University of Virginia Library

Chapter XIII.

THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH OF ROME: ITS ANTI-SOCIAL AND
ANTI-CHRISTIAN CHARACTER.

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. Raimbault and
Leprohon, I commenced my theological course 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 honor 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: "It is
certain, and the opinion of all theologians, that for good reasons
one may be permitted to use equivocations and to maintain them
by oath; and by `good reasons' we mean all that can do any
good to the body or the soul."

Here is the Latin text:

"Certum est, et commune apud omnes quod, ex justa causa,
licitum sit uti aequivocatione, et cum juvamento affirmare: Et
justa causa esse potest quicunque fines honestus ad servanda bona
spiritui vel corporali utilia" (Sal: Nos. 109 and vol. sauch).

"A culprit, or a witness, questioned by a judge, but in an
illegal manner, may swear that he knows nothing of the crime

about which he is questioned, though he knows it well, mentally
meaning that he knows nothing in such a manner as to answer."

When the crime is very secret and unknown to all, Liguori
says the culprit or the witness must deny it under oath. Here
are his own words:

"Idem si testis ex alio capite, non teneatur deponere: Nempe
si ipsi conotet crimen caruisse culpa, vel si sciat crimen, sed sub
secreto, cum nulla proccesserit infamia."

"He may swear that he knows nothing, when he knows
that the person who committed the crime committed it without
malice (as affir. Salm. to c. 2, No. 259, and Elb. No. 145); or
again, if he knows the crime, but secretly, and that there has
been no scandal" (as we are assured by Card. No. 51.)

"When a crime is well concealed, the witness, and even the
criminal, may and even must swear that the crime has not been
committed!

"The guilty party may yet do likewise, when a half proof
cannot be brought against him."

Here is the Latin text:

"Reus vel testis non tenetur judicio, respondere si crimen
fuerit omnis occultum tune enim potest imo teneteur testis dicere
reum non commisse. Et idem potest reus, si non adsit semiplena
probatio" (Salm. D. 2, No. 146 Bus.).

Liguori asks himself (Quest. 2): If an accused, legally interrogated
by a judge, may deny his crime under oath, when the
confession of the crime might cause his condemnation, and be
disadvantageous to him? and he answers:

"It is altogether probable that when the accused fears a sentence
of death, or of being sent to prison, or exiled, he may deny
his crime under oath, understanding that he has not committed
this crime in such a manner as to be obliged to confess it." Here
is the Latin text:

"Quæritur 2. Au reus legitime interrogatus possit negare
cimen, etiam cum juramento, si grave damnum, ex confessione
ipsi immineat satis probabiliter, (Lugo de Justitia, D. 40, N. 15;
Tamb. lib. 3, etc.); et aliis pluribus dicunt posse reum si sibi
immineat poena mortis, carceris, rut exilii, negare crimen, etiam

juramento, saltem sine peccato gravi, sub intelligendo; se non
commississe quotenus teneatur illud fateri mado sit spes vitandi
pœnam."

"He who has sworn to keep a secret is not obliged to keep
his oath, if any consequential injury to him or to others is thereby
caused."

"If any one has sworn before a judge to keep the truth, he is
not obliged to say secret things." (Less, Bonar, Trall, etc.)

Liguori asks whether a woman, accused of the crime of
adultery, which she has really committed, may deny it under
oath? He answers: "Yes; provided that she has been to confess,
and received the absolution; for then," he says, "the sin
has been pardoned, and has really ceased to exist."

"Quaritur 2. An adultera negare adulterium viro suo?
Resp. Si adulterium confessa sit: Potest respondere, `Innocens
sum ab hoc crimine' quia per confessionem est jam oblatum."
(Card, Disc. 19, N. 54.)

Liguori maintains that one may commit a minor crime in
order to avoid a greater crime. He says: "It is right to advise
any one to commit a robbery or a fornication in order to avoid a
murder."

"Hinc, docet, Sanchez, No. 19 caj. sot., parato aliquem occidere
licet posse suaderi ut ab eo furetur, vel ut fornicatur"
(page 419).

Question 3, Liguori: "May a servant open the door for a
prostitute? Croix denies it, but Ligouri affirms it."

Utrum liceat famulo ostium meretrici operere? Negat
Croix. At commune affirmant Theologi."

Question 4, Liguori: "Quaeretur an liceat famulo deferre
scalam vel subjicere humeros domino ascendenti ad fornicandum
et similia. Buss, etc., affirmant, quorum sententia probabilior
videtur."

"May a servant bring a ladder and help his master to go up
and commit adultery? Buss and others think that he may do it,
and I am of the same opinion." (Liguori, Q. 2.)

"A servant has the right to rob his master, a child his father,
and a poor man the rich!"

The Salmantes says that a servant may, according to his own
judgment, pay himself with his own hands more than was agreed
upon as a salary for his own work, if he finds that he deserves a
larger salary; "and," says Liguori, "this doctrine appears just
to me."

Salm., D. 4, proe. N. 137, dicunt famulum etiam ex proprio
judicio sibi compensare suam operam, si ipse certe judicet se
majus stipendium mereri. Quod sane videtur mihi probabile.

A poor man, who has concealed the goods and effects of
which he is in need, may swear that he has nothing.

"Indigens, bonis absconditis ad sustentationem, protest judici
aespondere se nihil habere." (Salm., N. 140.)

In like manner an heir who, without taking an inventory,
conceals his goods, when it is not the goods mortgaged for the
debt, may swear that he has concealed nothing, understanding
the goods with which he was to pay. (Salm. 140.)

"There are many opinions about the amount which may be
stolen to constitute a mortal sin. Navar has said, too scrupulously,
that to steal a half piece of gold is a mortal sin; while
others, too lax, hold that to steal less than ten pieces of gold
cannot be a serious sin. But Tol, Mech, Less, etc., have more
wisely ruled that to steal two pieces of gold constitutes a mortal
sin."

Dubium 2, Liguori: "Variae ea de re sunt sententiæ. Nav.
nimis scrupulose statuit medium regulum: alii nemis laxe 10
aureos. Moderatius, Tol., Med. Less,, etc., etc., duos regales, etsi
minus sufficiat, si notabiliter noceat."

"Is it a crime to steal a small piece of a relic? There is no
doubt its being a sin in the district of Rome, since Clement VII.
and Paul V. have excommunicated those who committed such
thefts. But this theft is not a serious thing when committed
outside of the district of Rome, unless it be a very rare and
precious relic, as the wood of the Holy Cross or some of the hair
of the Virgin Mary!"

Dubium 3, Liguori: "If any one steals small sums at different
times, either from the same or from different persons, not
having the intention of stealing large sums, nor of causing a

great damage, his sin is not mortal; particularly if the thief is
poor, and if he has the intention to give back what he has
stolen."

Latin text: "Si quis et occasione furatur sive uni, sive
pluribus, non intendens notabile aliquid acquirere nec proximo
graviter nocere, neque ea simul sumpta unum mortale constituunt,
si vel restituere non possit vel animum habeat restituendi."

Question 11, N. 536: "If several persons steal from the
same master, in small quantities, each in such a manner as not to
commit a mortal sin, though each one knows that all these little
thefts together cause a considerable damage to their master, yet
no one of them commits a mortal sin, even when they steal at
the same time."

Latin text: "Si plures modica furentur, nemo peccat graviter,
et si mutuo sciant gravitsr damnum domino fieri. Et hoc,
etiamsi singuli eodem tempore furentur." (Liguori, 536.)

Liguori, speaking of children who steal from their parents,
says: "Salas, cited by Croix, maintains that a son does not
commit a mortal sin when he steals only twenty or thirty pieces
of gold from a father who has an income of 150 pieces of
gold; and Lugo approves of that doctrine. Less and other
theologians say that it is not a mortal sin for a child to steal two
or three pieces of gold from a rich father; Bannez maintains
that to commit a mortal sin a child must steal not less than fifty
pieces of gold from a rich father; but Lacroix rejects that
doctrine, except the father is a prince."

The theologians of Rome assure us that we may, and even
that we must, conceal and disguise our faith.

"Though lying is forbidden, we may be allowed to conceal
the truth, or to disguise it under ambiguous or equivocal words
or signs, for a just cause, and when there is no necessity to
confess the truth. If by that means one can rid himself of
dangerous pursuits, he is permitted to use it; for in general it is
not true to say that, when interrogated by public authority about
his faith, he is obliged to reveal it. When you are not questioned
as to your faith, you are not only allowed to conceal
it, but it is often more to the glory of God and the interest of

your neighbor. If, for example, you are among a heretical
people, you can do more good by concealing your faith; or if,
by declaring it, you are to cause great trouble or death. It is
temerity to expose one's life." (Liguori, L. 2.)

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 alia 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, cammunio, 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 ecclesiæ fidem; qui vero post secundam correptionem
in suo errore obstinati permanent, non modo excommunicationis
sententia sed, etiam sæcularibus 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
pœnitentiam quoties cumque relapsi fuerint; non tamen semper
sunt recipiendi et restituendi ad bonorum hujus vitæ participationem
. . . recipiumtur ad pœnitentiam . . . 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 domino 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
defence 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 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 any one 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 a people, the sooner that
people will decay and fall. "The more priests the more
crimes," has said a profound thinker; 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 neighbor, in order to prevent him from doing something
worse? or when she is assured, that, though guilty of
adultery, she can swear she is pure as an angel?

What will it avail to teach the best principles of honor,
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 two 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.