[424]
CHAPTER XIII
CONDITIONS BEFORE THE CRASH
State of the Society — The Seven Years War — Political Changes — Rulers of Spain, Portugal, Naples, France and Austria — Febronius — Sentiments of the Hierarchy — Popes Benedict XIV; Clement XIII; Clement XIV.Just before its suppression, the Society had about 23,000 members. It was divided into forty-two provinces in which there were 24 houses of professed fathers, 669 colleges, 61 novitiates, 335 residences and 273 mission stations. Taking this grand total in detail, there were in Italy 3,622 Jesuits, about one-half of whom were priests. They possessed 178 houses. The provinces of Spain had 2,943 members (1,342 priests) and 158 houses; Portugal, 861 members (384 priests), 49 houses; France, 3,350 members (1,763 priests), 158 houses; Germany, 5,340 members (2,558 priests), 307 houses; Poland, 2,359 members; Flemish Belgium, 542 members (232 priests), 30 houses; French Belgian, 471 members (266 priests), 25 houses; England, 274 members; and Ireland, 28. Their missions were in all parts of the world. In Hindostan, de Nobili, and de Britto's work was being carried on; in Madura, there were forty-seven missionaries. The establishments in Persia extended to Ispahan and counted 400,000 Catholics. Syria, the Levant and the Maronites were also being looked after. Although Christianity had been crushed as early as 1644, the name of the province of Japan was preserved, and in 1760 it counted fifty-seven members. There were fifty-four Portuguese Fathers attached to China at the time of the Suppression, and an independent French[425] mission had been organized at Pekin with twenty-three members mostly priests. In South America, the whole territory had been divided into missions, and there were 445 Jesuits in Brazil, with 146 in the vice-province of Maranhão. The Paraguay province contained 564 members of whom 385 were priests; they had 113,716 Indians in their care. In Mexico, which included Lower California, there were 572 Jesuits, who were devoting themselves to 122,000 Indians. New Granada had 193 missionaries; Chili had 242; Peru, 526; and Ecuador, 209.
In the United States, they were necessarily very few, on account of political conditions. At the time of the Suppression, they numbered only nine, two of whom Robert Molyneux and John Bolton survived until the complete restoration of the Society. The French had missions in Guiana, Hayti and Martinique; and in Canada, the work inaugurated by Brébeuf among the Hurons, was kept up among the Iroquois, Algonquins, Abenakis, Crees, Ottawas, Miamis and other tribes in Illinois, Alabama and Lower Mississippi. At the time of the Suppression there were fifty-five Jesuits in Canada and Louisiana.
This world-wide activity synchronized with the Seven Years War, which was to change the face of the earth politically and religiously. The unscrupulous energy of Lord Clive had, previous to the outbreak of hostilities, given Bombay, Madras, Calcutta and the Carnatic to England. Before war had been proclaimed, Boscawen, who was sent to Canada, had captured two French warships and the feeble protest of France was answered by the seizure of three hundred other vessels, manned by 10,000 seamen and carrying cargoes estimated to be worth 30,000,000 francs. In 1757 Frederick the Great won the battle of Rosbach against the French; and in the same year triumphed[426] over the imperial forces. In 1759 he defeated the Russians, only to meet similar reverses in turn; but in 1760 when all seemed lost, Russia withdrew from the fight and became Frederick's friend. In 1758 France scored some victories in Germany, but in 1762 was completely crushed and consented to what a French historian describes as "a shameful peace." Quebec fell in 1759, and Vaudreuil capitulated at Montreal in 1760.
Peace was finally made by the treaties of Paris and Hubertsburg in 1763, in virtue of which, France surrendered all her conquests of German territory as well as the Island of Minorca. In North America, she gave up Canada with its 60,000 French inhabitants. She also lost the River and Gulf of St. Lawrence, the valley of the Ohio, the left bank of the Mississippi, four islands in the West Indies, and her African trading-post of Senegal. In return, she received the Islands of Guadeloupe, Martinique, Marie-Galande, Désirade and St. Lucia. In Asia, she was granted Pondicherry, Chandernagor and other places, but was prohibited from fortifying them. Spain yielded Florida and Pensacola Bay to England, in order to recover Cuba and the Philippines; and after a while, France made her a present of Louisiana. Thus, New France was completely effaced from the map of America; and France proper, while losing almost all her other colonial possessions, saw her maritime power, her military prestige and her political importance disappear. She was now only in the second grade among the nations. On the same level stood Spain, while Portugal had long since ceased to count. Austria had declined and Protestant England and Prussia ruled, while schismatic Russia was looming up in the North.
In Spain, Charles III had succeeded to the throne in 1759. He had previously been King of Naples,[427] where he had reigned not without honor. It is true he made the mistake of accepting Choiseul's "Family Compact" which united the fortunes of Spain with those of the degenerate Bourbons, but he is nevertheless credited with being paternal in his administrations and virtuous in his private life. Unfortunately while in Naples, he had chosen as his minister of finance, the Marquis de Tanucci, a Tuscan who had at an early stage inaugurated a contest with the Holy See on the right of asylum. "But one seeks in vain anything on which to build the exalted reputation which Tanucci enjoyed during life and which clung to him even after death. His financial system was false; for instead of encouraging the arts, perfecting agriculture, building roads, opening canals, establishing manufactures in the fertile country over which he ruled, he did nothing but make it bristle with custom-houses. Men of science, jurists, archæologists, literary and other distinguished men, he left in prison or allowed to starve" (Biographie universelle).
Tanucci's moral character may be inferred from the fact that when entrusted with the regency at Naples, he purposely neglected the education of the crown prince, keeping him aloof from political life, and giving him every opportunity to indulge his passions. He declared war against the Holy See; he restricted the ancient rights of the nuncios; diminished the number of bishoprics; suppressed seventy-eight monasteries; named one of his henchmen Archbishop of Naples, and forbade a ceremonial homage to be paid to the Pope which had been in use ever since the time of Charles of Anjou. He governed the Two Sicilies for fifty years and took with him to the grave the execration of the nobles and the hatred of the people of the Two Kingdoms. Duclos said of him "he was of all the men I ever knew the least fitted to govern."
[428] The Spanish ministers were very numerous and very bad. There was Wall, whom Schoell described as Irish, whereas Ranke deprives him of that distinction by classing him among the political atheists of that time. Of Squillace, little is said except that he was a Neapolitan and probably belonged to one of the branches of the Borgia family. He is the individual whose legislation caused a burlesque disturbance in Madrid about cloaks and sombreros. The Jesuits were falsely accused of being the instigators of the riot and suffered for it in consequence. Finally, after many changes, there came the saturnine and self-sufficient Aranda, "who," says Schoell, "sniffed with pleasure the incense which the French Encyclopedists burned on his altar, and whose greatest glory was to be rated as one of the enemies of the altar and the throne." A former minister of Ferdinand V with the ominous title of the Duke of Alva was his intimate and shared his many schemes in fomenting anti-Jesuitism. Aranda is described as follows, by the Marquis de Langle in his "Voyage en Espagne" (I, 27): "He is the only Spaniard of our time whose name posterity can inscribe on its tablets. He is the man who wanted to cut in the façade of every temple and unite on the same shield the names of Luther, Calvin, Mahomet, William Penn and Jesus Christ; and to proclaim from the frontiers of Navarre to the straits of Cadiz, that Torquemada, Ferdinand and Isabella were blasphemers. He sold altar-furniture, crucifixes and candelabra for bridges, wine-shops and public roads."
In France, conditions were still worse. During a reign of fifty-six years, Louis XV trampled on all the decencies of public and private life. He was the degraded slave of Pompadour, a woman who dictated his policies, named his ministers, appointed his ambassadors, made at least one of his cardinals, and even[429] directed his armies. Her power was so great that the Empress of Austria felt compelled to address her as "ma bonne amie." She was succeeded by du Barry who was taken from a house of debauch. The coarseness of this creature deprived her of much of the power possessed by her predecessor, except that Louis was her slave. It was Pompadour who brought Choiseul out of obscurity to reward him for revealing a plot to make one of his own cousins supplant her in her relations to the king. For that, he was made ambassador to Rome in 1754, where during the last illness of Benedict XIV, he was planning with other ambassadors to interpose the royal vetos in the election of Benedict's successor. Before that event, however, he was sent to Vienna, from which post, he rose successively until he had France completely in his grasp. The "Family Compact" or union of all the Bourbon princes, which was a potent instrument in the war against the Jesuits, was his conception. He was a friend of La Chalotais, one of the arch-enemies of the Society, and was an intimate of Voltaire, whose property at Ferney he exempted from taxation. The spirit of his religious policy consisted in what was then called "an enlightened despotism," or a systematic hatred of everything Christian.
Crétineau-Joly describes him as follows: "He was the ideal gentleman of the eighteenth century. He was controlled by its unbelief, its airs, its vanity, its nobility, its dissoluteness, insolence, courage, and by a levity which would have sacrificed the peace of Europe for an epigram. He was all for show; settling questions which he had merely skimmed over and sniffing the incense offered to him by the Encyclopedists, but shuddering at the thought that they might fancy themselves his teachers. He would admit no master either on the throne or below it. His life's ambition[430] was to govern France and to apply to that sick nation the remedies he had dreamed would restore her to health. He could not do so except by winning public opinion, and for that purpose, he flattered the philosophers, captured the parliament, cringed to Madame de Pompadour and made things pleasant for the king. When he had gathered everyone on his side, he set himself to hunting the Jesuits."
On the throne of Portugal sat Joseph I, of whom, Father Weld in his "Suppression of the Society of Jesus" (p. 91) writes: "Joseph I united all those points of character which were calculated to make him a tool in the hands of a man who had the audacity to assume the command and astuteness to represent himself as a most humble and faithful servant. Timid and weak, like Louis XV, he was easily filled with fear for the safety of his own person, and, to a degree never reached by the French king, was incapable of exerting his own will when advised by any one who had succeeded in gaining his confidence. To this mental weakness, he also added the lamentable failing of being a slave to his own voluptuous passions. It required but little insight into human nature to see that a terrible scourge was in store for Portugal. To the evils of misrule, it pleased God to add other terrible calamities which overwhelmed the country in misery that cannot be described. The licentious habits of his father, John V had already impaired the national standard of morals. The nobility had ceased to visit their estates and had degenerated into a race of mere courtiers. The interests of the common people were neglected by the Government, and almost their only friends were the religious orders." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, XII, 304).
The real master of Portugal in those days was Don Sebastioa José Carvalho, better known as Pombal — [431]the gigantic ex-soldier who, despite his herculean strength and reckless daring, was ignored when there was question of promotion. He left the army in disgust, and by the influence of the queen, Maria of Austria, and that of his uncle, the court chaplain, was sent as ambassador to London and then to Vienna. In both places he was a disastrous failure, probably on account of his brutal manners. Returning to Lisbon, he paid the most obsequious attention to churchmen, especially to the king's confessor, the Jesuit Carbone, who kept continually recommending him until John V bade him never to mention Carvalho's name. To the Marquis of Valenza, who also urged Carvalho's promotion, John said: "that man has hairs in his heart and he comes from a cruel and vindictive family." At the death of John and the retirement of the aged Motta, the former prime minister, the queen regent, who was fond of Carvalho's Austrian wife made Pombal prime minister: and Moreira, another Jesuit confessor, was insistent in proclaiming his wonderful ability. Never was departure from the principles and rules of the religious state by meddling with things outside the sphere of duty so terribly punished. Father Weld, however, when speaking of Moreira, who was a prisoner in Jonquiera, has a note which says that "Moreira protested to the end that he had never uttered a word in favor of Carvalho."
No sooner was Carvalho in power than the violence of his character began to display itself in the sanguinary measures he employed to suppress the brigandage that was rife in the country and even in the capital itself. The nobility, especially, were marked out for punishment; and when public criticism began to be heard, he issued furious edicts against the calumniators of the administration. He suppressed with terrible severity a rising at Porto against a wine-company[432] which he had established there, and began a series of attacks on the most eminent personages of the kingdom. He dismissed in disgrace the minister of the navy, Diego de Mendoza; and de la Cerda, the ambassador to France; as well as John de Braganza, the Marquis of Marialva and many others. He gave the highest positions, ecclesiastical and political, to his relatives; forced the king to sign edicts without reading them, some of which made criticism of the government high treason, and he extended their application even to the ordinances of his minister; he silenced the preachers who spoke of public disasters as punishment of God; and forbade them to publish anything without his approbation. Though he reorganized the navy, he left the army a wreck, lest the nobles might control it. There was no public press in Portugal during his administration, and the mails were distributed only once a week. He encouraged commerce and organized public works, but always to enrich himself and his family. He flung thousands into prison without even the pretence of a trial, and at his downfall in 1782 says the "Encyclopédie catholique," "out of the subterraneous dungeons there issued eight hundred of his victims, the remnants of the nine thousand who had survived their entombment; and a government order was issued declaring that none of the victims living or dead had been guilty of the crimes imputed to them." This was the man who was declared by the Philosophers of the eighteenth century to be "the illuminator of his nation."
Nor was there much comfort to be hoped for in Austria. Maria Theresa was undoubtedly pious, kind hearted and devoted to her people, but as ruler is very much overrated. Her advisers were commonly the men who were plotting the ruin of all existing governments — Jansenists and Freethinkers. Even her court[433] physicians were close allies of the schismatical Jansenist Archbishop of Utrecht, and they made liberal and constant use of the great esteem they enjoyed at Vienna to foment hostility to the Holy See. They even succeeded in persuading the empress, though they were only laymen, to appoint a commission for the reform of theological teaching in the seminaries; and one of their friends, de Stock, was appointed to direct the work. The Jesuits were removed from the professorships of divinity and canon law; lay professors were appointed in their stead by the politicians, in spite of the protests of the bishops; and books were published in direct opposition to orthodox teaching. At this time appeared the famous treatise known as "Febronius" by Hontheim, a suffragan bishop of Treves, who thus prepared for the coming of Joseph II. The universities were quickly infected with his doctrines; and new schools were established at Bonn and Münster out of the money of suppressed convents in order to accelerate the spread of the poison. When the University of Cologne protested, it was punished for its temerity.
It goes without saying that if Maria Theresa, with her strong Catholic instincts, was so easy to control, it was not difficult for the statesmen who governed France, Spain, Portugal and Italy to carry out their nefarious schemes against the Church. The Free-masons were hard at work, and immoral and atheistic literature was spread broadcast. It had already made ravages among the aristocracy and the middle classes, and now the grades below were being deeply gangrened. Cardinal Pacca writing about a period immediately subsequent to this, says: "In the time of my two nunciatures at Cologne and Lisbon, I had occasion to become acquainted with the greater part of the French émigrés, and I regret to say that, with the exception[434] of a few gentlemen from the Provinces, they all made open profession of the philosophical maxims which had brought about the catastrophe of which they were the first victims. They admitted, at times, in their lucid moments, that the overturning of the altar had dragged down the throne; and that it was the pretended intellectuality of the Freethinkers that had introduced into the minds of the people the new ideas of liberty and equality, which had such fatal consequence for them. Nevertheless, they persisted in their errors and even endeavored to spread them both orally and by the most abominable publications. God grant that these seeds of impiety, flung broadcast on a still virgin soil, may not produce more bitter and more poisonous fruit for the Church and the Portuguese monarchy." The editor of the "Memoirs" adds in a note: "They have only too well succeeded in producing the fruit."
"I remember," continues Pacca, "that during my nunciature at Cologne, some of these distinguished "emigrés" determined to have a funeral service for Marie Antoinette, not out of any religious sentiment, but merely to conform to the fashion followed in the courts of Europe. I was invited and was present. The priest who sang the Mass preached the eulogy of the dead queen. In his discourse which did not lack either eloquence or solidity, he enumerated the causes of the French Revolution, and instanced chiefly the irreligious doctrines taught by the philosophy of the period. This undeniable proposition evoked loud murmurs of discontent in the congregation, which was almost exclusively composed of Frenchmen; and when the orator said that Marie Antoinette was one of the first victims of modern philosophy, a voice was heard far down in the church crying out in the most insulting fashion: 'That's not true.'" When laymen who professed to be Catholics were so blind to patent facts[435] and would dare to conduct themselves so disgracefully in a church at a funeral service for their murdered queen, there was no hope of appealing to them to stand up for truth and justice in the political world.
The hierarchy throughout the Church was devoted to the Society, but it could only protest. And hence as soon as the first signs appeared of the determination to destroy the Order, letters and appeals, full of tender affection and of unstinted praise for the victims, poured into Rome from bishops all over the world. There were at least two hundred sent to Clement XIII, but many of them were either lost or purposely destroyed, as soon as the great Pontiff breathed his last. Father Lagomarsni found many of them which he intended to publish but, for one reason or another, did not do so.
Some of these papers, however have been reproduced by de Ravignan, in his "Clément XIII et Clément XIV." They fill more than a hundred pages of his second volume, and he chose only those that came from the most important sees in the Church, such as the three German Archbishoprics of Treves, Cologne and Mayence, whose prelates were prince electors of the empire. There are also appeals from Cardinal Lamberg the Prince-Bishop of Passau, from the Primate of Germany, the Archbishop of Salzburg, the Primates of Bohemia, of Hungary, and of Ireland. The Archbishop of Armagh says "he lived with the Jesuits from childhood, and loved and admired them." There are letters from the Cardinal Archbishop of Turin; the Archbishops of Messina, Monreale, Sorrento, Seville, Compostella, Tarragona, and even from the far north, — from Norway and Denmark, where the vicar-Apostolic begs the Pope to save those distant countries from the ruin which will certainly fall on them if the Jesuits are withdrawn. They are all[436] dated between the years 1758 and 1760. The Polish Bishop of Kiew begs the Pope to stand "like a wall of brass" against the enemies of the Society, which he calls a religiosissimus cætus. For the Bishops of Lombez, it is the dilectissima Societas Jesu, quæ concussa, confugit in sinum nostrum — "the most beloved Society of Jesus which, when struck, rushed to our arms." The Bishop of Narbonne declares: "It is known and admitted through all the world that the Society of Jesus, which is worthy of all respect, has never ceased to render services to the Church in every part of the world. There never was an order whose sons have fulfilled the duties of the sacred ministry with more burning, pure and intelligent zeal. Nothing could check their zeal; and the most furious storm only displayed the constancy and solidity of their virtue." Du Guesclin denounces the persecution as "atrocious; the like of which was never heard of before." "I omit," says the Archbishop of Auch, "an infinite number of things which redound to their praise." The Bishop of Malaga recalls how Clement VIII described them as "the right arm of the Holy See." The Archbishop of Salzburg bitterly resents "the calumnious and defamatory charges against them." And, so, in each one of these communications to the Holy Father, there is nothing but praise for the victims and indignant denunciations of their executioners.
The three Pontiffs who occupied the Chair of St. Peter at that period were Benedict XIV, Clement XIII and Clement XIV. Benedict died on May 3, 1758, eighteen days before Father Ricci was elected General. Clement XIII was the ardent defender of the Society during the ten stormy years of his pontificate; and finally Clement XIV yielded to the enemy and put his name to the Brief which legislated the Order out of existence.
[437] Perhaps there never was a Pope who enjoyed such universal popularity as the brilliant Benedict XIV. His attractive personality, his great ability as a writer, his readiness to go to all lengths in the way of concession, elicited praise even from heretics, Turks and unbelievers. As regards his attitude to the Society, there can be no possible doubt that he entertained for it not only admiration, but great affection. He had been a pupil in its schools, and had always shown its members the greatest honor. He defended it against its enemies, and lavished praise again and again on the Institute. It is true that he re-affirmed the Bulls of his predecessor condemning the Malabar and Chinese Rites, but he denied indignantly that he was thereby explicitly condemning the Jesuits. It is also true that he appointed Saldanha, at the request of Pombal, to investigate the Jesuit houses in Portugal; but in the first place, that permission was wrung from him when he was a dying man; and there is no doubt whatever that in doing so, he was convinced that the concession would propitiate Pombal and not injure the Jesuits, whose conduct he knew to be without reproach. Moreover, he had put as a proviso in the Brief that Saldanha who, though the Pope was unaware of it, was an agent of Pombal, should not publish any grievous charge if any such were to be formulated, but should refer it to Rome for judgment. Finally, as the Brief was signed on April 1, 1758, and as the Pope died on May 3, Saldanha's powers ceased. That however, did not trouble him and he did everything that Pombal bade him to do, to defame and destroy the Society. He was not Benedict's agent.
Far from being prejudiced against the Society, Benedict XIV did nothing but bestow praise on it during all his long pontificate. In 1746 in the Bull[438] "Devotam," he says that "it has rendered the greatest services to the Church and has ever been governed with as much success as prudence." In 1748 the "Præclairs" declared that "these Religious are everywhere regarded as the good odor of Jesus Christ, and are so in effect," and, in the same year, the Bull "Constantem" affirmed that "they give to the world examples of religious virtue and profound science." Benedict died in the arms of the Jesuit, Father Pepe, his confessor and friend.
Clement XIII, whose name was Carlo della Torre Rezzonico, was born at Venice, March 7, 1693; after studying with the Jesuits at Bologna, he was appointed referendary of the tribunal known as the Segnatura di Giustizia, and later became Governor of Rieti, cardinal-deacon and in 1743 Bishop of Padua. He was called a saint by his people; in spite of the vast revenues of his diocese, he was always in want for he gave everything to the poor, even the shirt on his back. On July 5, 1758, he was elected Pope to succeed Benedict XIV. The first shock he received as head of the Church was in 1758 from Pombal, who insulted him by sending back an extremely courteous letter which the Pontiff had written in answer to a demand for leave to punish three Jesuits who happened to know a nobleman against whom a charge had been lodged of attempting to assassinate the king. Pombal followed up the outrage by flinging all the exiled Jesuits on the Papal States; and then, in 1760, by dismissing the Papal ambassador from Lisbon. In 1761 Pope Clement wrote to Louis XV of France, imploring him to stop the proceedings against the Jesuits: in 1762 he protested against the proposed suppression of the Society in France; and in 1764 he denounced the government programme which he declared was an assault upon the Church itself.
[439] Spain was guilty of the next outrage when, in 1767, Charles III imitated Pombal by expelling the Jesuits and deporting them to Civita Vecchia: and then refusing to answer a letter of the Pope who asked for an explanation of the proceeding. Naples and Parma insulted him in a similar fashion. And to add injury to outrage, the Bourbon coalition seized the Papal possessions of Avignon and Venaissin in France, and Benevento and Montecorvo in Italy. Finally, when Spain, France and Naples sent him a joint note demanding the universal suppression of the Society, he died of grief on February 3, 1769. He was then seventy-five years old, and had governed the Church for ten years, six months and twenty-six days. Canova, one of the last of the Jesuit pupils, built his monument, putting at the feet of the Pontiff two lions — one asleep, the other erect and ready for the combat. It was a representation in the mind of the sculptor portraying the meekness of Clement, combined with an indomitable courage which defied the kings of Europe who were attacking the Church.
De Ravignan says of him: "Not because I am a Jesuit, but independently of that affiliation, I regard Clement XIII as endowed with the most genuine traits of grandeur and glory that ever shone in the most illustrious popes. He brings back to me the lineaments of Innocent III, of Gregory VII, of Pius V, of Clement XI. Like them he had to fight; like them he had to face the powers of earth in league against the Church; like them he knew how to unite the most inflexible firmness with the most patient moderation. Alone, as it were, in the midst of a Christendom that was conspiring against the Chair of Peter, he suffered and moaned, but he fought. He was not a politician; he was a Pope. As a worthy successor of St. Peter, he stood solidly on the indestructible rock. Always[440] in the presence of God and his duty, when every earthly interest and when the most appealing entreaties seemed to suggest to him to be silent and to yield basely, he heard within his soul the strong voice of the Church, which can never relinquish the rights with which heaven has invested it; and neither threats, nor outrages, nor spoliations nor sacrilegious assaults availed to bend his resolution to resist, or induced him to display any suspicion of feebleness for a single instant. Until he died, Clement fulfilled the august mission of a Supreme Pontiff. He fought for the Church though it cost him his life. His death was really that of a martyr."
The successor of Clement XIII was not so heroic. He was Lorenzo or Giovanni Antonio Ganganelli. He was born at Sant' Archangelo near Rimini on October 31, 1705; and received his education from the Jesuits at Rimini and from the Piarists at Urbano. At the age of nineteen, he entered the order of the Minor Conventuals, and changed his baptismal name of Giovanni to Lorenzo. His talents and virtue raised him to the dignity of definitor generalis of his order in 1741. Benedict XIV made him consultor of the Holy Office, and Clement XIII gave him the cardinal's hat at the instance, it is said, of Father Ricci, the General of the Jesuits. On May 18, 1769, he was elected Pope by 46 out of 47 votes. By eliminating a great number of possible cardinals, the veto power of the Catholic kings had restricted the choice of a Pope to four out of the forty-seven in the Sacred College. In the beginning of his career, Ganganelli was extremely favorable to the Jesuits: but when he was made a cardinal, a change of disposition manifested itself, although in giving him the honor, Clement XIII had said that he was "a Jesuit in the disguise of a Franciscan." Once on the Papal throne, he refused even[441] Father Ricci an audience, possibly through fear of the Great Powers; for, before Clement's accession the work of the destruction had already begun, and the new Pope found himself in the centre of a whirlwind. It was now clear that the Society could never weather the storm.
[442]
CHAPTER XIV
POMBAL
Early life — Ambitions — Portuguese Missions — Seizure of the Spanish Reductions. Expulsion of the Missionaries — End of the Missions in Brazil — War against the Society in Portugal — The Jesuit Republic — Cardinal Saldanha — Seizure of Churches and Colleges — The Assassination Plot — The Prisons — Exiles — Execution of Malagrida.The first conspirator who set to work to carry out the plot to destroy the Society, which had long been planned by the powers, was, as might be expected, the ruthless Pombal. He was more shameless and savage than his associates and would adopt any method to accomplish his purpose. The insensate fury which possessed his whole being against the Society is explained by Cardinal Pacca, who was Papal nuncio in Lisbon shortly after Pombal's fall (Notizie sul Portogallo, 10). He writes: "Pombal began his diplomatic career in Germany where he probably drank in those principles of aversion to the Holy See and the religious orders, which, when afterwards put in practice, merited for him from the irreligious philosophers the title of a great minister, and an illuminator of his nation; from good people, however, that of a vile instrument of the sects at war with the Church. Having obtained the office of prime minister, he made himself master of the mind of the king, Don Joseph; and for a quarter of a century governed the kingdom as a despot.
"To wage war against the Holy See, and to oppress the clergy, he adopted the measures and employed the arms which, in the hands of the irreligious men of[443] our time, have done and are still doing harm and inflicting grievous wounds on the Church. He corrupted and perverted public education in the schools and universities, especially in Coimbra which soon became a centre of moral pestilence. He took from the hands of the youth of the kingdom the sound doctrinal works which they had so far been made to study; and substituted schismatical and heretical publications such as Dupin's 'De antiqua ecclesia' which had been condemned by Innocent XII; and Hontheim's 'Febronius' condemned by Clement XIII. He also brought into Portugal the works of the régalists, and excluded those writers who maintained the rights and authority of the Holy See, in defence of which he would not allow a word to be uttered. And to the horror of all decent people, he imprisoned in a loathsome dungeon a holy and venerable bishop who had warned his flock against those pernicious publications. Meantime the notorious Oratorian Pereira, who was condemned by the Index, and others who flattered him were remunerated for their writings and could print whatever they liked. He was a Jansenist who, in the perfidious fashion of the sect, exalted the authority of the bishops in order to diminish that of the Pope; and enlarged the authority of kings in church matters to such an extent that the system differed very little from that of the Protestant Anglican Church. Queen Marìa, who succeeded Joseph on the throne, did much to improve conditions; but did not undo all the harm that Pombal had already inflicted on the nation. Disguised Anglicanism continued to exist in Portugal."
Father Weld adds his own judgment to that of the cardinal, and tells us that "the bias in Pombal's nature may be traced to his English associations when he was ambassador in London." He advances this view, probably because of a note of Pacca's, who says[444] that he could venture no opinion about the influence of England on Pombal, merely for want of documents on that point. The author of the "Memoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique du xviiie siècle" assures us that Pombal's purpose was to extend his reforms even into the bosom of the Church; to change, to destroy; to subject the bishops to his will; to declare himself an enemy of the Holy See; to protect authors hostile to the Holy See; to encourage publications savoring of novelty; to favor in Portugal a theological instruction quite different from what had been adopted previous to his time; and finally to open the way to a pernicious teaching in a country which until then had enjoyed religious peace.
This scheme did not restrict itself to a religious propaganda but got into the domain of politics; for the author of the "Vita di Pombal" (I, 145) notes the report, which is confirmed by the "Memoria Catholica secunda" that "Pombal had formed the design of marrying the Princess Marìa to the Duke of Cumberland, the butcher of Culloden — but that this was thwarted by the Jesuit confessor of the king." On this point the Maréchal de Belle Isle writes (Testament politique, 108): "It is known that the Duke of Cumberland looked forward to becoming King of Portugal, and I doubt not he would have succeeded, if the Jesuit confessors of the royal family had not been opposed to it. This crime was never forgiven the Portuguese Jesuits."
Whatever the truth may be about these royal schemes, Pombal soon found his chance to wreak his vengeance on the Society for balking his plans of making Portugal a Protestant country. A scatter-brained individual, named Pereira, who lived at Rio Janerio, raised the cry which may have been suggested to him, that the Jesuits of the Reductions excluded white[445] intercourse with the natives because of the valuable gold mines they possessed; and that it would be a proper and, indeed, a most commendable thing in the interests of religion for the government to seize this source of wealth, and thus compel the Jesuits who controlled that territory to live up to the holiness of their profession. It was also added that the missions were little else than a great commercial speculation; and finally that the ultimate design of the Society was to make a Republic of Paraguay, independent of the mother country.
These three charges had been reiterated over and over again ever since the foundation of the Reductions, and had been just as often refuted and officially denied after the most vigorous investigation. But there was a man now in control of Portugal who would not be biased by any religious sentiment or regard for truth, if he could injure the Society. The first step was to transfer the aforesaid missions to Portuguese control. They all lay on the east shore of the Uruguay, and belonged to Spain. Hence, in 1750, a treaty was made between Spain and Portugal, to concede to Spain the undisputed control of the rich colony of San Sacramento, at the mouth of the River La Plata, in exchange for the territory, in which lay the seven Reductions of St. Michael, St. Lawrence, St. Aloysius, St. John, St. Francis Borgia, Holy Angels and St. Nicholas. According to the treaty, it was stipulated that the Portuguese should take immediate possession and fling out into the world, they did not care where, the 30,000 Indians who had built villages in the country, and were peacefully cultivating their farms, and who by the uprightness and purity of their lives were giving to the world and to all times an example of what Muratori calls a Cristianesimo felice.
[446] To add to the brutality of the act, the Fathers themselves were ordered to announce to the Indians the order to vacate. Representations were made by the Spanish Viceroy of Peru, the Royal Audiencia of Charcas and various civil and ecclesiastical authorities of Spain that not only was this seizure a most atrocious violation of justice which could not be carried out except by bloodshed, no one could say to what extent, but that it was giving up the property of the Indians to their bitterest enemies, the Portuguese. For it was precisely to avoid the Mamelukes of Brazil that the Reductions had been originally created. Moreover, it would almost compel the Indians to conclude that the Fathers had betrayed them, and that they were not only parties to, but instigators of, the whole scheme of spoliation. Southey, in his "History of Brazil," denounces it as "one of the most tyrannical commands that were ever issued, in the recklessness of unfeeling power," and says that "the weak Ferdinand VI had no idea of the importance of the treaty."
The Jesuits appealed; but they were, of course, unheeded; and the Father General Visconti ordered them to submit without a murmur. Unfortunately, the commissioner Father Altamirano, whom he sent out was a bad choice. He was hot-headed and imperious; and according to Father Huonder (The Catholic Encyclopedia) actually treated his fellow Jesuits as rebels, when they advised him to proceed with moderation. Perhaps the fact that he was the representative of the king, as well as of the General, affected him; at all events the Indians would have killed him if he had not fled. Ten years would not have sufficed for a transfer of such a vast multitude with their women and children, and the old and infirm, not to speak of the herds and flocks and farming[447] implements and household furniture, yet they were ordered to decamp within thirty days. Pombal would soon treat his Jesuit fellow countrymen as he had treated the Indians.
When, at last, the cruel edict was published, all the savage instincts of the Indians awoke, and it seemed for a time as if the missionaries would be massacred. It speaks well for the solid Christian training that had been given to these children of the forest that they at last consented to consider the matter at all. Some of the caciques were actually won over to the advisability of the measure, and started out with several hundred exiles to find a new home in the wilderness. A number of the children and the sick succumbed on the way. When, at last they found a place in the mountains of Quanai, they were attacked by hostile tribes. They resisted for a while, but finally returned in despair to their former abode. To make matters worse, the Bishop of Paraguay notified the Fathers that if they did not obey, they would be ipso facto suspended. "Whereas," says Weld, "if the Fathers really wished to oppose the government, a single sign from them would have sent an army of fifty thousand men to resist the Europeans; but owing to their fidelity and incredible exertions, there were never as many as seven hundred men in the field against the united armies of Spain and Portugal when hostilities at last broke out."
During the year 1754, the Indians harassed the enemy by the skirmishes and won many a victory; and they would have ultimately triumphed if they had had a leader. At last in 1755, the combined forces of the enemy with thirty pieces of artillery attacked them with the result that might have been expected. The natives rushed frantically on their foes; but the musketry and cannon stretched four hundred of them in their blood; and the rest either fled to the mountains[448] or relapsed into savage life; or made their submission to the government, many becoming as bad as their kindred in the forests because of the corruption they saw around them. The Portuguese entered into possession of the seven Reductions, but failed to find any gold. So great was their chagrin that, in 1761, Carvalho wanted the rich territory which he had given to Spain returned to Portugal; and when Spain naturally demurred, he prepared to go to war for it. He finally gained his point, and on February 12, 1761, the territories were restored to their original owners, but nothing was stipulated, about restitution to the unfortunate natives and Jesuits who had been the victims of this shameful political deal.
Some of the Indians who fled to the forests kept up a guerilla warfare against the invaders; but the greater number followed the advice of the Fathers and settled on the Paraná and on the right bank of the Uruguay. In 1762 there were 2,497 families scattered through seventeen Reductions or doctrinas, as they had begun to be called, a term that is equivalent to "parish." But the expulsion of the Fathers which followed soon after completed the ruin of this glorious work. The Indians died or became savage again; and today only beautiful ruins mark the place where this great commonwealth once stood. At the time of the Suppression, or rather when Pombal drove the Jesuits out of every Portuguese post into the dungeons of Portugal or flung them into the Papal States, the Paraguay province had five hundred and sixty-four members, twelve colleges, one university, three houses for spiritual retreats, two residences, fifty-seven Reductions and 113,716 Christian Indians. The leave-taking of the Fathers and Indians was heart-rending on both sides.
It is a long distance from the River La Plata to the Amazon; for there are about thirty-five degrees of[449] latitude between the two places. But they were not too far apart to check Carvalho in his work of destruction. After having done all he could for the moment at one end of Brazil, he addressed himself to the Jesuit missions at the other. A glance at the past history of these establishments will reveal the frightful injustice of the brutal acts of 1754.
One hundred years before that time, Vieira had made his memorable fight against his Portuguese fellow-countrymen for the liberation of the Indians from slavery. By so doing, he had, of course, aroused the fury of the whites, and they determined to crush him. They put him in prison; and in 1660 sent him and his companions to Portugal, in a crazy ship to be tried for disturbing the peace of the colony. Nevertheless, he won the fight, although meantime three Jesuits had been killed by the Indians, and their companions expelled from the colony, in spite of the king's protection. In this act, however, the Portuguese had gone too far. His majesty saw the truth and sent the missionaries back. That was as early as 1680. In 1725 new complaints were sent to Portugal, but the supreme governor of the Maranhão district wrote, as follows, to the king: "The Fathers of the Society in this State of Maranhão are objects of enmity and have always been hated, for no other reason than for their strenuous defence of the liberty of the unfortunate Indians, and also because they used all their power to oppose the tyrannical oppression of those who would reduce to a degraded and unjust slavery men whom nature had made free. The Fathers take every possible care that the laws of your majesty on this point shall be most exactly observed. They devote themselves entirely to the promotion of the salvation of souls and the increase of the possessions of your majesty; and have added[450] many sons to the Church and subjects to the crown from among these barbarous nations."
With regard to their alleged commerce, the governor says: "Whatever has been charged against the Fathers by wicked calumniators who, through hatred and envy, manufacture ridiculous lies about the wealth they derive from those missions, I solemnly declare to your majesty, and I speak of a matter with which I am thoroughly acquainted, that the Fathers of the Society are the only true missionaries of these regions. Whatever they receive from their labors among the Indians is applied to the good of the Indians themselves and to the decency and ornamentation of the churches, which, in these missions, are always very neat and very beautiful. Nothing whatever that is required in the missions is kept for themselves. As they have nothing of their own, whatever each missionary sends is delivered to the procurator of the mission, and every penny of it reverts to the use of the particular mission from whence it came. Missioners of other orders send quite as much produce, but each one keeps his own portion separate, to be used as he likes, so that the quantity however great being thus divided, does not make much impression on those who see it. But as the missionaries of the Society send everything together to the procurator, the quantity, when seen in bulk, excites the cupidity of the malevolent and envious."
About 1739, Eduardo dos Santos was sent by John V as a special commissioner to Maranhão. After spending twenty months in visiting every mission and examining every detail he wrote as follows: "The execrable barbarity with which the Indians are reduced to slavery has become such a matter of custom that it is rather looked on as a virtue. All that is adduced against this inhuman custom is received with such repugnance[451] and so quickly forgotten that the Fathers of the Society in whose charity these unfortunate creatures often find refuge and protection, and who take compassion on their miserable lot, become, for this very reason, objects of hatred to these avaricious men."
Such were the official verdicts of the conduct of the Jesuits on the Amazon a few years before Pombal came into power. But in 1753 regardless of all this he sent out his brother Francis Xavier Mendoza, a particularly worthless individual, and made him Governor of Gran Para and Maranhão, giving him a great squadron of ships and a considerable body of troops with orders to humble the Jesuits and send back to Portugal any of them who opposed his will. Everything was done to create opposition. They were forbidden to speak or to preach to the Indians except in Portuguese; the soldiers were quartered in the Jesuit settlements, and were instructed to treat the natives with especial violence and brutality.
In 1754 a council was held in Lisbon to settle the question about expelling the Society from the missions of Maranhão. The order was held up temporarily by the queen; but when she died, a despatch was sent in June 1755 ordering their immediate withdrawal from all "temporal and civil government of the missions." The instructions stated that it was "in order that God might be better served." Unfortunately the bishop of the place co-operated with Carvalho in everything that was proposed. He suppressed one of the colleges, restricted the number of Fathers in the others, to twelve, and sent the rest back to Portugal; and in order to excite the settlers against the Society, he had the Bull of Benedict XIV which condemned Indian slavery read from the pulpits, proclaiming that it had been inspired by the Jesuits. Meantime, in the reports home, the insignificant Indian villages where[452] they labored were magnified into splendid cities and towns all owned by the Society; two pieces of cannon which had never fired a ball were described as a whole park of artillery, and a riot among the troops was set down as a rebellion excited by the Jesuits.
The first three Fathers to be banished from Brazil were José, Hundertpfund and da Cruz. José was a royal appointee sent out to determine the boundary line between the Spanish and Portuguese American possessions. But that did not trouble Pombal; nor did the German nationality of Hundertpfund, nor did he deign to state the precise nature of their offenses. A fourth victim named Ballister had had the bad taste to preach on the text: "Make for yourself friends of the Mammon of iniquity." He was forthwith accused of attacking one of Carvalho's commercial enterprises, and promptly ordered out of the country. Again, when some mercantile rivals sent a petition to the king against Carvalho's monopolies, Father Fonseca was charged with prompting it, and he was outlawed though absolutely innocent. And so it went on. Carvalho's brother was instructed to invent any kind of an excuse to increase the number of these expatriations.
While these outrages were being perpetrated in the colonies, Lisbon's historic earthquake of 1755 occurred. The city was literally laid in ruins. Thousands of people were instantly killed; and while other thousands lay struggling in the ruins, the rising flood of the Tagus and a deluge of rain completed the disaster. Singularly enough, Carvalho's house escaped the general wreck; and the foolish king considered that exception to be a Divine intervention in behalf of his great minister, and possibly, on that account, left him unchecked in the fury which even the awful calamity which had fallen on his country did not at[453] all moderate. The Jesuits were praised by both king and patriarch for their heroic devotion both during and after the great disaster, but those commendations only infuriated Pombal the more. When one of the Fathers, the holy Malagrida, had dared to say in the pulpit that the earthquake was a punishment for the vice that was rampant in the capital, Pombal regarded it as a reflection on his administration; and the offender, though seventy years old and universally regarded as a saint, was banished from the city as inciting the people to rebellion.
However, the furious minister meted out similar treatment to others, even to his political friends. Thus, although the British parliament had voted £40,000 for the relief of the sufferers, besides giving a personal gift to the king and sending ships with cargoes of food for the people, Pombal immediately ran up the tax on foreign imports, for he was financially interested in domestic productions. Even in doling out provisions to the famishing populace, he was so parsimonious that riots occurred, whereupon he hanged those who complained. The author of the "Vita" (I, 106) vouches for the fact that at one time there were three hundred gibbets erected in various parts of Lisbon. The Jesuit confessors at the court were especially obnoxious to him and he dismissed them all with an injunction never to set foot in the royal precincts again. The anger of their royal penitents did not restrain him, so absolute was his power both then and afterwards. The plea was that the priests were plotters against the king. To increase that impression he pointed out to his majesty the number of offenders against him; all members of the detested Order who were coming back in every ship from Brazil. The General of the Society, Father Centurioni, wrote to the king pleading the innocence of the[454] victims; but the letter never got further than the minister. The king did not even know it had been sent.
The next step in this persecution was to publish the famous pamphlet entitled: "A Brief Account of the Republic which the Jesuits have established in the Spanish and Portuguese dominions of the New World, and of the War which they have carried on against the armies of the two Crowns; all extracted from the Register of the Commissaries and Plenipotentiaries, and from other documents." A copy was sent to every bishop of the country; to the cardinals in Rome, and to all the courts of Europe. Pombal actually spent 70,000 crowns to print and spread the work of which he himself was generally credited with being the author. In South America it was received with derision; in Europe mostly with disgust. Sad to say, Acciajuoli, the Apostolic nuncio at Lisbon, believed the Brazilian stories; but he changed his mind, when on the morning of June 15, 1760, just as he was about to say Mass, he received a note ordering him in the name of the king to leave the city at once, and the kingdom within four days; adding that to preserve him from insult a military escort would conduct him to the frontier. Other publications of the same tenor followed the "Brief Account." One especially became notorious. It was: "Letters of the Portuguese Minister to the Minister of Spain on the Jesuitical Empire, the Republic of Maranhao; the history of Nicholas I." The Nicholas in question was a Father named Plantico. To carry out the story of his having been crowned king or Emperor of Paraguay, coins with his effigy were actually struck and circulated throughout Europe. Unfortunately for the fraud, none of the coins were ever seen in Paraguay where they ought to have been current. Moreover, as Plantico was transported with the other Jesuits of Brazil, he would have been hanged[455] on his arrival in Portugal, if he had tried to set up a kingdom of his own in Paraguay. On the contrary, he went off to his native country of Croatia, and was Rector of the College of Grosswardein when the general suppression of the Society took place. Frederick II and d'Alembert used to joke with each other about "King Nicholas I"; and in Spain, that and the other libels were officially denounced and their circulation prohibited.
As for Carvalho, these hideous imaginings of his brain became realities; and the list of Jesuitical horrors which his ambassador at Rome repeated to the Pope, all, as he alleged, for the sake of the Church, almost suggest that Pombal was a madman. Long extracts of the document may be found in de Ravignan and Weld, but it will be sufficient here to mention a few of the charges. They are, for instance, "seditious machinations against every government of Europe; scandals in their missions so horrible that they cannot be related without extreme indecency; rebellion against the Sovereign Pontiff; the accumulation of vast wealth and the use of immense political power; gross moral corruption of individual members of the Order; abandonment of even the externals of religion; the daily and public commission of enormous crimes; opposing the king with great armies; inculcating in the Indian mind an implacable hatred of all white men who are not Jesuits; starting insurrections in Uruguay so as to prevent the execution of the treaty of limits; atrociously calumniating the king; embroiling the courts of Spain and Portugal; creating sedition by preaching in the capital against the commercial companies of the minister; taking advantage of the earthquake to attain their detestable ends; surpassing Machiavelli in their diabolical plots; inventing prophecies of new disasters, such as warnings of subterranean fires and invasions[456] of the sea; calumniating the venerable Palafox; committing crimes worse than those of the Knights Templars, etc."
Unfortunately, Cardinal Passionei who was unfriendly to the Society, exercised great power at Rome at that time. He was so antagonistic that he would not allow a Jesuit book in the library, which made d'Alembert say: "I am sorry for his library." He also refused to condemn the work of the scandalous ex-monk Norbert, who was in the pay of Carvalho. To make matters worse, Benedict XIV was then at the point of death. And a short time previously, yielding to Carvalho's importunities, he had appointed Cardinal Saldanha, who was Carvalho's tool, to investigate the complaints and to report back to Rome, without however taking any action on the premises. The dying Pontiff was unaware of the intimacy of Saldanha with the man in Portugal or he would not have ordered him in the Brief of appointment to "follow the paths of gentleness and mildness, in dealing with an Order which has always been of the greatest edification to the whole world; lest by doing otherwise he would diminish the esteem which, up to that time, they have justly acquired as a reward of their diligence. Their holy Institute had given many illustrious men to the Church whose teachings they have not hesitated to confirm with their blood." As the Pope died in the following month, Saldanha made light of the instructions. His usual boast was that "the will of the king was the rule of his actions; and he was under such obligations to his majesty, that he would not hesitate to throw himself from the window if such were the royal pleasure."
It was currently reported in Lisbon, says Weld (130), that the office of visitor had been first offered to Francis of the Annunciation, an Augustinian who had reformed the University of Coimbra; and on[457] his refusal he was sent to prison where he ended his days. But the obliging Saldanha saw in it an opportunity for still further advancement; he accepted the work and performed it in accordance with the wishes of Pombal. Meantime, new dungeons were being made in the fortress of Jonquiera in which the offending Jesuits were to be buried. Saldanha began his work as Inquisitor on May 31, by going with great pomp to the Jesuit Church of St. Roch. Seated on the throne in the sanctuary, he gave his hand to be kissed by all the religious. When the provincial knelt before him, the cardinal told him to have confidence — he would act with clemency. When the ceremony was over, he departed abruptly without asking any questions or making any examination. But a few days afterward, the provincial received a letter bearing the date May 15, that is sixteen days before this visit to the Church, declaring that the Fathers in Portugal and in its dominions to the ends of the earth were, on the fullest information, found to be guilty of a worldly traffic which was a disgrace to the ecclesiastical state; and they were commanded under pain of excommunication to desist from such business transactions at the very hour the notification was made. The language employed in the letter which was immediately spread throughout the country was insulting and defamatory to the highest degree.
All the procurators were then compelled to hand over their books to the government. And when the horrified people, who knew there was nothing back of it all but Carvalho's hatred, manifested their discontent, it was ascribed to the Jesuits. Hence on June 6, the cardinal patriarch, at the instigation of the prime minister, suspended them all from the function of preaching and hearing confessions throughout the patriarchate. The cardinal had, at first, demurred,[458] for he knew the Jesuits in Lisbon to be the very reverse of Saldanha's description of them, and he therefore demanded a regular trial. Whereupon Carvalho flew into such a rage that out of sheer terror, and after a few hours' struggle, he issued the cruel order. The poor cardinal, who was an ardent friend and admirer of the Society, was so horrified at what he had done that he fell into a fever, and died within a month. Before he received the last sacraments, he made a public declaration that the Society was innocent, and he drew up a paper to that effect; but Carvalho never let it see the light. When the Archbishop of Evora heard that the dying man had shed tears over his weakness, he said: "Tears are not enough. He should have shed the last drop of his blood."
Saldanha was made patriarch in the deceased prelate's place; and though his office of visitor had ceased ipso facto on the death of the Pope, he continued to exercise its functions nevertheless. He appointed Bulhoens, the Bishop of Para, a notorious adherent of Carvalho, to be his delegate in Brazil. Bulhoens first examined the Jesuits of Para, but could find nothing against them. He then proceeded to Maranhão; but the bishop of that place left in disgust; and the governor warned Bulhoens that if he persisted, the city would be in an uproar. Not being able to effect anything, he asked the Bishop of Bahia to undertake the work of investigation. The invitation was promptly accepted; and all the superiors were ordered to show their books under pain of excommunication. They readily complied, and no fault was found with the accounts. He then instituted a regular tribunal; received the depositions of seventy-five witnesses, among them Saldanha's own brother who had lived twenty-five years in Maranhão. Next he examined the tax commissioner, through whose hands all contracts[459] and bills of exchange had to pass; and that official affirmed under oath that he had never known or heard of any business transactions having been carried on by Jesuits. The result was that the courageous bishop declared "it would be an offence against God and his conscience and against the king's majesty to condemn the Fathers." When his report was forwarded to Portugal, Carvalho ordered the confiscation of his property; expelled him from his palace, and declared his see vacant. The valiant prelate passed the rest of his days in seclusion, supported by the alms of the faithful.
In September 1758, a charge was trumped up in Lisbon in a most tortuous fashion, based on the alleged discovery of a plot to assassinate the king. Those chiefly involved were the Duke de Averio and the Marquis de Tavora, with his wife, his two sons, his two brothers and his two sons-in-law, all of whom were seized at midnight on December 12. The marchioness and her daughter-in-law were carried off to a convent in their night-dresses; the men of the family, to dens formerly occupied by the wild beasts of the city menagerie. De Aveiro, who was supposed to be the assassin-in-chief, was not taken until next day. Several others were included in this general round-up, some of them for having asserted that the whole conspiracy was a manufactured affair. At the same time, some of the domestic servants of the marquis, probably for having offered resistance at the time of the arrest, were put to death so that they could tell no tales. Not being able to have the accused parties tried before any regularly constituted tribunal, because of the lack of evidence, Carvalho drew up a sentence of condemnation himself, and presented it to a new court which he had just established, called the inconfidenza, and demanded the signatures of the judges[460] who were all his creatures. After being stormed at for a while, all, with one exception, put their names to the paper. Then, as by the law of the land no nobleman could be condemned to death except by his peers, he constituted himself as a tribunal, along with his secretary of the Navy and the secretary of Foreign Affairs, neither of whom had any difficulty in complying with the wish of their master.
On January 11, 1759, three of the noblemen involved, Aveiro, Tavora and Antongia, were led out to execution before the king's palace. Vast multitudes had assembled in the public square; and to ensure order, fresh regiments had been summoned from other parts of the kingdom. A riot was feared, for the Tavoras were among the noblest families of the realm. The accused had not even been defended and had been interrogated on the rack. The execution was most expeditious, and the heads of the three victims quickly rolled in the dust. That night, the marchioness was taken from the convent to the new dungeons in the fort; and on January 12, she heard the sentence of death passed on her by Carvalho himself who was both judge and accuser. The scaffold was erected in the square of Belem; and long before daylight of January 13 an immense multitude had gathered to witness the hideous spectacle. The marchioness advanced and took her seat in the chair. The axe quickly descended on her neck — and all was over. She was despatched in this hurried fashion because the interference of the king was feared. Indeed, the messenger arrived just when the head had been severed from the body. The two sons of the marchioness and her son-in-law were then stretched on the rack and strangled. The father of the family, the old marquis followed next in order. As a mark of clemency, his torture was brief but effective. Four others were then[461] executed; fire was set to the gibbet; and its blood-stained timbers along with the bodies of the victims were reduced to ashes and thrown into the Tagus. This was not a scene in a village of savages, but in a great European capital which had just passed through a terrible visitation of God but apparently had not understood its meaning. Carvalho was thirsting for more blood, but the king held him back; so he contented himself with destroying the palaces of the Aveiras and Tavoras; sprinkling the sites with salt; forbidding anyone to bear the names hitherto so illustrious, and even effacing them from the monuments and the public archives. He was not allowed to commit any more official murders for the moment; but at least he had thousands who were dying in his underground dungeons.
What had the Jesuits to do with all this? Nothing whatever. They were accused of being the spiritual advisers of the Tavora family which it was impossible to disprove, because though the persons implicated by the accusation were all arrested on the 11th, sentence of death had been already passed on the 9th. There were twenty-nine paragraphs in the indictment. The twenty-second said that "even if the exuberant and conclusive proofs already adduced did not exist, the presumption of the law would suffice to condemn such monsters." Of course, no lawyer in the world could plead against such a charge, and it is noteworthy that in the Brief of Suppression of the whole Society by Clement XIV which brings together all the accusations against it, there is no mention whatsoever, even inferentially, of any conspiracy of the Jesuits against the life of the King of Portugal. Moreover, the Inquisition and all the Bishops of Spain judged this Portuguese horror at its proper value, when on May 3, 1759 they put their official stamp of condemnation[462] on the pamphlets with which the whole of Europe was flooded immediately after Pombal's infamous act. They denounced the charges one by one as "designed to foment discord, to disturb the peace and tranquillity of souls and consciences, and especially to discredit the holy Society of Jesus and religious who laudably labor in it to the benefit of the Church; as is known throughout the world." Over and over again as each book is specifically anathematised, the "holy Society of Jesus" is spoken of with commendation and praise. The condemned publications were then burnt in the market place. That exculpation ought to have been sufficient, coming as it did not only from all the Spanish bishops but from the Inquisition, which from the very beginning had been uniformly suspicious of everything Jesuitical. Against this utterance Pombal was powerless for it was the voice of another nation.
When the year 1759 began, three of the most conspicuous and most venerable Fathers of Portugal were in jail under sentence of death. But neither the king nor Carvalho dared to carry out the sentence of execution. Something however had to be done; and therefore a royal edict, which had been written long before, was issued. After reciting all that had been previously said about Brazil, etc. it declared that "these religious being corrupt and deplorably fallen away from their holy institute, and rendered manifestly incapable by such abominable and inveterate vices to return to its observances, must be properly and effectually banished, denaturalized, proscribed and expelled from all his majesty's dominions, as notorious rebels, traitors, adversaries and aggressors of his royal person and realm; as well as for the public peace and the common good of his subjects; and it is ordered under the irremissible pain of death, that[463] no person, of whatever state or condition, is to admit them into any of his possessions or hold any communication with them by word or writing, even though they should return into these states in a different garb or should have entered another order, unless with the King's permission." It is sad to have to record that the Patriarch of Lisbon endorsed the invitation to the Jesuits to avail themselves of this royal clemency.
The procurators of the missions who occupied a temporary house in Lisbon had been already carried off to jail; and their money, chalices, sacred vessels, all of which were intended for Asia and Brazil, were confiscated. The Exodus proper began at the College of Elvas on September 1. At night-fall a squadron of cavalry arrived; and taking the inmates prisoners, marched them off without any intimation of whither they were going. On the following day, Sunday, they were lodged in a miserable shed, exhausted though they were by the journey, with nothing but a few crusts to eat, after having suffered intensely from the heat all day long. They were not even allowed to go to Mass. During the next night and the following day, they continued their weary tramp and at last arrived at Evora. There the young men were left at the college, and the sixty-nine Professed were compelled to walk for six consecutive days till they reached the Tagus. Many were old and decrepit and one of them lost his mind on the journey. When they reached the river, they were put in open boats and exposed all day long to the burning sun, with nothing to eat or drink. They were then transferred to a ship which had been waiting for them since the month of April. It was then late in September.
Other exiles soon joined them, after going through similar experiences, until there were one hundred and thirty-three in the same vessel. They were all kept[464] in the hold till they were out of sight of land. There was no accommodation for them: the food was insufficient; the water was foul; there were no dishes, so that six or seven had to sit around a tin can, and take out what they could with a wooden spoon, and the same vessel had to serve for the water they drank. The orders were to stop at no port until they reached Civita Vecchia. However, after passing the Straits of Gibraltar, it became evident that unless the captain wanted to carry a cargo of corpses to Italy, he must take in supplies somewhere: for many of the victims were sixty or seventy years of age. There were even some octogenarians among them. Hence, on reaching Alicante, in Spain, one of the Fathers went ashore. There was a college of the Society in that city; and as soon as the news spread of the arrival of the prisoners, the people rushed to the shore to supply their wants, but the messenger was the only one allowed to be seen. They then sailed away from Alicante. Off Corsica, a storm caught them and so delayed their progress that a stop had to be made at Spezia for more food. At last, on October 24, more than a month after they had left Lisbon, they were flung haggard, emaciated and exhausted on the shores of the Papal States at Civita Vecchia. Of course, they were received by the people there with unbounded affection; and as Father Weld relates "none exceeded the Dominican Fathers in their tender solicitude for the sufferers." A marble slab in their church records their admiration for these confessors of the Faith with whom the sons of St. Dominic declared they were devinctissimi — "closely bound to them in affection."
On September 29, troops surrounded the College of Coimbra. The astonished populace was informed that it was because the Fathers had been fighting; that some were already killed and others wounded;[465] and the soldiers had been summoned to prevent further disorders. That night amid pouring rain, the tramp of horses' hoofs was heard; and as the people crowded to the windows, they saw the venerable men of the college led away between squads of cavalry as if they were brigands or prisoners of war. They arrived at the Tagus on October 7, where others were already waiting. They numbered in all 121, and were crowded into two small ships which were to carry them into exile. They had scarcely room to move. Yet, when they arrived at Genoa, they were all packed into one of the boats. At Leghorn, they were kept for a whole month in close confinement on board the ship. When they started out, they were buffeted by storms, and not until January 4, 1760 did they reach the papal territory. They were in a more wretched state of filth and emaciation than their predecessors.
These prisoners were the special criminals of the Society, namely — the professed Fathers. The other Jesuits were officially admitted to be without reproach and were exhorted, both by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, to abandon the Order and be dispensed from their vows. As these non-Professed numbered at least three-fourths of the whole body, the difficult problem presents itself of explaining how the Professed who are looked up to by the rest of the Society for precept and example should be monsters of iniquity and yet could train the remaining three-fourths of the members in such a way as to make them models of every virtue.
Pombal was convinced that he could separate the youth of the Society from their elders; and he was extremely anxious to do so, because of the family connections of many of them, and because of the loss to the nation at one stroke of so much ability and[466] talent. But he failed egregiously. They were all gathered in the colleges of Coimbra and Evora. No seclusion was observed. Everybody was free to visit them from the world outside; and inducements of every kind were held out to them to abandon the Society: family affection, worldly ambition, etc. — but without avail. They had no regular superior, so they elected a fourth-year theologian who had just been ordained a priest. Another was made minister; and a third, master of novices. The house was kept in excellent order; the religious discipline was perfect and the exercises of the community went on with as much regularity as if nothing were happening. Pombal sent commissioner after commissioner to shake the constancy of the young men, but only two of the tempted ones weakened. "Who is their superior?" he asked one day in a rage. The answer was: "Joseph Carvalho — your namesake and relative." On October 20, a letter from the cardinal was read in both houses. He expressed his astonishment that these young Jesuits did not avail themselves of the royal favor to desert; and he warned them that they were not suffering for their faith, and that "their refusal of His Majesty's offer to release them from their vows was not virtuous constancy but seditious obstinacy."
Finally, October 24 was fixed for their departure, and notice was given that they could not expect to go to any civilized land, but would probably be dropped on some desolate island off the African coast. That shook the resolution of two of the band, but the rest stood firm. In the morning, all went to Holy Communion and at an hour before sunset, the word was given to start. They sang a Te Deum and then set out — 130 in all. They were preceded by a troop of cavalry; a line of foot soldiers marched on either side;[467] while here and there torches threw their glare over this grim nocturnal procession. It took them four days to reach Oporto, where they met their brethren from Braganza and Braga. There were only ten from the former place, but sixty soldiers had been detailed to guard them. Indeed, the troopers from Braga had to keep the crowds back with drawn swords, so eager were the people along the road to express their sympathy. At Oporto the young heroes had to witness the desertion of four Professed Fathers; but that did not weaken their resolution. They were all crammed into three small craft, but the weather was too stormy to leave the port; and there they remained a whole week, packed so close together that there was scarcely room to lie side by side. The air became so foul that it was doubtful if they could survive. Even their guards took sick, and, at last, a number of the prisoners were transferred to a fort in the harbor.
At last to the number of 223 they sailed down the Douro. One of them died, and his companions sang the Office of the Dead over him and buried him in the sea. When the ship did not roll too much, Mass was said and they went to Communion. All the exercises that are customary in religious houses were scrupulously performed, and the Church festivals were observed as if they were a community at home. They were quarantined two weeks at Genoa without being permitted to go ashore. Then another scholastic died, and they found that his earthly goods consisted of nothing but a few bits of linen, that must have been foul by this time, besides a discipline and a hair shirt. They cast anchor at Civita Vecchia on February 7, having left inhospitable Portugal in October.
The band from Evora to the number of ninety-eight, of whom only three were priests, had not such a rude experience except in the distress of seeing some[468] deserters, among them two Professed Fathers. The officer in charge of the ship, unlike most of the government employees, was tender and kind to them. How could he have been otherwise? His name was de Britto — the same as that of the Portuguese martyr in India. It meant the loss of his position, perhaps, but what did he care? When they reached Lisbon, the nineteen who had been separated from the first detachment to be kept in jail came aboard, and the little band numbered 115 all told, when the ship hoisted anchor and made for the sea. They reached Civita Vecchia where the two happy troops of valiant young Jesuits met in each others arms. Their number was then 336. They were distributed among the various establishments of Italy, the novices being sent to Sant' Andrea in Rome. Two cardinals and a papal nuncio who were making their retreat in the house at the time insisted on serving them at table, while the Pope sent a message to the General to say: "These young men have reflected great honor on the Society and have shown how well they have been trained."
The fury of Pombal was not yet sated. Not an island of the Atlantic, not a station in Africa or India, not a mission in the depths of the forests of America that was not searched and looted by his commissioners, who ruthlessly expelled the devoted missionaries who were found there. Men venerable for age and acquirements were given over to brutal soldiers who were ordered to shoot them if any attempt at escape was made. They were dragged hundreds of miles through the wildest of regions, over mountains, through raging torrents, amid driving storms; they were starved and had nothing but the bare ground on which to rest; they were searched again and again as if their rags held treasures; were made to answer the roll call twice[469] a day like convicts in jail; and then tossed in the holds of crazy ill-provisioned ships with no place to rest their weary heads, except on a coil of rope or in the filth of the cattle; and when dead, they were to be flung to the sharks. When at last they reached Lisbon they were forbidden to show themselves on deck, lest their fellow-countrymen and their families might be shocked by their degradation. They were then spirited away to the dungeons of St. Julian and Jonquiera to rot, until death relieved them of their sufferings. Those who were not placed in the crowded jails were sent in their rags to find a refuge somewhere outside of their native land.
As has been said, there were two provinces in Portuguese South America — Brazil and Maranhão. In the former, besides the Seminary of Belem, the Society had six colleges and sixty-two residences with a total of 445 members. Orders were given to the whole 445 to assemble at Bahia, Pernambuco and San Sebastian. Everything was seized. At Bahia, the novices were stripped of their habits and sent adrift, though the families of some of them lived in far away Portugal. The rest were confined in a house surrounded by armed troops while the bishop of the city proclaimed that any one who would encourage the victims to persevere in their vocation would be excommunicated. Then, one day, without a moment's notice, all were ordered out of the house and sent to jail in different places. There they remained for the space of three months waiting for the missionaries from the interior to arrive. They came in slowly, for some of them lived eight hundred miles away, and had to tramp all that distance through the forests and over mountain ranges. Before all had made their appearance, however, the first batches were sent across to the mother country to make space. They started on March 16 and reached[470] the Tagus on June 6. Those from Bahia had taken from April to June, and it was fully three months before the convict ship from Pernambuco arrived in port.
All this time the deported religious were kept between decks, and soldiers stood at the gangway with drawn swords to prevent any attempt to go up to get a breath of fresh air. Their food was nothing but vegetables cooked in sea-water, for there was not enough of drinking water even to slake their thirst. The result was that the ship had a cargo of half-dead men when it anchored off Lisbon; but the unfortunate wretches were kept imprisoned there for fifteen days with the port-holes closed. They were then transferred to a Genoese ship and sent to Civita Vecchia. It appears that the Provincial of these Brazilian Jesuits was named Lynch; but strange to say, there is no mention of him in any of the Menologies. The deportation from Pernambuco and San Sebastian were repetitions of this organized brutality; and the same methods were employed at Goa in India, and the other dependencies, such as Macao and China. In the transportations from these posts in the Orient, the ships had to stop at Bahia which had been witness of the first exportations; but the victims in the China ships could learn nothing of what had happened. Twenty-three of them died on one of the journeys from India. It is noted that a Turk at Algiers and a Danish Lutheran sea-captain, had shown the greatest humanity to the victims whose fellow countrymen seemed transformed into savage beasts. The prisoners had been kept in confinement twenty months before they left Goa; and when they arrived at Lisbon on October 18, 1764, they were taken off in long boats at the dead of night, and lodged in the foulest dungeons of the fortress of St. Julian.
[471] But these were not the only victims of Carvalho. There were prisoners from every grade of society, and their number reached the appalling figure of nine thousand. Among them were eminent ecclesiastics, bishops and canons and some of the most distinguished laymen of the kingdom. A description of the prisons in which they were confined for years or till they died has been given to posterity by some of the victims. Father Weld in his "Suppression of the Society in Portugal" quotes extensively from their letters. The jails were six in number: Belem, Almeida, Azeitano, St. George, Jonquiera and St. Julian. They had annexes, also, along the African coasts or on the remote islands of the Atlantic. Belem, the Portuguese name for Bethlehem, so called because it had once been an abbey, was about four miles from Lisbon towards the ocean. It had the distinction of keeping its prisoners behind iron bars, but exposed to the public like wild beasts in a menagerie; so that the public could come and look at them and feed them if so disposed. The Portuguese criminals were given a pittance by the government, to purchase food, but the foreigners had to beg from the spectators for the means to support life. It was admirably contrived to induce insanity.
Jonquiera lay between Belem and Lisbon. The cells were numerous in this place. Moreira, the king's former confessor, and Malagrida were among the inmates. The Marquis de Lorna who was also confined there says "there were nineteen cells, each about seven paces square, and so tightly closed that a light had to be kept burning continually; otherwise they would have been in absolute darkness. When the prisoners were first put in them, the plaster was still wet and yielded to the slightest pressure. The cold was intense. Worst of all for a Catholic country,[472] the sacraments were allowed the prisoners only once a year." The Marquis says that during the sixteen years he spent there "he never heard Mass." In these dungeons there were 221 Jesuits, 88 of whom died in their chains. The Castle of St. Julian stood on the banks of the Tagus and the walls were washed by the tide. In this place, there were 125 Jesuits of all nations; men of high birth, of great virtue and intellectual ability. The cells were situated below the sea-level; and were damp, unventilated, choked with filth and swarming with vermin. Some of the Fathers passed nineteen years in those tombs. The drinking water was putrid; the prisoners' clothes were in rags; often not sufficient for decency; many had no under garments and no shoes; their hair and beards were never cut; the food was scant and of the worst quality, and was often carried off before there was time to eat it. The oil of the single lamp in the cells was so limited that to save it, the wick was reduced to two or three threads. The same conditions prevailed in the other prisons. Meantime the jailers were making money on the supplies supposed to be served to the prisoners. Such was prison life in Portugal during the twenty years of Pombal's administration.
One of the particularly outrageous features of these imprisonments was that Pombal preferred to hold foreigners rather than native Portuguese. The foreigners, having no friends in the country, would not, in all probability, be claimed by their relatives; and as the ministers of nearly all the nations of Europe were of the same mind as himself, he had no fear of political intervention. Thus we find in a letter of Father Kaulen, a German Jesuit, which was published by Christopher de Murr, that in one section of St. Julian, besides fifty-four Portuguese Jesuits, there were thirteen Germans, one Italian, three Frenchmen,[473] two Spaniards, and three Chinese. These Chinese Jesuits must have made curious reflections on the meaning of the term "Christian nations." "There are others in the towers," adds Father Kaulen, "but I cannot find out who they are, or how many, or to what country they belong."
The three Frenchmen, Fathers du Gad and de Ranceau along with Brother Delsart were set free at the demand of Marie Leczinska, the wife of Louis XV; it was through them that Father Kaulen was able to send his letter to the provincial of the Lower Rhine. He himself was probably liberated later by the intervention of Maria Theresa, but there is no record of it. His letter is of great value as he had personal experience of what he writes. His experience was a long one, for he entered the prison in 1759; and this communication to his provincial is dated October 12, 1766. In it he writes: —
"I was taken prisoner by a soldier with a drawn sword and brought to Fort Olreida on the frontier of Portugal. There I was put in a frightful cell filled with rats which got into my bed and ate my food. I could not chase them away, it was so dark. We were twenty Jesuits, each one in a separate cell. During the first four months we were treated with some consideration. After that, they gave us only enough food to keep us from dying of hunger. They took away our breviaries, medals, etc. One of the Fathers resisted so vigorously when they tried to deprive him of his crucifix that they desisted. The sick got no help or medicine.
"After three years they transferred nineteen of us to another place because of a war that had broken out. We travelled across Portugal surrounded by a troop of cavalry, and were brought to Lisbon; and after passing the night in a jail with the worst kind of[474] criminals, we were sent to St. Julian, which is on the seashore. It is a horrible hole, underground, dark and foul. The food is bad, the water swarming with worms. We have half a pound of bread a day. We receive the sacraments only when we are dying. The doctor lives outside but if we fall sick during the night, he is not called. The prison is filled with worms and insects and little animals such as I never saw before. The walls are dripping wet, so that our clothes soon rot. One of the Fathers died and his face was so brilliant that one of the soldiers exclaimed: 'That's the face of a saint.' We are not unhappy, and the three French Fathers who left us envied our lot.
"Very few of us have even the shreds of our soutanes left. Indeed we have scarcely enough clothes for decency. At night a rough covering full of sharp points serves as a blanket; and the straw on which we sleep as well as the blanket that covers us soon become foul, and it is very hard to get them renewed. We are not allowed to speak to any one. The jailor is extremely brutal and seems to make a point of adding to our sufferings; only with the greatest reluctance does he give us what we need. Yet we could be set free in a moment if we abandoned the Society. Some of the Fathers who were at Macao and had undergone all sorts of sufferings at the hands of the pagans, such as prison chains and torture say to us that perhaps God found it better to have them suffer in their own country for nothing, than among idolaters for the Faith.
"We ask the prayers of the Fathers of the province, but not because we lament our condition. On the contrary, we are happy. As for myself, though I would like to see my companions set free, I would not change places with you outside. We wish all our Fathers good health so that they may work courage[475]ously for God in Germany to make up for the little glory he receives here in Portugal.
Your Reverence's most humble servant
Lawrence Kaulen,
Captive of Jesus Christ."
Pombal was determined now to make a master-stroke to discredit the Portuguese Jesuits. He would disgrace and put to death as a criminal their most distinguished representative, Father Malagrida, now over seventy years of age, who had already passed two years in the dungeons of Jonquiera. Malagrida was regarded by the people as a saint. He had labored for many years in the missions of Brazil and was marvelously successful in the work of converting the savages. Unfortunately he had been recalled to Portugal in 1749 by the queen mother to prepare her for the end of her earthly career. As Malagrida knew how Carvalho's brother was acting in Brazil, he was evidently a dangerous man to have so near the Court. Hence when the earthquake occurred and the holy old missionary dared to tell the people that possibly it was a punishment of God for the sins of the people, Carvalho banished him to Setubal and kept him there for two years. When the supposed plot against the king's life occurred, Malagrida was sent to prison as being concerned in it, though he had never been in Lisbon since his banishment. He was condemned to death with the other supposed conspirators; but his character as a priest, and his acknowledged sanctity made the king forbid the execution of the sentence. Pombal, however, found a way out of the difficulty. A book was produced which was said to have been written by Malagrida during his imprisonment. It was crammed with utterances that only a madman could have written: In any case it could not have[476] been produced by the occupant of a dark cell, where there was no ink and no paper. When it was presented to the Inquisition whose death sentences the king himself could not revoke, the judges refused to consider the case at all; whereupon they were promptly removed by Pombal who made his own brother chief inquisitor; and from him and two other tools, promptly drew a condemnation of Malagrida for heresy, schism, blasphemy and gross immorality.
The sentence of death was passed on September 20, 1761, and on the same day the venerable priest was brought to hear the formal proclamation of it in the hall of supplication. There he was told that he was degraded from his priestly functions, and was condemned to be led through the public streets of the city, with a rope around his neck, to the square called do Rocco, where he was to be strangled by the executioner, and after he was dead, his body was to be burned to ashes, so that no memory of him or his sepulchre might remain. He heard the sentence without emotion and quietly protested his innocence. On the very next day, September 21, the execution took place. Platforms were erected around the square. Cavalry and infantry were massed here and there in large bodies; each soldier had eight rounds of ammunition. Pombal presided. The nobility, the members of the courts, and officers of the State were compelled to be present, and great throngs of people crowded the square and filled the abutting avenues and streets.
When everything was ready, a gruesome procession started from the prison. Malagrida appeared with the carocha, or high cap of the criminal, on his head, and a gag in his mouth. With him were fifty-two others who had been condemned for various crimes; but only he was to die. They were called from their cells merely to accentuate his disgrace. Having[477] arrived at the place of execution, the sentence was again read to him; and when he was relieved of the gag, he calmly protested his innocence and gave himself up to the executioners, uttering the words of Our Lord on the Cross: "Father, into Thy hands, I commend my spirit." He was quickly strangled; then fire was set to his lifeless body and the ashes were scattered to the winds. He was seventy-two years of age, and had spent forty-one of them working for the salvation of his fellowmen.
All this happened in Portugal which once gloried in having the great Francis Xavier represent it before the world; which exulted in a son like de Britto, the splendid apostle of the Brahmans, who waived aside a mitre in Europe but bent his neck with delight to receive the stroke of an Oriental scimitar. The same Portugal which inscribed on its roll of honor the forty Jesuits who suffered death while on their way to evangelize Portugal's possessions in Brazil, now made a holiday to witness the hideous torture of the venerable and saintly Malagrida. The Jesuits of Portugal had done much for their country. They had borne an honorable part in the struggle that threw off the Spanish yoke: the magnificent Vieira was a greater emancipator of the native races than was Las Casas; and he and his brethren had won more territories for Portugal than da Gama and Cabral had ever discovered. But all that was forgotten, and they were driven out of their country, or kept chained in fetid dungeons till they died or were burned at the stake in the market-place, in the presence of the king and the people. No wonder that Portugal has descended to the place she now occupies among the nations.
[478]
CHAPTER XV
CHOISEUL
The French Method — Purpose of the Enemy — Preliminary Accusations — Voltaire's testimony — La Vallette — La Chalotais — Seizure of Property — Auto da fé of the Works of Lessius, Suárez, Valentia, etc. — Appeal of the French Episcopacy — Christophe de Beaumont — Demand for a French Vicar — "Sint ut sunt aut non sint" — Protest of Clement XIII — Action of Father La Croix and the Jesuits of Paris — Louis XV signs the Act of Suppression — Occupations of dispersed Jesuits — Undisturbed in Canada — Expelled from Louisiana — Choiseul's Colonization of Guiana.The result of Pombal's work in Portugal was applauded by his friends in France, but his methods were condemned. "He was a butcher with an axe." Their own procedure was to be along different lines. They would first poison the public mind, would enjoy the pleasure of seeing the heretical Jansenist condemning the Jesuit for heterodoxy, and the professional debauchee assailing his morality, and then they would put the Society to death by process of law for the good of the commonwealth and of the Church. There would be no imprisonments, no burnings at the stake, no exiles, but simply an authorized confiscation of property which would leave the Jesuits without a home, replenish the public purse and ensure the peace of the nation. It was much easier and more refined. Meantime, the Portuguese exhibition was a valuable object lesson to their followers, who saw a king lately honored with the title of His Most Faithful Majesty putting to death the most ardent champions of the Faith. Later on, The Christian King, The Catholic King, and The Apostolic Emperor would unite to show that "Faith" and "Christianity" and "Apostolicity" were only names.
[479] With all their refinement, however, the French were more radical and more malignant than the Portuguese. Pombal had no other idea beyond that of a state Church such as he had seen in England, forming a part of the government machinery, and when his effort to bring that about by marrying the Protestant Duke of Cumberland to the Infanta of Portugal was thwarted by the Jesuits, he simply treated them as he did his other political enemies; he put them in jail or the grave. In France, the scheme was more comprehensive. With men like Voltaire and his associates in the literary world, and Choiseul and others of his set controlling the politics of the country, the plan was not merely to do away with the Church, but with all revealed religion. As the Jesuits were conspicuous adversaries of the scheme, it was natural that they should be disposed of first.
Such is the opinion of St. Liguori, who says: "The whole thing is a plot of the Jansenists and unbelievers to strike the Pope and the Church." The Protestant historian Maximilian Schoell is of like mind (Cours d'histoire, xliv.): "The Church had to be isolated; and to be isolated, it had to be deprived of the help of that sacred phalanx which had avowed itself to the defence of the Pontifical throne.... Such was the real cause of the hatred meted out to that Society." Dutilleul, in his "Histoire des corporations religieuses en France" (p. 279) expresses himself as follows: "The Jesuit is a missionary, a traveller, a mystic, a man of learning, an elegant civilizer of savages, a confessor of queens, a professor, a legislator, a financier, and, if need be, a warrior. His was not a narrow and personal ambition, as people erroneously suppose and assert. He was something more. He was a reactionist, a Catholic and a Roman revolutionist. Far from being attached, as is supposed, to his own interests,[480] the Society has been in the most daring efforts of its indefatigable ambition only the protagonists of the spiritual authority of Rome."
Indeed, we have it from Voltaire himself, who wrote to Helvetius in 1761: "Once we have destroyed the Jesuits, we shall have easy work with the Pope." Rorbacher (Histoire de l'église, tom. XXVII, p. 28) holds the same view, "They are attacking the Society only to strike with greater certainty at the Church and the State." But the real, the ultimate purpose of Voltaire was expressed by his famous phrase Ecrasons l'infâme — "Let us crush the detestable thing," the detestable thing meaning God or Christ, and such has ever been the aim of his disciples. That it still persists was proclaimed officially from the French tribune by Viviani, "Our war is not against the Church, nor against Christianity, but against God." This open and defiant profession of atheism, however, would not have been possible in 1761. Hence, to conceal their purpose, they allied themselves with the most pretentious professors of the religion of the time; the only ones, according to themselves, who knew the Church's dogma and observed her moral law; the orthodox and austere Jansenists, who probably flattered themselves they were tricking les impies, whereas, d'Alembert wrote to one of his friends "Let the Pandours destroy the Jesuits; then we shall destroy the Pandours."
The programme was to compel the parliament to terrorize the king, which was very easy, because of the gross licentiousness of Louis XV. He was simply a tool in the hands of his mistresses, and Guizot in his "Histoire de France" has a picture in which Madame du Barry stands over the king and points to the picture of Charles I of England, who was beheaded for resisting parliament.
[481] The Jansenist section of the coalition began the fight by the time-worn accusation of the "lax morality" of the Jesuits — a method of assault that was by no means acceptable to Voltaire who as early as 1746 had written to his friend d'Alembert, as follows: "What did I see during the seven years that I lived in the Jesuit's College? The most laborious and frugal manner of life; every hour of which was spent in the care of us boys and in the exercises of their austere profession. For that I call to witness thousands of men who were brought up as I was. Hence, it is that I can never help being astounded at their being accused of teaching lax morality. They have had like other religious in the dark ages casuists who have treated the pro and con of questions that are evident today or have been relegated to oblivion. But, ma foi are we going to judge their morality by the satire of the Lettres Provinciales. It is assuredly by Father Bourdaloue and Father Cheminais and their other preachers and by their missionaries that we should measure them. Put in parallel columns the sermons of Bourdaloue and the Lettres Provinciales, and you'll find in the latter the art of raillery pressed into service to make indifferent things appear criminal and to clothe insults in elegant language; but you will learn from Bourdaloue how to be severe to yourself and indulgent to others. I ask then, which is true morality and which of the two books is more useful to mankind? I make bold to say that there is nothing more contradictory; nothing more iniquitous; nothing more shameful in human nature than to accuse of lax morality, the men who lead the austerest kind of life in Europe, and who go to face death at the ends of Asia and America."
The romances about the immense wealth of the Society best appealed to the public imagination,[482] especially as the news of an impending financial disaster was in the air. One instance of this style of propaganda may suffice. The others all resemble it. A Spaniard, it was said, had arrived at Brest with, 2,000,000 livres in his wallet and was promptly killed by the Jesuits. Soon the 2,000,000 had grown to 8,000,000. Then there was a distinguished conversion; that of a Jesuit named Chamillard who had turned Gallican and Jansenist on his death-bed; and although Chamillard a few days afterwards appeared in the flesh and protested that he was neither dead nor a Gallican nor a Jansenist, his testimony was set aside. It had appeared in print and that was enough. Such absurdities of course could do no serious harm, but at last, a splendid fact presented itself which could not be disproved; especially as a vast number of people, in France and elsewhere, were financial sufferers in consequence of it. It was the bankruptcy of Father de la Valette. In the public mind it proved everything that had ever been written about the Order. Briefly it is as follows:
At the very beginning of the Seven Years War, the British fleet had destroyed 300 French ships, captured 10,000 sailors and confiscated 300,000,000 livres worth of merchandise. Among the sufferers was Father La Valette, the superior of Martinique, who was engaged in cultivating extensive plantations on the island, and selling the products in Europe, for the support of the missions. Very unwisely he borrowed extensively after the first disaster, going deeper and deeper into debt, until at last he was unable to meet his obligations which by this time had run up to the alarming sum of 2,000,000 livres, or about $400,000. Suit was therefore brought by some of the creditors, but instead of submitting the case to a commission established long before by Louis XIV for adjusting the affairs of the missions, they laid it before the usual[483] parliamentary tribunal in spite of the fact of its inveterate and well-known hatred of the Society. Guizot says that they did it with a certain pride, so convinced were they of the justice of their plea. Hundreds of others had suffered like themselves at the hands of the enemy in the Seven Years War, and they had no desire to avail themselves of any special legislation in their behalf. They underrated the honesty of the judges.
A verdict was, of course, rendered against them, and the whole Society was made responsible for the debt, though by the law of the land there was no solidarity between the various houses of religious orders. Nevertheless, they set to work to cancel their indebtedness. They had made satisfactory arrangements with their principal creditors, and although Martinique, where much of the property was located, had been seized by the English; yet one-third of their liabilities had been paid off when the government took alarm. If this continued, the public treasury would reap no profit from the transaction. Hence, an order was issued to seize every Jesuit establishment in France. A stop was put to the reimbursement of private individuals and the government seized all that was left. But although the Society was not to blame it incurred the hatred of all those who were thus deprived of their money. That, indeed, was the purpose of the government seizure.
Long before the crash, the superiors had done all in their power to stop La Valette, but in those days Martinique was far from Rome. Although attempt after attempt was made to reach him, it was all in vain. One messenger was crippled when embarking at Marseilles; another died at sea; another was captured by pirates, until in 1762 Father de la Marche arrived on the island. After a thorough investigation de la[484] Marche declared (1) that La Valette had given himself up to trading in defiance of canon law and of the special laws of the Society; (2) that he had concealed his proceedings from the higher superiors of the Society and even from the Fathers of Martinique; (3) that his acts had been denounced by his superiors, not only as soon as they were made known, but as soon as they were suspected. The visitor then asked the General of the Society (1) to suspend La Valette from all administration both spiritual and temporal: and (2) to recall him immediately to Europe.
La Valette's submission was appended to the verdict of the visitor; in it, he acknowledges the justice of the sentence, although as soon as he knew what harm he was doing he had stopped. He attests under oath that not one of his superiors had given him any authorization or counsel or approval; and no one had shared in or connived at his enterprises. He takes God to witness that he did not make his avowals under compulsion or threat, or out of complaisance, or for any inducement held out to him, but absolutely of his own accord, and for truth's sake; and in order to dispel and refute, as far as in him lay, the calumnies against the Society consequent upon his acts. The document bore the date of April 25, 1762. He was expelled from the Society and passed the rest of his life in England. He never retracted or modified any of the statements he had made in Martinique.
Following close on the decision in the La Valette case, parliament ordered the immediate production of a copy of the Constitutions of the Society. On the following morning, it was in their hands and was submitted to several committees made up of Jansenists, Gallicans and Atheists. These committees were charged with the examination of the Institute and also of various publications of the Society. Extracts[485] were to be made and presented for the consideration of the court. The most famous of these reports was the one made by La Chalotais, a prominent magistrate of Brittany. He discovered that the Society was in conflict with the authority of the Church, the general Councils, the Apostolic See, and all ecclesiastical and civil governments; moreover that, in their approved theological works, they taught every form of heresy, idolatry and superstition, and inculcated suicide, regicide, sacrilege, robbery, impurity of every kind, usury, magic, murder, cruelty, hatred, vengeance, sedition, treachery — in brief, whatever iniquity mankind could commit was to be found in their writings. As soon as the report was laid before the judges, a decree was issued on May 8, 1761 declaring that the one hundred and fifty-eight colleges, churches and residences with the foreign missions of the Order were to be seized by the government; all the physical laboratories, the libraries, moneys, inheritances of its members, the bequests of friends for charitable, educational or missionary purposes — all was to go into the Government coffers.
Crétineau-Joly estimated that the total value of the property seized amounted to about 58,000,000 francs or $11,600,000. The amount of the booty explains the zeal of the prosecution. To soften the blow a concession of a pension of thirty cents a day was made by the Paris parliament to those who would take an oath that they had left the Society. The Languedoc legislators, however, cut it down to twelve. Moreover this pension was restricted to the Professed. The Scholastics got nothing; and as they were considered legally dead, because of the vows they had taken in the Society, they were declared incapable of inheriting even from their own parents. The decree also forbade all subjects of the king to enter the Society;[486] to attend any lecture given by Jesuits; to visit their houses previous to their expulsion; or to hold any communication with them. The Jesuits themselves were enjoined not to write to each other, not even to the General. It is noteworthy that the lawmakers who issued these regulations profess to be shocked by the Jesuit doctrine of "blind obedience."
By a second decree it was ordered that the works of twenty-seven Jesuits which had been examined should be burned by the public executioner. Among them were such authors as Bellarmine, Lessius, Suárez, Valentia, Salmerón, Gretser, Vásquez, Jouvancy, — all of whom were and yet are considered to be among the greatest of Catholic theologians, but the lay doctors of the parliament held them to be dangerous to public morals; and to the peace of the nation and in order to express their horror emphatically, they called for this auto da fé. It should be noted that all of these works were written in Latin, and that their technical character as well as the terminology employed would make it absolutely impossible for even these solons of the French parliament to grasp the meaning of the text. In order to sway the public mind, a summary of the Chalotais report, commonly known as "Extraits des assertions" was scattered broadcast throughout the country. The desired effect was produced and even to-day if an attempt is made to answer any of its charges the answer is always ready, "We have the authority of La Chalotais; he was an eminent magistrate; he examined the books; the highest court in France accorded him the verdict, and any attempt to explain away the charges is superfluous!"
Yet there was in Paris at that time a higher tribunal than the one which gave La Chalotais his claim to notoriety. It was the General Assembly of the Clergy which had been convoked by the King to pass upon[487] the character of the Jesuits as a body, before he affixed his signature to the decree of expulsion. It consisted of fifty-one prelates, some of them cardinals. They met on June 27 and with the exception of the Bishop of Angers, Allais, and especially of Fitzjames, the Bishop of Soissons, who was the head of the Jansenist party and whose pastoral utterances were condemned by the Pope as heretical, addressed a "Letter" to the king conjuring him "to preserve an institution which was so useful to the State," and declaring that "they could not see without alarm the destruction of a society of religious who were so praiseworthy for the integrity of their morals, the austerity of their discipline, the vastness of their labors and their erudition and for the countless services they had rendered to the Church.
"Charged as they are with the most precious trust of the education of youth, participating as they do under the authority of the bishops, in the most delicate functions of the holy ministry, honored as they are by the confidence of kings in the most redoubtable of tribunals, loved and sought after by a great number of our subjects and esteemed even by those who fear them, they have won for themselves a consideration which is too general to be disregarded."
"Everything, Sire, pleads with you in favor of the Jesuits: religion claims them as its defenders; the Church as her ministers; Christians as the guardians of their conscience; a great number of your subjects who have been their pupils intercede with you for their old masters; and all the youth of the kingdom pray for those who are to form their minds and their hearts. Do not, Sire, turn a deaf ear to our united supplication; do not permit in your kingdom, that in violation of the laws of justice, and of the Church and of the State an entire and blameless society should be destroyed."
[488] The Archbishop of Paris, the famous Christophe de Beaumont was not satisfied with this general appeal. He was the chief figure in France at that time; and every word he uttered was feared by the enemies of the Church. He was great enough to be in correspondence with all the crowned heads of Europe, and Frederick the Great said of him: "If he would consent to come to Prussia, I would go half way to meet him." Louis XV had forced him to accept the See of Paris, but had not the courage to support him when assailed by his foes. He was a saint as well as a hero; he lent money to men who were libelling him, and would give the clothes on his back to the poor. When a hospital took fire in the city, he filled his palace and his cathedral with the patients. Hence, he did not hesitate, after parliament had condemned the Society, to issue a pastoral which he foresaw would drive him from his see. "What shall I say, Brethren," he asks, "to let you know what I think of the religious society which is now so fiercely assailed? We repeat with the Council of Trent that it is 'a pious Institute;' that it is 'venerable,' as the illustrious Bossuet declared it to be. We spurn far from us the 'Extraits des assertions' as a resumé of Jesuit teaching; and we renew our declaration that in the condition of suffering and humiliation to which they have been brought that their lot is a most happy one, because in the eyes of religious men, it is an infinitely precious thing to have no reproach on one's soul when overwhelmed by misfortune." As he foresaw he was expelled from his see for this utterance, not by parliament but by Louis XV whose cause he was defending.
Perhaps this treatment of the great Archbishop of Paris explains the silence maintained through all the uproar by the Jesuits themselves. One would expect some splendid outburst of eloquence in behalf of the[489] Society from one of its outraged members; but not a word was uttered by any of them. Their protests would not have been printed or published. Even Theiner who wrote against the Society says: "All France was inundated with libellous pamphlets against the Jesuits. The most notable of all was the one entitled 'Extracts of the dangerous and pernicious doctrines of all kinds which the so-called Jesuits have at all times, uninterruptedly maintained, taught and published.' Calumny and malice fill the book from cover to cover. There is no crime which the Jesuits did not teach or of which they are not accused. Never was bad faith carried to such extremes. And yet there is no book that is so often cited as an authority against the Society and its spirit."
Meantime, the government had approached the Pope for the purpose of obtaining for the French Jesuits a special vicar who should be quasi-independent of the General. It was harking back to the old scheme of Philip II and Louis XIV. His Holiness replied in the memorable words: "Sint ut sunt aut non sint" (Let them be as they are or not at all.) We find in a letter of the procurator of Aquitaine that in case a vicar was appointed every member of the province of Paris would leave the Order, which under such an arrangement would be no longer the Society of Jesus. Again in his letter to the king, after declaring that the appointment of a French Vicar would be a substantial alteration of the Institute which he could not authorize, the Pope says: "For two hundred years the Society has been so useful to the Church, that, though it has never disturbed the public tranquillity either in your kingdom or in any one else's, yet because it has inflicted such damage on the enemies of religion by its science and its piety, it is assailed on all sides by calumny and imposture when fair fighting was found insufficient to[490] destroy them." Finally, on January 9, 1765, after the final knell had sounded, Clement XIII issued his famous Bull "Apostolicum." It is given at length in de Ravignan's "Clément XIII et Clément XIV," but a few extracts will suffice.
After enumerating the glories of the Society in the past, and calling attention to the fact that it had been approved by nineteen Popes, who had most minutely examined their Institute, Clement XIII continues: "It has, nevertheless, in our days been falsely and malignantly described both by word and printed book as irreligious and impious, and has been covered with opprobrium and ignominy until even the Church has been denounced for sustaining it. In order, therefore, to repel these calumnies and to put a stop to the impious discourses which are uttered in defiance of both reason and equity; and to comfort the Regular Clerks of the Society of Jesus who appeal to us for justice; and to give greater emphasis to our words by the weight of our authority and to lend some solace in the sufferings they are undergoing; and finally to defer to the just desires of our venerable brothers, the bishops of the whole Catholic world, whose letters to us are filled with eulogies of this Society from whose labors the greatest services are rendered in their dioceses; and also of our own accord and from certain knowledge, and making use of the plenitude of our Apostolic authority, and following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we, by this present Constitution, which is to remain in force forever, say and declare in the same form and in the same manner as has been heretofore said and declared, that the Institute of the Society of Jesus breathes in the very highest degree, piety and holiness both in the principal object which it has continually in view, which is none other than the defence and propagation of the Catholic Faith, and also in the means it[491] employs for that end. Such is our experience of it up to the present day. It is this experience which has taught us how greatly the rule of the Society has formed up to our day defenders of the orthodox Faith and zealous missionaries who animated by an invincible courage dare a thousand dangers on land and sea, to carry the light of the Gospel to savage and barbarous nations.... Let no one dare be rash enough to set himself against this my present approbative and confirmative Constitution lest he incur the wrath of God."
These splendid approvals of their labors did much to keep up the courage of the harassed Jesuits, but if what Father de Ravignan and Crétineau-Joly relate be true, they had ample reason to keep themselves in a salutary humility or rather bow their heads in shame. On December 19, 1761, we are told, the provincial of Paris, Father de La Croix and one hundred and fifteen Fathers addressed a declaration to the clergy assembled in Paris, by order of the king, which ran as follows: "We the undersigned, provincial of the Jesuits of the province of Paris, the superior of the professed house, the rector of the College of Louis Le Grand, the superior of the novitiate and other Jesuits professed, even of the first vows, residing in the said houses, and renewing as far as needs be the declarations already made by the Jesuits of France in 1626, 1713 and 1757, declare before their Lordships the cardinals, archbishops and bishops now assembled in Paris, by order of the king, to give their opinion on several points of the Institute: (1) That it is impossible to be more submissive than we are, or more inviolably attached to the laws, maxims and usages of this kingdom with regard to the royal power, which in temporal matters depends neither directly nor indirectly from any power on earth, and has God alone above it. Recognizing that the bonds by which subjects are attached to their[492] rulers are indissoluble, we condemn as pernicious and worthy of execration at all times every doctrine contrary to the safety of the king, not only in the works of some theologians of our Society who have adopted such doctrines but also those of every other theologian whosoever he may be. (2) We shall teach in our public and private lessons of theology the doctrine established by the Clergy of France in the Four Articles of the Assembly of 1682, and shall teach nothing contrary to it. (3) We recognize that the bishops of France have the right to exercise in our regard what, according to the canons of the Gallican Church, belongs to them in their dealings with regulars; and we renounce all the privileges to the contrary that may have been accorded to our Society or may be accorded in the future. (4) If, which may God forbid, it happens that we are ordered by our General to do anything contrary to the present declaration, persuaded as we are that we cannot obey without sin, we shall regard such orders as unlawful, and absolutely null and void; which we could not and should not obey in virtue of the rules of obedience to the General such as is prescribed in the Constitutions. We, therefore, beg that the present declaration may be placed on the official register of Paris, and addressed to the other provinces of the kingdom, so that this same declaration signed by us, being deposited in the official registers of each diocese may serve as a perpetual memorial of our fidelity.
Etienne de la Croix, Provincial."
Quoting this document and admitting its genuineness Father de Ravignan exclaims: "In my eyes nothing can excuse this act of weakness. I deplore it; I condemn it; I shall merely relate how it came to pass" (Clément XIII et Clément XIV, I 135). He goes on to say: —
[493] "In a personal letter the original of which is in the archives of the Gesù at Rome, Father La Croix, provincial of Paris explains to the General the circumstances and occasion of this unfortunate affair. He tells how the royal commissioners came to him with the aforesaid declaration already drawn up and accompanied by a formal order of the king to sign it immediately. It was a most unforeseen demand, for although the Jesuits of France had already suffered considerable trouble about the question of the Four Articles in 1713, and also in 1757, when Damiens attempted to assassinate Louis XV, they had been compelled on both occasions to sign only the first article which dealt with the temporal independence of the king. Shortly afterwards, a new royal decree had been brought to their attention. It consisted of eighteen articles, the fourth of which was as follows: 'Our will is that in every theological course followed by the students of the Society, the propositions set forth by the Clergy of France in 1682, should be defended, at least in one public discussion, to which the principal personages of the place shall be invited, and over and above that, the arrangements laid down by the edict of March 1682 shall be observed.'
"While these matters were being debated by the king and his ministers on one side and by parliament on the other, a royal order was despatched to the Jesuits of Paris to affix their signatures to the disgraceful capitulation given above. It is said that Louis XV imagined that he could mollify the recalcitrant parliament by this new concession: and, hence, La Croix and his associates were foolish enough to imagine that such a result could ensue."
Continuing his indictment of La Croix and his one hundred and fifteen associates, de Ravignan informs his readers that "an unpublished document[494] which no writer has so far made mention of, furnishes important details about the matter. It is entitled 'An exact relation of all that took place with regard to the interpretation of the decree of Aquaviva in 1610, which was sent to Rome in 1761 and rejected by the General; and also the declaration which the General refused to approve.' The author is M. de Flesselles, who was charged by the commission to report to Choiseul whose agent he was.
"With regard to the declaration about Gallicanism" says de Flesselles "the Jesuits, after some difficulties regarding its form, determined to sign it, and even when urged by the royal commissioners they undertook to send it to their General for approbation. Soon after, when the Jesuits received the reply of their General, the provincial came to tell me that when the Pope was made aware of the declaration which the French Jesuits had made and of the one they proposed to make, His Holiness angrily reprimanded the General for permitting the members of the Society in France to maintain doctrines which are in conflict with the teachings of the Holy See."
Now it is unpleasant to contest the authority of such an eminent man as de Ravignan, but, on the other hand, his conclusions that this letter was a Jesuit production or received a Jesuit endorsement are by no means convincing. In the first place, no Jesuit would ever sign a paper which began with the words: "We the Professed, even of the first vows." There is no such category in the Society. Secondly, no Jesuit or indeed any one in his senses would ever ask a superior for a permission to teach error, and say, in the same breath, that it was a matter of indifference whether the permission was granted or not. Thirdly, as all the Jesuits of the province had announced their intention of leaving the Society if Louis XV imposed[495] on them a commissary General independent of their superior at Rome — as we recited above from an extant letter from the procurator of the province of Aquitaine — it is inconceivable that those same men, at that very same time should solemnly declare themselves rebels against the Father General at Rome. Fourthly, as no association rewards a man who attempts to destroy it, one finds difficulty in understanding how, after this revolt, the leader in the rebellion, La Croix, was not only not expelled from the Society but was retained in his responsible post of provincial and later was made assistant general of the Society.
Moreover, it is difficult to understand why, when de Flesselles says that "the Fathers determined to sign the document," de Ravignan should go one step further and say that "they signed it." Nor does it help matters to say that this was "un acte de faiblesse," when, it was a wholesale, corporate and deliberate crime of cowardice and treason; nor will it avail to suggest that the Pope and General must have been intensely, grieved — "Ils durent être amèrement affligés." History does not deal with conjectures but with facts. The question is not whether they must have been, but whether they were really grieved over an act which had really occurred and which reflected such discredit on the Society? Again, as one of the greatest glories of the French Jesuits was their long and successful battle against Gallicanism, it is inconceivable that they should suddenly reverse and stultify themselves at the very moment when all the bishops of France, save one, had abandoned Gallicanism and had united in eulogizing the Society; and to do it at a time when the greatest friend they ever had, Pope Clement XIII, glorified them for their orthodoxy and pronounced the famous words: "Let them be as they are or not at all!"
[496] To have declared for Gallicanism would have stripped them of their priestly functions, it would have aroused the intense disgust and contempt of the hierarchy of France and of the world and would have called down on them the anathema of the Pope. Indeed, is it likely that Pope Clement XIV would have omitted to note the defection in his Brief of Suppression, if they had been guilty? Fortunately, we may refer to the explicit declaration of the Protestant historian, Schoell (Cours d'histoire, xl, 53), who says: "These men who are accused of playing with religion, refused to take the oath to sustain the principles of the Gallican Church. Of 4000 Fathers who were in France, hardly five submitted." If there were "hardly five" Gallicans in all the provinces of France, it is a justifiable conclusion that 116 Jesuits of the provinces of Paris did not sign the famous "Statement" of de Flesselles.
Louis XV made a feeble attempt to save the situation by withdrawing the decree of expulsion from the jurisdiction of parliament, but Mme. de Pompadour and Choiseul so effectively worked on his fears that he ignominiously rescinded his order. The Pope had meantime delivered an allocution in a consistory on September 3, 1762; and had sent a letter to Cardinal Choiseul, the brother of the minister, on September 8 of the same year, in both of which he declared that "by a solemn decree, he had quashed and nullified the proceedings of the various parliaments against the Jesuits." He enjoined upon the cardinal "to use all his episcopal power against the impious act which was directed against the Church and against religion." He wrote to other bishops in the same tone of indignation and anger. It was not, however, until the November of 1764 that Choiseul succeeded in extorting the royal signature which made the decree irrevocable. Of course, Mme. de Pompadour was to the fore in[497] securing this shameful surrender of the royal prerogative. The poor king cuts a sorry figure in signing the document. After making some feeble scrawls on the paper, he complained that the preamble was too long and that it would have sufficed to state that "the Jesuits had produced a great tumult in his kingdom." He added he did not think the word "punish" should be used; it was too strong; "he never cordially liked the Jesuits, yet they had the glory of being hated by all heretics.... I send them out of my kingdom against my will; at least, I don't want people to think that I agree with everything the parliament said or did against them." He ended by saying: "If you do not make these changes, I will not sign, but I must stop talking. I would say too much and I do not want anyone in France to discuss it." One could hardly say of Louis that "he was every inch a king."
The desire to close the mouths of every one of his subjects on a matter that concerned them all as intelligent beings and as citizens was carried out with extreme rigor. Thus, when two secular priests had the temerity to condemn the decree, they were promptly hanged. The audacity of the ministers and parliament went still further; and on December 3 the Duke de Praslin sent a note to Aubeterre, the French ambassador at Rome to advise him that "under the circumstances, it would be very futile and still more dangerous for the Pope to take any measures either directly or indirectly in contravention of the wishes and intention of his majesty; and hence His Holiness must, out of zeal for religion and out of regard for the Jesuits, observe the same silence which His Majesty had ordered to be observed in his states." The Pope replied to the insult by the Bull "Apostolicum," which was a splendid proclamation of the absolute innocence of the pro[498]scribed Order. It aroused the fury of the Governments of France, Portugal, Naples and other countries. In France it was burned in the streets of several cities by the public executioner. In Portugal, any one who circulated it or had it in his possession was adjudged guilty of high treason; but on the other hand, from the bishops of the entire Catholic world came enthusiastic letters of approval and praise for the fearless Pope who dared to stand forth as the enemy of tyranny and injustice.
Böhmer-Monod, in their "Jésuites," are of the opinion that the Pope was "injudicious, and that out of the hundreds of Catholic bishops, only twenty-three assured him of their approbation." De Ravignan, who is better informed, tells us that "almost the whole episcopacy of the world were a unit in this manifestation of loyalty to the supreme Pastor." Before the event, two hundred bishops had sent their appeals to the Pope, in favor of the Society; and the Pope himself says in the Bull: "Ex omni regione sub cœlo est una vox omnium episcoporum" (From every region under the canopy of heaven, there is but one voice from the episcopal body). After the Bull appeared, other bishops hastened to send him their adhesions and felicitations. Even in France itself, in spite of the terrorism exercised by parliament, the assembly of the clergy of 1765, by a unanimous vote, protested against the condemnation of the Jesuits, extolled "the integrity of their morals, the austerity of their lives, the greatness of their labors and science"; and declared that their expulsion left a frightful void in the ministry, in education, and in the sublime and laborious work of the missions. Not only that, but they wanted it put on record that "the clergy would never cease to pray for the re-establishment of the Order and would lay that plea at the feet of the king."
[499] The exiles lingered for a while in various parts of France; for some of the divisional parliaments were not at one with Paris in their opposition to the Society. Indeed, in many of them, the proscription was voted only by a small majority. Thus at Rennes, there was a majority of three; at Toulouse two; at Perpignan one; at Bordeaux five; at Aix two; while Besançon, Alsace, Flanders and Artois and Lorraine pronounced in their favor and proclaimed "the sons of St. Ignatius as the most faithful subjects of the King of France and the surest guarantees of the morality of the people." On the other hand, Brittany, the country of Chalotais, author of the "Extraits," was especially rancorous in its hate. Thus, it voted to deprive of all civil and municipal functions those parents who would send their children abroad to Jesuit schools; and the children on their return home were to be punished in a similar fashion. The Fathers lingered for a few years here and there in their native country employed in various occupations; but in 1767 a decree was issued expelling them all from the territory of France.
An interesting manifestation of affection by the pupils of St. Omers for their persecuted masters occurred when the parliament of Paris issued its order of expulsion in 1767. St. Omers was founded by Father Persons in 1592 or 1593. It was not for ecclesiastics as were the colleges of Douai, Rome and Valladolid, but to give English boys an education which they could not get in their own country. It was twenty-four miles from Calais and in territory which at that time belonged to the King of Spain. Shortly after its transfer from Eu in Normandy where an attempt had been made to start it, there were one hundred boys on its register and, thirty years later, the number had doubled. For years it was a favorite school for English Catholics and it rejoices in having had twenty[500] of its students die for the Faith. It continued its work for a century and a half. When the expulsion of the Jesuits left the college without teachers it was handed over to the secular clergy, but when they arrived there were no boys. They had all decamped for Bruges in Belgium, and there the classes continued until the general suppression of the Society in 1773. Even after that, the English ex-Jesuits kept the college going until 1794, when the French Revolution put an end to it. By that time, however, one of the former students, Mr. Thomas Weld, had established the Fathers on his property at Stonyhurst in England, so that St. Omers and Stonyhurst are mother and daughter.
The buildings and land at St. Omers were handed over by the French government to the English secular priests, who were at Douai. Alban Butler, the author of the "Lives of the Saints," was its president from 1766 to 1773. At present a military hospital occupies the site.
In Louisiana, which still owed allegiance to France, the dismissal of the Fathers was particularly disgraceful. For no sooner had the news of Choiseul's exploit in the mother-country arrived than the superior council of Louisiana set to work. "This insignificant body of provincial officers" as Shea calls them (I, 587), "issued a decree declaring the Society to be dangerous to the royal authority, to the rights of bishops, to the public peace of society" and pronounced their vows to be null and void. These judges in matters ecclesiastical, it should be noted, were all laymen. They ordered all the property to be seized and sold at auction, though personal books and clothes were exempted. The name and habit of the Society were forbidden; the vestments and plate of the chapel at New Orleans were given by the authorities to the Capuchins; but[501] all the Jesuit churches in Louisiana and Illinois were ordered to be levelled to the ground. Every Jesuit was to embark on the first ship that set sail for France; and arriving there, he was to report to Choiseul. Each one was given about $420 — to pay for his passage and six month's subsistence.
There was a deviation in some cases about going to France, for Father Carette was sent to San Domingo; and Father Le Roy made his way to Mexico. A difficulty arose about Father Beaudoin, who was a Canadian. Why should he be sent to France where he had no friends? Besides, his health was shattered by his privations on the missions, and he was at that time seventy-two years old. He was to go to France, however, but just as he was about to be dragged to the ship a wealthy friend interceded for him and gave him a home. Another Father in Alabama did not hear of the order for several months; and when at last he made his appearance in New Orleans, he was arrested like a criminal and packed off to France.
On September 22, a courier reached Fort Chartres, which was on English territory; and in spite of the danger of embroiling the government, Father Watron who was then sixty-seven years old was expelled, and with him his two fellow missionaries. The official from Louisiana gave the vestments to negro wenches and the altar-plate and candelabra were soon found in houses of ill-fame. The chapel was then sold on condition that the purchaser should demolish it. At Vincennes, the same outrages were perpetrated and Father Duvernay, who had been for six months confined to his bed, was carried off with the others to New Orleans and despatched to France. Two only were allowed to remain, owing to the entreaties and protests of friends. One of the exiles was Father Viel, who was a Louisianian by birth. The most conspicuous[502] personage enforcing this expulsion was a certain Lafrenière, but he soon met his punishment. In 1766 Louis XV made a gift of the entire province to his cousin of Spain, and when Count Alexander O'Reilly was sent out with three thousand soldiers to quell the disturbance that ensued, Lafrenière and three associates were taken into the back yard of the barracks and shot to death. Others were sent in chains to Havana.
Thus the Suppression of the Society in France was not carried out with the same brutality as in Portugal. There were no prisons, or chains, or deportation, and they had not the glory of suffering martyrdom. They were merely stripped of all they had and told to go where they wished. Whether they lived or died was a matter of unconcern to the government. It was merely a difference of methods; but both were equally effective. The Portuguese Jesuits were scourged; their French brethren were sneered at. Perhaps the latter was harder to bear.
There is a curious sequel to all this. Choiseul, proud of his achievement in expelling the Jesuits from France and its colonies, now conceived the magnificent project of colonizing Guyana on lines quite different from those followed by the detested Order. He induced 14,000 deluded French people to go and take possession of the rich and fertile lands of Guyana. They found one poor old Jesuit there, who because he was not a subject of France, had refused to obey the decree of expulsion. His name was O'Reilly, but what could he do with 14,000 people? He simply disappeared from the scene. Very likely, he joined the Indians, who fled into the forests at the sight of this immense army of Frenchmen, who now had the country to themselves without striking a blow. But two years later, Chevalier de Balzac had to report back to France, that of the 14,000 colonists only 918 were alive. Thus,[503] expelling 6,000 Jesuits from France, Choiseul had murdered 13,000 of his fellow-countrymen (Christian Missions, II, 168).
In 1766, M. de Piedmont, the governor wrote to the Duc de Praslin, that he had already informed the Duc de Choiseul how necessary it was to send priests to this colony. He then described the destruction of the mission posts, the flight of the Indians, the growth of crime amongst the negroes and the rapid ruin of the colony, and added that religion was dying out among the whites as well as among the colored races. For ten years, he kept on repeating this complaint, but no heed was paid to him. At length, Louis XVI, who was so soon to be himself a victim of Choiseul's iniquity sent there, three Jesuits, not Frenchmen, perhaps he had not the heart to ask any of them, but three Jesuits, who had been expelled from Portugal by Pombal, Choiseul's accomplice. They were Padilla, Mathos, and Ferreira. They accepted the mission and the "Journal" of Christopher de Murr says: "The poor savages beholding once again men clothed in the habit which they had learned to venerate, and hearing them speak their own language, fell at their feet, bathing them with tears, and promised to become once more good Christians, since the Fathers, who had begotten them in Jesus Christ, had come back to them." No doubt, these three holy men remained till they died with their poor abandoned Indians.
France's folly in this governmental act was summed up in a letter of d'Alembert to Choiseul, just before the expulsion. In it he says: "France will resort to this rigorous measure against its own subjects at the very moment she is doing nothing in her foreign policy, and in the chronological epitomes of the future we shall read the words for the year 1762: 'This year France lost all her colonies and threw out the Jesuits.'"
[504]
CHAPTER XVI
CHARLES III
The Bourbon Kings of Spain — Character of Charles III — Spanish Ministries — O'Reilly — The Hat and Cloak Riot — Cowardice of Charles — Tricking the monarch — The Decree of Suppression — Grief of the Pope — His death — Disapproval in France by the Encyclopedists — The Royal Secret — Simultaneousness of the Suppression — Wanderings of the Exiles — Pignatelli — Expulsion by Tanucci.Spain had begun to deteriorate in the seventeenth century; it lost all of its European dependencies in the eighteenth, and in the beginning of the nineteenth was stripped of almost every one of its rich and powerful colonies in America. During two-thirds of that period, it was governed by foreigners, none of whom had any claim to consideration, much less respect. Until 1700 it owed allegiance to the house of Austria; after that, the French Bourbons hurried it to its ruin.
Its first Bourbon king, Philip V, had already, in 1713, succeeded in losing Sicily, Milan, Sardinia, the Netherlands, Gibraltar, and the Island of Minorca; that is one-half of its European possessions. Meantime, Catalonia was in rebellion. But little else could be expected from such a ruler. He was not only constitutionally indolent, but apparently mentally defective. His queen kept him in seclusion, and he did nothing but at her dictation; he was professedly devout, but was racked by ridiculous scruples; "outwardly pious," says Schoell, quoting Saint-Simon, "but heedless of the fundamental principles of religion; he was timid and hence sporadically stubborn; and when not in temper, he was easily led. He was without imagination, except that he was continually dreaming of conquering Europe, although he never left Madrid; he[505] was satisfied with the gloomiest existence, and his only amusement was shooting at game, which his servants drove into the brush for him to kill." His conscience often smote him for the sin he said he had committed when he renounced his claim to the throne of France; and, in consequence, he made a vow to lay aside the Spanish crown until what time he should be summoned by England to be King of France. To help him keep his vow, he built the palace of San Ildefonso, which cost the nation 45,000,000 pesos. He appointed his son Louis, a lad of 17, to reign in his stead, and the boy, of course, did nothing but enjoy himself, and died of small-pox in six months' time, having first gone through the ridiculous farce of making his father his heir. Philip then began to doubt whether he could resume his duties as king after having vowed to relinquish them. Besides being thus troubled with scruples, he was in constant dread of catching the disease which carried off his son; he died of apoplexy, July 9, 1764 at the age of 53.
Ferdinand VI, who succeeded him, was as indolent as his father, and with less talent and strength of will; he was afflicted with melancholia, and like his father was haunted by the fear of death. He took no part in the government of the kingdom, but spent most of his time listening to the warblings of the male-soprano, Farinelli, who was so adored by the king that he was sometimes consulted on state affairs. The queen was another of his idols, and when she died, he shut himself in, saw no one, would eat next to nothing; never changed his linen; let his hair and beard grow, and never went to bed. An hour or two in a chair was all he allowed himself for rest. He died at the end of the year, leaving a private fortune of 72,000,000 francs. He was only forty-seven years old. Like the king, the queen was dominated by fear, not however[506] of death, but of poverty. To guard against that contingency she hoarded all the money she could get; accepted whatever presents were offered; and let it be known that the easiest way to win her favor was to have something to give. It is gravely said that though she was very corpulent she was extravagantly fond of dancing.
Ferdinand VI was succeeded by his brother Charles III, who had been King of Naples for twenty-four years. He had six sons, the eldest of whom, Philip Anthony was then twelve years of age, but a hopeless imbecile. The right of succession, therefore, devolved on his second son. The third, who was then eight years old, was to succeed to the crown of Naples, and was left in the hands of Tanucci to be trained for his future office. As Tanucci was a bitter enemy of Christianity, this act of Charles, who had a Jesuit confessor and was regarded as a pious man, would imply that he also was mentally deficient. Like his forebears, he was haunted by a fear of death, a weakness that revealed itself in all his political acts, notably in the suppression of the Society. That was one of the reasons why, long after France and Portugal would have willingly ended the fight with the expulsion of the Jesuits, the supposedly pious Charles persisted until he had wrung the Brief of Suppression from the unwilling hands of Clement XIV.
The ministers of state who controlled the destinies of Spain at this period are of a species whose like cannot be found in the history of any other nation. They begin with the Italian Alberoni who started life as a farm laborer; then became an ecclesiastic, and ultimately a cardinal. "He was destined to trouble the tranquillity of the world for years," says Schoell. According to Saint-Simon, he prevented the restitution of Gibraltar to Spain which England was willing to[507] grant; he was banned by the Pope; and was subsequently turned out of office, chiefly by the intrigues of two Italian ecclesiastics. The queen's nurse, old Laura Piscatori, also figures in the amazing diplomacy of those days, and is charged with an ambition to be as important as Cardinal Alberoni, who came from her native village. The next prime minister was the Biscayan Grimaldi, whose physical appearance Saint-Simon describes, but which we omit. It will suffice to say that "he was base and supple when it suited his convenience, and he never made a false step in that direction." Following him, came Ripperda, who was born in the Netherlands and educated by the Jesuits at Cologne, but became a Protestant in Holland, and a Catholic in Spain, where he lasted only four months, as minister. He turned Protestant a second time, on his return to Holland, and subsequently led an army of Moors against Spain. It is not known whether he died a Christian or a Mohammedan.
Patino and de la Quadra followed each other in quick succession, one good, the other timid and weak. Enseñada, though skilful, was greedy of money, and was considered the head of the French faction in court. Carvajal is next on the list, and displays the English propensities which were natural to him, for he belonged to the house of Lancaster. Indeed, his policy was entirely pro-English and he was in collusion with Keene, the British ambassador. Wall, an Irishman, then flits across the scene, and has with him two associates: Losada and Squillace, both Italians. When Wall quarrelled with the Pope and the Inquisition, he fell, and then another Grimaldi came to the fore; not a Biscayan, like his namesake, but a Genoese. Squillace, apparently from the Italian branch of the Borgias, was next in order, and then in rapid procession came the Spaniards: Roda, de Alva, Aranda,[508] Roda, Moniño, Campomáñez, either as prime ministers or prominent in the government, and nearly all of them under French influence. Finally, the generalissimo of the army and the most popular man in Spain was an Irishman, Alexander O'Reilly. The native Spaniards counted for little; even the king's bodyguard was made up of Walloons.
O'Reilly was probably not in sympathy with the free-thinking politicians who then ruled the nation, for the reason that he was born in Ireland and had all his life been a soldier. Moreover, he was hated by the Aranda faction and retained his post, at the head of the army, only because the king thought that no one could shield the royal life as well as O'Reilly. He was born in 1735, and when still a youth was sub-lieutenant in the Irish Regiment serving in Spain. In 1757 he fought under his countryman de Lacy in Austria, and then followed the fleur-de-lys in France. He so distinguished himself, that the Maréchal de Broglie recommended him to the King of Spain. There he soon became brigadier and restored the ancient prestige of the Spanish army. He was made a commandant at Havana, and rebuilt its fortifications, and from there went to Louisiana to secure it to the Spanish crown. His only military failure was in Algiers, but that was not due to any lack of wisdom in his plans, but because his fleet did not arrive at the time appointed. Even then, there was no one so highly esteemed as O'Reilly, and when he died at an advanced age in 1794, the people all declared that the disasters which fell on the nation would have been averted if he had lived. He is credited with possessing besides his military ardor a sweet and insinuating disposition which may explain how he could easily win over the mob which so terrified King Charles at Madrid.
[509] Meantime, the sinister Choiseul in France had all the ministers of Spain in his grip, and he then determined to capture the king. He first made him a present of what up to that time, had been the special pride of France; the precedence of its ambassadors in public functions over those of all other countries, the German Empire excepted. Charles naturally took the gift, but apparently failed to fathom its significance. The next move was to get rid of the court confessor; and his majesty was given a confidential letter from Pombal of Portugal accusing Father Ravago of having fomented the insurrection of the Indians of Paraguay, against the Spanish troops at the time of the transfer of that territory. The plot failed, however, for Charles knew Ravago too well, and then something more drastic was resorted to. Squillace was at that time in power and under him occurred the historic riot which, in the course of time, assumed such dimensions in the king's imagination, that it was one of the three or four things, besides his "royal secret," which he urged on the Pope as a reason for suppressing the Society.
The story of the riot is as follows: Squillace was very energetic in developing the material resources of the kingdom, but always with an eye to his personal and pecuniary profit. He promoted public works; established monopolies even in food stuffs; loaded the people with taxes; and being intensely anti-clerical, was very active in curtailing ecclesiastical privileges. The people and clergy meekly submitted, but something happened which brought Squillace's career to an end; though it had much more serious consequences than that. It scarcely seems credible, but the incident became one of the serious events of the time. Though none suspected it, the whole thing had been deliberately[510] planned, and was the initial step in the plot to expel the Jesuits from Spain. Squillace objected or pretended to object to the kind of dress especially affected by the people of Madrid: a slouched sombrero and an all-enveloping cloak; and he gave orders to change it. Naturally, this exasperated the people, for although they had patiently submitted to the imposition of taxes; the creation of oppressive monopolies; the curtailment of ancient rights and privileges, etc., the audacity of a foreigner interfering with the cut of their garments brought about a popular upheaval. On March 26, 1766, the mob stormed the residence of Squillace, and he ignominiously took to flight. All night long, the excited crowds swarmed through the streets shouting, "Down with Squillace." On the following morning, they surrounded the palace of the king himself and he, in alarm, called for O'Reilly to quell the disturbance. When it was represented to his majesty that it might entail bloodshed, he deprecated that and hurriedly left Madrid. Had he shown himself to the people, they would have done him no harm, for reverence for royalty was still deep in the popular heart, and the age of royal assassinations had not yet come. But the king was not a hero, and he thrust his subaltern into what he fancied was a post of danger. Thereupon, unarmed and unattended, O'Reilly faced the excited mob.
Delighted by his trust in them, they greeted him with cheers, but demanded a redress of their grievances. Unfortunately, while he was keeping them in good humor, the Walloons, who were guarding another gate of the palace, got into an altercation with some of the rioters. Hot words were exchanged, shots were fired and several persons were killed. The whole scene changed instantly, and the capital would have been drenched in blood, and perhaps Charles would[511] have been dethroned, had not a number of Jesuits headed by the saintly Pignatelli, hurried through the crowd and held the rioters in check. Finally, when a placard was affixed to the palace walls, granting all their demands, the mob dispersed, cheering for the Jesuits — a fatal cry for those whom it was meant to honor. They were accused of provoking the riot; and, from that moment, the king's hatred for the Society began. It was made more acute by the consciousness of his own cowardice. Thus, a farce was to introduce a tragedy. Ten years afterwards, the Duke of Alva, a descendant of the old tyrant of the Netherlands, confessed that it was he, who had planned the sombrero and cloak riot to discredit the Jesuits (de Murr, "Journal," ix, 222).
Towards the end of January 1767, another episode in this curious history presents itself. Like the affair of the riot it seems to be taken from a novel, but unfortunately it is not so. Its setting is the principal Jesuit residence at Madrid. The provincial and the community are at dinner, when a lay-brother enters with a package of letters, which he places before the provincial. It is not the usual way of delivering such communications in the Society, but the story is told by de Ravignan in "Clément XIII et Clément XIV" (I, 186), and he is quoting from Father Casseda, who is described as "a Jesuit Father of eminence and worthy of belief." The package was handed back to the brother, along with the keys of the provincial's room, where it was left. Immediately afterwards, an officer of the court arrived, searched the room and extracted one of the letters, said to be from Father Ricci, the General of the Jesuits, who among other things, declared that the king was an illegitimate son and was to be superseded by his brother, Don Luis. That such a letter was really written, is vouched[512] for by several historians: Coxe, Ranke, Schoell, Adam, Sismondi, Darras, and others; and it is generally admitted to have been the work of Choiseul in France though he covered up his tracks so adroitly that no documentary evidence can be adduced to prove it against him. His intermediary was a certain Abbé Beliardy an attaché of the French embassy in Madrid.
According to Carayon (XV Opp., 16-23) and Boero ("Pignatelli" Appendix) there is a second scene in this melodrama. Two Fathers are leaving Madrid for Rome. A sealed package is entrusted to them, purporting to be from the papal ambassador in Spain. On the road they are held up and searched; the package is opened, and a letter is found in it reflecting on the king's legitimacy. Precisely at the same moment, the trick of the refectory letter was being played in the Jesuit residence at Madrid, and thus a connection was established. With this scrap of paper and the "cloak and sombrero riot" at their disposal, the plotters concluded that they had ample material to carry out their scheme, and the next chapter shows Aranda, the prime minister, Roda, Moniño and Campomáñez meeting frequently in an old abandoned mansion in the country. With them was a number of boys, probably pages about the court, who were employed in copying a pile of documents whose import they were too unsophisticated to understand. Older amanuenses might have betrayed the secret.
The chain of evidence was finally completed, and these grave statesmen then presented themselves before his majesty and, with evidence in hand, proved to him the undoubted iniquity of the religious order which up to that moment he had so implicitly trusted. He fell into the trap, and a series of cabinet meetings ensued in which information previously gathered or invented about every Jesuit in France was discussed.[513] The result was that on January 29, 1767 a proposal was drawn up by Campomáñez and laid before his majesty to expel the Society from Spain, and advising him, first, to impose absolute silence on all his subjects with regard to the affair, to such an extent that no one should say or publish anything either for or against the measure, without a special permission of the government; secondly, to withhold all knowledge of the affair, even from the controller of the press and his subordinates; and finally to arrange that whatever action was taken, should proceed directly from the president and ministers of the extraordinary council.
The advice was assented to by the king, and a decree was issued in virtue of which silence was passed on 6,000 Spanish subjects who not only had no trial but who were absolutely unaware that there was any charge against them. They had been as a body irreproachable for two hundred years, had reflected more glory, and won more territory for Spain than had ever been gained by its armies. They were men of holy lives, often of great distinction in every branch of learning; some of them belonged to the noblest families of the realm; and yet they were all to be thrown out in the world at a moment's notice, though not a judge on the bench, not a priest or a bishop, not even the Pope had been apprised of the cause of it, and, as we have seen, it was forbidden even to speak of the act. A more outrageous abuse of authority could not possibly be conceived.
It was arranged that on the coming second of April, 1767, a statement should be made throughout Europe by which the world would be informed: first, that for the necessary preservation of peace, and for other equally just and necessary reasons (though the world is not to be told what they are), the Jesuits are expelled from the king's dominions, and all their goods confis[514]cated; secondly, that the motive will forever remain buried in the royal heart; thirdly, that all the other religious congregations in Spain are most estimable and are not to be molested. The decree was signed by Charles and countersigned by Aranda and then sent out. The ambassador at Rome was ordered to hand it to the Pope and withdraw without saying a word. The despatches to the civil and military authorities in both worlds were enclosed in double envelopes and sealed with three seals. On the inner cover appeared the ominous words, as from a pirate addressing his crew: "Under pain of death this package is not to be opened until April 2, 1767, at the setting sun." The letter read as follows: "I invest you with all my authority and all my royal power to descend immediately with arms on the Jesuit establishments in your district; to seize the occupants and to lead them as prisoners to the port indicated inside of 24 hours. At the moment of seizure, you will seal the archives of the house and all private papers and permit no one to carry anything but his prayer-book and the linen strictly necessary for the voyage. If after your embarcation there is left behind a single Jesuit either sick or dying in your department, you shall be punished with death."
"I, the King."
The motive that prompted Charles to keep the secret of this amazing proceeding "shut up in his royal heart" has been usually ascribed to his intense resentment at the suspicion cast on his legitimacy, and his fear that even the mention of it would lead people to conclude that there was some foundation for the charge. Davila, quoted by Pollen in "The Month" (August, 1902), finds another explanation.
"Charles III," he says, "had become an extravagant regalist, and was convinced by his Voltairean ministers,[515] mostly by Tanucci, whom he had left in charge of his son at Naples, that in all things the Church should be subject to the State. It was on that account that he kept the reasons for the expulsion of the Jesuits 'buried in his royal heart.' The sole cause of this act was his change of policy; a true reason of state such as, on some occasions, covers grave acts of injustice — for it must be always a grave injustice to charge a religious society with having conspired against the fundamental institutions of a country, and yet not be able to point out in any way the object and plan of so dark a conspiracy. If such be the case," continues Davila, "it is easy to understand why his majesty could not reveal this 'secret of his royal heart' even to the Pope, or perhaps least of all to him, for it would be a painful avowal that his Catholic Majesty was a yoke-fellow with the Voltaireans of Europe whose avowed purpose was to destroy the Church."
Clement XIII was overwhelmed with grief when he read the king's decree and wrote to him as follows: "Of all the blows I have received during the nine unhappy years of my pontificate the worst is that of which your majesty informs me in your last letter, telling me of your resolution to expel from all your vast dominions the religious of the Society of Jesus. So you too, do this, my son, Tu quoque fili mi. Our beloved Charles III, the Catholic King, is the one who is to fill up the chalice of our woe and to bring down to the grave our old age bathed in tears and overwhelmed with grief. The very religious, the very pious King of Spain, Charles III, is going to give the support of his arm, that powerful arm which God has given him to increase his own honor and that of God and the Church, to destroy to its very foundation, an order so useful and so dear to the Church, an order which owes its origin and its splendor to those saintly heroes whom[516] God has deigned to choose in the Spanish nation to extend His greater glory throughout the world. It is you who are going to deprive your kingdom and your people of all the help and all the spiritual blessings which the religious of that Society have heaped on it by their preaching, their missions, their catechisms, their spiritual exercises, the administration of the sacraments, the education of youth in letters and piety, the worship of God, and the honor of the Church.
"Ah! Sire! our soul cannot bear the thought of that awful ruin. And what cuts us to the heart still deeper perhaps is to see the wise, just King Charles III, that prince whose conscience was so delicate and whose intentions were so right; who lest he might compromise his eternal salvation, would never consent to have the meanest of his subjects suffer the slightest injury in their private concerns without having their case previously and legitimately tried and every condition of the law complied with, is now vowing to total destruction, by depriving of its honor, its country, its property, which was legitimately acquired, and its establishments, which were rightfully owned, that whole body of religious who were dedicated to the service of God and the neighbor, and all that without examining them, without hearing them, without permitting them to defend themselves. Sire! this act of yours is grave; and if perchance it is not sufficiently justified in the eyes of Almighty God, the Sovereign Judge of all creatures, the approval of those who have advised you in this matter will avail nothing, nor will the plaudits of those whose principles have prompted you to do this. As for us, plunged as we are in inexpressible grief, we avow to your majesty that we fear and tremble for the salvation of your soul which is so dear to us.
"Your Majesty tells us that you have been compelled to adopt these measures by the duty of main[517]taining peace in your states, — implying we presume that this trouble has been provoked by some individual belonging to the Society of Jesus. But, even if it were true, Sire, why not punish the guilty without making the innocent suffer? The body, the Institute, the spirit of the Society of Jesus, we declare it in the presence of God and of man, is absolutely innocent of all crime, and not only innocent, but pious, useful, holy in its object, in its laws, in its maxims. It matters not that its enemies have endeavored to prove the contrary; all calm and impartial minds will abhor such accusers as discredited liars who contradict themselves in whatever they say. You may tell me that it is now an accomplished fact; that the royal edict has been promulgated and you may ask what will the world say if I retract? Should you not rather ask, Sire, what will God say? Let me tell you what the world will say. It will say what it said of Assuerus when he revoked his edict to butcher the Hebrews. It accorded him the eternal praise of being a just king who knew how to conquer himself. Ah! Sire, what a chance to win a like glory for yourself. We offer to your majesty the supplications not only of your royal spouse, who from heaven recalls to you the love she had for the Society of Jesus, but much more so, to the Sacred Spouse of Jesus Christ, the Holy Church, which cannot contemplate, without weeping, the total and imminent extinction of the Society of Jesus, which until this very hour has rendered to her such great assistance and such signal services. Permit, then, that this matter be regularly discussed; let justice and truth be allowed to act, and they will scatter the clouds that have arisen from prejudice and suspicion. Listen to the counsels of those who are doctors in Israel; the bishops, the religious, in a cause that involves the interests of the State, the honor of[518] the Church, the salvation of souls, your own conscience and your eternal salvation."
How Charles could resist this appeal, which is among the most admirable and eloquent state papers ever given to the world, is incomprehensible. But he did. He merely replied to the Pope: "To spare the world a great scandal, I shall ever preserve as a secret in my heart the abominable plot which has necessitated this rigor. Your Holiness ought to believe my word, the safety of my life exacts of me a profound silence."
Not satisfied with writing to the king himself, the Pope also pleaded with the greatest prelate in the realm, the Archbishop of Tarragona as follows: "What has come over you? How does it happen that, in an instant, the Society of Jesus has departed so far from the rules of its pious Institute, that our dear Son in Jesus Christ, Charles III, the Catholic King, can consider himself authorized to expel from his realm all the Regular Clerks of the Society? This is a mystery we cannot explain; only a year ago, the numberless letters addressed to us by the Spanish episcopacy afforded us some consolation in the deep grief that affected us when these same religious were expelled from France. Those letters informed us that the Fathers in your country gave an example of every virtue, and that the bishops and their dioceses received the most powerful support by their pious and useful labours. And now, behold, in an instant, there come dreadful charges against them and we are asked to believe that all these Fathers or almost all have committed some terrible crime; nay the king himself, so well known for his equity, is so convinced of it, that he feels obliged to treat the members of that Institute with a rigor hitherto unheard of."
Addressing himself personally to the king's confessor he says: "We write to you, my dear son, that you[519] may lay this before the prince who has taken you for his guide, and we charge you to speak in our name and in virtue of the obligations which the duty of your office imposes, and the authority it bestows on you. As for us, we do not refuse to employ measures of the severest and most rigorous justice against those members of the Society of Jesus who have incurred the just anger of the king, and to employ all our power to destroy and to root out the thorns and briars which may have sprung up in a soil hitherto so pure and fertile. As for you, it is part of your sacred ministry to consider with fear and trembling as you kneel at the feet of the image of Jesus Christ, to compel the king to consider the incalculable ruin that religion will suffer, especially in pagan lands, if the numberless Christian missions which are now so flourishing, are abandoned and left without pastors." Evidently the confessor could do nothing with his royal penitent.
This mad act of Charles did not please some of his friends in France. Thus, on May 4, 1767, D'Alembert wrote to Voltaire: "What do you think of the edict of Charles III, who expels the Jesuits so abruptly? Persuaded as I am that he had good and sufficient reason, do you not think he ought to have made them known and not to 'shut them up in his royal heart?' Do you not think he ought to have allowed the Jesuits to justify themselves, especially as every one is sure they could not? Do you not think, moreover, that it would be very unjust to make them all die of starvation, if a single lay-brother who perhaps is cutting cabbage in the kitchen should say a word, one way or the other in their favor? And what do you think of the compliments which the King of Spain addresses to the other monks and priests, and curés and sacristans of his realm, who are not in my opinion less dangerous than the Jesuits, except that they are more stupid and[520] vile? Finally, does it not seem to you that he could act with more common sense in carrying out what after all, is a reasonable measure?"
In spite of the royal order enjoining silence on his subjects high and low, there was a great deal of feeling manifested at the outrage. Roda, an agent of the ministry at Madrid, tried to conceal it and wrote to the Spanish Embassy at Rome on April 15, 1767: "There is not much agitation here. Some rich people, some women and other simpletons are very much excited about it, and are writing a great deal of their affection for the Jesuits, but that is due to their blindness. You would be astounded to find how numerous they are. But papers discovered in the archives and libraries, garrets and cellars, furnish sufficient matter to justify the act. They reveal more than people here suspect." And yet not one of these incriminating documents "found in archives and libraries and garrets and cellars" was ever produced.
Among "the simpletons" who denounced the act was the Bishop of Cuenca, Isidore de Carvajal, who told the king to his face, what he thought of the whole business. The Archbishop of Tarragona did the same, but they both incurred the royal displeasure. The Bishop of Terruel published a pamphlet "The Truth unveiled to the King our Master" and he was immediately confined in a Franciscan convent, while his Vicar-general and chancellor were thrown into jail. The Archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal de Córdova, wrote to the Pope and the contents of his letters were known in Spain, for Roda, the individual above referred to, hastened to tell the Spanish ambassador on May 12, 1767: "In spite of all their tricks, the Archbishop of Toledo and his vicar-general have written a thousand stupid things to the Pope about this affair. We would not be a bit surprised if the Bishop of Cuenca,[521] Coria, Cuidad Rodrigo, Terruel and some others have done the same thing, but we are not sure." A year and a half after the blow was struck something happened which again threw the timid Charles into a panic about his royal life. According to custom, he presented himself on November 4, 1768, on the balcony of his palace to receive the homage of his people, and to grant them some public favor out of his munificence. To the stupefaction of both king and court, one universal cry arose from the vast multitude. "Send us back the Jesuits!" Charles withdrew in alarm and immediately investigations began with the result that he drove out of the kingdom the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo and his vicar on the charge that they had prompted the demand of the people (Coxe, "Spain under the Bourbons," v, 25).
With regard to the supposed letter of Father Ricci which brought on this disaster, it may be of use to refer here to what was told thirty years after these events, in a work called "Du rétablissement des Jésuites et de l' éducation publique" (Emmerick, Lambert, Rouen). The author says: "It is proper to add an interesting item to the story of the means employed to destroy the Society of Jesus in the mind of Charles III. Besides the pretended letter of Father Ricci, there were other supposititious documents, and among these lying papers was a letter in the handwriting of an Italian Jesuit which had been perfectly imitated. It contained outrageous denunciations of the Spanish government. When Clement XIII insisted on having some proof to throw light on the allegations, this letter was sent to him. Among those who were commissioned to examine it, was a simple prelate, who afterwards became Pius VI. Glancing at the missive he remarked that the paper was of Spanish manufacture, and he wondered why an Italian should send to Spain[522] for writing material. Looking at it closer and holding it up to the light he saw that the water-mark gave not only the name of a Spanish paper-factory, but also the date on which it was turned out. Now it happened that this date was two years after the letter was supposed to have been written. The imposture was manifest, but the blow had already been struck. Charles III was living at the time, yet he was not man enough to acknowledge and repair the wrong he had done." (Crétineau-Joly, v, 241).
On the day appointed by the king, April 2, 1767, every ship selected to carry out the edict was in the harbor assigned to it, in every part of the Spanish world, where there happened to be a Jesuit establishment. The night before at sundown the captain had opened the letter which had the threat on its envelope: "Your life is forfeited if you anticipate the day or the hour." He obeyed his instructions; and early in the morning the Fathers in the college of Salamanca, Saragossa, Madrid, Barcelona and all the great cities, as well as in every town where the Jesuits had any kind of an establishment, heard the tramp of armed men entering the halls. The members of the household were ejected from their rooms, seals were put on the doors, and the community marched down like convicts going to jail. Old men and young, the sick and even the dying, all had to go to the nearest point of embarcation. Not a syllable were they allowed to utter as they tramped along, and no one could speak in their defence without being guilty of high treason. When they reached the ships, they were herded on board like cattle and despatched to Civita Vecchia, to be flung on the shores of the States of the Pope, whose permission had not even been asked; nor had any notice been given him. It was a magnificent stroke of organized work, and incidentally very[523] profitable to the government, for at one and the same moment it came into possession of 158 Jesuit houses, all of considerable value as real estate and some of them magnificent in their equipment. How much was added to the Spanish treasury on that eventful morning, we have no means of computing.
There was one difficulty in the proceedings, however. The supply of ships was insufficient, for 2,643 men had to be simultaneously cared for; but their comfort did not interfere with the progress of the movement. "They were piled on top of each other on the decks or in the fetid holds," says Sismondi, "as if they were criminals." It was worse than the African slave-trade. Saint-Priest thinks "it was a trifle barbarous, but the precipitation was unavoidable." It was indeed a trifle barbarous and the precipitation was not unavoidable.
In rounding up the victims, the king and the ministers were naturally anxious about the effect it might have upon many of the best Spanish families who had sons in the Order; notably the two Pignatellis, who were of princely lineage. Inducements were held out to both of them to abandon the Society, but the offer was spurned with contempt. Indeed very few even of the novices failed in this sore trial. As for the Pignatellis they were the angels of this exodus, particularly Joseph, whose exalted virtue is now being considered in Rome in view of his beatification. He was at Saragossa when the royal order arrived, and though suffering with hemorrhages, he started out afoot on the weary journey to Tarragona, and from there to Salu, nine miles further on, where nineteen brigantines were assembled to receive this first batch of 600 outcasts. He was so feeble that he had to be carried on board the ship.
From there, they set sail for Civita Vecchia, where they arrived on May 7, but were not allowed to land.[524] Even the generally fair Schoell describes the Pope's action in this instance as "characterized by the greatest inhumanity." On the contrary, it would have been an act of the greatest inhumanity to receive them. There were some thousands of Portuguese Jesuits there already, who had been flung on the shore unannounced, and in that impoverished region there was no means of providing them with food or medicine or even clothes and beds. To have admitted this new detachment of 600 who were merely the forerunners of 4,500 more, and who, in turn were to be followed by all the Jesuits whom Tanucci would drive out of the Neapolitan Kingdom, and those whom Choiseul would hasten to gather up in France, the result would have been that ten or fifteen thousand Jesuits without money or food or clothing, some of them old and decrepit and ill, would have to be cared for and the native population in consequence would be subjected to a burden that would have been impossible to bear. It was "inhuman" no doubt, but the inhumanity must be ascribed to Charles III who had plundered these victims, and not to Clement XIII who would have died for them. His first duty was to his own people and his next was to proclaim to the world and to all posterity, the grossness of the insult as well as the injustice inflicted on the Vicar of Christ by the Most Catholic King, Charles III. Nor were the "unhappy wretches," as Böhmer-Monod call them, "received by cannon shot, at the demand of their own General, who had trouble enough with the Portuguese already on his hands;" (p. 274) nor did the Jesuits, as Saint-Priest adds: "vent their rage against Ricci and blame his harsh administration, as the cause of all their woes." Ricci was begging for bread to feed his Portuguese sons at that time, and he certainly would not have received those from Spain with a cannon shot;[525] nor would the Jesuits have vented their rage against him and blamed his harsh administration, especially as his administration was the very reverse of harsh; and, finally, Jesuits were not accustomed to vent their rage against their superior.
Sismondi (Hist. des Français, xxix, 372) says that "many of them perished on board ship, and Schoell describes them as lying on top of one another on deck for weeks, under the scorching rays of the sun or down in the fetid hold." The filthy ships finally turned their prows towards Corsica where arrangements had been made for them to discharge their human cargo. It took four days to reach that island, but Paoli was just then fighting for the independence of his country, and French ships which were aiding Genoa occupied the principal ports. At first the exiles remained in their ships, but, later, they were allowed to go ashore during the day. Meantime, a vessel had been despatched to Spain for instructions and when it returned on July 8, the "criminals" were ordered to go to Ajaccio, Algoila or Calvi. They reached Ajaccio on July 24, and as they were then in a state of semi-starvation, Father Pignatelli went straight to the insurgent camp, though at every step he risked being shot or seized and hanged, but he did not care, he would appeal to Paoli's humanity. He was well received, help was sent to the sufferers, and they were given liberty to go where they chose on the island.
They remained there a month and were then sent to the town of Saint-Boniface, where they bivouacked or lived in sheds until the 8th of December, when they were ordered to Genoa. This time the number of brigantines in which they embarked had been reduced from thirteen to five, though the number of the victims had considerably increased; but that mattered little; they finally reached the mainland but were not per[526]mitted to go ashore. Meantime, other Jesuits had arrived and they now numbered 2,000 or 2,400. After a short delay in the harbor, they made their way separately or in groups to different cities in the Papal States, chiefly to Bologna and Ferrara.
Their ejection from the Two Sicilies was a foregone conclusion, for it was ruled by the terrible Bernardo Tanucci, whom Charles III on his accession to the throne of Spain had left as regent during the minority of Ferdinand IV. Tanucci was a lawyer who began his career in a most illegal fashion by exciting riots in Pisa against his rival Grandi. They had quarrelled about the discovery of the Pandects of Justinian. He next drew the attention of Charles by assailing the right of asylum for criminals, which he maintained was in contravention of all law human and divine. "He attacked the prerogatives of the Court of Rome and of the nobles of Naples, with more fury than prudence," says de Angelis (Biographie universelle). Subsequently he showed himself the enemy of the Church in every possible way, and, meantime, so neglected to provide for the security of the State that during the war of the Pragmatic Sanction, King Charles had to sign an act of neutrality at the mouth of the cannons of a British man-of-war. His political incapacity continued to injure the country during the reign of Ferdinand until it was no longer reckoned among the military powers of Europe. Meantime, he kept the young king in ignorance of everything so as to maintain himself in power. He robbed the courts of justice of their power; drew up the Caroline Code which was never published; ruined the finances of the country, as well as its industry and agriculture, and allowed men of the greatest ability and learning to die in penury. In brief, says his biographer, "Tanucci's reputation both before and after his death is a mystery.[527] It is probably due to his prominence as a bitter enemy of the Holy See. He seized Beneventum and Pontecorvo which belonged to the Patrimony of Peter; he suppressed a great number of convents, distributed abbeys to his followers, fomented dissensions against the bishops and, of course, persecuted the Jesuits."
When Charles III of Spain expelled the Society from Spain everyone knew what was going to happen in Sicily, and news was eagerly expected from the peninsula. While they were waiting, an eruption of Vesuvius took place, which the excitable Italians regarded as a sign of God's wrath. Penitential pilgrimages were organized to avert the danger and angry murmurs were heard against the government. To quell the tumult, Tanucci sent out word that the Jesuits would be undisturbed, though ships were at that time on their way to carry off the victims. The young king's signature to the decree had, however, to be procured, but he angrily refused to give it until the official confessor, Latelle, the retired Bishop of Avellino entreated him to yield, saying that he himself would answer for it on the Day of Judgment. The prelate did not know that he himself was to die at the end of the month. The expulsion took place in the usual dramatic fashion. At midnight of November 3, 1767, squads of soldiers descended on every Jesuit establishment in the land. The doors were smashed in; the furniture shattered; all the papers seized, both official and personal, and then surrounded by platoons of soldiers, the Fathers were led like criminals through the streets to the nearest beach with nothing but the clothes on their backs. The whole affair was managed with such lightning-like rapidity, that though the prisoners had been taken from their houses at midnight, they were out at sea before dawn and were heading for Ferrara.
[528] At Parma another Spanish prince ruled. He was still a child, however, but his minister was du Fillot, a statesman of the school of Tanucci and Choiseul. The expulsion took place simultaneously on the night of February 7, 1768 at Piacenza, Parma, San Domino and Busseto. In the first city, all the available vehicles of the place had been requisitioned. At seven o'clock at night a dozen soldiers entered the house. Later, an officer, two adjutants and a magistrate appeared, read the decree, the fourth article of which declared that any one not a priest or professor who would take off the habit of the society would be received among the faithful subjects of his royal highness. The fifth announced that the innate clemency of his highness accorded an annual pension of sixty scudi to the professed and forty to the brothers who were his subjects. The scholastics were to get nothing. In a quarter of an hour they were hurried to the citadel where carriages and carts were waiting and were driven all night at top speed to Parma, where they arrived at day break. Passing through the city they caught up with those who had been expelled from the other places. Half an hour's rest and a bite to eat were allowed and then the journey was continued on to Reggio and Bologna. Not to be outdone in zeal for the king, the Knights of Malta drove them from the island on April 22, 1768. The expulsion at Parma was disastrous not only to the Jesuits but to the Pope. Parma was his fief, and he protested against the action of the duke. It was precisely what the plotters were waiting for. France immediately seized the Comtat Venaissin, and Naples took possession of Beneventum, both of which belonged to the Patrimony of St. Peter. Of course, the Jesuits were immediately expelled and their property confiscated.
[529] The expulsion in Spanish America meant the seizure of at least 158 establishments belonging to the Jesuits in Mexico, New Granada, Ecuador, Peru and Chili. It involved the flinging out into the world of 2,943 Jesuits, some of them old and infirm and absolutely unable to earn their living. Of those who embarked at Valparaiso sixty were drowned in the wreck of the ship "Our Lady of the Hermitage." Carayon gives some interesting diaries of the journeys of these exiles (Doc. inédits, xvi), while Hubert Bancroft in his monumental work of thirty-nine volumes about the Pacific Coast furnishes abundant and valuable information about the exodus from the missions of Mexico. The victims underwent the same sufferings as their Portuguese brethren in the long journeys over mountains and through the primeval forests and in the long, horrible crossing of the ocean to their native land, which they were thought unworthy to enter.
[530]
CHAPTER XVII
THE FINAL BLOW
Ganganelli — Political plotting at the Election — Bernis, Aranda Aubeterre — The Zelanti — Election of Clement XIV — Renewal of Jesuit Privileges by the new Pope — Demand of the Bourbons for a universal Suppression — The Three Years Struggle — Fanaticism of Charles III — Menaces of Schism — Moñino — Maria Theresa — Spoliations in Italy — Signing the Brief — Imprisonment of Father Ricci and the Assistants — Silence and Submission of the Jesuits to the Pope's Decree.As early as 1768, the Bourbon courts let it be known that they would make a formal demand for the suppression of the Society throughout Christendom. On January 14 of that year, Cardinal Torregiani wrote to the papal nuncio at Madrid as follows: "His Holiness is horrified at the attitude of the king, and indignant that the demand should be accompanied by threats to force his hand, so as to wring from him a concession which is in violation of divine, natural and ecclesiastical law. If any mention of it is made to you again, dismiss immediately the person who dares to suggest it." That stinging rebuke, however, did not halt the stubborn Charles, and in the January of 1769 the coalition began its attack. First came the Spanish representative who presented himself for an audience on the eighteenth. The Pope received him with dignified reserve; gave expression to the intense pain caused by the request, and then, bursting into tears, withdrew. On the twentieth and twenty-second respectively, Orsini, representing Naples, made his appearance and after him Aubeterre, on behalf of France. They were both abruptly dismissed. The French document was especially insulting. It advised[531] the Pope to admit the demand on the ground that it was based on a sincere and well-informed zeal for the progress of religion, the interest of the Roman Church, and the peace of Christendom. The use of the expression "Roman" Church was an evident hint at schism.
On January 25, a formal reply was sent to the three courts, informing them that "the Pope could not explain the deplorable audacity they had displayed in adding to the sorrows that already overwhelmed the Church, a new anguish the only purpose of which was to torture the conscience and distress the soul of His Holiness. An impartial posterity would judge if such acts could be regarded as a new proof of that filial love which these sovereigns boast of having for His Holiness personally, and an assurance of that attachment which they pretend to show for the Holy See." On January 28, Cardinal Negroni told the ambassadors: "You are digging the grave of the Holy Father." The prophecy was almost immediately fulfilled, for on February 2 Clement XIII died of a stroke of apoplexy. He had officiated at the ceremonies of that day, and had shown no sign of illness. The blow was a sudden one, and there is no doubt that this joint act of the Bourbon kings had caused his death. De Ravignan does not hesitate to describe him as a martyr who died in defence of the rights of the Church. He is blamed by some for "his lack of foresight in not yielding to the exigencies of the times." But there were other "exigencies of the times" besides those formulated by the men "who knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honor of holy souls," and the Pope's foresight was not limited by the horizons of Pombal, Choiseul and Charles III. "His pontificate," as has been well said, "affords the spectacle of a saint clad in moral[532] strength, contending alone against the powers of the world. Such a spectacle is an acquisition forever." For it should not be forgotten that those arrayed against him in this fight were not aiming merely at the annihilation of the Society of Jesus. That was only a secondary consideration. Their purpose was to destroy the Church, and in its defence Pope Clement XIII died.
A new Pope was now to be elected and the alarming influence wielded by the statesmen of Europe in ecclesiastical affairs now assumed proportions which seemed to menace the destruction of the Church itself. In his "Clément XIII et Clément XIV" (p. 552) de Ravignan gives an extract from Theiner which is startling. In 1769, that is before the election, we find all the cardinals tabulated as "good;" "bad;" "indifferent;" "doubtful;" "worst;" "null." Their ages are given; their characters, their political tendencies. Among those marked "good" is Ganganelli; Rezzonico, the nephew of Clement XIII is in the category of the "worst;" the Cardinal of York is "null." There are eleven who are labelled "papabili," ten to be excluded and fourteen to be avoided. It is even settled who is to be secretary of State. Weekly instructions in this matter were sent from the court of Spain to its agents at Rome, whose motto was: "nec turpe est quod dominus jubet — nothing is base if the king orders it." They were at that time precisely the kind of men that the implacable Charles III needed to sustain him in his iniquitous measure: unprincipled clerics like Sales, or savages like Moniño, or Aspuru, who could write: "What matter that the charges are not proved? The accused has been condemned. We have not to establish his guilt." As for the flippant Bernis and the infidel Aubeterre, they were good enough for the royal debauchee, Louis XV. Aubeterre had been[533] a soldier, was now a diplomat and had lost his faith by contact with the revolting indecencies of the regency, while Bernis, says Carayon, was "a distinguished type of French vanity who talked much, schemed continually and fancied he controlled the conclave though he was only a fly on the wheel. He was not ashamed to admit that he owed his red hat to la Pompadour."
Bernis' correspondence with his government is valuable not only in showing how unscrupulous were the methods of coercion employed but in revealing the ultimate purpose of the conspirators, viz. the establishment of state churches in their several kingdoms. He and de Luynes were instructed to insist that the new Pope should: first, annul the Brief of Clement XIII against Parma; secondly, recognize the independent sovereignty of the Prince; thirdly, relinquish Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin to France, and Beneventum to Sicily; fourthly, exile Cardinal Torregiani, the prime minister of Clement XIII; fifthly, completely abolish the Society of Jesus; secularize its members, and expel Father Ricci, the General, from Rome. They let it be known that there would be no backing down on these five points.
It was chiefly to secure the suppression of the Society that the fight was to be made. The other matters could be left, if necessary, for future adjustment. If every other means failed, intimidation was to be resorted to. Indeed, as a preparation, veiled threats began to be heard from several quarters. Thus, for instance, Louis XV put his name to the following insulting letter: "My sincere and constant wish is," he said, "that the Barque of Peter should be entrusted to a pilot who is enlightened enough to appreciate the necessity of having the Head of the Church remain in the most perfect harmony with all[534] the sovereigns of the Roman Faith; and of being wise enough to avoid every inconsiderate measure prompted by indiscreet and extravagant zeal; in brief, one who will shape his policy by the rules of moderation, prudence and sweetness in keeping with divine wisdom and human politics." Such language from the "Most Christian King" was an outrage on the memory of Clement XIII; and the words "Roman Faith" contained, as on a previous occasion, a threat of schism. Schoell, the Protestant historian, says that "the formation of State Churches in the three kingdoms was clearly the avowed purpose of these plotters."
The "Zelanti" were in the majority, but that difficulty was soon disposed of by the veto power which had been granted to the Catholic sovereigns. Making full use of it, they shamelessly forbade the consideration of any candidate who was suspected of being unfriendly to them, with the result that the number of eligible candidates was speedily reduced to eleven; and as most of these latter were old or infirm they could not be even considered by the electors. At this point, Bernis protested against being excessive in the eliminations. Finally there were only two cardinals who could be considered papabili: Ganganelli and Stoppani.
On March 7, 1769, instructions arrived from Madrid emphatically insisting that the election of no Pope would be recognized who would not first bind himself to grant the five points insisted upon by the Bourbon kings, but when the two Spanish cardinals at Rome represented to Charles III that such a proposal to the electors would involve serious risks, the obstinate king insisted, nevertheless, that he would yield on three of the points, but that he would have to exact absolutely as a condition of election that the new Pope would promise to cancel the previous Pontiff's action[535] with regard to the Duke of Parma, and also suppress the whole Society of Jesus. He wanted the conclave to pass a decree to that effect. Even in the Parma affair, he was willing to relent, because as Clement XIII was dead, his ruling might be considered as having lapsed, but as for the Society of Jesus, nothing would satisfy him except its absolute extinction. That much was due, he said, to the three powerful monarchs on whom the Church depended for support. On the other hand, as it would not be proper to compromise the reputation of these kings by letting it be known that such a deal was being made, for it might happen to fail; it was thought better not to give any precise orders, but to leave to the discretion of those who were on the spot to determine what means should be employed for bringing about the desired results.
The project of getting a distinct decree from the conclave in the sense of the King of Spain was abandoned, but while the political cardinals would not hear of exacting a written promise, the ambassadors who were working on the outside, openly avowed that they had no scruples about it. Indeed, Aubeterre, the French ambassador, wrote to Choiseul in France complaining that he and his fellow-diplomats felt hurt that their proposal should be rejected for moral reasons, especially as they had secretly consulted an excellent canonist, who ruled that there would be no harm in imposing on the new Pontiff the obligation of fulfilling the contract inside of a year, dating from the day of his election. Not only was it permissible, he said, but, in the circumstances, it was imperatively urgent for the good of the Church. "The excellent canonist" here referred to was Azpuru, the Spanish ambassador, but as Cardinals Orsini, Bernis and de Luynes insisted that such a contract would be simoniacal, they were informed that if an unacceptable[536] Pope was elected there would be an immediate rupture of relations with the Holy See and the representatives of the three Powers would withdraw from Rome. They were further told that it was hoped that the fanatics, or Zelanti, would not drive them to such an extremity. D'Aubeterre who voiced the opinion of his associates went so far as to say, that any election which had not been arranged beforehand with the court would not be recognized.
Finally, after the conclave had been in session from February 13 to May 19, Cardinal Ganganelli was elected Pope and took the name of Clement XIV. He was considered "acceptable," especially by Spain. According to Cordara, however, his elevation to the pontifical throne was not due to the influence or the manipulations of the Spanish cardinals but was brought about as follows: — "From the beginning of the conclave two or three votes were deposited in his favor, but he was never seriously thought of as Pope. Indeed, Cardinal Castelli, whose learning and piety gave him great influence in the Sacred College, was strongly opposed to him. Suddenly, however, he changed his opinion and declared that, having considered the matter more thoroughly, he was convinced that in the actual circumstances, no one was better fitted for the post than Ganganelli. From that moment, those who had been opposed to him regarded him favorably. Even Rezzonico, the nephew of Clement XIII, who had many reasons to vote against him said he would take the opinion of the majority of the cardinals. Hence the only one against him was Orsini who said that "the Franciscan was a Jesuit in disguise." He was, therefore, after the fight had raged for 100 days, elected by forty-six out of forty-seven votes. The forty-seventh was his own, which he cast in favor of Rezzonico. It is not true that he had made a promise to suppress[537] the Society in case of election. Azpuru, the Spanish agent, wrote on May 8: "No one has gone so far as to propose to anyone to give a written or verbal promise"; and after May 13, he added: "Ganganelli neither made a promise nor refused it." Unfortunately some of his written words were interpreted as implying it.
Ganganelli was born in the town of Sant' Arcangelo, near Rimini, on October 31, 1705, and was baptised Giovanni Vincenzo Antonio, but took the name of Lorenzo when he became a Conventual of St. Francis. His life as a friar was characterized by piety and intense application to study. He was noted for his admiration of everything pertaining to the Society of Jesus, and, indeed, Pope Clement XIII when making him a cardinal said, "there is now a Jesuit in the Sacred College in the habit of a Franciscan." But "the purple seemed to change him," says Cordara, "and from that out he was more reserved in his manifestations of friendship." As Pope he was as simple in his way of life as when living with his community; he was gentle, affable, kind, rarely ruffled, never precipitate and never carried away by inconsiderate zeal. He would have made an admirable Pope in better times. But when he was given control of the Barque of Peter a wild storm was sweeping over the world. Venice, Parma, Naples, France, Spain and Portugal were arrayed against him — some of them threatening separation from the Church. Austria, the only Catholic government that remained, observed neutrality at first, but finally went to the wrong side. In brief, a fierce and united anti-religious element dominated all Catholic Europe, and the rest was Protestant.
Of course, immediately after his election, felicitations rained upon him, but as de Ravignan expresses it, "they were like flowers on the head of the victim[538] that was to be immolated." Indeed, even in the congratulations harsh notes were heard, as when France expressed its hope that the Holy See would show more condescension to the powers than usual, and when Spain "urgently called the attention of His Holiness to certain petitions which had been presented to him." The Spanish ambassador, Azpuru, reminded him in the very first audience that application had already been made to his predecessor for the suppression of the Jesuits. The representatives of France, Portugal and Naples chanted the same dirge. Before three months had elapsed, there was an explosion that shook Christendom. Following an accepted custom, the Pope issued the septennial Brief of indulgences in favor of the missionaries "to bestow the treasures of heavenly blessings on those who, to our knowledge, are laboring with indefatigable zeal for the salvation of souls. We include among these fervent apostles, the Religious of the Society of Jesus, and especially those whom our beloved son, Lorenzo Ricci, is to assign this year and afterwards, in various provinces of the Society, to that work; and we most certainly desire to promote and increase by these spiritual favors the piety and the active and enterprising zeal of those Religious."
It was a thunderbolt. Fierce protests were made in Spain, Naples, Parma and France. Choiseul, who, up to that time, had been suave in his malice, lost his temper completely and ordered the Ambassador Bernis not only to make a public demand for the suppression of the Society but to order the Pope to begin it inside of two months. "This Pope is trifling with us," he said; "and if he does not come to terms he can consider all relations with France at an end." He became grossly insulting and declared that "he had enough of this monkery;" he would upset the plans of the Fratacci; and annihilate his Roman finesse. "A monk was[539] always a monk," he said, "and it was very hard for an Italian monk to be honest and frank in business matters." Choiseul's varnish of courtesy had been all rubbed off by the incident, and he wanted to know "who were going to win in the fight? the kings or the Jesuits? If I were ambassador at Rome," he wrote to Bernis, "I would be ashamed to see Father Ricci the antagonist of my master."
Bernis, Cardinal though he was, meekly replied: "Of course the kings must win, but only the Pope can make them win. However, he has to do it according to the prescriptions of canon law, and must save his own reputation as well as that of the clergy. Moreover, as he is a temporal sovereign, he has to consider the courts of Vienna, Turin and Poland, and all that takes time. Personally, he means to keep the promise already given to the three crowns to suppress the Society, and has shown his mind on that point by public acts against the Fathers. He will renew the promise explicitly and immediately, in a letter written in his own hand to the King of Spain. He is not feeble or false as you seem to think. Time will show that such is his purpose. But, first, the way to lose the battle with the Jesuit General is to begin now. The Pope cannot and will not do it without preparation. Secondly, France and Spain must agree on the time and manner of arriving at the extinction of the Jesuits. Thirdly, it would be wiser to restrict the suppression to the Papal States, and not attempt it in countries that are favorable to the Society. Fourthly, a good preliminary would be to forbid the reception of novices, as the Pope has already done in his own dominions. Marefoschi and I put that into his head. Fifthly, I also proposed the seizure of the archives, the appointment of a Vicar General, to whom Father Ricci will render an account of his administration."
[540] Bernis' temporising, however, only exasperated the foes of the Society, especially Charles III. Nevertheless, he succeeded in inducing the Pope to write to Louis XV on September 30, and in this communication a promise was made to do all the king wanted. But that was not enough for Charles. To force the issue, he ordered all the Jesuit property in Spain to be put up at auction, and a copy of the decree was sent to the Pope. That was on November 8, and on November 13, a joint letter was sent by the three powers requesting Clement to publish a Brief motu proprio that is on his own initiative, as if they had had nothing to do with it, approving all that the Bourbon princes had done against the Society; and also to send to their majesties the plan he proposed to follow in carrying out its complete suppression. Clement humbly submitted to the outrage, and seven days later, Bernis was able to write to Choiseul: "His Holiness has renewed in the strongest manner the two promises he had made to the Bourbon kings with regard to the Brief approving the missionaries, and the plan to suppress the Jesuit Order. He has commissioned me to positively assure the ministers of the powers on that point."
Spain wanted even more than that; and on November 22d, Azpuru told the Pope that if he did not send a manuscript letter to the king promising the suppression, extreme measures would be resorted to, and the rupture of relations which had been begun in 1767 and which was so disastrous to the Church in Spain would be carried to its limit. He was not exaggerating, and the nuncio at Madrid wrote that the king was so set on his purpose, that they did not know what mad thing he might do to gain his point. The general impression was that Charles was on the verge of insanity.
[541] To quiet him, the Pope wrote, on November 30, to say positively that he would carry out the will of the courts. "We have gathered all the documents," he said, "that are needed for writing the motu proprio agreed upon; so as to justify to the whole world, the wise conduct of your majesty in expelling the Jesuits, as troublesome and turbulent subjects. As we are carrying on our government, unaided, although crushed by the weight and multiplicity of questions that have to be settled, you will understand that it is not forgetfulness but merely the unavoidable delay required to bring this important matter to a successful issue." Indeed at that time Clement had secluded himself from everyone. He was in constant fear of being poisoned, and had his food prepared by a Cordelier lay-brother. "We beg Your Majesty," he continued, "to put your entire confidence in us, for we have fully resolved to act, and we are preparing to give to the public incontestable proofs of our sincerity. We shall submit to the wisdom and intelligence of Your Majesty a plan for the total extinction of this Society; and Your Majesty will receive it shortly. We shall not cease to give genuine proofs of our attachment and our veneration for Your Majesty to whom in the plenitude of our paternal affection we give our apostolic benediction" (De Ravignan, "Clément XIII et Clément XIV," I, 295).
Bernis gave himself the credit of having got the Pope to write this letter, and said that now: "His Holiness could not escape carrying out his promise. He will be forced to do it, in spite of his unwillingness, for he knows that the king is too intelligent not to publish the letter, and the Pope will be disgraced if he does not keep his word" (Saint-Priest, p. 131). Thus six months after his election, he was bound by a written[542] and absolute promise to suppress the Society; though he was continually saying "questa supressione mi darà la morte" (this suppression will kill me). At this stage of the proceedings little Naples was becoming obstreperous. Tanucci had seized the Greek College and expelled the Jesuits. He then claimed the property of all religious communities, and when remonstrated with, he replied that "he was going to keep on thwarting every order that came from Rome, until the Society of Jesus was abolished." In 1770 the Pope cancelled the excommunication of the Duke of Parma to gratify the sovereigns, but the satisfaction that ensued did not last long. Cardinal Pacca, who was quasi-nuncio at Lisbon just then, notes the disorders prevalent in the country especially in the University of Coimbra, where the worst kind of teaching was permitted.
On July 3, 1770, Bernis wrote to Choiseul: "I heard that the Founder of the Passionists, Paul of the Cross, has warned the Pope to watch over his kitchen, and hence Brother Francisco who looks after the Pope's household has redoubled his vigilance. I do not know if it is on account of this warning, but in any case the Pope has gone to some mineral springs for treatment and is to be there for the next fortnight." Ten days afterwards, Choiseul replied: "I cannot imagine the Pope is so credulous or so cowardly as to be so easily frightened by reports about attempts on his life. The Society of Jesus has been looked upon as dangerous because of its doctrines, its Institute and its intrigues in the countries from which they have been expelled; but they have not been accused of being poisoners. It is only the base jealousy and fanatical hatred of some monks that could suspect such a thing. The General of the Passionists might have dispensed himself from giving such indiscreet advice to the Pope, which seems to have aggravated[543] the illness of which he was already complaining." As this General of the Passionists was no other than the saintly Paul of the Cross, who has been since raised to the honors of the altar, one may form some idea of the infamous devices resorted to in all this business. Far from being unfriendly, Paul of the Cross writes: "I am extremely pained by the sufferings of the illustrious Company of Jesus. The very thought of all those innocent religious being persecuted, in so many ways, makes me weep and groan. The devil is triumphing; God's glory is diminished, and multitudes of souls are deprived of all spiritual help. I pray, night and day that, after the storm is passed, God who gives both life and death may resuscitate the Society with greater glory than before. Such have been always, and such still are, my feelings towards the Jesuits."
The fact is, however, that the Pope was really frightened. His cheerfulness had vanished, his health had failed, and his features wore an anxious and haunted look. He kept in seclusion, and, as has been said, would let no one prepare his meals but his fellow-friar, Brother Francisco, who remained with him till the end. He was evidently fighting for time; hoping, no doubt, that something might occur to absolve him from his promise. But his enemies were relentless. Charles III was more than fanatical in his insistency, and finally Clement appointed Marefoschi, an open enemy of the Jesuits, to prepare the Brief. The task was joyfully accepted, but the Pope discovered that it was not written in the usual pontifical style. That excuse, however, was regarded by his assailants, as a trick, and they complained of it bitterly. Then it was alleged that the Empress Maria Theresa, who was not averse to the Jesuits, had to be consulted. Indeed, she had given out that as long as she lived they had nothing to fear in her dominions, but she[544] failed to keep her word. Subsequently, a promise was given not to allow Father Ricci to have a successor or to admit novices into the Order; then a general council was proposed to decide the question, but all was of no avail.
At this point, December 25, 1770, Choiseul fell from power, and the world began to breathe for a short spell, hoping that this might affect the situation, but d'Aiguillon, his successor, was just as bad. Moreover, Saint-Priest, in his "Chûte des Jésuites" (p. 127) uses the incident for a nasty insult. He attributes Choiseul's fall to the regard that Madame du Barry had for the Society. "Thank God!" exclaims de Ravignan, "the Society has never had such a protectress." She was admired by Voltaire, who hailed her as another Egeria, but no Jesuit ever sought her protection. Their only advocate at the court at that sad period was the saintly daughter of the king, who became a Carmelite nun to expiate her father's sins. The real cause of Choiseul's downfall was that Maupeou showed to Louis XV some of Choiseul's letters urging parliament "not to yield in the fight, for the king would sustain the Society with all his power." "It was not hard," says Foisset in "Le Président des Brosses" (p. 302), "for du Barry to persuade the king that those letters were meant to incite the parliament to rebellion against him." She hated Choiseul who, though willing to pay court to Pompadour, had no respect for the low and coarse du Barry.
At this point, the Pope offered another inducement to the King of Spain: the canonization of Palafox, whom Charles III worshipped, but that failed, though a little respite was gained by the help of the king's confessor; and certain discussions with regard to the restitution of the papal territories also contributed[545] to delay the disaster. The year 1771 had now been reached, and to afford some satisfaction to the foe, the Pope established a commission or congregation of cardinals to examine the financial conditions of the Society. At its head was the fierce Marefoschi, who began by seizing the Roman Seminary. Thus matters dragged on till 1772. Up to that time very little progress had been made, and people were beginning to talk about the impossibility of abolishing the whole Order, or even a part of it without "proper juridical investigation." Even Bernis told his government that "there was too much heat in this Jesuit affair to permit the Pope to explain his real thoughts about the suppression;" but, though Aranda was out of office and Choiseul likewise, the implacable Charles III was determined to put an end to the delay and instead of Azpuru, he sent the fierce José Moñino, otherwise known as Florida Blanca to be his ambassador in Rome.
Under an affable and polished exterior Moñino was in reality very brutal. He simply terrorized the Pope, who put off receiving him for a week after his arrival and invented all sorts of excuses not to see him. When at last they met, the Pope was pale and excited but Moñino had resolved to end the siege. He dismissed absolutely all question of a reform of the Order. What he wanted was suppression, or else there would be a rupture with Spain. In vain the Pope entreated him to wait for Ricci's death; but the angry minister rejected the offer with scorn, and the Pope after being humiliated, insulted and outraged, withdrew to his apartments, exclaiming with sobs in his voice: "God forgive the Catholic King." "It was Moñino," said a diplomat then at Rome, "who got the Brief of 1773; but he did not obtain it; he tore it from the Pope's hand." Under instructions from Charles III, Moñino told the Pope, "I will disgrace you by publishing the[546] letter you wrote to the king," and he laid before the Pontiff a plan drawn up by himself and the other ministers of Charles III to carry out the suppression. De Ravignan condemns Crétineau-Joly for having published this paper. "It would have been better to have left it in the secret archives."
In Moñino's plan of action he declares that "it was not advisable to enter into details; so as not to allow any ground for discussion, as it would do harm to religion and uselessly defame the character of the Jesuits." The king's reasons had already been made known to the Holy See. They were three in number. The first was "they had caused the Sombrero Riot in Madrid;" the second: "their moral and doctrinal teaching was bad;" the third, and this was the most extraordinary of all: "they had always persecuted the holiest bishops and persons in the Kingdom of Spain." The last item probably referred to Palafox. His Majesty had not yet revealed the important secret which he kept "locked in his royal heart." All the terrible statements of the documents alleged to have been seized by Marefoschi were to be of no use, when compared with the Riot of the Sombreros.
Meantime conditions were every day growing worse in Europe. The publications of Voltaire and his friends were destroying both religion and morality. The fulminations of the Pope against these books availed little, and meantime he was about to crush the men who were best able to face the enemy. Finally, poor Poland was being cut up by Prussia, Russia and Austria and the Pope was powerless to prevent it. On the other hand, there were some consolations. Thus in 1771 the Armenian patriarch and all his people renounced Nestorianism and returned to the unity of the Church. Between 1771 and 1772 seven thousand families and their ministers in the country of Sickelva[547] abandoned Socinianism, and became Catholics. Again, wonderful conversions were made in Transylvania and Hungary, not only among Protestants but among the schismatical Greeks. Similar triumphs had been achieved in Armenia and Syria among the subjects of the Grand Turk, and the whole peninsula of Italy under the eyes of the Pope was in a transport of religious zeal. The peculiarly interesting feature about all this was that it was the work of the members of the Society of Jesus. But that did not check the progress of the anti-Christian plot of the Catholic kings of Europe to obliterate from the face of the earth the organization which even in its crippled condition and in the very last moments of its existence was capable of such achievements. Cardinal Migazzi, the Archbishop of Vienna, called the Pope's attention to this fact, but without avail.
Up to this time, Maria Theresa had been the devoted friend of the Society. She had even said she would never cease to be so, but yielding to the influence of her son, Joseph II, and of her daughter, the Queen of Naples, she consented to their suppression, on condition that she could dispose arbitrarily of their property (Clément XIII et Clément XIV, I, 362.) The illustrious queen displayed great worldly prudence in withdrawing her affections. This desertion destroyed the last hope that the Pope had cherished of putting off the Suppression. Moñino returned to the attack again and received an assurance from Clement that the document of suppression would be ready in eight days, and copies would be sent to the Kings of Spain, France and Naples. Meantime, as a guarantee, he began the work in his own States. Under all sorts of pretexts, individuals and college corporations were haled to court; and official visits were made of the various establishments. On March 10, 1773, Malvezzi,[548] the Archbishop of Bologna, applied to the Pope for "permission to dissolve the novitiate, if it would seem proper to do so. If you think well of it, I shall carry that measure into effect, as soon as I arrive. I also judge it advisable to shut up St. Lucia, by dismissing the Jesuit theologians and philosophers. In doing so, Your Holiness will be dispensed from the trouble of investigating and will thus avoid the publicity of any notable offence which an examination might reveal."
There were two difficulties in the way, however. The people objected to the expulsion, and the Jesuits refused to be released from their vows. The latter obstacle was thought to be overcome by tearing off the cassocks of the young men and sending them adrift as laymen, and when the rector, Father Belgrado, who besides being a theologian was one of the foremost physicists and mathematicians of the day, and had been the confessor of the Duke and Duchess of Parma, informed the archbishop that dispensation from substantial vows must come from the Pope and from no one else, that did not stop Malvezzi. He had the rector arrested and exiled; and with the help of a band of soldiers expelled the scholastics from the house. He then wrote to the Pope regretting that he had not proceeded more rapidly. Besides this, Frascati was taken from the Jesuits and given to the Cardinal of York, who asked for it, though his royal pension had made him already immensely wealthy. Similar visitations were made in Ferrara and Montalto, and the looting became general.
In Poland, as we learn from "Les Jésuites de la Russie blanche," the spoliation had started even before the promulgation of the edict. Libraries were broken up and the books were often used to kindle bonfires; the silver of the churches was melted down and sold,[549] and medals and chains from statues were seen on the necks of abandoned women. Even the cattle on the farms were seized. The Jews were especially conspicuous in these depredations.
All this was the prelude of the fatal Brief, which was signed on July 21, 1773, but was not promulgated until August 16 of that year. Theiner is the only author who gives August 17 as the date. As a matter of fact it was held up by Austria so as to gain time to prevent the secular clergy from seizing the property. The preparation of the Brief was conducted with the profoundest secrecy. Even on July 28, the French Ambassador wrote to D'Aiguillon: "the Pope is doing nothing in the Jesuit matter." He was unaware that not only was the Brief already signed but that a Congregatio de rebus extinctæ Societatis (a Committee on the affairs of the Extinct Society) had been appointed, and that its members had been bound under pain of excommunication not to reveal the fact to any one. However, Bernis found it out on the 11th, and complained that he had not been consulted. He wrote as follows: "Last Friday, the Pope summoned Cardinals Marefoschi, Casali, Zelada, Corsini and Caraffa, and after having made them take an oath, he put a Brief in their hands, which constituted them members of a congregation which was to meet every Monday and Thursday to discuss whatever concerned the Jesuit establishments, their benefices, colleges, seminaries, foundations, and such matters. It held its first meeting last Monday. Macedonio, the Pope's nephew, was the secretary; Alfani, a prelate, was the assessor; and Fathers Mamachi, a Dominican, and de Casal, a Recollect, were consulting theologians. The last two mentioned are men of repute."
"The 16th day of August 1773, the day of sad memories," writes de Ravignan, "arrived. Towards[550] nine at night, Macedonio went to the Gesù and officially notified the General of the Brief that suppressed the Society throughout the world. He was accompanied by soldiers and officers of the police to keep order, though no one dreamed of creating any trouble. At the same hour, also by command of the Pope, other distinguished prelates and ecclesiastics gave notice of the Brief to the various Jesuit rectors in Rome. They also were accompanied by soldiers and notaries. Seals were put on the archives, the accounts, the offices of the treasurers and the doors of the sacristies. The Jesuits were suspended from all ecclesiastical functions such as confessions and preaching, and they were forbidden, for the time being, to leave their houses. The Father General and his assistants were carried off to jail." "Such," said Schoell (xliv, 84), "was the end of one of the most remarkable institutions that perhaps ever existed. The Order of the Jesuits was divided into five nations, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, French and German, each one of which had a representative living with the General. In 1750 the organization comprised 39 provinces, had 84 professed houses, which were residences where the most experienced members worked unceasingly for the Order without being distracted by public instruction. There were 679 colleges, 61 novitiates, 176 seminaries, 335 residences, and 273 missions. There were 22,589 members of whom 11,293 were priests."
This official act of the Pope really added very little to the temporal injury already done to the Order in Spain, France and Portugal where they had already been robbed of everything. But to be regarded as reprobates by the Pope and branded as disturbers of the peace of the Church was a suffering with which all they had hitherto undergone bore no comparison.[551] Nevertheless, they uttered no protest. They submitted absolutely and died without a murmur, and in this silence they were true to their lifelong training, for loyalty to the See of Peter had always been the distinctive mark of the Society of Jesus from the moment that Ignatius Loyola knelt at the feet of the Sovereign Pontiff, for his approval and blessing. When the blow fell, the Society was found to be faithful. If it had during its lifetime achieved something for the glory of God and the salvation of souls; if it had been constantly appealed to for the most dangerous missions and had accepted them with enthusiasm; if it had poured out its blood lavishly for the Faith; if it had given many glorious saints to the Church, now, in the last terrible crisis which preceded the French Revolution and perhaps precipitated it, when the ruler of the Militant Church judged that by sacrificing one of his legions he could hold back the foe, the Society of Jesus on being chosen did not hesitate; it obeyed, and it was cut to pieces. Not a word came from the heroic band to discuss the wisdom or the unwisdom of the act. Others protested but not they. Those who condemned Clement XIV were not Jesuits, though their enemies said they were. On the contrary, the Jesuits defended and eulogized him and some of them even maintained that in the terrible circumstances in which he found himself, he could not have done otherwise. The Suppression gave them the chance, which they did not miss, to prove to the world the solidity of virtue that reigned throughout the Order, and to show that their doctrine of "blind obedience" was not a matter of mere words, but an achievable and an achieved virtue. They would have stultified themselves had they halted when the supreme test was asked for, and so they died to uphold the judgment of the Vicar of Christ, and in similar[552] circumstances would do it again. They had preached sermons in every part of the world, but never one like this. Nor was it a sublime act such as some individual saints might have performed. It was the act of the whole Society of Jesus.
Silent themselves, they did their best to persuade others to refrain from all criticism. One example will suffice. It was after the Pope's death when the ex-Jesuits at Fribourg held a funeral service in their collegiate Church of St. Nicholas. The whole city was present, and the preacher, Father Matzel, amid the sobs of the congregation uttered these words: "Friends! beloved Friends of our former Society! whoever and wherever you may be! If ever we have had the happiness to be of help and comfort to you by our labor in city or country; if ever we have contributed anything to the cause of Christianity in preaching the word of God or catechising or instructing youth, or laboring in hospitals or prisons, or writing edifying books now, on this occasion, although in our present distress we have many favors to ask of you, there is one we ask above all and we entreat and implore you to grant it. It is never to speak a word that would be harsh or bitter or disrespectful to the memory of Clement XIV, the Supreme Head of the Church of Christ."
The famous Brief is designated by its first words, Dominus ac Redemptor. Its general tenor is as follows: It begins by enumerating the various religious orders which, in course of time, had been suppressed by successive Popes, and it then gives a list of the privileges accorded to the Society by the Holy See, but it notes that "from its very cradle" there were internal and external disagreements and dissensions and jealousies, as well as opposition to both secular and ecclesiastical authority, chiefly because of the excessive privileges that[553] had been granted to it by the different Sovereign Pontiffs. Its moral and dogmatic theology also gave rise to considerable discussion, and it has frequently been accused of too great avidity in the acquisition of earthly goods. The Pontiff merely declares that such "charges" were made against the Society; he, in no place, admits that the "charges" were based on truth. These accusations, he continues, caused much chagrin to the Holy See, and afforded a motive for several sovereigns of Europe to range themselves in opposition to the Society; while, on the other hand, a new confirmation of the Institute was obtained from Pope Paul IV of happy memory. That, however, did not succeed in putting an end to the disputes with the ordinaries or with other religious orders on many points, and notably with regard to certain ceremonies which the Holy See proscribed as scandalous in doctrine, and subversive of morality; nor did it avail to quell the tumult which ultimately led to the expulsion of the Society from Portugal, France, Spain and the Two Sicilies, and induced the kings of those countries to ask Clement XIII for its complete suppression. "Hence, finding that the Society of Jesus can no longer produce the abundant fruits for which it was instituted, and for which it was approved by so many Popes, and rewarded by so many privileges, we now abolish and suppress it. But as the purpose which we have set for ourselves and are eager to achieve is the general good of the Church and the tranquillity of the people, and, at the same time, to give help and consolation to each of the members of this Society, all of whom we tenderly cherish in the Lord, we ordain as follows with regard to them." He then explains the various ways in which each section of the Society is to be dealt with.
Such in general is the substance of this very long Brief. In it, however, there is not one word about the[554] decadence of the Society in its morality or its theology. The Pontiff merely says that many have "charged" them with such offenses. He even goes so far as to say that "he tenderly loved all of the individuals who composed the Society." The real purpose of it was to bring peace to the Church. Cahours in his "Des Jésuites par un Jésuite," (II, p. 278) says, "Every judge who passes a sentence affirms two things: the existence of a crime and the fitness of the penalty. Clement XIV pronounces on the second, but says nothing of the first. Hence the sentence is not something exacted by justice, but is merely an administrative measure called for by the embarrassment of the moment."
Was it legitimate? Yes; for the Holy See has a right to suppress what it has created.
[555]
CHAPTER XVIII
THE INSTRUMENT
Summary of the Brief of Suppression and its Supplementary Document.The Brief of Clement XIV which suppressed the Society begins by enumerating the various religious orders which have been treated in a similar manner at different periods in the history of the Church, but it omits to note that their extinction occurred only after a juridical examination. Thus, for instance, when Clement V suppressed the Knights Templars in 1321, he first ordered all the bishops of the world to summon the Knights who had chapters in their dioceses; to subject them to a regular trial and then to forward a report of their proceedings to Rome. When this was done a general council was convened at Vienne in Dauphiné to go over the whole matter and then submit its decision to the Pope. The council brought in a favorable verdict by a majority vote, although the Knights were very poorly defended, but the Pope, terrorized by Philip the Fair, ordered the dissolution of the Order. In the case of the Society there was a dissolution but no trial.
After recounting these facts, the Pontiff says: "Having before my eyes these and other examples of Orders suppressed by the Church and being most eager to proceed with perfect confidence in carrying out the purpose which shall be referred to later, we have left nothing undone to make ourselves acquainted with the origin, progress and actual condition of the religious order commonly known as the Society of Jesus. We have seen that it was established by its Holy Founder for the salvation of souls, the conver[556]sion of heretics and especially of the heathen, and also for the increase of piety and religion. To accomplish these purposes its members were bound by a very strict vow of evangelical poverty both in common and individually, with the exception of its houses of study or colleges which are allowed to possess certain revenues, but in such wise that they could not be diverted or applied to the use of this Society.
"In consequence of these statutes and of others equally wise, our predecessor Paul III approved of the Society of Jesus, by his Bull of September 27, 1540, and allowed it to draw up rules and statutes to ensure its peace, its existence and its government; and although he had restricted this Society to sixty members, yet by another Bull dated February 28, 1543, he permitted the superiors to receive all who appeared to possess the proper qualifications for the work proposed. Subsequently, the same Pontiff by a Brief of November 15, 1549, accorded very great privileges to this Society and gave its Generals the power of accepting twenty priests as spiritual coadjutors and of conferring on them the same privileges, the same favor and the same authority as the Professed. His wish was and he so ordained that there should be no limit or restriction put on the number of those whom the General should judge worthy of being so received. Furthermore, the Society itself, all its members and their possessions were entirely withdrawn from all superiorship, control and correction of bishops and taken under the protection of the Holy See.
"Others of our predecessors have exhibited the same munificent liberality to this order. In effect Julius III, Paul IV, Paul V, Gregory XIII, Sixtus V, Gregory XIV, Clement VIII and other Popes have either confirmed or augmented, or more distinctly defined and determined the privileges already conferred[557] on these religious. Nevertheless, the tenor and even the terms of these Apostolic Constitutions show that even at its inception the Society saw spring up within it various germs of discord and jealousies, which not only divided the members, but prompted them to exalt themselves above other religious orders, the secular clergy, the universities, colleges, public schools and even the sovereigns who had admitted and welcomed them in their realms. These troubles and dissensions were sometimes caused by the character of the Society's vows, by its power to admit novices to the vows, to dismiss from the Society, to present its subjects for ordination without any ecclesiastical title and without having made solemn vows. Moreover, it was in conflict with the decisions of the Council of Trent and of Pius V, our predecessor, both with regard to the absolute power arrogated by the General, as well as in other articles which not only relate to the government of the Society, but also on different points of doctrine, and in the exemptions and privileges which the ordinaries and other dignitaries both ecclesiastical and secular claim to be an invasion of their jurisdiction and their rights. In brief, there is scarcely any kind of a grave accusation that has not been brought against this Society, and in consequence, the peace and tranquillity of Christendom has been for a long time disturbed.
"Numberless complaints backed by the authority of kings and rulers have been urged against these religious at the tribunals of Paul IV, Pius V and Sixtus V. Thus, Philip II, King of Spain, laid before Sixtus V not only the urgent and grave personal reasons which prompted his action in this matter, but also the protest of the Spanish Inquisition against the excessive privileges of the Society. His majesty also complained of the Society's form of government, and of points in[558] the Institution which were disputed by some of the members of the Society who were conspicuous for their knowledge and piety, and he asked the Sovereign Pontiff to name a commission for an Apostolic visitation of the Society.
"As the zealous demands of Philip seemed to be based on justice and equity, Sixtus V appointed as visitor Apostolic a bishop generally recognized for his prudence, virtue and intellectual gifts. A congregation of cardinals was also instituted to dispose of the matter, but the premature death of Sixtus prevented any action. On the other hand, the first act of Gregory XIV on his accession to the Chair of Peter was to give by his Bull of June 28, 1591, the most extensive approval of the Institute. He confirmed and ratified all the privileges accorded by his predecessors, and especially that of dismissal from the Order without juridical procedure, that is to say without having taken any previous information, without drawing up any indictment, without observing any legal process, or allowing any delay, even the most essential, but solely on the inspection of the truth of the fact and without regard to the fault or whether it or the attendant circumstances sufficiently justified the expulsion of the person involved.
"Moreover, Pope Gregory absolutely forbade under pain of excommunication ipso facto, any direct or indirect attack on the institute, the constitutions, or the decrees of the Society, or any attempt to change them, although he permitted an appeal to himself or his successors, either directly or through the legates and nuncios of the Holy See, and also the right to represent whatever one might think should be added, modified or retrenched.
"However, all these precautions did not avail to silence the clamorous complaints against the Society.[559] On the contrary, strife arose everywhere about the doctrines of the Order, which many maintained were totally opposed to the orthodox faith and sound morality. The Society itself was torn by internal dissensions while this external warfare was going on. It was also everywhere reproached with too much avidity and eagerness for earthly goods and this complaint caused the Holy See much pain and exasperated many rulers of nations against the Society. Hence, to strengthen themselves on that point these religious, wishing to obtain from Paul V of happy memory a new confirmation of their Institute and their privileges, were compelled to ask for a ratification of some decrees published in the fifth general congregation and inserted word for word in his Bull of September 14, 1606. These decrees expressly declared that the Society assembled in general congregation had been compelled both by the troubles and enmities among the members, and by the charges from without, to formulate the following statute: —
"'Our Society which has been raised up by God for the propagation of the Faith and the salvation of souls, is enabled by the proper functions of its Institute which are the arms of the spirit to attain under the standard of the Cross the end it proposes, with edification to the neighbor and usefulness to the Church. On the other hand, it would do harm and expose itself to the greatest danger if it meddled in affairs of the world and especially with what concerns the politics and government of States. But, as in these unfortunate times our Order, perhaps because of the ambition or indiscreet zeal of some of its members, is attacked in different parts of the world and is complained of to certain sovereigns whose consideration and affection we have been bidden by St. Ignatius to preserve so that we may be more acceptable to God, and as, besides,[560] the good odor of Jesus Christ is necessary to produce fruits of salvation, this congregation is of the opinion that it is incumbent upon all to avoid as far as possible even the appearance of evil, and thus to obviate the accusations that are based on unjust suspicions. Hence, the present decree forbids all under the most rigorous penalties to concern themselves in any way with public affairs, even when invited to do so or when for some reason they may seem to be indispensable. They are not to depart from the Institute of the Society no matter how entreated or solicited, and the definitors are to lay down rules and to prescribe the means best calculated to remedy abuses in cases which may present themselves.'
"We have observed with bitter grief that these remedies and many others subsequently employed failed to put an end to the troubles, complaints and accusations against the Society, and that Urban VIII, Clement IX, Clement X, Clement XI, Clement XII, Alexander VII, Alexander VIII, Innocent X, Innocent XI, Innocent XII, Innocent XIII, and Benedict XIV were unable to give the Church peace. The constitutions which were drawn up with regard to secular affairs with which the Society should not concern itself, whether outside of these missions or on account of them, failed to have any result. Nor did they put an end to the serious quarrels and dissensions caused by members of the Society with the ordinaries and, religious orders, or about places consecrated to piety, and also with communities of every kind in Europe, Asia and America; all of which caused great scandal and loss of souls. The same was true with regard to the practice and interpretation of certain pagan ceremonies which were tolerated and permitted in many places while those approved of by the Universal Church were put aside. Then, too, there was the use[561] and interpretation of maxims which the Holy See deemed to be scandalous and evidently harmful to morality. Finally, there were other things of great moment and of absolute necessity for the preservation of the dogmas of the Christian religion in its purity and integrity which in our own and preceding centuries led to abuses and great evils such as the troubles and seditions in Catholic states, and even persecutions of the Church in some provinces of Asia and Europe.
"All of our predecessors have been sorely afflicted by these things, among others Innocent XI of pious memory, who forbade the habit to be given to novices; Innocent XIII, who was obliged to utter the same threat; and, finally, Benedict XIV, who ordered a visitation of the houses and colleges of our dear son in Christ, the most faithful King of Portugal and the Algarves. But the Holy See derived no consolation from all this; nor was the Society helped; nor did Christianity secure any advantage from the last letter, which had been rather extorted than obtained from our immediate predecessor Clement XIII (to borrow the expression employed by Gregory X in the Ecumenical Council of Lyons.)
"After so many terrible shocks, storms and tempests, the truly faithful hope to see the day dawn which will bring peace and calm. But under the pontificate of our predecessor Clement XIII, the times grew more stormy. Indeed, the clamors against the Society augmented daily and in some places there were troubles, dissensions, dangerous strifes and even scandals which, after completely shattering Christian charity, lighted in the hearts of the faithful, party spirit, hatred and enmity. The danger increased to such a degree that even those whose piety and well-known hereditary devotion to the Society, namely our very dear sons in Jesus Christ, the Kings of France, Spain, Portugal and[562] the Two Sicilies, were forced to banish from their kingdoms, states and provinces all the religious of this Order; being persuaded that this extreme measure was the only means of remedying so many evils and putting an end to the contentions and strife that were tearing the bosom of Mother Church.
"But these same kings, our very dear sons in Jesus Christ, thought that this remedy could not be lasting in its effects or could avail to tranquillize Christendom unless the Society was altogether abolished and suppressed. Hence, they made known to Clement XIII their desire in this matter and asked him with one accord and with all the authority they possessed, adding also their prayers and entreaties to bring about in that way the perpetual tranquillity of their subjects and the general good of the Church. But the sudden death of that Pontiff checked all progress in the matter. Hardly, however, had we, by the mercy of God, been elevated to the Chair of St. Peter, than the same prayers were addressed to us, the same insistent demands were made and a great number of bishops and other personages illustrious by their learning, dignity and virtue united their supplications to this request.
"Wishing, however, to take the surest course in such a grave and important matter, we believed we needed a much longer time to consider it, not only for the purpose of making the most exact examination possible and then to deliberate upon the most prudent methods to be adopted and also to obtain from the Father of Light His especial help and assistance, we offered our most earnest prayers, mourning and grieving over what was before us, and we entreated the faithful to come to our aid by their prayers and good works. We have especially thought it advisable to find out upon what basis this widespread feeling rested with re[563]gard to the Society, which had been confirmed and approved in the most solemn manner by the Council of Trent. We discovered that the council mentions the Order only to exempt it from the general decree passed for other Orders. The Jesuit novices were to be admitted to profession if judged worthy, or they were to be dismissed from the Society. Hence the council (Session 25, c. xvi, de reg.) declared that it wished to make no innovation nor to prevent these religious from serving God and the Church in accordance with their pious Institute which had been approved by the Church.
"Wherefore, after having made use of so many necessary means, and aided as we think by the presence and inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and, moreover, compelled by the duty of our office which essentially obliges us to procure, maintain and strengthen with all our power, the repose and tranquillity of Christendom, and to root out entirely what could cause the slightest harm; and, moreover, having recognized that the Society of Jesus could no longer produce the abundant fruit and the great good for which it was instituted and approved by so many Popes, our predecessors, who adorned it with so many most admirable privileges, and seeing that it was almost and, indeed, absolutely impossible for the Church to enjoy a true and solid peace while this Order existed, being bound as we are by so many powerful considerations and compelled by other motives which the laws of prudence and the wise administration of the Church suggest but which we keep in the depths of our heart: Following in the footsteps of our predecessors and especially of Gregory X at the Council of Lyons, since the cases are identical, we do, hereby, after a mature examination, and of our certain knowledge, and by the plenitude of our Apostolic power, suppress and abolish the Society of Jesus. We nullify and abrogate all and each of[564] its offices, functions, administrations, houses, schools, colleges, retreats, refuges and other establishments which belong to it in any manner whatever, and in every province, kingdom or state in which it may be found. We do the same for its statutes, customs, usages, decrees, constitutions, even those confirmed by the oath and by the approbation of the Holy See or otherwise, as well as all and each of its indults, both general and particular whose tenor we wish to be regarded as fully and sufficiently set forth by these present letters, as if they were here inserted word for word; notwithstanding any clause or formula to the contrary, no matter upon what decrees or obligations they may be based. Hence, we declare as forever broken and entirely extinct all authority, spiritual or temporal, of the General, provincials, visitors and other superiors of this Society, and we transfer absolutely and without restriction this same authority and this same jurisdiction to the ordinaries of the places where the aforesaid are, according to the case or persons, in the form and under the conditions which we shall explain hereafter; forbidding, as we do by these presents forbid, that any one should be received into this Society or admitted to the novitiate or invested with the habit. We also forbid any of those who have already been received to pronounce the simple or solemn vows, under pain of nullity either of their admission or profession and under other penalties as we may see fit. Moreover, we wish, ordain and enjoin that those who are at present novices, should be immediately, instantly and effectually dismissed, and we forbid those who have not made solemn vows and who have not yet been admitted to the priesthood to be promoted to either under the title or pretext of their profession or in virtue of any privileges accorded to the Society and in contravention of the decrees of the Council of Trent.
[565] "But as the object we have in view and which we are most eager to attain is to watch over the general good of the Church and the peace of the nations, and at the same time to help and console each one of the members of this Society whom we tenderly cherish in the Lord, so that, freed at last from all the quarrels and disputes and annoyances in which they have until now been engaged, they may cultivate with more fruit the vineyard of the Lord and labor with more success for the salvation of souls, we decree and ordain that the members of this Society who have made only simple vows and who are not yet in Holy Orders shall depart from their houses and colleges freed from their vows, and that they are free to embrace whatever state they judge most conformable to their vocation, their strength and their conscience. The ordinary of the place will fix the time which may be deemed sufficient to procure an employment or an occupation, without, however, extending it beyond a year, just as in the Society they would be dismissed without any other reason than because the prudence of the superior so judges, and that without any previous citation or juridical proof.
"We allow those in Holy Orders either to leave their houses and colleges and enter some religious order approved by the Holy See, in which case they must pass the probation prescribed by the Council of Trent, if they have only taken simple vows, if they have taken solemn vows, the time of their probation will be six months in virtue of a dispensation which we give to that effect; or they may remain in the world as secular priests or clerics, and in that case they shall be entirely subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the ordinary of the place in which they reside. We ordain, also, that a suitable pension shall be assigned to those who remain in the world, until[566] such time as they shall be otherwise provided for. This pension shall be derived from the funds of the house where they formerly lived, due consideration, however, being had to the revenues and the indebtedness of such houses.
"The professed who are already in Holy Orders and who fear they may not be able to live respectably on account of the smallness of their pension, either because they can find no other refuge or are very old and infirm, may live in their former houses on condition that they shall have no share in its administration, that they dress like secular priests and be entirely subject to the bishop of the place. We expressly forbid them to supply anyone's place or to acquire any house or place in the future, or, as the Council of Lyons decrees, to alienate the houses, goods or places which they actually possess. They may, nevertheless, meet in one or more houses, in such a manner that such houses may be available if needed for pious purposes, as may appear most in conformity, in time and place, with the Holy Canons and the will of the founders, and also more conducive to the growth of religion, the salvation of souls and public utility. Moreover, some one of the secular clergy, commendable for his prudence and virtuous life, must appear in the administration of such houses, as the name of the Society is now totally suppressed and abolished.
"We declare, also, that those who have been already expelled from any country whatever are included in the general suppression of the Order, and we consequently decree that those banished Jesuits, even if they are in Holy Orders and have not entered a religious order, shall from this moment belong to the secular clergy and be entirely subject to the ordinary of the place.
[567] "If the ordinaries recognize in those who in virtue of the present Brief have passed from the Society to the state of secular priests necessary knowledge and correctness of life, they may grant or refuse them, as they choose, the permission to confess and preach, and without such authorization none of them can exercise such functions. However, the bishops or ordinaries will never grant such powers as are conceded to those not of the diocese, if the applicants live in houses or colleges formerly belonging to the Society; and therefore we forbid such persons to preach or administer the sacraments, as Gregory X, our predecessor prescribed in the general council already referred to. We lay it on the conscience of the bishops to watch over the execution of all this and we command them to reflect on the rigorous account they will have one day to render to God of the sheep committed to their care and of the terrible judgment with which the Sovereign Judge of the living and the dead menaces those who govern others.
"Moreover, if among those who were members of the Society there are any who were charged with the instruction of youth or who have exercised the functions of professors in colleges and schools, we warn them that they are absolutely deposed from any such direction, administration or authority and that they are not permitted to be employed in any such work, except as long as there is a reason to hope for some good from their labors and as long as they appear to keep aloof from all discussions and points of doctrine whose laxity and futility only occasion and engender trouble and disastrous contentions. We furthermore ordain that they shall be forever forbidden to exercise the functions aforesaid, if they do not endeavor to keep peace in their schools and with others; and that[568] they shall be discharged from the schools if they happen to be employed in them.
"As regards the missions, we include them in everything that has been ordered in this suppression, and we reserve to ourselves to take measures calculated to procure more easily and with greater certainty of results the conversion of the heathens and the cessation of disputes.
"Therefore, we have entirely abolished and abrogated all the privileges and statutes of this Order and we declare that all of its members shall as soon as they have left their houses and colleges and have embraced the state of secular clerics, be considered proper and fit to obtain, in conformity with the Holy Canons and the Apostolic Constitutions, all sorts of benefices either simple or with the care of souls annexed; and also to accept offices, dignities and pensions, from which in accordance with the Brief of Gregory XIII of September 10, 1584, which begins with the words: 'Satis superque,' they were absolutely excluded as long as they belonged to the Society. We allow them also to accept compensations for celebrating Mass, which they were not allowed to receive as Jesuits, and to enjoy all the graces and favors of which they would have always been deprived as long as they were Clerks Regular of the Society. We abrogate likewise all permissions they may have obtained from the General and other superiors, in virtue of the privileges accorded by the Sovereign Pontiff, such as leave to read heretical books and others prohibited and condemned by the Holy See, or not to fast or abstain, or to anticipate the Divine Office or anything, in fact, of that nature. Under the severest penalties we forbid them to use such privileges in the future, as our intention is to make them live in conformity with the requirements of the common law, like secular priests.
[569] "After the publication of the Brief, we forbid anyone, no matter who he may be, to dare to suspend its execution even under color, title or pretext of some demand, appeal or declaration or discussion of doubt that may arise or under any other pretext, foreseen or unforeseen; for we wish that the suppression and cessation of the whole Society as well as of all of its officers should have their full and entire effect, at the moment, and instantaneously, and in the form and manner in which we have described above, under pain of major excommunication incurred ipso facto by a single act, and reserved to us and to the Popes, our successors. This is directed against anyone who will dare to place the least obstacle, impediment or delay in the execution of this Brief. We order, likewise, and we forbid under holy obedience all and every ecclesiastic secular and regular, whatever be their grade, dignity, quality or condition, and notably those who are at present attached to the Society or were in the past, to oppose or attack this suppression, to write against it, even to speak of it, or of its causes or motives, or of the extinct Institute itself, its rules, constitutions or discipline or of anything else, relative to this affair, without the express permission of the Sovereign Pontiff. We likewise forbid all and everyone under pain of excommunication reserved to us and our successors to dare to assail either in secret or in public, verbally or in writing, by disputes, injuries and affronts or by any other kind of contempt, anyone, no matter who he may be and least of all those who were members of the said Order.
"We exhort all Christian princes whose attachment and respect for the Holy See we know, to employ all the zeal, care, strength, authority and power which they have received from God for the execution of this Brief, in order to protect and defend the Holy Roman[570] Church, to adhere to all the articles it contains; to issue and publish similar decrees by which they may more carefully watch over the execution of this our present will and so forestall quarrelling, strife and dissensions among the faithful.
"Finally, we exhort all Christians and we implore them by the bowels of Jesus Christ Our Lord to remember that they have the same Master, Who is in heaven; the same Savior, Who redeemed them at the price of His blood; that they have all been regenerated by the grace of Baptism; that they have been all made sons of God and co-heirs of Christ; and are nourished by the same bread of the Divine word, the doctrine of the Church; that they are one body in Jesus Christ, and are members of each other; and consequently, it is necessary that being united by the bonds of charity they should live in peace with all men, as their only duty is to love each other, for he who loves his neighbor fulfills the law. Hence, also, they should regard with horror injuries, hatred, quarrels, deceits and other evils which the enemy of the human race has invented, devised and provoked to trouble the Church of God and to hinder the salvation of souls; nor are they to allege the false pretext of scholastic opinions or that of greater Christian perfection. Finally, let all endeavor to acquire that true wisdom of which St. James speaks (iii, 13): 'Who is a wise man and indued with knowledge among you? Let him show, by a good conversation, his work in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have a bitter zeal, and there be contentions in your heart; glory not, and be not liars against the truth. For this is not wisdom, descending from above; but earthly, sensual, devilish. For, where envying and contention is, there is inconstancy, and every evil work. For the wisdom, that is from above, first indeed is chaste,[571] then peaceable, modest, easy to be persuaded, consenting to the good, full of mercy and good fruits, without judging, without dissimulation. And the fruit of justice is sown in peace, to them that make peace.'
"Even if the superiors and the other religious of this Order, as well as all those who are interested or pretend to be, in any way whatever, in what has been herein ordered, give no assent to the present Brief and were not summoned or heard, we wish, nevertheless, that it should never be attacked, weakened or invalidated on the plea of subreption, obreption, nullity, invalidity or defect of intention on our part or for any other motive, no matter how great or unforeseen or essential it may be, or because formalities and other things have been omitted which should have been observed in the preceding enactments or in any one of them, or for any other capital point deriving from the law or any custom, or indeed contained in the body of the law; nor can there be any pretext of an enormous or a very enormous and extreme injury inflicted; nor, finally, can there be any reasons or causes however just or reasonable they may be, even one that should have necessarily been expressed, needed to give validity to the rules above given. We forbid that it should be ever retracted, discussed or brought to court or that it be provided against by way of restitution, discussion, review according to law or in any other way to obtain by legal procedure, fact, favor or justice, in any manner in which it might be accorded, to be made use of either in court or out of it.
"Moreover, we wish expressly that the present Constitution should be from this moment valid, stable and efficacious forever, that it should have its full and entire effect; that it should be inviolably observed by all and each of those to whom it belongs or will belong in the future in any manner whatever."
[572] Such was the famous Brief which condemned the Society to death. Distressing as it is, it attributes no wrong doing to the Order. It narrates a few of the accusations against the Jesuits, but does not accept them as ever having been proved. The sole reason given for the suppression — and it is repeated again and again — is that the Society was the occasion of much trouble in the Church. It is thus, on the whole, a vindication and not a condemnation. It was not a Bull but a Brief, and on that account could be much more easily revoked than the more solemn document to which the papal bulla is affixed.
Father Cordara's view of this act of the Pope is generally considered to reflect that of the Society at large. It is of special value for he was one of the suppressed Jesuits and happened to be living in Rome at the time. He maintained that "the Pope could, without injustice, suppress the Society, even if innocent, just as a king can deliver over an innocent man to be put to death by an enemy who otherwise would sack a city. Clement XIV thought to save the Church whose existence was menaced."
Two years later however, Cardinal Antonelli when interrogated by Clement's successor, Pius VI, and, consequently, when he was compelled to speak, did not hesitate to condemn the Brief absolutely. His statement is quoted here, not as a view that is adopted, but merely as a matter of history. The document is of considerable importance, for Antonelli was prefect of the Propaganda and with Consalvi was the confidant of Pius VII and was his fellow-prisoner in 1804. We sum it up briefly, omitting its harsher phrases.
"Your Holiness knows as well as the cardinals that Clement XIV would never consent to give the Brief of Suppression the canonical forms which were indispensable to make it definitive. Moreover this Brief[573] of Clement XIV is addressed to no one, although such letters usually are. In its form and execution all law is set aside, it is based on false accusations and shameful calumnies; it is self-contradictory, in speaking of vows both solemn and simple. Clement XIV claims powers such as none of his predecessors claimed, and, on the other hand, leaves doubts on points that should have been more clearly determined. The motives alleged by the Brief could be applied to any other Order, and seem to have been prepared for the destruction of all of them, without specifying reasons it annuls many Bulls and Constitutions received and recognized by the Church; all of which goes to show that the Brief is null and void."
A copy of the Brief was sent to every bishop in Christendom, even to the remotest missions. Accompanying it was another document called an "Encyclical from the Congregation styled 'For the abolition of the Society of Jesus,' with which is sent an exemplar to every bishop of the Brief of Extinction: Dominus ac Redemptor, with the command of His Holiness that all the bishops should publish and promulgate the Brief." The Latin text may be found in de Ravignan's "Clément XIII et Clément XIV" (p. 560). We give here the translation:
"Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord and Brother.
"From the printed copy herein contained of the Apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief, under the date of the 21st of the preceding month of July, your lordship will learn of the suppression and extinction for just causes of the Regular Clerics hitherto called "of the Society of Jesus" by the most holy Lord Clement XIV; you will also learn by what legal process His Holiness has decreed that the suppression should be carried out in every part of the world. For the[574] complete destruction of the same, he has established a special congregation of their eminences, the Cardinals Corsini, Marefoschi, Caraffa, Zelada, and Casali, together with the Reverend Macedonio and Alfani, who possess the most ample faculties for what is necessary and proper. The Brief establishing this congregation, under date of the 18th of the current month of August, is herein enclosed.
"By command of His Holiness the same congregation transmits the present letters to your lordship, in order that in each house and college and place where the individuals of the aforesaid suppressed Society may be found, your lordship shall assemble them in any house whatever (in qualibet domo) and you shall regularly (rite) announce, publish and intimate, as they say, and force and compel them to execute these letters; and your lordship shall take and retain possession for the use afterwards to be designated by His Holiness, of all and each of the houses, colleges and places of the same, with the lawful rights to their goods and appurtenances, after having removed the aforesaid individuals of the suppressed Society; and in their execution, your lordship will do whatever else is decreed in the letters of suppression and will advise the special congregation that such execution has been carried out. Your lordship will see to it. Meantime we entreat the Lord that all things may prosper with you.
"Yours with brotherly devotedness.
"Rome, Aug. 18, 1773."
Carayon gives us the personnel of this congregation (Doc. inédits, xvii). Cardinal Marefoschi, who had been for sixteen years secretary of the Propaganda, had made a digest of all the complaints uttered by missionaries in various parts of the world against the Jesuits, omitting, however, all that had been said in[575] their favor. The Pope had named him visitor of the Irish College, which had been entrusted to the Society by Cardinal Ludovisi, and he immediately removed the Jesuits. Among other professors he put in a certain Tamburini, who had been expelled from Brescia for Jansenism. In Marefoschi's report to the Pope, the former professors (the Jesuits) were accused of neglect of the studies, alienation of ecclesiastical property and swindling, with a consequent diminution of the revenues. He was then sent to visit the College of Tuccioli and similar disastrous results ensued. In June, 1772, he and the Cardinal of York expelled the Jesuits from the Roman Seminary and in the same year from Frascati. The entire city addressed a petition to the cardinal begging him not to drive out the Fathers, but his royal highness was so wrought up by the audacity of the request that he was on the point of putting some of the chief petitioners in jail, magistrates though they were.
With Marefoschi were three other cardinals, Casali, Caraffa, and Zelada, all three of whom had been raised to the purple in the month of May at the suggestion of Mgr. Bottari, who had been filling Rome with defamatory books against the Jesuits. In spite of the entreaties of his family, young Cardinal Corsini accepted the presidency. Macedonio was made secretary, and Alfani, assessor; both of these clergymen were subsequently charged with pillage of the sequestrated property. Finally, to give an appearance of acting in conformity with canon law, two theologians were added to the commission; Mamachi, a Dominican, and de Casal, a Minor Reformed; both were avowed enemies of Probabilism and Molinism, and, singularly enough, were bitterly opposed to the Apostolic Constitution "Unigenitus" in which Clement XI condemned the Jansenistic errors of Pasquier Quesnel.
[576] The Protestant historian Schoell (xliv, 83) speaking of the brief of suppression says: "This Brief does not condemn the doctrine nor the morals, nor the rules of the Jesuits. The complaints of the courts are the sole motives alleged for the suppression of the Order, and the Pope justifies himself by the precedents of other Orders which were suppressed to satisfy the demands of public opinion." As he was about to sign it, he heard the bells of the Gesù ringing. "What is that for?" he asked. "The Jesuits are about to recite the Litany of the Saints," he was told; "Not the Litany of the Saints," he said, "but the Litany of the Dead." It was July 21, 1773.
[577]
CHAPTER XIX
THE EXECUTION
Seizure of the Gesù in Rome — Suspension of the Priests — Juridical Trial of Father Ricci continued during Two Years — The Victim's Death-bed Statement — Admission of his Innocence by the Inquisitors — Obsequies — Reason of his Protracted Imprisonment — Liberation of the Assistants by Pius VI — Receipt of the Brief outside of Rome — Refused by Switzerland, Poland, Russia and Prussia — Read to the Prisoners in Portugal by Pombal — Denunciation of it by the Archbishop of Paris — Suppression of the Document by the Bishop of Quebec — Acceptance by Austria — Its Enforcement in Belgium — Carroll at Bruges — Defective Promulgation in Maryland.Two days before the subsidiary Brief was signed, namely on August 16, 1773, the commissioner began operations. Led by Alfani and Macedonio, a squad of soldiers invaded the Gesù, where the General and his assistants were notified of the suppression of the Society. Apparently no one else was cited, and hence, according to de Ravignan, the procedure was illegal as far as the rest of the community was concerned. However, they made no difficulty about it and from that moment considered themselves as no longer Jesuits. It was supposed that a great amount of money would be seized at the central house of the Society; but the hope was not realized; for only about $50,000 were found, and that sum had been collected to defray the expenses of the beatification of St. Francis Hieronymo. It really belonged to St. Peter's rather than to the Gesù. However, there was plenty of material in the gold and silver vessels of the chapels, the works of art, the valuable library, and the archives.
The same process was followed in the other Jesuit establishments of the city. The Fathers were locked up while the soldiers guarded the doors and swarmed[578] through the rooms and passage ways. The old and infirm were carried to the Roman College, and then sent back to the place whence they had been taken; in both instances on stretchers, when the victim was unable to walk. One old Father was actually breathing his last during the transfer. They were all suspended from their priestly faculties, and ordered to report every three months to the authorities with a certificate of their good behavior, signed by the parish priest. They were ecclesiastical "ticket of leave men." Pretexts were multiplied to have many of them arrested. They were paraded through the streets in custody of a policeman, and after being put in the dock with common criminals were locked up or banished from the Papal States.
On August 17 at night-fall, the carriage of Cardinal Corsini drove to the Gesù. In it was the auditor of the congregation with a request to Father Ricci to meet the cardinal at the English College. The invitation was accepted in perfect good faith, although that very morning an offer made by the minister of Tuscany to take the General under his protection and thus secure him from arrest had been declined by Ricci. The freedom of the house was given to him on his arrival, but soon he was restricted to three rooms, and he then noticed that soldiers were on guard both inside and outside of the college. He was kept there for more than a month, during which time he was subjected to several judicial examinations; finally he was transferred to the Castle Sant' Angelo where he was soon followed by his secretary, Commolli, and the assistants, Le Forestier, Zaccharia, Gautier and Faure. They were all assigned to separate cells. The enemies of the Society now had the arch-criminal in their hands, the General himself, Father Ricci; and they could get from him all the secrets of the redoubtable[579] organization which they had destroyed. His papers, both private and official, were in their possession. The archives of the Society were before them with information about every member of it from the beginning, as well as all the personal letters from all over the world written in every conceivable circumstance of Jesuit life. They were all carefully studied and yet no cause for accusation was found in them. The jailors seemed to have lost their heads and to have forgotten their usual tactics of forgery and interpolation.
The trial of Father Ricci was amazing both in its procedure and its length. There were no witnesses to give testimony for or against him, but he was brutally and repeatedly interrogated by an official named Andretti who was suggestively styled "the criminalist." The interrogatories have all been printed, and some of the questions are remarkable for their stupidity. Thus for instance, he was asked, "Do you think you have any authority since the suppression of the Society?" The answer was, "I am quite persuaded I have none." "What authority would you have if, instead of abolishing the Society, the Pope had done something else?" "What he would give me." "Are there any abuses in the Order?" To this he replied, "If you mean general abuses, I answer that, by the mercy of God there are none. On the contrary, there is in the Society a great deal of piety, regularity, zeal, and especially charity, which has shown itself in a remarkable way during these fifteen years of bitter trials." "Have you made any changes in the government of the Order?" "None." "Where are your moneys?" "I have none. I had not enough to keep the exiles of Spain and Portugal from starvation."
The result of this investigation which went on for more than two years was that nothing was found either[580] against him or against the Society, and yet he was kept in a dungeon until he died. As the end was approaching Father Ricci read from his dying bed the following declaration:
"Because of the uncertainty of the moment when God will please to summon me before him and also in view of my advanced age and the multitude, duration, and greatness of my sufferings, which have been far beyond my strength, being on the point of appearing before the infallible tribunal of truth and justice, after long and mature deliberation and after having humbly invoked my most merciful Redeemer that He will not permit me to speak from passion, especially in this the last action of my life, nor be moved by any bitterness of heart, or out of wrong desire or evil purpose, but only to acquit myself of my obligation to bear testimony to truth and to innocence, I now make the two following declarations and protests:
"First, I declare and protest that the extinct Society of Jesus has given no reason for its suppression; and I declare and protest with that moral certainty which a well-informed superior has of what passes in his Order. Second, I declare and protest that I have given no reason, not even the slightest, for my imprisonment, and I do so with that sovereign certitude which each one has of his own actions. I make this second protest solely because it is necessary for the reputation of the extinct Society of which I was superior.
"I do not pretend in consequence of these protests that I or any one may judge as guilty before God any of those who have injured the Society of Jesus or myself. The thoughts of men are known to God alone. He alone sees the errors of the human mind and sees if they are such as to excuse from sin; He alone penetrates the motives of acts; as well as the spirit in which things are done, and the affections of[581] the heart that accompany such actions; and since the malice or innocence of an external act depends on all these things, I leave it to God Who shall interrogate man's thoughts and deeds.
"To do my duty as a Christian, I protest that with the help of God I have always pardoned and do now sincerely pardon all those who have tortured and harmed me, first, by the evils they have heaped on the Society and by the rigorous measures they have employed in dealing with its members; secondly, by the extinction of the Society and by its accompanying circumstances; thirdly, by my own imprisonment, and the hardships they have added to it, and by the harm they have done to my reputation; all of which are public and notorious facts. I pray God, out of His goodness and mercy, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to pardon me my many sins and to pardon also all the authors of the above-mentioned evils and wrongs, as well as their co-operators. With this sentiment and with this prayer I wish to die.
"Finally I beg and conjure all those who may read these declarations and protests to make them public throughout the world as far as in them lies. I ask this by all the titles of humanity, justice and Christian charity that may persuade them to carry out my will and desire. (signed) Lorenzo Ricci."
The trial had been purposely prolonged. At each session only three or four questions would be put to the accused, although he constantly entreated the inquisitors to proceed. Then there would be an interruption of eight, ten and even twenty days or more. At times the interrogations were sent in on paper, until finally, Andretti, the chief inquisitor, said that the case was ended and he would return no more. Nevertheless he made his appearance a few days later.
"No doubt," says Father Ricci, "someone had told[582] him that the whole process was null and void; and I pitied this honest man, advanced in age as he was, and so long in the practice of his profession, who was now told that he did not know the conditions necessary for the validity of a process. Those who gave him that information should have warned him long before. So he began again, going over the same ground in the same way, and I gave him the same answers. His questions were always preceded by long formulæ to which I paid no heed. After each question, he made me repeat my oath. I asked him to let me know the reason of my incarceration and could get no answer; but, finally he uttered these words: 'Be content to know that you have not been imprisoned for any crime; and you might have inferred that from the fact that I have not interrogated you about anything criminal whatever.'"
As a necessary consequence of this exoneration by the official deputed to try him, it follows that the Order of which he was the chief superior was also without reproach; for, if the numberless offences alleged against the Society were true, it would have been absolutely impossible for the General not to have known them; and having this knowledge, he would have been culpable and deserving of the severest punishment, if there had been dissensions in the Order and he had not endeavored to repress them; if lax morality had been taught and he did not censure it; if the Society had indulged in mercantile transactions and he had not condemned such departures from the law; if it had been guilty of ambition and he had not crushed it. Being the centre and the source of all authority and of all activity in the Order, his knowledge of what is going on extends to very minute details and hence if the Order was guilty he was the chief criminal. But even his bitterly prejudiced judges[583] had declared him innocent and he was, therefore, to be set free.
At this juncture, the Spanish minister, Florida Blanca, intervened and in the name of Charles III warned the Pope not to dare to release him. The Bourbons were still bent on terrorizing the Holy See. The difficulty was solved by the victim himself who died on November 24, 1775. He was then seventy-two years of age. He was able to speak up to the last moment and was often heard to moan: "Ah! poor Society! At least to my knowledge you did not deserve the punishment that was meted out to you."
On the evening of the 25th, Father Ricci's remains were carried to the Church of St. John of the Florentines. The whole edifice was draped in black, and the coffin was placed on the bier around which were thirty funeral torches. A vast multitude took part in the services. The Bishop of Commachio, a staunch friend of the Society, celebrated the Mass. He came, he said, not to pray for the General but to pray to him. Another bishop exclaimed: "Behold the martyr!" In the evening, the corpse was carried to the Gesù. It should have arrived by 9 o'clock, but it reached the church only at midnight. To avoid any demonstration, the approaches to the church had been closed, and there were only five or six Fathers present. From Carayon's narrative it would appear that the uncoffined body was carried in a coach and was clothed in a very short and very shabby habit. The curé of the parish and two other persons were in the conveyance. Two other carriages whose occupants were unknown but who were suspected of being spies followed close behind. After the absolution, the body was placed in the coffin and laid in the vault beside the remains of Ricci's seventeen predecessors. The tomb was then closed and a scrap of paper was fixed on it, with the[584] inscription: "Lorenzo Ricci, ex-General of the Jesuits, died at Castle Sant' Angelo, November 24, 1775."
After reciting these facts, Boero asks why the ex-General was kept in such a long and severe confinement? There is no answer, he says, except that such was the good pleasure of His Majesty Charles III. The Spanish minister, Moñino, had declared that such was the case. To let him out alive would have been an indirect condemnation of the pressure exerted by the court of Madrid in directing the course of the commission which had been expressly created to pass a sentence of death on the Society. The knowledge that the General and his assistants had issued alive from the dungeons of Sant' Angelo would have troubled the peace of Charles III and his fellow-conspirators; hence, in spite of the good will and the affection of the Sovereign Pontiff, Father Ricci, after two years imprisonment in Adrian's Tomb, was carried out a corpse. Those of his companions who survived were released, but were commanded by the judges to observe the strictest silence on what had passed during their captivity, or not to tell what questions had been put to them.
One of the victims showed his indignation at this excessive cruelty, and exclaimed, "Why should you require me to swear on the Holy Gospels not to speak of my trial, when you know very well that it consisted of two or three insignificant and ridiculous questions?" Another assistant was merely asked his name and birthplace, and no more. A third satisfied the judges when he replied, "I have neither said nor done anything wrong." He was never interrogated again. The secretary of the Society had been asked in what subterranean hiding-place he kept the treasures. He answered that there were no subterranean hiding-places, and no treasures. In that[585] consisted his whole examination. He died shortly afterwards of sickness contracted in the prison and his death was for a long time concealed.
Father Faure inquired of one of his judges: "For what crime am I in jail?" "For none," was the reply, "but the fear of your pen, and especially the fear of having you write against the Brief. That is the only cause of your imprisonment." "By the same rule," retorted the prisoner, "you might send me to the galleys for fear I might steal, or to be hanged to prevent me from committing murder." He was the only recalcitrant, and he was so dreaded that during his incarceration he was ordered to keep his light burning all night, so that he might be watched. This was after they found a black spot on his bed. They thought it was ink. Father Ricci, however, contrived to keep an exact account of the questions that were asked. Carayon has published them in his "Documents inédits."
One of these redoubtable personages so rigidly kept in confinement was Father Romberg, the German assistant, who was eighty-two years of age. He became very feeble, and had a stroke of paralysis which kept him to his chair. When the governor of the Castle came with the judges and officials to tell him he was free, he thanked them effusively, but requested the favor of being left in his cell to die. "You see," said he, "I have two fine friends who are prisoners here, and they, out of charity, come regularly every morning and carry me in my chair to the chapel where I can hear Mass and go to Communion. If I leave this place, God knows if I should have the same help and the same consolation." This was a specimen of the men who made Charles III and Florida Blanca tremble. In spite of the protests of the Spanish minister, every one was set free on February 16, 1776,[586] and Pius VI cancelled the order of the inquisitors who forbade their victims to hold any communication with their fellow-Jesuits.
The manner in which the Brief was executed outside of Rome varied with the mentality and morality of the nations to which it was sent. Much to the chagrin of the Sovereign Pontiff, it was enthusiastically acclaimed by all the Protestants and infidels of Europe. For, was it not a justification of all the hatred they had invariably heaped on the Society wherever it happened to be? They could now congratulate themselves that they had instinctively divined the malignant character of the Institute which it took centuries for the Church to discover, and they logically concluded that all the laudatory Bulls lavished on the Society by previous Pontiffs were intentional deceits or ignorant delusions. They might have argued contrariwise, but as it would have been against themselves they refrained. They were jubilant because the Sovereign Pontiff had slain their chief enemy, and they had a medal struck to commemorate the event.
In "Les Jésuites" by Böhmer-Monod (p. 278) we find the following: "Cultured Europe triumphed in the Suppression of the Order, and the people everywhere showed their approval. Here and there some pious devotees raised their voices in lamentation, but nowhere in Europe or elsewhere was there any serious opposition to the Brief. The Order had forfeited all esteem; and public opinion evinced no compassion for anything tragic that occurred in its fall. It remained quite indifferent to the atrocities of which Pombal was guilty. The injustices which certain Fathers suffered in various places were considered a just retribution or at least were regarded as necessary for progress of light and virtue." This is not very flattering to "cultured" Europe.
[587] Apart from the self-stultifying utterances on this quotation, as for instance, that "the injustices suffered were a just retribution, or were at least regarded as necessary for the progress of light and virtue," and also that certain Fathers suffered in various places; whereas the same authors give 23,000 who suffered all over the world, it is an absolute contradiction with the facts of the case to say that "nowhere in Europe was there any serious opposition to the Brief" and that "they everywhere showed their approval and evinced no compassion for anything tragic that occurred in the fall."
In the first place, Frederick the Great in Prussia and Catherine II of Russia not only would not allow the Brief in their dominions, but forbade it under the severest penalties. Poland for a long time refused to receive it, and the Catholic cantons of Switzerland sent a remonstrance to the Pope. Moreover, although, even before the document was promulgated, the Fathers had secularized themselves of their own initiative, yet, the authorities would not allow them to give up the colleges. The other side of the picture was that in Naples, Tanucci not only forbade the Brief to be read under pain of death, but forbade all mention of it. In Portugal, of course, no opposition was made for there were no Jesuits to suppress, they were either dead or in prison or exile. It was, however, an occasion of public rejoicing, and the document was received with booming of cannon and ringing of bells, as if a victory had been won, but that governmental device did not extinguish in the heart of the suffering people a deep compassion for the victims of Pombal's "atrocities."
In Spain, it was absolutely prohibited to read it or speak about the Brief, because by its eulogy of the virtues of the members of the Society, it gave the[588] lie to the government, which insisted on the suppression of the Society precisely because of the immorality of its members. In France, its promulgation was forbidden for the very opposite reason, that is, because it praised the Institute, which the politicians had declared to be essentially vicious; though they admitted that the individual Jesuits were irreproachable. Thus, like Spain, France had been officially convicted by the Brief of calumniating, plundering and annihilating a great religious order. Voltaire, commenting on the situation, suggested that there might be a sort of national exchange by France and Spain. "Send the French Jesuits to Spain," he said, "and they will edify the people by observing the Institute, and send the Spaniards to France where they will satisfy the people by not observing it."
The most notable opposition to the Brief, occurred in France. The whole hierarchy and clergy positively refused to accept it, and the Archbishop of Paris, Christopher de Beaumont, who had been especially requested by the Pope to promulgate it, answered by a letter which is unpleasant for a Jesuit to publish on account of its tone; for the most profound affection and reverence for the Holy See is one of the ingrained and distinctive traits of the Society. However, it is a historical document and is called for in the present instance as a refutation of the statement that there was no opposition to the Brief in Europe. This famous letter was dated April 24, 1774, that is more than eight months after the Suppression. It is addressed to the Holy Father himself and runs as follows:
"This Brief is nothing else than a personal and private judgment. Among other things that are remarked in it by our clergy is the extraordinary, odious, and immoderate characterization of the Bull "Pascendi Munus" of the saintly Clement XIII, whose memory[589] will be forever glorious and who had invested the Bull in question with all the due and proper formalities of such documents. It is described by the Brief not only as being inexact but as having been 'extorted' rather than obtained; whereas it has all the authority of a general council; for it was not promulgated until almost the whole clergy of the Church and all the secular princes had been consulted by the Holy Father. The clergy with common accord and with one voice applauded the purpose of the Holy Father, and earnestly begged him to carry it out. It was conceived and published in a manner as general as it was solemn. And is it not precisely that, Holy Father, which really gives the efficacity, the reality and the force to a general council, rather than the material union of some persons who though physically united may be very far from one another in their judgments and their views? As for the secular princes, if there were any who did not unite with the others to give their approbation, their number was inconsiderable. Not one of them protested against it, not one opposed it, and even those who, at that very time, were laying their plans to banish the Jesuits, allowed the Bull to be published in their dominions.
"But as the spirit of the Church is one and indivisible in its teaching of truth, we have to conclude that it cannot teach error when it deals in a solemn manner with a matter of supreme importance. Yet it would have led us into error if it had not only proclaimed the Institute of the Society to be pious and holy, but had solemnly and explicitly said: 'We know of certain knowledge that it diffuses abroad and abundantly the odor of sanctity.' In saying this it put upon that Institute the seal of its approbation, and confirmed anew not only the Society itself, but the members who composed it, the functions it exercised, the doctrines[590] it taught, the glorious works it accomplished, all of which shed lustre upon it, in spite of the calumnies by which it was assailed and the storms of persecution which were let loose against it. Thus the Church would have deceived us most effectively on that occasion if it would now have us accept this Brief which destroys the Society; and also if we are to suppose that this Brief is on the same level in its lawfulness and its universality as the Constitution to which we refer. We abstract, Holy Father, from the individuals whom we might easily name, both secular and ecclesiastical who have meddled with this affair. Their character, condition, doctrine, sentiment, not to say more of them, are so little worthy of respect, as to justify us in expressing the formal and positive judgment that the Brief which destroys the Society of Jesus is nothing else than an isolated, private and pernicious judgment, which does no honor to the tiara and is prejudicial to the glory of the Church and the growth and conservation of the Orthodox Faith.
"In any case, Holy Father, it is impossible for me to ask the clergy to accept the Brief; for in the first place, I would not be listened to, were I unfortunate enough to lend the aid of my ministry to its acceptance. Moreover, I would dishonor my office if I did so, for the memory of the recent general assembly which I had the honor to convoke at the instance of His Majesty, to inquire into the need we have of the Society in France, its usefulness, the purity of its doctrines, etc., is too fresh in my mind to reverse my verdict. To charge myself with the task you wish me to perform would be to inflict a serious injury on religion as well as to cast an aspersion on the learning and integrity of the prelates who laid before the king their approval of the very points which are now condemned by the Brief. Moreover, if it is true that the[591] Order is to be condemned under the specious pretext of the impossibility of peace, as long as the Society exists, why not try it on those bodies which are jealous of the Society? Instead of condemning it you ought to canonize it. That you do not do so compels us to form a judgment of the Brief which, though just, is not in its favor.
"For what is that peace which is incompatible with this Society? The question is startling in the reflection it evokes; for we fail to understand how such a motive had the power to induce Your Holiness to adopt a measure which is so hazardous, so dangerous, and so prejudicial. Most assuredly the peace which is irreconcilable with the existence of the Society is the peace which Jesus Christ calls insidious, false, deceitful. In a word what the Brief designates as peace is not peace; Pax, pax et non erat pax. It is the peace which vice and libertinism adopt; it is the peace which cannot ally itself with virtue, but which on the contrary has always been the principal enemy of virtue.
"It is precisely that peace against which the piety of the Jesuits in the four quarters of the world have declared an active, a vigorous, a bloody warfare; which they have carried to the limit and in which they have achieved the greatest success. To put an end to that peace, they have devoted their talents; have undergone pain and suffering. By their zeal and their eloquence they have striven to block every avenue of approach, by which this false peace might enter and rend the bosom of the Church; they have set the souls of men free from its thralldom, and they have pursued it to its innermost lair, making light of the danger and expecting no other reward for their daring, than the hatred of the licentious and the persecution of the ungodly.
[592] "An infinite number of splendid illustrations of their courage might be adduced in the long succession of memorable achievements which have never been interrupted from the first moment of the Society's existence until the fatal day when the Church saw it die. If that peace cannot co-exist with the Society, and if the re-establishment of this pernicious peace is the motive of the destruction of the Jesuits, then the victims are crowned with glory and they end their career like the Apostles and Martyrs; but honest men are dismayed by this holocaust of piety and virtue.
"A peace which is irreconcilable with the Society is not that peace which unites hearts; which is helpful to others; which each day contributes an increase in virtue, piety and Christian charity; which reflects glory on Christianity and sheds splendor on our holy religion. Nor is there need of proving this, though proof might be given, not by a few examples which this Society could furnish from the day of its birth to the fatal and ever deplorable day of its suppression, but by a countless multitude of facts which attest that the Jesuits were always and in every clime, the supporters, the promoters and the indefatigable defenders of true and solid peace. These facts are so evident that they carry conviction to every mind.
"In this letter I am not constituting myself an apologist of the Jesuits; but I am placing before the eyes of Your Holiness the reasons which, in the present case, excuse us from obeying. I will not mention place or time, as it is an easy thing for Your Holiness to convince yourself of the truth of my utterance. Your Holiness is not ignorant of them.
"Moreover, Holy Father, we have remarked with terror, that this destructive Brief eulogizes in the highest way certain persons whose conduct never[593] merited praise from Clement XIII, of saintly memory. Far from doing so, he regarded it always as his duty to set them aside, and to act in their regard with the most absolute reserve.
"This difference of appreciation necessarily excites attention, in view of the fact that your predecessor did not consider worthy of the purple those whom Your Holiness seems to design for the glory of the cardinalate. The firmness on one side and the connivance on the other reveal themselves only too clearly. But perhaps an excuse might be found for the latter, were it not for the fact which has not been successfully disguised that an alien influence guided the pen that wrote the Brief.
"In a word, most Holy Father, the clergy of France, which is the most learned and most illustrious of Holy Church, and which has no other aim than to promote the glory of the Church, does now judge after deep reflection that the reception of the Brief of Your Holiness will cast a shadow on the glory of the clergy of France; and it does not propose to consent to a measure which, in ages to come, will tarnish its glory. By rejecting the Brief and by an active resistance to it our clergy will transmit to posterity a splendid example of integrity and of zeal for the Catholic Faith, for the prosperity of the Church and particularly for the honor of its Visible Head.
"These, Holy Father, are some of the reasons which determine us, myself and all the clergy of this kingdom, never to permit the publication of such a Brief, and to make known to Your Holiness, as I do by this present letter, that such is my attitude and that of all the clergy, who, however, will never cease to unite in prayer with me to our Lord for the sacred person of Your Holiness. We shall address our humble supplications[594] to the Divine Father of Light that He may deign to diffuse it so abundantly that the truth may be discerned whose splendor has been obscure."
The Bishop of Quebec, Mgr. Briand, refused to promulgate the Brief, and he informed some of his intimate friends that he had no fear of excommunication in doing so, for the reason that he was in constant communication with Pope Clement XIV, who approved of his course of action. Associated with the bishop was Governor Carleton, who was interested in the matter for his own personal reasons. His rival, General Amherst, the conqueror of Quebec, was anxious to see the Jesuits driven out, so as to secure their property for himself. Carleton, on the contrary, proposed to keep it for future educational purposes. He could not seize it immediately, for the treaty at the conquest had guaranteed the protection of the Canadians in their religion. Hence he did not molest the Fathers, though he refused to allow any accession either of novices or former Jesuits to their ranks. The result was that they gradually died out. The last of all was the venerable Casot, who gave up the ghost in 1800 after having distributed all his goods to the poor. What was not available in that way he conveyed to religious communities or to churches. The relics of Brébeuf and Lalemant are now among the treasures of the Hotel-Dieu. The Jesuit College, which was opposite the present basilica cathedral, was occupied by soldiers, and was first known as the "Jesuit Barracks," and subsequently as the "Cheshire Barracks." Later it was a refuge for the poor, until at length Cardinal Taschereau ordered it to be demolished as unsafe. Thus the Brief was not executed in Canada. The Jesuits of New Orleans had been already expelled by Choiseul, and there was no one left to whom it could be read.
[595] The suppression of the Society in what is now the United States is of special interest to Americans, though it possesses also a general value in the fact that it furnishes the only account in English, as far as we are aware, of what took place in Belgium some years before as the prelude of the general suppression. This is based on the highest authority, for it is the personal narrative of John Carroll, the founder of the American hierarchy. He had gone when a lad of fourteen to St. Omers in French Flanders, and after his college course entered the Jesuit novitiate at Watten about six miles away, where he met several of his countrymen who were to distinguish themselves later in the Jesuit mission of Maryland. They were Horne, Jenkins, Knight, Emmot and Tyrer. There also was the English Jesuit, Reeve, whose "Bible History" was once an indispensable treasure in every Catholic family.
On completing his novitiate, Carroll was sent for his theology and philosophy to Liège, and was ordained priest in 1769, after having proved his ability by a brilliant public defense in theology. He then taught at St. Omers and was subsequently made professor of philosophy and theology to the scholastics at Liège. He pronounced his four solemn vows as a Professed Father on February 2, 1771, a little more than two years before the suppression of the Society. As St. Omer was in France the Jesuits were expelled from it in 1764. That the occupants of the house were English did not matter. International comity received scant consideration in those days. Every one was driven out except Father Brown, who was then ninety-four years of age. He was left there alone to die. The others, under the guidance of Father Reeve, crossed the frontier to Bruges where they had been invited by the authorities to found a college.
[596] Here begins a story told by Carroll of government duplicity which shows how largely the motive of plunder entered into the whole movement of the suppression. Belgium was then under the domination of Austria, and the government continually urged the Fathers to begin the erection of a college on a grand scale at that place. In all confidence that they would never be disturbed, they expended on the first set of buildings the sum of $37,000 a considerable amount of money in those days. They would have gone further but their money was exhausted.
While teaching there, Father Carroll was sent on a short tour through Europe as tutor to the young son of Lord Stourton, an English nobleman. He passed through Alsace and Lorraine, where the Jesuits were still protected; was welcomed at the University of Heidelberg, and finally reached Rome. There, though under the very eyes of the Pope, he was compelled to conceal his identity as a Jesuit and hence met none of his brethren. He saw everywhere not only infamous libels on the Society which were for sale in the streets, but books and pamphlets assailing the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and ridiculing the ceremonies of the Mass. The overthrow of the Jesuits was the common topic of conversation and word from the King of Spain was momentarily expected. Henry Stuart, Cardinal of York, the last descendant of James II, was there at the time, but as he was a rancorous enemy of the Society, Father Carroll did not dare to present the young Catholic nobleman to him. He returned by the way of France and saw the ruins everywhere, and finally arrived at Bruges to take part in the tragedy as one of the victims.
The Brief was promulgated on August 16, and the superiors of the two colleges at Bruges, encouraged by the general expectation of the town that their status[597] would not be effected, wrote a letter to the president of the council at Brussels, offering their services as secular clergy to continue the work of education. The rectors were invited to Brussels, and assured that they would be treated with respect, allowed to retain private property and be granted proper maintenance. Even after the reception of the Brief, the Bishop of Bruges assured them that in a few days the excitement would pass and everything would go on as usual. Austria, however, had already accepted and promulgated the Brief.
The first commissioners of the Suppression threw up the work in disgust. It was then handed over to a coarse young fellow named Marouex who was anxious to make a name for himself. He succeeded. Arriving at the college on September 20, he summoned the community to his presence and ordered the Brief and edict to be read. He then forbade anyone to leave the house, or to be allowed to enter, or to write any letters, or to direct the college, or to teach the pupils. He seized the account books and began a hunt for hidden treasures. Each member of the community was examined individually, put under oath, and ordered to produce everything he had, even family letters; "which explains," says Shea, "how there is no trace of Carroll's letters from his mother and kindred in America."
On October 14, Marouex, accompanied by a squad of soldiers, burst into the community rooms and ordered Fathers Angier, Plowden and Carroll to follow him. He would not even permit them to go to their rooms for a moment to get what they needed, but sent them under guard to wagons waiting outside, and hurried them off to the Flemish college, which had been already plundered. There they were locked up for several days without a bed to lie on. The[598] community was still there under lock and key. Three of them were kept as hostages and the rest were ordered out of the country. Thus did Maria Theresa allow her beloved Jesuits to be treated, in return for the benefits they had heaped on her empire from the time when Faber and Le Jay and Canisius and their great associates had saved it from destruction.
Thoroughly heartbroken, Carroll turned his steps towards Protestant England. Before leaving the Continent, he wrote the following pathetic letter to his brother Daniel, who was in Maryland. Because of Carroll's own personal character and his prominence in American history, it is a precious testimonial of love and affection for the Society, as well as a splendid vindication of it for the world at large. It is dated September 11, 1773.
"I was willing to accept the vacant post of prefect of the sodality here, but now all room for deliberation is over. The enemies of the Society and, above all, the unrelenting perseverance of the Spanish and Portuguese ministries, with the passiveness of the court of Vienna have at last obtained their ends; and our so long persecuted, and, I must add, holy Society is no more. God's holy will be done and may His Name be blessed for ever and ever! This fatal blow was struck on July 21, but was kept secret at Rome till August 16, and was only made known to me on September 5. I am not, and perhaps never shall be, recovered from the shock of this dreadful intelligence. The greatest blessing which in my estimation I could receive from God would be immediate death, but if He deny me this, may His holy and adorable designs on me be wholly fulfilled.
"I find it impossible to understand that Divine Providence should permit such an end to a body,[599] wholly devoted, and striving with the most disinterested charity to procure every comfort and advantage to their neighbors, whether by preaching, teaching, catechizing, missions, visiting hospitals, prisons and in every other function of spiritual and corporal mercy. Such have I beheld it in every part of my travels, the first of all ecclesiastical bodies in the esteem and confidence of the faithful, and certainly the most laborious. What will become of our flourishing congregations with you and those cultivated by the German Fathers? These reflections crowd so fast upon me, that I almost lose my senses. But I will endeavor to suppress them for a few moments. You see I am now my own master and left to my own direction. In returning to Maryland, I shall have the comfort of not only being with you, but of being farther out of reach of scandal and defamation, and removed from the scenes of distress of many of my dearest friends whom I shall not be able to relieve. I shall therefore most certainly sail for Maryland early next spring if I possibly can."
At the time of the Suppression there were nineteen Jesuits in Maryland and Pennsylvania; as it was then three years before the Declaration of Independence, they were still English subjects. On October 6, 1773, Bishop Challoner, the Vicar of London, though Chandlery in his "Fasti breviores" says it was Talbot, sent them the following letter:
"To Messrs the Missioners in Maryland and Pennsylvania.In passing, it may be remarked that as a missive from a Superior to a number of devoted priests against whom not a word of reproach had been ever uttered and whose lives were wrecked by this official act this communication of the vicar cannot be cited as a manifestation of excessive paternal tenderness.
"To obey the order which I have received from Rome, I notify to you, by this the Breve, of the total dissolution of the Society of Jesus; and send withal a form of declaration of your obedience and submission, to which you are all to subscribe, as your brethren [600]have done here, and send me back the formula with the subscription of you all, as I am to send them up to Rome.
"Ever yours,"Richard Deboren. V. Ap."
The formula to which they were required to subscribe, was, in its English translation, as follows:
"We the undersigned missionary priests of the London District of Maryland and Pennsylvania, hitherto known as the Clerks of the Society of Jesus, having been informed by the declaration and publication of the Apostolic Brief issued on July 21, 1773, by our Most Holy Lord Pope Clement XIV, by which he completely suppresses and extinguishes the aforesaid Congregation and Society in the whole world, and orders the priests to be entirely subject to the rule and authority of the Bishops as part of the secular clergy, we the aforesaid, fully and sincerely, submit to the Brief, and humbly acquiescing to the complete suppression of the said Society, submit ourselves entirely as secular priests to the jurisdiction and rule of the above mentioned Bishop, the Vicar Apostolic."
In this document of the vicar there are some features which are worthy of consideration. The first is that it was not communicated personally to those interested but through the post — and it might have been a forgery. Secondly, it was not correct in saying that it was issued on July 21, 1773. It was signed on July 21 but issued or published only on August 16 of that[601] year, and it was not effective or binding until that date. Thirdly, there was no mention of the renewal of faculties to the superior whose ecclesiastical character had now been completely transformed from that of a religious to a secular priest; and they were thus obliged to presume that they were not suspended and that their power of transmitting faculties was not withdrawn. Fourthly, before the Suppression, the vicar Apostolic had warned the Propaganda that he could do nothing to aid the Maryland missioners, and after the Revolution he refused absolutely to have any communication with them. Thus, there was no possibility of fulfilling the injunction of becoming secular priests, as the Brief enjoined.
As far as the Jesuit habit was concerned there was no difficulty, for there is no distinctive habit in the Society. The Jesuits are ecclesiastically in the rank of "clerici regulares," and can wear the garb of any secular priest, just as they do, at present, in many parts of the world. St. Francis Xavier once wore green silk, and in our own days, the English Jesuit dress is rather an academic gown than a cassock. Again in Maryland and Pennsylvania, there were at that time no secular priests; the missionaries were all Jesuits, and it would have been difficult to get any other ecclesiastical attire. What they wore was, as a matter of fact, used only in ecclesiastical functions. An analogous obstacle presented itself in the name. The people continued to recognize them as Jesuits, and it would have been very imprudent to publicly announce that they were no longer such. There are several letters extant, however, in which the Jesuits advise their friends to drop the S. J. in their correspondence, but that is not unusual even now. Exteriorly, the life of those old Maryland Jesuits continued to be precisely the same as it had always been.
[602] Moreover they retained possession of their property, for unlike the Jesuits of Canada, Illinois and Louisiana, they held their estates by personal, not by corporate title; and regularly deeded their possession by will or transfer from one to another. In Maryland, it was impossible to do otherwise, for the English government did not recognize the Jesuits as constituting a legal association.
Indeed, Challoner informs Talbot that he considered the promulgation of the Brief as enjoined by the Pope would be fraught with serious danger, and hence he was convinced that the method adopted for the extinction of the Jesuits of England and her colonies was the only one possible and that the Pope would be so advised.
A lament from one of the Maryland missionaries may be of interest. Father Mosley is the writer. "I cannot think of it," he says, "without tears in my eyes. Yes, dear Sister, our Body or Factory is dissolved of which your two brothers are members; and for myself, I know I am an unworthy one when I see so many worthy, saintly, pious, learned, laborious missionaries dead and alive who were or who have been members of the same, for the last two ages. I know no fault that we are guilty of. I am convinced that our labors are pure, upright and sincere for God's honor and our neighbor's good. What our Supreme Judge on earth may think of our labors is a mystery to me. It is true he has stigmatized us through the world with infamy, and declared us unfit for our business or his service. Our dissolution is known through the whole world; it is in every newspaper, and I am ashamed to show my face. As we are judged unserviceable, we labor with little heart, and what is worse, by no Rule.
"To my great sorrow, the Society is abolished, and with it must die all the zeal that was founded and[603] raised on it. Labor for our neighbor is a Jesuit's pleasure; destroy the Jesuit and labor is painful and disagreeable. I must allow that what was my pleasure is now irksome. Every fatigue I underwent caused a secret and inward satisfaction; it is now unpleasant and disagreeable. I disregarded this unhealthy climate, and all its agues and fevers which have really paid me to my heart's content, for the sake of my rule. The night was as agreeable as the day; frost and cold as a warm fire and a soft bed; the excessive heats as welcome as a cool shade or pleasant breezes, but now the scene is changed. The Jesuit is metamorphosed into I know not what. He is a monster; a scarecrow in my idea. With joy I impaired my health and broke my constitution in the care of my flock. It was the Jesuit's call; it was his whole aim and business. The Jesuit is no more. He now endeavors to repair his little remains of health and his shattered constitution, as he has no rule calling him to expose it.
"Joseph Mosley, S. J. forever, as I think and hope."
It must have been a very hard trial for the Jesuit vicars Apostolic in the various foreign missions to be the executioners of their own brethren in carrying out this decree. One of these sad scenes occurred in Nankin, where Mgr. Laimbeckhoven, S. J., was vicar. He did not live to see the Restoration, for he died in 1787.
No comments:
Post a Comment