THE following is from the pen of the Author of “The Ruin of Education in Ireland”:—
SIR,—It is characteristic of the tactics of the Ignatian Society, which now dominates so much of Catholic affairs, that the Father-General has authorised an adroit and learned Jesuit father to impugn my extracts from Suarez, S. J., on the ground that Suarez “expressly denied that anybody, without lawful warrant, could kill a heretic king.” This is as fine a specimen of equivocation as ever excited the indignation of Pascal. The equivocation lies in the reference he can murder a Protestant sovereign quite true that Suarez, S. J., teaches that a private individual must have lawful warrant before he can murder a Protestant sovereign deposed by the Pope. But he obtains a “lawful warrant” if the Pope, finding a Papal sentence of deposition disregarded by the heretic sovereign, proceeds to empower his Catholic subjects to treat him as an outlaw and tyrant, who is not a sovereign, but a common malefactor, to be killed by every good citizen if he resists the Pope’s command. That is a precious specimen of a “lawful warrant!” “S! Papa regem deponat, ab illis tantum poterit expelli, vel intereci, quibus ipse id committerit” (“Defence of the Catholic Faith,” Book vi., chapter iv., section 16). That is what the adroit Jesuit, writing for the ignorant readers of an ignorant clerical paper, calls a “lawful warrant,” while carefully hiding what he really meant.
And because the unfortunate Irish Catholics of that day were forced by their Jesuit teachers, under pain of eternal damnation, to recognize the right of a Pope to delegate the power of assassination, because this sort of “lawful warrant” was declared to be part of the Catholic religion, because, in fact,
the unhappy Irish Catholics were driven by the Jesuit party into treason and murder, woes unutterable and miserable were let loose on the Irish land. When the Reverend Father Garner, S.J., saw his Jesuit pupils plotting the awful Gunpowder Plot for destroying the entire Royalty and Parliament of heretic England, he never moved a finger to stop them; and his explanations on his trial for treason were such manifest self-contradictions and avowed perjuries that the great Catholic historian, Lingard, rightly says that nobody could believe a word out of his mouth. Yet Garner, S.J., was the head of the society in England, and I find the learned Suarez, S.J., who is the glory of Jesuit philosophy and jurisprudence, praising him, “not only as a man of distinguished intelligence and erudition, but of great candour and integrity.” Had the learned Suarez, S.J.,
I do not conceal for a moment my pain at being obliged to deal with the worst evils of the worst clericalism. But that clericalism has developed like a mighty parasite, clasping the trunk and branches of the Catholic Church, and destroying the Church in proportion to its own rank and stifling exuberance. Catholic nations—Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Ireland—are perishing under its deadly ascendancy, which breaks the will and stunts the intelligence of the Catholic laity, not by any accident, but as part of a persistent policy for the acquisition of temporal power. In dealing with the Jesuit Society, which is the most formidable organised confederacy for the temporal subjugation of the Catholic community, we must always look beyond the individual to the rule of the society. The Jesuit is captured very young in most cases. From twenty to thirty-three he sees nothing except through the spectacles provided by his superiors. Everything Jesuitical is represented to be perfection of its kind. Trained to obey his superior as “Christ the Lord,” he becomes a mere pawn in the hand of a secret despot at Rome, who is practically uncontrolled by the Pope himself. Let us see by a recent example how this works out. There
was a libel action brought lately by an amiable and courtly Jesuit against the Rock newspaper for having described him as an outlaw and a man steeped in sedition. When the judge and jury found that such language was unjustifiable in the absence of the slightest proofs that the plaintiff had committed any criminal act, there was a perfect burst of jubilant fireworks in the clerical camp. As a matter of fact, though the plaintiff got the verdict, the Jesuit Society come off as badly as possible. It had to be admitted that all the awful doctrines of killing heretics and torturing heretics and burning heretics still formed an essential part of the Jesuit doctrine. “Only our speculative doctrines,” said the amiable and reverend plaintiff. If anybody went to kill or burn a heretic just now in England. His Majesty’s police, instead of reducing the
Daily Telegraph—
Protestant to clingers, the pious enthusiast would obtain the questionable comfort of a turning noose and a long drop. But the admission that killing and burning formed part of the Jesuit Society’s creed was plain and inevitable. I take the following extract from the cross-examination of the Jesuit plaintiff in the
in Europe?
“Question—For good reasons or bad, your society has had the misfortune from time to time to be expelled from every country
“Answer—It is so.
“Question—And even had the misfortune in 1773 to be suppressed by a bull of Clement XIV?
“Answer—Yes.
“Questioned respecting the writings of Marianaus De Luca, and
asked if it was the view of his society that the Church has the power of the sword to punish heresy, witness said he should say
speculatively yes.
“Question—And by punishment is meant censure, excommunication, fine, exile, and, if need be, death?
“Answer—That is so.”
“That is so!” This avowal is truly awful, especially when we
reflect that the Protestant Government of Ireland, without any consultation of the Irish Catholic laity, has placed fifteen public fellowships for the professional teaching of Irish youth in the hands of a society which still holds that the Church has a right to murder men on account of their religious convictions. For my part, between Torquemada teaching “speculatively” that the Christian ideal would demand a row of Protestants roasting in Stephen’s Green, and the Protestant patrons of Torquemada in Dublin Castle endowing Torquemada out of the public taxes for his general “speculations,” I am not sure that the religious fanatic Fathers in Ireland just now are cultured and humane gentlemen, the Jesuit and tyrant is the less reputable of the two. Of course, the Jesuit who might jump into the fire to save the dogmatised Orangeman, in Ulster. But that is really no excuse for teaching a system of anti-social doctrine which sets up the persecution of conscience of the national youth. Either adjure your “speculations” or quit the national education! The fraternity of unsecularitarian patriotism can never grow out of that work of hell, the Spanish Inquisition.
Besides, even the best of individual Jesuits can give us no guarantees against the policy of his terrible order. A society of the intellectually demoralisation. Let me quote the fearful rule of the Jesuit Order which makes every member the consecrated slave of an irresponsible dictator. I quote the Jesuit law of blind obedience from the “Rule of the Society of Jesus, part III.”
SEAT RON.
LEIS AN URR. ARCH. COOK A BHA N DEMHIDH.
8TH JUNE, 1862.
F. HUGH O’DONNELL.
a veiled monk as before “Christ the Lord!”
would degrade universal Christendom in idolatrous servility before the pith and substance of all nations which trust it, and which has well-nigh ruined twenty Catholic nations, which sucks to itself it is the constitution and organisation of the Jesuit Society, which it is not the individual Jesuit who is the object of my protest;
of the meanest members of the Church of Christ.
It is not the Pope, would have no such right to dominate the consciences in a foreign priest, who is not even the Pope, but who, even if he who can measure the consequences of admitting such awful power, the Lord” even his bishop. And, apart from the moral degradation, the curate who would take such a vow to worship like “Christ Ireland beneath a yoke like that. There is not a country Arthur Balfour can presume to force the young minds of Mr.
We may well ask by what right Cardinal Logue or Mr. “regarding the superior (be he who he may) as Christ the Lord.” feet of an irresponsible Father General or Fathers Provincial, confederacy which deliberaately places its 20,000 members at the may well believe; but how fearful is the moral degradation of a university! The Jesuit is not bound to commit evident sin, we There is a pretty code for the educators of an national and wisdom.”
rule of all goodwill and judgment which is the eternal goodness they may more exactly be conformed to than chief and supreme before them as the rule of their own will and judgment, whereby Lord. . . . The will and judgment of the superior being set Lord, . . . The will and judgment of the superior being set the superior (be he who he may) as Christ the superior, that all yield themselves to perfect obedience, may, even necessary, that all yield themselves to perfect obedience, a couple of years ago—”It is especially conducive to advancement, in England” by that learned Catholic priest, Father Tuanon, a chapter 1, section 23,” as published in the “History of the Jesuits
—DANIEL, XII. 3.
(An dara searrmon.)
THA iad gle theare do chreutairsean leis am bu mhath dol a dh’irrin. Ach iad a cheart cho teare sin d’an eagal an ni a bheir a dh’irrin iad. Tha iad gle theare a tha fo churam mu thimchloill a bhi anns an t-slighe dh’ionnsuidh nan lasraichean.
iomhagbh. Nuair a bha Criosd aans an t-saogbhla, ged a b’c deasraidebh glóir an Aithar e agus fior-iomhagbh a Fhearsa, girdheachd bha sgáile a’ cur folach air. Ach far am bheil an iomhagbh chas chomasach naoch bi dearsaidean di a’ briseadh a maoch t’eirn sgáile aans an t-saogbhla. Tha sin a’ leughadh air cuid ag an robh ainn an Dìsa air clàr an eudain, ‘se sin, gu’n feudadh an leanaibh beag fhacitinn gu’n robh gràs aca. Tha thusa ann an sin agus feudadh eadhon an leanaibh beag a radh’gu’n bheil thu gun ghfas. Ach far am bheil obair Dhe aans an aonam ni e an leogham na uan, ni e an nathair na colman. Tha ni a tha comparachadh obair Dhe a tha ‘glaandh. Fiac mar a ghlanas e am mìsgear agus fear nam mionnan agus am fear briseadh-tha Sabaid: glanaidh e iad air dhoibh a bhi ‘g amharc mar an an sgathan air glóir an Tighearn, tha “iad air an “atharrachadh chum na h-ìomhagbh cheudna o ghloir gu glóir mar le Spiorad an Tighearn.” Nis ‘s ann aans an t-saogbhla a tha sin deanta; agus, thusa aig nach eil ni air bith dhe sin, cha-n’eil annad ach seana mheall talmhadh. Tha thu fathasd gun ghras.
Bha sin ag rath guir ann ri Criosd a bha iad gu bhi air an cumadh. Oir “an dream a roimh-aitinnich e, roimh-orduich e iad mar an ceudna, chum a bhi comb-chosmhuil ri iomhagbh a Mhic.” A mhunntur mo ghraibidh, a mis is sinne mic Dhe; agus cha-n’eil e soilteir fathasd ciod a bhios sin; ach a ta fhios agaimn ‘nauir a dh’fhoilliseachar easan gu m bi sinn cosmhuiil ris, oir chì sinn e mar a ta e.” Mar sin cha-n’iongaitach ged a ta e air a rathd gu’n dealaichte iad “mar shoilleireachd nan speur agus mar na reultan fad saogbhla iad “mar saogbhla.” Bha sin ag rathd a gheibh iad. Nuair a ghabh Criosd nadur na daornaichd ann an aonadh ris fein ghlan e an nadur sin ann fein gus an robh e na b’oidhreice na bha e riann am an Adhamh—na b’oidhreice na nadur nan aingearl. Mar sin thug e d’a eaglais earlais air an ni sin ris am bi na naoimh air an eumaidh, air chos ‘s gu’n feud na naoimh ann an glóir an coslas fhacitinn ann an corp Chrìosd ris am bi an cuirp air an cumadh. Agus ‘se sin cuid de iongaitasan la a’ bhrèithearnais gu’n fàic iad an cuirp bhocchd air an gloraichadh. Mar sin cha-n’iongaitach ged a bhiodh fadail nasomh ann an glóir airson an la sin. Sibhse, a tha glíc gu bhi deasnamh dèn chuid mhailt, tuiigidh sibh glóir mun dheireadh.
Tha e air a rathd guir ann airson ainn naoimh fein a tha e a’ deasnamh an ni a tha e a’ deasnamh. Nach robh iad dheir an
II.—Tearc do chomharan ortasan a tha glíc agus a dheal-
rachas mar shollteireachd nan speur. Tha iad glé thearc air am
bheil eagal nach eil grás aca agus nach eil iad de’n mhunntir a
tha glíc. Chualas aon ag rath, “feudaidh e mo thearnadh ma’s
shall leis agus ma theid mi a dh’ ifrim cha-urrain mi a
leasachadh.” Tha am buic mor sin comas co dhiubh gun
chitram. Ach tha iad san a tha glíc tric a’ smuainneachadh air gur
bheil aman aca. Tha iad a’ smuainneachadh air sin na’s trice na
t-saoghal gun smuain air anam a la no a dh’ oidhche, no air co
dhiubh n ann an giorr no ann an ifrim a bhios iad tre’n
t-siorruidheachd. Ach tha iad san a ta glíc tric a’ smuainneachadh
gur’m bheil aman aca agus gur’m bi an t-anam beo gu siortuidh.
Tha e iongantaich duiilich a mhineachadh do chreutair ciod e a tha
ann an anam. Tha e cho duiilich a mhineachadh’sa tha bite Dhé.
Spiorad Dhé a ginitim creidimh air sin, agus an sin thig iad san a
ta glíc gu bhi tuigsinn gur creutair san iad fein agus nach eil iad
mar bhruidéan na macharach. Tha nam broilleach fein na tha g’
innseadh dhoibh gur creutair san cumtasach iad fein. S’iomadh
uair a gheibh creutair peacadh dhe’n robh e ciontasach fichead
bliadhna roimh a’ tighinn cho uir na chumhne’sa bha e an la a
bha e ciontasach dheit. Tha sin ag innseadh gu bheil e cumtasach.
Nach d’fhuair thu fein, nuair a bha tríoblaid ort smuainntear gur
ann airson ni eigin de’n robh thu ciontasach a thainig sin ort? Tha
cian De a’ faotaoin ann am focal Dhé na tha cumail mothachadh
air peacadh beo ann ta gu la m’ bair. Bi am focal uairlean na’