The Jesuits, 1534-1921

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 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 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 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 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.

"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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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, 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.

"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 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."

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.

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."