Jesuit “Moral Theology” and the Destruction of Western Morality

Jesuit Moral Theology and the Destruction of Western Morality, PDF format

Introduction

  Do you want to know why the West has become a moral cesspool?  A major reason is Jesuit “moral theology”, which has been taught for the past four centuries and has spread through western society like leaven.  For this order of Roman Catholic priests has worked, since its inception, to conquer Protestantism, and the Protestant-influenced West, for the pope of Rome.  And to do that, it has worked to destroy, indeed annihilate, western morality, which was so largely the product of the influence of Protestantism.

  What you are about to read will shock and horrify every true Christian!  This is not to say that the Jesuits are solely responsible for the collapse of the western world’s morals; but they are most definitely a major cause of it.

  In order to analyse the various immoral, vile, perverted and utterly anti-scriptural Jesuit doctrines in the light of the Bible, quotations from the works of Jesuit theologians themselves will be given.  These are taken from two books which powerfully expose the Jesuit Order: History of the Jesuits, by Theodor Griesinger,[1] and Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, by Charles Chiniquy.[2]  Protestants of previous generations were well aware of the Jesuits and their intrigues, thanks to books like these; but alas, today the situation is very different.  Very little is known about them at all, which has had devastatingly tragic results within the ranks of Protestantism, and within western society in general.    For this very purpose I wrote my own book, The Jesuits: the Secret Army of the Papacy.[3] 

  As this pamphlet will show, Jesuit “moral theology” has (for the most part unknowingly) been absorbed into western society, including into what has been called the “Protestant West”.  And the results are to be seen all around us.  It is no exaggeration to say that the Jesuit Order has played a huge role in altering the morals of the western world.

  May the Lord be pleased to use this present pamphlet to open the eyes of many to the disgusting “moral theology” of the Jesuits.

  It must be pointed out that although Griesinger refers to these Jesuit priests by their title of “Father”, Christians are commanded not to give this title to any man, in a spiritual sense (Matt. 23:9); and in this present pamphlet I only do so in the imaginary exchanges between a Roman Catholic and a Jesuit in the confessional, where the Roman Catholic will of course call the priest, “Father.”

                                                               Lying and Perjury

  Regarding lying and perjury, the Jesuits have taught plainly that these sins are allowable whenever a man’s honour, property, or health might be harmed if he spoke the truth.

  Alphonsus de Liguori was an influential Jesuit priest and theologian, extremely valuable to Rome, so much so that Rome made him into one of her “saints”.  But seldom, if ever, has a more immoral man put pen to paper than he.  This is what he taught concerning lying:  “Notwithstanding, indeed although it is not lawful to lie, or to feign what is not, nevertheless it is lawful to dissemble what is, or to cover the truth with words, or other ambiguous and doubtful signs for a just cause, and when there is not a necessity of confessing.  It is the common opinion [Moral Theology, tom. ii. lib. iii. cap. iii. p. 116, n. 12.  Mech. 1845].”[4]

  “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: ‘These things being established, it is a certain and a common opinion amongst all divines that for a just cause it is lawful to use equivocation in the propounded modes, and to confirm it (equivocation) with an oath…. Now a just cause is any honest end in order to preserve good things for the spirit, or useful things for the body’ [Moral Theology, tom. ii. lib. iii. cap. iii. p. 116, n. 12.  Mech. 1845].”[5]

  “‘The accused, or a witness not properly interrogated, can swear that he does not know a crime, which in reality he does know, by understanding that he does not know the crime, concerning which he can be legitimately enquired of, or that he does not know it so as to give evidence concerning it’ [Liguori, Moral Theology, tom. ii. n. 153. Mech. 1845].”[6]

  “‘Make an exception in a trial where the crime is altogether concealed.  For then he can, yea, the witness is bound to say that the accused did not commit the crime. And the same course the accused can adopt, if the proof be not complete, etc., because then the judge does not legitimately interrogate’ [Liguori, Moral Theology, tom. ii. n. 154, p. 320. Mech. 1845].”[7]

  “Liguori asks himself, ‘Whether the accused legitimately interrogated, can deny a crime, even with an oath, if the confession of the crime would be attended with great disadvantage.’  The [Romish] saint replies:– ‘Elbel, etc., denies that he can, and indeed more probably because the accused is then bound for the general good to undergo the loss.  But sufficiently probable Lugo, etc., with many others, say, that the accused, if in danger of death, or of prison, or of perpetual exile, the loss of all property, the danger of the galleys, and such like, can deny the crime even with an oath (at least without great sin) by understanding that he did not commit it so that he is bound to confess it,– only let there be a hope of avoiding the punishment’ [Moral Theology, tom. ii. n. 156, p. 321. Mech. 1845]”[8]

  “‘He who hath sworn that he would keep a secret, does not sin against the oath by revealing that secret when he cannot conceal it without great loss to himself, or to another, because the promise of secrecy does not appear to bind, unless under this condition, if it does not injure me.’

  “‘He who hath sworn to a judge that he would speak what he knew, is not bound to reveal concealed things.  The reason is manifest’ [Liguori, Moral Theology, tom. ii. p. 340. Mech. 1845].”[9]  Yes, well, to a Jesuit it may be.

%d bloggers like this: