“Their Will Be Done”

From James A. Wylie’s “The History of Protestantism“;


“THE three great rules of the code of the Jesuits, which we have stated in the foregoing chapter — namely,

(1) that the end justifies the means;

(2) that it is safe to do any action if it be probably right, although it may be more probably wrong; and

(3) that if one know to direct the intention aright, there is no deed, be its moral character what it may, which one may not do — may seem to give a licence of acting so immense that to add thereto were an altogether superfluous, and indeed an impossible task.

But if the liberty with which these three maxims endow the Jesuit cannot be made larger, its particular applications may nevertheless be made more pointed, and the man who holds back from using it in all its extent may be emboldened, despite his remaining scruples, or the dullness of his intellectual perceptions, to avail himself to the utmost of the advantages it offers, “for the greater glory of God.” He is to be taught, not merely by general rules, but by specific examples, how he may sin and yet not become sinful; how he may break the law and yet not suffer the penalty. But, further, these sons of Loyola are the kings of the world, and the sole heirs of all its wealth, honors, and pleasures; and whatever law, custom, sacred and venerable office, august and kingly authority, may stand between them and their rightful lordship over mankind, they are at liberty to throw down and tread into the dust as a vile and accursed thing. The moral maxims of the Jesuits are to be put in force against kings as well as against peasants.

The lawfulness of killing excommunicated, that is Protestant, kings, the Jesuit writers have been at great pains to maintain, and by a great variety of arguments to defend and enforce. The proof is as abundant as it is painful. M. de la Chalotais reports to the Parliament of Bretagne, as the result of his examination of the laws and doctrines of the Jesuits, that on this point there is a complete and startling unanimity in their teaching. By the same logical track do the whole host of Jesuit writers arrive at the same terrible conclusion, the slaughter, namely, of the sovereign on whom the Pope has pronounced sentence of deposition. If he shall take meekly his extrusion from Power, and seek neither to resist nor revenge his being hurled from his throne, his life may be spared; but should “he persist in disobedience,” says M. de la Chalotais, himself a Papist, and addressing a Popish Parliament, “he may be treated as a tyrant, in which case anybody may kill him. Such is the course of reasoning established by all authors of the society, who have written ex professo on these subjects — Bellarmine, Suarez, Molina, Mariana, Santarel — all the Ultramontanes without exception, since the establishment of the society.”

But have not the writers of this school expressed in no measured terms their abhorrence of murder? Have they not loudly exclaimed against the sacrilege of touching him on whom the Church’s anointing oil has been poured as king? In short, do they not forbid and condemn the crime of regicide? Yes: this is true; but they protest with a warmth that is fitted to awaken suspicion. Rome can take back her anointing, and when she has stripped the monarch of his office he becomes the lawful victim of her consecrated dagger. On what grounds, the Jesuits demand, can the killing of one who is no longer a king be called regicide? Suarez tells us that when a king is deposed he is no longer to be regarded as a king, but as a tyrant: “he therefore loses his authority, and from that moment may be lawfully killed.” Nor is the opinion of the Jesuit Mariana less decided. Speaking of a prince, he says: “If he should overthrow the religion of the country, and introduce a public enemy within the State, I shall never consider that man to have done wrong, who, favorting the public wishes, would attempt to kill him… It is useful that princes should be made to know, that if they oppress the State and become intolerable by their vices and their pollution, they hold their lives upon this tenure, that to put them to death is not only laudable, but a glorious action… It is a glorious thing to exterminate this pestilent and mischievous race from the community of men.”

Wherever the Jesuits have planted missions, opened seminaries, and established colleges, they have been careful to inculcate these principles in the minds of the youth; thus sowing the seeds of future tumults, revolutions, regicides, and wars. These evil fruits have appeared sometimes sooner, sometimes later, but they have never failed to show themselves, to the grief of nations and the dismay of kings. John Chatel, who attempted the life of Henry IV., had studied in the College of Clermont, in which the Jesuit Guignard was Professor of Divinity. In the chamber of the would-be regicide, a manuscript of Guignard was found, in which, besides other dangerous articles, that Father approved not only of the assassination of Henry III. by Clement, but also maintained that the same thing ought to be attempted against le Bearnois, as he called Henry IV., which occasioned the first banishment of the order out of France, as a society detestable and diabolical. The sentence of the Parliament, passed in 1594, ordained “that all the priests and scholars of the College of Clermont, and others calling themselves the Society of Jesus, as being corrupters of youth, disturbers of the public peace, and enemies of the king and State, should depart in three days from their house and college, and in fifteen days out of the whole kingdom.”

But why should we dwell on these written proofs of the disloyal and murderous principles of the Jesuits, when their acted deeds bear still more emphatic testimony to the true nature and effects of their principles? We have only to look around, and on every hand the melancholy monuments of these doctrines meet our afflicted sight. To what country of Europe shall we turn where we are not able to track the Jesuit by his bloody foot-prints? What page of modern history shall we open and not read fresh proofs that the Papal doctrine of killing excommunicated kings was not meant to slumber in forgotten tomes, but to be acted out in the living world? We see Henry III. falling by their dagger. Henry IV. perishes by the same consecrated weapon. The King of Portugal dies by their order.

The great Prince of Orange is dispatched by their agent, shot down at the door of his own dining-room. How many assassins they sent to England to murder Elizabeth, history attests. That she escaped their machinations is one of the marvels of history. Nor is it only the palaces of monarchs into which they have crept with their doctrines of murder and assassination; the very sanctuary of their own Popes they have defiled with blood. We behold Clement XIV. signing the order for the banishment of the Jesuits, and soon thereafter he is overtaken by their vengeance, and dies by poison. In the Gunpowder Plot we see them deliberately planning to destroy at one blow the nobility and gentry of England. To them we owe those civil wars which for so many years drenched with blood the fair provinces of France. They laid the train of that crowning horror, the St. Bartholomew massacre. Philip II. and the Jesuits share between them the guilt of the “Invincible Armada,” which, instead of inflicting the measureless ruin and havoc which its authors intended, by a most merciful Providence became the means of exhausting the treasures and overthrowing the prestige of Spain. What a harvest of plots, tumults, seditions, revolutions, torturings, poisonings, assassinations, regicides, and massacres has Christendom reaped from the seed sown by the Jesuits! Nor can we be sure that we have yet seen the last and greatest of their crimes.

We can bestow only the most cursory glance at the teaching of the Jesuits under the other heads of moral duty. Let us take their doctrine of mental reservation. Nothing can be imagined more heinous and, at the same time, more dangerous. “The doctrine of equivocation,” says Blackwell, “is for the consolation of afflicted Roman Catholics and the instruction of all the godly.” It has been of special use to them when residing among infidels and heretics. In heathen countries, as China and Malabar, they have professed conformity to the rites and the worship of paganism, while remaining Roman Catholics at heart, and they have taught their converts to venerate their former deities in appearance, on the strength of directing aright the intention, and the pious fraud of concealing a crucifix under their clothes.

Equivocation they have carried into civil life as well as into religion. “A man may swear,” says Sanchez, “that he hath not done a thing though he really have, by understanding within himself that he did it not on such and such a day, or before he was born; or by reflecting on some other circumstance of the like nature; and yet the words he shall make use of shall not have a sense implying any such thing; and this is a thing of great convenience on many occasions, and is always justifiable when it is necessary or advantageous in anything that concerns a man’s health, honor, or estate.”  Filiutius, in his Moral Questions, asks, “Is it wrong to use equivocation in swearing? I answer, first, that it is not in itself a sin to use equivocation in swearing This is the common doctrine after Suarez.” Is it perjury or sin to equivocate in a just cause?” he further asks. “It is not perjury,” he answers. “As, for example, in the case of a man who has outwardly made a promise without the intention of promising; if he is asked whether he has promised, he may deny it, meaning that he has not promised with a binding promise; and thus he may swear.”

Filiutius asks yet again, “With what precaution is equivocation to be used? When we begin, for instance, to say, I swear, we must insert in a subdued tone the mental restriction, that today, and then continue aloud, I have not eaten such a thing; or, I swear — then insert, I say — then conclude in the same loud voice, that I have not done this or that thing; for thus the whole speech is most true. What an admirable lesson in the art of speaking the truth to one’s self, and lying and swearing falsely to everybody else! 

We shall offer no comment on the teaching of the Jesuits under the head of the seventh commandment. The doctrines of the society which relate to chastity are screened from exposure by the very enormity of their turpitude. We pass them as we would the open grave, whose putrid breath kills all who inhale it. Let all who value the sweetness of a pure imagination, and the joy of a conscience undefiled, shun the confessional as they would the chamber in which the plague is shut up, or the path in which lurks the deadly scorpion. The teaching of the Jesuits — everywhere deadly — is here a poison that consumes flesh, and bones, and soul.

Which precept of the Decalogue is it that the theology of the Jesuits does not set aside? We are commanded “to fear the great and dreadful name of the Lord our God.” The Jesuit Bauny teaches us to blaspheme it. “If one has been hurried by passion into cursing and doing despite to his Maker, it may be determined that he has only sinned venially.”  This is much, but Casnedi goes a little farther. “Do what your conscience tells you to be good, and commanded,” says this Jesuit; “if through invincible error you believe lying or blasphemy to be commanded by God, blaspheme.”  The license given by the Jesuits to regicide we have already seen; not less ample is the provision their theology makes for the perpetration of ordinary homicides and murders. Reginald says it is lawful to kill a false witness, seeing otherwise one should be killed by him. Parents who seek to turn their children from the faith, says Fagundez, “may justly be killed by them.”  The Jesuit Amicus teaches that it is lawful for an ecclesiastic, or one in a religious order, to kill a calumniator when other means of defense are wanting.  And Airult extends the same privilege to laymen. If one brings an impeachment before a prince or judge against another, and if that other cannot by any means avert the injury to his character, he may kill him secretly. He fortifies his opinion by the authority of Bannez, who gives the same latitude to the right of defense, with this slight qualification, that the calumniator should first be warned that he desist from his slander, and if he will not, he should be killed, not openly, on account of the scandal, but secretly. 

Of a like ample kind is the liberty which the Jesuits permit to be taken with the property of one’s neighbor. Dishonesty in all its forms they sanction. They encourage cheats, frauds, purloinings, robberies, by furnishing men with a ready justification of these misdeeds, and especially by persuading their votaries that if they will only take the trouble of doing them in the way of directing the intention according to their instructions, they need not fear being called to a reckoning for them hereafter. The Jesuit Emmanuel Sa teaches “that it is not a mortal sin to take secretly from him who would give if he were asked;” that “it is not theft to take a small thing from a husband or a father;” that if one has taken what he doubts to have been his own, that doubt makes it probable that it is safe to keep it; that if one, from an urgent necessity, or without causing much loss, takes wood from another man’s pile, he is not obliged to restore it. One who has stolen small things at different times, is not obliged to make restitution till such time as they amount together to a considerable sum. But should the purloiner feel restitution burdensome, it may comfort him to know that some Fathers deny it with probability.

The case of merchants, whose gains may not be increasing so fast as they could wish, has been kindly considered by the Fathers. Francis Tolet says that if a man cannot sell his wine at a fair price — that is, at a fair profit — he may mix a little water with his wine, or diminish his measure, and sell it for pure wine of full measure. Of course, if it be lawful to mix wine, it is lawful to adulterate all other articles of merchandise, or to diminish the weight, and go on vending as if the balance were just and the article genuine. Only the trafficker in spurious goods, with false balances, must be careful not to tell a lie; or if he should be compelled to equivocate, he must do it in accordance with the rules laid down by the Fathers for enabling one to say what is not true without committing falsehood.

Domestic servants also have been taken by the Fathers under the shield of their casuistry. Should a servant deem his wages not enough, or the food, clothing, and other necessaries provided for him not equal to that which is provided for servants of similar rank in other houses, he may recompense himself by abstracting from his master’s property as much as shall make his wages commensurate with his services. So has Valerius Reginald decided. 

It is fair, however, that the pupil be cautioned that this lesson cannot safely be put in practice against his teacher. The story of John d’Alba, related by Pascal, shows that the Fathers do not relish these doctrines in praxi nearly so well as in thesi, when they themselves are the sufferers by them. D’Alba was a servant to the Fathers in the College of Clermont, in the Rue St. Jacques, and thinking that his wages were not equal to his merits, he stole somewhat from his masters to. make up the discrepancy, never dreaming that they would make a criminal of him for following their approved rules. However, they threw him into prison on a charge of larceny. He was brought to trial on the 16th April, 1647. He confessed before the court to having taken some pewter plates, but maintained that the act was not to be regarded as a theft, on the strength of this same doctrine of Father Bauny, which he produced before the judges, with attestation from another of the Fathers, under whom he had studied these cases of conscience. Whereupon the judge, M. de Montrouge, gave sentence as follows: — “That the prisoner should not be acquitted upon the writings of these Fathers, containing a doctrine so unlawful, pernicious, and contrary to all laws, natural, Divine, and human, such as might confound all families, and authorize all domestic frauds and infidelities;” but that the over-faithful disciple “should be whipt before the College gate of Clermont by the common executioner, who at the same time should burn all the writings of those Fathers treating of theft; and that they should be prohibited to teach any such doctrine again under pain of death.”

But we should swell beyond all reasonable limit, our enumeration, were we to quote even a tithe of the “moral maxims” of the Jesuits. There is not One in the long catalogue of sins and crimes which their casuistry does not sanction. Pride, ambition, avarice, luxury, bribery, and a host of vices which we cannot specify, and some of which are too horrible to be mentioned, find in these Fathers their patrons and defenders. The alchemists of the Middle Ages boasted that their art enabled them to operate on the essence of things, and to change what was vile into what was noble. But the still darker art of the Jesuits acts in the reverse order; it changes all that is noble into all that is vile. Theirs is an accursed alchemy by which they transmute good into evil, and virtue into vice. There is no destructive agency with which the world is liable to be visited, that penetrates so deep, or inflicts so remediless a ruin, as the morality of the Jesuits. The tornado sweeps along over the surface of the globe, leaving the earth naked and effaced and forgotten in the greater splendor and the more solid strength of the restored structures. Revolution may overturn thrones, abolish laws, and break in pieces the framework of society; but when the fury of faction has spent its rage, order emerges from the chaos, law resumes its supremacy, and the bare as before tree or shrub beautified it; but the summers of after years re-clothe it with verdure and beautify it with flowers, and make it smile as sweetly as before. The earthquake overturns the dwelling of man, and swallows up the proudest of his cities; but his skill and power survive the shock, and when the destroyer has passed, the architect sets up again the fallen palace, and rebuilds the ruined city, and the catastrophe is effaced and forgotten in the greater splendor and the more solid strength of the restored structures. Revolution may overturn thrones, abolish laws, and break in pieces the framework of society; but when the fury of faction has spent its rage, order emerges from the chaos, law resumes its supremacy, and the institutions which had been destroyed in the hour of madness, are restored in the hour of calm wisdom that succeeds. But the havoc the Jesuit inflicts is irremediable. It has nothing in it counteractive or restorative; it is only evil. It is not upon the works of man or the institutions of man merely that, it puts forth its fearfully destructive power; it is upon man himself. It is not the body of man that it strikes, like the pestilence; it is the soul. It is not a part, but the whole of man that it consigns to corruption and ruin. Conscience it destroys, knowledge it extinguishes, the very power of discerning between right and wrong it takes away, and shuts up the man in a prison whence no created agency or influence can set him free. The Fall defaced the image of God in which man was made; we say, defaced; it did not totally obliterate or extinguish it. Jesuitism, more terrible than the Fall, totally effaces from the soul of man the image of God. Of the “knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness” in which man was made it leaves not a tree. It plucks up by its very roots the moral constitution which God gave man. The full triumph of Jesuitism would leave nothing spiritual, nothing moral, nothing intellectual, nothing strictly and properly human existing upon the earth. Man it would change into the animal, impelled by nothing but appetites and passions, and these more fierce and cruel than those of the tiger.

Society would become simply a herd of wolves, lawless, ravenous, greedy of each other’s blood, and perpetually in quest of prey. Even Jesuitism itself would perish, devoured by its own progeny. Our earth at last would be simply a vast sepulcher, moving round the sun in its annual circuit, its bosom as joyless, dreary, and waste as are those silent spaces through which it rolls.”

Secrets of the “Fathers”

From James A.  Wylie’s “The History of Protestantism”:

WE have not yet surveyed the full and perfect equipment of those troops which Loyola sent forth to prosecute the war against Protestantism. Nothing was left unthought of and unprovided for which might assist them in covering their opponents with defeat, and crowning themselves with victory.

“The Founder of the Jesuit Order”

They were set free from every obligation, whether imposed by the natural or the Divine law. Every stratagem, artifice, and disguise were lawful to men in whose favor all distinction between right and wrong had been abolished. They might assume as many shapes as Proteus, and exhibit as many colors as the chameleon. They stood apart and alone among the human race. First of all, they were cut off from country. Their vow bound them to go to whatever land their General might send them, and to remain there as long as he might appoint. Their country was the society. They were cut off from family and friends. Their vow taught them to forget their father’s house, and to esteem themselves holy only when every affection and desire which nature had planted in their breasts had been plucked up by the roots. They were cut off from property and wealth. For although the society was immensely rich, its individual members possessed nothing. Nor could they cherish the hope of ever becoming personally wealthy, seeing they had taken a vow of perpetual poverty. If it chanced that a rich relative died, and left them as heirs, the General relieved them of their vow, and sent them back into the world, for so long a time as might enable them to take possession of the wealth of which they had been named the heirs; but this done, they returned laden with their booty, and, resuming their vow as Jesuits, laid every penny of their newly-acquired riches at the feet of the General.

They were cut off, moreover, from the State. They were discharged from all civil and national relationships and duties. They were under a higher code than the national one — the Institutions namely, which Loyola had edited, and the Spirit of God had inspired; and they were the subjects of a higher monarch than the sovereign of the nation — their own General. Nay, more, the Jesuits were cut off even from the Pope. For if their General “held the place of the Omnipotent God,” much more did he hold the place of “his Vicar.” And so was it in fact; for soon the members of the Society of Jesus came to recognize no laws but their own, and though at their first formation they professed to have no end but the defense and glory of the Papal See, it came to pass when they grew to be strong that, instead of serving the tiara, they compelled the tiara to serve the society, and made their own wealth, power, and dominion the one grand object of their existence. They were a Papacy within the Papacy — a Papacy whose organization was more perfect, whose instincts were more cruel, whose workings were more mysterious, and whose dominion was more destructive than that of the old Papacy.

So stood the Society of Jesus. A deep and wide gulf separated it from all other communities and interests. Set free from the love of family, from the ties of kindred, from the claims of country, and from the rule of law, careless of the happiness they might destroy, and the misery and pain and woe they might inflict, the members were at liberty, without control or challenge, to pursue their terrible end, which was the dethronement of every other power, the extinction of every other interest but their own, and the reduction of nmnkind into abject slavery, that on the ruins of the liberty, the virtue, and the happiness of the world they might raise themselves to supreme, unlimited dominion. But we have not yet detailed all the appliances with which the Jesuits were careful to furnish themselves for the execution of their unspeakably audacious and diabolical design. In the midst of these abysses there opens to our eye a yet profounder abyss. To enjoy exemption from all human authority and from every earthly law was to them a small matter; nothing would satisfy their lust for licence save the entire abrogation of the moral law, and nothing would appease their pride save to trample under foot the majesty of heaven. We now come to speak of the moral code of the Jesuits.

The key-note of their ethical code is the famous maxim that the end sanctifies the means. Before that maxim the eternal distinction of right and wrong vanishes. Not only do the stringency and sanctions of human law dissolve and disappear, but the authority and majesty of the Decalogue are overthrown. There are no conceivable crime, villany, and atrocity which this maxim will not justify. Nay, such become dutiful and holy, provided they be done for “the greater glory of God,” by which the Jesuit means the honor, interest, and advancement of His society. In short, the Jesuit may do whatever he has a mind to do, all human and Divine laws notwithstanding. This is a very grave charge, but the evidence of its truth is, unhappily, too abundant, and the difficulty lies in making a selection.

What the Popes have attempted to do by the plenitude of their power, namely, to make sin to be no sin, the Jesuit doctors have done by their casuistry. “The first and great commandment in the law,” said the same Divine Person who proclaimed it from Sinai, “is to love the Lord thy God.” The Jesuit casuists have set men free from the obligation to love God. Escobar collects the different sentiments of the famous divines of the Society of Jesus upon the question, When is a man obliged to have actually an affection for God? The following are some of these: — Suarez says, “It is sufficient a man love him before he dies, not assigning any particular time. Vasquez, that it is sufficient even at the point of death. Others, when a man receives his baptism: others, when he is obliged to be contrite: others, upon holidays. But our Father Castro-Palao disputes all these opinions, and that justly. Hurtado de Mendoza pretends that a man is obliged to do it once every year. Our Father Coninck believes a man to be obliged once in three or four years. Henriquez, once in five years. But Filiutius affirms it to be probable that in rigor a man is not obliged every five years. When then? He leaves the point to the wise.” “We are not,” says Father Sirmond, “so much commanded to love him as not to hate him,” Thus do the Jesuit theologians make void “the first; and great commandment in the law.”

The second commandment in the law is, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This second great commandment meets with no more respect at the hands of the Jesuits than the first. Their morality dashes both tables of the law in pieces; charity to man it makes void equally with the love of God. The methods by which this may be done are innumerable.

The first of these is termed probabilism. This is a device which enables a man to commit any act, be it ever so manifest a breach of the moral and Divine law, without the least restraint of conscience, remorse of mind, or guilt before God. What is probabilism? By way of answer we shall suppose that a man has a great mind to do a certain act, of the lawfulness of which he is in doubt. He finds that there are two opinions upon the point: the one probably true, to the effect that the act is lawful; the other more probably true, to the effect that the act is sinful. Under the Jesuit regimen the man is at liberty to act upon the probable opinion. The act is probably right, but more probably wrong, nevertheless he is safe in doing it, in virtue of the doctrine of probabalism. It is important to ask, what makes all opinion probable? To make an opinion probable a Jesuit finds easy indeed. If a single doctor has pronounced in its favor, though a score of doctors may have condemned it, or if the man can imagine in his own mind something like a tolerable reason for doing the act, the opinion that it is lawful becomes probable. It will be hard to name an act for which a Jesuit authority may not be produced, and harder still to find a man whose invention is so poor as not to furnish him with what he deems a good reason for doing what he is inclined to, and therefore it may be pronounced impossible to instance a deed, however manifestly opposed to the light of nature and the law of God, which may not be committed under the shield of the monstrous dogma of probabilism. 

We are neither indulging in satire nor incurring the charge of false-witness-bearing in this picture of Jesuit theology. “A person may do what he considers allowable,” says Emmanuel Sa, of the Society of Jesus, “according to a probable opinion, although the contrary may be the more probable one. The opinion of a single grave doctor is all that is requisite.” A yet greater doctor, Filiutius, of Rome, confirms him in this. “It is allowable,” says he, “to follow the less probable opinion, even though it be the less safe one. That is the common judgment of modern authors.” “Of two contrary opinions,” says Paul Laymann, “touching the legality or illegality of any human action, every one may follow in practice or in action that which he should prefer, although it may appear to the agent himself less probable in theory.” he adds: “A learned person may give contrary advice to different persons according to contrary probable opinions, whilst he still preserves discretion and prudence.” We may say with Pascal, “These Jesuit casuists give us elbow-room at all events!”

It is and it is not is the motto of this theology. It is the true Lesbian rule which shapes itself according to that which we wish to measure by it. Would we have any action to be sinful, the Jesuit moralist turns this side of the code to us; would we have it to be lawful, he turns the other side. Right and wrong are put thus in our own power; we can make the same action a sin or a duty as we please, or as we deem it expedient. To steal the property, slander the character, violate the chastity, or spill the blood of a fellow-creature, is most probably wrong, but let us imagine some good to be got by it, and it is probably right. The Jesuit workers, for the sake of those who are dull of understanding and slow to apprehend the freedom they bring them, have gone into particulars and compiled lists of actions, esteemed sinful, unnatural, and abominable by the moral sense of all nations hitherto, but which, in virtue of this new morality, are no longer so, and they have explained how these actions may be safely done, with a minuteness of detail and a luxuriance of illustration, in which it were tedious in some cases, immodest in others, to follow them.

One would think that this was licence enough. What more can the Jesuit need, or what more can he possibly have, seeing by a little effort, of invention he can overleap every human and Divine barrier, and commit the most horrible crimes, on the mightiest possible scale, and neither feel remorse of conscience nor fear of punishment? But this unbounded liberty of wickedness did not content the sons of Loyola. They panted for a liberty, if possible, yet more boundless; they wished to be released from the easy condition of imagining some good end for the wickedness they wished to perpetrate, and to be free to sin without the trouble of assigning even to themselves any end at all. This they have accomplished by the method of directing the intention.

This is a new ethical science, unknown to those ages which were not privileged to bask in the illuminating rays of the Society of Jesus, and it is as simple as convenient. It is the soul, they argue, that does the act, so far as it is moral or immoral. As regards the body’s share in it, neither virtue nor vice can be predicated of it. If, therefore, while the hand is shedding blood, or the tongue is calumniating character, or uttering a falsehood, the soul can so abstract itself from what the body is doing as to occupy itself the while with some holy theme, or fix its meditation upon some benefit or advantage likely to arise from the deed, which it knows, or at least suspects, the body is at that moment engaged in doing, the soul contracts neither guilt nor stain, and the man runs no risk of ever being called to account for the murder, or theft, or calumny, by God, or of incurring his displeasure on that ground. We are not satirising; we are simply stating the morality of the Jesuits. “We never,” says the Father Jesuit in Pascal’s Letters, “suffer such a thing as the formal intention to sin with the sole design of sinning; and if any person whatever should persist in having no other end but evil in the evil that he does, we break with him at once — such conduct is diabolical. This holds true, without exception, of age, sex, or rank. But when the person is not of such a wretched disposition as this, we try to put in practice our method of directying the intention, which simply consists in his proposing to himself, as the end of his actions, some allowable object. Not that we do not endeavor, as far as we can, to dissuade men from doing things forbidden; but when we cannot prevent the action, we at least, purify the motive, and thus correct the viciousness of the means by the goodness of the end. Such is the way in which our Fathers [of the society] have contrived to permit those acts of violence to which men usually resort in vindication of their honor. They have no more to do than to turn off the intention from the desire of vengeance, which is criminal, and to direct it to a desire to defend their honor, which, according to us, is quite warrantable. And in this way our doctors discharge all their duty towards God and towards man. By permitting the action they gratify the world; and by purifying the intention they give satisfaction to the Gospel. This is a secret, sir, which was entirely unknown to the ancients; the world is indebted for the discovery entirely to our doctors. You understand it now, I hope.

Who Are the Jesuits?

Let’s hear from the famous personalities of the ages.

John Adams

“My history of the Jesuits is not eloquently written, but it is supported by unquestionable authorities, [and] is very particular and very horrible. Their [the Jesuit Order’s] restoration [in 1814 by Pope Pius VII] is indeed a step toward darkness, cruelty, despotism, [and] death. … I do not like the appearance of the Jesuits. If ever there was a body of men who merited eternal damnation on earth and in hell, it is this Society of [Ignatius de] Loyola.” (John Adams, 2nd President of the United States)


Abraham Lincoln

“This [American Civil] war [of 1861-1865] would never have been possible without the sinister influence of the Jesuits. We owe it to popery that we now see our land reddened with the blood of her noblest sons. Though there were great differences of opinion between the South and the North on the question of slavery, neither Jeff Davis [President of the Confederacy] nor anyone of the leading men of the Confederacy would have dared to attack the North, had they not relied on the promises of the Jesuits, that under the mask of Democracy, the money and arms of the Roman Catholic, even the arms of France, were at their disposal if they would attack us. I pity the priests, the bishops and monks of Rome in the United States, when the people realize that they are, in great part, responsible for the tears and the blood shed in this war. I conceal what I know on that subject from the knowledge of the nation, for if the people knew the whole truth, this war would turn into a religious war, and it would at once take a tenfold more savage and bloody character. It would become merciless as all religious wars are. It would become a war of extermination on both sides.” (Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States.)


Robert Southey

“A Jesuit may be shortly described as an empty suit of clothes with another person living in them, who acts for him, thinks for him, decides for him whether he shall be a prince or a beggar, and moves him about wheresoever he pleases; who allows him to exhibit the internal aspect of a man, but leaves him none of the privileges – no liberty, no property, no affections, not even the power to refuse obedience when ordered to commit the most atrocious of crimes; for, the more he outrages his own feelings, the greater his merits. Obedience to the superior is his only idea of virtue, and in all other respects he is a mere image.” (Robert Southey, was an English poet of the Romantic school.)


Samuel Morse

“They are Jesuits. This [Roman Catholic] society of men, after exerting their tyranny for upwards of two hundred years, at length became so formidable to the world, threatening the entire subversion to all social order, that even the Pope [i.e., Clement XIV], whose devoted subjects they [i.e., the Jesuits] are, and must be, by the vow of their society, was compelled to dissolve them [in 1773]. They had not been suppressed, however, for fifty years, before the waning influence of Popery and Despotism required their useful labors to resist the light of Democratic liberty, and the Pope (Pius VII) simultaneously with the formation of the Holy Alliance [in Europe], revived the order of the Jesuits in all their power.

And do Americans need to be told what Jesuits are? If any are ignorant, let them inform themselves of their history without delay; no time is to be lost; their workings are before you in every day’s events; they are a secret society, a sort of Masonic order with super added features of revolting odiousness, and a thousand times more dangerous. They are not merely priests, or priests of one religious creed; they are merchants, and lawyers, and editors, and men of any profession, having no outward badge (in this country [i.e., the USA]) by which to be recognized; they are about in all your society. They can assume any character, that of angels of light, or ministers of darkness, to accomplish their one great end, the service upon which they are sent, whatever that service may be.” (Samuel Finley Breese Morse, was an American contributor to the invention of a single-wire telegraph system.)


Napoleon Bonaparte

“The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms [sic] – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses…” – Napoleon Bonaparte, French Emperor

James Parton

“If you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Superior General of the Jesuit Order] are one and the same person.” (James Parton, American historian)




Andrea Duphin

“The Jesuits are a naked sword, whose hilt is at Rome but its blade is everywhere, invisible until its stroke is felt.” -Andre Duphin, (a French advocate, president of the chamber of deputies and of the Legislative Assembly.)




Clement XIV

“Alas, I knew they [i.e., the Jesuits] would poison me; but I did not expect to die in so slow and cruel a manner.” (Clement XIV, Roman Catholic Pope)






also called "Novalis"

“Never before in the course of the world’s history had such a Society [i.e., the Jesuit Order] appeared. The old Roman Senate itself did not lay schemes for world domination with greater certainty of success.” (Friedrich von Hardenberg, an author and philosopher of early German Romanticism.)




Marquis de Lafayette

“It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country – the United States of America – are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated MOST of the wars of Europe.” (Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette – French aristocrat and military officer.)



Hector Carsewell Macpherson

“They [i.e., the Jesuits] have so constantly mixed themselves up in court and state intrigues that they must, in justice, be reproached with striving after world dominion. They cost kings their lives, not on the scaffold, but by assassination, and equally hurtful as the society of Illuminati; they were the foremost among the crowd, at all events, who applauded the murder scenes in Paris [during the French Revolution].” (Hector C. Macpherson, a prolific Scottish writer and journalist.)


Adolf Hitler

“Above all I have learned from the Jesuits. And so did Lenin too, as far as I recall. The world has never known anything quite so splendid as the hierarchical structure of the [Roman] Catholic Church. There were quite a few things I simply appropriated from the Jesuits for the use of the [Nazi] Party.

“I have learnt most of all from the Jesuit Order. …So far, there has been nothing more imposing on earth than the hierarchical organization of the [Roman] Catholic Church. A good part of that organization I have transported direct to my own [Nazi] party. …The Catholic Church must be held up as an example. …I will tell you a secret. I am founding an order.  _ (Adolf Hitler, Nazi Leader)

Lord Palmerston

“The presence of the Jesuits in any country, Romanist [i.e., Catholic] or Protestant, is likely to breed social disturbance.” (Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, a British statesman who served twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century.)





J.A. Wylie

“There was no disguise they (the Jesuits) could not assume, and therefore, there was no place into which they could not penetrate. They could enter unheard the closet of the Monarch, or the Cabinet of the Statesman. They could sit unseen in convocation or General Assembly, and mingle unsuspected in the deliberations and debates.

There was no tongue they could not speak, and no creed they could not profess, and thus there was no people among whom they might not sojourn, and no church whose membership they might not enter and whose functions they might not discharge. The could execrate [i.e., sharply denounce] the Pope with the Lutheran, and swear the Solemn League with the Covenanter.” (James Aitken Wylie, a Scottish historian of religion and Presbyterian minister.)


Myth of Jose Rizal’s Retraction

Dr. Jose Rizal is an ideal man of intellect; a man of fascinating records not just in his own country but even in foreign lands. His literary contributions stirred up the spirit of nationalism which aim is to liberate a nation, not by force, but by means of intellectual revolution. His writings, his sayings, his peaceful approach to national problem, and his contributions in the field of science opened the way to win the respect and admiration of the world including those citizens of the very country that conquered his mother land. But when the man of knowledge blown his criticisms against the hypocrites of the Church, the ideal records of a hero was sealed with a shameful fate.

Some of Rizal’s writings contained expositions and direct attacks to the Catholic Church’s cruelties and hypocrisy in spite of the claim that the friars were given the authority to forgive sins.  He boldly exposed the intense corruption and the selling of God’s grace by these friars as part of the gospel  they preached among the unlearned subjects of their Spanish King. Since Rizal was a distinctive man, and not just a man among slaves, it would be a great shame for the Church if such talent will die living before us a bunch of writings exposing the corruptions of the Catholic Church.  Hence, they formulated a myth that made our hero less credible in front of his admirers – the Myth of Rizal’s Retraction.


At least four texts of Rizal’s retraction have surfaced. (READ). The fourth text appeared in El Imparcial on the day after Rizal’s execution; it is the short formula of the retraction.

The first text was published in La Voz Española and Diaro de Manila on the very day of Rizal’s execution, Dec. 30, 1896. The second text appeared in Barcelona, Spain, on February 14, 1897, in the fortnightly magazine in La Juventud; it came from an anonymous writer who revealed himself fourteen years later as Fr. Balaguer. The “original” text was discovered in the archdiocesan archives on May 18, 1935, after it disappeared for thirty-nine years from the afternoon of the day when Rizal was shot.

We know not that reproductions of the lost original had been made by a copyist who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting. This fact is revealed by Fr. Balaguer himself who, in his letter to his former superior Fr. Pio Pi in 1910, said that he had received “an exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is. . .” He proceeded: “I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself. I am sending it to you that you may . . . verify whether it might be of Rizal himself . . . .” Fr. Pi was not able to verify it in his sworn statement.

This “exact” copy had been received by Fr. Balaguer in the evening immediately preceding Rizal’s execution, Rizal y su Obra, and was followed by Sr. W. Retana in his biography of Rizal, Vida y Escritos del Jose Rizal with the addition of the names of the witnesses taken from the texts of the retraction in the Manila newspapers. Fr. Pi’s copy of Rizal’s retraction has the same text as that of Fr. Balaguer’s “exact” copy but follows the paragraphing of the texts of Rizal’s retraction in the Manila newspapers.

Regarding the “original” text, no one claimed to have seen it, except the publishers of La Voz Espanola. That newspaper reported: “Still more; we have seen and read his (Rizal’s) own hand-written retraction which he sent to our dear and venerable Archbishop…” On the other hand, Manila pharmacist F. Stahl wrote in a letter: “besides, nobody has seen this written declaration, in spite of the fact that quite a number of people would want to see it. “For example, not only Rizal’s family but also the correspondents in Manila of the newspapers in Madrid, Don Manuel Alhama of El Imparcial and Sr. Santiago Mataix of El Heraldo, were not able to see the hand-written retraction.

Neither Fr. Pi nor His Grace the Archbishop ascertained whether Rizal himself was the one who wrote and signed the retraction. (Ascertaining the document was necessary because it was possible for one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting aforesaid holograph; and keeping a copy of the same for our archives, I myself delivered it personally that the same morning to His Grace Archbishop… His Grace testified: At once the undersigned entrusted this holograph to Rev. Thomas Gonzales Feijoo, secretary of the Chancery.” After that, the documents could not be seen by those who wanted to examine it and was finally considered lost after efforts to look for it proved futile.

On May 18, 1935, the lost “original” document of Rizal’s retraction was discovered by the archdeocean archivist Fr. Manuel Garcia, C.M. The discovery, instead of ending doubts about Rizal’s retraction, has in fact encouraged it because the newly discovered text retraction differs significantly from the text found in the Jesuits’ and the Archbishop’s copies. And, the fact that the texts of the retraction which appeared in the Manila newspapers could be shown to be the exact copies of the “original” but only imitations of it. This means that the friars who controlled the press in Manila (for example, La Voz Española) had the “original” while the Jesuits had only the imitations.

We now proceed to show the significant differences between the “original” and the Manila newspapers texts of the retraction on the one hand and the text s of the copies of Fr. Balaguer and F5r. Pio Pi on the other hand.

First, instead of the words “mi cualidad” (with “u”) which appear in the original and the newspaper texts, the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” (with “u”).

Second, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction omit the word “Catolica” after the first “Iglesias” which are found in the original and the newspaper texts.

Third, the Jesuits’ copies of the retraction add before the third “Iglesias” the word “misma” which is not found in the original and the newspaper texts of the retraction.

Fourth, with regards to paragraphing which immediately strikes the eye of the critical reader, Fr. Balaguer’s text does not begin the second paragraph until the fifth sentences while the original and the newspaper copies start the second paragraph immediately with the second sentences.

Fifth, whereas the texts of the retraction in the original and in the manila newspapers have only four commas, the text of Fr. Balaguer’s copy has eleven commas.

Sixth, the most important of all, Fr. Balaguer’s copy did not have the names of the witnesses from the texts of the newspapers in Manila.

In his notarized testimony twenty years later, Fr. Balaguer finally named the witnesses. He said “This . . .retraction was signed together with Dr. Rizal by Señor Fresno, Chief of the Picket, and Señor Moure, Adjutant of the Plaza.” However, the proceeding quotation only proves itself to be an addition to the original. Moreover, in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer said that he had the “exact” copy of the retraction, which was signed by Rizal, but her made no mention of the witnesses. In his accounts too, no witnesses signed the retraction.

How did Fr. Balaguer obtain his copy of Rizal’s retraction? Fr. Balaguer never alluded to having himself made a copy of the retraction although he claimed that the Archbishop prepared a long formula of the retraction and Fr. Pi a short formula. In Fr. Balaguer’s earliest account, it is not yet clear whether Fr. Balaguer was using the long formula of nor no formula in dictating to Rizal what to write. According to Fr. Pi, in his own account of Rizal’s conversion in 1909, Fr. Balaguer dictated from Fr. Pi’s short formula previously approved by the Archbishop. In his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910, Fr. Balaguer admitted that he dictated to Rizal the short formula prepared by Fr. Pi; however; he contradicts himself when he revealed that the “exact” copy came from the Archbishop. The only copy, which Fr. Balaguer wrote, is the one that appeared ion his earliest account of Rizal’s retraction.

Where did Fr. Balaguer’s “exact” copy come from? We do not need long arguments to answer this question, because Fr. Balaguer himself has unwittingly answered this question. He said in his letter to Fr. Pi in 1910:

“…I preserved in my keeping and am sending to you the original texts of the two formulas of retraction, which they (You) gave me; that from you and that of the Archbishop, and the first with the changes which they (that is, you) made; and the other the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal. The handwriting of this copy I don’t know nor do I remember whose it is, and I even suspect that it might have been written by Rizal himself.”

In his own word quoted above, Fr. Balaguer said that he received two original texts of the retraction. The first, which came from Fr. Pi, contained “the changes which You (Fr. Pi) made”; the other, which is “that of the Archbishop” was “the exact copy of the retraction written and signed by Rizal” (underscoring supplied). Fr. Balaguer said that the “exact copy” was “written and signed by Rizal” but he did not say “written and signed by Rizal and himself” (the absence of the reflexive pronoun “himself” could mean that another person-the copyist-did not). He only “suspected” that “Rizal himself” much as Fr. Balaguer did “not know nor … remember” whose handwriting it was.

Thus, according to Fr. Balaguer, the “exact copy” came from the Archbishop! He called it “exact” because, not having seen the original himself, he was made to believe that it was the one that faithfully reproduced the original in comparison to that of Fr. Pi in which “changes” (that is, where deviated from the “exact” copy) had been made. Actually, the difference between that of the Archbishop (the “exact” copy) and that of Fr. Pi (with “changes”) is that the latter was “shorter” be cause it omitted certain phrases found in the former so that, as Fr. Pi had fervently hoped, Rizal would sign it.

According to Fr. Pi, Rizal rejected the long formula so that Fr. Balaguer had to dictate from the short formula of Fr. Pi. Allegedly, Rizal wrote down what was dictated to him but he insisted on adding the phrases “in which I was born and educated” and “[Masonary]” as the enemy that is of the Church” – the first of which Rizal would have regarded as unnecessary and the second as downright contrary to his spirit. However, what actually would have happened, if we are to believe the fictitious account, was that Rizal’s addition of the phrases was the retoration of the phrases found in the original which had been omitted in Fr. Pi’s short formula.

The “exact” copy was shown to the military men guarding in Fort Santiago to convince them that Rizal had retracted. Someone read it aloud in the hearing of Capt. Dominguez, who claimed in his “Notes’ that Rizal read aloud his retraction. However, his copy of the retraction proved him wrong because its text (with “u”) and omits the word “Catolica” as in Fr. Balaguer’s copy but which are not the case in the original. Capt. Dominguez never claimed to have seen the retraction: he only “heard”.

The truth is that, almost two years before his execution, Rizal had written a retraction in Dapitan. Very early in 1895, Josephine Bracken came to Dapitan with her adopted father who wanted to be cured of his blindness by Dr. Rizal; their guide was Manuela Orlac, who was agent and a mistress of a friar. Rizal fell in love with Josephine and wanted to marry her canonically but he was required to sign a profession of faith and to write retraction, which had to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. “Spanish law had established civil marriage in the Philippines,” Prof. Craig wrote, but the local government had not provided any way for people to avail themselves of the right…”

In order to marry Josephine, Rizal wrote with the help of a priest a form of retraction to be approved by the Bishop of Cebu. This incident was revealed by Fr. Antonio Obach to his friend Prof. Austin Craig who wrote down in 1912 what the priest had told him; “The document (the retraction), inclosed with the priest’s letter, was ready for the mail when Rizal came hurrying I to reclaim it.” Rizal realized (perhaps, rather late) that he had written and given to a priest what the friars had been trying by all means to get from him.

Neither the Archbishop nor Fr. Pi saw the original document of retraction. What they was saw a copy done by one who could imitate Rizal’s handwriting while the original (almost eaten by termites) was kept by some friars. Both the Archbishop and Fr. Pi acted innocently because they did not distinguish between the genuine and the imitation of Rizal’s handwriting. (SOURCE)

The Power and Influence of the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines

“The Philippines was dilapidated, looted and now an impoverished nation because of the conspiracies made by some elite peoples, priests and nuns that are controlled by the Jesuits. Today, political crisis & intrigues, social agitations, street marches-protests-rallies, and rebellions are very common in the Republic of the Philippines. These arenas are the expertise of the Jesuit Order.”

There are people who blame the Jews for the world’s problems. In Catholic countries like Spain, anticlericals blame the Catholic Church for the country’s problems. When I lived in Spain, it was in particular the Jesuits to whom all problems were attributed. Was the streetcar service in Madrid bad? Blame the Jesuits!! Actually,I found out later that the Jesuits did own the Madrid street car system. This Jesuitphobis is an old story;I take it up in one of my studies of the well known writer

I’m very proud to my countrymen like Bienvenido Macario. He’s telling the truth that the Achdiocese Of Manila is one of the richest in the world, whereas the majority of my Filipino countrymen are living in poverty, despair and sufferring. The invincible enemies of the Philippines was already revealed to my mind and my heart. The JESUIT ORDER & THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE THE CULPRITS, and I tagged them as the “CENTRAL CONSPIRACY FORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES”, unknown to millions of Filipinos even to many of our highly intellectual government officials and politicians.

There are indeed Roman Catholic Nuns who are activists. Sometimes you can see them on ABS-CBN / GMA-7 national television news marching and shouting in the streets, together with different groups or organized demonstrators like “Protest & Rallies”, shouting anti-government and even anti-American. A Roman Catholic Church Nun (Mother Deolindes) knows about Liberation Theology but is very cautious iabout implementong it. Even the University Of Santo Thomas (UST) Seminarians hesitate to implement it. However, Dr. Agnes Brazal (a teacher of the Maryhill School of Theology), Father Bernard Teneza and . Jerome Montemayor wish to implement it.

"The Achdiocese Of Manila is one of the richest in the world, yet majority of my Filipino countrymen are living in poverty."


Many historians and writers mention that Liberation Theology eliminated from the Vatican Council in Rome. Many ideologists supported this theology. Surprisingly, there are some members of the Society Of Jesus who wrote about Liberation Theology, which sprung-out tremendously in some South Amercian countries particularly Brazil . Liberation Theology is a mixture of Marxism or Communism ideology. This led to the establishment of the CPP NPA – Communist Party Of The Philippines / New Peoples Army (Mao Tse Tung’s style of communist ideology) by Jose Maria Sison. Later Father Luis Jalandoni established NDF (National Democratic Front). Both Sison & Jalandoni are now in Netherlands. This liberation theology was also absorbed by the late Father Balweg in Cordillera Mountain.

Shocking testimonies from the late Dr. Rivera (a former Jesuit priest) during their secret ceremonies “Black Mass” that the Jesuit General Pedro Arrupe wears a ring symbolizing that the Jesuit General himself is the Supreme Leader of communism in the world. The Jesuit Order also supported the Bolshevik Revolution. Manny hidden historical writings that the Federal Reserve financed the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia via Council Of Foreign Relations. The very reason, Jesuit Father Edmund A. Walsh was present in Russia busy woking catholic church properties affected by the Bolshevik Revolution. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo graduated from the Edmund Walsh School Of Foreign Service at Georgetown Univesity in Washington, D.C. and classmate of former US President Bill Clinton. Suprisingly, Jesuit Father Romeo Intengan is the secret spiritual advisor of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. And that Fr. Romeo Intengan, S.J. is the Jesuit Provincial Head directly reporting to the Jesuit General Peter Hans-Kolvenbach.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of The Philippines (CBCP) headed by Archbishop Fernando Capalla has direct control or even direct supervision of the Philippine Jesuit Foundation. These are separate entities although under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church. The CBCP is conservative while the Jesuit Foundation is liberal. Former senator Ninoy Aquino who was assassinated and Jesuit Father Romeo Intengan were both imprisoned during the Marcos regime. Suprisingly, Fr. Romeo Intengan, one of the founders of the Partido Demokratiko-Sosyalista Ng Pilipinas of which Ninoy Aquino is a member, together with Norberto Gonzales, are Ateneans (Jesuit Ateneo de Manila). Ninoy Aquino is the husband of Cory Aquino, who become president and was very close to the late Archbishop of Manila Jaime Cardinal Sin. Norberto Gonzales is now President Arroyo’s National Security Secretary. Jaime Cardinal Sin owned the San Juan De Dios Hospital in Pasay City on the heart of Manila, where you will find Jaime Cardinal Sin Building.

It was former president Cory Aquino who allowed Bishop Teodoro Bacani, Sister Christene Tan and Fr. Joaquin Bernas (Jesuit Priest Of Ateneo as Constitutionalist) to participate in the amendments of our beloved 1987 Philippine Constitution. I thought that there was a separation of church and state.

Professor Francisco Ramirez (a proud Filipino) is indeed correct. The Univesity Of Santo Thomas (UST) is owned by the Dominican Order. UST is called “PAPAL UNIVERSITY IN THE PHILIPPINES”. However, the Ateneo de Manila is owned by the Jesuit Order. When Pope Clement XIV issued a Papal Bull in 1773 abolishing the Jesuit Order, the Ateneo de Manila was temporarily suspended. Pope Clement XIV was assassinated by the Jesuits using a”Poison Cup” and many Dominican friars in France were killed by the Jacobins for siding with Pope Clement XIV. When the Jesuit Order was re-established, the Ateneo de Manila was again back in normal operation. The Dominicans will not touch again the properties of the Jesuit Order.
It is believed that the Loyola Memorial Park Cemetery in the Philippines is owned by the Catholic Church. A cemetery only for rich and famous filipino families.

The Jesuit Order is the real order that controls the Freemasons Secret Society. This is the reason Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s campaignwas supported by the Masonic Lodges Of The Philippines. The former Philipine National Police (PNP) Director-General (Gen. Hermogenes Ebdane is a Masonic Master). Now the present PNP Dir. Gen. Aturo Lomibao & PNP NCR Chief Gen. Vidal Querol are also members of Masonic Lodges together with Ebdane. The Gloria-Gate Scandal “Wire-Tapped Tele-Conversation” between Comelec Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano and Pres. Arroyo was tapped by the ISAFP – Intelligence Service Armed Forces Of The Philippines. Former National Bureau Of Investigation (NBI) official Atty. Samuel Ong kept the alledge mother of all tapes. Atty. Ong together with ISAFP Sgt. Doble found safe haven at the San Carlos Seminarista in Gudalupe, Makati City. There, Atty. Samuel Ong handed over the mother of all tape to Roman Catholic Bishop Teodoro Bacani. While Father Robert Reyes is standing in vigil outside the gate of the San Carlos Seminarista and the PNP Policemen can’t enter.This shows how powerful the Catholic Church is in the Philippines.

Bobby Limeta (Historian)