The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1914-01-17

justifies Indifferent acts. Further, if
one man kills another on the street
with the purpose of robbing him, or
sionate revenge, his act is grossly
immoral and unjust. But If he kills a
man who attacks him unjustly and
with murderous intent, and the only
way possible to defend his life is to
STAY his assailant, such manslaughter
is held to be justified by every moral
list and every court in Christendom
In cases like this the Jesuits teach
that the end, in this case of self-pro-
lection, justifies the means left-the
Staying of an unjust assailant. But
why blame the Jesuits for teaching
what every moralist of common sense
does and must teach. In reference to
cases like the foregoing Jesuit writer's,
no doubt, make the statement that the
end justif1es the means.
Aimed at Jesuits.
But by the enemies of the Jesuits
the saying is taken out of it's context,
WuCI0 lis uuL140I1hCD4C
and perfectly ethical, and generalized
so as to mean that any end which the
Jesuits desire to obtain justifies any
means however immoral that will en-
able them to obtain it. No wonder
that our Protestant fellow citizens,
deceived by calumniators, hate and
distrust u.s. Of course we have moth
ing but adherence and utter con-
demnation for any and all such prin-
ciples. The Jesuits have suffered in
many ways, have had their houses
and colleges confiscated, have been
driven out of one country after an
other, not because they held this
atrocious principle, but precisely be-
cause they would not hold or act on
it, nor allow others to do So. If Jesuit
confessors and preachers and teach
ers would take hush money and shut
their eyes and their mouths regard
ing the use of foul means by kings
and governments and courts and peo-
pie, they would have been subjected
to fewer considerations and explosions
and crusades of Infamous SANDER.
Great Protestant critics, historians
and philosophers have been our splen-
did defenders.
Protestant Authorities Deny Truth of
Charge.
1t would be altogether in place for
me to quote the crushing refutations
of the SANDER, advanced times with
out number by Jesuit and other Cath
Ollie scholars. 1t would be equally ap-
propriate to cite vast body of elo-
quent and earnest testimony of emin-
ent Protestant scholars on the Jesuits
and their varied works for three and
half centuries. But this course
might impose on the patience of read
ers. We ask them to read only great
Protestant authorities who explicitly
deny that the Jesuits ever taught the
principle that any end however eX-
allied and generous does or can justify
the use of immoral means. 1t is in
this sense that the maxim is utterly
immoral and shocking to our very in
stincts. No respectable, no rational
man could teach it while retaining
any regard for truth or decency. The
calumniators have believed it a good
purpose to blacken and villify the
Jesuits, and they have not hestiated
to use every species of utterly i'm
moral means to effect their object.
They are themselves deeply and re-
peatedly guilty of the odious charge
urged against the unoffending Jesuits
Far from identifying our Protestant
fellow citizens generally with these
calumniators, to educated Protestant
readers and writer's we refer for our
vindication, to them we appeal for
fair play in the defense of our limo
| cence against the atrocious accusation
of teaching the world that men may
do evil that good may follow. And
our appeal has been favorably an
swered by Protestants too enlighten-
ed, too noble, too purely devoted to
truth and justice, to lend themselves
to the work of propagating falsehood
and persecution. Thanks to our Prot
estant defenders. They bring truth
and it's consequences to hosts of read
ers whom we can scarcely hope to
roach