The Bible makes very plain that the doctrine of the end justifying the means is abhorrent to the One who is declared to be a “God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.” It is a doctrine which has been associated with the Jesuits from the very founding of their order by Ignatius Loyola towards the middle of the Sixteenth Century right to this present day. “The key-note of their ethical code,” Wylie tells us, “is the famous maxim that the end sanctifies the means. Before that maxim the eternal distinction of right and wrong vanishes. Not only do the stringencies and sanctions of human law dissolve and disappear, but the authority and majesty of the Decalogue are overthrown. There is no conceivable crime, villainy, and atrocity which this maxim will not justify. Nay, such become dutiful and holy, provided they be done for ‘the greater glory of God’, by which the Jesuit means the honour, interest, and advancement of his society. In short, the Jesuit may do whatever he has a mind to do, all human and Divine laws notwithstanding. This is a very grave charge, but the evidence of its truth is, unhappily, too abundant, and the difficulty lies in making a selection.”
Georgetown University is a well-known American educational institution which is run by the Jesuits. Among its students in the past was one William Clinton, who is now the President of the United States of America and who has publicly declared his love to his mentors. He professes to be a Southern Baptist but is there evidence that he has been influenced by the Jesuits to the extent that he is prepared to follow their moral code when it is expedient for him to do so?
At the moment the President’s very survival appears to be in the balance and his re-election to office for a second term next year must be the greatest of his concerns. To be re-elected he needs votes and to gain them he must employ all the means placed at his disposal. What better way of securing the Roman Catholic Irish-American vote than by inviting Gerry Adams, the chief representative of that murderous, terrorist organisation which calls itself the IRA, to the White House and there join with others in treating him as if he were an honourable freedom fighter, a reliever of the oppressed, perhaps one even worthy of being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize! The Central Intelligence Agency would not have left him in ignorance of the true identity and character of his guest and some members of his own administration indicated their disapproval of his conduct as, also, did the British Prime Minister; but it was to no avail. It appears that the President, forgetful of his accountability to God, took the view that the end was important enough to justify the means and so went ahead and received this man to his bosom. “Woe unto them . . . that justify the wicked for reward.” It did not escape the attention of some that Gerry Adams’ constant companion throughout his American visit was a Jesuit priest.
This is no new phenomenon in American politics. R L Dabney traces the beginning of what he called “this dangerous and dishonest game” to an election that was held in the middle of the nineteen century when a certain gentleman desiring to be the Governor of New York came to an understanding with the cleric, who was then the head of the popish hierarchy in the State, that he would give him the “Irish vote in return for certain sectarian advantages in the disbursement of State revenues”. Dabney tells us that “neither Rome nor the demagogues have since forgotten their lesson, nor will they ever forget it. It would be as unreasonable to expect it as to expect that hawks will forget the poultry yard. It is the nature of the demagogue to trade off anything for votes; they are the breath in the nostrils of his ambition. The popish hierarchy differs essentially from the ministry of any other religion, in having votes to trade. The traditional claim of Rome is that she has the right to control both spheres, the ecclesiastical and the political, the political for the sake of the ecclesiastical. The votes of her masses are more or less manageable, as the votes of Protestants are not, because Rome’s is a system of authority as opposed to free thought. Rome instructs the conscience of every one of her members that it is their religious duty to subordinate all other duties and interests to hers. And this is a spiritual duty enforceable by the most awful spiritual sanctions. How can a thinking man afford to disobey the hierarchy which holds his eternal destiny in its secret fist; so that even if they gave him in form the essential sacraments, such as the mass, absolution, and extreme unction, they are able clandestinely to make them worthless to him, by withholding the sacramental intention. Hence it is that the majority of American papists can be voted in ‘blocks’; and it is virtually the hierarchy which votes them. The goods are ready bound up in parcels for traffic with demagogues. We are well aware that numerous priests will indignantly deny this; declaring that there is a Romanist vote in this country which is just as independent of their priesthood and as free as any other. Of course there is. The hierarchy is a very experienced and dextrous driver. It does not whip in the restless colts, but humours them awhile until she gets them well harnessed and broken. But the team as a whole must travel her road, because they have to believe it infallible. We assure these independent Romanist voters that they are not ‘good Catholics’; they must unlearn this heresy of independent thought before they are meet for the Romanist paradise. Men of secular ambition have always sought to use the hierarchy to influence others for their political advantage; the example is as old as history.”
Three weeks after the White House feting of Gerry Adams the Oklahoma bomb was planted by evil and wicked men and the United States of America suffered what has been described as its worst ever terrorist outrage. Tragically, nearly 170 people, including many children, died and American families have now come to know something of the heartache and sorrow which, over a period of twenty-five years, was so often the lot of families in Northern Ireland and also on the British mainland, as a result of IRA terrorism. President Clinton, filled with righteous indignation, condemned those responsible and his Attorney General said that once those responsible were tried and found guilty, the State would seek the death penalty for them. “They have,” the President said, “no right to kill innocent Americans. They have no right to violate the law.” We whole-heartedly agree. But does Mr Clinton apply the same standards to IRA bombers and terrorists when he welcomes to the White House the very man who, not so very long before, honoured the terrorist who planted the Shankill Road bomb by leading his funeral procession and helping to bear his coffin to the grave? “Verily He is a God that judgeth on the earth.”