The Suppression of the Jesuits (1750-1773)

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The Suppression is the most difficult part of the history of theSociety. Having enjoyed very high favor amongCatholic peoples, kings,prelates, andpopes for two centuries and a half centuries, it suddenly becomes an object of frenzied hostility, is overwhelmed with obloquy, and overthrown with dramatic rapidity. Every work of theJesuits — their vast missions, their noble colleges, their churches — all is taken from them or destroyed. They are banished, and their order suppressed, with harsh and denunciatory words even from thepope. What makes the contrast more striking is that their protectors for the moment are former enemies — the Russians and Frederick ofPrussia. Like many intricate problems, its solution is best found by beginning with what is easy to understand. We look forward a generation, and we see that every one of the thrones, thepope's not excluded, which had been active in the Suppression is overwhelmed.France,Spain,Portugal, andItaly become, and indeed still are, a prey to the extravagance of the Revolutionary movement. The Suppression of theSociety was due to the same causes which in further development brought about theFrench Revolution. These causes varied somewhat in different countries. InFrance, many influences combined, as we shall see, fromJansenism toFree-thought, to the then prevalent impatience with the old order of things (seeFrance, VI, 172). Some have thought that the Suppression was primarily due to these currents of thought. Others attribute it chiefly to the absolutism of the Bourbons. For, though inFrance the king was averse to the Suppression, the destructive forces acquired their power because he was too indolent to exercise control, which at that time he alone possessed. OutsideFrance it is plain that autocracy, acting through high-handedministers, was the determining cause.

Portugal

In 1750, Joseph I ofPortugal appointed Sebastian Joseph Carvalho, afterwardsMarquis of Pombal as his first minister. Carvalho's quarrel with theJesuits began with a quarrel over an exchange of Territory withSpain. San Sacramento was exchanged for the Seven Reductions of Paraguay which were underSpain. TheSociety's wonderful missions there were coveted by the Portuguese, who believed theJesuits were mining gold. So the Indians were ordered to quit their country; and theJesuits endeavored to lead them quietly to the distant land allotted to them. But owing to the harsh conditions imposed, the Indians rose in arms against the transfer, and the so-calledwar of Paraguay ensued, which, of course, was disasterous to the Indians. Then step by step the quarrel with theJesuits was pushed to extremities. The weak king was persuaded to remove them from Court; awar of pamphlets against him was commenced; the Fathers were first forbidden to undertake the temporal administration of the missions, and then they were deported from America.

On 1 April 1758, a brief was obtained from the agedpopeBenedict XIV, appointing Cardinal Saldanha to investigate the allegations against theJesuits, which had been raised in the King ofPortugal's name. But it does not follow that thepope had forejudged the case against the order. On the contrary, if we take into view all the letters and instructions sent to theCardinal, we see that thepope was distinctly skeptical as to the gravity of the alleged abuses. He ordered a minute inquiry, but one conducted so as to safeguard the reputation of theSociety. All matters of serious importance were to be referred back to himself. Thepope died five weeks later on 3 May. On 15 May, Saldanha, having received theBrief only a fortnight before, omitting the thorough house-to-house visitation that had been ordered, and pronouncing on the issues which thepope had reserved to himself, declared that theJesuits were guilty of having exercised illicit, public, andscandalous commerce both inPortugal and in its colonies. Three weeks later, atPombal's instigation, all faculties were withdrawn from theJesuits throughout the patriachate ofLisbon. BeforeClement XIII had becomepope (6 July, 1758) the work of theSociety had been destroyed, and in 1759 it was civilly suppressed. The last step was taken in consequence of a plot against the chamberlain Texeiras, but suspected to have been aimed at the king, and of this theJesuits were supposed to have approved. But the grounds of suspicion were never clearly stated, much lessproved. The height ofPombal'spersecution was reached with the burning (1761) of the saintlyFather Malagrida, ostensibly forheresy; while the other Fathers, who had been crowded intoprisons, were left to perish by the score. Intercourse between theChurch ofPortugal andRome was broken off till 1770.

France

The Suppression inFrance was occasioned by the injuries inflicted by the English navy on French commerce in 1755. TheJesuit missionaries held a heavy stake inMartinique. They did not and could not trade, that is, buy cheap to sell dear, any more than any other religious. But they did sell the products of their great mission farms, in which many natives were employed, and this was allowed, partly to provide for the current expenses of the mission, partly in order to protect the simple, childlike natives from the common plague of dishonest intermediaries. Père Antoine* La Vallette, superior of the Martinique missions, managed these transactions with no little success, and success encouraged him to go too far. He began to borrow money to work the large undeveloped resources of the colony, and a strong letter from the governor of the islanddated 1753 is extant in praise of his enterprise. But on the outbreak ofwar, ships carrying goods of an estimated value of 2,000,000livres were captured and he suddenly became abankrupt, for very large sum. His creditors were egged on to demand payment from theprocurator ofParis, but he, relying on what certainly was the letter of thelaw, refused responsibility for thedebts of an independent mission, though offering to negotiate for a settlement, for which he held out assured hopes. The creditors went to the courts, and an order was made (1760)obliging theSociety to pay, and giving leave to distrain in the case of non-payment.

The Fathers, on the advice of their lawyers, appealed to theGrand'chambre of theParlement ofParis. This turned out to be an imprudent step. For not only did theParlement support the lower court, 8 May, 1761, but having once gotten the case into its hands, theSociety's enemies in that assembly determined to strike a great blow at the order. Enemies of every sort combined. TheJansenists were numerous among thegens-de-robe, and at that moment were especailly keen to be revenged on theorthodox party. The Sorbonnists, too, theuniversity rivals of the great teaching order, joined in the attack. So did the Gallicans, thePhilosophes, and theEncyclopédistes. Louis XV was weak and the influence of his court divided; while his wife and children were earnestly in favor of theJesuits, his able first minister, theDuc de Choiseul played into the hands of theParlement, and the royal mistress, Madame de Pompadour, to whom theJesuits had refusedabsolution, was a bitter opponent. The determination of theParlement ofParis in time bore down all opposition. The attack on theJesuits, as such, was opened by the Janseistic Abbé Chauvelin, 17 April, 1762, who denounced the Constitution of theJesuits as the cause of the alleged defalcations of the order. This was followed by thecompte-rendu on the Constitutions, 3-7 July, 1762, full of misconceptions, but not yet extravagant in hostility. Next day Chauvelin descended to a vulgar but efficacious means of exciting odium by denouncing theJesuits' teaching andmorals, especially on the matter oftyrannicide.

In theParlement, theJesuits' case was now desperate. After a long conflict with the crown in which the indolent minister-ridden sovereign failed to assert his will to any purpose, theParlement issued its well-known "Extraits des assertions", a blue-book, as we might say, containing a congeries of passages fromJesuittheologians and canonists, in which they were alleged to teach every sort of immorality anderror, fromtyrannicide, magic, andArianism, to treason,Socinianism, andLutheranism. On 6 August, 1762, the finalarrêt was issued condemning theSociety to extinction, but the king's intervention brought eight month's delay. In favour of theJesuits, there had been some striking testimonies, especailly from the Frenchclergy in the two convocations summoned on 30 November, 1761, and 1 May, 1762. But the series of letters and addresses published byClement XIII afford a truely irrefragable attestation in favour of the order. Nothing, however, availed to stay theParlement. The king's counter-edict delayed indeed the execution of itsarrêt, and meantime a compromise was suggested by the Court. If theFrenchJesuits would stand apart from the order, under a French vicar, with French customs, the Crown would still protect them. In spite of the dangers of refusal theJesuits would not consent; and upon consulting thepope, he (notRicci) used the famous phraseSint ut sunt, aut non sint (de Ravignan, "Clement XIII", I, 105, the words are attributed toRicci also). Louis's intervention hindered the execution of thearrêt against theJesuits until 1 April, 1763. The colleges were then closed, and by a furtherarrêt of 9 March, 1764, theJesuits were required to renounce theirvows under pain of banishment. Only threepriests and a few scholastics accepted the conditions. At the end of November, 1764, the king unwillingly signed an edict dissolving theSociety throughout his dominions, for they were still protected by some provincialparlements, as Franche-Comté, Alsace, and Artois. But in the draft of the edict, he canceled numerous clauses, which implied that theSociety was guilty; and writing toChoiseul, he concluded with the weak but significant words: "If I adopt the advice of others for the peace of my realm, you must make the changes I propose, or I will do nothing. I say no more, lest I should say too much."

Spain, Naples, and Parma

The Suppression inSpain, and its quasi-dependencies,Naples andParma, and in the Spanish colonies was carried through by autocratic kings andministers. Their deliberations were conducted in secrecy, and they purposely kept their deliberations to themselves. It is only in late years that a clue has been traced back to Bernardo Tenucci, the anti-clerical minister ofNaples, who acquired a great influence over Charles III before the king passed from the throne ofNaples to that ofSpain. In this minister's correspondence are found all theideas which from time to time guided the Spanish policy. Charles, a man of good moral character, had entrusted his government to the Count Aranda and other followers of Voltaire; and he had brought fromItaly a finance minister, whose nationality made the government unpopular, while his exactions led in 1766 to rioting and the publications of various squibs, lampoons, and attacks upon the administration. An extraordinary council was appointed to investigate the matter, as it was declared that people so simple as rioters could never have produced the political pamphlets. They proceeded to take secret information, the tenor of which is no longer known; but records remain to show that in September, the council had resolved to incriminate theSociety, and that by 29 January 1767, its expulsion was settled. Secret orders, which were to be opened at midnight between the first and second of April, 1767, were sent to the magistrates of every town where aJesuit resided. The plan worked smoothly. That morning, 6000Jesuits were marching like convicts to the coast, where they were deported, first to thePapal States, and ultimately toCorsica.

Tanucci pursued a similar policy inNaples. On 3 November the religious, again without trial, and this time without even an accusation, were marched across the frontier into thePapal States, and threatened with death if they returned. It will be noted that in these expulsions, the smaller the state, the greater the contempt of theministers for any forms of law. The Duchy ofParma was the smallest of the so-called Bourbon courts, and so aggressive in its anti-clericalism thatClement XIII addressed to it (30 January, 1768) amonitorium, or warning, that its excesses were punishable withecclesiastical censures. At this all parties to the Bourbon "Family Compact" turned in fury against theHoly See, and demanded the entire destruction of theSociety. As a preliminary,Parma at once drove theJesuits out of its territories, confiscating as usual all their possessions.

Clement XIV

From this time till his death (2 February 1769),Clement XIII was harassed with the utmost rudeness andviolence. Portions of his states were seized byforce, he was insulted to his face by the Bourbon representatives, and it was made clear that, unless he gave way, a greatschism would ensue, such asPortugal had already commenced. Theconclave which followed lasted from 15 Feb. to May 1769. The Bourbon courts, through the so-called "crown cardinals", succeeded in excluding any of the party, nicknamedZelanti, who would have taken a firm position in defense of the order, and finally elected Lorenzo Ganganelli, who took the nameClement XIV. It has been stated byCretineau-Joly (Clement XIV, p. 260), that Ganganelli, before his election, engaged himself to the crowncardinals by some sort of stipulation that he would suppress theSociety, which would have involved an infraction of theconclaveoath. This is now disproved by the statement of the Spanish agent Azpuru, who was specially deputed to act with the crowncardinals. He wrote on 18 May, just before the election, "None of thecardinals has gone so far as to propose to anyone that the Suppression be assured by a written or spoken promise", and just after 25 May he wrote, "Ganganelli neither made a promise nor refused it". On the other hand it seems he did write words, which were taken by the crowncardinals as an indication that the Bourbons would get their way with him (de Bernis's letters of 28 July and 20 November, 1769).

No sooner was Clement on the throne than the Spanish court, backed by the other members of the "Family Compact", renewed their overpowering pressure. On 2 August, 1769,Choiseul wrote a strong letter demanding the Suppression with two months, and thepope now made his first written promise that he would grant the measure, but he declared that he must have more time. Then began a series of transaction, which some have not unnaturally been interpreted as a devices to escape by delays from the terrible act of destruction, toward which Clement was being pushed. He passed more than two years in treating with the Courts ofTurin,Tuscany,Milan,Genoa,Bavaria, etc. which would not easily consent to the Bourbon projects. The same ulterior object may perhaps be detected in some of the minor annoyances now inflicted on theSociety. From several colleges, such as those ofFrascati, Ferrar, Bologna, and theIrish College atRome, theJesuits were, after a prolonged examination, ejected with much show of hostility. And there were moments, as for instance after the fall ofChoiseul, when it really seemed as though theSociety might have escaped; but eventually the obstinacy of Charles III always prevailed.

In the middle of 1772 Charles sent a new ambassador toRome, Don Joseph Moñino, afterwards Count Florida Blanca, a strong, hard man, "full of artifice, sagacity, and dissimulation, and no one more set on the suppression of theJesuits". Heretofore, the negotiations had been in the hands of clever, diplomatic Cardinal de Bernis, French ambassador to thepope. Moñino now took the lead, de Bernis now coming in afterward as a friend to urge the acceptance of his advice. At last, on 6 September, Moñino gave in a paper suggesting a line for thepope to follow, which he did in part adopt, in drawing up the brief of Suppression. By November the end was coming in sight, and in December Clement put Moñino into communication with a secretary; and they drafted the instrument together, the minute being ready by 4 January, 1773. By 6 February, Moñino had got it back from thepope in a form to be conveyed to the Bourbon courts, and by 8 June, their modifications having been taken account of, the minute was thrown into its final form and signed. Still thepope delayed until Monino constrained him to get copies printed; and as these were dated, no delay was possible beyond thatdate, which was 16 August, 1773. A second brief was issued which determined the manner in which the Suppression was to be carried out. To secure secrecy, one regulation was introduced which led, in foreign countries, to some unexpected results. TheBrief was not to be published,Urbi et Orbi, but only to each college or place by the localbishop. AtRome, the father-general was confined first, at the English College, then in Castel S. Angelo, with his assistants. The papers of theSociety were handed over to a special commission, together with its title deeds and store of money, 40,000scudi (about $50,000), which belonged almost entirely to definite charities. An investigation of the papers was begun, but never brought to any issue.

In theBrief of Suppression, the most striking feature is the long list of allegations against theSociety, with no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand the charges are recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have beenproved. The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace theSociety must be suppressed. A full explanation of these and other anomalous features cannot yet be given withcertainty. The chief reason for them nodoubt was that the Suppression was an administrative measure, not a judicial sentence based on judicial inquiry. We see that the course chosen avoided many difficulties, especially the open contradiction of precedingpopes, who had so often praised or confirmed theSociety. Again, such statements were less liable to be controverted; there were different ways of interpreting theBrief which commended themselves toZelanti andBourbonici respectively. The last word on the subject is doubtless that of Alphonsus di Ligouri: "Poorpope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we much keep silence, respect the secret judgment ofGod, and hold ourselves in peace".

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT