ANTI-JESUIT MYTHS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXIX, Issue 40, 3 October 1901, Page 3

ANTI-JESUIT MYTHS.

In the columns of the N.Z. Time* of Wednesday last 'Bltiegrafw' finally and effectually disposes of the many historical fables brought forward in support of his charges by a calumniator of the Jesnits. In his able contribution 'Bluegrass' demolishes his opponent's ■landers as follows :— Popular prejudioe as a physiological problem is yet unsolved. But solved or not solved, it is the chief factor used by the ' father of lies 1 for making history during 'the last three hundred years a conspiracy against truth.' ' M.C.P.N.Z.' willingly or unwillingly, has in his four articles against the Jesuits given the people of Wellington a sample of the virulence of popular prejudice in even its mildest form, Him the Jesuits have never injured, yet them, and through them, the Catholic Church, he vilely attacked. To every effect there must be a cause. The cause in the present case is given by Dr. Littledale, ' Ency. Brit., vol. 13, p. 648,' in these words:— 'The Jesuits alone rolled back the tide of Protestant advance when the half of Europe, which had not already shaken off its allegiance to the Papacy, was threatening to do go, and the whole honor of the counter Reformation is theirs Bingly.' These Davids in the cause of truth must, as Calvin wrote. 'be either killed, or if this cannot well be done, driven away ; and at any rate put down by lies and slander.' True to the ' lies and slander ' mode, • M.C.P.N.Z.' has done his best. How far he has succeeded in his fell design, the impartial readers of the Times are both judge and jury. From this.jury of public opinion I expect, on the allegations as laid by ' M C.P.N.Z.,' a unanimous verdict of acquittal in favor of my old masters, the Jesuits. His first charge was that they were the cause of the persecution of the Catholics during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and in proof thereof he adduced a 1602 proclamation. Ab has been proved from the proclamation itself the charge was false and the date given inaocnrate. But as in his last letter healludes not to it, the jury may take it for granted that the libeller has withdrawn it. In his of September 13 ' M.C.P.N.Z.' gives two instances of the awful conduct of the Jesuits in England. I refer to ' Felton and Heath.' To confute these two side issues I must claim the generous attention of the jury for a moment. The Oath Taken by Queen Elizabeth on her accession to the throne was 'to maintain the laws and privileges of the Church as they existed under Edward the Confessor' (Drane, Hist, of Eng., p 389). Like all her predecessors, the Queen, during the holy sacrifice of Masn, took the oath, and as an assurance of her sincerity, partook of Holy Communion, under one kind according to the rite of the Catholic Church. In virtue of that oath she submitted, as did Edward the Confessor and his successors up to Henry VIII. in 1532 in things spiritual to the jurisdiction of the Pope. How well she kept that solemn oath her persecution of the Catholics iB positive testimony. View in the light of the above Felton's act in affixing the ' Papal Bull to the jrate of the Bishop of London's palace'— even if 'the English refugee priests and Jesuits ' did incite him to it— and you must concede that it is not an act of audacious disloyalty, but one in absolute conformity with the oath. The second of the Bide issues runs thus :— ' There is good reason to believe that some of those who appeared at this time to be most violent Puritans were really Jesuits in disguise. Jn 1569 Heath, a Jesuit, etc' Thomas Heath was not a Jesuit, but one of the 'old priests' of Mary'B reign. He was a ' brother of the late Arohbishop of York and was seized at Rochester about 1570, well provided with Anabaptist and Arian tracts for circulation' (Hallam, Const. Hust. p. i) 8. note). Sir Robert Stout in his able article on •Ideals' in the 'livies of September 11th praises the Puritan ideal and tells us that it ia the ' Nonconformist conscience ' of England to-day. Yet these Puritans, acoording to ' M.C.P NZ. were Jesuits in disguise.' What has Sir Robert to say to that ! But enough, Heath, as was ehown, was not a Jesuit, and the Puritans were no more ' Jesuits in disguise' than is ' M.C.P.N.Z.' himself. In these side issues, as in the principal charge, historical facts prove him to be an uncreditable witness. His next great slander against the Jesuits was that they held the doctrine of the ' justification of means by the end.' The Fallacy of this Statement I proved by advancing the teaching of Buarez, Bellarmine and Lessius. ' M.C.P.N.Z.' was not convinced, and in refutation brought forward texts from Filiutiun, Layman, Sa and Busenbaun. Unhappy man ! Filiutius never was. His citations from Layman, Sa and Busenbaun are all nut-quotations. Yet he poses as an authority. Judge of his mental calibre from this his last rhodomantade : ' Layman explains that to steal from a rich man in order to give an alms to the poor is wrong. But how does this explain his assertion : "To whom the end is allowed, to him also are allowed the means necessary for that end." Layman does not say the wrong act is not allowed under the circumstances.' God alone can give intelligence, and 'M.C.P.N.Z.' should a9k for more, if, as he says, he-cannot see Layman's meaning. To me it is clear, viz. — ' To give an alma is a

good sot and allowed to all. To steal even from a rich mull wrong and allowed to none. If a man is starving he is permitted to even steal the food necessary to support life. In this oase and in this oase alone is the sot neoeesary, for man has the right to live. I wonder oan ' M.C.P.N Z. now understand both Layman and Sa? As to his citation from Bnsenbann, there is a ' suppressio vert,' as the full text is ' Praeoisa vi et injustitia oni lioitns est finis lioita sunt media ' — ' Free from violence and injustice to whom the end is lawful the means also are lawful' (Theol. Mor. B. IV., o. 3). Here again, as is evident, ' M.C.P.N.Z.' has put into practice the old device :— ' Cry it loud and cry it often ; there must always be some who cannot, and some who will not investigate the truth of your abortions.' Yet in spite of this he expects the public to believe what he has written about the Jesuits. The other charge which he has harped on, in season and out of season, was : ' The Jesuits were adepts at regicide.' In 1773 Clement XIV., ' on grounds of prudence and governmental wisdom,' issued the brief ' Dominus ac Redemptor,' suppressing the Jesuits. The Pope at the acre of 70 in 1774 died from ' the sudden stoppage of the acid humors.' In 1829 appeared the Ganganelli letters, in which it is alleged that the Jesuits poisoned this Pope. These letters have been proved to be absolute fabrications, and yet on the testimony of this tissue of falsehoods 'M.C.P.N.Z.,' reiterates the slanderous charge. Judge from this again his British sense of honor 1 To the challenge 'to state a proven historical regicide,' •M.C.P.N.Z.' has remained Biltnt. The reason thereof is simple enough — there is not one on record against the Jesuits. But ' c'en though vanquished, he could argue still,' and hence he averred that the Jesuits in their written works advocate regicide. In proof he adduced the teaching of Suarez. So familiar was he with Snares that he twice misspelt the name in one of his letters. In his of September 2. he told us that ' the Parliament of Paris ordered his (Suarez) works, " Defensio Fidei Catholicae, etc.," to be burnt,' and m that of September 13, only ' extracts from the treatise were oondemned to the flames.' Which statemeut are we to believe 1 Any or none 1 I admit that Suarez in his writings Did not Advocate the ' Divine Rights of Kings,' or that 'the King can do no wrong,' or that 'the King in his legislative acts is not amenable to his subjects.' The people of England, too, in their mode of acting towards James 11. showed that they did not believe in it. In the vast democracy of to-day, how many, I wonder, would be willing to pin their faith to euoh an unreasonable code ? But did Suarez, as is stated on the authority of Littledale, teach : ' That an heretical king may first be deposed, and then, if continuing to reign, may lawfully be murdered as a tyrant.' No ! His teaching is this : 'If a lawful king becomes a tyrant, he holds that no private person has a right to kill him. The Commonwealth, however, oan depose and expel such a king. If, finally, the Commonwealth can effect its liberation but by the death of the tyrant, then the people can order him to be put to death. For in such a case "the State is engaged in a jußt war against an unjust aggressor." In no case though oan a private person take the life of the lawful sovereign, and hence regicide is never permitted.' This doctrine, to-day, is admitted as right the whole world over. The assassin's knife and the assassin's dastardly deeds have never been countenanced in Catholic theology. Here again, then, ' M.C P.N.Z.' has failed to prove that even in theory ' the Jesuits were adepts at regicide.' I do not deem it necessary to more than refer to his charge of probabilism. From his writings he has shown that he knows, as to its application in morals, as much about probabilism as the veriest dunce does about the famous ' pons asinorum.' When, in my last, I summarised into one sentence the various indictments brought forward by him against the Jesuits, he demurred and stated that the ' alleged quotation is an invention of my own.' Every clause in that sentence, with the exception of the word Roman omitted, contained a precis of each charge made by him. Whose invention were these charges / The reason for the omission of Roman was this : I took him to be a gentleman, and not one to wittingly insult fellowCatholics and myself. There is but one Catholic Church. Its authoritative head, is indeed in Rome. This fact, though, never has and never will make that Holy Catholic Church merely Roman or an ' Italian Mission.' If in this discussion I have at times appeared to hit too hard at ' M.C.P.N.Z.,' I take this opportunity of assuring him that not the person writing but the written error was aimed at. My Jesuit masters taught us ' to be lovers of truth and workers of charity.' As a last proof of the justice of the cause advocated by me, I will conclude with this high encomium passed on my old masters by Dr. Littledale himself in the ' Ency. Brit.,' vol. xiii , p. 649 : ' The Jesuits won back respect for the clerical calling by their personal culture and the unimpeachable purity of their lives. These are the qualities which they have all along carefully maintained, and probably no body of men in the world has been so free from the reproach of discreditable members or has kept up an equally high average level of intelligence and conduct.' • Bluegrass ' cordially thanks the Timet for ita liberal spirit of fair play in this controversy.

How to get a beautiful library for nothing. Use the famous ' Book Gift ' Tea and select your bookß from oatalogue of 500 books that are given away free.—*** The McCormick Harvesting Machine Company built and sold 213,629 machineß in the season of 1899. This is the greatest sal« of harvesting machines ever made by one company. — m * m

The Deaf Hear.— No. 301 of the Illustrated World of 626 Ohiswick High road, London, W., England, contains a description of a remarkable cure for deafness and head noises which may be carried out at the patient's home, and which is said to be a certain oure. This number will be sent free to any deaf person sending their address to the editor, as above. — ,*«