A MOSS-GROWN CALUMNY

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 24, 15 June 1905, Page 17

A MOSS-GROWN CALUMNY

HE Declaration of Si. Pctorsburgh and the Geneva Com cation did much to mitigate the atrocities of war. There is btill a crying need for an analogous code to stamp out well-poisoning and the free use of controversial vitriol in. the ine\itable theological 1 word-wars that must separate creed and creed until the happy day when there shall be one Fold and one Shepherd, and a spiritual peace greater than that of Nirvana shall wrap the ca.rth as with an atmosphere of hea\en. We are still sniffing— although in a much attenuated form— the air which blows ftrom the hot and sulphureous controversy that stormed around the great religious revolution of the sixteenth century. Catholic writers generally are to this hour scrupulously careful— as was Bellarmine in his more difficult day— to a\oid misrepresentation of the doctrines and religious practices of their separated brethren. But alas ! for the rarity of Christian charity under the sun, their good example in this respect has not met with the flattery of extended imitation. On the contrary, more or less serious misrepresentations of our teachings constitute the stock-in-trade of the great bulk of non-Catholic controversialists. In their case, a serviceable calumny seems lo be as difficult of surrender as a valuable vested intciest in lands or buildings. And few anti-Catholic falsehoods ha\e seen harder service in the cause of religious enmity than the old phosphor-bronze calumny that the Jesuits teach that a good end or purpose justifies the uso of wicked means for its attainment. It has been refuted a thousand thousand times. At least three learned Protestant writers have exposed its utter and reckless falsehood— to wit, Starbuck, Briefer, and Staatsrath Fisher. The last-men-tioned writer says of it .—

"This much is certain . that it is not merely not true that the doctrine of a good end justifying ba.d means is a principle of the ' (Jesuit) ' Society ; but it is not even a plausible story, and has not once been alleged by the most thoroughly competent of the Society's opponents. It springs simply from the shallowest sources of sensation-mongering and unsound logic, and rests upon a fixed prejudice.'

Some years ago we courteously directed attention to a peculiarly flagrant calumny that was flung at the Catholic body on the ' Glorious Twelfth ' by a clergy-

man whose religious and political tint was a, Seep saffron. After some delay, the reverend author of the calumny replied by publishing (it was in the ' Riponshire Advocate ') a written ' opinion ' of the solicitor of the Victorian Grand Lodge to this effect . that we had no right whatever to expect iproof of statements reflecting on the Romish Church, when ' madte on so important an occasion as a Twelfth of July celebration ' ! The anger— and sometimes the wrathful and explosive violence — with which many ol our opponents meet the most inoffensively worded requests for evidence in support of ' tall ' tales against the Old Faith go to prove that they regard No-Popery calumnies, as did the Victorian clergyman, in the light of privileged statements. The anti-Jesuit slander appears to be, at best, no conspicuous exception to this seeming rule of controversial morality that guides the conduct of so many credulous and unscholarly enthusiasts in our Say. It is Thucydides who makes one party in a discussion say to the other : ' While we bless your simplicity, we do not en\y your lack of good sense.' In a similar way we can excuse the hearts of the great bulk of the utterers of anti-Catholic fiction ; for they are not manufacturers, but mere retailers, But the amazing 'belief in the privileged character of such injurious tales is nowhere more curiously evidenced than in the fact that even the stimulus of repeated challenges has time and* "again signally failed to secure even the semblance of an attempt at proof. Conspicuous among the innumerable challene.es- publicly issued in connection- with the alleged Jesuit doctrine mentioned above were the following . (1) In 1852 the learned Jesuit, Father Roch, offered, in Frankfort, a thousand Rhenish guelders to any person who would prove that the members of his Society ever advocated the principle that a good end or object justifies e\il means. He named as the judges in the case the Law Faculty of the University of Bonn or of that of Heidelberg — neither of which could be suspected of any undue leaning towards the Catholic Church or the Society of Jesus. The challenge was left open. After sixteen years (in 1868) the Protestant Pastor of Pfalz (Rev. Karl Maurer) came forward, submitted his ' evidence,' 'and claimed the thousand guelders. The Law Faculty of Heidelberg looiked at his ' proofs,' and (we may, perhaps, presume) ' smiled a low, wise smile.' At anyrate, they advised him to let the matter drop and go back to Pfalz, as otherwise he would be simply courting public defeat and humiliation. And Pastor Maurer went back. Father Koch's challenge is still open to the world, and the Rhenish guelders have never yet 'been awarded.

(2) Among the other challenges in point, of which we ha\c made a note, was that which was issued in 1901 by Father Thurston, S.J., in the columns of the ' Referee.' There again there was a hopeless failure to ad\ance even the decent semblance of 'proof.' (3) In November, 1903, the Right Rev. Dr. Linden, Catholic Bishop of Syracuse (United States), met a statement of a professor of the local University by a challenge which runs in part as follows • —

1 I hereby solemnly assert that no Jesuit ev~er held such a principle, and would not be tolerated to hold, much less to teach, such a principle. And to emphasise the more my assertion, I hereby state that I shall pay to any student of the t niverslty the expenses of his board and tuition during the remaining years of his studies there, if he can rincl in any 1 of the writings or teachings of the Jesuits, or from any authentic source \\hatsoc\er, that they ever taught the doctrine that the cncl justifies the means.' To this day, Bishop Ludden's challenge has not been taken up.

(1) Some two years ago, in Germany, the contro r versy on this moth-eaten old fa-Ule reached another stagej. The Rev. G. Dasbach publicly offered a reward of twp thousand florins to any person who should prove that the Jesuits taught this outrageous doctrine : ' A good end (or object) justifies the use of bad means.' The

cliallejnger stipulated that the verfllct should be given toy a jury of Catholic and Protestant university professors. The seqtiel of the challenge is told in a recent issue of the American ' Messenger.' It says :—

• Count Haensbroech, the ex-Jesuit and apostate Catholic, came forward and affirmed to have peremptorily proved that the Jesuits taught the doctrine, and published a pamphlet in which the proof was supposed to be found. In the meantime Father DasbacH had failed to obtain his jury, as the Protestant professors refused to serve. Then the Oount sued the priest for the reward in the civil court of Trier. The court decided that the case was not actionable according to the German law, as it was of the nature of a wager, and consequently dismissed the case with costs. From this sentence the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of the Rhine Province, in Cologne. This court rendered its "decision on March 30. First of all, the sentence of the lower court was set aside, on the ground that this was not a wager, but a real prize problem. Then the court declared itself competent to deal with the controversy on its merits without any need of theological experts or specialists. Whoever claims the reward offered by the defendant, says the court, must have clearly proved that in any one passage of Jesuit writings the general principle is expressly enunciated that any action, though in itself morally bad, becomes licit when used as a means to compass a good end. The plaintiff asserts that in his pamphlet, " The End Justifies the Means," this pro o f is contained. The court, therefore, has only to deal with this pamphlet and not with any Jesuit works, the fidelity of the citations being accepted by both parties. The court then proceeded to the examination, one by one, of the) passages alleged From Sa, Toletus, Mariana, Vaßqmez, Sanchez, Becanus, Laymann, Delrio, Castropalao, Escobar, Tamburini, Voit, Gury, and Palmieri, and after discussing them arrived at the conclusion that in not one of these texts is the general principle affirmed that the end justifies the means. The plaintiff therefore has failed to prove his point and is not entitled to the reward. His appeal is rejected.'

The learned Protestant dhine mentioned above (Rev. Dr. Startnick) showed in the ' S.H. Review ' in 18ff9 that the man who really promulgated the immoral principle mentioned above was no other than the great • Reformer,' Dr. Martinus Luther.