism, to which they were pledged
by their constitution, and of supplanting the Roman by the Protestant
form of Christianity. The Jesuits flocked, therefore, to Silesia
from all quarters, seeking this Protestant protection, which caused
Voltaire to remark, in his caustic style, that "it would divert him
beyond measure to think of Frederick as the general of the Jesuits, and
that he hoped this would inspire the pope with the idea of becoming
mufti."[147]
The Kings of France and Spain called the attention of Pius VI--after
the death of Clement XIV--to this disobedience of the Jesuits, and
urged upon him the necessity of requiring that the decree of Clement
XIV should be strictly enforced against them. But the attitude occupied
by Pius VI required him to observe extreme caution in administering the
affairs of the Church. As he had not been directly allied with either
of the factions among the cardinals at the time of his election, he
felt constrained to adopt a conservative and moderate course, whereby
he might, if possible, restore harmony in the Church. He therefore
refrained from identifying himself with the sovereigns who were hostile
to the Jesuits, and yet did not openly espouse the Jesuit cause.
Whatsoever his personal inclinations may have been, he could not, as
pope, venture to impugn the motives of his predecessor, or assail the
fairness and integrity of the decree abolishing the Jesuits. He could
not fail to realize that Clement XIV--a canonically elected pope, with
all the powers of that office in his hands--had taken the precaution
to declare that he intended the suppression to be absolute, final, and
forever. He knew also that, as the Jesuits had derived the authority
to exist as a religious order from the approval of one pope, it was
clearly competent for another pope to withdraw that approbation and
to dissolve the order, whensoever it became obvious to him that the
good of the Church required it. Under these circumstances, even if he
had desired to do so, he manifestly was not inclined to strike what
might prove to be a fatal and deadly blow at the dignity of the papal
office and the authority of the Church, which he undoubtedly desired to
maintain in all its completeness. Consequently, he not only continued
to preserve to the Church the confiscated property of the Jesuits,
but left the decree suppressing the order in full force, in all its
entirety, during his pontificate, which terminated during the last year
of the eighteenth century.
The Jesuit writers have taxed their ingenuity to the utmost to explain
the attitude of Pius VI towards their society. They have struggled hard
to prove that, notwithstanding he caused the decree of Clement XIV to
be executed, he was in fact opposed to it. One of them, heretofore
cited--whose work abounds in a mixture of apologies for their conduct
and vilification of their adversaries--says: "In the opinion of Pius
VI the Society of Jesus was _disbanded only for a time; it was not
abolished_."[148] To this it may be answered, in the first place,
there is nothing to show that Pius VI ever so committed himself; in
the second place, that Clement XIV decreed that it should be abolished
_forever_; and in the third place that, if he had considered the
society as suspended merely for a time, he would have revived it by
his own decree, or fixed the tenure of suspension. But this method of
treating the question is trifling with a serious matter which should
be treated with fairness and candor. It is equivalent to saying that
Pius VI executed the decree of his predecessor, which absolutely
abolished the society forever, when in his conscience he did not
approve it. If he did entertain this opinion, it is not shown to have
been authoritatively announced by him; and to allege that he did, in
the absence of proof to that effect, has the appearance of attempting
to substitute fiction for fact--to make history rather than to record
it.
The Jesuits, however, draw inferences of the favorable estimate
of their society by Pius VI from his kind treatment of Ricci, the
general, while confined in the castle of St. Angelo, and his release
from confinement of the other Jesuits who had been arrested. This is
far-fetched, inasmuch as it may well be attributed alone to motives
of benevolence. But in no event are these such acts as could limit,
in the least degree, the effect of the decree of abolition so long as
it continued in force, as it did during the pontificate of Pius VI.
Besides, the propriety of punishing individuals must have depended upon
their personal agency in the offenses charged against the society as
an organized body. The Jesuits derive more support to their claim that
Pius VI favored them by quoting language alleged to have been uttered
by him, which, if actually spoken, would place him in the attitude of
being upon their side and condemning the decree of his predecessor,
but without the courage to relieve them from the condemnation of their
conduct or from the Act of Suppression. This is not very complimentary
to Pius VI, for it represents him as saying, "I _approve_ of the
Society of Jesus residing in White Russia,"[149] at the same time that
he continued his assent to their abolition in all the Roman Catholic
States. The question whether or no he made this remark is in too much
doubt to give full credit to it. It is not pretended that the words
were written, but only that they were spoken in the presence of a
single witness, who is said to have attested their utterance. This
would place him in the attitude of performing a public act contrary to
his private judgment, which might well enough be done where temporal
matters only were involved, but not by a pope concerning spiritual
matters. Hence, it is scarcely to be supposed that Pius VI ever uttered
these words. But they amount to nothing which reaches the dignity of
an official act if he did, for the plain reason that the decree of
abolition having been a solemn official act, under "the seal of the
Fisherman," if subject at all to revocation or modification by any of
the successors of Clement XIV, could only have been so dealt with by
an official act of corresponding solemnity. For some causes judicial
decrees may be changed or annulled, but only by other judicial decrees,
and it will not be pretended, even by Jesuits, that a decree pronounced
by a pope under the authority of the Canon law and the unvarying custom
of the Church, is of less dignity than the decrees of the civil courts.
What is said by De Montor disproves the allegation of Daurignac. He
tells us that when the Jesuit general in Russia took such steps as
would have enlarged the society by the admission of neophytes, Pius
VI commanded him to cease. Whilst in this he does not seem to have
condemned the existence of the Jesuits in Russia, it emphatically
approves the decree of abolition by executing it elsewhere.
Not to condemn their existence in Russia was a simple act of omission,
differing essentially from a direct approval. But whether what he did
was the one or the other, it undoubtedly had the effect of enabling the
Jesuits in Russia to defy the decree of Clement XIV by keeping their
organization alive there, so that at the death of Ricci they elected
a successor of their own, who conducted himself and the society in
open opposition to the Church, the pope, and the Canon law.[150] All,
therefore, that can be justly said about Pius VI is, that he occupied
an equivocal attitude--not willing to approve directly by any official
act the existence of the society in Russia, yet leaving the decree of
suppression in full force.
But whatsoever Pius VI may have done or said, his immediate successor,
Pius VII, did "authorize the society to establish itself _in White
Russia_." This he did in 1801, twenty-eight years after the decree of
Clement XIV. It was not done, however, by a mere verbal declaration to
that effect, but by a formal bull, or brief, or decree--no matter by
what name it may be called--in observance of the usual formality. From
this it is to be implied that there had been no attempt to change or
limit the decree of suppression by Pius VI; for if there had been, this
repetition would have been unnecessary. Pius VII manifestly understood
that without the official solemnity of a new bull, brief, or decree, no
effect would have followed; that is, that his mere verbal assent, if
he had given it, would have amounted to nothing. But what he did was
equivocal, to say the least of it, by both affirming and disaffirming
the decree of Clement XIV. It affirmed it in so far as the decree
was left in force in the Roman Catholic States of Europe, where the
jurisdiction of the pope as the head of the Church was recognized; and
disaffirmed it in Russia, where the pope had no jurisdiction. It was
as much as to say that the Jesuits should not exist as an organized
society among Roman Catholics, but might do so among schismatics and
heretics. No matter what idea he intended to convey with regard to
their abolition among the former, he accepted it as an accomplished
fact which he was officially bound to recognize. To have done otherwise
would have been perilous to the Church by inciting the opposition of
the Roman Catholic sovereigns, who could not be reconciled to the
Jesuits, and would have offended the multitude of European Christians
who had approved their abolition. Up to the first year of the present
century, therefore, the decree of Clement XIV remained unreversed
throughout Europe, and wheresoever the jurisdiction of the pope was
recognized. Whatsoever the Jesuits did to resist, defeat, or evade
it, must, consequently, be considered willful disobedience to the
recognized and legitimate authority of the Church; in other words, as
rebellion.
This measure of leniency on the part of Pius VII had the effect upon
the Jesuits of making them bolder in their general conduct and more
vindictive in their denunciation of Clement XIV, whose name and memory
they assailed with fierce and foul aspersions. They flocked to Russia
in large numbers, as they had done to Silesia, from all the Roman
Catholic States, and, under the guidance of their skillful general
in that country, soon acquired the habit of acting as if they were
sure of an ultimate revival of their organization. Thus sustained,
it was not long before they re-entered Parma and Sicily, with the
implied if not express approval of Pius VII, who seems to have been
gradually preparing himself, by cautiously feeling his way, to espouse
their cause and to acquiesce in their defamation of Clement XIV. As
their hopes grew higher they began to repeat their old practices by
venturing to interfere with the temporal affairs of Governments, as
they had been accustomed to do before their suppression. They ventured
the attempt to domineer in Russia as they had formerly done in Spain,
France, Portugal, and elsewhere. Finding themselves, for a time,
unrebuked by the Russian authorities, they carried this interference
so far, and became so exacting in their demands, that the Russian
Government was compelled, in self-defense, to impose restraints upon
them. They had learned so well how to plot treason and rebellion in
the Roman Catholic States as to make themselves familiar with all the
artifices and instrumentalities most effective for those purposes, but
their Russian field of operations presented difficulties they had not
probably anticipated. The pope, whether for or against them, had no
power there, and they were required to deal only with the authorities
of that Government. Those authorities soon became convinced that
they had warmed a viper into life, and that the Jesuits could not be
trusted even in return for favors bestowed upon them. The Russian
emperor, Alexander, was consequently compelled to issue a royal ukase
in 1816, by which he expelled them from St. Petersburg and Moscow.
This proving ineffectual, he issued another in 1820, excluding them
entirely from the Russian dominions. The emperor set forth in his
decree that he had intrusted them with the education of youth, and
had imposed no restrictions upon their right to profess and practice
their own religion, but that they had "abused the confidence which was
placed in them, and misled their inexperienced pupils;" that whilst
they enjoyed toleration themselves, "they implanted a hard intolerance
in the natures infatuated by them;" and that all their efforts "were
directed merely to secure advantages for themselves, and the extension
of their power, and their conscience found in every refractory action
a convenient justification in their statutes." After showing how
insensible they were to the duties imposed on them by gratitude for
the protection Russia had extended to them after the abolition of
the society by the pope, and charging them with the egregious crime
of sowing tares and animosities among families, and tearing the son
from the father, and the daughter from the mother, Alexander asks
this emphatic and significant question: "Where, in fact, is the State
that would tolerate in its bosom those who sow in it hatred and
discord?"[151]
This was the first attempt made by any State not Roman Catholic to
expel the Jesuits, and it is not pretended, even by the Jesuits
themselves, that it was on account of their religion, which the
Russian Government allowed them to exercise freely. It must have been,
therefore, the consequence of their having convinced the Russian
authorities that they employed their religion as a pretext for their
interference with temporal and political affairs; and that they had
thereby made themselves rightfully amenable to the charges alleged
against them in the ukase of the emperor. It is no defense against
these charges to say that the emperor may have been mistaken. This
is not probable; for the fact of their having plotted against the
peace and interests of society in return for the favors he bestowed
upon them, would have justified him in condemning them even more
severely. There are very few offenses so base as ingratitude, which
excludes the higher emotions from the mind. He gave them shelter and
protection after the pope and the Roman Catholic powers had condemned
and abolished them; and but for this they would have passed away
forever, overwhelmed by the popular indignation. The very fact that he
found himself constrained to arraign them as he did, with such crushing
severity, is convincing proof of their ingratitude, as well as of their
inability to exist anywhere, in fidelity to their constitution, without
warring upon the peace of society and upon everything they are unable
to subdue and control.
It is to be presumed that the Jesuits professed submission to Russian
authority before the decree of Pius VII which allowed them to exist in
that country. But after the same pope re-established the order, as he
soon did, by another special decree, their schemes of ambition were
more actively and openly plotted. This last act, which restored them
to active life, was dated August 7, 1814, and inasmuch as it enabled
them to reproduce all their old machinery of mischief, it deserves to
be well considered, both as regards the character of the act itself,
and the motives of its author. It constitutes one of the important
events in modern history, the influences of which have not yet ceased,
and are not likely to cease so long as the contest between monarchism
and popular institutions shall continue. Pius VII was a monarchist
in principle, besides being a temporal sovereign. Monarchism was
seriously threatened, and was ready to accept whatsoever alliance its
defenders deemed essential to its preservation. Popular government
was the special dread of kings, and there were none of these who did
not understand that nowhere else in the world was it more severely
condemned than in the Jesuit constitution, and none who would rejoice
more at its extermination than the members of the Jesuit society. We
should glance, therefore, at the condition of the European nations at
the time of Pius VII, in order to penetrate his motives and comprehend
what he must have regarded as the necessity which influenced him in
aiding the Jesuits to cast reproach upon the memory of Clement XIV, one
of the most meritorious of his predecessors.
The French Revolution had made the attempt, in imitation of the example
of the United States, to scatter the germs of popular representative
government throughout Europe. Whatsoever errors sprang out of that
great movement are attributable more to the pre-existing influences
and prejudices of false education, and to the aid which monarchism
derived from the ill-fated union of Church and State, than to all
other causes combined. When the European States became convulsed by
this event, the Jesuits seized upon the opportunity to persuade the
reigning sovereigns that the support of their society as organized by
Loyola, was absolutely necessary to the preservation and continuance
of the principle of monarchy; and that without their co-operation the
people, who were incapable of conducting the affairs of government,
would triumph over kings. They assailed liberalism in every form,
from the French Encyclopædists to the humblest advocate of popular
government, consigning all of them to eternal tortures for venturing
to assert the natural right of mankind to civil and religious liberty.
This was congenial work to them; for, although not yet re-established,
they felt assured that if they could excite the fears of the sovereigns
at the probable loss of their royal authority, they would thereby
set in operation a current of influences which would soon reach Pius
VII, and lead him to disregard the decree of their abolition, and
to cast his lot along with the other kings, whatsoever effect might
be produced upon the fortunes of the Church. Loyola had founded the
order upon the plea of its necessity to counteract the influences of
the Reformation in the sixteenth century; and now in the nineteenth,
the same argument was repeated, so varied only as to embrace all the
existing fruits of the Reformation, including the right of the people
to self-government. The Jesuits did not miscalculate. They knew how to
excite both the fears and bigotry of the sovereigns. They understood
Pius VII, and succeeded at last in obtaining from him the decree for
their re-establishment, by virtue of which they have since existed,
and are now scattered throughout all the nations, with neither their
ambition nor thirst for power in the least degree slackened.
Everybody at all familiar with history understands how necessary it
was considered by the "Allied Powers" to recast the history of Europe
after the escape of Napoleon from the Island of Elba. For this purpose
their representatives assembled at the Congress of Vienna, and took to
themselves the name of the "Holy Alliance," which, according to Prince
Metternich--who was its leading spirit--was induced by "the overflow of
the pietistic feeling of the Emperor Alexander [of Russia], and _the
application of Christian principles to politics_;" in other words, "_a
union of religious and political-liberal ideas_."[152] This effort,
on the part of the monarchists of Europe was designed to give renewed
prominence to the idea that kings governed by divine right; in other
words, to establish the union between Church and State so completely
that it could never be again disturbed. It was intended to teach the
people that all the liberties they were entitled to possess were such
only as the governing monarchs deemed it expedient to grant them; that
they were entitled to none whatsoever by virtue of the natural law;
that the attempt to establish representative and liberal government,
like that of the United States, was an unpardonable sin against God;
and that the highest duty of citizenship was obedience to monarchical
authority.
Not the least conspicuous among the maneuvering sovereigns and
politicians of Europe at this time was Pius VII, who felt himself
to be the most illustrious and important representative of the
divine right of kings. He hated Napoleon intensely, if for no other
reason, because the "little Corsican" had arrested and held him in
confinement. In casting about to discover by what means he, as pope,
could render the most conspicuous aid to the cause of monarchism, and
the suppression of liberal and popular government, he naturally turned
in the direction of the Jesuits, whose fidelity to the principles
of absolutism was vouched for by the constitution of their society
and their intense devotion to the memory of Loyola. He, accordingly,
whilst the monarchs were preparing for the Congress of Vienna, and
only a few months before its assembling, anticipated their action
by re-establishing the society of the Jesuits. His prompt action
commended him to the allied sovereigns, who could not have failed
to see in it sufficient to assure them of his hostility to popular
government and his fidelity to the monarchical cause. His purposes
may be inferred from the language of his decree. He declared that he
should be derelict of duty, "if placed in the bark of Peter, tossed
and assailed by continual storms, we [he] refused to employ _the
vigorous and experienced rowers_ [the Jesuits], who volunteered their
services, in order to break the waves of a sea which threatened every
moment shipwreck and death."[153] What did he mean by the storms that
tossed and assailed the bark of Peter? The Governments were agitated by
political and military turmoil, but these things were not within the
rightful province of the Church or the pope. The Church was at peace,
except in so far only as Pius VII had voluntarily chosen to mix himself
up with the political struggles of kings, in order to preserve his own
temporal crown. That he intended to become an active party to these
struggles is proved by all that he said and did--even by the language
of his decree. In explaining his action, he says that Ferdinand, King
of Sicily, had requested the re-establishment of the Jesuits, because
it was necessary that they should be employed as instructors "in
forming youth to Christian piety and fear of God." Ferdinand was one
of the most bigoted kings and thorough monarchists in Europe, and his
idea of "Christian piety and fear of God" was, that it centered in
the divine right of kings and the union of Church and State. With him
religion and monarchism were synonymous terms. If he sometimes made
small concessions to his subjects from fear of the popular wrath, they
were always withdrawn when his power became strong enough to enable
him to renew his oppressions with impunity. He acted upon the Jesuit
principle that a monarchical sovereign is not bound by any promise he
makes to his subjects, for the reason that the latter have no rights
which the former are bound to recognize, and if they had, that the pope
could release him from the obligation to obey his promise--a doctrine
then strictly adhered to so as to make popular institutions impossible.
His main purpose was to perpetuate his own temporal and political
authority, and he desired to employ the Jesuits for that purpose, well
knowing that their doctrines were expressly designed to hold society
in obedience to monarchism. Pius VII did not hesitate to avow his
sympathy with Ferdinand, and in doing so proved that he was influenced
by the same temporal and political motives. He considered it necessary
that the crown of absolute sovereignty should be kept upon the head of
Ferdinand, in order to assure himself that it should be kept also upon
his own. The sovereigns of the "Holy Alliance" had massed large armies,
and soon entered into a pledge to devote them to the suppression of all
uprisings of the people in favor of free government; and he desired
to devote the Jesuits, supported by his pontifical power, to the
accomplishment of that end. He knew how faithfully they would apply
themselves to that work, and hence he counseled them, in his decree
of restoration, to strictly observe the "useful advices and salutary
counsels" whereby Loyola had made absolutism the corner-stone of the
society.
Thus the motives of Pius VII are clearly shown to have been temporal
and political, and when he excused himself on account of the
"deplorable times"--that is, the political disturbance among the
nations--he manifestly had in view the advancement of those plottings
against popular liberty which soon furnished the rallying point to
the "Holy Alliance" at Vienna. He seems to have been so intent upon
this subject as not to realize that he owed at least some show of
respect to the memory of Clement XIV. As if unconscious that when the
latter abolished the society, he also was the head of the Church,
possessing all the powers and prerogatives of a lawfully-elected pope,
he abrogated and annulled his decree as if it had possessed no higher
dignity than a municipal ordinance, imitating in this the practice of
those sovereigns who brush all impediments out of the paths of their
ambition. He conferred upon the Jesuits the right to exist as an
order throughout the world, and thereby approved and indorsed their
vilification of Clement XIV. And to show his own estimate of the
plenitude of his pontifical authority, he declared that his decree of
restoration should be "inviolably observed," and that it should "never
be submitted to the judgment or revision of any judge." And then,
as if he stood in the place of God, whilst Clement XIV had rebelled
against the Divine authority, he commanded that "no one be permitted
to infringe, or by an audacious temerity to oppose any part" of his
decree; and made disobedience to it an act of sin, by declaring that
he who shall be guilty of it "will thereby incur the indignation of
Almighty God, and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul." He treated
contemptuously the decree of Clement XIV, without the least pretense
that the Jesuits had repented of the crimes for which he abolished
their society after four years of careful investigation, and without
any pledge upon their part not to repeat them--a serious and dangerous
omission.[154]
One can not refrain from wondering why Pius VII did not pause long
enough to inquire, "Upon what meat doth this our Cæsar feed, that he
is grown so great?" What source of pontifical authority existed in his
behalf that did not also exist in behalf of Clement XIV? The one was no
more pope than the other--no more infallible than the other--possessed
no higher official prerogatives than the other. They were equals in
power and official dignity. If Clement XIV had _suspended_ the society,
then it would have been within the power of Pius VII to set aside the
suspension and revive the society. But he went further, and in the
most emphatic and express terms, _suppressed, abolished, annulled,
and extinguished it forever_. His official act was valid, complete,
and final, in compliance with the Canon law and established custom.
The society, therefore, had no legal existence according to the law
of the Church, but was dead and extinct when Pius VII became pope.
Its constitution was then a nullity. He had rightfully only the power
possessed by Paul III when he first established the society; and by
exercising this power could have organized a new society and granted
it a new constitution. Instead of this he "_re-established_" the
defunct society, at the request of King Ferdinand, thereby assuming
the prerogative right to review and annul what Clement XIV had done
within the scope of his legitimate authority. In order to do this, he
had further to assume that Clement XIV had exceeded his authority,
and had acted injuriously towards the Church, by depriving it of "the
vigorous and experienced rowers" necessary to save it from "shipwreck
and death." This was, in effect, to approve the Jesuit defamation
of Clement XIV, and to deny his infallibility. It was, moreover, an
implied approval of the rebellion of the Jesuits against the authority
of the Church during the forty-one years that had elapsed after the
abolition of their society. It was an attempt to cover up, sanction,
and legitimate that rebellion, and to reward the society for its
persistent defiance of the Church and the Canon law, by galvanizing its
dead body into life.
The Jesuits themselves are sensible of this difficulty, and are
perplexed by it. In dealing with it, Daurignac displays more ingenuity
than candor. Referring to the existence of the Jesuits in White Russia,
after the decree of abolition and in violation of it, he ventures to
say: "The position of the Jesuits in White Russia was an anomaly.
Clement XIV had authorized them to remain _in statu quo_."[155] He
fails to give any authority for this, for the obvious reason that
there is none. Nothing can be found to verify it. It is undoubtedly
of Jesuit manufacture, being contradicted by everything done and said
by Clement XIV. The language of his decree is conclusive upon the
point that his object was to destroy the society and put an end to it
forever--not allowing it to exist anywhere. He makes neither exception
nor reservation. Any other pretense is a palpable perversion of his
meaning. Daurignac manifestly realized this difficulty, and made an
additional effort to escape it by attempting to impair the official
force and effect of the decree of abolition. He says elsewhere: "In
view of the future, he [Clement XIV] would not suppress the society by
a _bull_, which would be binding upon his successors. He had suppressed
it by a _brief_, which could be revoked without difficulty whenever
public feeling might allow it."[156] The Jesuits have an "exchequer
of words" from which they draw at pleasure, employing them to express
or conceal the truth as shall be necessary to advance their interests
or improve their fortunes. Here there is an attempt to interpret the
meaning of the decree, not by the plain language it contains, but by
the name given to the instrument itself. In what does the difference
between a bull and a brief consist? If there is any, it must arise out
of the subject-matter involved, and not otherwise. One can conceive
that a pope may regulate some inferior affairs, touching matters not
essential to the universal Church, by an order or decree called a
brief, in which case he or his successors may revoke it. But where
such an order or decree concerns the universal Church, it must be
considered a bull, because in that case, according to the Jesuit
theory, it partakes of infallibility, and can not be revoked--for the
reason that whatsoever is infallible must stand for good or bad. The
decree of Clement XIV is found in the "_Roman Bullarium_," preserved
in the Vatican at Rome.[157] There could have been no other purpose
in placing it there than to attach to it the same dignity and effect
as the bulls of other popes among which it is recorded. When thus
deposited it was undoubtedly considered irrevocable, because it related
to a religious order which could exist only by authority of the pope
representing the whole Church. When the pope acts with reference to a
religious order, he decides whether or no it is capable of fulfilling
its professions. He then acts with reference to faith, and his act
is therefore _ex cathedra_. Upon this ground, according to Jesuit
teaching, he is infallible in whatsoever opinion he expresses, because
it is within the domain of both faith and morals. Hence, in the
discussion of the question "When does the Church speak infallibly?" a
recent Roman Catholic author of accepted authority says that, as the
Church can never be "an unreliable guide, it follows that she can not
err when she seals a religious order with her formal approbation."[158]
Of course, no argument is necessary to prove that if the pope is
infallible in establishing a religious order, he is equally so in
abolishing and annulling an existing one, upon the ground expressed
by Clement XIV, that the good of the universal Church and the cause
of Christianity demanded it, and also upon the additional ground that
the subject-matter is the same. This proposition can not be escaped by
substituting assertion for argument.
This same Jesuit author, Daurignac, is inconsistent. Seeming to forget
that he had called the decree of Clement XIV a mere _brief_, which any
of his successors could annul, when he comes afterwards to speak of
that issued by Pius VII, he calls it a "_bull_," and frequently refers
to it as such.[159] Having previously laid his foundation by insisting
that Pius VII regarded the preservation of the Jesuits by the Emperor
of Russia as "the interposition of Divine Providence in behalf of
the society"[160]--that is, that Clement XIV had incurred the Divine
displeasure when he abolished the society--he never loses sight of the
idea that the decree of Pius VII bears the stamp of infallibility,
and can neither be annulled nor modified. This is a subtle method
of statement, but is without the force of argument. It is simply
Jesuitical.
These matters derive their present importance from the fact that they
show how the Jesuits have become familiar with crooked paths. They
show also the wonderful adroitness with which they have pursued these
paths for many years, and how they have surmounted difficulties which
would have overwhelmed any other body of men. As they have never been
known, at any period of their history, to abate any of their demands
or pretensions, they are to-day, as they have always been, a standing
menace against every form of popular self-government and whatsoever
else is the fruit of the Reformation. Their rules of conduct are
still derived from the teachings of Loyola, who, accepted by them as
occupying the place of God, they regard as higher authority than any
human law or any Government where the sovereign power is guaranteed to
the people.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 145: Nicolini, p. 411.]
[Footnote 146: Nicolini, p. 422.]
[Footnote 147: Nicolini, pp. 424-425.]
[Footnote 148: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 191.]
[Footnote 149: Nicolini, p. 432.]
[Footnote 150: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 406. Greisinger, p. 653.]
[Footnote 151: Nicolini, pp. 433-434. Greisinger, p. 665.]
[Footnote 152: Memoirs of Prince Metternich. By Prince Metternich. Vol.
I, page 262.]
[Footnote 153: Nicolini, p. 445.]
[Footnote 154: Nicolini, p. 447.]
[Footnote 155: Daurignac, Vol. II, p. 195.]
[Footnote 156: _Ibid._, p. 177.]
[Footnote 157: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 347.]
[Footnote 158: When Does the Church Speak Infallibly? By Thomas Francis
Knox, of the London Oratory. Page 67.]
[Footnote 159: Daurignac, p. 217.]
[Footnote 160: _Ibid._, p. 205.]