Talleyrand, one of the most celebrated
Roman Catholic bishops of France, once said, "Language is the art of concealing
one's thoughts." Never was there a truer expression, if it had reference
to the awful deceptions practiced by the Church of Rome under the pompous name
of "Theological studies."
Theology is the study of the knowledge of the laws of God. Nothing, then, is
more noble than the study of theology. How solemn were my thoughts and elevated
my aspirations when, in 1829, under the guidance of the Rev. Messrs. Rimbault
and Leprohon, I commenced my theological coarse of study at Nicolet, which I
was to end in 1833!
I supposed that my books of theology were to bring me nearer to my God by the
more perfect knowledge I would acquire, in their study, of His holy will and
His sacred laws. My hope was that they would be to my heart what the burning
coal, brought by the angel of the Lord, was to the lips of the prophet of old.
The principal theologians which we had in our hands were "Les Conferences
d'Anger," Bailly, Dens, St. Thomas, but above all Liguori, who has since
been canonized. Never did I open one without offering up a fervent prayer to
God and to the Virgin Mary for the light and grace of which I would be in need
for myself and for the people whose pastor I was to become.
But how shall I relate my surprise when I discovered that, in order to accept
the principles of the theologians which my Church gave me for guides I had to
put away all principles of truth, of justice, of honour and holiness! What long
and painful efforts it cost me to extinguish, one by one, the lights of truth
and of reason kindled by the hand of my merciful God in my intelligence. For
to study theology in the Church of Rome signifies to learn to speak falsely,
to deceive, to commit robbery, to perjure one's self! It means how to commit
sins without shame, it means to plunge the soul into every kind of iniquity
and turpitude without remorse!
I know that Roman Catholics will bravely and squarely deny what I now say. I
am aware also that a great many Protestants, too easily deceived by the fine
whitewashing of the exterior walls of Rome, will refuse to believe me. Nevertheless
they may rest assured it is true, and my proof will be irrefutable. The truth
may be denied by many, but my witnesses cannot be contradicted by any one. My
witnesses are even infallible. They are none other than the Roman Catholic theologians
themselves, approved by infallible Popes! These very men who corrupted my heart,
perverted my intelligence and poisoned my soul, as they have done with each
and every priest of their Church, will be my witnesses, my only witnesses. I
will just now forcibly bring them before the world to testify against themselves!
Liguori, in his treatise on oaths, Question 4, asks if it is allowable to use
ambiguity, or equivocal words, to deceive the judge when under oath, and at
no. 151 he answers: "These things being established, it is a certain and
common opinion amongst all divines that for a just cause it is lawful to use
equivocation in the propounded modes, and to confirm it (equivocation) with
an oath.... Now a just cause is any honest end in order to preserve good things
for the spirit, or useful things for the body."*
"The accused, or a witness not properly interrogated, can sear that he
does not know a crime, which in reality he does know, by understanding that
he does not know the crime, concerning which he can be legitimately enquired
of, or that he does not know it so as to give evidence concerning it."**
When the crime is very secret and unknown to all, Liguori says the culprit or
the witness must deny it under oath. "The same is true, if a witness on
another ground is not bound to depose; for instance, if the crime appear to
himself to be free from blame. Or if he knew a crime which he is bound to keep
secret, when no scandal may have gone abroad." ***
"Make an exception in a trial where the crime is altogether concealed.
For then he can, yea, the witness is bound to say that the accused did not commit
the crime. And the same course the accused can adopt, if the proof be not complete,
ect., because then the judge does not legitimately interrogate."****
Liguori asks himself, "Whether the accused legitimately interrogated, can
deny a crime, even with an oath, if the confession of the crime would be attended
with great disadvantage." The saint replies:"Elbel, ect., denies that
he can, and indeed more probably because the accused is then bound for the general
good to undergo the loss. But sufficiently probable Lugo, ect., with many others,
say, that the accused, if in danger of death, or of prison, or of perpetual
exile, the loss of property, the danger of the galleys, and such like, can deny
the crime even with an oath (at least without great sin) by understanding that
he did not commit it so that he is bound to confess it, only let there be a
hope of avoiding the punishment." *
"He who hath sworn that he would keep a secret, does not sin against the
oath by revealing that secret when he cannot conceal it without great loss to
himself, or to another, because the promise of secrecy does not appear to bind,
unless under this condition, if it does not injure me."
"He who hath sworn to a judge that he would speak what he knew, is not
bound to reveal concealed things. The reason is manifest." **
Liguori says whether a woman, accused of the crime of adultery, which she has
really committed, may deny it under oath? He answers: "She is able to assert
equivocally that she did not break the bond of matrimony, which truly remains.
And if sacramentally she confessed adultery, she can answer, `I am innocent
of this crime,' because by confession it was taken away. So Card, who, however,
here remarks that she cannot affirm it with an oath, because in asserting anything
the probability of a deed suffices, but in swearing certainty is required. To
this it is replied that in swearing moral certainty suffices, as we said above.
Which moral certainty of the remission of sin can indeed be had, when any, morally
well disposed, receives the sacrament of penance."***
Liguori maintains that one may commit a minor crime in order to avoid a greater
crime. He says, "Hence Sanchez teaches, ect., that it is lawful to persuade
a man, determined to slay some one, that he should commit theft or fornication."
*
"Whether is it lawful for a servant to open the door for a harlot? Croix
denies it, but more commonly Bus. ect., with others answer that it is lawful."
"Whether from fear of death, or of great loss, it may be lawful for a servant
to stoop his shoulders, or to bring a ladder for his master ascending to commit
fornication, to force open the door, and such like? Viva, ect., deny it, and
others, because, as they say, such actions are never lawful, inasmuch as they
are intrinsically evil. But Busemb, ect., speak the contrary, whose opinion,
approved of by reason, appears to me the more probable."**
"But the salmanticenses say that a servant can, according to his own judgment,
compensate himself for his labour, if he without doubt judge that he was deserving
of a larger stipend. Which indeed appears sufficiently probable to me, and to
other more modern learned men, if the servant, or any other hired person, be
prudent, and capable of forming a correct judgment, and be certain concerning
the justice of the compensation, all danger of mistake being removed."
***
"A poor man, absconding with goods for his support, can answer the judge
that he has nothing. In like manner an heir who has concealed his goods without
an inventory, if he is not bound to settle with his creditors from them, can
say to a judge that he has not concealed anything in his own mind meaning those
goods with which he is bound to satisfy his creditors." *
Liguori, in Dubium II., considers what may be the quantity of stolen property
necessary to constitute mortal sin. He says:-
"There are various opinions concerning this matter. Navar too scrupulously
has fixed the half of regalem, others with too great laxity have fixed ten aureos.
Tol., ect., moderately have fixed two regales, although less might suffice,
if it would be a serious loss."**
"Whether it be mortal sin to steal a small piece of a relic? There is no
doubt but that in the district of Rome it is a mortal sin, since Clement VIII.
and Paul V. have issued an excommunication against those who, the rectors of
the churches being unwilling, steal some small relic: otherwise Croix probably
says, ect., if any one should steal any small thing out of the district [of
Rome], not deforming the relic itself nor diminishing its estimation; unless
it may be some rare or remarkable relic, as for example, the holy cross, the
hair of the Blessed Virgin, ect." ***
"If any one on an occasion should steal only a moderate sum either from
one or more, not intending to acquire any notable sum, neither to injure his
neighbour to a great extent by several thefts, he does not sin grievously, nor
do these, taken together, constitute a mortal sin; however, after it may have
amounted to a notable sum, by detaining it, he can commit mortal sin. But even
this mortal sin may be avoided, if either then he be unable to restore, or have
the intention of making restitution immediately, of those things which he then
received."****
"This opinion of Bus. is most probable, viz., if many persons steal small
quantities, that none of them commit grievous sin, although they may be mutually
aware of their conduct, unless they do it by concert: also Habert, ect., hold
this view; and this, although each should steal at the same time. The reason
is, because then no one person is the cause of injury, which, per accidens,
happens by the others to the master." *
Liguori, speaking of children who steal from their parents, says:"Salas,
ect., say that a son does not commit grievous sin, who steals 20 or 30 aurei
from a father possessing yearly 1500 aureos, and Lugo does not disprove of it.
If the father be not tenacious, and the son have grown up and receive it for
honest purposes. Less, ect., say that a son stealing two or three aureos from
a rich father does not sin grievously; Bannez says that fifty aureos are required
to constitute a grievous sin who steals from a rich father; but this opinion,
Lug, ect., reject, unless perchance he is the son of a prince; in which case
Holzm. consents."**
The theologians of Rome assure us that we may, and even that we must, conceal
and disguise our faith.
"Notwithstanding, indeed although it is not lawful to lie, or to feign
what is not, nevertheless it is lawful to dissemble what is, or to cover the
truth with words, or other ambiguous and doubtful signs for a just cause, and
when there is not a necessity of confessing. It is the common opinion."***
"Whence, if thus he may be able to deliver himself from a troublesome investigation,
it is lawful (as Kon has it), for generally it is not true that he who is interrogated
by public authority is publicly bound to profess the faith, unless when that
is necessary, lest he may appear to those present to deny the faith."****
"When you are not asked concerning the faith, not only is it lawful, but
often more conducive to the glory of God and the utility of your neighbour to
cover the faith than to confess it; for example, if concealed among heretics
you may accomplish a greater amount of good; or if, from the confession of the
faith more of evil would follow for example, great trouble, death, the hostility
of a tyrant, the peril of defection, if you should be tortured. Whence it is
often rash to offer one's self willingly." * The Pope has the right to
release from all oaths.
"As for an oath made for a good and legitimate object, it seems that there
should be no power capable of annulling it. However, when it is for the good
of the public, a matter which comes under the immediate jurisdiction of the
Pope, who has the supreme power over the Church, the Pope has full power to
release from that oath." (St. Thomas, Quest. 89, art. 9, vol. iv.)
The Roman Catholics have not only the right, but it is their duty to kill heretics.
"Excommunicatus privatur omni civili communicatione fidelium, ita ut ipsi
non possit cum aliis, et si non sit toleratus, etiam aliis cum ipso non possint
communicare; idque in casibus hoc versu comprehensis, Os, orare, communio, mensa
negatur."
Translated: "Any man excommunicated is deprived of all civil communication
with the faithful, in such a way that if he is not tolerated they can have no
communication with him, as it is in the following verse, `It is forbidden to
kiss him, pray with him, salute him, to eat or to do any business with him.'"
(St. Liguori, vol. ix., page 62.)
"Quanquam heretici tolerandi non sunt ipso illorum demerito, usque tamen
ad secundam correptionem expectandi sunt, ut ad sanam redeant ecclesiae fidem;
qui vero post secundam correptionem in suo errore obstinati permanent, non modo
excommunicationis sententia, sed etiam saecularibus principibus exterminandi
tradendi sunt."
Translated: "Though heretics must not be tolerated because they deserve
it, we must bear with them till, by a second admonition, they may be brought
back to the faith of the Church. But those who, after a second admonition, remain
obstinate in their errors must not only be excommunicated, but they must be
delivered to the secular powers to be exterminated."
"Quanquam heretici revertentes, semper recipiendi sint ad poenitentiam
quoties cujque relapsi furint; non tamen semper sunt recipiendi et restituendi
ad bonorum hujus vitae participation nem...recipiuntur ad poenitentiam...non
tamen ut liberentur a sententia mortis."
Translated: "Though the heretics who repent must always be accepted to
penance, as often as they have fallen, they must not in consequence of that
always be permitted to enjoy the benefits of this life. When they fall again
they are admitted to repent. But the sentence of death must not be removed."
(St. Thomas, vol. iv., page 91.)
"Quum quis per sententiam denuntiatur propter apostasiam excommunicatus,
ipso facto, ejus subditi a dominio et juramento fidelitatis ejus liberati sunt."
"When a man is excommunicated for his apostasy, it follows from that very
fact that all those who are his subjects are released from the oath of allegiance
by which they were bound to obey him." (St. Thomas, vol. iv., page 91.)
Every heretic and Protestant is condemned to death, and every oath of allegiance
to a government which is Protestant or heretic is abrogated by the Council of
Lateran, held in A.d. 1215. Here is the solemn decree and sentence of death,
which has never been repealed, and which is still in force:
"We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy that exalts itself against
the holy, orthodox and Catholic faith, condemning all heretics, by whatever
name they may be known; for though their faces differ, they are tied together
by their tails. Such as are condemned are to be delivered over to the existing
secular powers, to receive due punishment. If laymen, their goods must be confiscated.
If priests, they shall be first degraded from their respective orders, and their
property applied to the use of the church in which they have officiated. Secular
powers of all ranks and degrees are to be warned, induced, and, if necessary,
compelled by ecclesiastical censure, to swear that they will exert themselves
to the utmost in the defense of the faith, and extirpate all heretics denounced
by the Church who shall be found in their territories. And whenever any person
shall assume government, whether it be spiritual or temporal, he shall be bound
to abide by this decree.
"If any temporal lord, after being admonished and required by the Church,
shall neglect to clear his territory of heretical depravity, the metropolitan
and the bishops of the province shall unite in excommunicating him. Should he
remain contumacious for a whole year, the fact shall be signified to the Supreme
Pontiff, who will declare his vassals released from their allegiance from that
time, and will bestow the territory on Catholics to be occupied by them, on
the condition of exterminating the heretics and preserving the said territory
in the faith.
"Catholics who shall assume the cross for the extermination of heretics
shall enjoy the same indulgences and be protected by the same privileges as
are granted to those who go to the help of the Holy Land. We decree, further,
that all who may have dealings with heretics, and especially such as receive,
defend, or encourage them, shall be excommunicated. He shall not be eligible
to any public office. He shall not be admitted as a witness. He shall neither
have the power to bequeath his property by will, nor to succeed to any inheritance.
He shall not bring any action against any person, but anyone can bring an action
against him. Should he be a judge, his decision shall have no force, nor shall
any cause be brought before him. Should he be an advocate, he shall not be allowed
to plead. Should he be a lawyer, no instruments made by him shall be held valid,
but shall be condemned with their author."
But why let my memory and my thoughts linger any longer in these frightful paths,
where murderers, liars, perjurers and thieves are assured by the theologians
of the Church of Rome that they can lie, steal, murder and perjure themselves
as much as they like, without offending God, provided they commit those crimes
according to certain rules approved by the Pope for the good of the Church!
I should have to write several large volumes were I to quote all the Roman Catholic
doctors and theologians who approve of lying, of perjury, of adultery, theft
and murder, for the greatest glory of God and the good of the Roman Church!
But I have quoted enough for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
With such principles, is it a wonder that all the Roman Catholic nations, without
a single exception, have declined so rapidly?
The great Legislator of the World, the only Saviour of nations, has said: "Man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God."
A nation can be great and strong only according to the truths which form the
basis of her faith and life. "Truth" is the only bread which God gives
to the nations that they may prosper and live. Deceitfulness, duplicity, perjury,
adultery, theft, murder, are the deadly poisons which kill the nations.
Then, the more the priests of Rome, with their theology, are venerated and believed
by the people, the sooner that people will decay and fall. "The more priests
the more crimes," a profound thinker has said; for then the more hands
will be at work to pull down the only sure foundations of society.
How can any man be sure of the honesty of his wife as long as a hundred thousand
priests tell her that she may commit any sin with her neighbour in order to
prevent him from doing something worse? or when she is assured that, though
guilty of adultery, she can swear that she is pure as an angel!
What will it avail to teach the best principles of honour, decency and holiness
to a young girl, when she is bound to go many times a year to a bachelor priest,
who is bound in conscience to give her the most infamous lessons of depravity
under the pretext of helping her to confess all her sins?
How will the rights of justice be secured, and how can the judges and the juries
protect the innocent and punish the guilty, so long as the witnesses are told
by one hundred thousand priests that they can conceal the truth, give equivocal
answers, and even perjure themselves under a thousand pretexts?
What government, either monarchical or republican, can be sure of a lease of
existence? how can they make their people walk with a firm step in the ways
of light, progress, and liberty, as long as there is a dark power over them
which has the right, at every hour of the day or night, to break and dissolve
all the most sacred oaths of allegiance?
Armed with his theology, the priest of Rome has become the most dangerous and
determined enemy of truth, justice, and liberty. He is the most formidable obstacle
to every good Government, as he is, without being aware of it, the greatest
enemy of God and man.