The Secret History of the Jesuits – by Edmond Paris
Posted on
22. The morals of the Jesuits
Contents
The conquering spirit of their Society, the burning desire to attract consciences and hold them under their exclusive influence, could only induce the Jesuits to be more lenient with the penitents than confessors of other Orders or the secular clergy. “We do not catch flies with vinegar”, rightly says the proverb.
As we have already seen, Ignatius expressed the same idea in different terms and his sons drew their inspiration from it. “The extraordinary activity deployed by the Order in the field or moral theology already shows that this subtle science had, for him, a much greater practical importance than the other sciences”.(13)
Mr. Boehmer, who wrote the phrase we just quoted, reminds us that confession was very rare during the Middle Ages and the faithful resorted to it only in the gravest cases. But the domineering character of the Roman Church made the practice of it spread and grow more and more. In fact, during the 16th century, confession had become a religious duty which had to be diligently observed. Ignatius considered it most important and recommended to his disciples that as many of the faithful as possible should observe it regularly.
“The results of this method were extraordinary. The Jesuit confessors soon enjoyed everywhere the same consideration shown to the Jesuit professors, and the confessional was considered by all as the symbol of the Order’s power and activity, as were the professorial chair and the Latin grammar…
“If we read Ignatius’ Instructions regarding confession and moral theology, we must admit that, from the beginning, the Order was prepared to treat the sinner kindly, that as time went on, it showed more and more indulgence until this kindness degenerated into slackness…
“We can understand easily why this clever leniency made them such successful confessors. This is how they won the favours of the nobles and high-ups of this world who always needed the condescension of their confessors more than the mass of ordinary sinners.
“The Courts of the Middle Ages never had any all-powerful confessors. This characteristic figure appeared in the life of the Courts only in modern times and it is the Jesuit Order which implanted it everywhere”.(14)
(13) and (14) H. Boehmer, op.cit., pp.244-246.
Mr Boehmer wrote: “During the 17th century, these confessors not only obtained an appreciable political influence everywhere, but even accepted, and sometimes openly, political posts or functions. It is then that Father Neidhart took the direction of Spanish politics as ‘prime minister and Grand Inquisitor’; Father Fernandez sat and was entitled to speak and vote in the Portuguese Council; Father La Chaise and his successor held the functions of ministers for Ecclesiastical Affairs at the Court of France. “Let us remember also the part played by the Fathers in general politics, even outside the confessional: Father Possevino as pontifical legate in Sweden, Poland and Russia; Father Petre, a Minister in England; Father Vota as intimate counsellor of Jean Sobieski of Poland, as ‘maker of kings’ in Poland, as mediator when Prussia was made into a kingdom; —one must admit that no other Order showed so much interest and talent for politics, and deployed so much activity in it than the Jesuit Order”.(15)
“If the ‘indulgence’ of these confessors towards their august penitents helped greatly the interests of the Order and the Roman Curia, it was the same in the more modest spheres where the Fathers used similar convenient methods. With their meticulous, and even meddlesome spirit, which they inherited from their founder; the famous “casuists” such as Escobar, Mariana, Sanchez, Busenbaum, etc., applied themselves to studying each rule in particular and their applications to all the cases which could be presented at the tribunal of penance; their tracts on “moral theology” gave the Company a universal reputation as their subtlety to distort and pervert the most evident moral obligations was so apparent.
(15) and (16) H. Boehmer, op.cit., pp.247-248, 238 ss.
Here are some examples of these acrobatics: “The divine Law prescribes “You shall not bear false witness”. “There is false witness only if the one who took the oath uses words which he knows will deceive the judge. The use of ambiguous terms is therefore allowed, and even the excuse of mental reservation in certain circumstances…” “If a husband asks his adulterous wife if she has broken the conjugal contract, she can say “no” without hesitation as that contract still exists. Once she has obtained absolution at the confessional, she can say: “I am without sin”, if, while she says it, she thinks of that absolution which took the load of her sin. If her husband is still incredulous, she can reassure him by saying that she has not committed adultery, and if she adds (under her breath) adultery she is obliged to confess.”
It is not hard to imagine that such a theory was successful with their beautiful penitent ladies!
In fact, their gallant escorts were treated just as well: “The Law of God commands: “You shall not kill”. “But it doesn’t mean that every man who kills sins against this precept. For example, if a nobleman is threatened with blows or beating, he can kill his aggressor; but of course this right is only for the nobleman and not the plebeian, as there is nothing dishonourable for a common man to receive a beating… “In the same way, a servant who helps his master seduce a young girl is not committing a mortal sin if he can fear serious disadvantages or bad treatment in case he refuses. If a young girl is pregnant, a miscarriage can be induced if her fault is the cause of dishonour for herself or a member of the clergy.”(17) As for Father Benzi, he had his hour of fame when he declared: “it is only a slight offence to feel the breasts of a nun”, and, because of it, the Jesuits were nicknamed the “mamillary theologians”.
But, as far as that is concerned, the famous Casuist, Thomas Lanchz, deserves the prize for his tract “De Matrimonio”, in which the pious author studies with outrageous details all the varieties of “carnal sin”. Also, let us study further these convenient maxims as far as politics are concerned, especially those relative to the legitimacy of assassinating “tyrants” found guilty of lukewarmness towards the sacred interests of the Holy See. Mr. Boehmer has this to say: “As we have just seen, it is not difficult to guard against mortal sin. Depending on circumstances, we only have to use the excellent means permitted by the Fathers: “equivocation, mental reservation, the subtle theory of the direction of intentions,” and we will be able to commit, without sin, acts which are considered criminal by the ignorant masses, but in which even the most severe Father will not be able to find an atom of mortal sin”.(18)
(17) and (18) H. Boehmer, op.cit., pp.238, 241.
Amongst the most criminal Jesuitic maxims, there is one which roused public indignation to the highest point and deserves to be examined; it is: “A monk or priest is allowed to kill those who are ready to slander him or his community.”
So, the Order gives itself the right to eliminate its adversaries and even those of its members who, having come out of it, are too talkative. This pearl is found in the “Theology of Father L’Amy”.
There is another case where this principle finds its application. For, this same Jesuit was cynical enough to write: “If a Father, yielding to temptation, abuses a woman and she publicises what has happened, and, because of it, dishonours him, this same Father can kill her to avoid disgrace!”
Another son of Loyola, quoted by “Le grand flambeau” Caramuel, thinks that this maxim must be upheld and defended: “the Father can use it as an excuse to kill the woman and so preserve his honour”. This monstrous theory was used to cover many crimes committed by ecclesiastics and probably was, in 1956, the reason if not the cause for the lamentable affair of the priest of Uruffe.
