"Moreover, we wish expressly that the present Constitution should be from this moment valid, stable and efficacious forever, that it should have its full and entire effect; that it should be inviolably observed by all and each of those to whom it belongs or will belong in the future in any manner whatever."
Such was the famous Brief which condemned the Society to death. Distressing as it is, it attributes no wrong doing to the Order. It narrates a few of the accusations against the Jesuits, but does not accept them as ever having been proved. The sole reason given for the suppression – and it is repeated again and again – is that the Society was the occasion of much trouble in the Church. It is thus, on the whole, a vindication and not a condemnation. It was not a Bull but a Brief, and on that account could be much more easily revoked than the more solemn document to which the papal bulla is affixed.
Father Cordara's view of this act of the Pope is generally considered to reflect that of the Society at large. It is of special value for he was one of the suppressed Jesuits and happened to be living in Rome at the time. He maintained that "the Pope could, without injustice, suppress the Society, even if innocent, just as a king can deliver over an innocent man to be put to death by an enemy who otherwise would sack a city. Clement XIV thought to save the Church whose existence was menaced."
Two years later however, Cardinal Antonelli when interrogated by Clement's successor, Pius VI, and, consequently, when he was compelled to speak, did not hesitate to condemn the Brief absolutely. His statement is quoted here, not as a view that is adopted, but merely as a matter of history. The document is of considerable importance, for Antonelli was prefect of the Propaganda and with Consalvi was the confidant of Pius VII and was his fellow-prisoner in 1804. We sum it up briefly, omitting its harsher phrases.
"Your Holiness knows as well as the cardinals that Clement XIV would never consent to give the Brief of Suppression the canonical forms which were indispensable to make it definitive. Moreover this Brief of Clement XIV is addressed to no one, although such letters usually are. In its form and execution all law is set aside, it is based on false accusations and shameful calumnies; it is self-contradictory, in speaking of vows both solemn and simple. Clement XIV claims powers such as none of his predecessors claimed, and, on the other hand, leaves doubts on points that should have been more clearly determined. The motives alleged by the Brief could be applied to any other Order, and seem to have been prepared for the destruction of all of them, without specifying reasons it annuls many Bulls and Constitutions received and recognized by the Church; all of which goes to show that the Brief is null and void."
A copy of the Brief was sent to every bishop in Christendom, even to the remotest missions. Accompanying it was another document called an "Encyclical from the Congregation styled 'For the abolition of the Society of Jesus,' with which is sent an exemplar to every bishop of the Brief of Extinction: Dominus ac Redemptor, with the command of His Holiness that all the bishops should publish and promulgate the Brief." The Latin text may be found in de Ravignan's "Clément XIII et Clément XIV" (p. 560). We give here the translation:
"Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord and Brother.
"From the printed copy herein contained of the Apostolic Letters in the form of a Brief, under the date of the 21st of the preceding month of July, your lordship will learn of the suppression and extinction for just causes of the Regular Clerics hitherto called "of the Society of Jesus" by the most holy Lord Clement XIV; you will also learn by what legal process His Holiness has decreed that the suppression should be carried out in every part of the world. For the complete destruction of the same, he has established a special congregation of their eminences, the Cardinals Corsini, Marefoschi, Caraffa, Zelada, and Casali, together with the Reverend Macedonio and Alfani, who possess the most ample faculties for what is necessary and proper. The Brief establishing this congregation, under date of the 18th of the current month of August, is herein enclosed.
"By command of His Holiness the same congregation transmits the present letters to your lordship, in order that in each house and college and place where the individuals of the aforesaid suppressed Society may be found, your lordship shall assemble them in any house whatever (in qualibet domo) and you shall regularly (rite) announce, publish and intimate, as they say, and force and compel them to execute these letters; and your lordship shall take and retain possession for the use afterwards to be designated by His Holiness, of all and each of the houses, colleges and places of the same, with the lawful rights to their goods and appurtenances, after having removed the aforesaid individuals of the suppressed Society; and in their execution, your lordship will do whatever else is decreed in the letters of suppression and will advise the special congregation that such execution has been carried out. Your lordship will see to it. Meantime we entreat the Lord that all things may prosper with you.
"Yours with brotherly devotedness.
"Rome, Aug. 18, 1773."
Carayon gives us the personnel of this congregation (Doc. inédits, xvii). Cardinal Marefoschi, who had been for sixteen years secretary of the Propaganda, had made a digest of all the complaints uttered by missionaries in various parts of the world against the Jesuits, omitting, however, all that had been said in their favor. The Pope had named him visitor of the Irish College, which had been entrusted to the Society by Cardinal Ludovisi, and he immediately removed the Jesuits. Among other professors he put in a certain Tamburini, who had been expelled from Brescia for Jansenism. In Marefoschi's report to the Pope, the former professors (the Jesuits) were accused of neglect of the studies, alienation of ecclesiastical property and swindling, with a consequent diminution of the revenues. He was then sent to visit the College of Tuccioli and similar disastrous results ensued. In June, 1772, he and the Cardinal of York expelled the Jesuits from the Roman Seminary and in the same year from Frascati. The entire city addressed a petition to the cardinal begging him not to drive out the Fathers, but his royal highness was so wrought up by the audacity of the request that he was on the point of putting some of the chief petitioners in jail, magistrates though they were.
With Marefoschi were three other cardinals, Casali, Caraffa, and Zelada, all three of whom had been raised to the purple in the month of May at the suggestion of Mgr. Bottari, who had been filling Rome with defamatory books against the Jesuits. In spite of the entreaties of his family, young Cardinal Corsini accepted the presidency. Macedonio was made secretary, and Alfani, assessor; both of these clergymen were subsequently charged with pillage of the sequestrated property. Finally, to give an appearance of acting in conformity with canon law, two theologians were added to the commission; Mamachi, a Dominican, and de Casal, a Minor Reformed; both were avowed enemies of Probabilism and Molinism, and, singularly enough, were bitterly opposed to the Apostolic Constitution "Unigenitus" in which Clement XI condemned the Jansenistic errors of Pasquier Quesnel.
The Protestant historian Schoell (xliv, 83) speaking of the brief of suppression says: "This Brief does not condemn the doctrine nor the morals, nor the rules of the Jesuits. The complaints of the courts are the sole motives alleged for the suppression of the Order, and the Pope justifies himself by the precedents of other Orders which were suppressed to satisfy the demands of public opinion." As he was about to sign it, he heard the bells of the Gesù ringing. "What is that for?" he asked. "The Jesuits are about to recite the Litany of the Saints," he was told; "Not the Litany of the Saints," he said, "but the Litany of the Dead." It was July 21, 1773.
CHAPTER XIX
THE EXECUTION
Seizure of the Gesù in Rome – Suspension of the Priests – Juridical Trial of Father Ricci continued during Two Years – The Victim's Death-bed Statement – Admission of his Innocence by the Inquisitors – Obsequies – Reason of his Protracted Imprisonment – Liberation of the Assistants by Pius VI – Receipt of the Brief outside of Rome – Refused by Switzerland, Poland, Russia and Prussia – Read to the Prisoners in Portugal by Pombal – Denunciation of it by the Archbishop of Paris – Suppression of the Document by the Bishop of Quebec – Acceptance by Austria – Its Enforcement in Belgium – Carroll at Bruges – Defective Promulgation in Maryland.
Two days before the subsidiary Brief was signed, namely on August 16, 1773, the commissioner began operations. Led by Alfani and Macedonio, a squad of soldiers invaded the Gesù, where the General and his assistants were notified of the suppression of the Society. Apparently no one else was cited, and hence, according to de Ravignan, the procedure was illegal as far as the rest of the community was concerned. However, they made no difficulty about it and from that moment considered themselves as no longer Jesuits. It was supposed that a great amount of money would be seized at the central house of the Society; but the hope was not realized; for only about $50,000 were found, and that sum had been collected to defray the expenses of the beatification of St. Francis Hieronymo. It really belonged to St. Peter's rather than to the Gesù. However, there was plenty of material in the gold and silver vessels of the chapels, the works of art, the valuable library, and the archives.
The same process was followed in the other Jesuit establishments of the city. The Fathers were locked up while the soldiers guarded the doors and swarmed through the rooms and passage ways. The old and infirm were carried to the Roman College, and then sent back to the place whence they had been taken; in both instances on stretchers, when the victim was unable to walk. One old Father was actually breathing his last during the transfer. They were all suspended from their priestly faculties, and ordered to report every three months to the authorities with a certificate of their good behavior, signed by the parish priest. They were ecclesiastical "ticket of leave men." Pretexts were multiplied to have many of them arrested. They were paraded through the streets in custody of a policeman, and after being put in the dock with common criminals were locked up or banished from the Papal States.
On August 17 at night-fall, the carriage of Cardinal Corsini drove to the Gesù. In it was the auditor of the congregation with a request to Father Ricci to meet the cardinal at the English College. The invitation was accepted in perfect good faith, although that very morning an offer made by the minister of Tuscany to take the General under his protection and thus secure him from arrest had been declined by Ricci. The freedom of the house was given to him on his arrival, but soon he was restricted to three rooms, and he then noticed that soldiers were on guard both inside and outside of the college. He was kept there for more than a month, during which time he was subjected to several judicial examinations; finally he was transferred to the Castle Sant' Angelo where he was soon followed by his secretary, Commolli, and the assistants, Le Forestier, Zaccharia, Gautier and Faure. They were all assigned to separate cells. The enemies of the Society now had the arch-criminal in their hands, the General himself, Father Ricci; and they could get from him all the secrets of the redoubtable organization which they had destroyed. His papers, both private and official, were in their possession. The archives of the Society were before them with information about every member of it from the beginning, as well as all the personal letters from all over the world written in every conceivable circumstance of Jesuit life. They were all carefully studied and yet no cause for accusation was found in them. The jailors seemed to have lost their heads and to have forgotten their usual tactics of forgery and interpolation.
The trial of Father Ricci was amazing both in its procedure and its length. There were no witnesses to give testimony for or against him, but he was brutally and repeatedly interrogated by an official named Andretti who was suggestively styled "the criminalist." The interrogatories have all been printed, and some of the questions are remarkable for their stupidity. Thus for instance, he was asked, "Do you think you have any authority since the suppression of the Society?" The answer was, "I am quite persuaded I have none." "What authority would you have if, instead of abolishing the Society, the Pope had done something else?" "What he would give me." "Are there any abuses in the Order?" To this he replied, "If you mean general abuses, I answer that, by the mercy of God there are none. On the contrary, there is in the Society a great deal of piety, regularity, zeal, and especially charity, which has shown itself in a remarkable way during these fifteen years of bitter trials." "Have you made any changes in the government of the Order?" "None." "Where are your moneys?" "I have none. I had not enough to keep the exiles of Spain and Portugal from starvation."
The result of this investigation which went on for more than two years was that nothing was found either against him or against the Society, and yet he was kept in a dungeon until he died. As the end was approaching Father Ricci read from his dying bed the following declaration:
"Because of the uncertainty of the moment when God will please to summon me before him and also in view of my advanced age and the multitude, duration, and greatness of my sufferings, which have been far beyond my strength, being on the point of appearing before the infallible tribunal of truth and justice, after long and mature deliberation and after having humbly invoked my most merciful Redeemer that He will not permit me to speak from passion, especially in this the last action of my life, nor be moved by any bitterness of heart, or out of wrong desire or evil purpose, but only to acquit myself of my obligation to bear testimony to truth and to innocence, I now make the two following declarations and protests:
"First, I declare and protest that the extinct Society of Jesus has given no reason for its suppression; and I declare and protest with that moral certainty which a well-informed superior has of what passes in his Order. Second, I declare and protest that I have given no reason, not even the slightest, for my imprisonment, and I do so with that sovereign certitude which each one has of his own actions. I make this second protest solely because it is necessary for the reputation of the extinct Society of which I was superior.
"I do not pretend in consequence of these protests that I or any one may judge as guilty before God any of those who have injured the Society of Jesus or myself. The thoughts of men are known to God alone. He alone sees the errors of the human mind and sees if they are such as to excuse from sin; He alone penetrates the motives of acts; as well as the spirit in which things are done, and the affections of the heart that accompany such actions; and since the malice or innocence of an external act depends on all these things, I leave it to God Who shall interrogate man's thoughts and deeds.
"To do my duty as a Christian, I protest that with the help of God I have always pardoned and do now sincerely pardon all those who have tortured and harmed me, first, by the evils they have heaped on the Society and by the rigorous measures they have employed in dealing with its members; secondly, by the extinction of the Society and by its accompanying circumstances; thirdly, by my own imprisonment, and the hardships they have added to it, and by the harm they have done to my reputation; all of which are public and notorious facts. I pray God, out of His goodness and mercy, through the merits of Jesus Christ, to pardon me my many sins and to pardon also all the authors of the above-mentioned evils and wrongs, as well as their co-operators. With this sentiment and with this prayer I wish to die.
"Finally I beg and conjure all those who may read these declarations and protests to make them public throughout the world as far as in them lies. I ask this by all the titles of humanity, justice and Christian charity that may persuade them to carry out my will and desire. (signed) Lorenzo Ricci."
The trial had been purposely prolonged. At each session only three or four questions would be put to the accused, although he constantly entreated the inquisitors to proceed. Then there would be an interruption of eight, ten and even twenty days or more. At times the interrogations were sent in on paper, until finally, Andretti, the chief inquisitor, said that the case was ended and he would return no more. Nevertheless he made his appearance a few days later.
"No doubt," says Father Ricci, "someone had told him that the whole process was null and void; and I pitied this honest man, advanced in age as he was, and so long in the practice of his profession, who was now told that he did not know the conditions necessary for the validity of a process. Those who gave him that information should have warned him long before. So he began again, going over the same ground in the same way, and I gave him the same answers. His questions were always preceded by long formulæ to which I paid no heed. After each question, he made me repeat my oath. I asked him to let me know the reason of my incarceration and could get no answer; but, finally he uttered these words: 'Be content to know that you have not been imprisoned for any crime; and you might have inferred that from the fact that I have not interrogated you about anything criminal whatever.'"
As a necessary consequence of this exoneration by the official deputed to try him, it follows that the Order of which he was the chief superior was also without reproach; for, if the numberless offences alleged against the Society were true, it would have been absolutely impossible for the General not to have known them; and having this knowledge, he would have been culpable and deserving of the severest punishment, if there had been dissensions in the Order and he had not endeavored to repress them; if lax morality had been taught and he did not censure it; if the Society had indulged in mercantile transactions and he had not condemned such departures from the law; if it had been guilty of ambition and he had not crushed it. Being the centre and the source of all authority and of all activity in the Order, his knowledge of what is going on extends to very minute details and hence if the Order was guilty he was the chief criminal. But even his bitterly prejudiced judges had declared him innocent and he was, therefore, to be set free.
At this juncture, the Spanish minister, Florida Blanca, intervened and in the name of Charles III warned the Pope not to dare to release him. The Bourbons were still bent on terrorizing the Holy See. The difficulty was solved by the victim himself who died on November 24, 1775. He was then seventy-two years of age. He was able to speak up to the last moment and was often heard to moan: "Ah! poor Society! At least to my knowledge you did not deserve the punishment that was meted out to you."
On the evening of the 25th, Father Ricci's remains were carried to the Church of St. John of the Florentines. The whole edifice was draped in black, and the coffin was placed on the bier around which were thirty funeral torches. A vast multitude took part in the services. The Bishop of Commachio, a staunch friend of the Society, celebrated the Mass. He came, he said, not to pray for the General but to pray to him. Another bishop exclaimed: "Behold the martyr!" In the evening, the corpse was carried to the Gesù. It should have arrived by 9 o'clock, but it reached the church only at midnight. To avoid any demonstration, the approaches to the church had been closed, and there were only five or six Fathers present. From Carayon's narrative it would appear that the uncoffined body was carried in a coach and was clothed in a very short and very shabby habit. The curé of the parish and two other persons were in the conveyance. Two other carriages whose occupants were unknown but who were suspected of being spies followed close behind. After the absolution, the body was placed in the coffin and laid in the vault beside the remains of Ricci's seventeen predecessors. The tomb was then closed and a scrap of paper was fixed on it, with the inscription: "Lorenzo Ricci, ex-General of the Jesuits, died at Castle Sant' Angelo, November 24, 1775."
After reciting these facts, Boero asks why the ex-General was kept in such a long and severe confinement? There is no answer, he says, except that such was the good pleasure of His Majesty Charles III. The Spanish minister, Moñino, had declared that such was the case. To let him out alive would have been an indirect condemnation of the pressure exerted by the court of Madrid in directing the course of the commission which had been expressly created to pass a sentence of death on the Society. The knowledge that the General and his assistants had issued alive from the dungeons of Sant' Angelo would have troubled the peace of Charles III and his fellow-conspirators; hence, in spite of the good will and the affection of the Sovereign Pontiff, Father Ricci, after two years imprisonment in Adrian's Tomb, was carried out a corpse. Those of his companions who survived were released, but were commanded by the judges to observe the strictest silence on what had passed during their captivity, or not to tell what questions had been put to them.
One of the victims showed his indignation at this excessive cruelty, and exclaimed, "Why should you require me to swear on the Holy Gospels not to speak of my trial, when you know very well that it consisted of two or three insignificant and ridiculous questions?" Another assistant was merely asked his name and birthplace, and no more. A third satisfied the judges when he replied, "I have neither said nor done anything wrong." He was never interrogated again. The secretary of the Society had been asked in what subterranean hiding-place he kept the treasures. He answered that there were no subterranean hiding-places, and no treasures. In that consisted his whole examination. He died shortly afterwards of sickness contracted in the prison and his death was for a long time concealed.
Father Faure inquired of one of his judges: "For what crime am I in jail?" "For none," was the reply, "but the fear of your pen, and especially the fear of having you write against the Brief. That is the only cause of your imprisonment." "By the same rule," retorted the prisoner, "you might send me to the galleys for fear I might steal, or to be hanged to prevent me from committing murder." He was the only recalcitrant, and he was so dreaded that during his incarceration he was ordered to keep his light burning all night, so that he might be watched. This was after they found a black spot on his bed. They thought it was ink. Father Ricci, however, contrived to keep an exact account of the questions that were asked. Carayon has published them in his "Documents inédits."
One of these redoubtable personages so rigidly kept in confinement was Father Romberg, the German assistant, who was eighty-two years of age. He became very feeble, and had a stroke of paralysis which kept him to his chair. When the governor of the Castle came with the judges and officials to tell him he was free, he thanked them effusively, but requested the favor of being left in his cell to die. "You see," said he, "I have two fine friends who are prisoners here, and they, out of charity, come regularly every morning and carry me in my chair to the chapel where I can hear Mass and go to Communion. If I leave this place, God knows if I should have the same help and the same consolation." This was a specimen of the men who made Charles III and Florida Blanca tremble. In spite of the protests of the Spanish minister, every one was set free on February 16, 1776, and Pius VI cancelled the order of the inquisitors who forbade their victims to hold any communication with their fellow-Jesuits.
The manner in which the Brief was executed outside of Rome varied with the mentality and morality of the nations to which it was sent. Much to the chagrin of the Sovereign Pontiff, it was enthusiastically acclaimed by all the Protestants and infidels of Europe. For, was it not a justification of all the hatred they had invariably heaped on the Society wherever it happened to be? They could now congratulate themselves that they had instinctively divined the malignant character of the Institute which it took centuries for the Church to discover, and they logically concluded that all the laudatory Bulls lavished on the Society by previous Pontiffs were intentional deceits or ignorant delusions. They might have argued contrariwise, but as it would have been against themselves they refrained. They were jubilant because the Sovereign Pontiff had slain their chief enemy, and they had a medal struck to commemorate the event.
In "Les Jésuites" by Böhmer-Monod (p. 278) we find the following: "Cultured Europe triumphed in the Suppression of the Order, and the people everywhere showed their approval. Here and there some pious devotees raised their voices in lamentation, but nowhere in Europe or elsewhere was there any serious opposition to the Brief. The Order had forfeited all esteem; and public opinion evinced no compassion for anything tragic that occurred in its fall. It remained quite indifferent to the atrocities of which Pombal was guilty. The injustices which certain Fathers suffered in various places were considered a just retribution or at least were regarded as necessary for progress of light and virtue." This is not very flattering to "cultured" Europe.
Apart from the self-stultifying utterances on this quotation, as for instance, that "the injustices suffered were a just retribution, or were at least regarded as necessary for the progress of light and virtue," and also that certain Fathers suffered in various places; whereas the same authors give 23,000 who suffered all over the world, it is an absolute contradiction with the facts of the case to say that "nowhere in Europe was there any serious opposition to the Brief" and that "they everywhere showed their approval and evinced no compassion for anything tragic that occurred in the fall."
In the first place, Frederick the Great in Prussia and Catherine II of Russia not only would not allow the Brief in their dominions, but forbade it under the severest penalties. Poland for a long time refused to receive it, and the Catholic cantons of Switzerland sent a remonstrance to the Pope. Moreover, although, even before the document was promulgated, the Fathers had secularized themselves of their own initiative, yet, the authorities would not allow them to give up the colleges. The other side of the picture was that in Naples, Tanucci not only forbade the Brief to be read under pain of death, but forbade all mention of it. In Portugal, of course, no opposition was made for there were no Jesuits to suppress, they were either dead or in prison or exile. It was, however, an occasion of public rejoicing, and the document was received with booming of cannon and ringing of bells, as if a victory had been won, but that governmental device did not extinguish in the heart of the suffering people a deep compassion for the victims of Pombal's "atrocities."
In Spain, it was absolutely prohibited to read it or speak about the Brief, because by its eulogy of the virtues of the members of the Society, it gave the lie to the government, which insisted on the suppression of the Society precisely because of the immorality of its members. In France, its promulgation was forbidden for the very opposite reason, that is, because it praised the Institute, which the politicians had declared to be essentially vicious; though they admitted that the individual Jesuits were irreproachable. Thus, like Spain, France had been officially convicted by the Brief of calumniating, plundering and annihilating a great religious order. Voltaire, commenting on the situation, suggested that there might be a sort of national exchange by France and Spain. "Send the French Jesuits to Spain," he said, "and they will edify the people by observing the Institute, and send the Spaniards to France where they will satisfy the people by not observing it."
The most notable opposition to the Brief, occurred in France. The whole hierarchy and clergy positively refused to accept it, and the Archbishop of Paris, Christopher de Beaumont, who had been especially requested by the Pope to promulgate it, answered by a letter which is unpleasant for a Jesuit to publish on account of its tone; for the most profound affection and reverence for the Holy See is one of the ingrained and distinctive traits of the Society. However, it is a historical document and is called for in the present instance as a refutation of the statement that there was no opposition to the Brief in Europe. This famous letter was dated April 24, 1774, that is more than eight months after the Suppression. It is addressed to the Holy Father himself and runs as follows:
"This Brief is nothing else than a personal and private judgment. Among other things that are remarked in it by our clergy is the extraordinary, odious, and immoderate characterization of the Bull "Pascendi Munus" of the saintly Clement XIII, whose memory will be forever glorious and who had invested the Bull in question with all the due and proper formalities of such documents. It is described by the Brief not only as being inexact but as having been 'extorted' rather than obtained; whereas it has all the authority of a general council; for it was not promulgated until almost the whole clergy of the Church and all the secular princes had been consulted by the Holy Father. The clergy with common accord and with one voice applauded the purpose of the Holy Father, and earnestly begged him to carry it out. It was conceived and published in a manner as general as it was solemn. And is it not precisely that, Holy Father, which really gives the efficacity, the reality and the force to a general council, rather than the material union of some persons who though physically united may be very far from one another in their judgments and their views? As for the secular princes, if there were any who did not unite with the others to give their approbation, their number was inconsiderable. Not one of them protested against it, not one opposed it, and even those who, at that very time, were laying their plans to banish the Jesuits, allowed the Bull to be published in their dominions.