The Irish standard., 1900-07-21
JESUITS TAKE NO OATH.
New York Times Fooled by a Cores
pOndent.

The following explanation appears in
the New York Times:
In the New York Times of Sunday
last was printed a letter signed "Nor-
wlcl, in which the writer gave as a
reason for British laws against the Iesu-
ITS that the latter took an oath as nov-
ices against the government. The writer
gave what purported to be the wording
OF this oath. Two readers of the Times
questioned the correctness of this state
ment, one OF them being T. St. John
Gaftney, whose letter to this paper
brought out the rejoinder from "Nor-
wich.' The latter, who is business
man OF this city, brought to the Times
Office two volumes published in this
country and directed against Catholics.
winch contain the form of oath quoted
by him.
When the matter was called to the
attention OF the Jesuit fathers in this
city, one or two of them who were seen
characterized "Norwich's" assertions
about the oath as untrue and ridiculous
and outrageous. One said: II have been
for over thirty years in the order and
never took that oath nor any oath, nor
have | even heard it nor known anv
oath to be administered to any one en-
tering the order"
The priest then sent one of the Jesuit
brothers for Father Conner, and direct
ed him simply to tell Father Conner
that a gentleman desired to see him.
When Father Conner came and was
shown the copy of the oath as printed in
"Norwich's' letter to the Times he at
once denounced it as untrue.
such charges" continued Father
Conner, "come up from time to time
like the document which is alleged to
have been found in the tomb of Christ
There is no truth whatever in them"
Mr.. Gaffney, when seen last evening,
said that he has had a Jesuit education
and had met hundreds of Jesuits Of
various nationalities, Englishmen,
trenchmen and Germans. He himself
had never taken the oath, as given by
Norwich" nor any other oath, nor had
he heard of any of the Jesuits whom
he had met having taken any oath.
MIR. Gaffney's letter questioning the
correctness OF "Norwich's'' statement
is as follows:
Some Of your readers have questioned
the accuracy of my statements in regard
to the disabilities which Catholics suffer
from under the tolerant and progressive
civilization Of England. No doubt these
persons naturally feel Inundated that
the liberal institution of "Anglo-Saxon-
DOM should be directed against any
mans faith, much less the greatest faith
in Christendom. All of your correspond
ents aver that the Jesuits should prop
erly be made the subject of stringent
legislative enactments, as they are dan
gcrous people, and one of them publish
es an oath alleged to be taken by the
members of that order before they are
protested in the priesthood
1t is needless for me to say that no
such oath is part of the ritual of the
Jesuit society. But the vicious laws of
which have previously spoken are not
merely against the Jesuits, they are lev
elled at all the Catholic orders. The
Christian Brothers, whose mission it is
to train and teach the poor and lowly,
suffer from them in the same degree as
the Jesuits who teach the rich and pow
erful. During the last session OF parlia-
ment the government refused to facili-
tate the passage of any remedial legis-
lation, Notwithstanding the urgent re-
quest of some OF its own Catholic sup
lporters. A few weeks ago his grace the