And Liguori was not the only Jesuit who taught such wickedness. “J. De Cardenas says [in his Crisis Theologica]… ‘It is allowable to take an oath, as well in important as in unimportant matters, without having the intention of keeping it, as soon as one has good grounds for so acting.’ ‘To make use of words of double meaning and to falsely deceive the judge, is allowable in certain cases,’ as Father Castropalos writes (tom. iii. of his work, Tract 14), ‘when one can only find a worthy excuse in concealing the truth. For instance, dissimulation might be necessary, in order not to pronounce sentence of death against one’s self, where instant destruction is in question; thus canst thou deny the truth and take refuge in dissimulation in such a case without being guilty of the least transgression. It is, indeed, allowable in such instances to take an oath of equivocation, as every man has a right to preserve his life by any means in his power… To this view of mine our most learned theologians agree.’ Castropalos then adds, after some further discussion, ‘and for this I refer to the works of Navarra, Tolet, Suarez, Valencia, and Lessius.’ Sanchez and Bonacinus also teach the same thing, and the latter says: ‘Interrogated as to a crime committed, it is not at all incumbent on you to confess, as long as you can find for your advantage any tolerable excuse. And when judicially interrogated, or when a great and important injury would accrue to you from a confession of your misdeed, you may boldly affirm that you have not committed it; only you must so form your words that you may afterwards be able to explain them according as you wish… Thus writes the learned Castropalos, and the greatly admired Father Filliutius expresses himself in a precisely similar way in his great work on theology (vol. x., Treatise 25, chap. 12). He writes: ‘one asks whether it is allowable at times to take an equivocating oath, a secret mental reservation being kept concealed. I answer, Yes, only the chief thing is that the answer must be so framed according to the question, that afterwards another interpretation may be given to it, if it be found necessary, and difficulty be not occasioned by so doing.’”
It is very evident that the bottom line, according to Jesuit teaching, is that self-preservation is the most important thing. Lying and perjury are absolutely justified and acceptable, if this is the only way to ensure one’s own self-preservation.
Imagine if parents raised their children according to such Jesuit doctrine! The child would constantly find excuses as to why he could not tell his parents the truth for something he had done.
But take a look at the world’s governments; what do we find? Politicians lie, they lie all the time, they lie without compunction and without remorse. When they are caught red-handed in some crime, they lie. Roman Catholic politicians – and there are a great many of them throughout the West – have been taught, by their Jesuit confessors and other priests greatly influenced by the Jesuits, that this is perfectly acceptable; and gradually, over the centuries, this monstrous doctrine has filtered down into the skulls of all kinds of non-Papist politicians as well, until it has become an absolutely acceptable way of life for perhaps the majority of them.
Is it any wonder that we see the fruits of such teaching all around us today?
The Lord Jesus Christ said, in Jn. 8:44: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it”; and Rev. 21:8 says, “But… all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.”