The maxims of the Jesuits disseminated themselves, like an infectious disease, far beyond the circle of their own order, as is shown by the comprehensive works of the Sicilian Antony Diana (Resolutiones \Moi~ales, Antv. 1G29-37, 4 vols, fob; Lugd. 1GG7; Venet. 1728), who taught, under the express approval of his ecclesiastical superiors, and also of the Jesuits, the doctrine of proba- bilism in its worst forms. One may act according to a probable opinion, and disregard the more probable one ; man is not under obligation to follow the more perfect and the more certain, but it suffices to follow the simply certain and perfect; it would be an unendurable bur- den were one required to hunt out the more probable opinions (Res. Mo?: [Antv. 1G37] vol. ii. tract. 13; vol. iv, tract. 3; Snmma [1652], p. 214). The most of the Jesuits taught the same thing. In relation to mur- der, Diana teaches like Escobar: I am at liberty to kill even him who assails my honor if my honor cannot otherwise be rescued (Res. Mor. iii, 5, 90; Summa, p. 210, 212). When some one has resolved upon a great sin, then one is at libertv to recommend to him a lesser one, because such advice does not relate absolutely to an evil, but to a good, namely, the avoiding of, the worse; for example, if I cannot otherwise dissuade a person from an intended adultery than by recommending to him fornication instead thereof, then it is allowable to recommend this to him ; not, however, in so far as it is a sin, but in so far as it prevents the sin of adultery. Diana appeals in this connection to many like-judging Jesuit doctors (Res. Mor. [Antv. 1G37] vol. iii, tract. 5, 37). If a priest commissions Peter to kill Caius, who is weaker than Peter, but nevertheless Peter comes out second best and gets killed himself, still the priest in- I curs no guilt, and may continue in the administration of his office (ibid. vol. iii, tract. 15, 17). He who resolves upon committing all possible venial sins does not there- bo involve himself in any mortal sin (ibid. vol. iii, tract. 6, 24). He who, ex aliqua justa causa, rents a house to another for purposes of prostitution commits no sin (ibid. vol. iii, tract. 6, 45). To eat human flesh, in case of necessity, he holds, with the majority of the Jesuirs. as allowable (ibid, tract, 6, 48). He who, in virtue of a promise of marriage, induces a maiden to yield to him is not bound by his promise in case he is of higher
PROBABILISM
COS
PROBABLE
Tank or richer than she. <>r in case he can persuade him- self that she will uol take bis promise in serious earnest (ibid. Aniv. J vol. iii, tract. 6, 81 ; in the spirit of San- chez and Less). Marriage between brother and sister can be mad'' legitimate by papal dispensation (ibid. vol. iv. tract. I. 94; sanctioned by several Jesuits). In duch moral perversity of view Diana seems onlj to have i n surj assed by the Spanish Netherlander Cis- tercian Lobkowitz (Theol. Afor. 1645, 1652; comp. Per- rault, i, 331 sq.), who, in his scepticism, entirely breaks down the moral consciousness, and declares thai noth- ing is evil per se, but only because it is positively for- bidden; hence God ran dispense even with all the com- mandments (comp. the views of Duns Scotus. p. 34) (ibid. 1626); can, e. g., allow whoredom and other like sin-, for none of these arc evils /»/■ se. .Monks and priests are at liberty to kill the female misused by them when they fear, on her account, for their honor. This writer declares himself expressly and decidedly in favor of the views of the Jesuits. Also the Franciscan Order became infected with the maxims of the Jesuits, a- is proved by the very voluminous work of Barthol. Mas- trius de Mamlula (ibid. 1626), which was pubhshed un- der the express sanction of the officers of the order, and who justifies restricHones mentales even in oaths | Disp. xi, ."]_'. 171, 172, 1S:5, ed. Yen. 172.'!), and also the mur- der of tyrants (ibid, viii, 27), the murder of the slan- derers of an important person, castration, and similar things (ibid. viii. ■_'.">. 28; xi, 110 sq.), as well as proba- bilism.
The moral system of the .Jesuits is, we grant, not, strictly speaking, that of the Romish Church; many of their more extreme maxims the Church has con- demned, and the more recent Jesuits themselves find it advisable no longer fully to avow their former princi- ples. Nevertheless Jesuitism, together with its system
of rals, is, as has been well said by W'uttke (i. 271,
2 7 2 i. "the ultimate consequential goal of the Church in li- turning aside from the Gospel, just as (though in other respects widely different therefrom) Talmud- ism was the necessary goal of Judaism in its rejection of the Saviour. The error consists in the placing of human discretion and authority in the stead of the unconditionally valid, revealed will of God. Even as earlier Catholicism had intensified the divine command by self- invented, ascetic work-holiness into a seem- ingly greater severity -had aimed at a higher moral perfection than that required by God -so Jesuitism, with like presumption, lowered the moral law. out of consideration to temporal relations, to a merest mini- mum requirement; contented itself with a much lower moral perfection than the divine law calls for, and Bought out cunning means for lightening even this min- imum."