The Footprints of the Jesuits

by Richard W. Thompson

After the decree was passed, it was considered important that this work of Franco should be translated into the English language, so as to bring all English-speaking Roman Catholics to the point of accepting papal infallibility, both as an accomplished fact and the only true religious faith; and to convince them of the enormous sin they would commit by refusing to do so. Lord Robert Montagu, a Roman Catholic member of the British Parliament, became the translator, following the original, as far as he considered it expedient, upon points of religious doctrine, and adding some reflections of his own. It was published in London in 1874—four years after the passage of the decree—in order to create English opinion in favor of the restoration of the temporal power of the pope, and the recognition of his infallibility. This work has 428 pages, almost every one of which contains assertions designed to prove that the spirit of the present progressive age is offensive to God, and that mankind can be saved from eternal perdition in no other way than by conceding to the pope the universality of dominion which it claims for him, and which, if granted, would overturn every Government existing in the world, and, first of all, the present Government of Italy. It is almost impossible, within a reasonable compass, to explain anything more than his general ideas, and such of these only as are intended to show how the powers and authority of the Church and the pope—made equivalent terms by the decree—are viewed by those whose position and character entitle them to speak knowingly and authoritatively. For the want of such information as this volume, and others of the same kind, contain, multitudes of good-intentioned people, both Protestants and Roman Catholics, are misled.

He attributes the present "spread of false principles," now prevailing in the progressive nations, to two causes: First, "modern civilization;" and second, "freedom of conscience," or "the right of private judgment." He considers all who "respect every religion" as guilty of "formal apostasy;" and says that "Catholics certainly are intolerant, and so they ought to be," because "if a Catholic is not intolerant, he is either a hypocrite, or else does not really believe what he professes."[231] He insists that when a contest shall arise "between an ecclesiastical and a lay authority, the Church knows infallibly that it belongs to her to determine the question," not only over "spiritual matters," but "whether the point in dispute be a spiritual matter, or necessarily connected with a spiritual matter." Hence he argues, in explanation, that "therefore the temporal authority must be subordinate to the spiritual; the civil authority, and its rights and powers, must be placed at the absolute disposal of the Church;" that is, the State must obey the pope in whatsoever he shall command or exact. Consequently, says he, "the Church, whose end is the highest end of man, must be preferred before the State; for all States regard only a temporary or earthly end. If, then, we have to avoid an imperium in imperio, it is necessary that the temporal State should give way to the eternal Church;" that is, the laws of the Church must be obeyed before those of the State. He is careful to designate the duties of a secular Government like ours as follows: "Let it look to the civil and criminal laws, its army, its trade, its finance, its railways, its screw-frigates, and its telegraphs; but let it not step out of its province, and, like Oza, put forth its hand to hold up the ark of God." To make the Church free, the pope must be absolutely independent, and not "in the power of any Government—with the control of education, and the right to 'administer and dispose of her own property.'" Referring to a free Government, such as that of the United States, he says: "A State which is free from the Church is an atheistical State; it denotes a godless Government and godless laws, ... which knows nothing of any kind of religion, and which, therefore, determines to do without God." In order to avoid confusion, the State must be subordinate to and dependent upon the Church, because, "by separating Church and State, you cut man in two, and make inextricable confusion," and because also "a separation of Church and State is the destruction both of the State and the religion of the people." And so he argues that "the State can not be separated from the Church without commencing its decadence and ruin;" wherefore "the State must obey the legitimate authority of the Church, and be in subordination to the Church, so that there may be no clashing of authorities, or conflict of jurisdictions."[232]

He fiercely denounces secret societies, such as the Freemasons, but strangely omits the Jesuits, whose proceedings have always been sheltered behind an impenetrable veil. All such as are not favorable to the papal demands he calls the "slaves of the devil," and represents them as belonging to "the synagogue of Satan," only for the reason that they do not bow their necks to the pontifical yoke—a method of denunciation as persistently indulged in by such writers, as if Christ had commanded the passions of hatred and revenge to be cultivated, and not suppressed. Referring to the bulls of Clement IX, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, and Leo XII, excommunicating all who show favor to or harbor them, he declares that any oaths they may take are not binding. He does not base this upon the conclusion that they are not authorized by law, and are merely voluntary, but upon the third canon of the Third Council of Lateran, which applies to all oaths of whatsoever character, and provides that "it is not an oath, but an act of perjury, when a man swears to do anything against the Church;" as, for example, our oath of naturalization and allegiance, which requires fidelity to heretical institutions, and the maintenance of the atheistical principle, which requires the State to be separated from the Church.[233]

The "liberty and independence of the pope in his spiritual government," he makes to mean "not only the liberty and independence of his own person, but also that of the numerous great dignitaries of the Church who assist him, and of the officials and ministers and employees of every order whom he requires, and who are required by the numerous ecclesiastical institutions which surround him, and which extend their operations over the whole world." In this extraordinary and pretentious claim there is no disguise—not even equivocation. All appointed by the pope, including a whole army of employees, of every grade, are to be exempt from the operations of the public laws of all Protestant Governments and answerable alone to the pope! Let the friends of popular government mark well the reason for this universality of the pope's absolute jurisdiction over the world. It is this, that "if any Government were to have jurisdiction over them, except that of the pope alone, or if any Government were able to impede their action, then the pope would have less immunity and freedom of action than an ambassador of the meanest power in the world," because he could not compel them to obey his laws and commands—that is, the Canon law—instead of those of the State. And he carries this idea of antagonism between the laws of a State and the Canon laws, to the extent of the excommunication of the former for "sanctioning some antichristian principle;" such, for example, as the separation of Church and State, secular education, or civil marriages. In any of these cases, "that luckless State may find itself confronted by the two hundred million Catholics in the world, and the God of armies, who protect the Church!"[234] And because these "two hundred million Catholics"—which exceeds the actual number by twenty-five million—do not protest against such vain threats as this, the Church authorities interpret their silence to mean approval, and thus they convert their follies of one day into the infatuation of the next, and finally into positive hallucination. This distinguished author furnishes many additional evidences of this—evidences sufficient to convince any unbiased mind, beyond any ground for reasonable doubt, that the Jesuits obtained complete triumph over the pope, and he over the Church.

All independent Governments claim and exercise the right to regulate and manage their own affairs, and when this right is lost, from whatsoever cause, their independence is brought to an end. Yet this author lays it down as a settled principle of ecclesiastical law that the Church—that is, the pope—possesses the exclusive authority to decide its own jurisdiction over spirituals and temporals. After averring that "the Church alone is competent to declare what she is and what belongs to her," he affirms the doctrines announced by the celebrated Syllabus of Pius IX, and charges those who do not accept these teachings with renouncing the only true faith. "The pope," says he, "can not sanction indifferentism or liberty of worship, nor civil marriages, nor secular education; he can not concede liberty, or rather license, of the press; nor recognize sovereignty of the people; nor admit the necessity of the 'social evil;' nor legalize robbery and murder"—thus placing some of the essential principles of our Government upon a level with the most flagrant crimes. He characterizes "the daily paper" as the "common sewer of human iniquities," and considers popular government such an abomination that the Church must not be silent wheresoever "a false principle—the sovereignty of the people"—shall prevail. Hence, in order to correct these evils and extirpate these heresies, the "priests must enter into politics," because the Church "has a right and duty to meddle in every question, in so far as it is in the moral order"—giving, by way of illustration, "trade, commerce, finance, and military and naval matters." If a State shall do anything to hinder the accomplishment of any of the supernatural ends sought after by the Church, it must be reduced to subordination, as "it is the duty of the superior society to correct it." Hence "religion must of necessity enter into politics, if government is not to become an impossibility." And, surveying the whole field occupied by the modern nations, he admonishes society to avoid a republic, and adds: "Let the form of government be a republic, and you will then endure the horrors of the democracy of '89, or of the Commune of '71; for a nation will assuredly plunge itself into misery as soon as it attempts to govern itself."[235]

He devotes a chapter to liberty, in which he says "liberty of thought is, in fact, the principle of disorder and uncertainty, and a license to commit every crime." He condemns "liberty of speech," "liberty of the press," "freedom of worship, religious liberty, or equality of Churches," and declares that "freedom of worship, or religious liberty, is a false and pernicious liberty."[236] But being compelled to realize that Roman Catholics are allowed freedom of religious belief and worship in Protestant countries, he finds himself constrained to make an explanation. In doing so, however, he makes a startling exhibition of Romish and Jesuit intolerance, wheresoever the power to enforce it is possessed. What is to follow from his pen should command the most serious attention from all American readers, whatsoever their religion. His book was not written and published under influences favorable to the liberty of the press, but under papal auspices exclusively. It is fairly to be presumed that he was chosen by the proper papal authority for the purpose, and that so far from its having been placed upon the "Prohibitory Index" it has the highest papal sanction. He says:

"Thus it is that Catholics, in some countries, ask for liberty of education, liberty of worship, liberty of speech, liberty of the press, and so forth; not because these are good things, but because, in those countries, the compulsory education, the law for conformity of worship, the press law, etc., enforce that which is far worse. In the Egyptian darkness of error, it is good to obtain a little struggling ray of light. It is better to be on a Cunard steamer than on a raft, but if the steamer was going down the raft would be preferable. So it is relatively good, in a pagan or heretic country, to obtain liberty of worship, or religious liberty; but that choice no more proves that it is absolutely good, and should be granted in Catholic countries also, than your getting on a raft in mid-ocean proves that every one, in all cases, should do so. Still less does it follow that, because liberty of worship is demanded in Protestant countries, therefore it should be granted in Catholic countries. To deny religious liberty would be contradictory of the principle of Protestantism, which is the right of private judgment. But the principle of Catholicism is repugnant to a liberty of worship; for the principle of Catholicism is that God has appointed an infallible Teacher of faith and morals."[237]

He proceeds, with marvelous complacency, to argue that Protestants have no right to be intolerant toward Roman Catholics, because "they have no business to imagine that truth is on their side," and "lies and errors have no rights;"[238] but Roman Catholics have a right to be intolerant towards Protestants because truth abides only with them.

The liberty of the press is especially denounced. It is called "the most hurtful of liberties," and restraints and "checks should be imposed upon the press." It is condemned as "a crime," and, it is said, "there is no right to a freedom of the press." In order to prove how hard the popes and Councils have struggled to put a stop to "telling lies in public" by "newspaper editors," he cites the "strict orders" issued by the Lateran Council, under Leo X, that nothing should be published which the bishops did not approve; and the renewal of these orders by the Council of Trent. He then enumerates the following popes, who prescribed rules and injunctions to prevent these commands from being evaded: Alexander VII, Clement VIII, Benedict XIV, Pius VI, Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, the last of whom is represented as saying that "the freedom of the press is 'detestable' and 'execrable;'" and lastly, Pius IX, in the seventy-ninth proposition of his Syllabus.[239]

He expresses the most sovereign contempt for the people and to the principle of fraternity which unites them in a mutual bond for the establishment and maintenance of their own civil and religious liberty. "As dogs have their bark," says he, "and 'brindle cats' their mews, as horses have their neighs and donkeys their brays, so have the populace their cries." He continues: "Dirty democrats overthrow those who are above them, in order to leap into their seats and oppose all other dirty democrats."[240] He condemns the idea of the sovereignty of the people, as it is established in the United States, in the severest terms. Where this maxim prevails, according to him, "no government would be possible," because everything would be in "fearful disorder," for the reason that "men have always lived in submission," and every society should continue to have "a permanent authority over" it. And as this authority must have its derivation from God, the pope must be this permanent ruler, because he alone represents God. He draws a picture of the people performing the "juggling trick and acrobat feat of functioning the office of sovereign." He mocks at the "supreme wisdom in the legislation of tinkers;" the "far-sighted prudence in the commands of clodpoles, hucksters, and scavengers;" and the "docility and readiness to obey in their beer-wrought, undisciplined minds." Classing all peoples who have established Governments subject to their own will, as included in the false picture he has drawn, he avers "that the people possess no authority, and as they have it not, they can not delegate it." "The sovereignty of the people, on the contrary, is the origin of every sort of evil, and the destruction of the public good or 'commonweal.'" "The people can not ever understand the principles of justice; they have lost, behind their counters, the little sense of right they had."[241]