Jesuits, their external and internal organization and life

Contents I. Organization of the Jesuit Order II. Morality of the Jesuits III. Jesuit Policy IV. Religion of the Jesuits V. Education and science among the Jesuits The call recently made by Pope Leo XIII for the unification of churches under the leadership of the papacy naturally forces us to become more familiar with the various aspects of Roman Catholicism as an ecclesiastical system, and therefore it is by no means superfluous to present a brief outline of the external and internal life of that order, the name of which is primarily reproduced in the mind in connection with the very concept of Roman Catholicism. The Roman Church is rich in all kinds of monastic orders, which, spreading the network of their activities throughout the entire globe, work diligently to spread, maintain and strengthen papal dominion in the Christian world; but among them, it is the Jesuit order that is especially outstanding for such activity, which is, so to speak, the foremost fighter for the rights of the papacy, as a result of which it has always enjoyed special advantages and privileges from the popes - right up to the present time. It is known that not long ago the present Pope Leo XIII addressed this order with a special bull, in which, giving all kinds of praise to his sons for their zeal for the good of the Roman Church, he solemnly confirmed to them all their rights and advantages. This might seem strange on the part of such an intelligent diplomat as Leo XIII, especially in view of the fact that in reality the Jesuits are ostracized in almost all modern states, as a harmful and intolerant society in modern times, and however, if Leo XIII considered it necessary to make this solemn statement of his solidarity with the Jesuit order, then this is a clear sign that this particular order is, so to speak, the main screw of the entire system of modern Roman Catholicism, which without it cannot hold on and act. And this is true. Suffice it to remember that the entire recent history of Roman Catholicism, with its intense desire to occupy a completely unique position in the Christian world, is essentially the work of the Jesuits - that notorious ultramontanism, which led to the creation of new dogmas, tried and is trying to put Roman Catholicism in sharp contradiction with all the cultural principles of modern times, and finally, at the Vatican Council of 1870, created the blasphemous dogma of infallibility of the Pope. Such activities of the Jesuits aroused modern states even more sharply against them and, despite their complete toleration in other respects, they considered it their duty to limit it in relation to this order, which, by the way, was even expelled from Germany by virtue of the May laws of 1872. But times change, and moods change. And when, after the transformation of the notorious cultural struggle, which revealed that the papacy was still a very strong force in the West, the Roman Church again received all its rights in Germany, the question naturally arose about the repeal of the law prohibiting the Jesuits from remaining within the German Empire, as if to prove that the Roman Church could not live without this order. But as soon as the question was raised, the alarm rang throughout Protestant Germany, announcing the danger that threatened it. Agitation began throughout the country against this assumption, leaflets with petitions were flying everywhere, collecting millions of signatures of people begging for the Jesuits not to be admitted into the country - a sign of how modern society regards this order. And yet, politics took its toll, the bill passed through both houses of the Reichstag and, although the allied states protested against it, in essence, for the empire as such, the May Law no longer exists and the Jesuits were given the right to enter Germany, which of course they will not fail to take advantage of openly or (for the time being) secretly. The extent to which this turn of affairs excited the public opinion of both the whole of Germany and its surrounding countries can be judged by the fact that even the Third International Old Catholic Congress, held in Holland, considered itself forced to give the question of the Jesuits and their harmful influence on modern Christianity a very prominent place in their theses and debates. All this gives the question of the Jesuits a lively modern interest, in view of which this article, which has as its task to acquaint readers with the external and internal organization of the order that produces such excitement in society, becomes unnecessary. 1 Bypassing the history of the order, as more or less known from courses in general church history, 2 let us directly turn to the presentation of the external and internal system that constitutes the distinctive feature of the Jesuit order. I. Organization of the Jesuit Order The entire life of the Jesuit order is determined by a certain regime, thanks to which the individuals known as Jesuits are developed. Actually, the rules that have the task of guiding the development of Jesuits are contained in the so-called Exercitions - the work of the founder of the order himself, compiled on the basis of his own tests, and the rules for the activities of ready-made Jesuits are contained in the “Constitutions”, which, according to the sketch of Ignatius of Loyola, were processed by his diplomatic successor Jacob Lainez. The former constitute the spiritual being, and the latter, so to speak, the body of the “community of Jesus.” The founder of the order himself stated that the goal of the order was “not only to work with the help of divine grace for the salvation and improvement of the individuals who make up this society, but also with their help to strive with all our might for the salvation and improvement of our neighbors.” To achieve this goal, members of the society take three vows: poverty, chastity and obedience. The vow of poverty must be understood in the sense that both individual members and churches and institutions of society should not have any property, but live by alms. The members of society fall into four classes, which follow an ascending line in the following order: 1) Novices, or novices, who usually spend two years in some preparatory institution and are subject to careful observation, while still not knowing anything about their appointment in the order. They are subjected to strict tests to see if anything prevents their acceptance into society, which obstacles include: deviation from the faith, crimes and serious sins, obligations in relation to some other order, marital cohabitation, physical defects that impede activity. During this time, observers become aware of all their personal, family and other connections, become acquainted with their inclinations and abilities, views and intentions. They must fulfill six main obediences, which consist in the fact that they devote themselves to spiritual meditation for a whole month, serve in hospitals and travel without money, living on alms, perform various humiliating services, teach children or uneducated people in the faith and preach or make confession. They can have communication only with those associates who are assigned to them by their highest leaders, they can only speak about their parents as if they were already dead, and they are advised to break off all ties with their kinship. This life of the novice, the conduct of which is furnished with precise instructions for every hour of the day, ends with a general confession. 2) The scholastics take the indicated three vows, accept the obligation to join the order, study, if necessary, sciences according to the Jesuit system and once again perform exercises and are subjected to temptation for a certain time. 3) Coadjutors can be either spiritual or secular; in the latter case, they serve the order as cooks, gardeners, paramedics and ministers of all kinds, while the clergy primarily devote themselves to the education of youth. 4) The professions must, as coadjutors, accept the priesthood and give the order a fourth vow, namely, to unconditionally obey the pope and be ready to accept any assignment that he finds necessary for them. These are the leaders of the order and exclusively devote themselves to its goals. Their number is insignificant, and for every hundred members of the order there are only two of them. In addition to these four classes, there are also affiliated Jesuits, i.e. such persons who, without taking monastic vows, work for the interests of the order and unconditionally obey it. They are usually called "Jesuits in a short dress." Their organization and their relationship to the order and to the outside world, as well as their personal fortune, are surrounded by complete secrecy. Finally, there are also Jesuits. The supreme dignitary of the order is a general who has absolute power, appoints to all positions of the order, can also replace officials and is elected for life. His ministers are assistants, from four to six in number, each of whom is given charge of a certain part of the land (which distribution was often modified). Each assistant is in charge of a certain number of provinces into which the land is divided, and at the head of each province is a provincial. Such provinces are currently, for example. in Austria and Germany, including the Netherlands, it is considered three, in Italy four, in France two, etc., and all together there are seventeen. Local communities are headed by superiors. These communities are either abodes for the professions, of which there are three, namely in Rome, Palermo and Genoa, or communities for exercises, of which there are two - in Rome and Lyon, and then many houses for novices, seminaries, colleges, boarding houses and missions. Next to every dignitary, general, assistant, provincial and superior, stands an admonitor or consultant, whose duty it is to remind him of his duties. In order to monitor the administration of the provinces, visitors are sent from the general. The reporting and processes of the order are in charge of the procurators, and the censorship of works compiled by members of the order is in charge of the auditors. The general meeting, chaired by the general, is composed of assistants and commissioners from the provinces, elects the general and assistants,, if necessary, decides on the issue of replacing them and approves the changes planned by the general in the regulations, as well as in the matter of alienation of order estates. In particularly important cases, a general congregation is convened in which all professions can take part. Each province also has a provincial congregation. Whatever the authorities in the society of Jesus entrust to their subordinates, the latter must carry out without any examination, “as if they were corpses” (perinde acsi cadaver essent), and must place themselves at their unquestioning disposal, “like a stick in the hand of an old man,” as the Constitutions literally say. 3 If this relationship has as its goal blind obedience, then at the same time the relationship between equals, as well as the relationship of superiors to inferiors, has as its goal to maintain constant distrust of each other. All letters written by or received by Jesuits must first be read by their superiors. Jesuit Mariana says about this: “The entire government of society is based on denunciations, which, like poison, spread throughout society, so that no member can trust another. Out of boundless love for unlimited dominion, the general of our order puts all denunciations in his archive and gives them full faith, without first hearing the one against whom they are directed. 4 Even every dignitary, at prescribed periods, gives a report to his superiors about his subordinates, the administrator or consultant of each dignitary reports the latter to the general, at certain times even the superiors make denunciations to the general, in addition to the provincials, and finally, the assistants observe the general himself and must speak out against him when he sins in something. The most detailed records are kept of all members and their lives and activities. From what has been said, it amply follows that among the Jesuits, with the general vows of the order, the main importance is attached to obedience, which suppresses any independent thought and even makes any individual development of character impossible, so that the order, in fact, never gave any original minds that could create something original. Chastity is mentioned only in a few words, 5 and so many exceptions are made from the poverty imposed on the members of the order 6 that this vow, in fact, does not exist at all in society. Even a member who is expelled from society does not receive back the contributions he made to the order. According to the declarations of the general of the order, Lainez, 7 a Jesuit, when the goals of the order require it, can spend significant sums of money, can dress in the most pleasant and luxurious manner (“to the greater glory of God,” adds the successor of Loyola). As for the exercises or spiritual exercises (contemplations) of Loyola, to which every Jesuit, throughout his entire life, must devote annually at least eight, and novices as much as thirty days, in this regard, one recent historian aptly says the following: 8 “This whole book is a psychological masterpiece. With true virtuosity, she penetrates into the human heart, into his innermost impulses, into his subtlest, as well as his coarsest, feelings. The highest ideas, like the sensual instincts of man, are placed at the service of the author’s intentions, which boil down to completely subordinating the human soul to God, that is, more precisely, to the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, not a single one of the means is forgotten, least of all the external ones, such as: an accurate written statement of sins and their frequent confession by the disciples; stimulation of the imagination to the point of hallucination; the constant conversation of the believer with his own soul and his own conscience, as well as with Christ, the Mother of God and the saints; the obligation to feel moral sorrow and self-condemnation and to shed tears; fervent prayers, which are always composed according to the given subject; a clear image of the crucified Christ, as well as hell with all its torments.” The student is woken up at midnight, shown skeletons if they want to make him feel gloomy, or given flowers if they want to make him feel good. He is prescribed certain positions and body movements, and there is no shortage of fasting and scourging. But the purpose of all this is to achieve complete subordination to the Roman Church, to the point of suppressing all will. The Church Fathers and then Thomas Aquinas and the beloved Jesuit theologians should be studied by those undergoing the test to the same extent as the Bible. What the church calls black, says Loyola, he must recognize as black, even if it seems white to him. The Jesuit Bellarmin goes even further and says that he should even consider sin his duty, if only the pope orders it, or literally: if the pope erroneously prescribed the execution of vices and forbade the practice of virtues, then the church is obliged to believe that vices constitute a good thing, and virtues a bad thing, if it does not want to sin against its conscience; she must consider good what he commands, and bad what he forbids. 9 Published in 183Zg. from the order, Count Paul von Gönsbröch says the following: “Jesuitism suppresses the spiritual independence of its members, brings them under an all-encompassing, all-suppressing template, thereby crushing them and preventing them from achieving natural and correct development... The novice is given instructions for every quarter of an hour what he must do... The will or inclination for any activity becomes dulled... If a novice wants to drink a sip of water, use a piece of paper, a book or a pencil, then he must ask permission for this... A so-called guardian angel is assigned to each novice, i.e. two novices must constantly, every day, at a certain hour, mutually indicate to each other the offenses that they have committed. The so-called stoning occurs several times a year; each novice must kneel and then each of the others must reproach him for external offenses, such as walking too quickly or too slowly, speaking too loudly or too softly, etc... Every week he is given certain companions of the order, and with them only he can have communication... In a word, in the order the whole person is trained in all his movements and outward behavior, both day and night. The moral principles of the Jesuit order are usually defined by the proposition: “the end justifies the means.” True, it cannot be said that this position was literally found anywhere in any Jesuit work; but its Jesuit origin is obvious both from the fact that it completely follows, in its meaning, as we will see later, from the views of the moralists of the order, and from the following provisions of Jesuit scientists: Hermann Busembaum, in his Medulla theologiae moralis (first published in 1650 in Frankfurt am Main), on page 320 sets out the following rule: “Cum finis est licitus, etiam media sunt licita” (if the goal is permissible, then the means are also permissible), and on page 504: “Oui licitus est finis, etiam licent media” (to whom the goal is permissible, the means are also permissible). The Jesuit Paul Leymann, in his Theologia moralis, 10 referring to Sanchez, sets out this position in the following words: “Tactus turpes inter conjuges, si fiant ut praeparationes, seu incitamenta ad copulam conjugalem, vacant culpa: quia cui concessus est finis, concessa etiam sunt media ad finem ordinata.” Escobar, in his “Univ, theologiae moralis recept. sententiae" 11 says: "Non peccat, qui ob bonum finem in actibus ex natura sua malis delectatur" (he does not sin who, for the sake of a good goal, delights in means that are evil by nature). “Finis enim,” so it is then said to explain this position with tempting examples, “dat specificationem actibus et ex bono vel malo fini boni vel mali reduxuntur” (for the goal gives actions their own character, and as a result of a good or bad goal, actions become good or bad). The same position is found in the writings of the Jesuits Sota, Toletan, Navarra, Vasquez, Sanchez, Lessius, Sayre, Silvestre and others. In Carol Anthony Casnedi from his “Crisis theologica” (Lisbon, 1711) we point out in this regard to Tom.I, disp.7, sect.2, §5, n.87, p.219, where it says: “nunquam posse peccari sine advertentia ad malitiam, nunquam cum bona intentione” (one can never sin without regard to evil, never with a good goal in mind), and on Tom.II, disp.14, sect.4, §3, n.120, p.381, where it is written: “Bonum morale non pendet nisi a judicio operantis, quod sive sit, sive non sit materialiter conforme legi Dei, dummodo ut est sub judicio prudenti, sit formaliter conforme legi Dei, ut ab operante apprehensae, satis est Deo, qui primario operantis intentionem consideret" (a morally good action depends only on the judgment of the actor, which is sufficient for God, who primarily looks at the intention of the actor, whether it will be materially conform to the divine law or not, if only by reasonable judgment and formally it conforms to the divine law as it is understood by the operatives). Jacob Illsung, in his “Tree of Wisdom and Others,” on page 153 says: “Cui licitus est finis, illi licet etiam medium ex natura sua ordinatum ad talem finem” (to whom the end is permissible, the means corresponding to this end are permissible). Ludwig Wagemann, the Jesuit professor of morality, in his Synopsis theologiae moralis 12 says: “Finis determinate moralitatem actus” (the goal determines the moral character of the action); Edmund Voith in his “Theologia moralis” 13) says: “Cui finis licet, ei et media permissa sunt”; in the same place, on page 472, n.731: “Oui concessus est finis, concessa etiam sunt media ad finem ordinata” (whoever is allowed the goal, the means to achieve the goal are also allowed). Father Vincent Philliucius of Siena, in his “Quaestiones morales de christianis officiis in casibus conscientiae” 14 says: “Intentio discernit actionem” (intention determines the nature of the action). Also in modern times, the Jesuit I. Peter Guri in his “Casus conscientiae” 15 says: “ubi licitus est finis, etiam licita sunt media per se indifferentia” (where the goal is allowed, the means, which are indifferent in themselves, are also allowed). The newest Jesuit moralist-theologian Augustine Lehmkuhl finally says: “Moralitas tandem desumiter ex fine” (morality is judged by purpose. 16 Since many exceptions and limitations are added to the above provisions, and in some cases even “bad means” are rejected (the concept, however, is very flexible), the often cited position “the end justifies the means” cannot be directly and in itself considered as preached by the Jesuits. However, the above passages provide sufficient proof that this position is not without reason attributed to the Jesuits. In any case, unfortunately, even outside the Jesuit order, even its most bitter opponents often resort to the position that the end sanctifies the means. But this is also inevitable; because adherence to this rule, in its general nature, cannot be subsumed under any paragraphs of laws on punishments. It would, however, be unimportant if the proposition that where the goal is permissible, the means are also permissible, existed on its own, without any practical consequences. But the evil lies precisely in the fact that the entire moral teaching of the Jesuits, from ancient to modern times, consists only in the complete implementation of this in its application of such a dubious position. But this moral teaching is all the more dangerous because in many cases it is in direct contradiction with the life of its authors and therefore can all the more serve as an indulgence for immoral actions or, at least, provide an opportunity for an excuse for such. Among the moralists of this kind, one of the outstanding is Anthony Escobar (b. 1589, d. 1669), who led a very strict moral life and fulfilled the duties of his ministry with the strictest care, which, perhaps, can be said about other, if not all, other Jesuit moralists. But these moralists, however, by the vague morality of their teaching, indirectly gave their followers the right to consider their own strict life as unnecessary for the achievement of religious and moral merit. No amount of embellishment can obscure the fact that almost all the Jesuits who wrote about morality, and between them 50-60 people were industrious writers and gifted scientists, in many cases considered permissible such actions that are recognized as bad by common human sense and the moral precepts of all civilized peoples, and in many cases left unresolved the question of whether they were permissible or not. Since there are absolutely no Jesuit moralists whose teaching would be entirely consistent with generally accepted morality, while the order clearly approves of such writings in which exactly the opposite is stated, then the cultural history of mankind has every right to consider the teaching of these particular Jesuit moralists to be the teaching of the order itself. However, duty obliges us to say that, in comparison with the teaching of previous Jesuit moralists (from the 16th to the 18th centuries), the newest Jesuit moralist Guri (c. 1870) takes much better ones, i.e. morally stricter notes, and even the newest moralist Lehmkuhl, in comparison with him, took a further step in approaching the morality generally recognized by mankind. If only the Jesuits act seriously in this regard, then this should only make us happy; but, in view of their past, it is by no means a sin to treat such improvements with a certain distrust. The theories of the Jesuits in so-called moral theology are reduced to various artificial positions, thanks to which a possibly weak and little binding moral law is achieved, so that the witty Frenchman Gallier could well say about the Jesuit Boni: “here is a man who takes away sins from the world!” These tricks are known under the following names: probabilism, method of controlling intentions (methodus dirigendae intentionis) and internal reservation (reservatio s. restrictio mentalis), to which main motives are added secondary auxiliary means such as ambiguity, utilism, clandestinism, quietism and formalism. Probabilism - this is the main position of all Jesuit morality, is that everything that is declared as permissible by any important authority (Doctor gravis) in the eyes of the Jesuits is considered permissible - therefore, obviously, Jesuit. The Jesuits Sanchez, Navarre, Escobar, Sa and others say directly: what a single learned man asserts, through this very thing, even if a hundred were against him, receives a degree of probability (probabilitas) and therefore can be done without embarrassment. If, out of many Doctores graves, some consider a certain task to be permissible, while others consider it impermissible, then the choice is given whether to do it or not to do it. Emanuel Sa goes even further and says: “One can do what according to probable opinion is considered permissible, even if its impermissibility were more undoubted by conscience,” and Escobar, in turn, says: One can follow the less probable opinion, with the elimination of the more probable, and even reject the more probable and follow another opinion, if the latter is only equally probable. But it goes without saying that the Jesuits, among many more or less probable actions, are constantly advised to follow those actions that are more beneficial to his order (magis conveniens nostris), without paying attention to whether they are good or bad. 17 This theory turns out to be especially dangerous in relation to one of the most significant activities of the order, namely confession. The Jesuits Vasquez and Escobar teach, for example, that the confessor can advise the confessor, under certain circumstances, also on a less probable course of action, even against his own intention, if this latter is easier and more profitable, and the Jesuit Boni complements this position with the assurance that if the intention according to which someone acts is probable, then the confessor must give him absolution; even if he himself holds a completely different view, and if he opposes it, he commits a mortal sin - with which Sanchez and Suarez also agree. Lehmkuhl summarizes his view of probabilism as follows: 18 Thus, obviously, any action can be justified. What has just been said finds important confirmation in the fact that some Jesuit moralists indeed consider a certain action to be permissible, while others condemn it. While Vasquez strongly condemns the murder, Lessius and Escobar excuse the revenge killing. Gregor of Valencia allowed the judge, who finds as much probability in favor of the justice of one side as in favor of the other, to decide the case in favor of the one whose petitioners are on friendly terms with him, and even, in order to do a favor to his friend, once to decide the case one way and another time - unless scandal threatens to follow! Azor and Escobar 19 allow the doctor to formulate such a medicine that one can think that it can heal, although it was more likely that it would harm. Equally convenient is the doctrine of the “method of controlling intention,” which consists in the fact that a known, according to ordinary concepts, bad action is permitted due to the fact that it coincides with a permissible moment. So, for example, the Jesuits Vasquez, Gurtado and Tanner agree among themselves that a son can desire the death of his father, even rejoice in it, if his goal is not death, but the inheritance that is to be received by him. Not content with this, Father Fagundez allows this joy even if the son killed his father while intoxicated! But especially characteristic of the old Jesuit worldview is the “internal reservation,” with which in most cases “ambiguity” is associated. It occurs if one assures of some untrue circumstance, even swears in it, and uses words that make the assurance or oath true. Ambiguity chooses, instead of a definite statement, an expression that can be given a different meaning in thought. Sanchez is especially strong in this and goes so far as to allow the following: if a murderer is asked if he killed a famous person, then he can answer: no, reflecting, for example, at the same time that he did not kill him 20 before his birth. In the same way, Cardina admits the following: if someone kills a Frenchman - Gallum, then he can, without falling into a lie, claim that he did not kill Gallum, meaning by gallum a rooster. 21 A criminal can also, for example, deny that he broke the lock (of a door), if he means the lock. Escobar spreads this teaching, considering it permissible not to fulfill those promises that a person made in the thought that he would never fulfill them. An even more dangerous consequence may be “utilism”, which allows crime, with the help of which one can avert great harm from oneself. The Jesuits Lamy, Lezius, Tanner and Navarre consider it permissible if a person prevents the slander of his honor by killing the slanderer; they allow one to avoid a duel, which they generally consider permissible, through the killing of the enemy, and even a shameful sentence through the killing of the judge and witnesses; Caramuel finds it permissible to kill a woman with whom adultery has been committed if there is a danger that she will betray him. Other forms of Jesuit morality have a more harmless, but still disgusting character, namely quietism, which allows sin to the extent that the soul surrenders to it “with disgust”, or to the extent that the person with whom the sin is committed agrees to it - “clandestinism”, which (specifically in Escobar) excuses everything that remains secret (but to the rule: si non caste, tamen caute - if not virtuous, then still prudent!), and a pathetic formalism that allows you to bypass all regulations, if only this is done under a different form, for example, you can read a forbidden book on separate sheets, because in this case it is no longer the whole book that is read. 22 If we now move on to the views of the Jesuits on individual vices and crimes, then we can only dwell very briefly on the consideration of impermissible actions of a sexual nature, because the way the Jesuit moralists talk about these sins directly contradicts the simplest concepts of decency. It is also significant that in the translations of Father Guri’s moral theology, this chapter is left in the Latin original and is not reproduced in modern languages. What is especially outrageous is the fact that the Jesuits treat the female sex with disgust and contempt, and the very concept of sin seems to be associated with the question of the temptation of men by women, almost without touching on the opposite attitude. What men do in this regard finds numerous excuses everywhere, so that there is hardly a case in which they would be condemned, and all the blame usually falls on women. Many Jesuits allow the seducer to neglect to marry his victim if he can “fear” the bad outcome of such a marriage, and free the man from all retribution in favor of his victim, even from the need to ask forgiveness from his parents. The Jesuits also allow prostitution, which, as is known, reduces a woman to the position of a slave. 23 Philliucius and Tamburini allow it even for respectable (?!) women and maidens!! 24 Others, perhaps, will say that such dirty details, which Guri elaborates with special love, are necessary for the confessor to know in such cases how much he can forgive committed sins. But Jesus Christ, whose name the Jesuits assigned to their society, did not look at this matter that way. He said to the sinner: “Go and sin no more”; He didn't want to know any details about her sin. Yes, these details are not at all relevant to the matter if unchastity is to be judged. Persistent exhortation here is undoubtedly much preferable to outrageous research, since it is more effective and worthy of the church, in addition to the dangers that, under certain circumstances, it can cause both the confessor and the confessor or confessor! Innocent boys and girls, as well as inexperienced women, can be led to thoughts that previously remained completely alien to them. Lies play a large role in the Jesuit moral system, but, unfortunately, more in the sense of allowing them than prohibiting them. In trials, the Jesuits allow the accused and witnesses so many distortions, denials and other untruths that if their rules were followed, the work of the courts would be extremely complicated, if not completely in vain. Sanchez supposes, of course, the case that the judge's question may be unfair; but he leaves the discussion of this circumstance to those on trial! From the further explanation of this Jesuit scientist, however, it becomes clear that by a judge who raises questions that are not justified by the case, one must understand one who, according to his views, is not in the favor of the church. But even apart from this circumstance, according to Sanchez, one can deny a certain action if there is a hope of achieving one’s justification through this or generally winning the case, or one can make some reservation in one’s thoughts, so that, in essence, any lie turns out to be permissible. Under such circumstances, perjury is clearly permitted. 25 True, Guri prohibits all lies in general, but allows “for an important reason” mental reservations and the use of ambiguous words, and refers to St. Alphonsus of Liguoria, who, although not a Jesuit, was the founder of the Redemptorists or Liguorians, akin to the Jesuits, and did not hesitate to claim that Christ himself resorted to such tricks!!! 26 The Jesuit, therefore, places in praise the Divine Person what other people consider a shameful slander against her! Christ said: “if someone hits you on the cheek, give him another.” And His imaginary followers Fagundez, Philliucius, Escobar, Guri and others allow one to avenge an insult with an insult, for a slander with a slur, 27 and precisely for the good of the slanderer, so that he does not become proud and so that others respect him less!! Moreover, they even allow a false crime to be attributed to another in order to avoid torture before the court or serious harm outside the court. 28 Escobar, Lessius, Navarre and many others. They also allow you to open other people’s letters, from which you can “fear” harm, or even out of curiosity, if you think that they do not contain “anything particularly important!” But if unexpected evil were to follow from here, then the curious one, according to Molina, would not be subject to any punishment. 29 This brings us to other crimes against love of neighbor. Thus, many Jesuit moralists consider it permissible, through earphones, to oust another from the favor of a superior, revealing to him his mistakes, to achieve an inheritance bequeathed to another in his favor, to wish a sinner illness so that he would be converted under its influence, or even death so that it would stop his injustice. Even the relationship between parents and children and between spouses is framed by the Jesuits with ugly regulations. According to Escobar, Lara, Sanjez, Fagundez, Surd and others, neither Catholic children are obliged to feed their parents who have fallen into heresy, nor Catholic parents of their children who have fallen into heresy in case of dire need. “Catholics are obliged to hate their fathers, brothers and sisters if they incline us to sin (i.e. to a faith other than that maintained by the Roman Church),” says Fagundez, and Escobar adds: for they are not parents, but enemies of the soul and salvation. 30 Tolet and Escobar further teach that Roman Catholic children can accuse their parents of the crime of heresy, even if they knew that for this they would have to suffer death at the stake! Escobar maintains, in agreement with Molina, Victoria, Henriquez, and others, that children owe no obedience to their parents in regard to marriage and the preservation of virginity, and Guri holds the same view. 31 Sanchez teaches that a husband can beat his wife, and these beatings can only serve as a reason for divorce when they are associated with the danger of death for the wife. 32 With regard to theft, the priests of the Jesuit order are quite favorable to that mode of action which, due to a false understanding of the legend, is attributed to St. Crispin. A son does not commit a grave sin if he robs his father and gives the stolen goods to the poor, or generally uses them for charitable works, or if he steals from his father as much as the latter should give him for work performed in his house and does not give it voluntarily. Likewise, a wife is justified when she takes money from her husband so that he does not waste it, or takes away a heretical book so that he does not read it (Buzembaum, Escobar, Diana, Lessius, Liguorius and Guri). Servants can steal the products of life in small parts (Navarre and the decree, before), monks can take what was not given to them by their abbots (Escobar, etc.). The poor can also commit small thefts to support their existence (Medina, Escobar and Guri). He who consumes other people's goods out of necessity does not need to return them; You can take from the debtor what he owes, or from the creditor, which, in his own opinion, was overpaid to him, or from the master, what was not given to him in payment or what was deducted from the payment due to unintentional damage to a certain thing. In the same way, it is allowed, in the event of an insistent demand on the part of the creditor, to steal a bill from him under the pretext of paying it, etc. 33 Lemkul 34 in certain cases allows for justification when it is unthinkable according to the laws of true morality. Busembaum, Layman, Navarra, Liguori and Guri essentially allow the debtor to delay the payment of his debt as much as he wants, or even forever, if, as a result of this payment, he suffers more loss than the creditor would gain. Lessius and Escobar allow the debtor to keep as much as is necessary to live decently, that is, in fact, as much as he wants, and Sanchez even allows him to deny what was withheld before the court. Escobar, Filliucius, Liguori, Guri 35) and others allow the players so much freedom that this actually allows for any deception in the game, and Mullet 36 allows the tailor to keep parts of the materials brought to him “of not particularly significant value.” Escobar gives what he found to the finder if the owner is unknown, and thus takes this secret communism to incredible proportions! 37 The most serious of all crimes, murder, is met with by these moralists with the same leniency as others. Escobar, Navarre and many others admit, although not completely agreeing with each other, the killing of someone who beats us or even just wants to beat us, or a “false” witness (i.e. one who can harm us), or a thief who wants to rob us, as well as a tyrant (i.e. who is considered such), and a slanderer of our honor, even if he revealed our real secret vices, etc. Finally, according to some, even a son is allowed to kill his father if the latter is under excommunication! But treating the lives of others with such ease, the Jesuits partly prohibit all death as a sacrifice. Some of them do not allow their own lives to be laid down for the life of a friend, as well as for his honor and fortune, and thereby preach the most vile egoism, which, if people were obedient disciples of the Jesuits, would entail that this life would certainly be deprived of all security. 38 Some of these Jesuits, of course, treat murderers more strictly than others, and Guri retreated from such teachings of his former comrades in the order, since they became incompatible with the government of the present time. However, he also preaches a completely un-Christian teaching: “Everyone is obliged to love himself more than his neighbor.” 39 In general, there is no doubt that not only at least eighteen learned Jesuits almost literally and quite literally defend the position that the end justifies the means, but at least fifty of them, if not more, and precisely including the highest representatives, tried to apply this position in practice in view of all and even the most serious crimes, and that the Jesuits even now, as Guri shows, with the exception of murder, fully adhere to this teaching. True, it should be noted that these moralists do not always unconditionally allow crimes like those indicated above, as well as many others, which would be too long to cite, but very subtly in each individual case they give reasons for and against the assumption, and in the end they speak out either for them or against them; but since in each case they also give reasons for the assumption, the criminal, according to the principle of probabilism, can always find sufficient reasons to excuse the deed he commits. For us, perhaps, it is also clear that the ultramontanes are not ashamed to declare such a society in solidarity with their church and defend it in every possible way. But it seems quite surprising that such a society, in the name of the so-called freedom of the community, is still allowed in some civilized states! The most audacious statement imaginable is that the Jesuits consider themselves followers of Jesus. Jesus Christ completely clearly and simply condemned all crimes without exception; The Jesuits, on the contrary, directly begin with the fact that, prohibiting crime “in general and in itself,” they then allow so many exceptions, tricks, detours and various twists that all their moral teaching turns out to be the grossest hypocrisy. However, some popes rejected and condemned many provisions of Jesuit morality, it was Alexander VII (1665 and 1666) who condemned 45 of these provisions, Innocent XI, by decree of March 2, 1679, no less than 65, and finally Alexander VIII, in 1690, another 33; but all this does not in the least prevent later and even current Jesuits from adhering to most of these same positions. If now, despite all these facts, Count Paul Gönsbröch, who recently left the Jesuit order, in his essay written to justify his exit, 40 says that the morality of the Jesuits is distinguished by impeccable purity, then he is confusing the morality that the order preaches with the morality that its members adhere to in practice. We are not talking about the latter, because we do not have sufficient data for that, and therefore we do not want to doubt that many Jesuits lead virtuous lives. But, in any case, one cannot help but consider it a disgrace for the order that to this day it adheres to probabilism, which undermines all morality. It is completely dishonest that the same people who, according to Count Gönsbroech, are completely blameless at heart, at the same time in their writings appear as “witty heads”, trying in every possible way to justify and even tolerate vice in its most repulsive forms. There should be no contradiction between the “head” and the “heart”. The Jesuits have always considered it unworthy for themselves to obey the state and laws, since the former does not obey them, and the latter are not composed in their spirit. The Jesuits Osorius and Gretser attributed to the pope the right to install and depose emperors and kings and to allow their states from obeying them. The contemporary Jesuit Guri teaches the clergy formed according to his book, and through them all the believers led by them, that one should not obey those laws that contradict ecclesiastical independence or the laws of the church, and on the contrary, he orders not only Catholics, but also all Christians to obey church laws, and he considers the latter obligatory even if they are not recognized by the state. 41 Back in 1871 and 1872. the Jesuit organ Civiltà cattolica called the pope the supreme judge and legislator of the Christian world, and the Jesuit Tarquin derived the concordats from this very dignity, and not from treaties. It is clear that a well-ordered state cannot tolerate such views, because it cannot exist if they are accepted. On the issue of duties, the Jesuits are quite consistent in their views with the smugglers. Guri and others leave unresolved the question of whether the activities of these dark people are a sin or not, and free them from any obligation to compensate for the losses of the state they deceived; they even admit that duties that are taken away from the state can be used instead for charitable purposes. Guri is also very lenient towards illegal hunting and fishing, towards bribing judges and bribe-taking officials, as well as towards violation of any military discipline, although, contrary to this, he willingly allows “with the fight still unfinished” the killing of the innocent, such as women, elders, travelers, spiritualists, etc., as far as they are involved with the “guilty” (as he calls the soldiers), if without them the rest of the mass enemies, which absolutely must be destroyed, could not be destroyed. 42 But all this is harmless compared to how the Jesuits would like to treat heretics, i.e. in general with those people whom they call by a similar name. The Jesuit Beccan 43 subjects in general to the ecclesiastical court those who have separated from the Roman Church, demands great excommunication for heretics, deprivation of all honors, which should extend even to their children and nephews, confiscation of all property, deprivation of the right of inheritance, paternal power, etc., and declares the state obliged, by order of the church, to punish stubborn heretics with death. Even in modern times (1872), the Jesuit organ Civiltà catolica argued that the Roman Catholic Church has the right to subject even Protestants and Orthodox Christians to the most severe corporal punishment (and therefore, burning at the stake). It is natural from this that the Jesuits condemn freedom of religion in the harshest words and call it dangerous for the state. 44 Thus, to tolerate the Jesuits is to reject freedom of religion. Even in modern times, Jesuits are equally hostile towards freedom of conscience. Their organ, the Civiltà catolica, expressed the utmost joy that the encyclical and syllabus of Pius IX of December 8, 1864, condemned “the whole present view of the rights of conscience and religious faith and profession,” and then continued: “It would be a dangerous error to grant to Protestants the same political rights as Catholics, or to grant to Protestant settlers the free exercise of worship.” The same body in 1869 called freedom of conscience and worship “madness and perniciousness.” The Jesuit Liberator called them “pure extravagance” in 1871. Moreover, the Jesuit Brunengo in 1891 went so far as to praise the Inquisition and, contrary to the contrary assertions of the ultramontanes, defended its ecclesiastical origin and character, as well as the right of the church to subject people to purely civil punishments. The same position was defended in 1869. Jesuits Gerhard Schneemann and Clemens Schrader. It is known that the famous Jesuit preacher Father Ro subjected religious tolerance to the most shameful mockery and censure! Verily, the saying applies to them: by their fruits you will know them! How the Jesuits feel about public school can be judged by how the party in Germany, for example, devoted to them, feels about it. But Guri says directly that it is a grave sin for Catholics to send their children to non-Catholic or so-called godless schools, or to entrust them to non-Catholic or morally corrupt teachers. In general, the Jesuits never inquired about whether their teaching was compatible with the state order, but on the contrary, they constantly acted against any government that did not blindly submit to them. Therefore, all the Jesuits who wrote about politics answer the question in the affirmative whether it is possible to kill a tyrant. It must be noted, however, that by tyrant they never mean one who rules for the benefit of their order, even if he were bloodthirsty and cruel, boldly trampling all justice, but they always mean one who does not live according to the will of the Roman Church or especially at the behest of the Jesuits, therefore any independent monarch, even if his rule was completely mild. The Jesuit Rainold directly declared the “heretic” sovereigns to be the worst tyrants. The Jesuit Mariana says about this: “we study not what people do, but what the laws of nature allow, and according to them it is completely indifferent whether you kill with a dagger or poison.” 45 Bishop Bouvier of Mans, to whom Guri likes to refer as an authority, says: “Subjects must fight against the usurper (i.e., a sovereign hostile to the Jesuits), defeat and expel him, even kill him as a public villain, as soon as the legitimate (i.e., friendly to the Jesuits) sovereign demands it.” 46 The killing of kings was further defended by the Jesuits Rossei, Delrio, Bellarmin, Salmeron, Valencia, Azor, Sot, Busembaum, Suarez, Lessius, Toleto, Tanner, Escobar, Molina, Lugo and many others. Therefore, it is an obvious lie that the statement that it was Mariana alone who did this. The latter rejoiced at the death of the ill-fated Henry III of France and called his murderer Clement “the eternal adornment of Gaul.” 47 But Mariana lived in Spain under Philip II! Why did he not apply his theories to this tyrant? After the killing of Henry IV, the Jesuit general Acquaviva, however, issued an edict against the killing of kings, but limited it to the statement that not everyone (!) is allowed to kill kings. Only in modern times did the Jesuit Guri find himself forced to reject the killing of sovereigns in general. In the Middle Ages, the Templars made a plan to destroy the power of sovereigns in order to dominate the world through the aristocracy of their order. By imitating the more developed consciousness of the time, the Jesuits are trying to achieve the same thing with the help of democracy, and therefore, even now in Germany and Switzerland, ultramontanes and democrats act as political allies. With purely Jesuitical insight and resourcefulness, the Jesuits, long before the French Revolution, began to rely on the people and preach about the supremacy of their power. The Jesuit Bellarmin says that all types of political power, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, necessarily flow from the very nature of man, but political power itself rests on the whole people, because by nature no one person has any advantage over another, and the power of the whole people is, therefore, of divine origin. The Jesuit Mariana further built on this thesis that the people have the right to organize their own government, and hence even rejects the hereditary monarchy, because thanks to it the personality of the ruler is made dependent on chance. Therefore, a monarch, if he abuses his power, can be overthrown by the people and even punished by death. As can be seen from here, the English revolutionaries of 1649 and the French revolutionaries of 1793 were obviously obedient disciples of the Jesuits politically. But the fathers of the order, defending the supremacy of the people, did not at all care about their welfare, but only about using the people to achieve their goals against the sovereigns, in order to then rule the former instead of the latter. If the Templars wanted to found an aristocratic state in the form of an order, then the Jesuits want to found a democratic state under the papal firm - a state whose actual administration should be in their own hands. And this is calculated quite cleverly; because no other power can curb the peoples so well and lead them, awaken their sensuality and lull the activity of their minds, like the Roman Church since the time when, unfortunately, it has been under the influence of the Jesuit order. Jesuitism, as Count Gönsbröch testifies, 48 ​​suppresses, even to a certain extent destroys, a just national feeling, a just patriotism. “From the very entry into the order,” he says, “until the end of his life, the Jesuit is taught that he exists for the world, and not for this or that people; practically this becomes clear to him when he is sent to various countries.” “These are the reasons,” the count concludes, “that prompted me to leave the Jesuit order. My only regret is that their influence on me did not cease earlier.” The moralists of the Jesuit order lead in their teachings not only to an insult to all morality, but even to a violation of church decrees, which, meanwhile, according to the purpose of the existence of their society itself, they should support in every possible way. Both from the celebration of Sundays and holidays, and from the performance of Christian pious exercises, for example, fasting, they allow so many exceptions that these regulations, in fact, do not exist for them at all. Escobar, Busembaum, Leiman, Tamburini and others teach that there is no need to stand during the entire mass - it is enough to listen to only part of it; It is permissible to talk during Mass, as long as one does not lose sight of the altar; Even absent-mindedness during the celebration itself is permitted if the general behavior is decent and the purpose of the mass is not undermined if during it the celebrants look at beautiful women or even harbor criminal intentions. Boni and Sanchez allow the priest to celebrate Mass on the very day on which they committed a mortal sin. Guri allows a priest, playing with a layman, to bet the income from the mass or pay his creditors by saying mass for them! 49 The Mass, therefore, among the Jesuits is reduced to the level of an ordinary commodity or monetary value. When making confession, Jesuits allow ambiguous expressions and mental reservations, and even outright lies, as well as concealment of sin, as far as general confession is concerned, the choice of another confessor in order to preserve the good opinion of the former, etc. The very infallibility of the Pope exists for the Jesuits only within the limits of their theory of probability and has meaning only depending on how the sayings of the Holy Father are presented and interpreted. If, for example, the pope denies the right of refuge to bandits, then his infallibility is not taken into account, to what extent the murder took place not for the sake of money, but by chance (?), and the right of church refuge is used even by those who commit a crime near the church in order to immediately find refuge in it. Some Jesuits also have a peculiar concept about the oath. Escobar, Busembaum, Cardena, Sanchez, Suarez, Leiman and others teach that “there is no need to keep an oath given only externally, without the internal intention (!) to swear.” 50 In practice, of course, any oath violation can be justified in this way. The named “fathers” also allow for any ambiguity when swearing, which is especially distinguished by Castro-Palao, Sanchez, Navarre and Gurtado. Guri, however, expresses himself more cautiously, but, in essence, teaches the same thing. 51 It is clear that faith by conviction is incompatible with such principles, and it can be accepted without doubt that the leaders of the Jesuits are completely unbelieving people and consider themselves zealous members of the Roman Catholic Church only because it, due to its prevalence, gives them the opportunity to conveniently achieve their goals, in which they strongly resemble the Templars. Therefore, they hypocritically show obedience to the pope, while the latter is rather their instrument, hypocritically express hatred of heretics, because if they were openly friends with them, Catholics would not allow them to bypass them so easily. The Jesuits, therefore, are not only enemies of enlightenment, which can only be true if it is associated with a healthy and sincere morality and openly admits what it wants and why it wants, but they are also enemies of the Roman Catholic Church, because the latter cannot stand without morality. If, therefore, the Jesuits, with the help of the Roman Catholic Church, achieved their goal, namely, to seize possibly unlimited power and completely seize the leadership of the said church, so that after this success they would no longer need to hide their true intentions, then, undoubtedly, they would have put an end to the Roman Catholic faith, and of course only in favor of hypocrisy and general demoralization. The goals of the Jesuit Order are therefore purely selfish. They consist only in the benefit of the order, in its power and its enrichment; neither humanity nor the church can count on benefit from them, because the implementation of its principles must lead to the disintegration of both. How the Jesuits understand the main Christian virtue - humility - shows the prevailing opinion among them that not a single Jesuit will be condemned, but all members of the order will enter heaven. Back in 1874, the French Jesuit Jacques Therrien published an essay in which he says at the very beginning: “There is a conviction that dates back to the first times of the order and invariably remains among us that remaining in our rank is an undoubted guarantee of salvation, and it is enough to die the son of St. Ignatius to find mercy before the judgment seat of God.” According to the Jesuits, the said consoling promise was allegedly openly given to the Jesuit general Franz Borgia and other members or admirers of the order. 52 While adhering to their own doctrine of salvation, the Jesuits also have their own cult. It says almost nothing about God and says little even about Christ. The Jesuit cult mainly consists of the veneration of the Immaculate Conception of the Most Holy Mary, the Apostle Peter and the so-called Heart of Jesus, which is something completely different from the Savior. By the latter they do not mean the soul or love of Christ in the spiritual sense, but rather the corporeal, carnal heart, which in the seventeenth century allegedly appeared to the eccentric nun Margarita Alyakok and has its own special sanctuary in France (in Paris le Monial). Over time, the hearts of Blessed Mary and St. Joseph were added to them, and the Jesuits now have special prayers to these three sacred hearts. Even later they were joined by the cult of St. Anne. Of course, we are far from disrespecting the pious beliefs of the people; but the fact is that the question here is not about this faith at all, but about the fact that the Jesuits exploit this faith in order to achieve their goals. The people were pious for centuries, before these innovations appeared, and they do not become any more pious because of them, but, on the contrary, are only led to confusion in their religious views and deviate from the main subject of religion. But this matter becomes even more disgusting due to the fact that, for example, in France “sacré coeur” even serves as a kind of banner of revenge and a means of inciting a warlike spirit against Germany. In Paris and Innsbruck, special newspapers are published in honor of the “sacred heart”. One Jesuit who left the order writes the following about the Jesuit cult: “The Jesuits in general greatly distorted the sublimity and dignity of Catholic worship; the magnificent and mostly tasteless decoration of their churches and their services produces on every impartial spectator the impression of absurdly proud dandyism and coquetry; the same thing in everything. They only want to show off in front of others, to lure everyone into their churches, and at the same time they boast that they have the most brilliant divine service, although, of course, this divine service is performed not so much to God as to themselves... Music in Jesuit churches is the most trivial and tasteless that can exist, and is in striking contradiction with the importance and dignity of ancient church singing. Pope Gregory and Maestro Palestrina would tear their hair out at the sight of this blatant outrage...” In their religious exercises, the Jesuits, as Count Gönsbröch shows, 53 allow only specifically Jesuit piety. “Novitz receives only books written by Jesuits; he can only read the lives of saints from the Jesuit order... From the Jesuit writings one can clearly hear the famous saying: I thank Thee, God, that I am not like other people! V. Education and science among the Jesuits Just as Jesuit politics has little as its goal, and Jesuit religion has as its goal the affirmation of a healthy faith, so little does Jesuit education have true science as its goal. The educational institutions of the order also serve only to increase its power and its influence. The first significant institution of these was the Roman College (Collegium Romanum), founded in 1551. Following him, the next year, at the suggestion of Loyola, Pope Julius III established the Collegium Germanicum, which was intended to educate fighters against Protestantism in Germany. From the Jesuit idea arose the definition of the Council of Trent that, following the model of these institutions, a seminary for boys should be founded in each diocese, i.e. an educational institution for preparing candidates for priestly offices in the Roman Catholic Church from tender childhood to ordination. The basis of the educational system of the Jesuits to this day lies in the work compiled in 1588, published in 1599 by General Claudius Acquaviva, in 1832, by order of General John Rotgan, with appropriate changes, again edited and again published in 1887 by Father Pachtler, known as Ratio studioram et institutions scholasticae societatis lesu. According to this system, every Jesuit educational institution is divided into two departments: Studia superiora and Studia inferiora. Each of them has one prefect, and both are under the command of the same rector. Studia inferiora comprises five classes: rudiments, grammar, syntax (now lower, middle and higher grammar), humanism and rhetoric, each class lasting from one to two years, which together corresponds to a gymnasium course. The main subject in the educational system of this school is the study of the Latin language, but not knowledge of it in internal construction, but exercise in it with the goal of teaching people to read and write it with ease. Starting with syntax, teachers and students can only speak Latin. The motto of the Jesuit schools is therefore: “lege, scribe, loquere.” It is they who plan to achieve this goal by burdening the students’ memory with figures of speech, a collection of which is attached to a wide variety of subjects. One of the first duties of the disciples is to read the Rosalia daily, and in addition they must go to confession every month. Until 1832, vernacular languages ​​were strictly prohibited in Jesuit institutions, and even now they are neglected. Previously, those who spoke the vernacular were subject to severe punishment, from which they could only be freed if the offender managed to accuse his colleague of the same offense, since each Jesuit student received from his superiors a special rival (aemulus), with whom he had to compete in learning. The ancient classics serve them solely to develop a style, without attention to their very spirit, so Cicero is considered the highest ideal of these schools. From Virgil, Jesuit students weave Latin poems and present Latin dramas on the stage, although not the dramas of Plautus and Terence, but self-composed ones. The Greek language is also studied, even with the ambition to speak it and write poetry. The Greek and Latin works of the Jesuit church fathers do not differ in this respect from the works of classical antiquity. The remaining academic subjects, except for ancient languages, are united by the Jesuits under the general name “erudition” - a collection of all kinds of anecdotes and remarks collected without any order from a wide variety of sciences. Studia superïora consist of a two- or three-year “Philosophical” course and one subsequent four-year theological course. In philosophy, they adhere to Aristotle, “as far as the latter does not contradict church teaching,” and they try to refute philosophical systems that go against the “true faith.” In mathematics and physics, until 1832, they adhered to Euclid, but when teaching them they limited themselves only to “what the students listened to willingly.” Now, however, this science is taught using the latest methods. In theology the basis is the Vulgate; the original and the latest translations of the Bible are taken into account only in comparisons. In church history, the main idea is that the rights of the Roman church and its head are based on primitive tradition. The remaining parts of theology rest entirely on Thomas Aquinas, and the obligation is either to defend his views, or to completely avoid the issue in silence. Not to mention the fact that the too frequent so-called exercises of the Jesuits, of necessity, damage scientific activity; there can be no talk of freedom and independence of the latter, if only because the entire curriculum, like the exercises, is designed to develop from students blind and devoted instruments of the order, ready to forever abandon their own thinking and judgment of the machine. All sciences in general in Jesuit schools are under the yoke of medieval scholasticism and the entire movement of humanism is treated with complete silence, as if it did not exist. The training itself is carried out in a purely mechanical way; in the spirit of Roman antiquity, not to mention Greek, students are not introduced at all, and the bearers of this antiquity, classical writers, are available to students only through the so-called castrated works, from which everything that could in one way or another harm the goals of the Jesuit order has been removed. On the contrary, by teaching the rules of decency, dance classes, all kinds of bodily exercises and theatrical performances, the order is quite capable of throwing dust in the eyes of the public, making them think that the teaching in these schools is the most enlightened, while all these exercises only serve to train the Jesuit, under certain circumstances, to play the role of a secular person, since he can put on all kinds of masks, depending on how and to what extent the goals of the order require it. By this, the order achieves that Jesuit students become accustomed to completely belong to the order, and only to the order, and their love for parents and relatives is systematically suppressed. Their religious zeal in earlier, darker times was also inflamed by the fact that they were allowed to be present at the executions of heretics, although others were excluded from this sad advantage. “After seven years of study,” says Count Gönsbröch (p. 33 et seq.), “the young Jesuit completes his education, armed with all the philosophical and theological armature of past centuries; his head is filled with the names of long-dead systems and without the influence of the remaining scientists of the Middle Ages, but he remains almost completely unaware of the spiritual struggle of the present time, regarding truly scientific trends, which for the most part he does not even know by name either in their bearers or in their works... If a Jesuit student wants to read something, then, even if he is already a mature person, he is not given free use of the library, but he must contact his superiors, and, by their decision, whether his wish is fulfilled or not. That narrow-minded views very often prevail is self-evident.” Their scientific works also correspond to the Jesuit schools. Both in schools and in these works, they occupy a completely unique position, completely inappropriate for the cultural development of mankind and alien to it. Therefore, they do not allow the Jesuits to be tested in their knowledge by anyone other than the members of the order themselves. Thus, already in 1552, they obtained from Pope Julius III the advantage, on a par with universities, of giving their students bachelor’s, master’s, license and doctor’s degrees, which in 1561 was confirmed for them by Pius IV. And, however, the Jesuit institutions, although called universities, were never completely higher schools; they contained only the faculties of theology and the "liberal arts" (now called the faculty of "philosophy"). Let us now see what creations are produced by the literature of the order, developed and nourished by the Jesuit schools. In church history, the authority for the Jesuits is Caesar Baronius of Campagna (b. 1538, †1607), who, although not a member of the order, was quite like-minded with it; in his gigantic work Annales ecclesiastici this branch of scientific knowledge is presented in such a way that everything serves to the benefit of the Roman Church, although to the detriment of the truth. The Jesuit Robert Bellarmin (born in 1542 in Tuscany, †1621) preached in his main work De controversis fidei unconditional and blind obedience to the pope, and in these views he presented history completely falsely. These are the luminaries of Jesuit science. As Dellinger shows, 54 the Jesuits always defended the distortion of church history and distorted it themselves. Thus, the Jesuits Suarez, Gretser, Possevin, Valencia and Turrian affirmed the authenticity of the false Isidorean decretals invented in the 9th century, a forged collection of papal decrees, according to which the supremacy of the pope was supposed to extend to all states. The Spanish Jesuit Roman de la Higuera forged chronicles and relics to prove that the doctrine of papal infallibility and the immaculate conception had already been accepted in ancient times. In the history of his own order, outstanding were: Peter Skarga (†1612) with his history of the saints, blessed and martyrs of the society of Jesus; Orlandino and Sacino history of the Jesuit order (1615 and 1621 printed in Cologne); Ribadeneyra, author of an essay against Machiavelli (De bono principe), with a list of famous Jesuit writers; I. Tollenarius and others with a luxurious edition of their work “Imago primi seculi Societatis Iesu”, etc. Against the Jesuits, members of the former monastic orders wrote Theatrum lesuiticum, 55 which talks about the oppression that the Jesuits allowed themselves in relation to the former orders. As for the rest of world history, one can already see from Baronius and Bellarmine how much the Jesuits valued the truth in it. Suffice it to say that no less than nine Jesuits in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries tried to prove the authenticity of one letter, which, according to legend, the Most Holy Mary wrote to the community in Messina; This letter was written in Greek, and, in memory of it, even now, every year on June 3, a festival is celebrated in Messina, and numerous children of this area receive the name Letters at baptism. The famous Jesuit historiographer, the Spaniard Joao de Mariana (born in 1536 in Talavera), wrote Spanish history in thirty volumes in a good style, but without any criticism. 56 His treatise, already mentioned above, De rege et régis institutione, according to the definition of the Parisian parliament, was burned by the hand of the executioner; but since he embittered the French against the Jesuits, his brothers in the order also disowned him, and the Inquisition, accusing him of theological errors, included his book in the index of prohibited books, and treated him all the more strictly because among his papers a Spanish essay on the “crimes of the society of Jesus” was found. He died in 1623, aged 87 years. Famian Strada (†1649 in Rome) wrote a history of the Netherlands War in the Spanish spirit, which was refuted by the enemy of the Jesuits, Kaspar Schoppe. Linguists of the Jesuit order find just as little criticism as historical researchers. Franz Turrian published one Arian work of the fourth or fifth century, bearing the title: “Apostolic Decree of Pope Clement I” and recognized by him as authentic, in Greek and Latin, dated 1563; The French Jesuits Sirmon and Fronton Ducey, in the first half of the 17th century, published the works of the church fathers, but without any criticism, making all sorts of mistakes. Most of the Jesuit writers are theologians, but the oldest of them, with the exception of those who, as mentioned above, wrote about morality and politics, no longer have any significance for our time, and even the newest, even if they produced such significant works as Father Francelin’s Theologia dogmatica (in 6 volumes), in their direction belong to the Middle Ages. Then, the Jesuit order produced a certain number of writers on geography and linguistics of those countries in which the Jesuits carried out their missionary work, several mathematicians and natural scientists, of whom Athanasius Kircher in the seventeenth century made several technical inventions significant for his time, as well as several forgotten scholastic philosophers. In modern times, the order had a very learned historian in the person of Damberger, who for his great work hoped for support from the order, but whose manuscripts the Jesuits sold after his death instead of processing them. Father Angelo Secchi gained fame in Rome as an astronomer, but remained completely alone in his endeavors. In the field of art, aesthetics and literary history, as well as critical treatment of world history and cultural history, the Jesuits, however, could exhibit in the journal “Stimmen ans Maria Laach Freiburg im Br.” published by their Dutch branch. several gifted and elegant writers, such as Fathers Al. Baumgartner, F. Erle, I. Epping, F. von Hummelauer, Knabenbauer, Pesch, Riess, Schneemann, Schulmann, etc. But the works of these writers only show that the Jesuits, both before and now, work only with the goal of leading the world to Roman Catholicism with its papal supremacy and If possible, denigrate and destroy everything not related to this direction. For all those who are not sufficiently inclined to follow this direction, their writings are completely unsuitable; This is not science at all, but simply a trend and propaganda. Other Jesuit magazines, such as Civiltà cattolica in Italy, Etudes religieuses in France, Month in England, serve the same trend. In general, under all sorts of covers and twists, they are only talking about the Romanization of the world in order to make it easier to control through the Jesuits. But such a tendency has nothing to do with the dignity of science, as well as with the tranquility of modern states, and in purely Roman Catholic countries it would inevitably lead to the Inquisition wherever the Jesuits were admitted by the governments. But, besides all this, the Jesuits are in clear contradiction with the spirit of true science simply because they serve and spread the grossest superstition with special zeal. Not only did the former Jesuits, like their contemporaries, believe in witchcraft and all sorts of spells, but also their newest comrade in the order of Guri, even in our time, teaches us to look at all this as undoubted facts. He believes in the fortune-telling rod and warns only against the diabolical influence that may be associated with it. 57 He believes in conspiracies by invoking the devil, in witchcraft, as the art of harming others with the help of the devil, for example, awakening hatred or sinful love, inducing illness or madness. Under the guise of the often fraudulent tricks of table-turning and knocking, he suspects evil spirits rejected by God, and even considers so-called animal magnetism to be a work of the devil. But this, generally recognized as the first, the current representative of Jesuit morality, who considers it permissible to observe the moon and the passage of time in order to collect herbs, etc., can be considered even harmless in comparison with many others. In their entire history the Jesuits can point to only two such members who rebelled against the executions of witches in former times, namely Adam Tanner, to whom this applies only to a limited extent, and Friedrich Spee, who, being at the same time a poet, in his work Cautio criminalis, published under the guise of anonymity and without any approval from the authorities of the order in 1631, was one of the first advocates for the abolition of the former horrors and died prematurely from excessive stress while caring for the wounded (in 1635). The Jesuits are already trying too hard to exploit this nobility of his, wisely keeping silent about the fact that one of the most ardent defenders of the witch trials, Martin Anton Delrio, a Spaniard living in Belgium (b. 1551, + 1608), was a Jesuit. His work, with the approval of the authorities of the order, appeared in 1593, namely Disquisitiones magicae, in 3 volumes, next to the notorious “Hammer on Witches,” is the most outrageous book that was ever written against the pitiful women called witches, and consists of the most shameful slander against the female sex in general. So, these are the outlines of the famous order, which, as we said above, constitutes the main screw of the entire system of Roman Catholicism. The appearance, it must be admitted, is far from being one that could arouse sympathy. Of course, we are far from seeing nothing but dark sides in the history of the order, and on the contrary, we fully recognize his services to the cause of Christianity and the church, for example, during the storm of the reformation movement, which, one might say, was stopped precisely by his efforts, we recognize his selflessness in the field of missionary activity, thanks to which the gospel of Christ penetrated into the most remote and barbaric countries and for which its members often courageously laid down their heads; 58 but in the end, from a careful study of their system and internal worldview, an involuntary conviction emerges that this order is a product of the worst side of human nature, and if it appeared precisely in the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church and was identified with it as its necessary support, then this does not at all serve to the honor of Roman Catholicism itself, and even less so “to the greater glory of God,” ad majorem Dei gloriam, although order and proudly adopted this last motto. Several very respectable studies have recently been published on the question of the Jesuits, among which the work of Döllinger and Reisch, Geschichte der Moralstreitigkeiten in der röm, is especially noteworthy. kath. Kirche seit dem XVI Jahrhundert (Nördlingen 1889), individual works of Reisch (See also his articles in Theolog. Liter.-Zeitung. 1889 No. 21 and 1894 No. 8 on the morality of the Jesuits), “Exposure” of Count von Gönsbröch, who recently left the order, a number of articles in Deutscher Mercur, for example, articles of Der Jesuitenorden etc. from 15th No. 1894, as well as a cultural and historical essay by the Swiss cultural historian Otto Henne Am-Rhyn, Die Jesuiten, deren Geschichte, Verfassuug etc. 3rd ed. Leipzig, 1894, whose work we used for this article. See eg. Robertson-Herzog, History of the Christian Church, in Russian translation by A.P. Lopukhin, vol.II, p.830 et seq. Constitutiones, part VI, chapter 1, §1. In the same work (VI, 5) there is even a provision that has been translated differently and which we therefore reproduce in the original: “Visum est nobis in domino – nullas constitutiones, declarations vel ordinem ullum vivendi posse obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere, nisi superior ea in nomine Domini Jesu Christi vel in virtute obedientiae jubeat.” Ranke (Päpste, 4th ed. vol. I, p. 223) says: “It should be noted that the power of the abbot to give orders entailing sinfulness is of a completely extraordinary nature.” Mariana de morbis Soc. Jesu, Cap. III. Aph. 24. Instit. I, 277 and Const. IX, 3, 6, 7. Philippson, Westeuropa, EinJeitung, S. 56. f. Exercitia spiritualia Sancti Patris Ignatii, explicata per K.P.Jacobum Noüet S. I, Ed. 2. Dilingae, 1689. Bellarmin de controv. T.I de Rom. Pont. lib. IV, p.5. Munich, 1625, Liber III, s.4, §12, p.20. Lyon, 1652–1663, vol.IV, lib.33, sect.2, probl.65, n.300, p.336. Augsburg und Innsbruck 1762, Index lit. F. Wurzburg, 1769, new ed. 1860, Pars I, p.123. Lyon, 1634, volume II, fract.25, cap.11, quaest.4, No.331, pag.161. Theol. moralis 5, edit. Friburg, 1888, vol.I, pag.32, §30. Declar. in Const. PI, 1. O. VIII, 1 K. Theol. mor., volume I, p.48. Opus morale, lib. Ill, p.356. Gury, Compend. Ratisb. 1874, Pars II, pag.906, no. 982. Gury, Compend. Pars I. pag.200, no. 421, note 1. Here we can cite an outrageous passage related here, the content of which is positively impossible to look into except in the Latin original, namely from Tamburini, who himself, relying on de Lugo, Explicatio Decalogi, Monachii 1659, lib.VII, cap.5, §3, No. 25 or vol.II, p.195, literally says the following: “At vero faemina honesta potest petere et sumere, quantum ei placet; ratio est, quia in his et similibus rebus, quae pretio statuto, vel vulgato carent, tanti tes potest vendi (!), quanti earn aestimat qui vendit(!). At puella honesta plurimi potest suam honestateni aestimare; unde vides, meretricem, de qua numero praecedente fuit locutio, potuisse initio suae prostitutionis plus accipere; at ubi tanto, vel tanto pretio honestateni suam aestimavit huic aestimationi debet stare; secus, venderet supra aestimationem." With complete calm, like a merchant talking about his goods, the Jesuit speaks here about the sale and the assessment of women's and maiden honor, instead of immediately condemning this shameful trading with sacred indignation! Wed. a similar place in Philliucius Moral.quaest., volume.II, tract.31 cap.9, No. 231. Sanchez, Opus morale in praec. Decal. Lib.Ill, Cap.6, No. 23–46. Gury, Casus conscient. Ratisb. 1865, pars I, de oclavo praec. Decal, pag.128, No. 415. Escobar Tom. IV, page 368. Probl. I, no. 86. So we find this among the Jesuits Sota, Lessius and others, in Escobar’s decree, places, p.373. Escobar in his decree, p. 375, Guri admits the same thing, Compend. Pars I, pag.221, no.471. Theol. mor., t. ΙV, ρ.239. Escobar, Theol. moral, tom. IV, pag. 24; Sanchez, Dispute. de matrim. volume III, lib.10 de divortio disp.18, No. 15, 16. You can read about all this, as well as much more, in Guri, Compend., P.I, No. 616–625; Cas. consc. page 177 ff. This kind of teaching is found chiefly in Escobar, vol.IV, lib. 2, de praecepto quinto, pag.265 et seq., 273 et seq., as well as Navarre, Azor, Bannez, Lessia, Vasquez, Fagundez, Sa, Sota, Gurtado, Victoria, Lorca, Busenbaum, Tanner, Filliucius, Molina, Beccan. 3rd ed., Berlin, 1893, p.10. Opera, Mainz, 1649, volume I, pag.353. Especially the above-mentioned Bekkan in the decree. Place, p.332, and Paul Neumann, Theol. mor. Wüi'zb., 1748, t.I, p.268. De rege et regis institutione, cap.4. Bouvier, Institut philos. ad usum college. et seminar, Paris 1841, volume III, pag.628. Escob., t. IV, pag. 106 et seq. For more details, see Dôllinger und Reusch, Gesch. der Moral-streitigkeiten in der röm.-kathol. Kirche u.s.w., I, 524 et seq., II, 347 et seq. Das Papsthum, neu bearbeitet von I. Frielrich, München 1892. This story first appeared in 1601–1605. in Mainz and begins with Cain's descendant Tubal, from whom he produces the Spaniards! See, for example, A.P. Lopukhin, Roman Catholicism in North America, Section 1, pp. 58, 67 et seq.