Jesuits here, Jesuits there

The latest from Sandro Magister involves Pope Francis, a writer for the Jesuit produced journal La Civiltà Cattolica, the bishops of the Philippines, Pope Francis, and Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ.

ROME, January 29, 2015 – They have not gone without notice, the harsh criticisms addressed by an authoritative Jesuit of the authoritative “La Civiltà Cattolica” to the bishops of the Philippines, for their strenuous opposition to the law on “reproductive health” successfully backed in the country by Catholic president Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino.

The criticisms, formulated in a book, were presented in detail in this article from www.chiesa:

> Bishops of the Philippines Under Pressure. Examined and Rejected

The Jesuit who slammed the Filipino bishops for being “backward” and “closed off” not only with respect to the beacons of modernity but also with respect to the requests of Pope Francis is the Frenchman Pierre de Charentenay, a former president of the Centre Sèvres, the Paris institute of higher education of the Society of Jesus, director from 2004 to 2012 of the magazine of the Jesuits of France, “Études,” and since last year part of the team of writers of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the magazine of the Rome Jesuits printed after inspection by Vatican authorities and directed by a man very close to the pope, Fr. Antonio Spadaro.

His [Pierre de Charentenay’s] dismissal of the bishops of the Philippines made an even bigger impression because it coincided with the journey of Pope Francis to that country, which is not only the only one in Asia with a majority Catholic population, but also distinguishes itself by the strong presence of its bishops in the public sphere. [So, the Jesuits in orbit about Pope Francis right now are against “culture warriors”?]

Receiving the pope on January 16 at the presidential palace (see photo), Benigno Aquino, educated in the Jesuit schools of Manila, also took the opportunity to criticize the Filipino bishops. In welcoming his guest he cited and turned against them the pre-Christmas address of Francis to the Roman curia, with the condemnation of those who by virtue of their roles make themselves “sowers of discord.”

But neither in the discourse delivered immediately after that circumstance – where he nonetheless struck a blow for the “inalienable right to life, beginning with that of the unborn” – nor in other moments of his visit did Pope Francis expend a single word in defense of the bishops.

Not everyone, however, among the Jesuits agrees with the accusatory theses of their confrere of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” […]

From San Francisco, after reading the rejection of the Filipino bishops decreed by Fr. de Charentenay because of their closure to modernity, the Jesuit Joseph Fessio reacted by sending us the letter reproduced below.

Fr. Fessio is not an unknown. Formed in the theological school of Joseph Ratzinger – and a prominent member of the circle of his disciples, the “Ratzinger Schülerkreis” – he founded and directs the publishing house Ignatius Press in the United States, which recently made an impression with the book “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” with contributions from five cardinals against communion for the divorced and remarried.

The following are the “errors of reason and of fact” that Fr. Fessio sees present in Fr. de Charentenay’s criticisms of the bishops of the Philippines, on matters of “reproductive health.

[…]

Read Fr. Fessio’s letter there.

 

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Emanations from Penumbras, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The Olympian Middle and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Jesuits here, Jesuits there

  1. CatholicMD says:

    I hope a future Pope suppresses the Society of Jesus. They now do more harm than good despite Jesuits such as Frs. Fessio and Pacwa.

  2. Traductora says:

    Well, since the Pope is a Jesuit…and not the Fr. Fessio type…I guess the Jesuits are safe for the moment.

  3. gramma10 says:

    All I can say is that St. Ignatius de Loyola must be turning over in his grave.
    I thought that too of St. Jose Maria Escriva of Opus Dei. St. Francis of Assisi too! etc….
    I don’t think any of them would have appreciated the way some future members of their orders in this era have lost the true passion, root meaning and life style of the original founders.
    They really ought to get back to the holy basics and stop playing religious politics.

  4. marcelus says:

    Ohh not the fallen from grace vaticanista again. sad to see these men loose there privileges.

    WHen people resort to doctrine or even comparasion with former popes to beat on PF, that may be understandable if the can barely tolerate Francis, but constantly looking for the opinion of these “journalists”? whose words will be… yes .. critical of the pope 99% of the time , is not doing a very good job nor a favor to anyone. I mean picking articles that bash PF, even softly, is not difficult. particularly from trad sites.

    There may have been lot’s of things PF did not do or could have done better in the Philipines, but to make an effort and LOOK for this issue and bring it to the surface as a great discovery or scoop…

    Like they say:

    “if you find yourself hanging on every word Pope Francis says, simply looking for that one or more words to crucify him, just remember the scribes and pharisees did that to Jesus”

    And I’m an not comparing them.

    It is a about the “sinful”? sport of bashing now.

  5. After examination, my reaction to this is simply to reject Fr. de Charentenay.

  6. jacobi says:

    We have to be careful about dismissing all Jesuits as bad. Some are, some aren’t, just as with Dominicans, some of whom are very good. My Jesuit upbringing was excellent both doctrinally and liturgically.

    What worries me about this matter is how the Pope and the Vatican are reacting . Who are these “Vatican authorities” and just what remit and responsibilities do they have? And as usual we are not getting a clear lead from the Holy Father who again appears to be telling all what they want to hear. He should come out clearly in defence of the Magisterium, and if not should say what his position is. At least then we would all know where we are.

    Oh what interesting times we live in!

  7. Traductora says:

    Getting back to the substance of Fr Fessio’s letter (and not the fact that he is a Jesuit!), it’s very good and he does point out that contraception is, in a sense, not a “victimless crime” in terms of its effect on a society. It certainly does lead one to think of children as an inherent evil to be avoided, and also encourages people to come to view abortion as simply a back-up for when contraception fails. As he points out, the countries with the highest rate of contraceptive use also have the highest abortion rates.

    Pope Francis was certainly not warm in his support for the Philippine bishops, except for Cdl Tagle, who obviously shares what one suspects to be the Pope’s views on a number of things, such as communion for divorced and remained Catholics. Cdl Tagle is considered the most liberal of the Philippine bishops and the one who would like to abandon the “culture wars” and get back to good old “mercy.” (He’s also considered to be a very likely contender in the next consistory.)

    Against that background, the Pope’s failure to refute any of Fr. de Charentenay’s claims does lead one to suspect that he may be in agreement with him.

  8. Bosco says:

    Remember this not so long ago prediction/sermon on the Antichrist preached by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi? See the link to the full article published in Catholic Culture below :

    “A cardinal, the Times of London has suggested is a possible successor to John Paul II as Pope, has warned that the Antichrist may already be among us — but not seem evil to many. Rather, this “fascinating personality” (fascinating in the sense of mesmerizing) may be seen by many as a great humanitarian because of his support for things like vegetarianism, pacifism and the protection of the environment.

    Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the 72-year-old archbishop of Bologna (central Italy), made his comments in a lecture he gave in March on Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900), a brilliant Russian Orthodox theologian and mystic who has also been cited approvingly by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

    Soloviev said the Antichrist would appear after the 20th century. He said the 20th century would be marked by horrific wars and the demise of sovereign nations. Then the Antichrist would appear. He would call for a world religion via ecumenism, replacing traditional Christianity with an amorphous “New Age” type of spirituality…

    Soloviev’s predictions are “astonishing” in their accuracy, Biffi said, suggesting that Antichrist has already started his work.

    Vatican watchers think Biffi’s remarks significant because they offer a glimpse into the mind of a man who could be John Paul II’s successor. Here is Biffi’s address, “Vladimir Soloviev: A Prophet Unheeded,” delivered in Italian on March 4, in our own translation.”

    http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3430

  9. Bosco says:

    Incidentally, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote commenting on the second temptation of Jesus in his 2004 book ‘On the Road toward Christ Jesus’ (referring directly to Soloviev’s ‘A Short Tale of the Antichrist’):

    “And a phrase of Soloviev’s is illuminating: The Antichrist believes in God, but in the depths of his heart he prefers himself.”

  10. Sonshine135 says:

    Pope Francis didn’t expend one word in defense of the Bishops, but at the same time, he probably didn’t expend a single word in offense either. This isn’t his style. My issue isn’t the Pope really, but with some of the loose “Cannons” (pun intended) that he has surrounded himself with. There are some serious deficiencies that need to be addressed in the Curia and in the Diocese throughout the world.

  11. Uxixu says:

    A few good Jesuits but unfortunately appear to be anecdotal against the impression of the order as a whole. As the infamous joke goes, the Jesuits failed in the mission in they were created for and Protestants still proliferate. Education? Doesn’t have the greatest reputation for orthodoxy and when looking at the numbers of confirmed who lapse into secularism and the material world should make us question… then there’s the infamous heterodoxies of the major nominally Catholic universities…

  12. martin.c says:

    Although I admire Fr. Fessio’s courage and loyalty to Christ, I have a theological problem with this part of his letter:

    Is it true that abortion is a greater evil than contraception, even “decidedly more serious”? Not necessarily. Take the case of married couples who without grave necessity use contraception to postpone having children for years after they are married. Certainly in some cases it is God’s will for them to be open to new life. Which then is the graver evil? To prevent the conception – and very existence – of a human being with an immortal soul, desired by God and destined for eternal happiness? Or to abort a child in the womb? The latter is certainly a grave evil, “Gaudium et spes” calls it an “abominable crime”. But a child exists who will live eternally. In the former circumstance a child God intended to be will never exist

    First of all, abortion is a crime against the 5th commandment and contraception is against the 6th. Even St. Thomas Aquinas who regarding the malice of sodomy shares the argument about the preclusion of conception was of the opinion that killing is worse:

    However, the inordinate emission of semen is incompatible with the natural good; namely, the preservation of the species. Hence, after the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded. (source)

    But I still don’t buy the “potential human person” argument. As far as I know (which isn’t much so I look forward to corrections), God doesn’t actually intend those things which do not happen. What God “intends” always come to be because of his omnipotence -although He may “desire” something which doesn’t actually happen (e.g. He desires all people to be saved, but he also permits evil so not everyone makes it). It is true that by virtue of His omniscience he knows who would have been born from contracepted sexual acts, but the same is true of any hypothetical sexual act which could but does not occur. The thing is that he didn’t choose those potential persons to exist, but us. He intended us to be, and them He intended to be not. The problem with contraception is that by deliberately frustrating the primary end of sexuality, it transforms the marital act into an act of sodomy. That’s a solid argument rooted in Scripture and the Magisterium and we should stick to it. Using not so solid arguments to advance a marginal and potentially scandalous theological hypothesis (i.e. that contraception is at least as grave as abortion) in a text addressed to the general public is… not optimal, to say the least.

  13. martin.c says:

    Errata: In my previous comment, the first quote should end at “a child God intended to be will never exist”. The second quote should start at: “However, the inordinate emission of… .”

  14. Alanmac says:

    Speaking of Jesuits, one of the most apostate is an American, Father James Martin. He is on TV, press, facebook, etc. He is in favor of female ordination, same sex marriage and contraception (abortion, I’m not sure). He has a very wide audience who all agree with him against the big, bad old Catholic Church. Very modern, hip and very dangerous. How he continues to get away with this malarky is beyond me.

  15. Lorenz says:

    The e-mail address of Pierre De Charentenay is:
    pierre.de-charentenay@ser-sa.com

    I just may e-mail him to let him know my thoughts. It is baffling that as Europe’s native birthrate collapses, sexual immorality declines to lower and lower standards, marriage loses its meaning, schools close due to lack of children, there still exists, exists under the umbrella of Catholicism the feeble-minded who claim that if we only follow the contemporary culture (as old-line protestants do) people will flock back to the church. Maybe they were able to argue 45 years ago. But today, today after years of empirical statistics and evidence they only reveal their own stunted and limited intelligence.

    We are now in the power of the era of clergy ordained between 1965 to 1985. Let me give you an example. Where I am sitting at this time, I have a work colleague (12 years older than I am) who during the late 1970s felt he had a vocation to become a priest. He approached the Oblate order and received guidance to study for the priesthood in the local seminary. He then furthered his studies at St. Paul University in Ottawa. While there he was taught that most of scripture was just myth, he studied the historical critical method. He was taught that there is nothing proving that Jesus is the messiah and that he did not found a church. Now as a heterosexual man who absorbed these beliefs what do you think he did? What he did was this, convinced that the Christianity is bunk he left the seminary, got married, had a family and moved on in the modern world. He is a very nice man and from what I can see an excellent husband and father. I do not speak to him about religion in at this time there is no point in that it will only result in an argument. He deserves nothing more than prayers and support as he is a casualty of 70s/80s anti-Catholic modernism in the seminaries. Leaving his aspirations for the priesthood was the logical choice if you lose your faith. Not so if you are a homosexual and see the prospects of academic career advancement, or malicious intent to justify your lifestyle by undermining and sabotaging the faith of others. On a more sinister note, other men who would have stayed on with would have been the diabolical intent on sinning against the holy spirit and sowing disbelief and doubt at every opportunity. No doubt some men came through that hell preserving some of their faith but also wounded and scarred.

    It is very sad when I watch videos of Bill Maher and Sam Harris criticizing Islam and speaking up for persecuted Christians in the middle east while many Cardinals and Bishops approach Islam ecumenically. Atheists such as these have a better chance at conversion than these Judas priests who were exposed to the faith and then rejected it and work as a 5th column within the church to destroy her.

    I am not happy with this pontificate in that I believe that the old saying “show me your friends and I will show you who you are” is true. Pope Francis deliberately exiles good men while promoting and surrounding himself with the wicked. I hope and pray for his conversion. I pray that their wicked manipulations do not trickle down to the faithful.

  16. marcelus says:

    SO what is your take on that? who is this antichrist?

    Bosco says:
    30 January 2015 at 9:24 am
    Remember this not so long ago prediction/sermon on the Antichrist preached by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi? See the link to the full article published in Catholic Culture below :

    “A cardinal, the Times of London has suggested is a possible successor to John Paul II as Pope, has warned that the Antichrist may already be among us — but not seem evil to many. Rather, this “fascinating personality” (fascinating in the sense of mesmerizing) may be seen by many as a great humanitarian because of his support for things like vegetarianism, pacifism and the protection of the environment.

    Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the 72-year-old archbishop of Bologna (central Italy), made his comments in a lecture he gave in March on Vladimir Soloviev (1853-1900), a brilliant Russian Orthodox theologian and mystic who has also been cited approvingly by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

    Soloviev said the Antichrist would appear after the 20th century. He said the 20th century would be marked by horrific wars and the demise of sovereign nations. Then the Antichrist would appear. He would call for a world religion via ecumenism, replacing traditional Christianity with an amorphous “New Age” type of spirituality…

  17. albizzi says:

    The french jesuit “Revue Etudes” felt itself well inspired in siding with “Je suis Charlie” as a proof of its width of mind by publishing some disgusting and shocking caricatures of Charlie Hebdo.
    Many catholic people sent a protest and even the former jesuit director disagreed.
    These poor men who in a bygone time earned the title of the “Pope’s GIs” have become so afraid not being enough in the trend of the time’s mainstream, so eager to follow the bleating flock.
    I knew some of them when I was schooled in a jesuit college. They were of another caliber.
    Very sad…

  18. albizzi says:

    Who said this:
    “When God wants to chastize the men, He clouds their minds” ?

    [Perhaps Sophocles.]

  19. The Masked Chicken says:

    One could, I suppose, almost compare the current situation to the fight over big tobacco (BT). They withheld crucial information for decades and made killing oneself look suave. What could the little guy do? BT had deep pockets and would ground the little guy into dust by their aggressive counter-suits. It took some pretty big players, from the head of the FDA, to high power corporate lawyers who formed a consortium to do pro-bono work for clients, to finally bring them down. The modern problem in the Church is that the little guy can’t speak up and half of the big guns are playing for the other side.

    Have ever noticed that there are no tv shows featuring rural settings, anymore, like Green Acres, Beverly Hillbillies, Andy Griffith, etc.? That’s because, in the tv season of 1970 -1971, Fred Silverman at CBS, followed by the other networks, in looking to be, “hip,” and court the younger crowd, got rid of all of those sorts of programs, even those (and there were many) that were in the top ten, in what is now called, “The Rural Purge.” The programs were replaced by extreme left-leaning programs, like, All in the Family, and programs with polyester-clad men and skimpily-clothed women (Charlie’s Angels). Overnight, they changed the viewing habits of America from one dominated by wise, weary, and wary older adults, who favored the slow rural pace, to one of constant action, change, and, “relevance.” You saw this in the comic books of the time, as well.

    There was nothing the average viewer could do. They complained to deaf ears. Eventually, Congress got involved and, basically, ordered more rural shows to be made, in the late 1970’s. CBS, in a bravado attempt to show that, in fact, no one would watch rural shows any longer, floated a show about a young writer, the oldest of seven children, with a crusty old grandfather and a caring father and mother. They called the show, The Waltons.

    My point is that there is a silent rural purge going on in the Church fueled by the desire to be hip and the average Church-goer can do nothing, (except pray, which certainly is not nothing). In a bravado attempt to show that most parishioners would no longer participate in old stuff, some bishops have floated a Mass about sacrifice and a love stronger than death. They called the Mass, Extraordinary.

    Not far beneath the surface in most households lies a family that would watch shows about the best in man, about the simple life, about trusting in something greater than themselves, but they keep getting re-runs of All in the Family, except there isn’t any family, anymore. This is what frightens most liberals – that just beneath the surface in most men there is a quiet core that longs for silence and the reality of plain old dirt and if they don’t keep the pot stirred, that quiet core will rise to the surface and prove, once again, the sanctity of the human creatures made from that dust and dirt.

    They want to grind us to the dust, but that’s okay, because we are dust, and for all of their talk of things-in-the sky and the new and the novel, they have overlooked the fact that, sometimes, dust can be extraordinary – as extraordinary as the clay that formed Adam and as kind as the merciful dirt that held up the Cross.

    I am not worried, because, when the last new floaty thing is been given its own commercial, when the latest, “family,” has had its try-out on screen, when Charlie’s Angels have become the commonplace devils they are and all is madness, the dirt, the quiet dirt, will still be there. We cannot look for the pro-bono work of major players to get us out of this and the FDA will not provide scientific evidence that humility is next to Godliness. Unlike the overcoming of tobacco, by tactics and craftiness, we will overcome by silence. That is the one secret they don’t want you to know – that liberals cannot understand silence. They fear it like the Egyptians feared the wrath of God when Moses sent the plague – that was silent, as well. Liberals want, they need, the roaring crowds. The fastest way to stop any new thing in the spread of liberalism is to look it hard in the eyes and be silent. If no one applauded in Church, how long would the Novus Ordo last? Where there is silence, there is unity. Liberals cannot abide unity. There is no such thing as a consensus among liberals.

    The only thing that will save some religious is an encounter with dirt or the threat of dirt. They need fear when the masses become silent, because, then, the Mass will have become silent, once again, and the dirt will have its day.

    The Chicken

    P. S. I have no idea where this came from.

  20. Bosco says:

    @ marcellus,

    You asked me: “…who is this antichrist?”, and I must confess I don’t know.

    My limited study on such matters leads me to understand that the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation speak of two individuals, i.e. the Antichrist (a political figure descended from the tribe of Dan (Africa) whose father is unknown and whose mother is a religious apostate) and the Antichrist’s theological compliment, the False Prophet.

    Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman preached a series of 4 in-depth lectures on the Antichrist and his times which are most useful if you wish to be enlightened on the particulars.

    Here is the link for the second lecture, “The Times of Antichrist”:

    http://www.newmanreader.org/works/arguments/antichrist/lecture1.html

    The others are on-line if you decide to have a look.

    For my part I would recommend the works of Vladimir Soloviev on the Antichrist and Monsignor Robert Hugh Benson’s “Lord of the World”. Both are fictional but both have proved eerily prophetic.

    Peace and keep your powder dry.

  21. JARay says:

    There is little doubt in my mind that most of those Jesuits who come into prominence in the media do that Order a great disservice by being noted by their support for all that is wrong within the Church. Jesuits like Fr. Fessio and Fr. Pacwa are the exception, not the rule. A book I have just been reading about those martyrs in England during the time of the Reformation, notes that one vow each Jesuit took then, was never to seek episcopal advancement. He was to devote himself entirely to the task of bringing Christ to the people and converting them. And now we have not only a Jesuit who was an archbishop but one who has become Pope! How times have changed!

  22. otsowalo says:

    After reading some of the comments here, i really need to go to confession.

    Really? Cardinal Tagle a liberal? You have got to be kidding. That’s a big fat lie if I ever saw one. You don’t know the man. Have you ever met him in person? Have you heard his catechesis on the eucharist? I think people forgot that it was Pope John Paul II who elevated him to be a bishop, and Pope Benedict XVI who made him a cardinal.

    And then a prophecy…? Yikes.

  23. otsowalo says:

    JARay,
    That vow is superceded by the solemn vow of obedience to the superior or the Roman Pontiff. If the Pope says you must be a bishop and says you can’t say no, who are you to argue?

    In Pope Francis’ case: it was the Church who spoke, he merely obeyed.

  24. otsowalo says:

    Just to add: in an interview, Cardinal Tagle lamented that the extraordinary synod was dominated by the issue of the communion for the divorced and remarried. For him, the problems facing the Church in the Philippines were families being torn apart by poverty, wherein one of the spouse/parent leaves the family to find work overseas. Not to mention clergy with mistesses or those who push for optional celibacy.

  25. Bosco says:

    With all due respect, Father Z., when albizzi asked: “Who said this: ‘When God wants to chastize the men, He clouds their minds’?” You suggested it may perhaps have been Sophocles. [Right. I think it is rooted in something in Antigone. However, it came into English as something, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.”]

    On December 26, 1957 Father Augustine Fuentes met with Sister Lucy dos Santos in regards to his ongoing inquiry pertaining to the apparitions and messages of Our Lady of Fatima.

    During the interview (at which Father Fuentes noted Sister Lucy was ‘very sad, very pale and emaciated’) Sister Lucy remarked to Father Fuentes:

    “Father, the most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the Message. But believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent.”

    I gather the most terrible chastisement from Almighty God is to permit sinners’ consciences to harden and die so that they are blinded to the sins they so eagerly pursue and propagate and, blinded, they will die unrepentant of their sins.

    From a dead conscience and from those who would keep it buried deliver us Our Lady of the Rosary .

  26. chantgirl says:

    Bosco- Thanks for the link to the Newman Reader. I had never read these sermons before. I found the postscript to the fourth sermon interesting. It sounds much like Ratzinger’s prediction of a smaller, more faithful Church:

    THE above expositions of the teaching of the Fathers on the subject treated, were preached by the Author in the form of Sermons in Advent, 1835, and are illustrated by the following remarkable passage in a letter of Bishop Horsley’s, written before the beginning of this century; vide British Magazine, May, 1834.

    “The Church of God on earth will be greatly reduced, as we may well imagine, in its apparent numbers, in the times of Antichrist, by the open desertion of the powers of the world. This desertion will begin in a professed indifference to any particular form of Christianity, under the pretence of universal toleration; which toleration will proceed from no true spirit of charity and forbearance, but from a design to undermine Christianity, by multiplying and encouraging sectaries. The pretended toleration will go far beyond a just toleration, even as it regards the different sects of Christians. For governments will pretend an indifference to all, and will give a protection in preference to none. All establishments will be laid aside. From the toleration of the most pestilent heresies, they will proceed to the toleration of Mahometanism, Atheism, and at last to a positive persecution of the truth of Christianity. In these times the Temple of God will be reduced almost to the Holy Place, that is, to the small number of real Christians who worship the Father in spirit and in truth, and regulate their doctrine and their worship, and their whole conduct, strictly by the word of God. The merely nominal {108} Christians will all desert the profession of the truth, when the powers of the world desert it. And this tragical event I take to be typified by the order to St. John to measure the Temple and the Altar, and leave the outer court (national Churches) to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles. The property of the clergy will be pillaged, the public worship insulted and vilified by these deserters of the faith they once professed, who are not called apostates because they never were in earnest in their profession. Their profession was nothing more than a compliance with fashion and public authority. In principle they were always, what they now appear to be, Gentiles. When this general desertion of the faith takes place, then will commence the sackcloth ministry of the witnesses … There will be nothing of splendour in the external appearance of their churches; they will have no support from governments, no honours, no emoluments, no immunities, no authority, but that which no earthly power can take away, which they derived from Him, who commissioned them to be His witnesses.”—B. M., vol. v., p. 520.

    June, 1838