Page images
PDF
EPUB

Jones in a book entitled "Dishonest Criticism," but we have been unable to lay our hand on either work, or on the bishop's original letter of a year ago. We, therefore, thrust him aside and turn our attention to his principal.

Dr. Littledale's allegation may be found in an article written by him for the "Encyclopædia Britannica" under the heading JESUITS,' in which he gives as "the result of dispassionate examination" that "the three principles of probabilism, of mental reservation, and of justification of means by ends, which collectively make up what educated men intend by the term 'Jesuitry,' are recognized maxims of the Society. As the last of these three is at once the most odious in itself and the charge which is most anxiously repelled, it is well to cite three leading Jesuit theologians in proof. Busenbaum, whose 'Medulla Theologia' has been more than fifty times printed, and lately by the Propaganda itself, lays down the maxim in the following terms: 'Cum finis est licitus, etiam media. sunt licita,' and 'Cui licitus est finis, etiam licent media;' Laymann, similarly, in his 'Theologia Moralis,' 'Cui concessus est finis, concessa etiam sunt media ad finem ordinata;' and Wagemann in his 'Synopsis Theol. Moralis,' yet more tersely, 'Finis determinat probitatem actus.'"

We begin with Busenbaum. One would think that in a learned article written for an Encyclopædia, especially where charges of the grossest immoral teaching are brought forward against a body or school whose theologians are almost innumerable, no thoughtful or honest man would consider he had discharged his duty by merely huddling together a few disjointed scraps of Latin. It is a prima facie evidence of intent to impose on his readers. Dr. Littledale could, had he wished, have quoted more accurately, and given us chapter and verse of his original; in other words, some clew to the context, instead of the miserable attempt at "textual quotations" of which Bishop Coxe is not ashamed to boast, as if quoting a bare text furnished also its context. The first passage is taken from the "Medulla," Book IV., Chap. III., Dub. III., Article II., § 3. Why was no indication of this set before the reader? The answer is very clear. It would have defeated Dr. L.'s purpose, which was to slander Busenbaum and prevent the public from finding it out. It is not pleasant to have to attribute evil motives to the reverend writer. But the stern necessity of law and logic will not allow us to deal otherwise with this habitual offender against the eighth commandment.

In the passage we have quoted, Busenbaum is not laying down the fundamental principles of morality. These are treated by most theologians in a preliminary treatise, "De Actibus Humanis,"

' Vol. xiii., p. 661.

[ocr errors]

which is not found in Busenbaum's work.' He is only examining a special moral question, viz.: Is it allowable for a prisoner condemned to death to escape from jail and thus save his life? The answer is in the affirmative, and the reason is added. Since by the natural law a man has a right to his life, he may pursue and secure that right, provided he do not infringe the rights of another. Hence he may break his chains, scale the prison-wall, or in any other way elude the vigilance of his keepers, because these means become legitimate when the end to be attained is legitimate. Cum finis est licitus, etiam media sunt licita." This is not laying down any universal moral law, but an application of the law to a moral case, which may furnish matter for doubt. In fact, the section is called by this very name of DOUBT, "Dubium VII. de Reo," and Article II. has the caption, " Quid liceat reo circa fugam pænæ— How far may a guilty man go in the matter of escaping punishment?" In his answer Busenbaum evidently supposes “means innocent in themselves, not bad, sinful means that will become good because of the end proposed. For he distinctly lays down that in these means there must be no injustice, no invasion of the rights of others. Hence the escape must be effected without violence or wrong done to any one else (præcisa vi et injuria). But why should he take pains to maintain that in this particular case the lawful end renders the means lawful? Because here there is an apparent conflict of laws, natural law allowing what human. law forbids; and it becomes necessary to decide which has the higher claim. Busenbaum decides in favor of the natural law. He may be right or wrong in his decision; but he lays down no immoral principle. If he is wrong, the wrong consists, not in any improper teaching, but in having mistaken the correct solution of the question.

[ocr errors]

But was he mistaken? He was not. All moral theologians, all who treat of natural ethics, give the same answer. Out of the thousands that might be quoted we give only two, Archbishop Kenrick in his "Moral Theology," and Bishop Jeremy Taylor, a Protestant of the same sect (" branch" they would have us call it) as Drs. Coxe and Littledale. We can now understand why Dr. L. so carefully suppressed all reference to the place of his "textual quotation." He trusted that his readers would take his mere word for any anti-Catholic statement he might make, and

'Hence in the edition of Voghera a brief summary of such treatise was added from the "Homo Apostolicus" of St. Alphonsus Liguori.

2 Ed. Iriae, p. 269.

3 Ibid.

"Theol. Moralis," ed. of Malines, Vol. I., p. 260.

5 In his "Ductor Dubitantium," Lib. iii., ch. 2, apud Kenrick, loc. cit.

he has rewarded them, as they deserved, by abusing their confidence and deceiving them. Bishop Coxe, we take for granted, never saw the passage in the original, and erred, like the rest of that credulous crowd, in pinning his faith to the sleeve of his Anglican fellow-worker against the Church and the Jesuits. But the error is a serious one. 'A teacher in Israel," as he claims to be, ought to have a little more discretion, and, it is no harm to add, a little more conscience. It might be well for him to take a lesson out of the moral theology taught by those wicked Jesuits, and endorsed by the Church. They say that it is a grievous sin not only to slander another, but also deliberately to expose oneself to the danger of slandering him by recklessly, and without due inquiry, accusing him of teaching what is blasphemous and subversive of the Ten Commandments. And the slander acquires a tenfold intensity when such wickedness is attributed not to one individual, but to thousands of men, consecrated to God, and in whose holy lives a hostile world, and the very slanderer himself, confesses that he can find no matter of reproach.'

Now, is Dr. Littledale a safe guide, an authority that an honest man could blindly follow? Eighteen or twenty years ago he would not have written as he writes now. He was then standing almost on the threshold of the Catholic Church and devising plans (it was said) for opening the doors of intercommunion between her and the Anglican clergy. These plans failed, whether by the framer's bungling or by opposition from within or without, we are unable to say. But from that day Dr. L. was a changed man; and there are not wanting, even in his own "branch," some who attribute the change to mortified vanity. It has driven him back to be once more, what he was originally, an Irish Orangeman. Not that he believes in "the glorious and immortal memory" of pious King William, or would swear to "wade knee-deep in Papists' blood";2 but that he entertains once more for the Catholic Church that fierce, relentless hatred of which Orangemen are the worst type. He continues to be, however, a leader among the Ritualists, abhors the very name of Protestant, and denounces

1 Dr. Littledale himself confesses that, while many of the secular and even parochial clergy did not live up to their holy state of life," the Jesuits won back respect for the clerical calling by their personal culture and the unimpeachable purity of their lives. These are qualities which they have all along carefully maintained, and probably no body of men in the world has been so free from the reproach of discreditable members, or has kept up an equally high average level of intelligence and conduct." (Art. JESUITS, p. 658.) On the next page (660) he admits that one of the most serious blows that damaged their credit, viz., the publication of the "Monita Secreta," was a forgery." Yet, with all this, he goes on so to explain, patronize, caress and fondle this idle story, that he shows evidently his regret that it was a forgery, and would prefer that people should believe it to be true.

2 Amiable phrases of the Orangemen's oath,

the great "Reformers" as a pack of the most unmitigated rascals that were ever seen in the world. Yet, without having first made his peace with the "Reformers," he knows how to pander adroitly to the prejudices, and work himself into the favor, of their children. He has written lately a book1 to dissuade Ritualists from seeking salvation in the One, True, Catholic Church. For wicked slander and venomous misrepresentation of all that Catholics look upon as true and holy, the book might have been written by an apostate priest such as William Hogan, by the Hoyts and other clerical friends. of Maria Monk, or (barring the decency of style) by that unmitigated rascal (as Dr. L. loves to call him), Martin Luther himself.

The book contains about two hundred pages, and keen critics have proved that there are in it just that number of glaring mistakes, one to every page. And these mistakes are not of the kind that may be excused as having their origin in ignorance or negligence. They are deliberate misstatements, ranging from the suppressio veri to downright mendacity. But the most frequent of them all is habitual MISQUOTATION, giving words "textually," and deliberately suppressing the context, because it would furnish their true meaning. He himself has confessed the truth of these charges by making alterations in the second and third editions of his "Plain Reasons." But who could alter the spirit of his book? The changes he has introduced are made in a grudging, halfhearted way, that shows them to have been extorted by shame and fear, not by candor and love of the truth. In a passage vituperative of Catholic theologians, he has painted himself and his controversial habits in such accurate colors, that we must transcribe

it:

"Things have come to this pass, that no statement whatever, however precise and circumstantial, no reference to authorities, however seemingly frank and clear, . . . can be taken on trust, without a rigorous search and verification. The thing may be true, but there is not so much as a presumption of its proving so when tested. The degree of guilt varies, no doubt, from deliberate and conscious falsehood with fraudulent intent, down through reckless disregard as to whether the thing be true or false, to mere overpowering bias causing misrepresentation; but truth, pure and simple, is almost never to be found, and the whole truth in no case whatever."

A capital picture, drawn from the inmost depths of self-consciousness! And is this the man, even though he speak through the pages of an encyclopædia, who is to be admitted as a witness against the Catholic Church and her religious orders?

The second quotation from Busenbaum we have been unable to

1 "Plain Reasons against joining the Church of Rome."

find, after an accurate search through his "Medulla." We feel almost certain that it is not to be found there at all. It is the former passage, substantial in the sense, but slightly varied in the form of words. Dr. Littledale seems to have picked it up at second hand from some of the many German pamphleteers who, during the late Kulturkampf, attacked the Jesuits and their teaching, and quoted the words from memory.

The third quotation from Laymann has been already virtually disposed of in what was said of Busenbaum. He, too, is treating of the question, whether a man condemned to death can lawfully escape by flight. He answers, yes; and quotes many theologians of great name in his favor, among them St. Thomas, Cajetan, Toletus, etc. "And to effect this (he adds), he may burst his bonds and break through the jail enclosure (vincula et carceres perfringere). For to one to whom the end is allowable, to him also the means necessary for that end are allowable. Cui enim concessus est finis, huic etiam media ad finem necessaria concessa sunt.”1 Dr. Littledale's form of words does not exactly agree with the original. Are we to suppose that he has taken this quotation, too, at second hand, and from some German Protestant or infidel source? The fact that none but German Jesuits (Busenbaum, Laymann and Wagemann) are brought into play, would lend some color to the supposition. But our quarrel is not the mere change in form of the quotation. Why was the word uecessaria changed into ordinata? NECESSARY means for a good end, must always be good; but bad means may be suited or adapted for that end. To propagate God's kingdom on earth, preaching and teaching are necessary and good means; to hate and persecute those who will not come in, or drag them in forcibly, may be suited to the accomplishment of that end, but does not make them good means or lawful. We fear that this change was not honest. Latet anguis in herba.

The last quotation is from Wagemann's 2 "Synopsis." We are unable to verify it, not having any copy of the book. To say that "the end determines the goodness of an action" is susceptible of a very good and true meaning. But it may also carry with it a bad and false meaning. Hence we have no hesitation in saying that the quotation has not been correctly given, and that its "terseness" consists in the excision of some words necessary to make it complete and unexceptionable. Dr. Littledale's notorious dishonesty in the matter of quotation forbids our taking his word

1 Layman, Theol. Mor. Lib. i. Tract vi, cap. xv. p. 64 of the Venice edition, 1691. 2 This author died in 1792. His book was published about 1765. See Hurter in "Nomenclator."

« PreviousContinue »